New Event Structure

[Wayward-O]

had hoped to hear from Wayward-O to help support the following verbiage by now, but the discussion rolls on.

Kids and computer access in early evening don't go together!

Wayward-O: your expectations don't seem to match my experience - for instance many of your regional expectations don't happen quite often (very often in some cases!). And personally, I see colour classes as adding value - far more and usually better competition. Interesting that RJ thinks your list useful - Lake District events being amongst those that regularly 'break' the criteria and don't provide you with the quality that you expect .

I didn't say that my expectations are always met, just that these are the attributes that I'd expect at a particular type of event.

Also why should L3 events be aimed at those further afield? The whole point is that generally they are not. Further afield equates far more naturally to L2.

The catchment area for each type of event will be different. Using the current event structure, a C3 Regional event should be looking to attract competitors from outside the region in which the event is being held while a C4 District event, such as a Cumbrian Galoppen, could be aimed more at competitors from clubs within the region with a bonus if people travel from further afield and a C5 Local event aimed at a much smaller target audience. My statement was intended to indicate the wider target audience for an existing Sunday District event to that of a weekday evening Local offering a couple of courses.

The whole situation is akin to trying to divide all the cars on the road into Performance, Family hatchback and City. You'd then hear cries of "what about estates" or "what about 4x4's".

We're facing the Playschool windows and are trying to get a large array of different shaped objects through one of only three shaped apertures - arguing whether the triangular block should go through the arch or the square!

[Wayward-O]

And personally, I see colour classes as adding value - far more and usually better competition.

I agree with this in most respects, but one aspect that would appear to be being dispensed with is the "Badge" aspect of the Regional courses. Although I have no interest in gaining badges, etc., the lad is and it has, to some extent, been his pestering to attend events "to get another gold time" that has resulted in some of our trips to other regions.

Wayward-o
Thanks for your expectations and it was great to see somebody spend time clearly defining these.
Am fascinated by the fact that day of week is an important classifier.

Maybe it is more familiarity. To-date, we've been to one single-day District event on a Saturday (due to access conditions); otherwise all single-day District and Regional events have been on Sundays.

Am also pleased that you are not letting the operational issues cloud these. It is important that we determine an offer aspiration to maximise participation, and only dilute it if delivery is economically inviable.

Operational issues are important but usually only become visible when they are poorly provided or not provided at all. How they are provided may not be important, just that they are provided to an acceptable / expected standard.

If you were turning up for the first or second time as a novice what then would be your expectation?

When I first started, encouraged by my son, I had no expectations. These have only arisen as we've attended more events. Maybe they are not really expectations, more the mental ticklist against which I rate an event.

Is, as a newcomer, consistency of format important to you or would you be at ease in the possibly free-format suggested for locals?

I'm not sure how important consistency of format is. One of the events that I have enjoyed the most was the Cod Beck score event (Day 3 of the May Bank Holiday National). A small area, a lot of people all running around at the same time and no pressure to finish (i.e.visit every control), just get to as many as you can in the alotted time. I hadn't competed (a rather loose term in my case) on the previous two days, just "shadowed" my daughter on her course.

[geomorph]

The whole situation is akin to trying to divide all the cars on the road into Performance, Family hatchback and City. You'd then hear cries of "what about estates" or "what about 4x4's".

We're facing the Playschool windows and are trying to get a large array of different shaped objects through one of only three shaped apertures - arguing whether the triangular block should go through the arch or the square!

And within any category of car eg family you get basic through to luxury.
BUT the category is clearly identifyable,and if it starts getting diluted by evolution of content then it gets sub-divided or a new category is invented.

Orienteering is not like running- 10k is always 10k; the terrain may change (track, park, road, x-c, hill, mountain etc), so you turn up and its clear what you re going to be doing, 10k x-c.

Read the blurb for a 'any format goes' L3 and what have you got, Mars or Snickers, people carrier or 4x4?

So introductory needs simplicity and standards.
It is always going to be hard to get across the message that distance varies because terrain and race type vary.

But there is no reason why a colour cannot be applied consistently across all types: classic, middle, sprint, score etc: the effort/ technical challenge for a short green for the race type is consistently different from a brown be it sprint or long.

O is great because we can create a very large number of variants, and by popular demand get them into the mainstream. The event structure must not stifle this AND the central committees need to have the dynamic to rapidly trial new formats, and when successful rapidly put them into the main stream.

But does this mean it is new event type or a new race format - the latter.

By divorcing event type from race type but offering/updating transferable standards, the playschool window shapes grow in size to accomodate the newly accepted mainstream race type, and the objects, whatever their shape, always fit through. The innovation window stretches to the horizon.

[SJC]

The central committees need to have the dynamic to rapidly trial new formats, and when successful rapidly put them into the main stream.

Central committees don't put on events, clubs do.
If new formats are successful then clubs put them on. Hence the growth in urban and sprint races.
If formats aren't popular then they soon fade away.

Events should be driven by clubs staging the types of event their members want , not by the demands of any central organisation.

[Vidalos]

So if expectations for an event are now defined within the guidelines for events at different levels i.e. standardised, is it possible for to standardised the way (template or other form) through which the organising clubs demonstrate how they have met the criteria. This means as a 'customer' of the event I do not have to go searching through various sources of information to find out what's on offer. If information for a level of event (or at least a part of it) is presented in the same way by every organising club it becomes easier to understand what you are potentially getting. If the organising club cannot complete the standardised information section with clear explanations of how the criteria have been met it becomes obvious to every one what is missing

At the moment, the onus seems to be on the competitor to 'find out' what they might get rather than the organising club to define what's on offer

[geomorph]

The central committees need to have the dynamic to rapidly trial new formats, and when successful rapidly put them into the main stream.

Central committees don't put on events, clubs do.
If new formats are successful then clubs put them on. Hence the growth in urban and sprint races.
If formats aren't popular then they soon fade away.

Events should be driven by clubs staging the types of event their members want , not by the demands of any central organisation.

Yes sorry didn't write that very well
what i meant was that as clubs come out with successful formats the central committees can ensure that they are quickly absorbed in to the mainstream (a percieved lack of which ability is currently a common complaint)

Clubs do drive innovation. Centres are responsible for ensuring rapid acceptance into the mainstream of succesful ones

[Adrian]

This business came up at our AGM last night and we were agreed that we don't want to start faffing about with the 2009 programme.

It was understood however that the changes will go through, and by Jan 2010 at the latest. I'm not keen though. I'd like to know what the impetus was behind it. The fact that the number of competitors in each category at regional events is too small? Maybe that's the case, but internationally events are almost all organised by age class and a good proportion of ours should be too.

We could keep age classes but widen them at regional events: M/W10-, M/W14-, M/W18-, M/W19+, M/W35+, M/W45+, M/W55+, M/W65+. (I've still got no idea what the JM/W categories mean.) A

[awk]

what i meant was that as clubs come out with successful formats the central committees can ensure that they are quickly absorbed in to the mainstream (a percieved lack of which ability is currently a common complaint)

Exactly. The structure as we proposed was designed to do that; indeed that was uppermost in our minds. Pretty much every other suggestion (courses split into hundreds of standard age classes, limiting L2 to equivalent of C3s, embargoing, event protection etc. etc.) does not.

Basically, we had L3: informal events, probably colour structured, but decided on very locally by clubs; L2: more formal colour structure, although clubs could bolt on other competition (e.g ages) if wanted, allowing wide range of formats all contributing to single list ranking scheme, but no embargoing/fixtures protection etc. L1: formal national age class competitions, with standards fairly strictly defined by national body.

That is all we needed. Anything else could be decided on a more localised (club, association) level. It seems in the end, that clubs and people here don't really want the autonomy that they say they do.

Having said that, my club's fixtures secretary thinks the new system as advertised is balmy too.

[NeilC]

Exactly. The structure as we proposed was designed to do that; indeed that was uppermost in our minds. Pretty much every other suggestion (courses split into hundreds of standard age classes, limiting L2 to equivalent of C3s, embargoing, event protection etc. etc.) does not.

From a rules and guidelines perspective presumably everyone (?) agrees that some L2 events will require embargoes, protection, experienced controllers etc. To a large extent though these can be covered by existing guidelines for events such as CSC and FCC. Scottish-6-day can easily be considered a special case as could Welsh and Lakes multidays (although no BOF guidelines currently exist).

What about the other well-established events like the November Classic, SINS, Twin Peak etc? Is it reasonable to work on the basis that they need no more special treatment than a small colour coded event? If so then all is OK and indeed one could argue that there is nothing particularly special about these events except reputation. If though it is felt that these events need special treatment then how would this be policed? A previous post suggested applying for an embargo but who should, or could, make this decision? Graeme noted that this sort of detail was outside the remit of the review - someone has to pick it up though and ask these sort of questions.

[awk]

From a rules and guidelines perspective presumably everyone (?) agrees that some L2 events will require embargoes, protection, experienced controllers etc.

No (this could be covered by standard phrasing about recent knowledge and competitiveness for all events),
No (co-ordination yes, protective status no)
Yes!.

[RichT]

Hey Andy,

So if you are looking for regional associations fixtures secs to help coordinate L2 events how do you envisage that this might be accomplished.
Are you expecting there to be a different mechanism to the established six monthly planning meetings ?
And what form would that take ?

Cheers Richard

[DavidJ]

I see that this topic has now reached well over a hundred postings. Having only joined Nopesport this year, I was interested to see if there had been much discussion before and I have spotted that less than a year before this discussion started (well it started one day less than a year actually) there was a very long discussion on the proposals. I have not read those 200+ postings but surely all the arguments that have been mentioned now must have been raised then Or if not, why not
Does this reflect badly on the influence of Nopesport I can't help wondering?

[SJC]

by distracted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:10 am

This all harks back to what the event structure review aims to do. I still don't think this has been adequately stated.

One year on and the situation doesn't appear to have changed.

[seabird]

One year on and the situation doesn't appear to have changed.

Oh yes it has. Completely and utterly from what was proposed a year ago.

i won't reherse the arguments. I am as one with awk.

[seabird]

In some respects this does not matter.

Clubs can be as creative as they want in how they organise and advertise events.

The controller issue is almost becoming irrelevant.

We have been unable to find Grade 2 controllers from outsiode the club for our last 3 regional events, and not even from within the club for the most recent. All 3 events have gone ahead without a hitch and with well appreciated courses.

A neighbouring club has hit the same "problem?" for a forthcoming event.

If the rules and guidelines no longer fit the reality of the situation on the ground they will have ever decreasing value.