Age limits

[OB1]

....there isn't a rule situation that applies to age groups and that is perhaps the problem. The rule applies to Maximum Race Distances.

Spot on, but I think 'perhaps the problem' is being rather kind. To me, you, (and obviously others, as evidenced on this thread) it is the crux of the problem, which is twofold; firstly the lack of a rule leads to basic confusion as to what the qualifying date for age groups is, unless it is - in each case - specifically stated for each race / on each entry form. Secondly, it leads to the obvious problem different race qualifying dates would give if they were part of a within-season championship series, should the qualifying date (however defined) fall within that championship season. For a junior race in isolation it might not matter too much, but once it's part of a series its of vital significance, as many of you have pointed out.

I think several of you / us are repeating ourselves and going round in circles / banging heads against the wall, but WP's example of the UKA XC rule format does indeed ram the point home. It would be nice to think there could be a simple unambiguous one sentence rule, but clearly things like this (dates that impact seasonal series of grouped races) just have to be spelt out to the letter, and if that needs several paragraphs to avoid any confusion (like XC Rule 507), then so it should. I suppose you could say that page 108 of the FRA calendar does a similar thing for the junior champ series, but it leaves the rest of the multitude of junior races out on their own. If that's intentional fine, but I suspect its not, and that its just a side effect of not having a FRA rule.

PS (a breakfast muesli moment):
Of course what hasn’t changed, indeed, is that prior to 2013 there was no FRA age group rule and there still is no such rule in 2013. But at least before 2013, there was a handy convention in the ‘industry’. Which was, as the ex-FRA-JC and others point out above, that if in doubt (unless otherwise specified) assume the same date-basis as the Junior Champs, which happily and handily was aligned with the maximum distance rule date-basis. In fact this handy alignment / convention was so handy, it seems, that many misinterpreted it as a de-facto FRA rule. With the 2013 change to the maximum distance rule date basis (for perceived good reason relating to the Senior transition opportunity), the lack of a Junior age group rule now means confusion regarding any useful convention. This is manifest in the opposing views from the ex-FRA-JC and the ex-FRA-Chair as to what the 2013 convention should be, enhanced by an ambiguous calendar (in places, i.e. some races) and an ambiguous layout of the default FRA J- entry form.

[XRunner]

Age categories and maximum distances are different for track, road, cross country, trail and fell running! )

[OB1]

Age categories and maximum distances are different for track, road, cross country, trail and fell running!

Indeed, which is why its nice to have rules rather than just handy conventions if the conventions can be easily misinterpreted (by aficionados as well as laypersons) and potentially end up being disruptive to smooth race and/or race series organisation, whatever the discipline is. See my PS above. As WP says, the disciplines dont have to be aligned, and no one is suggestig they should be, just that each discipline's rules & conventions ought ideally to be clear and unambiguous.

[AndyA]

the disciplines dont have to be aligned, and no one is suggestig they should be, just that each discipline's rules & conventions ought ideally to be clear and unambiguous.

Actually, I'd vote for aligning the format across all disciplines if I thought it had the slightest chance of succeeding!

Our juniors compete in XC and on the fell, other clubs compete on track as well. I think it would be a huge step forward if they all had the same competitors over the different disciplines.
I'd support the XC system (essentially a 'school year' system) as it most closely fits in with how kids view themselves. Kids often don't know exactly how old their friends are but they always know which year they are in; they study and play alongside each other all year and are their closest peer group.

The problem is that clubs, associations, governing bodies etc. are all run by committee people some of whom aren't always in it for their constituents (that's the kids btw). They have their own agenda, are self-important, protective of their own little fiefdom, resistant to change and struggle to see the other point of view. I'd like to say that the majority are not like that (and I'm always open minded when I encounter them) but tbh I've no evidence to support that hope!

[LissaJous]

The entry form would indeed be a lot clearer if it read:
Age-group is age on day / Age-group is age on 1st January (RO to delete as applicable)

Or alternatively, and preferably dropping the D.O.B.:
Age on 1st January / Age on day of race (RO to delete as applicable)

As I understand it, ROs are already free to add this to the entry form, as well as the 'other information' section in their race info.

[OB1]

LJ, there would need to be a third option ('any other date'), as the way the rules stand (and have stood for a long while?) the RO is free to pick whatever date, including one aligned with the XC season, so AA could indeed write to all ROs if he wished encouraging them to align with XC school year. AA I have sympathy for this view BTW, but also know that pigs wont fly, but can be fenced in so as not to wander.
:sneaky:
Sorry, facetious I know, but I can't help thinking of all the funny permutations of this vague rule and convention thing, now that the established 'status quo' (as someone nicely put it) convention is in doubt. We now have a hole in the fence that needs mending.

[FellJunior]

RO are ultimately responsible for ensuring that junior runners enter the correct age group and race. Virtually all junior races are entry on day; only Anniversary Wa! instantly springs to mind as pre-entry, but the following still applies.

The 'Age' to be entered on the new entry form should always be age today i.e. date of race. In conjunction with d.o.b., it is a common basis for determining age on any age group qualifying date, be it age on 1st January, age on day of race, or age on RO's grandmother's birthday. Providing both parameters has proven a useful cross check against those who seek to breach Rule 10, as I can personally testify.

The RO can be expected to make entrants aware of the age group qualifying date, in pre race literature, notices on the day, or at race registration. The registration team have all the information they need to check that the correct age group has been entered, or complete the form accordingly on behalf of the entrant if they are unsure. If the same consistent approach is used for juniors entering a senior race, then age today ensures they are old enough to take part under the maximum distance limits, and d.o.b. determines any junior age group that the RO may choose to offer.

It really is that simple, one form for juniors entering junior or senior races, completed by them in exactly the same way every time. The registration team, acting on behalf of the RO, can be fully briefed on how to check against the qualifying date. There should be no possibility of an entrant unwittingly running over distance by entering the wrong age group, if everyone plays their part.

The change to Rule 10 was only ever about distance limits, although a number of statements and posts have implied that the non-existent age group qualifying date rule was also affected. As Lecky has stated, it is preferable for everyone concerned if the vast majority of junior events continue with the historic convention of aligning their races with the English Junior Championship age groups, i.e. two year bands based on age on 1st January at the start of the competition year.

It should be remembered that the absence of a rigid overall age group rule allows some well established junior races to continue with their traditional but unconventional age groups, and the English Schools Championship based on school year could not have been established without considerable negotiation with UKA or seeking event insurance elsewhere.

[OB1]

FJ, bravo, an excellent 'plain english' confirmation from the FRA-JC as to the preferred convention for junior age groups, in the continual absence of a rule, plus at the end an explanation as to why there is no specific rule as yet.

What stands out for me (as a parent of 3 closely-spaced Juniors) are the following points:

RO are ultimately responsible for ensuring that junior runners enter the correct age group and race.

The RO can be expected to make entrants aware of the age group qualifying date, in pre race literature, notices on the day, or at race registration.

It is preferable for everyone concerned if the vast majority of junior events continue with the historic convention of aligning their races with the English Junior Championship age groups, i.e. two year bands based on age on 1st January at the start of the competition year.

As long as all ROs know the above and enact it, then it will be hugely helpful, especially the first two points for guiding parents before and at races.

Pre-race information / literature is very helpful as it helps parents explain to the juniors what group they will be running in and who will be running with whom, and a what time, before we get to the registration desk. Information on the day only in the melee of the desk is not as good. It would be nice if future editions of the calendar had a specific field for ROs to fill. It's clear that we can't assume a date basis unless its stated in the literature.

What has been worrying to me, as a parent, following this thread has been the conflict of opinion and knowledge amongst those in the 'know' (including FRA committee folk and longstanding ROs) regarding what are the 'rules' and what are just 'important conventions'.

[FellJunior]

FJ, bravo, an excellent confirmation from the FRA-JC as to the preferred convention for junior age groups, in the continual absence of a rule, plus at the end an explanation as to why there is no specific rule as yet.

Just a point of information - I'm not the junior co-ordinator, that honour belongs to Duncan Richards, but I have been involved in junior fell running as parent, supporter, and unofficial statistician since 1994.

[OB1]

Just a point of information - I'm not the junior co-ordinator, that honour belongs to Duncan Richards, but I have been involved in junior fell running as parent, supporter, and unofficial statistician since 1994.

Apolgies FJ, but well written anyway!
So it's an 'esteemed opinion' rather than a 'semi-formal confirmation'. And here was me thinking it was an early Xmas present.

Over and out (I'm off to do FatherCrimbo duties, wink wink)
Ho ho ho
Happy Xmas