1C.7 Combining Age Groups - when to publish and combine
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
This discussion is only about when to publish and combine age groups.
There are not clear guidelines on when these must be published. And absolutely no guidelines on when combining age groups should be done if not enough people are signed up for an event.
My suggestion is to add to 1C.7 this text at the beginning of the section:
The age groups for all competitions must be published at the latest seven days before the first day of the convention. The age groups for each event will follow their event rules, then combine as stated below. Once published, age groups will not change even if competitors drop their events.
Comment
Ok for me.
Comment
Three comments:
1. To avoid confusion, I would clarify the (currently) first occurrence of "The age groups" as "The final (combined) age groups".
2. The sentences are best placed in chronological order.
3. The age group rules in some event leave no choice, in which case your text suggestion is unambiguous. But e.g. in Track (see 2D.4) and Road, a host can choose between denser or less dense age groups.
To address 1. and 2., the text to be added would become:
The age groups for each event will follow their event rules, then combine as stated below. The final (combined) age groups for all competitions must be published at the latest seven days before the first day of the convention. Once published, age groups will not change even if competitors drop their events.
My third comment is maybe outside the scope of this proposal, if it is only about when to combine age groups. But I dare to mention it here, since it is difficult to discuss WHEN to combine if it isn't clear what is meant by combining in the first place.
The way I understand the correct procedure for discplines without fixed age groups, also from 2D.4, is as follows. A set of age groups is decided to be "on offer" as soon as online registration starts. Later (but indeed at least seven days before the convention) these "offered" age groups are combined as required by 1C.7 and published as final. Other than combining some of them as needed, the offered age groups don't change.
Is my understanding correct? I'm asking because have the impression that at some events including recent Unicons, age groups have been left undecided for much of the registration period, and then created based on the numbers and ages of registered participants. If that would be the case, firstly it seems out of sync with the rules, and secondly: what is meant by combining?
Comment
Klaas - thanks for the restructuring of the paragraph.
The third question of when the host should publish the proposed age groups for events that do not have strict requirements should be another discussion. I agree that there is not a clear guideline and I would like to discuss it more.
Anybody have comments on the addition of this text to the rulebook?
The age groups for each event will follow their event rules, then combine as stated below. The final (combined) age groups for all competitions must be published at the latest seven days before the first day of the convention. Once published, age groups will not change even if competitors drop their events.
Comment
I cannot agree with this text if I don't fully understand what "combine" entails (referring to my third comment above).
Comment
There are currently two effects of "combining".
1. Events which have defined maximum age groups (Muni, possibly Trials). These age groups will be combined and published seven days ahead if not enough participants.
2. Events which only have suggested or minimum age groups (Track, Road, etc). There are two possibilities:
- The host creates and publishes age groups ahead of time (time frame currently not defined), then combining if needed is done 7 days before the start of the convention.
-The host creates and publishes age groups 7 days ahead of time making sure all age groups follow any event rules and the rules of minimum participants using the data from registration.
Comment
In your 1, I don't understand 'defined maximum age groups'. I think you mean 'defined fixed age groups'. With that, I would agree with 1.
For Track, Road and possibly more, I doubt if you are right that there are two possibilities. E.g., in 2D.4 I read
"The following age groups are the minimum required by the IUF to be offered at the time of registration for any Track & Field discipline". 4D.4 is very similar.
I interpret that as: during the time that registration is open, these age groups are "on offer" to the riders registering. This mostly corresponds with your first dash under 2, albeit that the time frame is defined, i.e. concurrent with opening of registration. These age groups will not change, or than possibly be combined if not enough participants.
The second dash under 2 is how things often seem to be done, but I don't think it is according to the current rule, and therefore I wouldn't call it a possibility.
Comment
I disagree.
In 2D.4, there is an important word: "minimum". The next sentence is "Convention hosts are free to offer more age groups, and often do."
In 2D.4, there is nothing about when hosts must finalize their age group offering.
Also confusing is the last sentence in that section " .. must be offered as male and female age group." Does this imply that if there is a 50+ Male age group that there must be a 50+ Female age group?
Comment
In 2D.4 the word "maximum" does not appear. So I don't understand what the phrase "defined maximum age groups" refers to.
The way I read it, a host must finalise their age group offering before the registration opens. Otherwise they cannot be offered at the time of registration.
Yes, I read it such that if there is 50+ Male, there must also be 50+ Female. Note that this is about offered age groups at the time of registration. Eventually (as an example), 50+ Male may 'survive' while 50+ Female may need to be combined to 40+ or even 30+.
Comment
This is exactly why we need clarification. I do not see why a host cannot offer a set of minimum age groups when registration opens, then add more age groups as registrations happen, and then possibly finalize with combining if needed in the 7-day period mentioned earlier.
To restate, my understanding is that the below is possible and follows the rules:
On the day registration opens, host can offer 0-14, 15+, Jr Expert, and Expert for Pairs Freestyle.
Two months before the convention begin, the host can offer additional age groups of 0-10, 11-14, 15, 16-19, 20+, Jr Expert, and Expert.
Seven days before the convention starts, there is both expanding and combining for final age groups of 0-10, 11-12, 13-14, 15, 16+, Jr Expert, and Expert.
Does anybody else have opinions?
Comment
Your example confuses me. 2D.4 and 4D.4 are not about Freestyle but Track and Road respectively.
I assume that in your example 0-14 and 15+ are for Track and for Road, and the other two for Pairs Freestyle.
If this assumption is correct, then I don't think 2D.4 and 4D.4 are followed, as the required minimum age group set is not offered.
The rules don't talk about expanding. I guess what is not forbidden, is allowed. :-) But I hadn't thought of that possibility.
Now:
1. I agree that we need more people to chime in on how to interpret 2D.4 (and 4D.4 which is very similar).
2. If a majority wants to change 2D.4 and 4D.4, we (or in fact, the Track and Road committees) have the power to do that.
Comment
My example was all for Pairs Freestyle.
If the minimum included 0-14 and on final offer was 0-10, 11-12, 13-14, then these three age groups are more than the minimum. So the rule is followed.
2D.4 (Track) has also the word "minimum" in the first sentence. Same rational applies to both events.
The rules do talk about expanding. But not with that word. In 2D.4, there is this "For example, a full range of offered age groups...". To me, this implies expanding age groups as the host wishes.
Is it possible to discuss only the combining at this time? And in another discussion start talking about the confusing age groups and rules?
Comment
Your suggested text addition to 1C.7 is about combining age groups. I would still prefer to have agreement on what "combining" means before we vote on this.
I think however that such agreement, if possible, should be reached in the Track and Road committees as opposed to the Main Committee. Therefore, I am OK with discussing about and voting on your text suggestion, and leave the other issues to the committees where they belong.
Comment
I think both ways of offering age groups that Connie mentioned are valid (pre-defining age groups and adjusting them later (both increasing and decreasing), or waiting until 7 days before the event).
As long, as all age groups are published 7 days in advance, I think hosts should have the freedom to choose what they would like to do.
At the moment, combining seems to mean to reduce the number of pre-defined age groups. But I think increasing the number should also be possible as long as the minimum requirements stated in 1C.7 are met.
Comment
I second what you clarified Marie.
The host can determine the final age groups, as long as they are published 7 days in advance.
Comment
To add to Kirsten's post, it should be clear that final age groups must be published at least seven full days before the first scheduled day of the convention, even if that day doesn't contain competition events. This means the final determination of age groups must occur before that, to leave time to get them publicly published for people to see.
My intent here is to be specific about the seven days, where to count back from, and that publishing is the thing that must be completed by that time.
Comment
My only concern about the seven days part is that riders can add and remove events during the on-site registration - and that might cause some difficulties (e.g. you have 6 riders signed up for Junior Expert Female Flatland, but 4 of them remove the event during on-site registration).
Comment
Indeed the two remaining riders in your example get a medal just for participating. It's a consequence I am willing to accept.
Comment
Here is my latest suggestion:
Age groups for events at the start of registration will follow their event rules. Hosts are allowed to expand (add) or compress (remove) age groups if allowed by the event rules. Age group changes must be published.
The final (combined) age groups for all competitions must be published at the latest seven days before the first day of the convention. Once published, age groups will not change even if competitors drop their events.
Comment
If the age groups that are "offered" at the start of registration can both be split/added/expanded and combined/compressed/removed, and also left untouched I suppose, then what is the use of having age groups at the start of registration in the first place?
Comment
In answer to Klaas, which others can correct if needed, we need to start with something, so people have some idea of the desired/intended groupings. If no age groups are advertised, a very high percentage of participants might decide to stay home. That's business, and that's marketing; both of which are important to growing our sport. :-)
Also, I will guess that the advertised "starting" age groups are the ones the hosts estimate they will need, based on estimates of how many registrants they expect.
Comment
"Offering" (promising) age groups that can eventually either be split or expanded doesn't really promise or offer much. If that's business and marketing, it's the cynical form of it, and one I'd like us to stay away from.
It would be better if your guess (that the inital age groups are based on a good estimate of the eventual competitor base) is what actually happens, but this is not prescribed. As it is, a host might offer "fictional" attractive starting groups (whatever that implies) and rearrange them when the registrations are secured.
The reason I keep making this point (in various ways) is that I think that many competitors like to know as far ahead as possible which age group they will be in in any particular event. But maybe that thought is incorrect?
Comment
Based on the processes outlined in this discussion, it would be incorrect. Since the age groups are based on actual registrations and cannot be known until late in the registration process, there has to be a starting point. If we feel the need to legislate that, it should be based on "anticipated attendance", which may be very close to actual attendance, or may differ by a lot.
So that suggests maybe we should caution people at the time of registration that "these age groups may change based on final registration quantity of riders and age breakdown". Something like that.
Comment
I agree with Klaas that competitors like to know about age groups months before the competitions begin. This information would be a great addition to 1C.6.
Comment
I take note of that hint.
I still don't like the 1C.7 text.
Firstly, if hosts are free to both expand and compress age groups, then what is the purpose of "offering" age groups to begin with?
I would suggest that an initial age group spectrum is offered, based on expected number and age distribution, perhaps erring on the "too many splits" side. Once registration is closed (or even earlier), the host can optionally combine neighbouring age groups. In exceptional cases, an "initial" age group can be split in several age groups.
Secondly, while "at the latest seven days (etc)" is kind of acceptable to me, I'd like to include a recommendation that final age groups are published earlier than that. Especially at Unicons and other large conventions where registration closes 6 weeks or so before the convention, what would you need another month for, leaving competitors in uncertainty?
@John: I think you misinterpreted my question about whether something is incorrect. What I meant is: maybe my assumption that competitors like to know as early as possible what (final) age groups they are in, is an incorrect assumption.
This assumption is the basis for my arguments in this discussion.
I understand that Connie agrees to that assumption, but not really to the consequences I derive from it. :-)
Comment
I'd like some response/discussion around the arguments "Firstly" and "Secondly" in the previous Comment before we get to a vote.
To me, these are essential issues with the proposed 1C.7 text.
Comment
First: What is your proposed text? And when would you have hosts create age groups?
Also many events have the very broad minimum age groups defined in their section. So by the rule, those are the age groups "on offer" at opening of registration at the minimum.
Second: Usually online registration is closed less than 6 weeks before it started. (Unicon 19 == 4 weeks / Unicon 18 == 2 weeks) There is often some data cleanup that must be done (deleting registrations that are not complete or paid). The organizers also usually have other conventions (NAUCC in my case), regular paying jobs without much vacation (most anybody who does not live in Europe), and other life complications. Then there is the issue of finalizing age groups, trying to work with the event directors who do not respond because of previously mentioned complications.
I agree that before 7 days is much better. A month is better. But the time in the proposal is the latest to publish.
Comment
First (not in final text form):
Hosts should create a set of age groups before registration opens.
This should be based on the expected rider demography and numbers. Usually this can be guessed from previous similar events.
These age groups can optionally be different for males and females.
These age groups are "working" age groups (I used the phrase "on offer" or "offered" to mean the same) and stay the same until the final age groups are decided.
I don't think that the final age groups can only be decided once registration is closed and data cleanup has been done.
If an estimated 90% of the competitors have registered and paid (I guess from previous conventions you can guess when that is), the host will have a pretty good idea of the riders' gender and age distribution.
The host can then finalise the age groups by combining where needed (and in exceptional cases, split where needed).
The remaining 10% of competitors still about to register will not significantly change that picture.
In this way, maximum comfort will be given to the competitors, and some time will be freed up in the last few busy weeks leading up to the convention.
Yes, some events have broad minimum age groups, but that doesn't imply that that set should be "on offer". A host is free to offer more age groups than the minimum set.
Second: I already covered that above, arguing that final age groups can be decided before registration closes.
Comment
Correction: I have to qualify this "These age groups can optionally be different for males and females".
This should become "These age groups can optionally be different for males and females, if event rules allow so".
This is because in 2D.4 and 4D.4, it is explicitly stated that all age groups have to be offered as male and female.
Connie commented (currently 20 days ago): "The third question of when the host should publish the proposed age groups for events that do not have strict requirements should be another discussion. I agree that there is not a clear guideline and I would like to discuss it more".
Because of this, I have been planning to create discussions around this, and clear up 2D.4 and 4D.4 in this respect.
I've until now not done so, because of the lacking clarity in the present discussion.
Comment
Connie commented 3 days ago in this discussion:
"I agree with Klaas that competitors like to know about age groups months before the competitions begin. This information would be a great addition to 1C.6."
I was about to make a proposal to this effect. But 1C.6 is about registration forms, and they don't carry information about age groups. I think my proposed text (to be written) would better fit in 1C.7, which is now about combining age groups, but can be expanded to be about setting and combining age groups.
I plan to create a proposal soon, based on my previous two comments (both 4 hours ago at this point), for text to be added to 1C.7.
Comment
Connie wrote earlier in this discussion:
"I agree with Klaas that competitors like to know about age groups months before the competitions begin. This information would be a great addition to 1C.6."
I have started to make a proposal in 1C.6, but aborted that because 1C.6 is about the Registration Form. 1C.7, which is the subject of this discussion, is about Combining Age Groups.
I feel that the subject of when age groups should be published, is closer to 1C.7 than 1C.6. So, next to the existing proposal 53 which is connected to this discussion, I will create a new proposal that also stems from this discussion, for text to be added to 1C.7.
Comment
I am a little bit lost in this discussion. However, what is clear to me is that the current set up for age groups is greatly flawed. I think everyone who is participating in this discussion would agree. This is not something we can solve in this proposal. In order to really fix the problems, we need to totally redefine the age group process and guidelines. Since we are not able to do that right now, our proposal cannot be so rigid as to attempt to create a perfect outcome while loosing the flexibility to create the "best" outcome we can with the current system. It would be great if the age groups could be announce far in advance, but that's not always realistic. From my understanding of Connie's text, it removes an inconsistency while still allowing for the flexibility that the reality of our current age group systems demands. Klaas's suggestions are indeed requiring the preferred outcome, but it's not realistic in my mind to require this.
Comment
By "Klaas's suggestions", do you mean Proposal 67? Does it require anything that wasn't already required in the current rules, or in Proposal 53?