Allowing to split offered additional age groups
Comments about this discussion:
Started
In the other discussion, it was noted that we should possibly delete the option to split offerd additional age groups (which exists not only in the proposal for the new rule, but also in the current rulebook). Since this is a different topic than the introduction of mandatory age groups, I would like to move the discussion about this aspect to a separate discussion.
I will briefly repeat what Ian and I have already said in the other discussion:
Ian > The only thing that I think we should change is point 4. There should not be a case of age group splitting further than the maximum amount of additional age groups into even smaller ones should there? Otherwise the whole standardization thing is invalid.
Jan > I see your point. However, paragraph 4 also states that a division should only be made in exceptional cases, which presumably curbs its use considerably. At the same time, however, this rule would give the freedom to split the age groups again, for example in a pure junior competition (U15) with a very large number of entries, so that the special circumstances of the competition can be better taken into account.
At the same time, I still see a strong standardization, as only the age groups mentioned can be further divided and this effectively prevents there being a U12 instead of a U13 at one competition or a U37 instead of a U35. A division of the age groups mentioned always means that they remain the “basic framework”.
Or in other words: I would immediately agree with you that a division of age groups must never lead to the boundaries of the additional age groups being shifted - a division can therefore only ever take place within the boundaries of the additional age groups. But the rule is supposed to say so.
What do the others say? Do you think the purpose of the new rule is jeopardized if additional age groups can be split up again in exceptional cases, or does that work for you?
Comment
I see both points. In some ways I agree with Ian because I do think that it's okay to have large age groups that are standardized. My one concern is with Freestyle where it becomes incredibly difficult for the judging panel to judge so many riders against one another when an age group gets too large.
Comment
> I do think that it's okay to have large age groups that are standardized
I would agree with that in principle. For me, it's not so much about automatically reducing the size of large age groups.
Instead, the current and proposed rule gives the organizers of specific competitions, e.g. junior events that are explicitly aimed at encouraging younger riders, the opportunity to make the age groups narrower, as sometimes even a two-year age difference can mean a big difference in performance. At championship level, I think the proposed mandatory and additional age groups are very suitable and sufficient for the competitions.
Comment
Jan, you are talking about specific junior events as use cases, but if I'm remembering correctly, we did have very weird half year age groups even at some Unicon(s) for Freestyle. If these continue to be a thing, the standardization has failed, because no rider could predict the age group they are going to ride in.
Comment
I would have no problem with excluding the rule for IUF sanctioned events - this would mean that it would no longer be an option for Unicons.
I would also have no problem with including in the rule that age groups may not be half-years (which I would not have been aware of in other sports either).
> no rider could predict the age group they are going to ride in.
That's not entirely true. It is more the case that under the current rules it is not possible to predict which age group you will end up in, as you never know how many of the age groups offered will be combined. With the new rule, you would be certain that you would always end up in at least one mandatory age group. With the additional age groups, you still don't know whether they will be combined or not. This means that the only certainty either way is the mandatory age group. In my opinion, this is also the most important step - not because it makes it 100% clear from the beginning in which age group you will be ranked, but because it ensures that the age groups cannot be merged to such an extent that a meaningful sporting comparison is simply no longer possible. Splitting an age group does not mean that a meaningful sporting comparison is no longer possible in that age group, so I think this is different to merging age groups.