eh? nothing will prevent criminal liability.. well unless RO's become diplomats..Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Printable View
eh? nothing will prevent criminal liability.. well unless RO's become diplomats..Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Except wrong expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I'd love to be board stupid by this (not have to think about it or do anything other than fill in the forms) - BUT if we don't get this right there will be ramifications in the future... and I for 1 don't want to be in a position where we or our marshals are held to account to a set of rules and guidelines that are impossible to adhere to - with the possibility of prosecution for a failure to follow said rules/guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
But surely ('don't call me shirley' ;) ) everything (in the world/universe?) has been said on it by now?Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
Your quote is missing the wording as established by Wynn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Please explain the conflict of interest. The FRA is a member organisation not a limited company, with several major race organisers on its committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
My quote is from the paperwork I received as an RO a few weeks back, and your word is just a provisional addition yet to be confirmed, not signed up to by any RO as far as I'm aware and doesn't change a great deal to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Thanks WPQuote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
That's our disclosure sorted...... ;)
Wx
Registered in england 07878976Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
The legal interests of FRA though similar are separate and different from RO. What is good for one, is not necessarily good for the other, hence separate representation at inquest. Obvious in any legal context?
Just trying to find a rapid way to solve it - eg that panel.
It's not possible to sign up for a draft addition....Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Wording " unnecessary " is useless, and demonstrates that concerns are not being taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
See critique earlier.
If it is not crystal clear what it means, it has no business in rules.
Coming to which just take some advice please!!- the whole construction of that is asking for trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Please , please , if you seemingly won't take advice - at least hand the job to someone who has an inkling of how to draft such documents. Whilst warranting ANYTHING that attempts to qualify risks is a problem, I have given you workarounds - eg "extreme" or "extraordinary", or if you must reduce it so far "unusual" are INFINITELY preferable to the meaningless ambiguous word " unnecessary"
It needs rewriting, not a substitute of words.
If you must say anything try perhaps..
"Courses should not contain hazards of substantially greater severity than those found on footpaths used by walkers in the area, or on the adjacent terrain.
At least that gives the defence to wynn that catbells and robinson are on a footpath, and the bad step certainly is a rock climb. Neither langdale or AW are compliant, so you CANNOT let them run under rules as they are.
I am still not happy even with that because eg a boulder dislodged on the whernside escarpment is not on a footpath but still can kill. As it is you give an RO nowhere to hide, the changes make their exposure massively more.
We should play up the hazards, not play them down.
The rules should ideally say NOTHING about courses. FRA should approve a race on the basis of the description lining up with the course, and identifying hazards eg " whernsise escarpment can be loose, runners should take care not to dislodge...etc"
A revised 2014 FRA Safety Requirements document (dated 20.10.13) can now be consulted via the link to the FRA Committee page and then Safety, Rules and Equipment.
Note: Some members of the FRA sub-group do NOT view the Forum and will NOT see anything posted here.
So if a member wishes to have their views considered by the FRA sub-group they need to send a focused email to me, with suggestions for change, and it will be ccd to the FRA sub-group for consideration.
reading this now may not have time to comment..... so far can't see much differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Thanks for posting graham. Appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
But nothing of substance seems to have changed.
Wynns race is still non compliant:
There is still what a reasonable man would regard as climbing on her normal route. Unnecessary is still a problem word, that is hard to interpret so hard to know what most of it means.
Why not just state that courses should "not have hazards of substantially greater severity than found on or adjacent to normal walkers routes in the area, or encourage runners to undertake more hazardous ground in order to gain an advantaghe"
It at least allows wynnies race to run! and it outlaws broad stand or similar, which if I have understood what you tried to say, does the job in a way that stops ROs over reaching, but also protects them too.
That risk can be managed explicit, which is where it should really be! The route description for 10peaks (and I presume great lakes, never done it) says "broad stand is dangerous, anyone undertaking broad stand will be disqualified from this and any subsequent running". The basic approach should IMHO be that way - race organiser submits description showing how they intend to manage risk. FRA either approves or not, or recommends tweaks. The description still the organisers.
But the other problems are all still there too. Lots of them.
Take this "Should weather conditions on the hills be of such severity as to endanger competitors, or prevent marshals carrying out proper race monitoring"
It does not make sense. Almost all weather is a hazard that endangers competitors, and bad weather inevitably interferes with the accuracy of marshalling monitoring which can never be perfect anyway.
If either marshalls lose count in bad weather (marshalls lose count even in good weather!) or somebody goes hypothermic in weather such as the relays this weekend, how could we stop our friends (ha!) at UKA stating it that as failure of duty to cancel in weather that clearly endangered?? if the worst happened?
"res ipsa loquitor." The weather was clearly dangerous, somebody got hypothermia!
Better to say "if met office or mountain weather services report serious weather warnings or the RO considers that weather conditions pose an exceptional risk to competitors then RO should consider cancelling, shortening">
It at least gives them somewhere to hide, but they cannot ignore serious weather warnings either..
The words need to be precise, and not demand the impossible. The recent incident changed something important. We now know a hostile view will be taken of everything.
I would rewrite a draft on a "don't blame me basis" - but since even simple things have not been done like "unnecessary" would I be wasting my time?
Can we talk? see if we can clear up some of the issues?
I am fed up of this, I am sure you are too.
.... is not the registration number of a limited company as defined by the Companies Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
The difference matters.
I shall continue to take your advice to not take your often contradictory advice.
Surely the FRA knows what it is, they say LTD to £1:00.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
I am confused!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
The entry in the Companies House register when 7878976 is searched on http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//w...essCompanyInfo
clearly describes it as a private limited company. So why do you state the above?
Grump - is this all game to you, or do you actually care? or even know?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Fresh from companies house.
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 12/12/2011
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 12/12/2011
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)
Name & Registered Office:
THE FELL RUNNERS ASSOCIATION LIMITED
<address redacted by me - don't want people spamming the secretary!>
Company No. 07878976
I even quoted the minute of the FRA meeting that decided to create it and (my view rightly) the officers stating the rationale to do so in order to mitigate the risk to themselves.
The only issue I made of that, is to say they clearly perceive a personal risk to themselves, and it is so much greater for the RO, so that risk cannot be swept under the carpet as insignificant for the RO. It is either real for both, or real for neither, my view the former, and therefore all documents assume vital importance in managing that risk.
Is there a Python sketch to reflect this? In the meantine here is the Yorkshiremen sketch...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
Go on then. Re-write it so that it works. Post it on here and we can all comment and the committee, with it's legal advice can see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
It will be shorter than the thousands of repeated words you have already written, perhaps you should have re-written it at the start of this thread?
But that is the problem Lecky. Most of what I have said has neither been challenged nor included despite support behind the scenes from some affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Take the poorly defined word "unnecessary" - I quoted realword example situations where that would cause problems in determining compliance, and it is hard to know even what they were trying to achieve by using it. But the word is still there, with no clarification on the examples, or what the word is there to do. So unless there is a positive encouragement, demonstrated by some of the ideas being used, I really would be wasting my time.
It was my view the RO should be hammering this out in a session with FRA. They are the ones that need protection, and at very least the rules should allow for current courses like wynnies to comply.
I didn't say comment on what I had said, I said go on and re-write it. If your version is any good, and it can be commented on here, then you may move things forward (or at least on your view). Keeping saying the same things won't help.
I suggest you take the framework that is already there and re-write as you see fit.
I'll second that Lecky.
I have rewritten small parts and presented them here - they were not commented, by those who count, so failed to move anything forward. If those ideas were unnaceptable what is the point of my doing an entire document?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Until the problems are recognised,,neither will the solution.
How do you think wynns race is compatible as it stands?
I've already acknowledged earlier that this debate has been useful for me because it has drawn my attention to issues that I hadn't picked up on previously when permitting. Some of these have been changed of course. But apart from the slight re-wording in places, what concerns me is the contradiction because we are looking at 5 different documents and they are all put together with slightly different motives. But as they have been added to or amended they have become unclear as to who they are directed at and sometimes the same info is repeated across 2 or 3 different forms.
As an RO I need to look first at the permit. When I do, I have to fill in 3 applications for the 2014 Inters as there are 4 races over 3 different race specs. That's fine, not a complaint.
But I have to then sign off on having read 3 documents and accept that I will abide by the FRA Requirements.
FRA Safety Requirements for Fell Races and Rules for Competition.
This starts off aimed at the athlete, then becomes targeted at both athlete and RO on Page 4, then to RO matters, then both again, then marshaling, then the Rules.
Basically it's all over the place.
The rules are there in the Calendar, on the website and if necessary can be posted at registration. This document needs axing (and I'm sure this won't happen) or trimming down so that it is just focussed at the athletes.
By all means send it to prospective ROs so they are aware of the requirements of athletes, but don't try to make a document to cover RO and athlete in one.
Guidelines for Race Organisers
This starts of by stating The information in this leaflet is primarily intended to be of assistance to organisers who are intending to put on a race for the first time which is a problem in itself as it clearly binds all ROs.
It then states Please note that any compulsory route sections should NEVER cross hazardous terrain; which means we have 2 documents trying to say the same thing, both worded badly and both worded differently.
We also then have "Permissions". Why, when we have the Access and Environment document that covers that very well and in greater depth?
In order to keep this as brief as possible I'll not go on, but suffice it to say this document repeats things that are said elsewhere and contains some contradictory guidance - it should be axed.
Access and Environmental Guidelines - I have no issues with.
Organisers Safety Check List
Again this repeats other items and risks contradiction or confusion due to slightly different wording or emphasis.
MUST ensure that the nature of the race and the rules relating to safety have been drawn up and formally communicated to each runner
This is a huge ask. Formally communicated to each runner.
Then we have all the other stuff repeated from the other forms.
I think this form is a good idea, but:
Section 4 & 6 can go and there should instead by a requirement on ROs to supply a Draft Race Info Sheet to fulfill the requirements of Section 7.
Section 5, instead of a tick box, Section 5 and the last paragraph of section 5 could be replaced by questions rather than statements to comply with.
eg.
What measures do you have in place in the event of adverse weather conditions?
Then the RO can outline those measures which may include an alternative route.
I would also ask ROs to submit a race map, highlighting marshalling points and a info sheet detailing the points, the rolls of the marshalls at those points.
This should also include the planned first aid cover and locations and a plan on how the safety of athletes will be managed during the race.
The RO should also add an entry form for approval, if not using the actual FRA form.
The FRA then decides whether the measures in place are adequate and permits, or they can recommend changes.
Finally "Relays". As an organiser of relays, I can't understand why we need anything other than:
"ROs of relay events must assess each leg as if they were a race in their own right and ensure kit requirements and age restrictions apply as they would if the leg was a standalone race" and allow team entries to be made by a Team Manager or Captain.
As AI, I would be prepared to submit something more concrete for consideration, but I do not want to do this if it is going to be tomorrow's chip paper. So if the FRA would be interested, then I'm quite happy for them to contact me away from the forum, and then I'll keep my dialogue with them until we have a conclusion to any process.
Put it all into one document and put it on here for discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Richard (Witton Park), why don't you work with AI, Wynn and others off line then publish a complete document on here?
Lecky - you've seen a snippet of what I did with regards to the rules and not even an acknowledgement, never mind any feedback.
The feedback you gave me on the forum was excellent - that was the sort of feedback I would expect.
If the FRA were to make the forms available in word form, so that they can be more easily edited I'd consider that.
just copy and paste them into word.... that works for meQuote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
So are you suggesting that if anyone has anyone has any problems or concerns with the document then they should rewrite the entire thing for the FRA, even if they clearly outlined exactly what in the document they have problems with and how it should be changed? Call me stupid, but I think feedback and comments on the concerns people have raised would be much more productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
I actually didn't take Leckys suggestion to be such a daft idea. I'm not suggesting the FRA should just ditch their document. But as an alternative form of constructive input it's not such a bad way of making a 'suggestion'
That said, there did seem to be a degree of 'put up or shut up' to it.
I never even race, but I do marshal for my club events. If we get to a situation where I have to take training to do that, and find myself potentially liable if something goes wrong I'll not continue marshalling.
All that aside, I think there should be a tiny bit more patience shown to the FRA for getting this sorted. I'm far from convinced that the constant noise and repetition is really adding anything useful let alone constructive.
You already are liable - and the poor drafting of this document / UKA attitude, makes that considerably worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
Wording of such documents takes a lot of time and thought - to rewrite the document in a way that makes sense, as a partership for safety (rather than whipping stick for RO and marshalls as it presently is ), would take days.
I personally am reluctant to put such effort in , until and if even simple suggestions to remove some of the more absurd wording are taken on board. Clause 4 still renders current courses non compliant and otherwise does not make proper sense. The statement on weather hazards is ridiculous etc...
It is not just about updating old rules, it is about rewriting them to recognise real world difficulties of RO and marshalls, to prevent "expert witness" testimony that has an alice in wonderland view of what is really possible - at present if you make an inevitable mistake as a marshall , you more or less stand accused of incompetence And failure of duty in a legal proceeding . Is that what you want?
As those of us who have taken professional safety qualifications know: Proper safety policies are written to balance interests. As much to defend the reasonable actions of those in the chain of command, as to accuse them if they fail to act reasonably. This is "do it our way or else" usurping the proper role of an organiser to act responsibly, when " our way" has been so poorly drafted, it is neither clear nor in some cases possible.
The process is inevitably halted a week for the karrimor - for such as wynn to spend their time organising there. It would be wholly unreasonable to ignore her concerns and move it on in the meantime.
As "alwaysinjured" has already commented, as a marshall you are potentially liable NOW if something goes wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto
That is why the UKA insurance policy provides cover for technical officials as detailed in the document entitled "UKA Insurance for Technical Officials" on http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/g...nce/insurance/
Thanks margc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MargC
But it should also be pointed out that deliberate acts of commission or ommission will invalidate insurance, As is stated in that insurance, and no doubt insurers would specifically look for rule breaches to make a case for not paying on that basis. It is what insurers do. So it could be a chocolate fireguard.
So unambiguous practical rules are vital, to be able to show compliance.
Attachment 7238
Hazard ? Get yer claim form out
Race Organisers will have received an email updating them on developments this morning from Nick Harris, the FRA Secretary.
Jim
I hope that Race organisers with concerns are reassured by what they read in the document sent out to them today by the Fra, as am I. Many of you will not have seen the document so I have copied it below for you to see for yourselves. No doubt some will once again find fault but hey, that's democracy !Quote:
Originally Posted by jtinnion
" Race registration 2014 and revision to the safety guidance.
We thought we should give you an update on the race registration for races in 2014 and progress on gaining final agreement to the revised safety guidance.
1. Any process of change carries with it questions and uncertainty. The FRA committee, many of whom are race organisers, including myself, recognise that in many ways the FRA and fell running exists because of race organisers and the teams we all put together. We are determined to help race organises through the planned changes.
2. Many thanks to all the race organisers who have already registered your races. Many of you have completed this process and we would encourage other organisers to help the Fixtures Secretary by registering in advance of the deadline of Thursday 31st Oct.
3. Thank you, again, to all the race organisers and other members who have made constructive and useful comments on the safety guidance that has enabled us to ‘tweak’ the draft slightly, aiding clarity in a number of places.
If you have further specific suggestions that could further improve the draft safety guidance can you please send these to Graham Breeze who is co-ordinating the drafting process. [email protected]
(Normal registration queries should go to Andy Butler - [email protected].)
4. Before we are able to finalise the safety guidance we would wish to include any issues arising from the inquest into the death of Brian Belfield.
As we said on the website, the Coroner can make a report to prevent other deaths under Paragraph 7 (1) of Coroner's Rule 28 (previously rule 43). This is still awaited.
However to help all of you the current draft is attached.
We do not expect to have to make significant changes as a result of the Coroner’s report and, in any case, will not be looking to reverse any of the proposed changes from the current guidance, although, as stated above we will continue to make changes where these aid clarity and we think improve the organisation of fell races.
The changes currently proposed are those the committee feels are required in the interest of fell running and have been scrutinised by the lawyer acting for UKA; crucial if we are to maintain the confidence of UKA and the insurers in future.
5. We accept that some race organisers have concerns about registering without knowing the final details of the safety guidance. If you are one of these race organisers can we ask that you register by the closing date of 31st Oct. as you will be able to withdraw your registration at a later date. However entry in the handbook is only guaranteed if you have entered by the closing date, which is not being changed. This is to ensure that we can get out a printed calendar to the members, as usual, and before the 2014 races start.
6. Will all race organisers please note that whichever version of the safety guidance you sign up to it it will be the one in force at the time of their event that will apply.
7. As all race organisers know, from the mail out from the Fixtures Secretary, we are planning events for race organisers and other members to discuss the safety guidance changes and how they can best be implemented.
We have the first two events organised in late November and early December and I am intending to write shortly to race organisers local to these two events. We are planning other events around the country for early in 2014 and will let you know details as soon as we can.
It is intended that these events will be interactive and give race organisers the opportunity to swop good practice with each other and members of the committee.
8. As part of this process we are gathering together ideas from race organisers of processes and documents that they have found to be useful in the past. Already a number of you have sent in examples of such documents, for which our thanks. We intend to post these and others received, on the web site. Please send any such documents that you may have and which you would be willing to share with other race organisers to me.
Agreed. Would be interested to hear what was sent to ROs this morning actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaunaneto