New Event Structure

[Oldman]

... Publicity: At present the BOF fixure list printed in CompassSport and several other places does not include C5, O5 etc. Will L3 be treated the same?

That's not true unless CompassSport are deliberately excluding such events. C5s are included in the BOF fixtures list if the club so requests: eg
27th SE SAX Local Event. Blean, Canterbury. TR072605.
C5 Jean Fitzgerald, 01622 686779. jean.fitzgerald@... £4.50/Free. EPS-SI. http://www.saxons-oc.org
and
28th EA WAOC Try-O. Therfield Heath, Royston. TL348406.
C5 Ursula Oxburgh, 01223357199. uoxb00@... £3.00/£1.00. EPS-SI. String course. Dogs allowed in car park on lead. http://www.waoc.org.uk

[PKJ]

Guidelines will provide an extended colour coded system for use at cross country events - both local and regional.

(In advance of the Guidelines) - Are we looking at 13 courses, with Light/Short/Long Red & Green etc, as in the original proposal?

[frog]

I think there are problems with the event structure changes for our club. We run alot of limited colour coded courses, mainly for club members but they attract other clubs. We won't be wanting the hassle of getting a grade 2 controller controlling them, and having the areas out of bounds for a year as some areas get used twice in a busy year, or get used for training. We're likely to call alot of them grade 3 in that case.
What are grade 3 controllers supposed to do? The new guidelines do seem to have robbed them of a role, with class 1 and 2 needing grade 1 or 2 controller and grade 3 being controller optional.
I'll be very sad if the 6 day/ white rose etc do away with age classes. I do the sport for fun, I like to see how I compare with others of my age. I really don't care if 21 year olds can sprint past me or I can beat a 70 year old.
If I'm looking at a local colour coded event I always look at the ages of the competitors to give me some idea of my performance relative to my peers.
Why wasn't this issue given to club committees to discuss?
Why was it changed in a hurry without full consultation?
Why do BOF bother calling us members if they're going to change the rules without getting our opinions first?

[SeanC]

AWK - thanks, I understand the problem now. Graeme - if the intention is for most C4's to be level 2/regional, then I think the label "local" is just fine for the level 3 events, and perhaps better than "informal" since many local leagues are very well organised and competitive.

[graeme]

(In advance of the Guidelines) - Are we looking at 13 courses, with Light/Short/Long Red & Green etc, as in the original proposal?

No, absolutely not. BOF are not going to micromanage how many courses you have to put on.
You know better than they do!

Where does 13 come from? When I wrote the draft guideline, I was asked to put in an illustration of how the sort of event we have now might look. But its just an illustration of a guideline, far, far from a rule!

[awk]

I think there are problems with the event structure changes for our club. We run alot of limited colour coded courses, mainly for club members but they attract other clubs. We won't be wanting the hassle of getting a grade 2 controller controlling them, and having the areas out of bounds for a year as some areas get used twice in a busy year, or get used for training. We're likely to call alot of them grade 3 in that case.
What are grade 3 controllers supposed to do? The new guidelines do seem to have robbed them of a role, with class 1 and 2 needing grade 1 or 2 controller and grade 3 being controller optional.

The guidelines haven't done that. There are no embargo rules in the guidelines. They also state that the officials will be as defined in the rules and appendices, and these haven't been posted yet. I would hope (and expect from our group's discussions) that grade 3s can control L2 events - and just in case, yes I do think they should have been by now. I don't think the system can work any other way.

I'll be very sad if the 6 day/ white rose etc do away with age classes.

As has been stated before, age classes are not precluded. It will be up to the organiser whether they are included or not. I can't see the Six Day doing so, I don't know about the White Rose. But you will still be able to compare with others of like age - more so, as for instance I've found this year that people only a couple of months younger than me are in a different class! That doesn't happen under a colour structure.

Why wasn't this issue given to club committees to discuss?
Why was it changed in a hurry without full consultation?
Why do BOF bother calling us members if they're going to change the rules without getting our opinions first?

I was nominated to the group by YHOA. As part of that, I was provided with the views of the region, and actively sought (and received) club views.

I'm also a member of quite a wide range of organisations, including other sports, none of which consult with me when they decide how to go.

[awk]

In the light of the Focus article, and in the light of other postings, I've been trawling back through committee minutes. Whilst I believe I was entirely accurate about the proposals, it does look as if changes have crept in which, whilst superficially minor, do somewhat change the balance compared to what we recommended.

So, according to the Rules Group minutes of June, C3 will now map onto L2, whilst the majority of C4s and all C5s map on to L3. I understand through private messages, that embargos will be implemented on L2 areas, along the lines of current C3s. Grade 2 controllers will be needed for L2. And so on, and so on.

This does run counter somewhat to what we were trying to achieve (the bringing together of C4s and C3s to enable more middle level events, expansion of the ranking scheme, etc etc.) and we are left with the situation that others have indicated, of the merging of district and informal events.

Not surprisingly, the same Rules group minutes stated: "Concern was expressed that Level 3 events cover everything from an informal evening park event to a serious colour-coded event". Yes - this was something that was identified. It was why when discussing this in the light of the development conference feedback, it was suggested that medium and larger C4s should go in at L2, and only smaller C4s at L3.

Looking back at my emails, I see that I did say Grade 2 for Level 2, but also stated that we would have to adjust Grade 2 to bring more people in to cope with the extra events.

As a result, we are now heading towards a structure with which I don't agree. As Graeme says, this is as much as anything else due to implementation being carried out by a different group to the one that came up with the proposals.

[RJ]

.........this is as much as anything else due to implementation being carried out by a different group to the one that came up with the proposals.

Or maybe a response to some commonsense in not destroying the whole event structure in one broad stroke review.......!!!!!

Keeping C5 and C4 events together in L3 is good sense. These are Local and District events and can obviously satisfy a LOCAL need; geographically wider than just one club. The L2 events should be higher quality that are good enough to attract a travelling audience, where the competition can be of a higher standard because more of the better orienteers will attend.

Really that is all that should have been done in the first place. Make the old badge event a more serious event and of a higher standard. That could have been achieved easily with a 'vetting system' initiated by each region. L2 events will still have to be 'vetted' by some system otherwise we will end up with the same venues being put forward. The only change will be a set of colour coded ability based courses with age classes mapped on with the same 250 people attending.

[SeanC]

RJ, I don't have a strong opinion about which category the existing C4 events go, but what should clubs do about the possible negative impact of labelling a district event local. Conditions vary in each region, but most of the district events I go to are marketed at several clubs, maybe not the whole region, but definately not local!

I suspect most people reading this will wait for confirmation/general acceptance of the focus article before thinking further about future events, so some clarity one way or the other would be a good thing.

[IanD]

Seems to me that the basic problem is that there is such a wide range of events below National/Regional Champs that squeezing them into just two categories is going to cause problems. Why not use three categories, which might perhaps be called "Regional", "District" & "Local"?

Regional events might be serious enough to demand Grade 2 controllers, pre-event embargoes, etc.

District events might as a minimum have a Grade 3 controller, a range of courses, and E-punching.

Local events might be everything else, including training events with no formal timing, or street events with no kites at controls.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Before you call me a Luddite, I do agree with most of the other changes proposed, including the option to get away from age-class courses at Regional events, and the removal of the other restrictions which currently prevent, for example Saturday's City of London race, being graded "Regional".

[NeilC]

There seems to be a lot of support for a single ranking list now (ie covering all age classes but from which age class lists could easily be extracted and based on your performance against all runners on your course not just those in your age class).

What I've not got a feel for yet is which events should be ranked? If Level 2 become a big set of events should all those be ranking events - from Scottish Six Days to a well organised and controlled event but offering only 4 courses?

Alternatively should some sort of quality criteria be used to decide which events should be ranking ones. If so then these criteria could be used to define the border between Level 2 and 3.

[plod]

Not received focus yet but have the gist of the changes

They are a bit of a compromise on various suggestions but do move us forward but the transition will be awkward and they do throw up some questions at several levels.

On the issue of fixtures being agreed and potected It is really too early to make firm decisions as we need to see how the pattern of events unfold and it will depend ultimately on how many level 2 events there are.

However if the sport is to remain geographically national with events around the country then clubs in non classic areas do need some protection. It is quite possible that clubs in classic areas may put on several level 2 events and could kill off events of this stature in other areas depriving those runners who for whatever reason do not wish to travel great distances. The 100 mile 'rule' may be totally impossible if the number of these events grows as it may well do.

My suggestion wh is that the first level 2 event staged by a given club in any given year be afforded the 100 miles protection. If this leaves dates within the calendar which are unprotected then clubs could stage such events at their own risk no matter what other events are taking place.

This should give every club the chance to stage one large event with some certainty of a reasonable turn out.

Local agreements within areas and adjoining areas could be agreed to minimise any clashes although the history of such arrangements is not good in many areas.

PLOD

[distracted]

Neil - I think that's exactly what the "rankings group" are trying to establish - let's see what proposals they come up with. I for one don't see why there should be a problem in having more ranking events.

However I don't see the need to have any embargo on areas that are holding events below championship standard. In the past clubs have held back their best areas in this respect, and even not used them for 3-4 years! which:

(a) reduces the opportunities to use quality areas, meaning that far far too many local, introductory events are held on poor quality areas - NOT the impression that we want to be putting across when attracting newcomers to the sport.

(b) is often impractical (city races, loss of other appropriate venues etc)

Plod - The idea of protection for a club's 'major' fixture e.g. November Classic, Twin Peak, Chiltern Challenge etc has been raised before and I think that it is a great solution. I do think the system needs to be flexible in terms of date though.

[NeilC]

However I don't see the need to have any embargo on areas that are holding events below championship standard.

I suspect that there might be complaints if a regional squad went on a training weekend on Scottish Six Days or November Classic or FCC final areas a few months before the actual events. Especially if these events were selection races.

In constrast I suspect that few people would complain if a small night event were held on an area a couple of months before a relatively small colour coded event.

This would be a problem if both types of event were lumped together as level 2. It is this sort of issue that I suspect is behind the idea that level 2 should be smaller than the ESG review would like. It does have logic:

Level 2 and 3 would both be based mainly on colour coded courses but when required with age classes mapped onto these for local championships, leagues etc. Competitors can run any class competitively. But then:

Level 2 - satisfies certain quality criteria, 12 month embargo, level 2 controller, fixture protected at national and/or regional level, ranking event.

Level 3 - non-ranking, lower level controller, no embargo. Can also include non-standard events.

The above scheme would mean that every event would have to be controlled in someway, though not necessarily by a qualified controller.

[Snail]

Level 3 - non-ranking, lower level controller, no embargo. Can also include non-standard events.

The above scheme would mean that every event would have to be controlled in someway, though not necessarily by a qualified controller.

It is this aspect that I can't see working properly. Existing informal C5 events I think are well in excess of half of all events by number (from memory it used to be around 60-70%). Even if all these are "controlled" by a member of the organising club - which seems extremely unlikely - there is a vast difference to what (in the past) have been C4 events with an external controller.

This is why I agree with the WP and would classify old C4 events at the new Level 2. Level 2 should be an indicator of a "quality" event, with external controlling, that is worth travelling to - and that should include most (old style) colour coded events. To me this is more important than either fixtures protection or controller grade allocation, both of which are solvable.

If former C4s are lumped in with informals, I think it will reduce the chance of me travelling some distance to them, or taking novices, without some further differentiation - which would be a return to the old system!