New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Absolutely true. But Not sure it will wash if you undertake the course is hazard free as part of your advert for the race. You cannot disclaim negligemce, whatever you get a runner to sign. Saying a course is hazard free if you know it is not is negligent, possibly even criminally so if the worst happens.

The FRA have introduced a big new problem for you.


I hope I am wrong. don't think I am.

Take advice before risk it. Not from the FRA, there interests are not the same as yours.

---

Why would any RO describe their course as 'hazard free'?? That's plain daft. Our course it's hazardous, that's why we do it! Are you sure you are not trying to invent a problem where non exists?

I do accept your point about UKA though.....I was dead against the closer union and blame those of an 'athletic' bent on the committee at the time. Sorry Alan B, I know it was all well intentioned and my minority view was proven to be a minority by the vote. But it was precisely this sort of scenario that I was worried about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Why would any RO describe their course as 'hazard free'?? That's plain daft. Our course it's hazardous, that's why we do it! Are you sure you are not trying to invent a problem where non exists?

I do accept your point about UKA though.....I was dead against the closer union and blame those of an 'athletic' bent on the committee at the time. Sorry Alan B, I know it was all well intentioned and my minority view was proven to be a minority by the vote. But it was precisely this sort of scenario that I was worried about.

---

Wheeze - eureka - i think I am getting through now...

I can only say Read what you are signing up for before saying your race is compliant - if you do you are stating per rule 4

"compulsory sections must contain no hazards"!!!

As you say it is impossible.

Is it beginning to dawn on people how dangerous that declaration is legally?
I am urging the committee to at least use the words " unusual hazards" and define "compulsory" to make it less of a disaster.

Better still get a professional rewrite.
Organisers take note and take advice.

"compulsory sections must contain no hazards" has no place in the guidelines as we all accept that there are hazards in fell racing and there won't be race a in the calendar without hazards in compulsory sections.

An RO needs to identify hazards and assess them.
Are they acceptable hazards? If so fine.
Are they unacceptable hazards?
If so do whatever is reasonably practicable to reduce the risk of those hazards to an acceptable level.
eg the road section to Ribblehead in PPP has marshalls and a coned section for runners plus signage for the road users.
If the risk presented by the hazard cannot be reduced sufficiently then that hazard must be removed.
eg. a pothole on route might be taped around.

It's not that complicated, it's what we all do as ROs every time. In fact it's also what we should be doing as coaches when we have a session.

Wheeze - I understand what you are saying about the UKA tie up. But I would take a different view. Fell Running can perhaps learn from the rest of athletics in terms of the writing of rules and how safety is dealt with.
I know the FRA has tried to avoid risk assessments and deals with safety in a different way, but perhaps a similar approach to UKA cross country permitting might work better where the RO fills out a risk assessment?

That's basically why I plagiarised the UKA CRoss Country rules as a draft for a potential set of fell rules, because the rules for cross country have been evolving over a longer period and are written in a more water-tight way.

By the same token UKA can also learn I think from Fell Running. Mainstream athletics can be a little stuffy at times.

Are you people all injured? I go away for a race at the weekend, and come home to find 5 pages of lengthy debate! I guess Always Injured is (the clue's in the name).

On a lighter note
Do these meet the new FRA kit requirements
Attachment 7220

[QUOTE=Witton Park;559190]"compulsory sections must contain no hazards" has no place in the guidelines as we all accept that there are hazards in fell racing and there won't be race a in the calendar without hazards in compulsory sections.

Those are your words, they are not from the new document.

And it seems to me the same Section 4 message has been in the Handbook for over 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Why would any RO describe their course as 'hazard free'?? That's plain daft. Our course it's hazardous, that's why we do it! Are you sure you are not trying to invent a problem where non exists?

I do accept your point about UKA though.....I was dead against the closer union and blame those of an 'athletic' bent on the committee at the time. Sorry Alan B, I know it was all well intentioned and my minority view was proven to be a minority by the vote. But it was precisely this sort of scenario that I was worried about.

---

I really dont get the UKA animosity.. I read a post by the great Craig Jones.. about UKA being involved in fell running and therefore wanting olympics and fell running.. odd... but the point was that UKA ignore fell running. They don't.

I was at the GB athletics (UKA) celebration dinner this week, great event, and Neil Black UKA Athletics Performance director gave a superb talk, really did enjoy it, and he did mention fell runners. Fell and ultra are becoming integrated into UK/GBA and receiving the funding. The great thing was we had a dry meal.. because it was 16 upwards.. so the juniors. There is now real buy in from UKA into our sports and funding of youngsters, how can this be a bad thing? I was sat on a table with Hannah England and she talked constantly to the 4 16 year olds on our table. Would that have happened 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

I think it was a superb step to bring together fell running/mountain running and UKA. I think fell running can learn from the professionalism. There's too much fear of the new and unknown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

I really dont get the UKA animosity.. I read a post by the great Craig Jones.. about UKA being involved in fell running and therefore wanting olympics and fell running.. odd... but the point was that UKA ignore fell running. They don't.

I was at the GB athletics (UKA) celebration dinner this week, great event, and Neil Black UKA Athletics Performance director gave a superb talk, really did enjoy it, and he did mention fell runners. Fell and ultra are becoming integrated into UK/GBA and receiving the funding. The great thing was we had a dry meal.. because it was 16 upwards.. so the juniors. There is now real buy in from UKA into our sports and funding of youngsters, how can this be a bad thing? I was sat on a table with Hannah England and she talked constantly to the 4 16 year olds on our table. Would that have happened 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

I think it was a superb step to bring together fell running/mountain running and UKA. I think fell running can learn from the professionalism. There's too much fear of the new and unknown.

---

What animosity?

Just a recognition As someone involved in both, indeed with junior and senior internationals in arhletics, it is just that they are poles apart in philosophy, and at a practical level organisers have a completely different set of problems from those in fell racing. The two are talk and cheese.

Their ideas of the function of a race organiser are incompatible with fellrunning, and that has consequences, not least as I understand it UKA lawyer did a hatchet job at the recent hearing, made no reference to the fact that we, unlike athletics have a risk sport, which was certainly not helpful for an RO. They also emphasise armies of administrators , committees, marshalls and such like, hard to do in our context. But don't confuse the topheavy administration with professionalism: there are better organised riots - the ones who actually make athletics work who turn out every week to coach and marshall, have no voice at all in the way the sport is run - and they are the ones who get junior talent through..Will carlings remarks about rugby run by 100 boring old f@rts is a better description of the blazer brigade who seem more interested in authority than any responsibility or work.

I am sure there are a few perks for some, but that is scant reward for finding we can no longer operate minimal races without the philosophy of belt and braces.
In athletics they would find it hard to understand why anyone would want minimal - big is beautiful there.

So is there some new rules or something? :D

So chucking javelins, hammers and discus around an infield that people are running round isn't a risk sport? I wish it were true because I wouldn't have been getting a bunch of emails from some disgruntled athlete who nearly got hit by a hammer that went over the back of the cage!

Both 'athletics' and 'fell running' have safety issues to address - just not the same ones. "compulsory sections must contain no hazards" pretty much stuffs up every aspect of athletics. Stream crossings in cross country, water jumps in steeple chase races to name but two.