New Event Structure

[RJ]

........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.

If we just accept that a G2 controller has experience, sufficient to maintain a standard for the event, then the actual workload of the controller can be reduced. There are many excellent sets of guidelines for events now.... so the starting point would be to make sure the planner amd organiser have those. If the controller then walks into the event with the guidelines being followed his/her job will be greatly reduced, and for the most part can be a telephone conversation asking how the guidelines have been met.

The courses and controls can then be checked. There is even a checklist that the planner can apply to each leg of his course to assess the tech challenge. If that is all done first then the controller can have an easier time. I'm sure that, although not widespread, this is employed by some clubs.

[EddieH]

At a recent "major" regional event I know that the controller finally received the courses when it was too late to make any changes. He then went to check the control sites and found no tapes. When questioned the planner said "I know where the sites are - I don't need to tope them".

With that sort of thing happening currently these sorts of things are far more serious than the minor details being discussed here.

I have without doubt been at Nationla events where the grade 1 controller has never visited the site before the weekend, and can think of one where the planner had not either

[Oldman]

In one reply greywolf said

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.

And in another reply that

although it's worth noting that the para Oldman quotes is not reproduced in the new guidelines

Your 1st post clearly shows that the guideline does refer to Appendix B, so how can you then say in your 2nd post that it doesn't!!

[greywolf]

Oldman

My mistake, sorry - I was confusing Guideline B and Appendix B....

...but the point remains valid - they're still saying "this is the standard", and then, somewhere else saying "but it's not achievable so lets be pragmatic and do our best", so mu question is if you take that attitude for TD then why not for all the elements like grade of controller ?

[SJC]

if you take that attitude for TD then why not for all the elements like grade of controller ?

TD for a course sets a maximum level.
Grade of controller is a minimum level.

Hence having a Grade 3 controller for a Regional event would equate to planning an Orange course at TD4.

[seabird]

Couldn't agree more.

The guidelines are far more helpful than the Focus article.

I have a fear that the new structure will encourage many clubs to continue focussing on age based courses in all but name with level 2 events, instead of really reflecting what the Event Structure Review was all about. But I guess only time will tell.

Regions and clubs are going to have to be very focussed about the criteria they wish to apply for the various types of Level3 races. There is an enormous gap between an old style C4 attracting 300+ competitors on non-prime terrain and a one man and his dog informal attracting 30 in a local park.

The controller issue is going to have to be a case of muddling through as best you can.
The last thing we want is the cancellation of events because we can't recruit the decreed level of controller.

[seabird]

4.5 Regional Events will be overseen by the Regional Association Fixtures Secretaries, who will have the responsibility for agreeing the events amongst the Clubs within the Region. The Regional Fixtures Secretaries will work with the Chair of Fixtures Group to minimise unwanted fixtures clashes as far as possible within the British Orienteering fixtures list.

It will be interesting to see in practice how "unwanted fixtures clashes" is to be interpreted. There is quite a variance between clubs about the clashes they will or will not readily accept.

[geomorph]

Pragmatic
Decouple duration (length) from TD

all you need is 12 different colours: white, yellow, orange, pink, red, purple, grey, green, blue, indigo, brown, black

to represent the standard course durations

Then add the TD

pink-4 (old light green), red-3 (new long orange), indigo-5 (new light brown)

Thus colour is independent of the terrain constraints and can be applied to any race type, urban, park, wildland

No more long, medium, short

Consistency. Clarity. Quality.
Flexibility for innovation

Well, anyway, I had fun on my Friday afternoon run

[graeme]

Very disappointing...

The document starts well, by saying that the structure is about the standards required.
But the only requirements of level 2 seem to be a one year embargo and grade 2 controller.
Not a single one of the ESG recommendations of quality has been adopted, e.g. at level two there's no need for

· pre-event details with clear description of courses available
· entry on the day (and, optionally, pre-entry at discounted rates)
· premarked maps
· results display
· published results on the internet within two days
· clearly signed First Aid point
· toilets
· electronic punching

Meanwhile, if you and your dog organise a local event with "cross country" format (guide B), you have to get your results up on the web and linked to the BOF site that very day.

[Strider]

Menwhile, if you and your dog organise a local event with "cross country" format (guide B), you have to get your results up on the web and linked to the BOF site that very day.

That's no problem when you have a dog that's as computer literate as mine

[SJC]

Not a single one of the ESG recommendations of quality has been adopted, e.g. at level two there's no need for
· pre-event details with clear description of courses available
· entry on the day (and, optionally, pre-entry at discounted rates)
· premarked maps
· results display
· published results on the internet within two days
· clearly signed First Aid point
· toilets
· electronic punching

Why bother listing all the above when this is standard practice at the majority of events now, whether they be National events or Local Saturday events.

[roadrunner]

Not a single one of the ESG recommendations of quality has been adopted, e.g. at level two there's no need for
· pre-event details with clear description of courses available
· entry on the day (and, optionally, pre-entry at discounted rates)
· premarked maps
· results display
· published results on the internet within two days
· clearly signed First Aid point
· toilets
· electronic punching

Why bother listing all the above when this is standard practice at the majority of events now, whether they be National events or Local Saturday events.

I agree in the main, but most Local Saturday events (around here anyway) don't have all of those - pre-entry being a case in point. The ability to pre-enter and have a defined start time is surely something that many people appreciate, and higher-level events ought to offer.

[Mrs H]

Thinking about this the thing that shocks me most is that a bunch of enthusiastic and dedicated volunteers should have been invited to form a working party into which they put much time and commitment to come up with a structure which was accepted at committee level - and then only find their recommendations have been fundamentally altered in an article in Focus.

Is that any way to treat volunteers - and will they ever volunteer for anything of this nature ever again?

[SeanC]

Mrs H, did you read that BOF are producing frequently asked questions on the new event structure? If people are going to be deterred from volunteering in future, maybe this is a question worth asking?

[Mrs H]

Done - following e-mail sent this morning

I have some questions which you may wish to include in the Frequently Asked Questions you will be publishing in connection to the New event structure
1 Why does the New Event Structure differ so significantly from that put forward by the Events Structure Review Group appointed to draft the proposals, members of which were under the impression had been accepted in full?
2 Who made the changes?
3 How were these changes communicated to the members of the Event Structure Review Group?
4 What was the response from members of the Event Structure Review Group to the changes?
Many thanks
Lynden Hartmann HOC