CSC Junior Classes

[mharky]

I think there are a few issues regarding the courses that the junior classes are required to run at the CSC. These don't match up in anyway to the BOF guidelines for courses/classes for long distance cross-country events. The juniors are being totally undersold.

M20s on Blue. But the Brown has M21,35,40. BOF guidelines have them on Short Brown or Brown. Why on earth can't the M20s run the Brown course? If a 44 year old can run the Brown, I'm pretty sure a JWOC medalist can run Brown too. It doesn't make sense.

W20s on Green. Same as above, Blue has W21,35,40. BOF guidelines = Short Blue or Blue. Who on earth can't the W20s run the Blue course? If a 44 year old can run the Blue, I'm pretty sure a JWOC medalist can run Blue too. It doesn't make sense.

M18s on Light Green. This is quite frankly, a joke. The JWOC middle final was 1km further than this course, and this is meant to be a "long" event. What the hell? The BOF guidelines have them on the same courses as M20, Short Brown or Brown. Maybe that would be too much for the CSC. But Blue would be reasonable. The best (or worst) thing about this, the Yvette Baker Trophy rules has them on Green! Has no one actually noticed that?

W18s on Light Green, same as above. BOF guidelines = Short Blue and Blue. But maybe the green would be better for CSC. And yet again, the YBT has them running green!

M14s on Orange. BOF guidelines = Light Green. YBT has them on Light Green. CSC on the Orange. Why?

W14s on Orange. As above, BOF guidelines = Light Green, YBT has them on Light Green. CSC = Orange. Why?

The fact that the 14s and 18s are running courses well below what is recommended at normal events, and below even what they run at YBT is just stupid. 20s should be competing with the 21s, not against 59s!

How can we keep juniors enthuses about orienteering if we make them sit on a coach for 8+ hours to run a course well below their level.

I understand that it's hard to divide the classes over the courses. There will be some age-groups who are going to be the worst on their course. But at least the seniors get to run a course that is suitable to them, even if they never score. M59s are getting to run blue, probably not going to score but you get a nice run. But someone who could quite reasonably by Junior World Champion should, in theory, be running a Light Green. The JK Middle event was 5.1km for the M18s this year, CSC 3.9km. And some people think the courses were too long!

I'd like to know why the rule-setters thing that the juniors should be running these courses. I'm expecting to hear something along the lines of "it allows the less able ones to compete". That is true, I guess, but somewhat irrelevant, as they aren't going to be scoring either way. And the fact that they are running higher courses at YBT proves the point.

I'm guess it's because whoever makes rules isn't a junior and therefore, doesn't care. That seems to be how things are being done around here at the moment.

[AndyC]

I'll point out that good juniors often run above the designated course in the CSC and count. The course given is the minimum at which they count and allows the inexperienced to still contribute to the team score. But I do take the point that having M18's on Light Green means that M14s (for example) can get badly beaten.

[NeilC]

I'm guess it's because whoever makes rules isn't a junior and therefore, doesn't care.

As a rule writer, a club captain and a parent of a JWOC runner I'm very happy with the rules and the flexibility that it gives the club captain. And I care. I always discuss with the juniors/their parents what the situation is and why I'd like them to run a particular course.

[Dave]

I'll point out that good juniors often run above the designated course in the CSC and count.

Proof the setup is wrong. The system shouldn't be expecting people to 'run up' (albeit they may actually still be running down).
It is a competition final. And supposedly an important national one. Therefore the rules should be setup for competition, not participation. I understand you don't want to discourage new/less skilled people, but you don't want to discourage the good people from making it a competition either.
Liking the crusade Mharky.

[mharky]

It's hard to work out what you're happy about and what you care about. Are you happy about, or do you care about, 18s being put on the light green. You think that's a good thing? Or are you happy about club captains being able to use their 18s as pawns?

Why isn't "flexibility" sought in senior or veteran categories? Why can't they have the option of running Micky Mouse courses as well?

And what about the fact that they are running easier courses than YBT. How can that be justified? Flexbility? That's the consequence, what's the purpose?

[SJC]

And what about the fact that they are running easier courses than YBT.

They aren't.
At the YBT M/W18s can run Orange, and M/W14s can run Yellow.

If the CompassSport Cup is only to be an event for the top junior competitors then it is just another nail in the coffin of junior participation.

[Mrs H]

I suppose the question you have to ask is what the competition is for - what do you want to show by winning it. That will help decide the course/class combinations. I'm aware that the younger juniors in each of the classes are hugely disadvantaged by the structure. I wouldn't recommend that ludicrous gold standard thing they use in the YBT where BOF issue an edict then give you inconclusive data to apply it.

[King Penguin]

I raised some of these concerns with the then relevant people 3 years ago following the 2009 Final, but no change.
Maybe I should have shouted longer, harder and louder.
At the other end of the age range, in terms of performance capability I think Men should move up to the Short Green Vets at 70+, not 75+. Currently the class is totally dominated by women (who move up at 60+). Even with such a change women would still have the advantage, based on an analysis of the 2009 Final results I did using mins/km (not perfect I know, but the best I could come up with) to assess the effect of moving M70+ men from Green to Short Green.

[mharky]

SJC >>> What a fantastically selective representation of the rules. Care to post the full rules?

[NeilC]

It's hard to work out what you're happy about and what you care about.

In this context I care about the competition and I care about the members of my club. I don't care about people who make snide comments about volunteers who spend many hours coming to sensible decisions, just because they don't happen to agree with those decisions.

I'm happy that the current system allows a club captain to manipulate their team to the best effect depending on the location, perceived strength of opposition etc. I am happy for a GB M18 to run Light Green once or twice a year. A good runner will find some way of motivating himself. A few years ago there was a hell of a race between two such runners on the SE CSC Light Green course on Leith Hill. I'm happy that an M18 who has never orienteered outside of the SE doesn't have to run a TD5 course on an exposed Scottish fell. I'm happy that the CSC is an all inclusive inter-club competition not just for the elite of the club (whilst appreciating then when ages classes are combined there will always be winners and losers and that there is probably no perfect solution).

[mharky]

I'm happy that the current system allows a club captain to manipulate their team to the best effect depending on the location, perceived strength of opposition etc

I see no manipulation of the veteran classes, they all get to run TD5 courses. You can't put 50s on a Light Green. You can't put W35s on a light green. The manipulation is purely with the junior classes. Why can't an M50 or W35 who has never orienteered outside the SE run the light green? If you want an all inclusive event that allows for junior novices, but not adult novices?

Maybe I got my argument wrong. Maybe I should be asking why there is no provision for adult novices when the junior courses are aimed directly at novices?

And the fact that the CSC final was an exposed Scottish fell has got nothing to do with it. It's TD5, no more, no less. You can't say the weather is bad so 18 year old boys have to run LG, but M85s can go off on the short green, they're in far better physical shape...

[sketchweppers]

Our rather small club probably has a similar age profile to many others ie several middle aged men, and a few others.
Hence we generally have several takers for the mens' blue, but are usually rather short of runners for the other classes. We do have a couple of M16s who are perfectly capable of running a blue - in fact one of them is very good at blues. We could put them on blue men, but then we could many of our middle aged men would be surplus - we only need 3 scorers on blue men. It is always good to have more than required, but we still need some runners on the other courses.
Next year when we will have to travel outside of our region for the qualifier it may be difficult getting our M16s to travel a long way just to run a 'light green'. So perhaps a bit more flexibility is needed for the really small clubs.
I realise that the Compass Sport Trophy is all about having a good range of age groups and abilities in one club.

On a slightly different note, now that we have the new membership structure for BOF, has anyone thought about how clubs will be categorised into 'large' and 'small' in the future?

[NeilC]

Maybe I got my argument wrong. Maybe I should be asking why there is no provision for adult novices when the junior courses are aimed directly at novices?

Indeed, my response was aimed only at juniors which based on your thread title, and your comment that because the rule makers weren't juniors they didn't care about them, seemed to be the topic under discussion.

Whether seniors who are novices should be given the opportunity to run a lower TD course is valid but difficult to cater for when senior novices can be in a much wider age range. The YBT makes a stab at addressing this with the juniors but it would be more clumsy with seniors.

My comment about terrain type is an extension of the definition of novice. Those that have only run in Sussex (for example) will effectively be novices in wild Scottish fells, and so it would appropriate for them to run down, should the rules allow this, in order to allow more inclusivity. The same would apply to seniors - noting the problems mentioned above.

[Mrs H]

I guess we should ask Ravinous what he would like the competition to be for. This isn't a BOF competition so I'm not sure who is in charge of the rules

[awk]

As someone who does rather care about juniors, I'd certainly prefer to see the CSC rules as they currently are, rather than Mharky's suggestions. What they enable clubs to do is include a wide range of abilities, rather than just the elite. They also ensure that the clubs who do have good juniors have a much higher chance of success.

By putting the M20s in the Blues, the rule writers ensured that they would be a key class, and that more under-21s would be important than the few who could compete against the best M21s. Good developmental move in my book. We should not forget either that M20 means under 21, not just those 19-20, so good to see an M18 win, and 4 of the top 6 juniors; equally the Green Women won by a W20, with 3 of the top 7 eligible for both Green and Light Green.

Equally, making the Light Greens 18-, means that there is a stronger chance of more juniors scoring than if it was more restrictive. It also means that if you've got a good bunch of juniors, they can be spread. To do well at the CSCup you almost certainly need good juniors - again a good developmental move in my book.

OK, so one or two might feel somewhat underestimated, but that's only personal ego, and any half mature individual will recognise that it doesn't matter what standard they are running at (especially if by making the class a bit simpler it means that more can take part), it's the one competition where it's the points that matter.

As for including senior novices, well, yes, it would be good to include more M/W21s, I do agree, and maybe a way of doing that could be looked at, but the cup wasn't set up to be a tool for developing us vets, so I'm not particularly keen to see TD4- courses for us. But before any accusations start flying around, I would be more than prepared to run an easier course if that was what was designated to my class.

All in all, I look at the rules, and see a competition that aims to test the full range of ages, whilst at the same time encouraging clubs to develop their junior sections. On the whole it does a pretty good job. A few tweaks maybe might enhance, but not those junior ones that Mharky highlights.