Go on then. Re-write it so that it works. Post it on here and we can all comment and the committee, with it's legal advice can see it.Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
It will be shorter than the thousands of repeated words you have already written, perhaps you should have re-written it at the start of this thread?
But that is the problem Lecky. Most of what I have said has neither been challenged nor included despite support behind the scenes from some affected.
Take the poorly defined word "unnecessary" - I quoted realword example situations where that would cause problems in determining compliance, and it is hard to know even what they were trying to achieve by using it. But the word is still there, with no clarification on the examples, or what the word is there to do. So unless there is a positive encouragement, demonstrated by some of the ideas being used, I really would be wasting my time.
It was my view the RO should be hammering this out in a session with FRA. They are the ones that need protection, and at very least the rules should allow for current courses like wynnies to comply.
I didn't say comment on what I had said, I said go on and re-write it. If your version is any good, and it can be commented on here, then you may move things forward (or at least on your view). Keeping saying the same things won't help.
I suggest you take the framework that is already there and re-write as you see fit.
I'll second that Lecky.
I have rewritten small parts and presented them here - they were not commented, by those who count, so failed to move anything forward. If those ideas were unnaceptable what is the point of my doing an entire document?
Until the problems are recognised,,neither will the solution.
How do you think wynns race is compatible as it stands?
I've already acknowledged earlier that this debate has been useful for me because it has drawn my attention to issues that I hadn't picked up on previously when permitting. Some of these have been changed of course. But apart from the slight re-wording in places, what concerns me is the contradiction because we are looking at 5 different documents and they are all put together with slightly different motives. But as they have been added to or amended they have become unclear as to who they are directed at and sometimes the same info is repeated across 2 or 3 different forms.
As an RO I need to look first at the permit. When I do, I have to fill in 3 applications for the 2014 Inters as there are 4 races over 3 different race specs. That's fine, not a complaint.
But I have to then sign off on having read 3 documents and accept that I will abide by the FRA Requirements.
FRA Safety Requirements for Fell Races and Rules for Competition.
This starts off aimed at the athlete, then becomes targeted at both athlete and RO on Page 4, then to RO matters, then both again, then marshaling, then the Rules.
Basically it's all over the place.
The rules are there in the Calendar, on the website and if necessary can be posted at registration. This document needs axing (and I'm sure this won't happen) or trimming down so that it is just focussed at the athletes.
By all means send it to prospective ROs so they are aware of the requirements of athletes, but don't try to make a document to cover RO and athlete in one.
Guidelines for Race Organisers
This starts of by stating The information in this leaflet is primarily intended to be of assistance to organisers who are intending to put on a race for the first time which is a problem in itself as it clearly binds all ROs.
It then states Please note that any compulsory route sections should NEVER cross hazardous terrain; which means we have 2 documents trying to say the same thing, both worded badly and both worded differently.
We also then have "Permissions". Why, when we have the Access and Environment document that covers that very well and in greater depth?
In order to keep this as brief as possible I'll not go on, but suffice it to say this document repeats things that are said elsewhere and contains some contradictory guidance - it should be axed.
Access and Environmental Guidelines - I have no issues with.
Organisers Safety Check List
Again this repeats other items and risks contradiction or confusion due to slightly different wording or emphasis.
MUST ensure that the nature of the race and the rules relating to safety have been drawn up and formally communicated to each runner
This is a huge ask. Formally communicated to each runner.
Then we have all the other stuff repeated from the other forms.
I think this form is a good idea, but:
Section 4 & 6 can go and there should instead by a requirement on ROs to supply a Draft Race Info Sheet to fulfill the requirements of Section 7.
Section 5, instead of a tick box, Section 5 and the last paragraph of section 5 could be replaced by questions rather than statements to comply with.
eg.
What measures do you have in place in the event of adverse weather conditions?
Then the RO can outline those measures which may include an alternative route.
I would also ask ROs to submit a race map, highlighting marshalling points and a info sheet detailing the points, the rolls of the marshalls at those points.
This should also include the planned first aid cover and locations and a plan on how the safety of athletes will be managed during the race.
The RO should also add an entry form for approval, if not using the actual FRA form.
The FRA then decides whether the measures in place are adequate and permits, or they can recommend changes.
Finally "Relays". As an organiser of relays, I can't understand why we need anything other than:
"ROs of relay events must assess each leg as if they were a race in their own right and ensure kit requirements and age restrictions apply as they would if the leg was a standalone race" and allow team entries to be made by a Team Manager or Captain.
As AI, I would be prepared to submit something more concrete for consideration, but I do not want to do this if it is going to be tomorrow's chip paper. So if the FRA would be interested, then I'm quite happy for them to contact me away from the forum, and then I'll keep my dialogue with them until we have a conclusion to any process.
Last edited by Witton Park; 22-10-2013 at 10:07 PM.
Put it all into one document and put it on here for discussion.
Richard (Witton Park), why don't you work with AI, Wynn and others off line then publish a complete document on here?
Lecky - you've seen a snippet of what I did with regards to the rules and not even an acknowledgement, never mind any feedback.
The feedback you gave me on the forum was excellent - that was the sort of feedback I would expect.
If the FRA were to make the forms available in word form, so that they can be more easily edited I'd consider that.
Posting Permissions
