Clubs and Disciplinary Matters

[Witton Park]

Richard,

I know you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.

I could not care less about BOFRA, road, track, tiddlywinks.

FRA Rules are crystal clear and the principles have not changed for years. People may not actually read them or try to undestand them; but 'twas ever thus.

Regards,

Graham

Yes I like a good debate, but on this matter you are totally wrong Graham. I am not arguing for the sake of it. I'm arguing for the sake of athletes that you are threatening with disciplinary action because your rules are unclear.
You may think that is debatable, or there are precedents set, or that Johnny the Shoe Shine boy will clear up any issues for us, but there is clearly in Rule 10 an U18 category and a rule that applies to them that they may not run over 6 miles.
There is no rule that mentions that when they reach the age of 18, they become a senior and rule 10 no longer applies to them.

If there was such a element in the rules that would clear that part up.

The FRA Calendar is publishing information that is contradictory to it's own rules eg. The age limits on races like Bleasdale Circle which state an incorrect minimum age.
Fact.

I'm not picking on Bleasdale for any other reason that I know the race - and it's a great fell race.. There are many others this applies to.

You seem to like clarity. I would have thought you would have embraced these points and confirmed that :-

1. The FRA will look at Rule 10 and consider amending it to state that on their 18th birthday all athletes become seniors athletes and are entitled to race on the basis of age on day of the race, whilst still retaining their U18 age category for certain Championship or individual races where that age category applies.

2. The way that age limits are declared in the calendar (and therefore the way ROs submit their information) will be looked at to ensure that an athlete cannot end up by accident in a race they are not eligible for.
eg. Bleasdale should say "Minimum Age Category U18" or "Minimum Age 16 on 1/1 of the event year" - and not Minimum Age 16.

[Graham Breeze]

Yes I like a good debate, but on this matter you are totally wrong Graham. I am not arguing for the sake of it. I'm arguing for the sake of athletes that you are threatening with disciplinary action because your rules are unclear.
You may think that is debatable, or there are precedents set, or that Johnny the Shoe Shine boy will clear up any issues for us, but there is clearly in Rule 10 an U18 category and a rule that applies to them that they may not run over 6 miles.
There is no rule that mentions that when they reach the age of 18, they become a senior and rule 10 no longer applies to them.

If there was such a element in the rules that would clear that part up.

The FRA Calendar is publishing information that is contradictory to it's own rules eg. The age limits on races like Bleasdale Circle which state an incorrect minimum age.
Fact.

I'm not picking on Bleasdale for any other reason that I know the race - and it's a great fell race.. There are many others this applies to.

You seem to like clarity. I would have thought you would have embraced these points and confirmed that :-

1. The FRA will look at Rule 10 and consider amending it to state that on their 18th birthday all athletes become seniors athletes and are entitled to race on the basis of age on day of the race, whilst still retaining their U18 age category for certain Championship or individual races where that age category applies.

2. The way that age limits are declared in the calendar (and therefore the way ROs submit their information) will be looked at to ensure that an athlete cannot end up by accident in a race they are not eligible for.
eg. Bleasdale should say "Minimum Age Category U18" or "Minimum Age 16 on 1/1 of the event year" - and not Minimum Age 16.

Frankly the prospect of an 18 1/2 year old man (because that is what he is in law) turning up at a fell race and being turned away by the RO or he himself doubting that he was eligible because he wasn't 18 on 1.1.XX (and hadn't checked before setting out) is beyond my comprehension and my knowledge of 25 years of fell racing but if you believe the rules need yet another rule then I will raise your suggestion with the FRA Committee.

And I repeat. These rules have not changed.

I note your second point but at present the future and format of the FRA Calendar is uncertain (as you will see in the next Fellrunner).

[Witton Park]

Frankly the prospect of an 18 1/2 year old man (because that is what he is in law) turning up at a fell race and being turned away by the RO or he himself doubting that he was eligible because he wasn't 18 on 1.1.XX (and hadn't checked before setting out) is beyond my comprehension and my knowledge of 25 years of fell racing but if you believe the rules need yet another rule then I will raise your suggestion with the FRA Committee.

And I repeat. These rules have not changed.

I note your second point but at present the future and format of the FRA Calendar is uncertain (as you will see in the next Fellrunner).

The 18 year old rule is clearly taken as a given, but considering that the FRAs overlords :w00t: at UKA feel it appropriate to stipulate when the junior becomes a senior then I think it would be a good idea for the FRA to follow suit.

There's also insurance to consider - as if someone 18 in March, runs in the PPP and has an accident that leads to the insurance being involved, will the insurance question why he is running as under the rules he is an U18.

Perhaps not, but when our esteemed Chairman starts threatening action against rule breaches then we need to make certain that those rules are watertight and consistent.

[wycoller]

I've been watching this thread and trying to stay out but...

Those of us who coach juniors and are club officials (WP and me are both) know that the biggest problem is parents rather than clubs or club coaches. I have stressed to parents a number of times that they shouldn't enter their children in incorrect age groups or totally underage. However they still do so and if blocked by the organiser then the kids still start but without numbers. Therefore I hope that the Club/coach isn't disciplined in these circumstances.

What I would like to see is a review of the distances because I do feel that some experienced (mainly male) runners aged 16 or 17 are perfectly capable of running some races over 6 miles. However there are also races that are close to the maximum limit for age that are very tough for kids at the lower end of the age range (an example is my daughter who found one FRA champs U18 race very tough and was distressed at the end, this race had an extra loop, in my mind purely to get the distance in). In practice we would all agree that if an individual is known to the organiser then allowing them to race underage is not a problem for the athlete but is very difficult on the insurance front.

Given that this is so controversial could the committee review and ideally have some scientific basis behind it. Possibilities include dropping the age limit to 17 for medium races etc.

I don't need a detailed argument on here but is this something that could be discussed in the normal circles?

[Graham Breeze]

I've been watching this thread and trying to stay out but...

Those of us who coach juniors and are club officials (WP and me are both) know that the biggest problem is parents rather than clubs or club coaches. I have stressed to parents a number of times that they shouldn't enter their children in incorrect age groups or totally underage. However they still do so and if blocked by the organiser then the kids still start but without numbers. Therefore I hope that the Club/coach isn't disciplined in these circumstances.

What I would like to see is a review of the distances because I do feel that some experienced (mainly male) runners aged 16 or 17 are perfectly capable of running some races over 6 miles. However there are also races that are close to the maximum limit for age that are very tough for kids at the lower end of the age range (an example is my daughter who found one FRA champs U18 race very tough and was distressed at the end, this race had an extra loop, in my mind purely to get the distance in). In practice we would all agree that if an individual is known to the organiser then allowing them to race underage is not a problem for the athlete but is very difficult on the insurance front.

Given that this is so controversial could the committee review and ideally have some scientific basis behind it. Possibilities include dropping the age limit to 17 for medium races etc.

I don't need a detailed argument on here but is this something that could be discussed in the normal circles?

I would advise you to talk to Duncan some time. As it is the FRA is fighting to keep control of its own junior distance rules for fell running and not be swept up under a road/XC/track consistency as the blazers would wish.

[Witton Park]

I would advise you to talk to Duncan some time. As it is the FRA is fighting to keep control of its own junior distance rules for fell running and not be swept up under a road/XC/track consistency as the blazers would wish.

I never thought there was any such thing as road/XC/track consistency actually! Anway, I'll not start on this as you've already said that it doesn't interest you

Suffice it to say I am sure that the FRA could always break it's link with UKA/EA if it was felt that they were meddling where they were not welcome.

[Duncan R]

Hi Wycoller
Yes I think you are right, many 16 & 17 yr olds do have the capability to race over 6 miles comfortably, one lad I know has a 33 minute 10k road pb, and distances is something myself & several others are looking at right now. We are getting as much decent research based material as we can in terms of the physiological and psychological demands made upon young runners.

But as you say, we have to take into account that we are seeking to encourage fell running for all juniors as well as testing them. The fact that your daughter was distressed is a classic example getting the balance right between challenging the best runners & encouraging everyone else to stay in the sport through having an enjoyable experince, building strength, capability and capacity over time. There is also often a huge difference between chronological age & biological age as Im sure you know.

Also, if the races distances were extended, a probable side effect would be increased training volumes to compete well at these distances and I know of 5 young runners currently out with some form of Osgood Schlatters. The feedback Ive got from them is training volumes increased were too fast, not allowing decent time for adaptation. Juniors can be very highly motivated and very willing to push hard and please/impress coaches/parents, so again I feel we have to balance the messages about committment & a hard work ethic with a longer term development approach.

But I'm not a physiologist, hence the discussions with various universities, seeking decent appropriate reasearch papers and thinking about the implications of a change beyond the race itself. And of course, distance is but one component of a fell race, the ascent and particularly the loading on young joints of steep, speedy descents is an aspect that hardly applies to a track 3000m or a 5k road race.

However, as I say, I am thinking about race distances and I always welcome thoughts & feedback on anything that will improve the overall experience for all juniors. At the last junior do on the U18 trophy the past winners made intersting reading, not many still running/racing that we could see.

Duncan

[OB1]

Wow, a bit of reading and catching up to do here in the last 24 hrs - ended up burning friday's Pizza (OH not happy!)

In its attempt to keep the rules simple, which most members wish, the FRA decided that 99.99% of its members did not actually need a specific Rule, bearing in mind the subservience of the FRA to English Law, spelling out that when you attain the age of 18 you cease to be a junior.

So, maybe we dont have to worry too much until FRA membership breaches 10,000, cos statistically ?!? (OK thats another thread..) until then we dont need a specific rule on this cos (until then) only <1 person actually needs it. :sneaky: However, the anecdotal evidence on this thread, for whatever reason, perhaps (?) could be interpreted, as suggesting otherwise.

PS. All's well, pizza consumed, as part of carbo-loading for Trigger...and 2012 U8s...

[Bo Peep]

In reply to Fell Junior, the point I was making was that one has to accept the demands of insurance companies. I kind of dismissed the idea that our sport would want to be setting limits on the distances young people ran but it seems you think it should.

I write as one who did a Marathon in 1976 at age 13 years and one day.

It is unfortunate that, whereas in 1976 you could have expected moderately healthy children to run relatively long distances, perhaps you cannot do so now.

What children do badly is short, explosive type events.

It is probably best discussed on a different thread. I respect the insurance issue in so far as it concerns our sport. I only disagree if you are saying there is a physiological basis for it.

Chris Smale

[Eleanor]

Sorry if this seems like the bleeding obvious by I want to be sure, as I'm advising my club parents on entering races this year. When we say that age categories for FRA Junior races refer to the child's age on 1st Jan in 2012, does this include every event that is listed in the FRA calendar, or just those in the FRA Junior Champs? I'm assuming all events in the calendar, but want to be certain. And a second silly question. If an event is listed on the FRA website events listing, then by definition that event is covered by FRA rules?