Oh it is! :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by multi coloured
Printable View
Oh it is! :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by multi coloured
A number of posters on this thread seem to be asserting that the existing junior rules on distance are preventing the 'production' of world class athletes. The sport will 'lack credibility', the rules are only to satisfy insurance requirements, the university nobodies (whatever that means) are out of touch, 'running a marathon at 13 never did me any harm' (from adults who as far as I am aware do not possess Olympic gold medals or have held world records), and bizarrely young swimmers have crossed the channel, if football had been subjected to FRA rules (!!!) etc. etc..
All this assumes that unlimited race distance is the key to developing athletes to take part in often shorter international races. It also assumes that this is the sole purpose of organising junior races, which as any one who heard Rob Jebb's speech at the Uphill presentation in 2011 will realise in his view is not the case. Implying that Messrs Holmes and Stuart, and Ms Mudge would come up with very different rules is not only potentially insulting to them and their personal views of junior fell running, but pure unsubstantiated conjecture, which perhaps if only out of politeness should be withdrawn from this public forum. There has been no consideration of the innumerable practical problems of organising junior races with unlimited or much longer distances.
For the last 9 years, the 6 race junior championship for U12 - U18 has been supported by an average of 250 runners. Recognition in some form for their achievements is given to not only the leading runners, but those in mid-field, and those who attend the majority of races. Therefore it can be argued that the format appeals to a wide spectrum of abilities, which perhaps is the prime objective of grass roots junior fell running. There is also some evidence that the introduction of an U23 category is helping to bridge the gap to senior running, and thus retaining juniors in the sport.
In the same time period, despite these allegedly restrictive rules, England runners have won 2 individual gold, 1 silver team and 2 bronze team medals at the World Mountain Running Junior Championships. Representatives of the other Home Countries, who have similar if not identical rules, have also been successful. Latterly they have all been part of successful GB junior teams. This has been as a result of their individual (and their coaches) targeted planning, training, and abilities, which in my experience is the formula for success at the highest levels in most individual disciplines and sports. The nature of national championships has little influence on such development.
This thread began with a repetition of the formal notice published by the FRA on the main website. Taken in conjunction with other reports on that website and the magazine in 2011, it would seem that there have been some major breaches of the current rules. No excuses or justifications, they have to be dealt with. Some posters seek dispensation for more able runners to take part in over distance races, without considering how this subjective assessment could possibly be policed. You only have to ask any RO, who has been abused by aggressive parents demanding such dispensation to know that it is a non-starter. However, the rules for junior fell running have evolved over the last three decades, and I'm sure will continue to do so, but only with a deal of thought, reference to constructive input, and within the detailed wider framework that society currently demands.
(To avoid ill-informed posts in response, I would point out that while I am a fervent supporter of junior fell running, and gladly maintain the junior championship points tables, I am not a FRA committee member. The above is a personal view based on nearly two decades involvement with junior fell running.)
Fell junior - as ever with this forum there are sometimes extreme views, some genuine and others often deliberately provocative. However these are also the same sorts of discussions that spectators/parents have at training sessions and races.
What I'm raising, as are some others, is a question about whether the existing regulations should be reviewed for 16 and 17 year olds. Given that there have been breaches possibly by athletes, parents, coaches and clubs then some people clearly agree. My personal view is that many 16 and 17 year olds are quite capable of racing further than 6 miles but depending on the race. For instance my son can't run tomorrow at Stanbury Splash but really enjoyed the Auld Lang Syne (legally). However I wouldn't dream of entering him in some Lakeland races of similar length and, like WP, wouldn't want an 18 year in something as long as the three peaks. My suggestion was that we seek some scientific evidence to support any changes.
I do speak from some experience being a fell runner, parent of 3 fell running kids, level 2 endurance coach and club chairman.
FJ - coming from the same position as Wycoller I favour considered evolution which is what you seem to allude to and if you look at my proposal for a dispensation it would be limited and coach lead where it is deemed appropriate.
Coaching methods and ideas change - in my opinion, with a specific look at endurance, the reason why the GB endurance runners (and largely the rest of the western world) are not of the depth and quality of the 60s to 80s is perhaps because the techniques brought in by the Sport Scientists, the competitive structures that are in place, and not least perhaps the wider choice of sports now available have all contributed to that.
That's not to denigrate the runners we have.
I'd be interested to sit and talk to someone like Kenny Stuart. What was his youth like, when did he start running and at what point did he first stand out as a real talent and perhaps the greatest of our UK produced mountain runners and also one of our best marathon runners.
Yawn.
We can (and indeed should) debate the wider context of junior training and racing, and indeed FRA rules, ’till the cows come home, but perhaps on a different thread (?) rather than hijacking a simple request / reminder regarding current 2012 FRA rules (1st post). Yes, it’s clear the first post riled some folk to question and or ask for the rules (and the '18 b'day quirk') to be clarified (that means ‘made clear’ by the way, not ‘please introduce other diversionary discussions that have nothing to do with trying ones hardest to understand and obey the existing rules’)...
The purpose of the original post (I believe, but am willing to be corrected) was simply to remind folk what the FRA 2012 Junior rules (like in 2011, and 2010, and....) are, two simple rules relating to age and distance, with an adult-quirk at 18. Basically, as things currently stand (for the 2012 season) the FRA rules are pretty straightforward, once ’read and digested’ rather than ‘read and spewed up’. Certainly not rocket science. Outside FRA, in training / other races, ‘we can do whatever we want’ relative to our own beliefs / other rules. Inside FRA , we can exchange views so as to influence what happens in 2013, 2014, ... 2050, but let’s leave and accept 2012 rules as 2012 rules. Hence why, a reminder to follow 2012 rules for 2012 (1st post), seems pretty straightforward as a standalone request ... to me at least.
As a FRA member, part of a family membership, and parent to 3 Juniors, but with no coaching credentials, that’s pretty much all I need to know for FRA Junior rules for 2012, along with the other helpful website material. I would think the majority of the parents, once familiar with the rules, are the same, and it’s maybe a minority of parents that ‘don’t get it’ and hassle the RO for dispensations. Don’t tar us all with the same brush.
Yawn.
Obiwansikobe.
PS. Kenyan youth (as in many other countries), often (normally) travel several km to and from school each day on foot, and often ‘run’ rather than ‘walk’, but rarely ‘race’; it’s just part of the daily commute. Glad my kids, even in Tameside, at the boundary of their school catchment area, walk / run the 1 mile to / from school 50% of the time. Unlike many others. Our school’s only at 250m rather than 2500m, so they lose out a bit on the altitude training, but they don’t seem to complain.
Not being an historian I may well be proved wrong but I am going to assume that the rules we have at the moment grew from somewhere. Any clarification gratefully accepted (FJ?). Did these develop from already existing rules or just arbitrarily arrived at? As previously stated I have no desire to overstretch any young runner and for most the distances are good. As FJ said races are about more than just pushing yourself to the limit everytime they are also about teaching our juniors about enjoyment of the sport, simple going somewhere new different and frequently beautiful, They are also a way of passing on the traditions of fell running. However I see no harm in advocating the possibility of reviewing the rules and if acceptable and appropriate amending. The idea about certain races getting dispensation to have approved juniors racing further would have to be agreed with RO's beforehand anyway and would therefore not create situations where the RO is fielding awkward parents.
Next you'll be wanting no winners upto a certain age :w00t:
Your argument is in my opinion largely undermined by the sarcastic tone and seeing as it makes you yawn so much I doubt you'll even read this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
Threads meander - that's the nature of them.
The original point of the post was challenged because of what you refer to as a quirk. It wasn't a reminder, it was a threat of disciplinary action. If you make a threat, it is best to make the grounds for that threat clear and watertight. Other areas of athletics do have rules that declare precisely when an athlete becomes a senior. We also have to declare the age details for each race accurately in the published literature.
I don't really want to go back to that as it's been dealt with and the grandees of the FRA can discuss this, as Graham has indicated they will.
Like you, I'm part of a family, with juniors and I do have coaching credentials. I am also a RO. I think debates such as this are right and proper, stimulate ideas, challenge entrenched opinions and will hopefully help us all keep our fantastic genre of endurance running moving forward in the right way
CCR is similarly a coach and RO, Wycoller a parent and coach. We coach junior internationals and FRA Champs and medallists, so we are doing something right, but still have a lot to learn. I think what we are looking for is the chance to offer a few limited opportunities for capable juniors to challenge themselves. If you ever attend any FRA Junior race you will find that the front end is often exceptional. Yet a junior U18 moves from a 6 mile cap to no cap in terms of distance overnight. Often the U18s are also pitched in with the U16s as well meaning they end up running only races up to 4 miles for the top 4 years of their junior fell experience.
We have a situation where a male U16 athlete can qualify for the World U20s and has never been allowed to run over the distance of the worlds in race conditions on the fells in this country.
WP, your points are all valid, in my view, its just that this particular thread had meandered in figure-of-eights at least twice. Coaches and RO's do a bril job and we welcome your views. Picking up the Grump's invitation to find another sport how about this one punters:Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/220120...ate-world.html
PS. Apologies, I couldn't help being tired and sarcastic yesterday - but my central point about 2012 rules being 2012 rules is a serious (not sarcastic) one.
There is some but not much evidence of posts on this thread saying 'point taken, we will try and make 2012 a better rule-following-year than 2011' or some such similar.
;)
Congratulations. Thats some splendid missing of the point. Well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Interest that Wenger takes off the young Alex Oxlade Chamberlain to protect him against United today as he is 'only young' yet 60,000 Arsenal fans and the captain disagree :confused:
Looked like this forum thread :w00t:
and we now have a race that thinks it's 19 :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I saw that too. Somebody please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
To clarify:
18 year old athletes running as U19 are permitted to take part in fell races up to 10Kms.
Lee Mill is 10.7Kms (and part of a 4 race series), hence 19 on the day if that's what the RO chooses to do.
It is utter rubbish to suggest that they are no longer treated as adults.
I just read through this thread from start to finish (well I'm not on the forum very much nowadays and junior race limits were always much to my chagrin).
My two main thoughts/ observations on this, with the benefit of hindsight having been a junior fellrunner, left the the sport of running and then come back as a senior.
1) I used to race underage all the time. Not on the advice of a coach, not with my parents' permission (they were generally oblivious and just used to chuck me £20 and I'd disappear to the Lakes or Wales for the weekend) but just because I wanted to do longer races. I did a fair few AMs and ALs up and down the country and generally managed to be fine. There was a bit of culture around some juniors who regularly did this - there were some ROs who were down to let juniors run, some who asked you to run without a number and sometimes I'd just say I was 18 and hope they wouldn't notice the little bum-fluffed moustache I had struggling to grow. I think it was about more than performance for some of us though - I was by no means a great junior - usually in the bottom 30% at Junior Champs races but I had some good runs here and there. I just preferred super long races and found the bigger climbs and environments more exciting. My body could handle the races because the pace was easy and for the most part, the DOMs kept my training mileage quite low.
There were guys like Sean Carey from Tod who was really successful at a young age and did all sorts of races then just dropped off the face of the earth...but similarly there were lads who never raced underage and stuck to the circuit that I don't see anymore or you see that they just ran 3.45 at the London Marathon, clearly having fallen off the bandwagon.
When I compare it to the people that used to race at the same level as me, lots of them are burnt out now since becoming seniors and don't run anymore, some have plateaued out and then you get the odd runner like Marc Scott who is just incredible. In some ways I think that the constant track work and racing circuit that most juniors race on can be just as damaging, it's less friendly, more results-orientated and more anxiety inducing. I just liked the laid back atmosphere at a low-key North Wales AM. Ultimately it has definitely helped me as a senior runner - I just found that I had a pretty good endurance base from all the 'over-distance' stuff I'd done as a kid and once I grew out a bit I somehow made a jump in ability.
2) I vividly remember Robbie Simpson turning up at the Carnethy 5 in 2009 and being refused entry to the senior race. I think he'd pre-entered and then got turned down on the day because he wasn't the right age or something. He went on to win the junior race there by a hatful of minutes but given his trajectory (a year or so later he'd won Snowdon) surely it would have been sensible to have let him run in the senior races.
Just echoing what some people have said already - there's no one size fits all approach to it.
Not that I'm particularly quick now of course, or that doing the extra-long stuff helped me catch up to the likes of Marc Scott and Sean.
Certainly though it's given me some strength which I've been able to utilise as a senior runner - I'm probably a much better standard of senior runner than I was as a junior and I think a lot of that is due to the longer stuff.
JimQuote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
https://fellrunner.org.uk/documents/...2002-11-18.pdf
Page 1 - see 1(d) which refers you to Page 3 Table 2
That clearly states that the 10km limit is for 16 & 17 year olds.
18 year olds can run in any race and have done including the Three Peaks, Fairfield, Anniversary Waltz... to name a few I know of and they can also run the pairs and nav legs in the National Fell relays.
I think someone has confused the issue due to the FRA Junior top age now being U19. These FRA Junior races are capped at 10km even for the 18 year olds purely because the category includes 17 & 18 year olds.
Perhaps so, or was there a specific local reason that 19 was chosen? Who knows or cares. After all it's the RO's decision, who he decides to let enter his race. He can exclude U23 if he chooses, which probably would have been a good idea given last night's weather conditions.
But, hey, at least you managed to get a snipe in at GB on a thread that's 7 years old.
The rules are clear. The 10k limit is for 16 & 17 year olds. If you can find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
and as if I would have a snipe at Graham!
Actually the case was for simplicity back then, and if you look now at the rules, it isn't simple.
If you are a runner looking for the rules, they are actually in the Organisers Sections and "hidden" in a document called "Requirements and Rules for Race Organisers."
So bravo to Graham's request for keeping it simple which might avoid sages of the sport getting confused.
If it bothers you so much then ask the RO, why he decided at the very last minute to exclude the U19 age group from his race, because that is the effect of '19 on the day' as I tried (possibly badly) to explain for Martyn P. (Your patronising comment is duly noted). It probably has far more to do with the urgency of the situation on the day, than misinterpreting the rules. I don't know or care - it was a very testing evening for everyone involved given the extremely variable and localised weather conditions. Studying the race results will give you a clue as to their effect, but the main thing is that everyone was accounted for, marshals included.
If you think the rules require further clarification/tidying up then make a formal argued case to the FRA. I agree there is still a deal of ambiguity in the published rules. Unfortunately, seizing on this race as an example doesn't stand up given the circumstances.
It was a misinterpretation of the rules Jim, because when it was published, it was specifically to adhere to the rules.
Anyway, I think it's been cleared up.
In terms of looking at the rules, around 6-7 years ago when I was something akin to Junior rep on the MRAG, I was asked to look at the rules, and rewrote them.
I didn't receive any feedback, positive or negative, so I don't think I'll be going down that route again :D
So in conclusion:
The FRA have not changed the definition of a junior despite your initial assertion.
No FRA rules have been broken.
You are confident that the '19 on day' statement was a misinterpretation of the rules as confirmed to you by the RO (?) , even though it is still a valid condition of entry.
You are conversant with how Rossendale Harriers choose to run their annual mid-week series of races.
You are not interested in contributing to the on-going clarification of published rules, other than posting on this forum.
Seems to leave matters pretty much where they were before you re-opened this thread.
All we've learnt is that TT seems to think it's ok to enter underage even if the RO is at risk of losing his /her license, and worse.
More the case that that was how it was when I was a junior - plenty of the best juniors raced underage week in and out. The organisers knews they were underage, the other races did and their coaches did - it just seemed to be one of those unwritten things that for Auld Lang Syne or Shepherds Skyline etc there'd be juniors who said they were 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
Being out of fell running now I can't comment on how it is now but 10 years ago there were plenty of kids winning junior championship races on the Saturday and then racing as an 18 year old midweek.
Kids from Rossendale did a lot too.
Jim, you really are being awkward. I'm not sure why.Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
The 19 on the day was clearly a misinterpretation. I don't know whether it came from the RO or from another party.
But I do know it was posted out on the FRA Facebook Page and Rossy Harriers FB page and it was clearly set out that minimum age 19 was being enforced because of the rules limiting 18 year olds to 10km.
Post #93 from Martyn P on this thread confirms that.
Go and talk to Lefty about who and why. I'm sure he can fill you in.