Section 1: National Competition Review
070414 - Draft version in preparation for presentation to Sport Committee
British Rowing
National Competition Review
Section 1: Context and Outcome of Competition Review Consultation
Written by Fiona Dennis on behalf of the National Competition Committee Working Group
1.1 Background
Over the past ten years there have been several attempts to review and develop our current
competition structure beginning with Ann Colborne’s report in 2002. In 2010 Council directed the
British Rowing Championships committee to review the format to raise the standard of the regatta.
Throughout this period the National Competition Committee (NCC) continued to amend the points
structure in an attempt to create a fair and effective system.
Despite a great deal of time and effort little has been achieved except for the introduction of the
new British Championships format which has successfully raised the standard and quality of
competition.
1.2 Introduction
Why review the current competition structure
Competition is a key element within our sport. The response to previous research indicates that
the majority of members want to compete at an appropriate level and have an enjoyable, good
quality competitive experience. In October 2012 the NCC conducted an initial investigation to
ascertain whether our current competition structure is meeting the needs of our sport. The
response was a clear no; there are issues that
need to be addressed.
1
Section 1: National Competition Review
Only
2%
growth in
gold
members
27%
British
Rowing
membership
growth
2009-13
87%
of members are
eligible to enter
competitions
27%
Only
of
membership
expiries are
a result of
not
competing
anymore say more local
competitions would
encourage them to enter
of members
more competitions
would like
to enter
more
rowing
competition say competition is
central to their
s
involvement and
major interest is
winning at the highest
possible level
14%
race more
than once a
month
Top
Five
ranked potential
improvements
Cheaperto
entry
Simplify/abolish
points
competition
structure
More fun and casual events
More local competitions
Regattas offering
52%
39%
44%
British Rowing Membership survey August 2013.
As a result the committee undertook a more thorough investigation including volunteers, British
Rowing staff and committees, the regions and individual members. (The process is described in
more detail in the following section). The outcome provided a clear focus for the review which
must take into consideration and be part of ‘British Rowing 2020’ Vision.
The Whole Sport Plan shapes the vision, direction and priorities for the sport as a whole. It is vital
for volunteers and staff to work in partnership to create and implement a framework that delivers
the key priorities; increasing participation and creating a good competitive experienced.
The two aspects, repeatedly highlighted in the consultations that are hindering the above
priorities which formed the focus of the review are;
1)
The structure of competition
Currently the competition structure is restricted and the lack of flexibility is a major reason
individuals are leaving the sport.
Members state they want more accessible pathways that enable them to ‘fit rowing into their
life’ rather than ‘fit their life around rowing’
2)
2
The points system
Statistical evidence demonstrates that the points system is not effective. There is a lack of
competition beyond IM2 as points provide no incentive to compete at a higher level.
Crews try to avoid points to enable them to competed at a lower level which is stifling
competition
Section 1: National Competition Review
1.3 Initial Research and Consultation
The diagram outlines the first stage of consultation across the sport.
2009-12
NCC
making
repeated
changes to
points
system
Oct 2013
NCC meeting
and WG
Oct-Dec 2012
proposals
An informal
agreed
questionnaire
Aug 2013
Letter sent to
Apr 2013
was sent by the
BR membership
Regional Chairs
Aims
signed
off
NCC extended
survey includes
& Committee
by Sport
group to
Competition
Chairs
Committee
regions collated
Review
Oinformed
N D Ja
F
M A M questions
Ju Ju A
S Sport
O N
and
Committee
c
o
e
n
e
a
p
a
n
l
u
e
c
o
the review
t
v
c
1
b
r
r
y
1
1
g
p supported
t
v the
proposals
Nov 2013
Sep 2013
Jan 2013
Jul 2013
Email to general
Working Group
Set up working
NCC sent
members
meet and
group including
questionnaire
Council agreed
evaluated
volunteers and
to all
to exploring a
outcomes –
BR staff
committee
no points
agreed to
NCC finalised
chairs, panels
system
explore
aims of the
and other
As stated above, common
from all the research
which shaped the more detailed
pointless
Nationalthemes arosestakeholders
process following Council’s
agreement (e.g.
to progress
in November 2013.
system
Competition
juniors,the review
Framework
coaching, BUCS
etc.)
1.4 Agreed Aims and Objectives
Oct 2012
NCC started
review – Guin
Batten & Rod
Murray
The agreed aim of the National Competition Framework is;
A progressive and flexible competition framework that is sustainable, recognises achievement
and gives both existing and new competitors the opportunity to row in high quality events.





3
By progressive we mean evolving to the changing needs of the sport, competitors and
organisers. Encouraging event organisers to be creative in providing new event formats for
rowers and clubs.
By flexible we mean relevant to whatever our members enjoy, in their area or region,
matching their skills, chosen challenge, boat type and age.
By competition framework we mean an annual event structure that is overseen by British
Rowing for rowers, clubs and event organisers.
By sustainable we mean affordable for the rowers and clubs, financially stable for the event
organisers, and well supported by competitors and spectators.
By recognising achievement we mean identifying the fastest or best athletes, crews, schools
and/ or clubs. In the wider context it also it means coaches, officials and volunteers.
Section 1: National Competition Review


By gives both existing and new competitors we mean events that are open to new rowers
and keeps existing rowers in the sport. Events that are enjoyable, exciting, meaningful and
relevant to rowers lives and ambitions.
By opportunities to row in high quality events we mean providing well organised, fair and
safe events that have the competitors and spectators experience at the heart of the
1.5 Event and club consultation process 2014
Following agreement of the above, in November 2013 Council agreed to the following Competition
Review proposals
1. Throughout 2014 work towards a categories based approach for the 2014/15 season to
include three tiers of events, Novice/Beginner, Intermediate and Championship (names to
be confirmed).
2. Simplification of the rules for less formal, smaller and more local events.
As a result of Council’s decision the NCC consulted with event organisers and club volunteers who
were invited to contribute towards developing the new competition framework through a series of
regional workshops held in early 2014, led by members of the NCC and British Rowing staff.
1.6 Summary of the workshops
Each workshop explained the process so far and delegates considered what a new competition
framework might look like and how it could be implemented.
There was a general recognition that the current system is flawed, however no single solution arose
from the workshops. Given the varied and complex make up of the sport in terms of regions and
membership profile this is not surprising. Each workshop reflected the specific needs of the
particular region in which the session was being held, for example WAGS and W.M have a lot of
smaller clubs.
Delegates were asked initially to consider what aspects are important to retain from the current
structure. The key points raised across all the sessions were;
 Progression
 Some form of categorisation
 Incentive to win
 Good quality competitive racing
Exploring these priorities further and considering what the future might look like generated range
of ideas relating to the overall competition structure, how rowers could be classified and a variety
types and formats of event. The themes that arose across all the sessions are summarised below.
Performance Profile
4
Section 1: National Competition Review

A clear majority were able to explore the concept of a competence based approach although
10-20% had difficulty in dispensing with ‘points’ for wins. However, when we examined what
delegates wanted from a points system, it was to quantify the individual or crews competence,
i.e. speed, not just the number of wins.

Delegates agreed that ‘points’ or ‘wins’ are not equal, it is easier to win at a regional regatta
than a large multilane regatta but there is no recognition of this in the current structure. The
new system must have integrity and be sufficiently flexible to enable regattas to set the entry
criteria as appropriate for their context.

There was a consensus that judging performance should go beyond purely winning, in
particular Head Races should contribute towards an individual’s performance profile.
A considerable number also wanted the university sector to be integrated more effectively,
creating one system rather than the current two.
BROE
 The delegates all placed significant emphasise on BROE. A system is required that provides a
personal profile, equivlant of a ‘passport’ and can track an individuals performance over a
period of time, three years was suggested, and provide a ranking at regional and national level
 Regattas or Heads could set their events criteria to select from a selected range within the
ranking, i.e. Championship events are open to those ranked 1 – 200. Or they could advertise a
range of events and then divide the crews after the close of entries ensuring those of similar
speed are in the same event, therefore maximising competitive racing.
Whatever option they choose, BROE is an essential tool for the majority of events and seem by
organsiers as key to impelemting any change.
Categorisation

There was strong support for a beginner and novice
category. The former would last for a set period of time,
either one or two years. If an individual wins within that
period then they move to intermediate. If they are not
successful, they move to and remain as Novice until they
achieve their first win.

Overall, delegates supported moving to fewer categories.
The undiecided factor is when and how individuals move
between levels. However, there was support for a more
flexible structure for two reasons. Firstly, to allow
competitions, regattas and heads, to pitch events at an
appropriate level as this would improve the quality of
5
Section 1: National Competition Review
competition. Secondly, to allow compeittors to adapt the level of competition according to
their level of performance over a period of time.
Competition format

Increase diversity of partipation and opporunity to row seven days a week. Competition
needs to reflect the changong work and family patterns; mid week, evening or weekend a)
increasing the opportunity to parcitate b) open up the sport to new target groups for example
retired individuals or mums who have time mid week.

Year long competition season, increading the range of formats, sumer heads, skills based,
virtual racing, omiums. Events should offer more than one race.

Develop regional & National leagues, regional qualifiers for national events. The system
should enable regional grading of events

The organisaiton should reflect the level of event, the highest standards expected of national
events

Increased use of technology, for example, virtual umpiring, GPS steering, Barcode race licence

Key objective of all events is good quality, fun racing which provides an incentive to win.
‘Prizes’ should reflect the level of achievement, i.e. winning at Championship level is
percieved as the highest and most desirable level to compete.
Future Event organisation
Delegates considered what events might look like for different competitors from recreational to
elite. What the rowers want from competition, identify the challenges for the organisers and the
support needed from British Rowing and clubs, below is a summary of the ideas put forward.
What do the
rowers want
The
challenges
For event
organisers
















6
Fun, Fellowship, value for money.
Range of competition formats, multiple races, competitive racing
Athletes choose boat class
Reinvigorate river racing. Inclusive of all, masters, senior, junior.
Value first win
Progressive and flexible system reflecting changing performance of
individual
Recognition of achievement.
Good chance of winning.
Local to national leagues, national ‘play off’.
Selection criteria for premier events
The cost of events, securing sufficient funding
Balancing fun & income
Having sufficient committee boats for recreational events
Method of differentiating between intermediate and
championship
Having sufficient volunteers
Simplification of rules
Section 1: National Competition Review
BR &
regional
support
needed by
events
Support from
clubs &
coaches










Supply of committee boats
Review of membership – day participation ticket?
Develop a BROE profile, based on performance, not just winning
enabling rowers to be classified and events to filter competitors
appropriately for their context
B.R. ‘own’ top events
volunteer training
Support for the events, organisers and volunteers
A potential challenge is the physical limit to the size of clubs/
rowing water.
Change in training system and attitude, support for new rowers
Clubs willing to provide committee boats for local and recreational
events
Clubs working in partnership to offer local league
2.Summary
Next steps, the information gathered from the research and the workshops has informed the road
map written in conjunction with the NCC, BR staff and officers.
It is recognised that the new system will take time to develop and evolve therefore there will be a
period of transition.
The
7