New Event Structure

[graeme]

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.

And what would you expect to find in "standard event" guidelines apart from standard practice?

The point is, these things are not always in place, but we felt that they should always be at all but informal (Level 3) events.

And not everyone agrees: the SOA fixtures secretary was bending my ear recently about the "first aid point" requirement; upthread, Paul Frost didn't want to provide toilets. Not surprisingly, as these two are the major costs in small events.

I had expected some debate about whether these should be on the list, but, sadly, clubs seem to think the way to go is to just demote their events to Level 3, rather than help get the guidelines right in the first place.

[Mrs H]

I have received the following responses to my questions:

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?
The new structure does not differ significantly from that put forward by the Event Structure Review Group. The core principle of a 3 tier structure is being implemented. The Event Structure Review Group was appointed to review the event structure and make recommendations. The Terms of Reference did not include implementation of the recommendations. In January 2008, Council agreed broadly with the recommendations. Lyn West as Chairman of Event Committee was to take the changes forward.

> 2 Who made the changes?
Event Committee and its constituent groups have been responsible for the practicalities of implementation. The bulk of the work has fallen to Rules Group and Fixtures Group with discussion at Event Committee. It was always recognised that as so many events were already registered, the first year would be a transitional year. The original report from Event Structure Review Group acknowledged this. Fixtures Group had to devise a way of dealing with events already registered. Rules Group has drafted the new Guidelines needed. There was much discussion at Event Committee on nomenclature and the colour-coded structure, just as there was within the Event Structure Review Group and amongst orienteers at large following publication of the consultation document in September 2007.

> 3 How were these changes communicated to the members of the event Structure
> Review Group?
There was no direct communication between Event Committee and the Event Structure Review Group. Members of the Review Group sit on both Fixtures Group and Rules Group. The Fixtures Group meeting at which the decision on reregistering C3 events to Level 2 and C4 events to Level 3 had three members of the Event Structure Review Group present.
> 4 what was the response from members of the Event Structure Review Group to
> the changes?
Comment has been received from one member of Event Structure Review Group.

[distracted]

I have received the following responses to my questions...

Thanks for posting that Mrs H, and I'll get in first to say the way the implementation stage has been conducted all sounds a bit of a joke. Yes fine there would always be technicalities that needed working around, but not to the detriment of the system!! It seems that "doesn't differ significantly" means "take the easiest bits and mess around the rest."

[greywolf]

Most of the debate in this thread so far has been about the new L2, and in particular where the "lower boundary" should be - ESRG proposed that District events would become L2, which would have meant a considerable number of events at this level. However, it now appears BOF have decreed that only the old "Badge" events are to be L2, which suggests that this level might get squeezed into irrelevance...

Because when you look at the calendar, firstly there's a massive increase in Level 1 events (from the guideline on the BOF website):
The British Orienteering Championships
The British Elite Orienteering Championships (these may be staged with the British
Championships if the date and venue are suitable)
The British Relay Championships
The British Night Championships
The British Age Class Sprint Championships
The British Elite Sprint Championships (these may be staged with the Age Class
Championships if the date and venue are suitable)
The British Middle Distance Age Class Championships
The British Middle Distance Elite Championships (these may be combined with the
Age Class Championships if the date and venue are suitable)
The JK Sprint, Individual and Relay Events
Three English Area Championships (Northern, Midlands, Southern) (IMHO a nostalgic waste of time)
Scottish, Welsh and Irish Championships if the relevant National Association makes a
decision to stage the event at this level (and presumably Scottish Relays?)
The Final of the annual Compass Sport Cup and Trophy Competition
Which means up to 20 L1 events
And then you can add:
the 3 WOC selection races (L1 in terms of class, if nothing else)
Scottish / Welsh / Lakes 6/5 days and other holiday multiday events (officially L2 but probably using old-style age classes)
And then certain other key events regardless of what level they're formally at: Harvester, JOK chasing sprint, BUSA, Scottish Sprint Champs, CS Cup/Trophy qualification rounds, and some of the city races: Edinburgh, Oxford, London etc..

And on the other hand there's lots of sometimes less formal, often high quality, orienteering at local club events that will be L3, whether they're 2 course summer evening fun or full colour-coded in world class terrain...

it makes you wonder what the bog standard sunday morning L2/Regional/Badge events are for - there's clearly no guarantees of proper TD, or course length, or all the other recommendations listed by Graeme, all anyone gets for their more or less double entry fee is a Grade 2 Controller and some ranking points, which, being unweighted will only count for you if you haven't gone to 6 L1 events....

So maybe we only need 2 tiers - add the multidays, the WOC selection, harvester, big city races etc to Level 1 National and call everything else Level 2 Local

[Wayward-O]

... all anyone gets for their more or less double entry fee ...

I thought as part of the changes to the Levy structure "agreed to" earlier in the year that, from next January, there would be no difference in the Levy charged for different levels of event.

[Adventure Racer]

... all anyone gets for their more or less double entry fee ...

I thought as part of the changes to the Levy structure "agreed to" earlier in the year that, from next January, there would be no difference in the Levy charged for different levels of event.

There's a (huge) difference between levy and entry fee.

[awk]

Because when you look at the calendar, firstly there's a massive increase in Level 1 events (from the guideline on the BOF website):

Greywolf - please, can you point me in the direction of this particular guideline? I can't find it!

[greywolf]

Greywolf - please, can you point me in the direction of this particular guideline? I can't find it!

The new "Event Guideline A: Overview of Event Structure", as posted on the 9th Oct.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... 9DRAFT.pdf

[graeme]

firstly there's a massive increase in Level 1 events

Not really, the new L1 is a merge of old levels 1&2 (both in Review and the Proposals). So the numbers are about the same. Scottish Relays are not level 1: currently only L4,
and if the current controller/embargo proposals go through they'll be new L3 - i.e. you shouldn't complain if the controls aren't in the right place .

Three English Area Championships (Northern, Midlands, Southern) (IMHO a nostalgic waste of time)

Maybe. There was a strong feeling that "National Events" had lost their appeal - for the elites this happened with the UK Cup. We wanted a spread of "big" (i.e. L2) events through the year, and a rebranding - this was a rather unhappy compromise. I don't like it much, but none of the other options presented appealed, and its really an English matter.

[greywolf]

Not really, the new L1 is a merge of old levels 1&2 (both in Review and the Proposals). So the numbers are about the same.

Yes, i'd phrased it badly - the list has grown over time, rather than as a result of the review. My point was that we now have up to 20 "official" national level races per year, plus another 20 or so nationally important races (regardless of whether they're L2 or even L3) as per my sketchy list...most of these races aren't defined by the event structure - they set their own terms and conditions and are then accommodated...

[deebee]

So, can anyone explain how this new event structure sits with the local/national - full price/ discounted price ? I ask because it looks like the only benefit we'll get from full membership next year is Focus. The only event we'll possibly do outside our region is the JK.

[oconor]

Some thoughts from a comparative beginner:

Why did I start orienteering last year?
to get fitter, to get outside and enjoy the countryside, to enjoy a new challenge.

Why am I still orienteering this season?
Because I enjoyed it last season for all the above reasons, and because I like competing, and because I am starting to meet a new group of people.

As an M45 I started with some district C4 red courses, then a few Light Green, and after about four events attended a C2/C3 event as my first M45S. I discovered the ranking system, and spent last season achieving an M45S score above 6000. This season, I moved to M45L and achieved my initial goal of getting round the course, but so far in last place. This season’s aspirational goal is to get an M45L score above 6000.

How do I choose events?
I mainly use Obrien’s website and base my choice on distance from home, area: nice to go to Lakes and Northumbria and ranking status. I go to C4 if no suitable C3 available. I also consider the organising website – do they submit to ranking, do they use Winsplits, Routegadget, other website details. I am also starting to consider participating in Urban and night events.

For me, any direction which removed ranking would be an unwelcome retrograde step.

What are my suggestions?

Firstly I think that we, the UK orienteering community should implement a second colour based ranking in parallel with the existing age-sex based ranking. Both should co-exist for a number of years, and then the community should determine whether to do away with one of the ranking schemes.

Secondly, I suggest the age-sex based ranking continues in virtually its current form.

For the colour based ranking, I suggest:
a) that there should be colours for all typical classes in a C3 event. M45S is typically course 5 (slightly less than Blue). M45L is typically course 3 (slightly more than Blue). There should be colours for each course. These colours should be published on all event fliers.

b) individuals should be able to enter any course. If the course fits with their age category then they are competitive in the age-sex ranking. If they meet basic requirements below then they are competitive in the colour ranking.

c) Basic requirements – data submitted to ranking should include where available BOF number, SI number and Name – if two match ranking databases then a score included otherwise unscored

d) Initially colour scoring should be a single colour based, quality-adjusted, handicapped ranking. By which I mean: Single colour-based: you can compete in Blue events or Green events but these will give you separate rankings. Quality-adjusted: your ranking depends on several events (see below). Handicapped – the scoring uses an age-sex handicapping algorithm (see below).

e) Quality adjustment – with the aim of best of six C3 events scoring: Quality factors: C1 0.25, C2 0.2, C3 0.15, C4 0.1 with further adjustment – runners factor 1 if 20+ runners, else runners/20 if less than 20 on course – TD factor, maybe 0.9 if max TD4 rather than TD5 or other course deficiencies. Overall scores taken in descending order and multiplied by quality factors up to 1. Further info on the IGC ranking for international glider pilot competitions. Virtual score could be used as per IGC algorithm.

f) Age-sex handicapping – after someone has done some analysis, a table of adjustment factors is produced with factors by age (individual year) and sex. 1 probably equivalent to approx M25. The colour based score uses the basic concepts of the current age/sex scoring but with times adjusted by the age/sex factor before scoring. The initial table of adjustment factors may need to evolve over time. Maybe adjustment factor for M63=0.5 which means that a 63yr old completing the same course in twice the time of a 25yr old would get the same handicapped score.

Benefits – a colour-based ranking scheme would allow those of similar ability to compete on the same course and reward the fitter competitors who were disadvantaged in age. Running in parallel with the current ranking means that precipitate decisions do not have to be taken.

Will this work?
The BOF login does not detail BOF numbers. I don’t receive Focus even though I am a full member. I deliberately stated that the UK orienteering community would need to implement colour-based rankings, as I have no confidence that BOF have the necessary skills or competancies to implement the scheme. Guidance for clubs would be needed.

I am happy to contribute to a working group.

Conclusion:
If the event structure is reorganised without attention to rankings then it may put some off. A first step is to colour-code all courses in current C3 events and get a team to set up a colour-based ranking system in parallel with the age/sex rankings. PS: I do not clearly understand the need for moving from C1-C5 to L1-L3.

Rory

[Oldman]

Rory, you should look at the BOF web site news item of 22 Sep on rankings and perhaps input your views to the chairman of the review group, Martyn Broadest rankings@britishorienteering.org.uk

[martyn]

Rory - I've PM'd you regarding the Rankings Working Group

Martyn Broadest

[awk]

For me, any direction which removed ranking would be an unwelcome retrograde step.

The Event Review group's proposals recommended expanding the ranking list to more events (pretty much all L1 and L2, with L2 being the way we envisaged, not the way now proposed), and to make it a single list, from which subsets of age classes etc. could be extracted if so wished. This is similar to what the Swedes achieve.

I understood this to be part of the proposals that were accepted. Apparently not - hence the ranking review presumably. It seems that the changes to the proposals were not quite as insignificant as Mrs H's correspondent tried to make her believe. I certainly doubt that I will be volunteering to do anything at BOF level for the foreseeable future: it was a complete waste of considerable time and effort.