Age groups

I realise that most of the junior stuff has migrated to facebook but as I have no wish to engage with that this is my means to communicate.
Just reading the junior bit in the Fellrunner around forthcoming changes to age cats fro 2017 raises a couple fo questions. Firstly just to say I am not opposed to bringing it all into line with other disciplines - it makes perfect sense but in doing so there is some clarifciation.
We appear to have lost a age group. Obvioulsy there may still be the U20/u23 groups to be slotted in but it may mean that actually if the lower one doesnt materialise then we have gone from 6 to 5 groups. I'm assuming that some runners in an U20 age groupwont be 18 and thus there will still need to be an upper distance limit applied? Can I also ask whether the distances permittted will remain the sam so 1km for youngest age group through to 10k for U20 or will there be any change to these.
Can I also suggest we look at making ALL age groups points scorers in the English Champs so there are champions throughout, if there isnt a change around this which age group will they start scoring ponits, is it U11 or U13?
I'm sure the answers to all this will be perfectly clear and have probably been written down somewhere already and if they have sorry for missing them.

I haven't a clue what you are on about CCR.
Is this official info? If so it would be nice for it to be published somewhere for all in athletics to see.

Yes its written in the junior section (p20)of the latest Fellrunner - thi smay have come out a while ago but I only just renewed my membership so recieved it yesterday. Proposed changes for 2017.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker

Yes its written in the junior section (p20)of the latest Fellrunner - thi smay have come out a while ago but I only just renewed my membership so recieved it yesterday. Proposed changes for 2017.

---

Changes to what though? Champs format, all races, rules, distances?

Lookinga t changing to U11 u13 u15 u17 and then maybe u120 and u23. No comment on anything else so maybe no further changes proposed. I was just asking for clarification around the thinking and whether it would necessitate any further changes to distance etc. Age will be based on age at end of year of the race.

Probably due to UKA adopting the IAAF rulebook. I doubt it will be the only issue arising.
I'm just puzzled as to why it's in Fellrunner. I wouldn't expect UKA to announce plans or policy in Athletics Weekly or Runners World.
Perhaps I missed the official announcement.?

This article was brought to my attention by one of our parents; he couldn't work out what group his daughter would move into next year and was concerned that she'd be running significantly further than she was used to.
It is a bit off that it's not publicised anywhere else; something on the FRA website would have been appropriate. I've considered contacting Duncan about it but experience of how the FRA operates suggests that he probably knows nothing about it!
I've no great concerns about the changes as yet, which is fortunate as they'll inevitably be imposed rather than consulted upon. It's odd that the article cites XC as a discipline to be aligned with, when XC uses school year age groups instead (unless that's being changed too?).
The key uncertainty is (as CCR mentions) whether the current UKA distance limits (based on 'age on day') will continue to apply or are they being reviewed as well? It would have been useful for the article to clarify this issue as it's the key concern of most parents.

Andy Armstrong; Clayton Harriers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cat Herder

This article was brought to my attention by one of our parents; he couldn't work out what group his daughter would move into next year and was concerned that she'd be running significantly further than she was used to.
It is a bit off that it's not publicised anywhere else; something on the FRA website would have been appropriate. I've considered contacting Duncan about it but experience of how the FRA operates suggests that he probably knows nothing about it!
I've no great concerns about the changes as yet, which is fortunate as they'll inevitably be imposed rather than consulted upon. It's odd that the article cites XC as a discipline to be aligned with, when XC uses school year age groups instead (unless that's being changed too?).
The key uncertainty is (as CCR mentions) whether the current UKA distance limits (based on 'age on day') will continue to apply or are they being reviewed as well? It would have been useful for the article to clarify this issue as it's the key concern of most parents.

Andy Armstrong; Clayton Harriers

---

You're right Andy. This needs publicising in the proper channels. Would UKA announce champs info in Runners World?
Whether it's just champs races or wider, it should be put on the website, the article could do to go on the forum and maybe even EA website and sent out to all the EA members in their regular email info.

So once you are no longer U17 are you still subject to a maximum distance as runners will obvioulsy still be U18 and if we are taking away this older category then surely we are making the transition from junior ranks to seniors even harder. TCH are right.
If we are looking to make champs races not age on day of race but on 31st Dec to keep age groups right through the year and ensure kids arent racing against different kids at different races then making the age group sya u15 next year instead of U14 as it is now will mean surely that w ehave kids in that age group who are 14 and therore able to run max distance of 7km ( as per current U16) and also kids in it who are 13 and therefore only able to run max distance of 5km ( as per current U14)so which max distance would they adhere to?
There does need to be proper publicity of this WP and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FellJunior

The change has already been made in that 2016 Junior Championship age groups are based on age on 31st December 2015; a move in qualification of one day from 1st January 2016. Thus, all competitors born in the same relevant 2 calendar years will now run together.

In 2017 the change for championship competitors is neutral. As the article states, age group labels are increased by 1 year, e.g. U14 becomes U15, and qualifying date moves back to 31st December 2017. Thus the same group of competitors will run together as if no change had been made for 2017.

The article giving "advance notice" makes no mention of changes to UKA permitted distances, presumably because they are not determined by age groups, but age on day of race. The onus will remain on race organisers to ensure that the race distance does not exceed that permitted for the youngest potential entrant in that race.

I am not party to the discussions on U18/U20/U23 provision, but my championship statistics show that U18 has never been as well supported as the younger age groups, U20 has rarely been viable and may not even survive as a one-off race, U23 struggles to grow. We have to find a way of helping and encouraging young people make the transition into senior events.

P.S. Duncan is no longer Junior Co-ordinator.

---

Why can't someone just put the article up for all?
I still haven't got a bloody clue what you are on about other than it generally involves some changes to the way the age groups are being handled.
It's not clear if it's just some races, all races, in which jurisdictions.

Fell runner magazine is a source of fell running info for FRA Members. As the devolved NGB in England for Fell, The FRA has wider responsibility to inform the sport as a whole and it can't do that with a piece in the Fellrunner.

Quote from the article: 'Most other forms of athletics (xc/international mountain running/track/road) use u9, u11, u13, u15, u17 categories, and use a reference date of midnight at the END of the year of the race. The age categories, in everything except what we call them, are identical'
For XC (and possibly the other forms mentioned) this is incorrect. Intercounties XC, Northerns, etc do use these age groups, but based on age on 1st September in the year prior to the race. So someone born on my birthday, 27th of September, is in one age group for XC and another for the FRA series.
More broadly, as a junior myself until last year, I believe that abolishing the u18 category (would be u19 under the new rules) would be unwise. The last 2 years I have raced in the u18 category and thought the mixture of some races being juniors only (e.g. Coiners) and some the u18s racing with the seniors (e.g. West Nab) provided a good introduction into senior fell running. Turnout may have been low, but the alternative seems to be a direct jump from the under 16 (to be u17) age group to the seniors. Personally I have enjoyed senior races as much, if not more than junior races, but I am not sure this would be a view shared by all juniors. Has there been (or is there planned) any consultation of those most affected by the changes - the runners themselves?
On another note, I have always thought the age groups being based on the start/end of the year to be slightly odd. I know one of the arguments for this is that it 'evens the playing field' for those born out side of Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec, but this results in the situation in which I find myself currently - in school year 13 but unable to take part in the junior series. Would it not make more sense next year to align the age groups fully with the XC schools age groups, introducing an u19 age category next year but for schools years 12 and 13, rather than on the basis of age at the end of the year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arkman

Would it not make more sense next year to align the age groups fully with the XC schools age groups, introducing an u19 age category next year but for schools years 12 and 13, rather than on the basis of age at the end of the year?

---

RULE 141 S 1 UKA SUPPLEMENT - ADDITIONAL UKA AGE GROUPS
(PREVIOUSLY UKA RULE 7 & 107, 207, 307, 308, 410, 507, 508, 610 & 612)
The Competition Year for Road Running Events shall be from 1st September each year to the following 31st August. The Competition Year for all other disciplines shall be from 1st October each year to the following 30th September. The operative date for determining membership of age groups for all athletes under the age of 17 shall be for Track and Field and Race Walking, the 31st August at the end of the Competition Year, and for all other disciplines, the 31st August prior to the commencement of the Competition Year.

The rules do actually make the age groups clear and the age groups are by School year and the age groups for fell are defined in the rules as the same as those for Cross Country.
Now the application and adherence to that is a different matter.

and I still don't know what is being proposed.

The proposal is to change the names of the age groups to bring them into line with the UKA age groups. For example the u16 age group would become the u17 age group, but with the same runners in it as it would have had were it to continue to be named u16.
So this year, runners in the u16 cat are those born between 01/01/2000 and 31/12/2001. Next year, runners in the newly named u17 cat will be born between 01/01/2001 to 31/12/2002 - the same as if it were to continue to be named u16.
The same applies for the other age groups - u10 will become u11, u12 will become u13, etc.

This is all fine, if a little pointless.
However, it also states in the article, that 'Most other forms of athletics (xc/international mountain running/track/road) use u9, u11, u13, u15, u17 categories and use a reference date of midnight at the END of the year of the race.'
This is incorrect - as you pointed out Witton, the reference date is, for track, the 31st August at the end of the Competition Year and for all other disciplines, the 31st August prior to the commencement of the Competition Year. The proposals contradict the current UKA rules, but as far as I am aware the FRA age groups always have done - certainly they have the last 2 years and this year.

Of much more concern, is that whilst the article lists u9, u11, u13, u15 and u17 categories for next year, instead of an u19 category to replace the u18s, it is stated that 'The under 18 and under 23 categories are under review for 2017'. For reasons I have already stated, I believe not having an u19 category would be a bad decision.

Great to hear from someone who this actually affects and a great post. I dont wont to debate Rule 10 as too am sick of this and we all know it isnt about determining age groups. What I am struggling to get my head round and I did maths A level (albeit not very successfully and a very long time ago) is that at the moment any runner who is say in the u14 age cat must by definition be either 12 or 13 and thus limited to a max distance of 5km. Is that right. So then they will carry on under possible changes to form the U15 age cat by new defined definition. Which does unfortunately mean some runners will spend 2 years in the bottom age bracket of the group and will by default experience more lower placings in races and possible disillusionment. So any runner in U15 must be be definition either 13 or 14. (not as previoulsy suggested 12 as they would surely be in u13) So we will have runners who are subject to different max distances in the same age group (and I'm talking specifically about champs races which require consitent groupng and not individual races where the RO stipulates age on day). As it stands FRA max distance for a child who is 13 is 5km and for a child who is 14 is 7km. So if we are going to create new age groups do we not also need to define max distances for said age groups.