Fell Grand Prix Series

[withaY]

having had my kids running for over a year now, and racing every weekend i'd like to express my view.

it seems as though age on day was promoted so that young men could run as adults as soon as thier birthday occured ( and in fact many were already doing that if not before..) this despite the fact the MASSIVE majority of runners are actually aged 14 or under so a rule was applied to benifit half a dozen not the hundreds that make up the main body of competitors.

equally having had my kids particpate at every english and GP round its clear that the maximum race distances are considered a minimum.. when ive enquired of race organsers why this extreme view is taken the common opinion is because the jump to adult length races is to great so long junior races are being promoted. so again the ambitions of half a dozen young men are being supported by hundreds of kids under 14.

participation is everything. dont make the races easy or sprints but its no coincidence that the longer a race the lower the entry,

[AndyA]

Is insulting people a sensible way of encouraging people to continue to run your sport on your behalf? Perhaps you are volunteering to take over as Junior Coordinator next AGM? As an ex Junior Coordinator and current Junior Committee member I am in a good position to advise that if you insult people it does not make them want to carry on being involved. The job is hard enough as it is. If enough people decide not to be involved then there will be no-one to organise the Junior Championships, the Junior Do, the training camps, decide how to handle kids running races that are to long for them, etc.

As it happens, I agree that all junior races should follow the lead of the Junior Champs age groups. But it seems that not every Race Organiser wishes to do this.

The rule change was to clarify things for Senior race organisers what age people had to be to run their races. It is unfortunate that some race organisers have decided to apply age on day to Junior races. As Al has pointed out, that was not his intention and that this was a mistake - which isn't really the committee's fault.

Oh come off it Richard, you know that I'm not talking about you. I remember at the time (in the original 'age limits' thread) that you expressed concerns about the clarity of the rule changes but that you felt it wouldn't be a problem.....

There is no real need for Junior Race Organisers to do ANYTHING different from last year. Keep using age on 1st January to define their age groups using the table in the Handbook for guidance if required.

This rule change is really only needed for Senior Race Organisers.

Luckily most people do not read the forum or, for that matter, the FRA website, so won't have been alarmed or confused by this thread which, to my mind, is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Having said that, the arguments for the rule change could have been made a lot clearer in the post on the FRA Website about this.

I wonder if you still feel that this is just a molehill?

I fully support well-intentioned volunteers in this sport; I praised the RO for the excellent organisation on the day and I'd praise Al for coming forward with his hands up. Mistakes happen (as one of the race organisers who failed to count the laps properly at our junior track race last year; I know what I'm talking about!) it's what you do about them that matters.

What I strongly object to is that a minority of volunteers at a senior level in the FRA;

• Failed to properly consult the club coaches and junior committee members about the rule change.
• Failed to accept that the rule change could cause significant problems.
• Proceeded to disregard and/or belittle attempts to correct the problem.

One of the aspirations within the junior fra was to increase regional and inter club championship, in an attempt to bridge the gap between club level race series and the national championship series. This is one of the key drivers behind the Pennine GP that Lefty was referring to. If age categories are not the same across all races then these GP events will be very difficult to coordinate.

All I'm asking now is that the fra committee discuss this issue honestly without prejudice and seriously consider a mandatory move to 'age on 1st Jan'.


(Incidentally I object to the suggestion that this forum is of little relevance; it's pretty clear to me that a significant proportion of club level coaches and organisers do use it to discuss such issues. It's not practical for us all to meet up face to face and the forum is extremely useful. Perhaps it's time to take us a bit more seriously?)

[Corniceman]

It's time to mandate a single age-category system for all junior races run under the FRA and my vote is for 'age on 1st Jan'.

Agreed Andy......lets make it happen !

Totally agree and this needs to be done quickly as well.

[Clash City Rocker]

Many thanks for that CCR .....I will pass your comments on to the runners and parents. Never fear despite the mishap today your club races are always good ones.
We need to press the case with the Fra for age on 1st Jan to be the norm for all races though.

"I praised the RO for the excellent organisation on the day and I'd praise Al for coming forward with his hands up. Mistakes happen"

Thanks guys. Having been adamant from the outset about any "rule changes" to age for junior racing I do feel terrible that it is actually one of our races that has highlighted the issue and indeed illustrated some of the problems we were assured wouldnt happen. I am in favour of older juniors being able to stretch themselves sensibly at some senior races an begin to bridge the gap across to becoming a senior, and addressing this issue in an attempt to curtail some flagrant breaking of the rules was a worthy move to make by the powers that be. However the net was cast too wide and and many more consequences arose as a result and the many have been affected etc.
Lets get it right and have a fully supported mandated date that age for fell races relates to, every other running discipline has these, personally I dont care what the date is it can be April the 7 of Nov 16 for all I care it doesnt matter, what doe matter is that we have a date to work to so racing for juniors is equitable (as much as having a set date can be for those born either side before that debate ensues) in so much as kids know who they are racing against throughout the season.
A quick look back through this post reveals no insults hurled so it cant be discounted on that basis.

[FellJunior]

It is my experience that problems with junior age group qualifying dates stem from the assumption by inadequately briefed registration teams that they are the same as for seniors - age on day of race. This would seem to have been the case at Reservoir Bogs, despite the best endeavours of those involved. This misconception has been happening for many years, so in my opinion the assertion that it is caused by confusion over the revised junior distance limits rule introduced on 1st January 2013 is a red herring. Too often, I have seen registration teams with no background in fell running doing their very best to process entry forms, but with little knowledge of what to check and what rules to apply.

The revised rule concerning junior age distance limits needs only to be known by registration teams at senior races, expressed in the form of "minimum age on day for today's race is XX". This is the same age group criteria as for senior age groups, and why the rule was revised to bring consistency to the senior race entry process.

In designing junior courses the RO will already have ensured that the age of the potentially youngest runner in each race complies with these distance limits. Junior race registration teams only need to know the age group qualifying date and minimum age of 6 on day, and apply them to each entry. The age group distance limit rule is not part of the junior race entry process.

The onus is on the RO to publish full details of his race(s), and brief his registration team accordingly. I have recently had to cancel points in the English championship for a runner new to fell running, who inadvertently and entirely innocently entered the wrong age group at 3 races; to put it another way, 3 registration teams failed to check the entry forms properly and make the necessary correction.

Introducing a new rule to define a fixed age group qualifying date does not address the long term problem and consequences of poorly briefed registration teams. They will still be likely to choose age on day, BOFRA qualifying date (I don't joke!), school year, etc.. It would also mean the possible loss from the calendar of a number of established races at galas and shows, which use their own qualifying date and age group formats, often dictated by historic custom and the event committee, and not the RO. Similarly, it would be difficult for the ESFRC to continue under the FRA unbrella.

[Lefty]

I agree with Jim re the proper briefing of registration teams and I've been guilty of not properly and fully briefing the people at registration at races I organise eecially in relation to junior races, indeed at one of our races this year we ended up using age on the day rather than age as of 1st Jan as intended. ( Exactly the same as happened yesterday ! ) As it wasn't a series race the problem wasn't highlighted. Getting help at any race can be difficult and its usually parents or a non runner or someone not versed in the ins and outs of the rule book taking entries which as Jim has highlighted makes it more important for the RO to fully brief the people taking entries or be on hand to answer questions they may be unsure of.
The present rules re age groups will constantly throw up problems as long as there is a 2 tier system and I suspect that unless changes are made we will be having this same conversation in years to come. As club coaches and officials we are constantly having to explain to or answer to confused parents which is how this thread started in the first place.
As for topics being discussed in this forum I agree with Andy, it is a legitimate place for people to express their thoughts and ideas. all of the people contributing to this particular thread have the interests of our sport at heart, being either parents, Race organisers, club officials, coaches or Fra officials.

[AndyA]

Introducing a new rule to define a fixed age group qualifying date does not address the long term problem and consequences of poorly briefed registration teams.

Maybe not but having one single simple qualifying system will reduce the chances of poor briefings occuring in the first place and it will definitely help clubs organise inter club and regional series during the calender year. If the requirement is clearly stated in the race approval process then that would help reinforce its importance.

Having one system that matches the one used for fra champs events (and historically used by most events) will greatly simplify things.

I see no problem with making an exception for the English Schools event; it's obviously aimed at competition between schools not clubs and should be allowed to follow the school year system that XC uses.

I'd agree with the points regarding juniors progressing to seniors, in the 16-18 age groups but tbh that's a minor point for most clubs. If you look at the results tables for junior races, I'd estimate that around 90% of all runners are in the u16 bracket. The main problem is with the u8-u14 ages, where many will be competing for the first time and parents aren't familiar with fell running and its rules. Reducing complexity can only help reduce errors.

[FellJunior]

Andy, taken from my final paragraph: "They will still be likely to choose age on day, BOFRA qualifying date (I don't joke!), school year, etc.."
It doesn't matter what the rules state if the team don't know about them.
Parents are only responsible for accurately completing personal details on their child's entry form. Confirming correct age group has to be the responsibility of the registration team acting on behalf of the RO.

[AndyA]

Andy, taken from my final paragraph: "They will still be likely to choose age on day, BOFRA qualifying date (I don't joke!), school year, etc.."
It doesn't matter what the rules state if the team don't know about them.
Parents are only responsible for accurately completing personal details on their child's entry form. Confirming correct age group has to be the responsibility of the registration team acting on behalf of the RO.

I completely agree. I'm not saying that the current system caused this particular mixup (although it certainly doesn't help) but the fallout from it demonstrates just why we need a single qualifying system.

I do believe that if we had a single simple system that applied across all fra approved races then ROs are significantly more likely to comply with it as it would become common knowledge.

My vote is for 'age on 1st Jan' because;

1. It ties in with what most ROs already do.
2. It matches the championship system
3. It allows juniors to compete against the same athletes for the duration of the season in any fra race they choose to enter
4. GP organisers can select local and regional races on merit, secure in the knowledge that they'll be able to run a points system that'll make sense at the end of the series.

I don't know where we go from here; I'm happy to put a motion to the agm but tbh that's probably less representative than this forum. It really needs driving from the fra cttee downwards, with proper​ club level consultation

[Graham Breeze]

There are only two applicable rules in the FRA Calendar:

1. English Junior Champs: ages are at 1st January in year of competition (minimum age of 6)

2. Maximum distance limits (Rule 10) is age as on day of race. This is a UKA Rule and will not change in my fell running lifetime.

Or, the FRA has nothing at all to do with RO sorting out their own events.