http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showt...394#post467394
It was a direct quote from you on yourself so I would have expected you to appreciate that it was tongue in cheek even if others hadn't seen the previous thread.
I'm sorry if quoting yourself caused you any offense.
(JUst so you know)
Well pardon my confusion Jim. As you now acknowledge, your position has changed since post 2. But it wasn't selective misuse.Originally Posted by FellJunior
It looked like your position was changing around post 37, but as it was a rather technical exchange about the defining of age groups I did ask you to clarify whether you were for or against 3 times.
Finally you have now clarified, but you could have done so in a more reasonable manner.
The fact that you have listened and changed positions is fine - but I need to know that before I can take account of that.
I'll not retrospectively undertake anything. I have my opinion and nothing has happened yet. As I mentioned the time to reflect is perhaps 3 years down the line to see if it has affected the races in any way.
I have forecast that this will not resolve the issue of under age athletes running in senior races. Let's see if it does. I cannot see that making this point is encouraging chaos Jim, but your inference that I have is both unimpressive and misleading.
Perhaps bringing the issue in to the spotlight has served a purpose already as I know many more have read this thread, and the Fellrunner info and discussed this issue as a result.
I have further predicted that the arranging of champs fixtures may become more difficult if Grahams Post 61, the fairer new system is adopted by junior ROs.
So no encouragement of chaos Jim, unless I've missed something.
aside from the political comments above, i'd like to comment as a parent.
It would seem to me as a parent that this change has come about as a result of teenagers wishing to move up to senior races whilst technically still juniors ( i have infact seen and heard organisers condone this during the year)
i have two daughters 9 and 7 , both girly girls, both slightly built, both city girls..
The eldest has this year competed many times in the u9 races . they have been an appropriate length and difficulty ( mostly grassy slopes rather than rocks shale) and she has grown in confidence and ability racing in this age catagory throughout the year. she has joined an athletics and triathlon club on the back of this and now is looking forward to the cross country season and next summers fell races as an u12.
I strongly believe though that had the rule change being enforced this season she would not be in the same place, having had to compete in most of her races as a u12. The races are significantly longer for a young absolute beginner and the route often much more testing and I strongly believe she would not have have enjoyed the experience.
I suspect from the kids point of view (one rarely considered) they'd have much preferred an age structure based on thier school year, one with which they are familiar and at ease.
to expand even further, policing of ages is vague at best... this summer we have personally witnessed one young person run as U10, U12 and U9 in that order in the same month!
Will this new ruling be in the Schools fell running championship as that is run year 7, 8+9, 10+11 etc? Without being awkward how come that does not use the current 1st Jan rule, or does it? I speak here as a prospective parent with a daughter probably wanting to try the schools championship next year.
This ruling does not affect the English Schools race as it really about juniors running in senior races.
As for using year groups, as it is a School's race it makes sense to have people running against those in their school year (or pairs of years). It would be simply daft to have some of Year 7 or Year 12 excluded as they are born the wrong side of a divide. It is also sensible from a pragmatic point of view, most teachers have a good idea of what year pupils are in, but not necessarily their age of 1st Jan.
As far as distances go, they are selected with regards to the age of the younger runners in the Year groups.
You may be interested to know that parents of certain primary age kids would like to enter them in the ESFRC, and are surprised when told that if they aren't in Year 7 or above they can't run.
Don't forget that many races aren't under fra age categories eg bofra which is now age at 1st may ie near the start of their summer season. Other races are age in day, eg Kilnsey, grasmere. This summer I know of a girl who ran under 17 one day, senior the next and then back to under 17.
This is confusing for parents but has the advantage that kids run with different groups, this can be an advantage for those at the front as well as those always getting beaten by certain other runners.
I mentioned on another thread sometime ago that in swimming,where there are fixed age groups, that birthday is key to whether you will succeed as a youngster. Can't remember he details but some research showed that the vast majority of entrants in the national age group competition were born in the few months after the cut off date ie were the oldest.
So there are some arguments against having the same age dates for all competitions.
People on registration desks always do their best to help get kids into the right race and that is why entry forms have date of birth on them.
I am the entries secretary for a track and field event which has a national date of the 31st august and I still get loads of parents entering kids in wrong events and sending me queries, so it's not just a fell running issue!
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, come 2013. I am hopeful that this will work out ok but I'm also fairly doubtful about it. I'm trying to be positive and see logic and sense behind the changes but tbh it's quite difficult!!
As I understand it;
Ignoring the 'qualifying for senior races' issue, which, as a junior coach, isn't my main concern;
In 2013, a RO of a junior race has the choice of operating an 'age on race day' or an 'age on 1st Jan' system. The races must comply with the maximum distance restrictions already in force (Rule Ten), irrespective of which system is chosen.
The RO is actually free to choose any qualifying date, so could choose to align their race to the school year system used in XC, T&F etc. if they wanted to.
If their race is to be a champs race then they must stick with the current 'age on 1st Jan' system.
As a result of the above, junior races in 2013 will have a range of different qualifying dates, according to which system the RO wishes to adopt.
The above is, hopefully, an objective statement of fact based on the details in the FRA news item - am I correct in my understanding?
You are right. It holds true in many sports.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/...summer-babies/
It is a really interesting topic but quite tricky to come up with a workable solution regards age groups in children's sport....with the birthday breakdown of European soccer players: 43 percent of players were born in the first thee months of the year, while only 9 percent were born in the final three months. Children who are a few months older than their peers at 5 or 6 have more developed cognitive and motor skills, which makes them more advanced athletes and students. This early advantage can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies later on: the child thinks she is an underachiever, and so will often play that role.
The key to this debate is that RO have been free for 17 years to define whatever age groups they wished, as provided for in the opening sentence of Rule 10. However, it has made sense/been convenient for the vast majority to align their races with the championship sub-rule i.e. U12 - 18 on 1st January, introduced at the same time. (U8 - U10 were introduced more recently). There is no reason or pressure for RO to change provided they ignore some of the 'hype' on this thread and elsewhere.
A very few races in existence prior to the introduction of the championship rules have retained their definitions and qualifying date for age groups e.g. U9, U11, U14 on day of race, while making sure they complied with the distance limits defined by Rule 10. A few new races have defined their own age groups, presumably to suit local requirements. For example, it is far easier for the English Schools Fell Running Championship to be based on school year.
The change to Rule 10 is designed to remove a loophole/grey area/misunderstanding in eligibility of junior runners in senior races, without affecting junior races in any way. In future there should be no excuse for juniors running over distance or RO knowingly accepting such entries. In summary, we just carry on as before with junior races.
Last edited by FellJunior; 12-10-2012 at 09:55 AM. Reason: Clarification for WP
I can't see that anything in this rule change that affects ROs taking of under age entries.
Parent/Guardian or athlete puts incorrect DOB info on slip - how can RO police that?
RO knowingly accepts under age entry - it happened before so why will it not happen again?
As I said on an early post, the positive that may come out of the "hype" on this thread and elsewhere is that it has raised the topic in the perception of many that were not aware that it was such an issue, so hopefully more people will have an understanding of the age and distance rules and maybe that will lead to less breaches.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote