BUCS Competitions Group Meeting
Date: 17 November2015
Venue: Imperial College, London
Time: 2pm to 4pm
Attendance:
Ian Smyth (Chair)
Paul O’Leary (BUCS)
Natalie Smith (BUCS)
Jenny Morris (BUCS)
Simon Cruise (BUCS)
Ross Simpson (Scotland)
Danielle Farrell (North West)
Mark Hawkings (North East)
Annie Potter (Yorkshire)
Tegan Pickles (London)
Molly Brown (West Midlands) – Dialled in
Christopher Campbell (East Midlands)
Sam Hurley (South West)
Sadie Thwaites (Wales)
Apologies: Katy Storie
1. Minutes and actions from last meeting (24 November 2014)
The discussion of Gaelic Football being disorganised was brought up again. There are still
games being organised and rearranged through Facebook etc. and avoiding AU processes.
BUCS noted that this is a transitionary year for Gaelic and as such there are likely to be
teething issues.
- Action: BUCS to liaise with GAA contact and reiterate to AUs and teams that
everything Gaelic related should be going through AUs.
Lacrosse 8s was also discussed further, it was confirmed that 2nd teams will not be allowed
to entered initially. This should not have been in the previous minutes and as such needs
striking.
With regard to Squash queries from regions, individual responses were sent to queries from
each region.
2. 9 Ball Follow Up
Follow up response from UPC to questions raised from paper approved at previous
meeting.
The paper put together by UPC answered the raised questions on cost and projected
number of participants into the proposed 9 ball discipline as well as responding to the
negative feedback raised against UPC by the West Midlands.
It was questioned as to whether or not the accommodation was compulsory and whether it
was possible to, on BUCScore, offer entries both with and without accommodation
charges.
- Action: BUCS to liaise with UPC and confirm this is a viable option, also to explore
that this is possible within the functionality of BUCScore.
3. Archery Follow Up
Follow up response from SAG to questions raised from paper approved at previous
meeting.
The reason that the SAG wishes to add a Regional Round is because they feel that the
current competition has grown to a point where participation has to be restricted as entries
are now being cut due to facility restrictions. The SAG’s desire is to grow participation in
the sport rather than restrict it hence their desire to have regional qualifying events.
The reason that institutions are being charged twice is because the Regional Round and
the National Finals are two separate events. The SAG believes that charging those who
qualify to the National Finals twice is better than charging everyone who enters one larger
sum to offset the cost for both.
It was mentioned that the timing of the events could be moved however due to the novice
skill levels of many university archers that moving the competitions earlier may also
restrict participation.
Question was raised as to whether or not places for substitution are ring-fenced to an
institution. Response was that no, they are not. It would be the next highest ranked archer
from the regional qualification round that would be next in line to compete. As this is the
case it was noted that it is important that those with the potential to be substitutes should
be made aware this is the case so that they are prepared if they are called upon.
Scotland disagreed with this being the situation with substitutions, believing that the
substitute should come from within the club of those dropping out. They felt that if entries
to the Regional Round were limited then a university with a strong Archery club may have
archers of higher quality unable to compete in the Regional Round due to restricted
entries than those who finish in the reserve slots for that region.
- Action: BUCS to discuss with SAG to decide on entry process for Regional Round.
4. Rugby National League Paper
6 regions have met already but 4 have not and as such it was decided that even if a
majority decision could be formed from those who had already met, that a final decision
wouldn’t be made at this particular meeting, instead waiting for all regional feedback to
come in. Regions who were yet to meet were advised to take advantage of offer of a
conference call from BUCS to help answer any queries before voting.
It was raised that those who were in the Premier South consultation meeting were
unanimously not in favour, however they were under the belief that their hands were tied
and had to pick one of the options presented. BUCS advised that this wasn’t the case and
that other institutions had said that they did not like any of the options presented and thus
supported none of them. Four potential National League teams from the South were all
against the proposed National League structures. The South felt that their feedback had
been ignored however BUCS pointed out that they displayed all feedback given to them
and that Option 1 in initial paper had been together by the Welsh representative on the
SAG.
It was also noted that the Premier North vote was actually more positive towards Option 3
than the reported 5 out of 8 and was in fact 7 out of 8.
The involvement of the SRFU and RFU was questioned, why had their preference been
included but not the SRU or WRU. BUCS mentioned that the SRFU and RFU had been
consulted with and that although their preference was noted, it had no bearing on the numbers
portrayed in the paper or appendices.
Clarity of paper was under question, BUCS however advised that this was by far the longest
consultation process of any of the National League papers.
It was noted that there appears to be a difference in opinion at the institution level between
some Directors of Rugby and Directors of Sport, which is an issue.
Cost was brought up as an issue, however it was noted that there were institutions with teams
in the Cricket Premier A, which is also a national league, that voted against the Rugby National
League, which seems somewhat illogical.
There was a concern raised with regard to potentially losing high level players who lose out on playing
Saturday club rugby or are restricted by their clubs as BUCS product is different to high level club rugby.
However it was noted that these players may barely be playing in BUCS fixtures as is.
It was noted that if teams do elect to opt out of the league then regions will want to be informed
as their views may change based on this.
A concern was raised that the politics surrounding this process have clouded the initial aims
and objectives of the paper and as such are affecting feedback.
A request was made that a deadline be set at which point a decision must be made as to
whether or not the National League will take place for the 2016/17 season. Further to this a
timeline needs to be put together for the decision process.
Scotland:
Not met – SRU have just opened academies, which makes scheduling a lot more
difficult with the very top level players.
They felt that no relegation would be an issue, as is travel and cost due to no
chance of funding from the SRU. 14 abstentions, St Andrews preferred Option 3
and Edinburgh would be a yes but needed more information.
North East:
Supportive – Supportive of option 3 – Move to National League is very much
supported. Points they had raised were in the paper or will need to be discussed
further anyway such as BUCS Points.
North West:
Supportive – Bangor were very much against however the majority of other
universities were supportive. A letter was sent to BUCS post-regional, which was
being responded to by BUCS. They felt it was important to get the feeling of the
WRU/SRU also.
Yorkshire:
Supportive - There was 1 abstention but the view was largely favourable. It was
asked how the league would be run between BUCS, the RFU and the SRFU.
BUCS explained that BUCS would deal with the administration of the league as
standard, as though it was any other league however the other processes
surrounding the league needed to be discussed further with the RFU and SRFU.
Also noted at the meeting, that politics aside, it was felt that pushing for National
Leagues is a very positive step for BUCS.
West Midlands: Not met – Believe that they will be supportive subject to confirmation at Regional
meeting, effect on student life and the performance structure was questioned.
There was also concern about the league season stretching before term starts.
East Midlands:
South West:
Wales:
South East:
London:
-
Institutions that hadn’t involved in the entire process felt they had missed steps and
as such are struggling to follow the process.
Supportive – Aware that their central status geographically made a lot of the
raised issues smaller for them. 8 votes for and 1 abstention. Oxford Brookes noted
they felt a larger focus on Sport Development was more important than pushing for
National Leagues.
Unsupportive – Lack of student engagement in the process, didn’t feel that the
impact on students was considered enough.
Not met yet – Would prefer to progress the current structure towards a National
League. They feel that this structure wouldn’t work for them due to the structure of
Welsh Rugby, which means that any club players involved in playing on Saturdays,
and getting paid, wouldn’t be involved in this league thus weakening any teams
they could field.
Not met yet – No Representative present
Supportive – Generally favourable. Kings who would be the only team close to
being involved in the region were against. There was a concern about funding
continuing in future years and whether the amount of funding would be adequate to
help sustain programs.
Action- Regions to send in all feedback by Monday as well as breakdown of votes
from each region.
5. Cricket Participation Rules
Paper discussing the inclusion of Women into Men’s leagues in line with current NGB
provision.
Scotland:
North East:
Not met yet – Expected to be in favour
Supportive – 4 for and 1 against. Questioned player movement but BUCS
confirmed that once played for Men’s team can’t switch back to Women’s, can’t
move between the two. Concern raised about depleting Women’s only teams
North West:
Supportive – as long as players moving are capped and women’s teams aren’t
affected
Yorkshire:
Supportive
West Midlands: Not met yet – Expected to be supportive, small concern about women’s team not
being developed as women’s players may just go into Men’s team but BUCS
ensures that ECB are also pushing development of Women’s game also.
East Midlands: Unsupportive - Region against if women can’t go between both Men’s &
Women’s. Majority against player cap, potential discrimination issue could arise
although cap is largely to protect women’s game as a whole. Open Cricket and
Women Cricket seen as different sport so should be able to move between sports.
South West:
Supportive
Wales:
Not met yet – Expected to be supportive – Canoe Polo brought up as similar to
this, but BUCS is looking to change this in Canoe Polo
South East:
Not met yet – No Representative present
London:
Supportive - Although they would prefer to have clarification on player movement
-
Action: Desk research to be undertaken as to which NGB’s do not allow mixed
competition as other sports may question this in their sports also
6. U18 Participation in BUCS Leagues & Competitions
There was no paper given for this agenda item, it was just to open up discussions. The
topic has come to Competitions Group due to questions coming from both institutions
and parents.
BUCS Regulations need tidying up with regard to eligibility of both HE and FE students
as there is only an age stated with regard to FE students and not HE students. Thus
there is an issue with HE students under the age of 18.
Opening up our competitions to non-adults will create a huge amount of paperwork for
example them entering Student Union buildings, being in environments serving alcohol,
child protection laws etc. It would need to be decided upon who would process all of
this.
NGB guidelines are to be consulted to see what they allow in each sport.
A discussion occurred regarding Irish students who may leave secondary school at 17.
It was noted that as they are not seen as adults at 17, unlike Scottish 17 year olds, then
they are not currently eligible.
-
Action: BUCS to put together a working group around this topic
7. Guidelines for Competitions Group
Discussion raised around exactly what Competitions Group should be used for – No
paper was submitted.
The current voting structure needs work and it was raised that the governance
surrounding this needs to be clarified and discussed.
If change is to occur before next season then change needs to be done pre-AGM
because if role of Competitions Group changes then people may run for Regional
Representative roles based on old role rather than new.
-
Action: BUCS to put together a working group around this topic to be brought back
to Competitions Group before AGM
8. Any other business
North East – Squash query had already been answered by BUCS.
An update was sought regarding New Sport Criteria. The advice was given that BUCS
was awaiting the appointment of the new CEO before pushing ahead with this.
The issue of top institutions playing against each other twice early in the season was
raised. This is being looked into by BUCS.
Scotland – Noted that the previous meeting’s minutes took a while to get out and need
to be sent out more efficiently.
Discussion was also held around Reg. 12.2, specifically the mention of away teams
arriving back home before 12. Scotland feels that they have negatively affected by this
and that the regulation needs looking at.
Yorkshire - Questioned why Athletics is always hosted in Bedford. It was advised that
the SAG is fine with this and that the team at Bedford is very high level and having a
good working relationship with BUCS. However other hosts could be sought out if that
was desired.
Teams pulling out of organised Round Robins is having a major negative effect on
fixtures in the region, landing host institutions with costs and increasing their workload.
The region feels that a paper similar to the South West paper that recently went out
would be very beneficial. A query was raised about the BUCScore User Group, advised
that it was currently on hiatus.
North West – Same issue as Yorkshire with regard to Round Robins, also supported a
paper similar to South West.
East Midlands – Felt that it may be an idea to put together a spreadsheet of topics
discussed at Competitions Group so that people could look through and see what had
been discussed in recent meetings.
Next Meetings:
Tuesday 23rd February at 12pm (London) & Tuesday 10th May