New Event Structure

[graeme]

The proposal has changed, but SJC is right that the information available on the BOF website hasn't changed much in nearly a year - but you can still look it up.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... /about.php

Note in particular how the section on "course details" is peppered with word such as suggested, need not, events not catering for, etc etc. There are no hardwired constraints on the type of event in L2, what's required is quality, and freedom for anyone to participate.

Similarly, it only specifies that there should be a planner and a controller. Neither are required to be qualified (though I think the spirit was it would be a level 3 controller)...

[NeilC]

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!.

So are you suggesting that exactly the same procedures (standard phrasing, event co-ordination) should apply to ALL L2 events. Who would do the co-ordination? Or would only some L2 events require co-ordination and if so which ones?

[geomorph]

The proposal has changed, but SJC is right that the information available on the BOF website hasn't changed much in nearly a year - but you can still look it up.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... /about.php

Note in particular how the section on "course details" is peppered with word such as suggested, need not, events not catering for, etc etc. There are no hardwired constraints on the type of event in L2, what's required is quality, and freedom for anyone to participate.

Similarly, it only specifies that there should be a planner and a controller. Neither are required to be qualified (though I think the spirit was it would be a level 3 controller)...

Probably misunderstood here. If there are

no hardwired constraints on the type of event in L2

how does this fitin with consistent quality required to make L2 the entry point as you suggested earlier?

I'm happy to have just 3 event types provided the entry point type contains a consistent core offer - I have interpreted your 'quality' to include that.

Under the new system if you offer a colour coded course that meets type approval, regardless of whether it be offered at L2,3 (or E,S,X), then by meeting type approval criteria it is automatically eligible for such things as rankings points. That's flexibility.

But for entry point the overall format must be consistent. If you don't want to offer that package then you cannot be classed as entry point.

so to make entry point easy for many different events what are the minimum criteria that must be present.
Back to Wayward-O.... here we have an expectation, can we deliver.

[Oldman]

The BOF web site today has a news item about the new structure - off to study it!

[awk]

So are you suggesting that exactly the same procedures (standard phrasing, event co-ordination) should apply to ALL L2 events. Who would do the co-ordination?

(a) Why not? (There's co-ordination of all L2 equivalent events now) (b) Pretty much the same people who do it now - see the draft guidelines.

BTW, if, as the overview states, there is a requirement for a Grade 3 controller for all L3 events then someone has lost touch with real life. All L3 events??

[distracted]

The BOF web site today has a news item about the new structure - off to study it!

Yes, there are plenty of 'controversial' points in there that's already been debated on here...

However, the course designations and names look sensible - but why 'Long Orange'? - what was wrong with red? And what do the 'badge times' mean/how can they work for the new regional events?

[greywolf]

The Draft Event Guideline B says:
"each colour represents a course of a certain length and level of technical difficulty ...This ensures a consistency of course standards between events" and "it is essential that if a course is designated as a particular colour then it must be of the appropriate length and difficulty" and "The definitions of the levels of Technical Difficulty, as used in the following table, are explained in Appendix B. Adhering to them ensures that standards are comparable across all Regional (Level 2) and Local (Level 3) cross country events, and between these and Championship courses.
so if this means what it says (always a questionable assumption i've found) it's TD5 or nothing for green / blue / brown & black.
Excellent
does anyone at BOF have the slightest intention of monitoring or enforcing this??
and if no-one can be bothered about this fundamental element of consistency between events, then why should anyone care about what grade of controller is employed?

[Oldman]

I always thought that TD5 meant that the courses should use TD 5 if the terrain allows, or the hardest technical difficulty possible if not. Will that not be the same under the new system?

See current Appendix B which states:

It is recognised that many orienteering areas in Great Britain do not allow courses of
the higher technical difficulties to be planned on them. In order to allow events to take
place whilst still adhering to the Guidelines a compromise has therefore to be
accepted. In such areas Planners must plan at the correct level as far as the terrain
allows. For example, if the area only allows courses with a technical difficulty up to 4
to be planned, then those courses requiring technical difficulty 1, 2, 3 and 4 can be
planned exactly to the Guidelines. Those courses specified as requiring technical
difficulty 5 should then be planned at technical difficulty 4, accepting the fact that they will be less than ideal but the best that the terrain will allow.

[Scott]

so if this means what it says (always a questionable assumption i've found) it's TD5 or nothing for green / blue / brown & black.

In that case, somebody needs to come up with a name for longer TD4 courses, or those of us stuck in southern England are going to find ourselves doing either a lot of courses of 3.0-4.0km or some Very Very Very Long Light Greens...

[mappingmum]

No I don't think it means that.

It means what currently happens; if the terrain can't accommodate TD5, you get courses the "right" length but technically they are just lower than TD5.

[RJ]

And some very fast winning times on TD4 terrain.

Perhaps they could be called..... Park races!

[greywolf]

Oldman, Scott, Mappingmum: yes I'm sure that in practice the current compromise over TD4 areas will continue (although it's worth noting that the para Oldman quotes is not reproduced in the new guidelines)... but if that's so then it rather undercuts the (rather pompous) insistence on maintaining quality standards....

and if the reality is that the extracts I quoted have to be understood as being followed by an unwritten "but of course this isn't possible in many orienteering areas and in those cases courses won't be of comparable standard / quality ( but there's no obligation on organising clubs to publicise this) but never mind" then e.g. we might as well understand "Regional events will require a Grade 2 Controller" as being followed by an unwritten "but of course this isn't always possible so never mind..."

[greywolf]

In that case, somebody needs to come up with a name for longer TD4 courses, or those of us stuck in southern England are going to find ourselves doing either a lot of courses of 3.0-4.0km or some Very Very Very Long Light Greens...

IIRC Graeme's draft guideline (still on the BOF website somewhere) included a long (45 min?) TD4 Light Blue course (and by the same logic you could have Light Brown or even Light Black...)

...but at least you will have loads of ranking events - in last 12 months there have been 4 within 150 miles of here

[awk]

Oldman, Scott, Mappingmum: yes I'm sure that in practice the current compromise over TD4 areas will continue (although it's worth noting that the para Oldman quotes is not reproduced in the new guidelines)... but if that's so then it rather undercuts the (rather pompous) insistence on maintaining quality standards...."

I've never thought of it as a compromise: simply that the top colours support the most technical orienteering that the area can sustain. Rather than undercutting quality, to me it emphasises that we should be employing the old adage, horses for courses, effectively raising the technical standard by better use of the area: rather than putting a standard colour coded on a small area, put an L2 middle distance event on; or a good quality park race in a TD3 area; or a sprint race; or whatever. After all, most urban races don't get above TD3 strictly speaking, but they can provide some great races.

On the other hand, a Grade 2 controller is total overkill, and will severely restrict clubs' abilties to put on L2 events, as seabird has already identified.

[DM]

When companies launch new products they invariably test market them to check if their thinking is correct and maximise their chances of success.

It appears that there is still a lot of uncertainty about our "new" product among current orienteers. If we are unclear, how about non orienteers?

Has the new structure been tested with any non orienteers to see if it is clear and easy to understand? After all, the whole idea of the exercise is to get more people trying the sport, if my understanding is correct.

Personally I found the guidelines issued yesterday helpful.