In fact Tim. I'm so pissed off, you can take over my place on the FRA committee.
Printable View
In fact Tim. I'm so pissed off, you can take over my place on the FRA committee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo Austino
dont the races in the FRA calendar already do this:confused:
i must have been attending the wrong ones then
not yet been to a race that hasnt covered your above points , apart from maybe you have to get your entry in at some a bit early but that must mean there popular.
Eh up steady on there Brett you can't just go giving up your slot on the committee just like that. We need you!
I think I'm way past it!
Time for a much younger man!
Do you know any?
I find it odd that the rest of athletics is crying out for a democratic voice, whilst we're bemoaning the fact that we had one, and were given the opportunity to use it. I doubt any vote at AAA or the regions ever had such a strong turn out of it's members.
How about we start making representations to UKA to allow the FRA to control fellrunning in the UK under a single organization, bringing in WFRA and SHR (and NIMRA) under the umbrella. Work with the UKA rather than railing against them.
Dom, fantastic!
Tim is your man for that!!
I know plenty.... but none as young as you... in the way of these things!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by brett
I'm reet sure that TA aint aiming anything at you or the others who do so much....maybe like many TA is keen to stamp on any kind in creeping blazer'ism... which I just can't see there will be any chance of us/FRA succumbing to.... but maybe TA is onto something else... who knows.. I don’t...?
I think we all know what we want & what we like... and mostly on the fellrunning scene we are very lucky indeed to enjoy it... thanks to those who make it happen...
Spot on
Brett got his knickers in a twist big time and looked to create his own storm in a tea cup - he did pm me, as promised, so i've replied and if he wants to post it he can.
If you can't voice your own opinion then why have a forum - all i was getting at is that as things get more blazer like then you're gonna end up with more in fighting than ever and the whole thing will implode into a big mess. Why was the original post so long with so many implications?
BOFRA races just seem to adopt a more relaxed approach - can you imagine having a championship race that doesn't really have a start time other than a few minutes after the last kids race? Daz H - you should try one for a giggle
Finally, I'm not havin a pop at the committee - so don't quit on my acct cos i'm not looking to fill your boots!
Steady, I don't wear knickers
Well, nothing like the size you wear! :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo Austino
BOFRA races are basically what were the old "professional" races back in the days of the great divide and as such represent the essence of traditional English fell running. Short courses, no navigational skills and no rules about carrying silly amounts of kit on a nice sunny afternoon :rolleyes:.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotOnUrHelly
I am one of those members of the committee who did not want the FRA to stay affiliated to UKA. However, having had the ballot, we are where we are and must make the best we can of the situation within the UKA family. As Fixtures Sec. I just hope UKA haven't any more unwelcome impositions lined up for us similar to those in the last few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
One thing the FRA committee and members have to accept is that as long as the FRA remains affiliated to UKA its sphere of influence is effectively limited to England. UKA manages its affairs within the framework of the four home countries effectively working autonomously through its constituent organisations, England Athletics, Northern Ireland Mountain Running Association (NIMRA), Scottish Athletics and Welsh Athletics. It is unrealistic to believe that the FRA can run fell running throughout the UK. The following should be borne in mind:
1. In recent years NIMRA, Scottish Athletics and Welsh Athletics have strongly defended their right to organise hill/mountain running in their countries. Bear in mind that these are the governing bodies for athletics in their countries. Similarly England Athletics is the governing body in England but in this case delegates its responsibilities to the FRA as "managing body".
2. WFRA is a relatively new organisation set up in Wales specifically to free mountain running from UKA control. So in my opinion the last thing it will want is a UKA affiliated FRA to run fell running throughout the UK. Similarly it seems unlikely that the independent SHR would welcome this either.
UKA represents all athletes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by MargC
If the FRA is to represent only England then it would have to affiliate to England Athletics.
There is nothing within the constitutions of UKA or EA that would prevent the FRA representing the interests of all fell runners (similar to the Trail Running Association).
Is is possible that Scottish Athletics or Welsh Athletics may have wanted to control athletes in all disciplines and this is the real reason for the split.
I believe you may have hit the nail on the head with your comment "Is is possible that Scottish Athletics or Welsh Athletics may have wanted to control athletes in all disciplines and this is the real reason for the split."Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
The FRA has affiliated to England Athletics, previously it was affiliated to NoEAA. Apart from anything else this is required for it to issue Permits on behalf of England Athletics only for fell races in England organised by FRA members. The permits are issued to the FRA as the affiliated organisation.
The FRA constitution itself states that the "FRA is recognised by UKA as the managing body of Fell-Running in England". No mention of Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.
The FRA controls its own constitution and can change it if necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by MargC
It does not require approval from UKA but it would need to inform UKA that it is a national governing body for all fell runners within the UK rather than a territorial body representing English athletes only.
Compare the UKA rules of competition clause 400 (5) for fell running with Rule 605 for trail running.
There is a clear precedent for one ruling organisation for the sport.
Then why did the FRA allow AAW (now WA) and SAL to take over in wales and scotland?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MargC
I suspect that one word was and will be the cause of contention - registration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Both WA and SA wanted the registration fees from all athletes in their country and could not tolerate a national organisation for fell runners that would be independant of their structures.
When England Athletics increase their registration fees for athletes and then try to impose their structure onto fell runners, the problem of disaffiliation will again be raised.
I'll start another thread about registration later rather than continue on this thread.
The FRA could change its constitution and declare itself the national governing body for all fell runners within the UK, but it would require a change in UKA rule 400 (5) before the FRA could actually become that body (at least as far as UKA are concerned).Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
I'm not sure that trail running is an appropriate precedent, it is not mentioned as a discipline of athletics in SAL articles of association. In fact, it is not mentioned as a discipline of athletics in the IAAF constitution either.
The Trail Running Association comparison has been intriguing me since it was first mentined - it does appear as if there is one rule for one discipline and one for the other.
Out of interest, do the Welsh / Scottish / NI fell running organisations and members wish to have a 'UKFRA' as the overall governing body for the UK?
*edit*
And if so, on what terms, ie as part of fellrunning friendly UKA, or independant of UKA regardless of UKA stance.
In America mountain running is a subset of their Trail Running AssociationQuote:
Originally Posted by luath
In Canada is is called the Trail and Mountain Running Association
In the UK we have a myriad of organisations for the sport!:mad:
Which sport? Trail running, mountain running and fell running are not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
Dom, at the last WFRA AGM, the general feeling was that WFRA would not be interested in reuniting with an (E)FRA that remained affiliated to UKA. The whole reason for WFRA re-forming was to provide a sport in Wales free from UKA influence.
That being said, let us now see how things run. If the promised new, improved relationship with UKA bears fruit, roses bloom and happiness and joy spreads all around, opinions may alter.
XRunner puts his finger on an important point...registration and all that goes with it.
Yes they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by david
All involve running by athletes over the countryside.
Just as billiards and snooker involve knocking balls around on a table with a stick.
Different sports mate!
And don't call me an athlete! I reject that label!!
Same sport, different name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I have run some superb trail races in America that would make many of the UK fell races look like cross country.
As far as most people are concerned hills, fells and mountains are just another name for the same terrain.
It wasn't really like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Part 1
Deep in the mists of fellrunning history FRA was the defacto governing body of the sport in the UK. Well 'ish, in that they governed by consensual assent, certainly with regard to Wales. The then "WFRA" was formalised as a sub-committee of the FRA and we ran the sport in Wales but under the FRA banner, rules of competition and their insurance. Not so sure about how NI fitted in here, but Scotland were always more "seperate".
Then BAF was created and the world changed. At that time Selwyn was FRA chairman and he along with Norman Mathews, Danny Hughes, myself and various reps from NI and Scotland sat on BAF fell and hill running comissions and one of the most vigorously debated subjects was exactly that relationship between BAF, FRA,WFRA, NIFRA, SHRA and how this was to work in this new world, where the powers that be in BAF wanted regionalisation to work and form a pyramid structure to each athletic discipline, fellrunning included.
Actually the sub text to this was that this was a way of moving away from the central funding of athletics, where the route the funding followed was always from AAA outwards. The crux of this was that now regions were now fiscally responsible for themselves, the route the money would now take would be from the periphery in. In otherwards the regions had to generate money themselves in order to function, hence the very first ill conceived attempts at registration fees.
With this background and the harsh reality that no central funding would be available from BAF direct for Wales to compete in international events the FRA, via BAFFHRC encouraged liason with AAW. At the same time AAW were making overtures and inducements to come into their fold and independantly run our sport under their umbrella. Now, did WFRA secede from FRA? Was the subcommittee ever dissolved? Did the FRA dissolve it? Did the FRA constitution at this time reflect that it actually governed the sport in Wales(and NI and Scotland)? Was it ever changed? I don't know the answers to these questions but I do have a feeling that it was changed around this time.
So, given that the governing structure that we had been using until the arrival of BAF had been swept aside by that very arrival and that was now no place for Wales(or NI or Scotland) in the FRA within this regionally viewed(from BAF's perspective) system there was no choice but to strike a deal with AAW(for better or worse). The WFRA sc was no more and the sport drifted without governance for a while, cos AAW didn't know what to do, in fact we were rather like an embarrassing cousin who came and demanded money twice a year to go to the World cup and the like. The rest of the time they weren't interested. In fact this was a two way street, cos though we wanted their money we wern't very interested in them, they knew nothing of our sport and really did not want to know anything about our sport. And in truth we still regarded the FRA as our spiritual home. And then the insurance thing came along, and the world changed again...........
Part 2 to follow......;)
I think you destroyed your own argument with your middle paragraph there... some trail races that make fell races look like cross country??? So, not the same sport then...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
Without rigid definitions the edges are blurred but I have a pretty good idea in my own mind what constitutes a fell race and it's nothing like running round a local park on a Saturday afternoon, which is what most people mean by cross-country!
It's true there's a certain amount of interchangeability between the terms fell, hill and mountain (depending where you come from) but 'trail' is not interchangeable with any of those...:p
Trail can mean any off-road event in most places in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trundler
The majority of fell races in the UK could be classed as trail races.
If one wants to apply a strict definition to a fell race then it should be limited to hills that are called fells within parts of England and Scotland.
However I do like the quirkiness of the English language that allows us to define many off-road races as fell races.
I think that is is unfortunate that the FRA failed to extend its control into all UK off-road races that were not classified as cross country.
Oh no there notQuote:
Originally Posted by david
Mountain running
Trail runningQuote:
Courses must be adequately marked and marshalled throughout such that complete strangers to the course can follow without difficulty
A fell runner should be able to get round a race with out markings and whatever the weather :)Quote:
Medium length races, say between 10 and 20 miles, should have waymarks or marshals at all difficult points
Bill
That statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of fell running.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
I think you have got to apply the definition more to the competitor, for a proper "fell race" you must assume anyone entering has got to be able to look after themselves where as with trail and mountain races you've got to look after them :)Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
Bill
The point of any race is that there are some markings to define the course!.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggins
These need not be complete course flagging as in a conventional cross country race but, as a minimum, the markings need to define the principle checkpoints.
No Checkpoints define the course.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
How you get there is up to you!
Bill
Proper fell race? By this rather unique definition most UK 'fell races" would have to be reclassified.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggins
Within the UK the only races that would be classified as fell races are those events that have been issued with a permit by the FRA. A similar classification can be applied to trail or cross country events within the UK.
Wrong, I think you mean "..in England..."Quote:
Originally Posted by XRunner
We organise "classified" fell races in Wales. We don't need an FRA permit, or one from AW either. Actually we don't want one. We are in fact permit free!
Yep, you are right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Toffer
Oh sh!t what did I start..... :o
Something more dangerous than an innocent drive from Llandovery to Storey Arms!!!:D
change the thread and get a life you lot:confused:
Now, did WFRA secede from FRA? Was the subcommittee ever dissolved? Did the FRA dissolve it?
My memory of events is that the committee quietly died through lack of interest but thats perhaps because everybody thought AAW would run things for us. And I suppose we all went along with that until AAW became WA and the ugly registration/permit situation arose along with the insurance issue?
Is that going to be the thrust of part 2?:confused:
who gives a damn; perhaps I shouldnt ask that question because obviously you lot do:(