Tagged: PINTURA CENTRE
This topic contains 194 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Mark E 2 weeks ago.
A great idea to provide electronic timing with the following caveats
1. It is costly to purchase
2. It needs trained volunteers to set it up and operate it.
3. It needs to be maintained and this can also be costly, particularly where it is used in wet weather.
IMO this is the kind of initiative that the NGB should focus on.
The cost of photo finish system needs exploring. You can buy the same systems in the usa for a fraction of the price. But the UK supplier seems to have a monopoly, and sell at inflated prices. Must be the only technology that has not deprecated with time!
Know I know how to set up and operate a photo finish system, and they are needlessly complicated. But, the camera is not as high tech as our modern day iphone. With an ipad, i can very easily film the smoke from the gun, and stand on the line to film athletes as they finish. I can then work out the time using any number of free video capture programmes. With practice this is a 1-2 minute job for just 1 person. Accurate to say 300ths of a second? This is good enough for me…
People often confuse the clock as being the photo finish system. It is just a clock that starts via a simple sensor on the start gun, and stops at the athletes breaks a simple lazer beam. Again, simple technology that for some reason remains very expensive. How much better are meetings were the winning time in known as soon as the winning athlete finishes?
Massive lack of innovation, and I am afraid I do blame the ngb. Just look at the state of the British champs at the weekend!
MarkE, I agree with you in the main other than the 100% time on revising!….how on earth did the huge number of past top British athletes manage to get to University and gain good degrees, become dentists and doctors and even PhD’s (4 in my steeplechase final in the AAA’s 1969: John Jackson, Gareth Bryne Jones, Tony Ashton and Paul Lightfoot) No, I am fully aware of the usual lame excuses about society moving on (don’t they always?) and other alternative leisure pursuits but the fact remains that since 1997 this unfit for purpose NGB has had c£300million to do something about it and they have failed miserably. If there had been no money and the sport was still run by a small handful of elected and hard working volunteer NGB officials, then one can accept that it is more difficult in today’s age to promote and develop the sport……….But that’s not the case here. There’s no shortage of funds. There are no shortage of opportunities for talent to thrive….. but the incompetents in charge simply do not have the ability to drive it and they survive because none are accountable and the clubs are letting them get away with it.
I don’t agree with 100% revision concept – I have many examples of high achievers who never stopped training and competing throughout their GCSE’s and A’Levels including my daughter.
It is parents who put this pressure on and particularly those who didn’t go through higher education.
Less is more
Woodward ‘piaa’ I suggest you do your research a little better and compare appropriately with today’s funded sport compared with pre 97 unfunded.*
The 17 medals you claim for the WC period 2015-2017 is false…..The IAAF official statistician has reported the IAAF website has many errors. e.g., adding in the medals for the masters 800m and the master 400 women which were put on during the 2015 Champs…Whereas the actual GB medal count for the period you refer to is therefore 14 not 17, so no improvement so far on the 95-97 period.
*AND……..the one crucial and overriding factor for development you conveniently ignore, is the fact that since 1997 to date, UKA have had some £300million to provide a sport “the likes of which we have never before seen”…….. And what have they actually achieved with so much money sloshing around to counter all you claim are a negative factors in providing more medallists and more top 8 finishers and a thriving senior sport throughout the UK?…………Bugger all that represents value for money!
However, what they have undeniably ‘achieved’ is the largest staffed (200+ for UKA/EA) and most well funded NGB in the world, totally unaccountable to the sport they purport to run!
What gets me over all this chat is that I was on a board appointed sub-group for UKA on Competition change in 2015/16, nothing was ruled out, it was starting with a blank canvas. I was there because of what I had pushed on competition change, I had written a proposal based upon a workable system trialed elsewhere and functioning. I was not there representing an NGB, I was there because I cared about the sport. We had the Home Countries, UKA in various roles, Coaches, BAL, YDL, event Promoters and others besides.
We came up with a solid list of proposals. They were innovative, they included using app based technology to relay results collective and personal to athletes within minutes if not seconds. We knew that in the modern world young people will walk away if it is not a technologically savvy, social media friendly deal.
We talked about and proposed competition change, including building the competition pathway so County and Area titles mattered.
what happened? The very same clubs many of you represent, kicked off, they were not having the status quo altered, this includes a former ABAC director making the most noise of all because he did not have a seat at the table.
Yes it did require change and money being invested, the will was there but vested interests (big clubs and counties) were not having a bar of it! Still longing for the sunny uplands of the M25 league no doubt
So give us a break please
I can’t believe that a couple of clubs and counties could derail this. What clubs and counties are we talking about? I am still not really clear on what you came up with? What were their objections?
Where do you want to start? Sale, N & EB, Trafford, other BAL clubs the Counties at the annual competition conference. It did not feed their partisan interests…
Screw the athletes and small clubs
County Committees are not always representative of its constituents, many are believers in ‘no change’ or worse still married to sectional interests not to what is best.
So why be stumped by a minority? And what actual power do these organisations have to stop a good idea? What was their issue with the proposal? What was the proposal?
Mark…what do your comments relate to? Is it the earlier proposal linked in a previous post on this thread?
Mark, I responded on the question of technology use but went a little broader. This related to the road blocks that exist in athletics.
MarkW…I too would be interested hear what were the (your ?) specific proposals ? Then we may be able to consider why the likes of the mighty Newham & Essex Beagles, and a couple of Counties rejected them ?
I think I asked this question before and did not get a response. Forgive me if I am wrong.
So let me make some assumptions:
-You proposed (that because athletes who are not funded or wealthy are reluctant to travel) that you scrap national leagues and have a regional league with a September national club showpiece.
-You proposed (because we are not in the 19th century, and because it is cheaper and easier to resource) that male and female formats are combined.
-You proposed (due to lack of critical mass) that some county champs merge, or at they merge for niche events.
Sensible ideas, but would get resistance from a vocal minority of traditionalists that tend to occupy our sports committee’s. But I suspect that the reason that nothing has changed is because our NGBs were just playing lip service to the sport that they are supposed to lead. Hence why we have never seen the proposal…
I am a traditionalist but if our sport does not revolve it will get left behind.
It is about time we stopped putting our heads in the sand and allowing some of the bigger clubs to bully (or buy) success.
We need to promote Athletics in education and spend money on that rather than adult participation initiatives. We also need to safeguard our facilities or there will literally be nowhere to compete.