And thats on thread how?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
Printable View
And thats on thread how?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
MY how the debate moves on or rather round and round. WP I am surprised yopu took the "refugee from T & F2 jibe lying down.
From what I remember of the original debate about extending and pushing on some athletes and only some for their own development it was about questioning whether the rules were right. It seesm now that the debate has been percieved as being the rules are wrong and we are going to ignore them. Clearly from the open and honest response of the FRA committee (I assume that GB spoke emphatically for everyone) this would be a pointless approach even if it had ever been intended. My view and what i thouight to be WP's view was that this should be something that could be looked at and built into new rules should it be agreed therefore allowing everyone to remain within the rules. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that 15/16 olds step up from 5k to 15+k but the chance to debate the idea of looking at the distances shou;ld I think stay very much on the table and not just be brushed aside by folk banging on about "rules are rules" or just ignoring the idea because UKA may not be in favour. What is the viewpoint of those on the committee who are more qualified to speak on the issue.
The rules themselves can of course be debated both inside and outside the FRA committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
Within the UKA "family" the maximum distances for fell running for the older junior groups, particularly for 17 year olds, tend to be less than for either Road or Trail Running. However, it must be remembered that navigational skills can be required in fell races, particularly in poor weather, and not in the other two disciplines where courses are usually fully marked. As stated in the "FRA Safety Requirements" the organiser takes primary responsibility for U18 runners and this applies both at junior races and also for U18 runners in Short senior races. All race organisers have been reminded of this fact very recently. If 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to compete in Medium length races it would also apply to these. So this is another significant factor to take into account when considering if U18s should be able to compete at longer distances.
Even if the FRA wanted to propose an increase in the junior distances to UKA, agreement would have to also be obtained from the other Home Country organisations associated with UKA ie Scottish Athletics, Welsh Athletics and the NI Mountain Running Association because any change to the UKA rules for Fell Running would also be applicable to them.
I agree with you CCR except :-Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
I took the T&F jibe because I chose to rise above it ;)
and your final sentence is probably an Oxymoron :D
So who sets the rules UKA or FRA?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRAFixtures
I seem to recall that in a previous exchange I was told if UKA tried to become overbearing they would get the 2 fingered salute from the FRA.
I think Richard knows this but for those who do not:Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I respect the work of all fell coaches. I like Richard and always read his posts. I don't always agree with him and putting tact & diplomacy aside I will respond pithily but I admire his courage in voicing opinions that challenge the status quo. I remember quite clearly the first time I met him because I wanted to meet him after reading his posts on the Forum. He is an asset to the Forum. If I comment on Richard's posts it is a sign of my respect because he is worthy of it.
Receiving such an encomium from me will probably destroy his reputation as an iconoclast but anyone that uses oxymoron will get over it.
In that case may I apologise for dragging your dignified and stoic reaction down into the mud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
To be fair there are at least 2 I can think of!
So GB you grant us clearance to debat ethe rules. Thanks I thought that was what we were doing. How do we go about making this a debate that might be "inside" the FRA as clearly at the moment we are out in the cold.
This is a UKA RuleQuote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
You need to convince an Officer on the Committee with a particular interest (eg Welfare Officer, Junior Co-ordinator, Coach) that your views have any merit, the Committee would support any such argument or not, as Margaret has already pointed out,the other home countries would need convincing and UKA might then change the rule when they next print their Rules for Competition.
Where change is valid the process works, as in metrication of the Calendar.
I've been watching the thread with interest. I don't think any of the coaches/officials on here are advocating breaking the existing rules just suggesting that a review for 16 and 17 year olds may be appropriate. My suggestion is that we look for some scientific basis to this.
I think Graham's point about responsibility and navigation is very valid. In my opinion a 16 or 17 year old regular runner is more than capable of running more than 6 miles, I would raise this to 10 miles. I think that WP's suggestion that selected races over 6 miles (sorry I agree with metrification but haven't got there yet!) be allowed to have 16 and 17 year olds, if requested by the RO, is the best that option that I have heard. Typically these would be partially marked routes with no major safety issues.
My 17 year is currently very limited in his choice of races, especially during the winter. He loves the steep Bofra and Kendal Winter League races but most non champs FRA races either don't allow him to race or are multi lap affairs more akin to cross country (in his view).
We need to offer this age group some options, whilst managing the risks.
I was actually trying to avoid this being the only angle of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
From the debate so far, I was trying to identify 2 particular points and find out what the feedback was:
- If the tougher Short category races are posing a challenge to 17 year olds then this is evidence that we do not need to change the rules; instead, what we can do is find or create more tough Short courses.
- Secondly, and to be blunt probably placing me slightly closer to UKA than to some of Richard's comments, I am suggesting that a better way forward for 18-20 year olds might be to encourage race series focussing on Shorts and the easier end of the Medium spectrum, rather than expecting a massive leap up in distance at this age. As evidence I have mentioned that very few of our successful top road athletes moved on even to 10Ks until their mid-twenties (I can name some; I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of this)
The way to proceed in both cases is by finding or putting on appropriate races, and possibly arranging them in suitable championships or race series. If any form of consensus can be reached on this, then we have a way forward. Which may be helpful to (for example) the Juniors Coordinator, Duncan Richards.
Specific issues that we face are things like U16s and U18s running the same course at Juniors races, meaning the U18s are not challenged any more than they were as U16s. But sometimes we have pressure to do this for outside reasons, such as the international selectors needing a selection race (which sometimes use different age-group definitions falling into both U16 and U18 categories).
FYI I'm writing here as I have helped a lot in the last 2 1/2 years with finding Junior Championships Races. I have plenty of private discussions with a small number of people (both committe members and others), but would like to know what a wider variety of people think.
And finally.. Are there any 18-23s taking part in this discussion at all?