Scottish Orienteering

Does the old rule that a controller should be from a different club still apply?

Can you clarify “clubs can decide to make what would have been a C4 event an L2 event if they so wish”
i.e. is it entirely the club’s decision based on the nature of the event, or are there specific standards that must be met (controller grade, terrain, etc), or do clubs have to apply to SOA for the upgrade?
Am planning an event in March 2009 so would like to know asap

What about the Six Days?

Disappointing.

The draft on which we were consulted

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/GuideA.pdf

says…

“Standard level events replace what were previously known variously as regional, district, badge,
ranking and colour coded events. The increased quality of all but the smallest events make
distinguishing between them unnecessary. Competitors should expect a good level of serious
competition, organisation and well planned courses.”

This now seems to be turned on its head, with “local” events ranging from the six day (?) and Senior Home Internationals to find-the-fluorescent-skeleton night score.

I suspect this is because of the grade 2 controller clause. Eventually BOF will see sense and remove it.

The Scottish 6 Day Event will continue to use age classes as, to quote from the draft event guidelines:
“Multi-day holiday events, attracting a significant foreign entry, may
wish to use a full set of IOF age classes with Long and Short
courses. Such events should base their class combinations and
course length ratios on the table in Guideline C: Area
Championships.”

My thoughts.
1. I still don’t see why we need a new structure, to me the old one wasn’t broken. I don’t see that it matters that not many events were C3 and when I started orienteering I didn’t much care what class an event was, I went to local club events and gradually moved away to bigger ones and got the hang of the event structure. I knew there were big events and small events but didn’t much care about the classification detail.

2. The embargo issue is a pain. 1 year for level 1 and 6 months for level 2 is ample in my opinion. Some maps go out of date quickly with felling, tree growth etc and the extended embargos just seem to mean we get less use out of our good, expensive maps. For most of us this is just a hobby. Aren’t we taking it all a bit seriously?

3. I’m pleased the need to have a controller for every grade 3 event has been dropped. We have 3 controllers for 88 members and if the controllers had to check the controls of all local events this would mean they’d be even busier than they are and events may have to be cancelled if a controller becomes ill, which for a small event is silly. If the requirement for events to have individual controllers isn’t there for level 3 events then I don’t see why we don’t have 4 levels. Level 3 for SoSol standard events where a grade 3 controller does the full works and level 4 which replaces the old level 5 where an experienced eye is just cast over the event. Are the 3 levels now cast in stone? Maybe 5 was too many but 3 is too few?

4. As Bill said above it would be handy to know when controllers have to be external. ? grades 1 and 2 only.

5. Re the junior classes; I would love to see the end of the JM stuff. It just added another confusing layer of jargon for parents to learn. I always converted the JMs into colour coded in my head to understand them eg JM2 is yellow, JM3 is orange, so if we’re going to have colour coded courses at SOLs let’s just simplify things and call the kids’ orange course an orange course.
I think if the adults at SOLs are going to have age class awards then so should the children. My son is far more competetive than me and likes to see how he competes compared to those of a similar age. This doesn’t mean children have to do the recommended course for their age class, but as alot of Scottish kids who do the SOLs do the 6 day and Scottish champs then it’s good for them to know what age standard they are aiming for in the same way it is for adults. I think there should be an aspirational element to SOLs for adults and children if they are to really be our national series.

Correction. Just noticed from the controller list we have 5 controllers not 3.

This new structure will make selection for the Veterans Home Internationals more difficult. Competitors in an age class will be more likely to run different colour courses, not head to head on the same course, making comparison of performances more difficult. We will probably need to nominate specific courses for age classes to run in selection races.

P.S. What’s happening to the calculation of SOL league points in 2009?

The INVOC committee met yesterday and we discussed the new fixtures structure which has just appeared on the SOA website. While we had differing views about the merits of the changes, we were firmly agreed on the following:

1.  November 2008 is far too late to announce that a change will be introduced in 2009. Planning of fixtures diaries is already well underway as, no doubt, is the actual course planning for the earlier SOLs. We fear that to introduce major changes at this stage is likely to cause confusion. We note that further announcements are expected which makes the timing even less satisfactory.
2.  The notice posted on 2 November is difficult to understand. Many aspects are unclear, such as the need for a controller at Level 3,  the relationship between age classes and colour coded courses at Level 2, and how we decide whether a Level 3 event can become a Level 2. The status of the notice is itself unclear, as it is headed “recommendations” and described as a draft, but the statement says that “the SOA Board … agreed …” and the text reads as though it was a decision.
3.  We feel strongly that for SOL events, consistency of standard and of rules is essential throughout the year, and that both the lack of clarity and the lateness of the recommendations (or decision) will be detrimental to the integrity of the SOL series. It is after all a league.

In this regard we are fortunate not to be organising a SOL in 2009, but we obviously have an interest as competitors, as well as concerns about the uncertain requirements for our own more local events.

I emphasise that none of this is intended to comment one way or the other on the merits of the changes proposed, only on the process of implementation. We do feel, however, that is would be much better to delay any structural changes until 2010 so that these issues can be properly worked out and the transition managed.

I agree. For a competetive series of events a gradual transition is daft. Starting the new structure in 2010 when all the problems and queries have been sorted is more sensible.

As anybody who has been following the history of the New Event Structure will know, it raises strong opinions.  I would encourage people to read the British Orienteering Guidelines and contribute to their Frequently Asked Questions for general queries on implementation.

There will be a more complete response to comments and questions in due course.  What follows is my informal opinion.
At the recent SOA Board meeting we did discuss implementation in 2009 or 2010 and were all agreed that 2009 was the way to go. We feel that the changes for the SOLs are so small for organisers and planners that the SOL league will continue seemlessly.

In response to John Hollingdale’s question about who decides about which events can be Level 2, this is covered in the BO Guidelines, clause 4.6.  The Regional Association Fixtures Secretary need to consulted.

I do not like the proposed new event structure.  I shall miss age group competitions in SOLs.  As a very competitive old man I love the chance to compete with a group of people of a similar physical standard to myself.  I find this motivational and challenging and will be sad to see it reduce to very few opportunities.  I shall probably go and run more hill races and less orienteering competitions next year - there is a very competitive group of over 60 hill runners in Scotland.
Anothre issue for me is the relationship to the recently publicised new BOF embargo Rules (or are they Guidelines?).  If all local events are now Level 3, and if I have run in a forest being used for a Level 3 event within the last 12 months I should declare myself non-competitive.  If this applies to all local (Level 3) events then for most of the orienteering events I compete in, local and evening events in forests often used 2 or 3 times a year, I shall be forced to declare myself non-competitive, as will most other competitors.  This to me is a nonsense.  I actually feel the 12 month embargo rule is a nonsense anyway - except perhaps for National Chamionship races.  I think I’ll be writing to Score on that subject.

Unlike many people, I imagine implementing the new structure in Scotland should be no big deal: although there will be changes, I don’t imagine any will be hard to implement, principally because there are so few issues with Scottish orienteering that needed addressing.

One question I have - and speaking as someone who considers themselves well informed of what is happening - concerns SOA levies next year.

Which level(s) of events are to be subject to levies?

- Certainly I see that applying a levy against all Level 2 events, will be a major disincentive for our full-colour C4 events (and others) to move to L2, as envisaged by the Review Group, rather than to L3.

This is a response on behalf of the SOA Board to Invoc’s posting recently.

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the development of the new fixtures structure.  The SOA Board’s position is as follows:

1. We really don’t think there will be many changes to the way the season runs in Scotland.  The main change is that SOLs will now be run officially as Colour Coded events in line with the new guidelines; these provide an extended range of courses (similar to the present SOL courses) and the intention is that the Scottish O League will continue to be run primarily as an age-class competition.  Competitors not wishing to run the course appropriate for their age-class will now be able to select from twelve (White to Black) rather than the previous five (White to Red) courses.  There are a few changes
to the Junior classes where we have taken advice from some of the key figures involved in Junior orienteering. They have welcomed the opportunity
to tweak the system.

Most old C4 and C5 events can continue but under a new umbrella of Level 3.

2. There should be a Controller for every event. However for the smallest events (summer series, night O etc) it is enough that a qualified controller
should be the overall Series Coordinator and be available to support individual events.

We are surprised and disappointed you find the relationship between age classes and colour coded courses unclear.  Perhaps you could give specific
examples.

The reasons for the muddled wording are several;

a. There were some minor outstanding issues which are/were not yet resolved (mainly around Level 1/Championships and Junior courses).
b. The British Orienteering guidelines are still draft although the direction (to a three-level structure) is very clear.
c. It was important to get a message out to the Scottish Orienteering community about SOA’s support for the new structure in 2009 so that clubs
could progress with their plans.  Proper drafting of the new structure will follow in time.

3.  We are sorry you feel this way but cannot agree with you.  All SOLs in 2009 (the first in April) will run under the new rules.  From a planning
point of view there are no material changes. For most competitor the SOLs will run almost exactly as they have done over the last few years.

We look forward to building on the success of the SOLs in 2009 and are confident they will continue to provide real age-based competition and
opportunities for development.

Regards

Paul Duley

Are the age classes who can run competitively on each colour coded course at SOLs going to be published on the event information/flyers, and perhaps explained as a table in each fixture list? If not, I think we are making the sport more mystifying for beginners and those who compete infrequently.

I agree with Angela’s comments about the JM/W names being very confusing. If my daughter occasionally runs in a SOL, I have to map the colour coded course she usually does to the equivalent JW course, by remembering that JW1 is like a white course (I think) and working upwards. If I want to know what course she would need to be doing to be competitive for her age at a bigger event, I work upwards from the assumption that JW1 is roughly equivalent to MW8. This relationship is clearly explained in the table above, but I don’t think I’ve seen it anywhere before, so would newcomers have this information?

If we don’t want age classes for juniors at SOLs, could there not just be several colour coded courses recommended for juniors, with no mention of JW1 etc, with points/prizes for the best junior males and females on each colour? The information on how the colour courses relate to junior championship age groups could perhaps be publicised more prominently, though not necessarily in event info.

How will the fees for SOLs work in2009. If say a W21 (like my wife) isn’t fit enough to run W21S in the “old” days she would enter CC and pay a reduced fee for a shorter/easier course (except at the Clyde SOL at Loch Vaa in 2008 where they charged her £9 for an orange!!!!) Now what will happen with the new structure if she wants to run Orange. Will there be a reduced fee or will she have to pay full wack for an out of class course that is both shorter and easier??

Comments are now closed