Calderdale Way Relay

Gsetting bored now, so unless Greeny has resigned as first clain from sale for the fells he should not have ran for Horwich!!!!

Off to worry about far better things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Gsetting bored now, so unless Greeny has resigned as first clain from sale for the fells he should not have ran for Horwich!!!!

Off to worry about far better things.

---

Be careful RR - you might incur the wrath of the Marrow again:D

Some people need to chill and enjoy the sport they participate in and not send hours debating rules etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MudLuver

Seeing as I am being called a liar and that Pike is more trustworthy me.
All Sale 1st claim members are registered to compete at all the disciplines unless they resign 1st claim from a specific discipline.

---

I stand to be corrected Mudlover but I do believe that it is not possible to resign from specific disciplines.
You are tied to the 1st claim disciplines of your 1st claim club and are only free to compete for a 2nd claim club if they cover a discipline not covered by their 1st claim club.

I hope you dont mind some comments from someone who has only ever run for one club.

What a load of bollocks all this six months waiting period/first claim/second claim nonsense is. Would it not be easier if you just registered with a club on 1st January each year and then you ran for that club in all disciplines that year? If you wanted to change clubs you could do so on the 1st Jan the following year without any suspension having to be served

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Head

I hope you dont mind some comments from someone who has only ever run for one club.

What a load of bollocks all this six months waiting period/first claim/second claim nonsense is. Would it not be easier if you just registered with a club on 1st January each year and then you ran for that club in all disciplines that year? If you wanted to change clubs you could do so on the 1st Jan the following year without any suspension having to be served

---

Yes - with exceptions that can be moving home etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Some people need to chill and enjoy the sport they participate in and not send hours debating rules etc.

---

well i'm quite enjoying the debate - it's certainly better than pages of 'well done's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Gsetting bored now, so unless Greeny has resigned as first clain from sale for the fells he should not have ran for Horwich!!!!

---

"Gsetting bored" - spelling and grammar gone to pieces

Nice one!

well i double checked when i joined pennine to see if i could run on the fells for them
ilkeston had not ticked this magic fell box so i can
all above board

what happens if ilkeston tick the box next year
i know i will leave
running is becoming ridiculous:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

This is getting tedius.

Sale do not affiliate to the fells, nor should they if they do not enter teams in this discipline. I went through all this about 3-4 years ago with the then chairman of the club.

UKA rules for competition state that:

Athletics is organised within the following disciplines:-
(a) Track and Field
(b) Race Walking
(c) Road Running
(d) Cross Country including Trail Running
(e) Fell and Hill Running
(f) Trail Running

Clubs are deemed to cater for those disciplines for which they have declared to the appropriate Association the intention to compete in team competitions in that particular activity. Members of a Club may only compete in Championships or other Open Team competitions if their Club is specifically affiliated for that discipline.

Not since the early 80s had Sale actively competed in Open Team competitions on the fells. My argument was that that they were no longer actively "catering" for this discipline I had an interest in, by not entering teams. I requested they stop affiliating so that I could legitimately compete in team events on the fells for Horwich - first claim. Unlike the Alty/Pudsey case this was not a request for a personal exception.

My request was granted, and there is no evidence to suggest they have since re-affiliated to the fells.

Compare the memership application forms of Sale and Horwich. Both assess which disciplines you may be interested in. Sale do not cater for fell running. This does not prevent a Sale athlete from representing their club on the fells as an individual, but members are free to join another club first claim for the fells.

---

this is exactly as ive done, ah i see , so pennine will automatically be my 1st claim fell club forever
cool

If your not careful Daz, you will find yourself in KFR too!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luv Shack

If your not careful Daz, you will find yourself in KFR too!!!!!

---

err i was talking to your friend alan i think at the rotherham 50 , ive still no idea who KFR ARE:eek:

Loving the banter.

Was Sale's decision to change or revert their selected disciplines formally minuted? Probably it wasn't, but the chairman's word was good enough for me at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MudLuver

Hell it costs no more it's just a tick in each box

---

Ticking all the boxes is exactly what clubs are encouraged NOT to automatically do, so as not to disadvantage their members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoeAA Membership Guidelines for Clubs:

Eligibility to Compete in Different Disciplines
The five athletics disciplines - Cross Country, Fell and Hill, Race Walking, Road Running and Track and Field - continue as before but there are two criteria that affect athletes and administrators.

i. An athlete may compete as an individual in events within any discipline, whichever disciplines his/her club has registered with us in respect of the club's intentions for team competition.
ii. Club administrators should take care with the declaration of disciplines for team competition to ensure that their members are not disadvantaged. We request that you state annually in which disciplines your club will be competing in team competition. As the fee paid by your club will not be affected by your declaration it will be very easy to tick all five boxes and the possible consequences to your members may be overlooked.

A well established and popular arrangement exists which permits athletes to join a second club for a specific discipline when their first claim club does not cater for that discipline. We have always relied on annual club declarations to determine whether or not a club offers team competition in specific disciplines; this situation will not be affected by the Membership Scheme.
Please think of your members needs and commitments when making your annual discipline declaration and be realistic about your club's current strengths and weaknesses.

---

I took all the steps to make sure my fell affiliation was legit, and was assured by the chairman at the time that the club would not be ticking the 'fell' box that year. Since then I have given the issue little thought.

Off to the trophy shop tomorrow. There's some engraving to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

err i was talking to your friend alan i think at the rotherham 50 , ive still no idea who KFR ARE:eek:

---

All will be revealed...... in the fullness of time..... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luv Shack

All will be revealed...... in the fullness of time..... ;)

---

eh:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Head

I hope you dont mind some comments from someone who has only ever run for one club.

What a load of bollocks all this six months waiting period/first claim/second claim nonsense is. Would it not be easier if you just registered with a club on 1st January each year and then you ran for that club in all disciplines that year? If you wanted to change clubs you could do so on the 1st Jan the following year without any suspension having to be served

---

Steady Richard, thats too common sense for the rule makers.

But I do agree;)

What a load of BOLLOCKS, get back on thread, Calderdale Way Relay (although it does make good reading!)

Gaz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaz

What a load of BOLLOCKS, get back on thread, Calderdale Way Relay (although it does make good reading!)

Gaz

---

It is on thread - there are some contentious issues to discuss that are evident in the event and highlighted by the extremely interesting debate that is ongoing.

I am just surprised that the oracle that is Danbert has not yet made a contribution:confused:

i say well done pike
being fell captain as well , good lad
dont let anyone spoil it
FFS everyone we are fellrunners, calm down and move on

The Milton Keynes team organiser, Richard Pownall (being a bit of an IT guru - and my former team mate, as it happens) has loaded the Calderdale results onto a website called Splitsbrowser. It shows relative positions between teams and time lost by teams on each leg compared to the fastest on the leg. I've taken the liberty of putting it up on here.

See http://www.splitsbrowser.org.uk/splitsgraph.php?eventId=2602

Select a team or a number of teams from the list on the left, and their line is shown in the main screen area. Steeper lines mean greater time losses. So flat line means fastest on leg. The vertical axis is time lost in minutes, the horizontal axis represents distance (although it is marked as minutes, but this is obviously not true).

For example, if you select the top two teams you can see how Pudsey led the race on legs 1 and 2, how Horwich took the lead on leg 3, were passed by Pudsey on leg 5 but repassed on leg 6 to win by a narrow margin.

You can see the same thing for your own team.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Some people need to chill and enjoy the sport they participate in and not send hours debating rules etc.

---

Yes, agreed. Those people are called FELL PONIES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie

The Milton Keynes team organiser, Richard Pownall (being a bit of an IT guru - and my former team mate, as it happens) has loaded the Calderdale results onto a website called Splitsbrowser. It shows relative positions between teams and time lost by teams on each leg compared to the fastest on the leg. I've taken the liberty of putting it up on here.

See http://www.splitsbrowser.org.uk/splitsgraph.php?eventId=2602


You can see the same thing for your own team.

Steve

---

Thanks for that Stevie (and Richard). I can't make head nor tail of it, but I do like the pretty pictures :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie

The Milton Keynes team organiser, Richard Pownall (being a bit of an IT guru - and my former team mate, as it happens) has loaded the Calderdale results onto a website called Splitsbrowser. It shows relative positions between teams and time lost by teams on each leg compared to the fastest on the leg. I've taken the liberty of putting it up on here.

See http://www.splitsbrowser.org.uk/splitsgraph.php?eventId=2602

Select a team or a number of teams from the list on the left, and their line is shown in the main screen area. Steeper lines mean greater time losses. So flat line means fastest on leg. The vertical axis is time lost in minutes, the horizontal axis represents distance (although it is marked as minutes, but this is obviously not true).

For example, if you select the top two teams you can see how Pudsey led the race on legs 1 and 2, how Horwich took the lead on leg 3, were passed by Pudsey on leg 5 but repassed on leg 6 to win by a narrow margin.

You can see the same thing for your own team.

Steve

---

this graph thingy is AWESOME!!!
cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I am just surprised that the oracle that is Danbert has not yet made a contribution:confused:

---

:D


Reading the thread i think you've got to say well done to Horwich on winning and on doing their homework with their recruitments haven't you?

Without wanting in any way to disparage the sterling efforts of those who ran for and selected the Salford team, i can't help but think, that had Big Geoff still been alive Salford would have got out a stronger team and morre than likely won it.

It seems like the absence of Big Geoff has created a huge vacuum at Salford.:confused:

List of past winners and times:

1984, 5:50:21, Rossendale H & AC
1985, 5:38:32, Rossendale H & AC
1986, 5:38:13, Rossendale H & AC
1987, 5:35:38, Bingley H & AC
1988, 5:44:17, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1989, 5:35:02, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1990, 5:53:50, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1991, 5:36:01, Clayton Le-Moors
1992, 5:39:46, Bingley H & AC
1993, 5:57:17, Bingley H & AC
1994, 5:58:38, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1995, 5:43:29, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1996, 5:34:16, Bingley H & AC
1997, 5:38:48, Bingley H & AC
1998, 5:58:18, Clayton Le-Moors
1999, 5:52:12, Pudsey & Bramley AC
2000, 5:51:38, Bingley H & AC
2001, 5:46:35, Bingley H & AC
2002, 5:45:40, Bingley H & AC
2003, 6:05:51, Pudsey & Bramley AC
2004, 6:05:28, Pudsey & Bramley AC
2005, 5:59:49, Bingley H & AC
2006, 6:04:11, Bingley H & AC
2007, 5:53:36, Horwich RMI H & AC

Following on from danbert there were some good runners in the past.


Course Record Bingley Harriers 5.34.16 1996
Leg 1 Salford B Burns/J Brown 1.05.30 2000
Leg 2 Rossendale R Ashworth/R Rawlinson 0.53.31 1989
Leg 3 Halifax S Halliday/K Stirrat 0.32.23 1992
Leg 4 Bingley I Holmes/M Kinch 0.57.51 1996
Leg 5 Bingley M Speight/G Watkins 0.47.56 1989
Leg 6 Halifax S Halliday/R Whalley 0.59.37 1989

Ladies Record Clayton-le-Moors 7.02.41 1989
Leg 1 Clayton-le-Moors M Hurst/V Brindle 1.20.29 1986
Leg 2 Bingley K Bailey/R Whitehead 1.08.31 2002
Leg 3 Clayton-le-Moors K Thompson/L Bostock 0.44.27 1991
Leg 4 Clayton-le-Moors V Brindle/C Cook 1.13.17 1989
Leg 5 Clayton-le-Moors L Lord/J Makinson 0.59.51 1989
Leg 6 Pudsey & Bramley S Rowell/A Buckley 1.11.17 1996

Vets Record with 7th place Clayton-le-Moors 5.55.35 1991
Leg 1 Clayton-le-Moors M Aspinal/R Brewster 1.10.55 2001
Leg 2 Clayton-le-Moors M Targett/J Nuttall 0.58.30 1989
Leg 3 Rossendale P Lyons/R Rawlinson 0.35.50 1996
Leg 4 Bingley B Whitfield/B Padgett 1.03.56 1991
Leg 5 Clayton-le-Moors J Holt/I Perrow 0.51.21 1989
Leg 6 Clayton-le-Moors L Hutchinson/K Boyle 1.06.45 1989

The orienteering software is good when you get the hang of it.

Stevie - Can't reconcile Splitsbrowser

Leg 1 leading team 70-41 Denby Dale Travellers 84.40 (- 13.19 difference but SB shows -18.38)
Leg 3 leading team 36.31 " " " 55.03 (-18.32 difference but SB shows -1.41)
Any ideas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

List of past winners and times:

1984, 5:50:21, Rossendale H & AC
1985, 5:38:32, Rossendale H & AC
1986, 5:38:13, Rossendale H & AC
1987, 5:35:38, Bingley H & AC
1988, 5:44:17, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1989, 5:35:02, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1990, 5:53:50, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1991, 5:36:01, Clayton Le-Moors
1992, 5:39:46, Bingley H & AC
1993, 5:57:17, Bingley H & AC
1994, 5:58:38, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1995, 5:43:29, Pudsey & Bramley AC
1996, 5:34:16, Bingley H & AC
1997, 5:38:48, Bingley H & AC
1998, 5:58:18, Clayton Le-Moors
1999, 5:52:12, Pudsey & Bramley AC
2000, 5:51:38, Bingley H & AC
2001, 5:46:35, Bingley H & AC
2002, 5:45:40, Bingley H & AC
2003, 6:05:51, Pudsey & Bramley AC
2004, 6:05:28, Pudsey & Bramley AC
2005, 5:59:49, Bingley H & AC
2006, 6:04:11, Bingley H & AC
2007, 5:53:36, Horwich RMI H & AC

---

Pike (or anyone for that matter),

Do you have copies of the full results from the early years? - I ran leg 2 twice for Notts Orienteering Club in 1980s and am trying to remember which years exactly - I know it wasn't 1989.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

This is getting tedius.

Compare the memership application forms of Sale and Horwich. Both assess which disciplines you may be interested in. Sale do not cater for fell running. This does not prevent a Sale athlete from representing their club on the fells as an individual, but members are free to join another club first claim for the fells.

---

good point! what's RR's point he seems bemused and confused i ain't got time to read the whole thread? :confused:

Well dont expect a break down mr p if you can't be bothered to read it all.

I wasn't making a piont anyway, just creating a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epocian

Leg 1 leading team 70-41 Denby Dale Travellers 84.40 (- 13.19 difference but SB shows -18.38)
Leg 3 leading team 36.31 " " " 55.03 (-18.32 difference but SB shows -1.41)
Any ideas?

---

I can't explain the incorrect time loss figure. - it even shows a time loss for the fastest team on the leg. There is either something wrong with the software or with the data entered - maybe a formatting problem.

However, if you select "Behind fastest" at the bottom of the window instead of "Time loss" the figure is correct.

For Denby Dale A, the time behind fastest for leg 1 is 13:59, and this is shown correctly when "Behind fastest" is selected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epocian

Leg 1 leading team 70-41 Denby Dale Travellers 84.40 (- 13.19 difference but SB shows -18.38)
Leg 3 leading team 36.31 " " " 55.03 (-18.32 difference but SB shows -1.41)
Any ideas?

---

Hi, it's me again. Richard is not a forum member but asked me to pass on this comment:

"Time loss is meant to illustrate how the individual leg contributed to the team’s overall performance, with no relation to other teams. If the line on the graph was dead straight, each leg would have a time loss of zero. With varying performances, legs that are slower than the team average (steeper lines) have larger time losses. Legs faster than the team average have negative time losses. Denby Dale’s leg 1 runners had a considerable negative time loss (spot the minus sign), which shows up well on the graph line."

So it's not meant to be the own-time minus fastest-time difference, but an indication of relative performance.

[QUOTE=MudLuver;89117]

I agree it is tedious now.
All Sale 1st claim members are registered to compete at all the disciplines unless they resign 1st claim from a specific discipline.

QUOTE]
Lets get back to the meaty debate!

Of course, if a club didn't affiliate to fell running for a few years, so that a runner has to join another club for his Fell team competition (& nothing else), and then that club starts to affiliate again, it is perfectly possible for that runner to remain with that club he was 'forced' to join.

I'm fairly certain this happened to Paul Briscoe many years ago. He was a member of Valley Striders when VS did not participate on the fells so represented P&B. When VS started to compete on the fells and started to pay the affiliation fee as it was in those days (for each affiliation you paid a fee - hence clubs did not tick all the boxes on a whim), Paul remained with P&B.

Not sure what hoops if any he had to jump through though to do this. I've probably got my facts wrong as well - but hey, whats that if it causes another two pages of debate!

I may have missed this somewhere in the depths of this thread but is all of this why there was there a meeting between the organisers and the team captains from Pudsey, Horwich and Bingley before the prize giving?

If not, what was it about?

Alleged irregularities in route choice on Leg 4.

Thanks Stevie - the mist has lifted!

The entry forms are out.

Note the different START and FINISH points. Could be some red faces at the rugby club cause its about a mile and a half away.:eek:

Where are the forms then?
I can find this on the Halifax website.
http://www.halifaxharriers.co.uk/Halifaxracesv3.htm
Have they been posted out? If so then it will go to the club sec.
Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

The entry forms are out.

Note the different START and FINISH points. Could be some red faces at the rugby club cause its about a mile and a half away.:eek:

---

Where are they out, Stagger? I've just looked on the Halifax Harriers site and can't find a form there.
As for the start and finish, Clay House was the traditional point, and is the 'official' beginning of the Calderdale Way. Anyone know why it changed, and why it's now reverted back?