Age limits

[Witton Park]

[QUOTE=TheGrump;501584It just seems to tidy up the rules for juniors in senior races.
What is the/your problem?[/QUOTE]

Part of email from me to FRA Committee Member involved with this rule change :-
This rule amendment seems to have been made with the senior races in mind So we are messing with the junior side, to sort out a problem that is senior race related.
which is what you think is the reason for the change and is how it has been portrayed.

His reply
This is not correct. The amendment has been proposed with the interests of juniors in mind. It would allow all juniors to start competing in a new age group at exactly the same chronological age, which is fairer than the present situation. it would remove contradictions in the rules and give each junior exactly two years in the lowest and highest junior age groups.


Perhaps you don't think it's cause for concern, but you clearly think this is to sort out a problem related to juniors in senior races, but the FRA sub group that brought this forward see it differently.
They have brought a proposal forward to re-align age groups. When it wasn't received very well by those consulted they have dressed it up as something else.

The information put out by the FRA on this has been inconsistant, misleading, confusing and contradictory.

[deborah]

IainR obviously isn't the only one with a fuse shorter than an ant's knob.

[Graham Breeze]

The information put out by the FRA on this has been inconsistant, misleading, confusing and contradictory.

I am content with the statement that Alan Barlow has placed on the website.

I have not trawled but as far as I recall Alan's statement is the only "information put out by the FRA".

The change has the great advantage of "feels fair" to a junior who will be running, except for championships where the organiser determines the cut-off date, at their biological age.

I have knowledge of and understand all the issues underpinning this change better than anyone. If I didn't I wouldn't be a very good Chairman.

I am unimpressed by selective quotes (I have seen the full version) from old emails of one person's opinion.

The FRA Committee, which is up to 22 people who know a thing or two about fell running, including junior fell running, and not one man, decided to make the change to Rule Ten on 26th May. The Committee rejected some other proposals that day as unworkable.

As patient Jim keeps posting, very little will change but the change is good. Jim is not on the FRA Committee but he is well informed and held in high regard by the key Committee members.

The change was agreed by the FRA, agreed by the other home countries, agreed by the UKA Board.

Time to move on I suggest?

[Lecky]

I've been reluctant to add to this thread, but Graham's post has directed me to Alan Barlow's post on the website.

It would have made a lot more sense for Alan to post the exact wording for the new Rule 10, rather than describing the changes.

Then we might be able to attempt to interpret the rule change and it's implications properly.

I think it makes sense for those running in Senior races to have their eligibility based on their age on the day of the race (as it is for Vets). But it will confuse things if one U12 race is based on the age as of 1st January and the next based on the age on the day of the race. An FRA U12 race should always mean the same. (Even if BOFRA use age on 1st May!)

In case people think this is a uniquely FRA problem, it is something I struggled with for a long time when working with England Rugby, where they have/had at least two dates for eligibility and those depend on academic or club cut offs.

[Graham Breeze]

It would have made a lot more sense for Alan to post the exact wording for the new Rule 10, rather than describing the changes.

OK. 11 words have been replaced by 5 viz.

Rule Ten

After

Race organisers must stipulate age limits for their events but the following maximum distance limits for juniors must be observed.

delete

Ages are as at 1st January in the year of competition.

and replace with

Age on day of race.

[Lecky]

Sorry, but Rule 10 is confusing. It is about three things: Distances that may be run by juniors; Minimum age limits and specifiying who may partner an U18 in a Mountain Marathon.

Alternative Rule 10

i Race organisers must specify a minimum age limit for their events.

ii The minimum age for any Fell Race is 6 years on the day of the race.

iii Maximum distances apply for those under 18, based on their age on the day of the race:

Under 8 - 1/2 mile (0.8k)
etc.
Under 18 - 6 miles (9.6k)

iv For specific Junior Races, (U8, U10, U12, U14, U16 and U18), the category is based on the age of the athlete on 1st January of the year of competition

v The minimum age for runners in paired mountain marathon events is 14 on the day of competition

vi If one of a pair in a paired mountain marathon event is under 18, the other must be over 20 and be the parent or legal guardian of the other runner

vii For paired mountain marathon events the following maximum straight line distances apply:

Under 16 - 12 miles
etc.

I think that just about covers it. The distance limits for both senior and juniors race are the same (as they always were). It is easier for Senior race organisers to work on age on day of race, but junior race organisers work a standard version of U8, U10 etc throughout. It also sorts out the legal guardian bit for mountain marathons.

Of course, this is too late to go to UKA!

[Witton Park]

I am content with the statement that Alan Barlow has placed on the website.

I have not trawled but as far as I recall Alan's statement is the only "information put out by the FRA".

The change has the great advantage of "feels fair" to a junior who will be running, except for championships where the organiser determines the cut-off date, at their biological age.

I have knowledge of and understand all the issues underpinning this change better than anyone. If I didn't I wouldn't be a very good Chairman.

I am unimpressed by selective quotes (I have seen the full version) from old emails of one person's opinion.

The FRA Committee, which is up to 22 people who know a thing or two about fell running, including junior fell running, and not one man, decided to make the change to Rule Ten on 26th May. The Committee rejected some other proposals that day as unworkable.

As patient Jim keeps posting, very little will change but the change is good. Jim is not on the FRA Committee but he is well informed and held in high regard by the key Committee members.

The change was agreed by the FRA, agreed by the other home countries, agreed by the UKA Board.

Time to move on I suggest?

You might not be impressed by my selective quote but it is fully quoted so in it's full context. It also underlines the confusion within the FRA committee as it is clear at least one FRA committee member involved in the process categorically denied that the rule change was to solve a senior race problem.
However Alan's statement counters that.
I also know that there was an attempt to stop this going forward, but it was too late as it had already gone to MRAG.

The 22 people do know quite a bit, but so do the other 1'000s that aren't on the committee.

Jim - Felljunior - who you regard so highly as do I - check out post 2 - I think it makes it clear he has concerns and feels that the change will increase the confusion.

Whether they share my views or not coaches of juniors and ROs of junior races have lined up on this forum to voice concerns and now to add to that the ex Junior Co-ordinator, who also happens to be a coach and RO.

Anyway, it will go ahead now. Duncan have fun now finding races for the Champs.

If as Graham thinks The change has the great advantage of "feels fair" to a junior who will be running, except for championships where the organiser determines the cut-off date, at their biological age. and ROs start moving to age on day for their races, it will be interesting to see if they will move back when the FRA Junior Champs comes to town.

I guess we'll only know in a few years.

[Graham Breeze]

Richard

Your myopic misunderstanding has passed to malevolence if not mendacity.

But if you are finally going to stop protesting that the earth is flat, at least for a few years. Amen to that.

[Witton Park]

Richard

Your myopic misunderstanding has passed to malevolence if not mendacity.

But if you are finally going to stop protesting that the earth is flat, at least for a few years. Amen to that.

Well that's your take Graham, but I have to say that the above post is beneath what I would expect of someone who is Chair of our sport.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Johnny Foreigner - just the sort of post I'd expect from a narcissistic tosser.

It's disappointing that you have to resort to insults to get your point across.