Garantierte altersgerechte Altersklassen, Guaranteed age-appropriate age groups
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
The following is proposed:
The initial age groups should be graded at least every 5 years.
> The following age groups are to be defined:
> U8, U11, U13, U15, U17, U19, U25, U30, U35, U45, U50, U55, U60, U65, U70, U75, 75+
Up to three age groups may be merged.
> Certain boundaries may not be changed:
> U11, U15, U19, U30, U50, U70, 70+
> These age groups are guaranteed.
This formation of the age groups applies to all disciplines in unicycling, especially races, 10km, marathon, freestyle, muni, XC, downhill, uphill.......
>
> The requirement: at least a minimum number of participants (6-8) in an age group is not applicable.
(German:
es wird vorgeschlagen:
> Die initialen Altersklassen sollen mindestens alle 5 Jahre gestuft sein.
> Folgende Altersklassen sind zu definieren:
> U8, U11, U13, U15, U17, U19, U25, U30, U35, U40, U45, U50, U55, U60, U65, U70, U75, 75+
> Es dürfen bis zu drei Altersklassen zusammengelegt werden.
> Dabei dürfen bestimmte Grenzen nicht verändert werden:
> U11, U15, U19, U30, U50, U70, 70+
> Diese Altersklassen sind garantiert einzuhalten.
> Diese Bildung der Altersklassen gilt für alle Disziplinen im Einradsport, insbesondere Rennen, 10km, Marathon, freestyle, Muni, XC, Downhill, uphill…....
> Die Anforderung: mindestens 6 Teilnehmer o.ä. in einer Altersklasse entfällt.)
Comment
Hello,
In de stad hebben we meestal een paar leeftijdsgroepen minder. We hebben 0-10 jaar oud (kinderen), 10-14 jaar (junior) en dan 15-34 jaar (volwassene), daarna hebben we 35 tot 49 en dan 50+ (meestal zijn er niet veel van boven de 50)
Maar voor de vrouwtjes zou ik zeggen dat het gat van 15 tot 34 groot is. Dit omdat de meeste vrouwen zich voorbereiden op een baby rond de 25 of sommigen zijn zelfs zwanger of krijgen een kind. Het voelt niet eerlijk om een "kind" van 15 te hebben tegen een moeder van 30. Nadat je een baby hebt gekregen, is je lichaam zeker geen 15 meer en ook rond de 25 krijg je de voorbereiding om moeder te zijn, dus je bent banger en je ziet meer verantwoordelijkheden (het is biologisch) en ik heb met een aantal rijders van 25+ gesproken die er hetzelfde over dachten. Ik zou zeggen maximaal 15 tot 29.
Voor mannen idk ik geuss is het ook prima om tot 29 te doen, maar daar heb ik geen mening over.
Comment
Sorry idk why my comment was in dutch... typed in english but popped up in dutch..
Hello,
In urban we usually have a couple less age groups. We do have 0-10 years old (kids) 10-14 (junior) and then 15-34 (adult) after that we have 35 till 49 and then 50+ (usually there are not a lot from over 50)
But for the females I would say the gap of 15 till 34 is big. This because most women get prepared for a baby around 25 or some may even already be pregnant or have a kid. It doesn’t feel fair to have a “kid” from 15 against a mom from 30. After getting a baby your body is defiantly not 15 anymore and also around 25 you get the preparing of being mom so your more scared and you see more responsibilities (its biologic) and I have talked to some riders from 25+ who thought the same about it. I would say 15 till 29 max.
For men idk I geuss its also fine to do till 29 but I have no opinion on that.
Comment
I like the idea of a 5-year age groups, with more frequent ones for children. Makes a lot of sense to me
I am wondering how you came up with the "guaranteed" age groups. Do you have any date backing up that these should be the limit? They are spread out evenly, but I don't think they reflect the age of the competitors. It could be useful to look at registration data from past unicons to see how old the competitors are, and base the minimal age groups off of that.
We also have to bear in mind that these rules should apply to all disciplines, so being quite conservative in terms of what the minimal age groups are might be useful (we are more likely to see people 60+ doing road or track than street or trials, for example)
Looking at the registration data from Unicon 21:
- the oldest (male) competitor was 73, the oldest female competitor 59 - this is already an indication that we might not need a 75+ category at all.
Here are the competitor numbers for the proposed minimal categories from last unicon (That's for all of unicon, not specific races.)
- U11: 15 competitors
- U15 : 83 competitors
- U19 : 113 competitors
- U30 : 252 competitors
- U50 : 147 competitors
- U70 : 59 competitors
- 70+ : 3competitors
I'll look at some more age data (I have access to the data from Bemidji and Grenoble) and will share the results and numbers for the various age group combinations that could give us the guaranteed groups.
Hoping this will help us make these decisions
Comment
In my opinion the question is not only what are age appropriate age groups but also what is an appropriate age to compete at unicon. If a kid is living close by and maybe has older siblings that are competing as well it might make sense for that kid to compete. But competing at unicon can come with pressure. I mean medals and titels are handed out and if not the kids some parents are really competivie and more ambitious than their kids. Not only that it also is a financial and time burden for the families (unicon will likely be their summer vacation). With next unicon being held in Austria i'm sure there are a lot of kids that do want to join. In Germany we have a huge scene also with younger riders (but even here U8 would be an exeptionally young rider. At the last upper bavarian freestyle championships we had a age group U9 with a total of 6 competitors competing in U9. Only one of those riders was U8.).
I would definitely not add an age group U11 and rather think about not even including such a low age group.
For reference olympic youth games are for athletes between 15-18 years old. Even thought ironically there is no minimum age at the olympics. The youngest athlete at the last olympic game was an 11 year old girl from china who competed in skateboarding. Some sports do have a minimum age at the olympic games (gymnastics: 16 years, figure skating: 17 years, boxing: 19 years, ...). The skateboard worldchampionships have an age minimum of 13 years. So the chinese girl competed at the olympics but isn't even allowed at the worldchampioships for another year.
Comment
I agree with letting young kids not compeet for winning a medal or well lets say I am more into giving them all a medal. (Up to max 10years old) it can bring a lot of presure with it what you dont want at that age. I am also in a study about kids and work with kids. Kids from 7 or 8 years old mostly dont understand what winning or losing is yet. For the (in urban) 10-15 category I would keep the winning part. At this age kids can learn from it and can dicide themself. I train junior riders and they will be verry sad if they cant compeet. (13-15years old)
Tbh the problem with compeditif parands wont stop with not giving them medals or not letting them compeet. Compeditif parands will influance the kid anyway then they just have more time... So that part is hard to "kill" in my eyes.
Comment
I think the discussion about which age groups should be offered and, above all, how they should be combined is an extremely important discussion - in particular, we need to keep in mind that the IUF rules are not just written for Unicons, but cover all unicycle competitions - including the small youth cup with a handful of participants. In my opinion, the organizer should therefore always have a certain freedom in their decisions, which is currently not given, for example, with the rule that age groups with less than X participants must be merged.
Furthermore, when discussing age groups, we should always remember why we have age groups in the first place: Namely to enable a reasonable sportive comparison in groups with approximately equal conditions. That's why I think that when discussing age groups, we should only look to a very limited extent at how many participants were in any given age group at any given competition - above all, we should think about the “degree of grouping” in an age group beyond which a reasonable sporting comparison is no longer possible.
In races, for example, the U11 age group rides on unicycles of the 20 class, while all “higher” age groups ride on unicycles of the 24 class - if the U11 and U13 age groups were merged, then everyone would probably realize that a meaningful sporting comparison is no longer possible. In the same way, I can't compare a 25-year-old and a 75-year-old. I therefore think the idea of guaranteed age groups makes a lot of sense, as it ensures that age groups are not chosen/made so large that they are meaningless in the end. At the same time, of course, we also have to make sure that we don't overburden the organizers with too much organizational work - so I think it's a bit much to demand a breakdown into 5 age groups as standard. If an organizer wants to offer this, he should definitely be allowed to do so in my opinion, but I would not want to impose this on every organizer.
Comment
This is certainly an important topic and I'm glad we're having this discussion. I think that Jan brings up two incredibly important points:
- The rules need to work for all sizes of competitions from local to the world championships
-
Competitors should be grouped with like competitors based upon developmentally similar peers. The main goal of division should not be similarly numbered groups of people.
One suggestion I have is that we have two categories: core age groups and minimum age groups. Core age groups are always the starting point. As in, there would never be more age groups than the core. Minimum age groups would then be the most that a host could combine down to. This provides standardization while still allowing for host discretion.
I think that if we can agree upon the purpose of age groups and the format first, we can then spend more time looking at exactly which ages should be grouped together. I think this is where we can look at other points that people have already made.
I will also add that judged disciplines like flatland, street, and freestyle provide the additional challenge where it becomes challenging for an age group to be very large. In racing disciplines there can often be simply an additional heat added or riders can be compared based on time. However, if we are able to standardize the age groups then this would help countries better be able to qualify riders. For example, if we can consistently say that there will be a 13-14 freestyle age group, then countries could be limited to a certain number (for example, 3 riders) per age group. Whereas right now we just say they can have 30 total age group riders.
Comment
I don't like the idea of having too many age groups. On the one hand it is more difficult for organizers to handle a lot of ange groups, on the other hand we then have never ending awards. Furthermore I think that we have to bear in mind that the differences can vary in each discipline. Maybe the gap between a 19 and a 34 year old in urban disciplines is bigger than for example in road racing.
Another point I'd like to mention that there will always be differences between local competitions, where more younger participants take part than at Unicon. So I am not in favour of fixing age groups which are compulsory for all events.
Comment
> I think that if we can agree upon the purpose of age groups and the format first, we can then spend more time looking at exactly which ages should be grouped together. I think this is where we can look at other points that people have already made.
> Another point I'd like to mention that there will always be differences between local competitions, where more younger participants take part than at Unicon. So I am not in favour of fixing age groups which are compulsory for all events.
I think these two points are connected. Basically, I can understand Mirjam's comment very well and the aspect that the rules must work for all competitions always plays a very important role in my considerations. Nevertheless, I believe that the basic idea of the age groups, namely a meaningful sporting comparison, is equally important for all competitions. So if we agree that a 9 year old cannot be compared to an 18 year old, then the rules should take this into account and ensure that no such comparison is made at any competition by combining age groups. I would agree that we have to be very careful how many of these fixed age groups we prescribe, but I think in principle it makes sense to have a certain minimum division - even if it ends up being just U15 and 15+. But that's something we can hopefully discuss here and come an an conclusion in the end.
> Furthermore I think that we have to bear in mind that the differences can vary in each discipline. Maybe the gap between a 19 and a 34 year old in urban disciplines is bigger than for example in road racing.
That's absolutely right and I wouldn't want to dictate that all disciplines always have to offer the same set of “standard” age groups.
What I would like, however, is that there is not a 15-19 age group in one discipline, a 16-22 in the next and a 13-21 in a third. I would find it extremely nice if there were a set of “complete” age groups and the individual disciplines could then choose from these. A starting point could be, for example, the age groups U8, U11, U13, U15, U17, U19, U25, U30, U35, U45, U50, U55, U60, U65, U70, U75, 75+ that are proposed at the very beginning. If a subdivision from 25 in 5-year increments does not appear to make sense in a discipline, the discipline could reduce the standard age groups in its rules to the following, for example: U11, U13, U15, U17, U19, U25, U30, U50, 50+. This would still ensure consistency, as there would not suddenly be a U43, for example.
Comment
I would like to use two examples to make it clear again why my proposal came about exactly the way it did.
Example 1:
At the UNICON in Grenoble, almost twenty women over the age of 50 complained at 10km and marathon, because they were ranked with riders over 30.
The reason: When age groups were determined in advance by the responsible race director, there was "initially" only a maximum age group from 30.
Example 2:
At a German championship in the race, with today's rule on "Combining Age Groups", only two groups for 11 to 29 year olds and from 30 years of age were created.
You can imagine the frustration of both the young drivers and the older ones.
The goal must be that the person registering for a competition knows in advance in which age group he will be scored.
It can't be that you only find out on site after a long journey (around the world) in which age group you ride.
Comment
> I think that if we can agree upon the purpose of age groups and the format first
So much this! This discussion lists many examples around _groups_, it is not only age groups, they serve different ideas. I've put them in perspective over at [Meta] Scalable Competitions: From Newcomer to Unicon, I gonna repeat here:
Groups serve two purposes:
- Organize the event schedule (start groups)
- Optionally reward winners within a class (not a championship title though)
Groups by that are more flexible in comparison to classes, which is the idea of that design to adjust them to a given situation.
! **Groups can only defined within Classes** !
A) Using them as Start Groups:
Primary start group:
- Based on age: Age groups as we know them
- Based on skill: Beginner/Advanced/Expert as used in Muni
Secondary start group:
- Based on heat/wave: As in Track and Field
- Based on round: tournament mode in Flatland or X-Style
B) Using them as Winning Groups:
- Based on age: Age groups as we know them
If you go through the examples listed in this discussion you can attribute them to start groups, winning groups, etc. Both as general rules or discipline specific.
Where to make changes?
There are two places to make a change: In the general section and in Age Group and Categories of Event Organizer Rules in each discipline, whereas the latter can override or refer to the former as it is more specific. Not all competitons explicitely list age groups. Missing are Flatland, Street, Jump and Team Sports (they _must_ be provided by event organizers right now).
1) General section
The rulebook has the following section 1C.7 Age Groups - which lists initial age groups and combining them.
Initial Age Groups:
This section has a chance to provide a _recommandation_ or a _sensible default_ when disciplines omit a definition themselves. That's the place for the initial idea of this discussion.
Here also classes come in and are the grid at which the groups can fit in.
Combining Age Groups:
The rules for combining the age group are clear, but I agree it is not guaranteed you start in the group you signed up for, so the statement by Jürgen:
> The goal must be that the person registering for a competition knows in advance in which age group he will be scored.
can be adressed in that section. In which I wanna highlight, there are good reason for these mergers. I remember many (freestyle) competitions where you become first out of one starter. Having merging as a condition seems to be feasible. What's that condition? Who is in charge? The event host as part of their proposal/bid (de: Ausschreibung)?
2) Disciplines/Competitions
They can overwrite this general section entirely and adjust this to their situation - and this discussion shows clearly this is much needed. It _seems_ that each competition shall define its own groups (though I'm not sure). Here Muni is free to define start groups based on skill level (beginner/advanced/expert) others may use age groups or otherwise make it custom to their discipline. Also these are recommendations rsp. sensible defaults.
Yet, changes to that have to happen in the respective subcommitees. The job in this committee is to provide them the "building blocks" (aka terms) so they can express their discipline.
Q: What about these recommendations rsp. sensible defaults?
The impact of these is: if you want to organize an event, you grab the rulebook and without doing anything, they would apply. Currently they are written to run a Unicon - that's the point where people confuse themselves, when people refer to this as making the rules scale at all sizes.
> The rules need to work for all sizes of competitions from local to the world championships
It's a trap and I have fallen for it too. The same rules cannot apply to newcomer and unicon. That is addressing everybody but pleasing nobody.
With a little twist this works: The rulebook must provide an option to make it adjustable for all sizes (and provide a sensible default). Which refers to the "building blocks" - let's focus on that.
--
I would kindly ask you to try describing the groups you are referring to a bit more precise (I offered some vocabulary, challenge that) as it will help us to better understand each the subject we are discussing and to uncover the relationships between them. That in turn will help formulate changes to the rules that address the issue at hand and not accidentaly regress any existing but good working rules.
Comment
I'm noticing some themes so far that seem to be in agreement:
- Age groups need to work for all size of competitions - local to world
- Age groups need to be developmentally based (a 9 year old not competing against an 18 year old)
- Age groups that can be combined or expanded based on the discipline of riding or number of competitors
- Age groups need to be predictable from competition to competition so that a registrant knows their age group
Are there other points that I'm missing? I think that if we can find common ground on these themes then we can move forward with more specifics.
Comment
I think that's basically a pretty good summary. On the last point “” I would like to say one more thing: I don't think it's possible to make it 100% clear which age group you will be ranked in when you register - that would mean that we would completely prohibit organizers from combining age groups, which I don't think is a good idea. The organizers will then only advertise the minimum required age groups from the beginning, which will lead to larger age groups and less age-appropriate ranking, which I think would be a shame.
I think it would be good if there were certain “guaranteed” age groups, or if the rulebook would at least give the organizers the opportunity to offer such “guaranteed” age groups, where you can be sure that you will be ranked in them - but I would still retain the flexibility to offer more age groups within this “guaranteed” age groups, and then merge them if necessary, if there are too few participants in one age group.
Comment
To widen the support for all disciplines that separate groups between start and winning groups, while keeping age groups as they are today. Here is my draft to do that:
---
## 1C.7 Groups
Groups are an optional managing level within classes and are flexibel to adjust to the needs for the given competition. Groups serve two purposes:
- Organize the event schedule (start groups)
- Optionally reward winners within a group (winning groups)
Groups have to be based on a condition (eg. age or skill). Start and winning groups merge, when both are based on the same condition.
Each competition lists their arrangement of groups under event organizer rules.
### 1.C7.1 Age Groups
Age groups use age as condition for start and winning groups.
[content from existing 1C.7 will move here]
---
It's quite condensed but will open up to support all disciplines/competitions. Each section will continue to describe the scenarios in event organizer rules. For classes see the other discussion.
Comment
The proposal introduces some new terms, but does not address the core of this discussion at all. It is essentially just an additional definition that does not change the current situation - but this discussion was precisely about what needs to be changed in the current rules regarding dividing and merging age groups.
Comment
//
Patricia: I'm noticing some themes so far that seem to be in agreement:
- Age groups need to work for all size of competitions - local to world
- Age groups need to be developmentally based (a 9 year old not competing against an 18 year old)
- Age groups that can be combined or expanded based on the discipline of riding or number of competitors
- Age groups need to be predictable from competition to competition so that a registrant knows their age group
//
I agree with the first three. The last one is impossible. It needs to be possible for organizers to react to the amount of riders to combine age groups if needed. But I think that's okay if we define minimum age groups, riders will know for sure, at least these will be there. Maybe more.
So what should be define as minimum age groups then.
First of all: Junior and Adult riders should never compete against each other, so there needs to be a guaranteed separation of these two classes at all times. (also part of the other discussion)
Junior (0-14)
Adult (15+)
After reading through this discussion again I tried to find the age groups that were mentioned the most and tried to find minimum age groups that would make sense for them:
(bold age groups are the minimum requirements)
for the Junior class (0-14)
U8, U11 | U13, U15
for the Adult class (15+)
U17, U19, U25, U30 | U35, U40, U45, U50 | U55, U60, U65, U70, U75 | 75+
In reality, many disciplines/competitions, especially small competitions will have even less than the minimum age groups, because there just might not be U11 or U75, 75+ riders present.
So I think these would be manageable for small competitions and would still work for larger ones.
Comment
Speaking to Ian, he explained a couple of things to me, that I learned I was wrong about which made the start group thingy obsolete.
However, we fully agreed on the strict boundaries that determines agegroup merging. I was speaking to the freestyler group in germany this monday, they also support the idea, where adding extra groups to support their needs.
for the Junior class (0-14)
U9, U11 | U13, U15
for the Youth Class (15-18)
U17, U19
for the Adult class (>= 19)
U21, U23, U25, U30 | U35, U40, U45, U50 | U55, U60, U65, U70, U75 | 75+
Some explanations they gave me:
- U21, U23, U25 this is where many adult starters are in freestyle; a U25 usually contains all them (that would be absurd)
- U9 instead of U8 - already well established, and there are usually not enough U8 starters.
With that freestylers are happy to refer to these as their agegroups, otherwise have to extend/overwrite them to make them work for freestyle.
Comment
> I agree with the first three. The last one is impossible. It needs to be possible for organizers to react to the amount of riders to combine age groups if needed. But I think that's okay if we define minimum age groups, riders will know for sure, at least these will be there. Maybe more.
I would agree that it is not possible to know 100% which age group you will actually end up in when you register. But I think the discussion here has arisen precisely because at least certain age groups should be guaranteed and you at least know with certainty in which guaranteed age group you will be ranked.
All in all, I would agree with the subdivision proposed by Ian and gossi with the exception that I cannot support a mandatory third class and would therefore put the U17 and U19 in the adult section:
Junior class (0-14):
U8, U11 | U13, U15
Adult class (15+):
U17, U19 | U21, U23, U25, U30 | U35, U40, U45, U50 | U55, U60, U65, U70, U75 | 75+ (or U70 | 70+ would also be fine for me)
Comment
Junior class (0-14):
U8, U11 | U13, U15
Adult class (15+):
U17, U19 | U21, U23, U25, U30 | U35, U40, U45, U50 | U55, U60, U65, U70, U75 | 75+ (or U70 | 70+ would also be fine for me)
I can support these divisions but as mentioned in the other proposal I think we should use the words Junior and Senior.
I am also fine with U70.
Comment
As said in the other discussion, the third class Youth would be optional if it comes into existence.
So the age groups U17 and U19 would default to being in the Adult/Senior age class, and only in case of a discipline using the Youth age class would move there.
Other than that, I think U70 and 70+ would be sufficient. Also the addition of more age groups below U30.
So I will summarize both cases, dependent on our decision about two or three classes in the other discussion:
default for all competitions
Junior class (0-14):
U9, U11 | U13, U15
Adult/Senior class (15+):
U17, U19 | U21, U23, U25, U30 | U35, U40, U45, U50 | U55, U60, U65, U70 | 70+
_____
in disciplines with the optional Youth class
Junior class (0-14):
U9, U11 | U13, U15
Youth class (15-18)
U17, U19
Adult/Senior class (19+):
U21, U23, U25, U30 | U35, U40, U45, U50 | U55, U60, U65, U70 | 70+
____
Could we agree on these?
If not, please state what you would want to change.
And then I would ask Jürgen or Jan to prepare a proposal.
(probably with both of these scenarios to be prepared for whatever the age classes proposals will result in)
Comment
> As said in the other discussion, the third class Youth would be optional if it comes into existence.
As I said before, I am against integrating such an optional class into the rulebook. This will only make sure that the inconsistency we currently have will continue.
Comment
This discussion it shouldn't be about the optional third class. (and it looks like we will be going for two anyways)
Let's keep it about the age groups. They can be discussed (almost) independently from the classes.
Comment
You are right - especially if the consensus is to consider the U15 and U19 as mandatory age groups anyway, the classes have no influence on this. So if we focus only on the Age Groups here it would be the following, what is proposed, right?
Full set of Age Groups with the bold ones as guaranteed Age Groups that are not merged with other goups:
U9, U11 | U13, U15 | U17, U19 | U21, U23, U25, U30 | U35, U40, U45, U50 | U55, U60, U65, U70 | 70+
Comment
I think that is the consensus.
Comment
I think so too. We can go ahead with a proposal then. Jan?
Comment
I have tried to extend the existing rule 1C.7 Age Groups so that the mandatory age groups discussed here are taken into account. Please give feedback on whether the proposal suits you.
Important: The proposal should only cover what we have discussed here regarding the mandatory and additional age groups. Other aspects of the current rule 1C.7 that should be changed should be dealt with in separate proposals if necessary.
1C.7 Age Groups
1C.7.1 Mandatory Age Groups
1. For all events in which age groups are to be ranked, the organizer must offer at least the mandatory age groups. An exception is made for competitions that have a general restriction on the age of participants, which may mean that mandatory age groups are not included.
The mandatory age groups are U11 (0-10 years), U15 (11-14 years), U19 (15-18 years), U30 (19-29 years), U50 (30-49 years), U70 (50-69 years) and 70+ (70 years and older).
2. Mandatory age groups will persist regardless of the number of registered participants and can therefore be guaranteed for the participants.
1C.7.2 Additional age groups
1. The host may publish (“offer”) additional age groups for all events in which age groups are to be ranked before registration opens, based on the maximum expected number of riders and their age spectrum. These additional age groups must be subdivisions of the mandatory age groups, i.e. the boundaries of the additional age groups must not exceed those of the mandatory age groups. When publishing, it must be made clear that these additional age groups are not necessarily final and therefore cannot be taken as guaranteed.
2. A subdivision into maximum the following age groups is possible (including the mandatory age groups):
U9, U11, U13, U15, U17, U19, U21, U23, U25, U30, U35, U40, U45, U50, U55, U60, U65, U70, 70+
3. Additional age groups will be combined after the registration deadline on the basis of the registered participants within the mandatory age groups. In a competition with more than 50 riders, six riders are needed to complete an age group. In competitions with less than 50 riders, six in each age group are still highly recommended, however three riders are the minimum to complete an age group. Combining is done according to the following principle:
i) The convention host must combine additional age groups with less than six riders (three riders for smaller conventions) if needed. The combining process is to be done on a per-event (per-discipline) basis.
ii) When combining, combine the smallest age group (that is, the age group with the smallest number of participants) with its smallest neighboring age group either up or down). If more than one age group is the smallest, choose the age group with the smallest neighbor for combining. Continue this process until all resulting age groups (combined and/or original) have at least the minimum required/recommended number of participants. Male age groups and female age groups are never combined.
4. In exceptional cases it may be decided to split offered additional age groups after the registration deadline.
5. 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
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.
Other than that, I support it.
Comment
> 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.
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.
Comment
@Ian: In the end, splitting age groups according to the current rule is also possible - so we could take this aspect as another topic and open a separate discussion on whether we want to keep this rule or not. Would that be okay for you, or do you think we need to make changes for this proposal?
What about the rest? Are there any objections to the proposal or does it fit for everyone?
Comment
I agree with Ian's point and also think it would be fine to address this in a separate discussion. Otherwise I support the rest.
Comment
I have created a seperate discussion for this issue.
Comment
Are there any further comments on this proposal? If not, I assume that everybody is fine with it and I would put it to the vote.