Race Marshal Manning Levels

[JimW]

Personally I was sorry to see the article concentrating on the rare and easily managed problem and not dealing with the common, dangerous and usually ignored problem of under-manning.

If that does reflect MSA concerns, that would be worrying.





Regards

Jim

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by JimW

Personally I was sorry to see the article concentrating on the rare and easily managed problem and not dealing with the common, dangerous and usually ignored problem of under-manning.

In fairness, the last paragraph of the article does, if somewhat obliquely, mention the problem of undermanning.

Persons more cynical than me might well question whether club racing really needs marshals who are only there to gain Brownie points so that they can be more likely to be picked for the meetings they really want to do.

[SamWaters]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Yet again, I ask, why should 'locals' be favoured. I turn up week after week, at meetings of all levels, travelling 1000s of miles a year at my own expense, often at some of the lesser-supported circuits.

You possibly have more of a chance of being able to visit more circuits due to your location within the country.

People who live in Sussex for example would have to travel an awful lot further for most of the other circuits. Only really two options within a reasonable distance - Goodwood and Brands Hatch.

I DARE you to tell me that 'locals' are somehow better or more deserving marshals than me.

Should "locals" who can only afford or are only able to give up a few days or weekends per year be told they cant attend the one or two big meetings at their local circuit over somebody who could attend a big meeting somewhere in the country every weekend if they wanted to?

And no i'm not suggesting they are more or less deserving marshals.

You may call me disloyal, but I could equally call people who regularly do only the big-name circuits glory hunters - why don't they get their backsides out to Anglesey in the middle of October???

As above, there are plenty of people who would "get their backsides out to Anglesey in the middle of October" if a) they could finacially afford it and b) if they could give up that amount of time. I know i would if i could.

Just because they cant commit to the amount of time or money required for travelling long distances to circuits and therfore can only visit the "local" circit doesnt make them glory hunters, even if that local circuit is one of the high profile circuits.

[Sparky-steve]

Originally Posted by numbersix

To throw a further spanner in the works, no one's considered the dreaded Health & Safety aspect.

From that perspective the most experienced/qualified marshals would come first to help save the organisers a possible lawsuit from an injured party (or next of kin of a deceased party) on the grounds that the organisers did not exhibit due care in the selection process.

And this might mean fewer trainees, and that would screw up recruitment and retention, etc., etc.

It is not as simple as it looks and I'm glad I don't have to do it.

Phil

i can see your point, but would that mean that the event would have to be staffed by professional people and not us volunteers??

if that would be the case, i think RIP Motor sport!!
because if the big meets have to go down that route then every meet would have to too, and who's going to pay for them??

(just as a off topic, if drivers etc do sue then we should all stand down every time they take to the track!! well who want to get sued??)

there has been a few suggestions that people who have done X number of lesser meets gets to attend. ok fine i can see the thinking behind that, so who/where is the record of which marshal does what days?? is there a log kept? (not just our cards) i was just wondering??

[Sparky-steve]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

In fairness, the last paragraph of the article does, if somewhat obliquely, mention the problem of undermanning.

Persons more cynical than me might well question whether club racing really needs marshals who are only there to gain Brownie points so that they can be more likely to be picked for the meetings they really want to do.

but saying that you do get some excellent racing at a lot of club events
well that's why i do um

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by SamWaters

And no i'm not suggesting they are more or less deserving marshals.

Then you and I are in agreement. I'm very annoyed that some people (obviously not yourself) think that people who stick to one circuit are somehow more deserving of the reward of being considered ahead me, despite the fact that I work just as hard as they do, and contribute just as much to motorsport as they do. To suggest (as some have) that somebody who works no harder than me should be chosen ahead of me, is highly offensive to me (hence my lengthy involvement in this debate).

Marshal A : 30 meetings at Circuit X
Marshal B : 30 meetings at a variety of circuits including 5 at Circuit X
Marshal C : 20 meetings at Circuit X

Marshals A and B are exactly equal.
Marshal B should be chosen ahead of not behind Marshal C for an overmanned meeting at Circuit X

[The Fat Clerk]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

In fairness, the last paragraph of the article does, if somewhat obliquely, mention the problem of undermanning.

Persons more cynical than me might well question whether club racing really needs marshals who are only there to gain Brownie points so that they can be more likely to be picked for the meetings they really want to do.

My thoughts entirely

[SamWaters]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Then you and I are in agreement. I'm very annoyed that some people (obviously not yourself) think that people who stick to one circuit are somehow more deserving of the reward of being considered ahead me, despite the fact that I work just as hard as they do, and contribute just as much to motorsport as they do. To suggest (as some have) that somebody who works no harder than me should be chosen ahead of me, is highly offensive to me (hence my lengthy involvement in this debate).

Marshal A : 30 meetings at Circuit X
Marshal B : 30 meetings at a variety of circuits including 5 at Circuit X
Marshal C : 20 meetings at Circuit X

Marshals A and B are exactly equal.
Marshal B should be chosen ahead of not behind Marshal C for an overmanned meeting at Circuit X

Yeah completely agree with the point that people who stick to one circuit are more or less deserving than those that do more circuits.

And agree with the Marshal A B C scenario above, however another scenario:

Marshal A: 30 meetings at Circuit X, this marshal can only travel to Circuit X due to time or financial commitments etc.
Marshal B: 30 meetings at Circuit X, this marshal is able to travel to other circuits but chooses not to.
Marshal C: 30 meetings at a variety of circuits, including 5 meetings at Circuit X.
Marshal D: 20 meetings at Circuit X

Now with that scenario, i'm not saying marshal A should be given special treatment due to not being able to travel but some consideration should be given to the fact that this could be the only high profile meeting that they can attend.

Afterall those people that can travel to the other circuits (whether they decide to travel or not) can attend other high proile meetings whereas the marshal who cant travel to other circuits may only be able to attend a couple of high profile meetings a year.

So marshals in that scenario should be "selected" as Marshal A and C equal then B and then D??

As to the comment regarding those who only attend the big name circuits Glory Hunters, I dont agree with you - surely the "Glory Hunters" are those who decide to only attend the big meetings.

At the end of the day we are all equal, and all equally needed whether we can only attend the local circuit or are fortunate enough to be able to travel around the country.

Maybe for the high profile meetings all names should be sorted into grade, and lets say for example 30 trainees are to be selected then 30 trainees will be chosen at random from those names and so on for each grade?? That way none of this discussion about regular or visiting marshal attending the high profile meeting would be happening.

[Richard Duvall]

Originally Posted by JimW

Personally I was sorry to see the article concentrating on the rare and easily managed problem and not dealing with the common, dangerous and usually ignored problem of under-manning.

I would have thought that any efforts made to intoduce an attendance qualification for the popular events can only improve the under-manning problem as people would have to get their days in at the lesser events. This may disenfranchise those those just use marshalling as a free ticket to certain events, but we can surely do without them!

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by SamWaters

Yeah completely agree with the point that people who stick to one circuit are more or less deserving than those that do more circuits.

So marshals in that scenario should be "selected" as Marshal A and C equal then B and then D??

Nope, A, B, and C are all equal IMHO.

Actually, in an ideal world, I would like to see the ratio of clubbie vs popular meetings taken into account, with a higher ratio given preference. In this case, your A and B would be equal, and chosen over C (assuming C has done a fair few popular meetings), but how do you work it out?

1 clubbie = 3 popular meetings?

Let's see

Marshal A does 30 cubbie meetings at circuit X = 90 points
Marshal B does 30 clubbie meetings at various circuits = 90 points
Marshal C does 20 clubbie and 10 popular meetings at various circuits = 70 points
Marshal D does 20 clubbie meetings at circuit X = 60 points
Marshal E does 10 popular meetings at various circuits = 10 points
Marshal F does 5 clubbie meetings at various circuits = 15 points

There you go; A and B are equal. C is lessferior, having done more biggie meetings, and thus the 'local' and the 'gypsy' are considered equal but favoured over the more glory-hunter-like C. C is still favoured over D for having done considerably more meetings than D. And the purely glory hunter E has to do his fair share of clubbies to stand any chance of getting in to this one. F who can only do 5 a year is still ahead of E. Now that's still not brilliant for F who can't do any more days, but to be brutally fair, you have to favour people who do more days (remember F wouldn't be allowed to do the GP either and like the GP we could always make exceptions for longer serving marshals who have temporarily been unable to make it out recently).

Plus, we give anyone who has done less than ooh say 10 meetings and 3 months 100 points...thus allowing new people to get into the big meetings at the beginning. Of course, to ensure safety, you would have to limit the number of trainees, regardless of number of points, but otherwise....

By jove, I think I've cracked it.

(and in case you're wondring, I'm marshal C, and I wouldn't have any problem with marshal A being chosen over me - I would have a problem with A being chosen over B, whom I consider equals)

[numbersix]

... And perhaps those marshals with a philosophy degree plus, perhaps, higher mathematics might be persuaded to do the selecting?

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by numbersix

... And perhaps those marshals with a philosophy degree plus, perhaps, higher mathematics might be persuaded to do the selecting?

Believe me, I tried working out other ways to do it in my head, but everything else was much more complicated, and basically unworkable. I only came up with that idea as I was writing it.

Any way you look at it, this requires the MSA, or somebody to keep track of what meetings people do so it requires some sort of database, and given that, you (as in somebody, not necessarily *you*) could quite easily write a simple program to do it.

It's not perfectly simple, but it does have the virtue, I hope, of dealing fairly with selection at popular meetings, where it's prudent to limit numbers.

[m1fcf]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Any way you look at it, this requires the MSA, or somebody to keep track of what meetings people do so it requires some sort of database, and given that, you (as in somebody, not necessarily *you*) could quite easily write a simple program to do it.

No need - the system is already there? Sign-On Sheets, MSA Record Books, Volunteering Lists through the different clubs? Should be quite simple to take these and collate them, especially if every club were to start using the MSA Licence number.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by m1fcf

No need - the system is already there? Sign-On Sheets, MSA Record Books, Volunteering Lists through the different clubs? Should be quite simple to take these and collate them, especially if every club were to start using the MSA Licence number.

Is it electronic or on paper? If the latter is the case, then somebody would have to work this out by hand. For something like the BTCC at Brands last month, that would mean that somebody is going to have to look at every meeting each of the 400 marshals did in the last 12 months, and work out their score.
I suppose you could simplify it, by using the last calendar season to work out the points and just keep a record for each marshal, which would mean it would only have to be done once a year, but nonetheless, somebody would have to do it.

[m1fcf]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Is it electronic or on paper? If the latter is the case, then somebody would have to work this out by hand. For something like the BTCC at Brands last month, that would mean that somebody is going to have to look at every meeting each of the 400 marshals did in the last 12 months, and work out their score.
I suppose you could simplify it, by using the last calendar season to work out the points and just keep a record for each marshal, which would mean it would only have to be done once a year, but nonetheless, somebody would have to do it.

sign-on is on paper, but its not a very large step from there to manual input after an event at MSA HQ to record the people who signed on. Might even put a stop to people volunteering to get the tickets, and then doing a no-show at sign-on (*but that is a whole new topic for another long winters night*).

[SamWaters]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Let's see

Marshal A does 30 cubbie meetings at circuit X = 90 points
Marshal B does 30 clubbie meetings at various circuits = 90 points
Marshal C does 20 clubbie and 10 popular meetings at various circuits = 70 points
Marshal D does 20 clubbie meetings at circuit X = 60 points
Marshal E does 10 popular meetings at various circuits = 10 points
Marshal F does 5 clubbie meetings at various circuits = 15 points

There you go; A and B are equal. C is lessferior, having done more biggie meetings, and thus the 'local' and the 'gypsy' are considered equal but favoured over the more glory-hunter-like C. C is still favoured over D for having done considerably more meetings than D. And the purely glory hunter E has to do his fair share of clubbies to stand any chance of getting in to this one. F who can only do 5 a year is still ahead of E. Now that's still not brilliant for F who can't do any more days, but to be brutally fair, you have to favour people who do more days (remember F wouldn't be allowed to do the GP either and like the GP we could always make exceptions for longer serving marshals who have temporarily been unable to make it out recently).

Plus, we give anyone who has done less than ooh say 10 meetings and 3 months 100 points...thus allowing new people to get into the big meetings at the beginning. Of course, to ensure safety, you would have to limit the number of trainees, regardless of number of points, but otherwise....

By jove, I think I've cracked it.

Think thats the best idea so far!

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Then you and I are in agreement. I'm very annoyed that some people (obviously not yourself) think that people who stick to one circuit are somehow more deserving of the reward of being considered ahead me, despite the fact that I work just as hard as they do, and contribute just as much to motorsport as they do. To suggest (as some have) that somebody who works no harder than me should be chosen ahead of me, is highly offensive to me (hence my lengthy involvement in this debate).

But that's not the point. Nobody's doubting your aptitude or commitment. Nobody's saying locals are better or that big meeting followers are superior. To a circuit which needs manning every week regardless of what's on, a local is more dependable and more useful to them and needs to be supported. The likes of you following a series or me going a few times to a variety of circuits are a useful bonus (except where we contribute to their over-manning problems) but aren't necessary to their business plan.

No point in being annoyed about it, it's a matter of practicality for the circuits or clubs that use the circuit. Don't hack off your regulars because you're going to need them next week. A visitor who comes once a year because of a series which you can overfill anyway or is there when there isn't a better offer somewhere else? Sorry, mate, we don't really need you, and if you never go back again it's not going to make much difference to them. So yes, to the circuit the local regulars are more important, and I'm speaking as someone who isn't one.

Picking up on Jim's point, if the problem of over-manning at a few meetings can be used to encourage participation at the ones which are under-manned I'm all for it.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Don't hack off your regulars because you're going to need them next week. A visitor who comes once a year because of a series which you can overfill anyway or is there when there isn't a better offer somewhere else? Sorry, mate, we don't really need you, and if you never go back again it's not going to make much difference to them.

That argument works both ways. A club/series would be advised not to hack off it's regulars, because it needs them for the next less popular circuit. A marshal who supports a series once per year because of a circuit which can overfill, anyway or is there when there isn't a better offer somewhere else? Sorry mate, but we don't really need you and if you never do that series again, it's not going to make much difference to them.

At the end of the day, since it's the clubs not the circuits that organise marshals (with a couple of exceptions), there's only gonna be one winner. And I don't agree with that either.

Instead of considering one circuit, or one series, we need to look after motorracing as a whole, and encourage marshals to go as often as they can and particularly to the less popular meetings, wherever they may occur. I have no problem with people who choose (or are able) to do only once circuit. I do have a problem with people who think they have some ingrained superiority over me because of it. I would think equally dimly of anybody who thought they had superiority over others because they do any particular series regularly.

Aside from grading/experience, and number of days done overall in a season, we are all equal and should be treated equally.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

I do have a problem with people who think they have some ingrained superiority over me because of it. I would think equally dimly of anybody who thought they had superiority over others because they do any particular series regularly.

Aside from grading/experience, and number of days done overall in a season, we are all equal and should be treated equally.

I'm not sure that anyone's actually said either of those things, and certainly it doesn't appear to be the experience actually at an event.

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Instead of considering one circuit, or one series, we need to look after motorracing as a whole, and encourage marshals to go as often as they can and particularly to the less popular meetings, wherever they may occur.

I'm all for encouraging people to try other events where they haven't experienced the enjoyment of a clubbie. In the end, as Dave said earlier, we're all volunteers and should be able to choose where and when we participate in our hobby. However, we have no right to expect to be included especially where our or our colleague's safety is involved. As long as the selection criteria is clear and fair we'll just have to live with it where it affects us. It's a situation where someone's going to have to be disappointed, you just have to trust that those not selected are grown up enough to take it on the chin.

[Power Bulge]

And the minute that selection is based on the number of days done, regardless of circuit/meeting/series, you are automatically penalising those that cannot afford the time or money to get to meetings. There are those amongst us that have to work shifts, look after dependent relatives or simply cannot afford the fuel.

Those that need our help the most, we choose to kick them in the nuts. Brilliant.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Woolley

I'm not sure that anyone's actually said either of those things, and certainly it doesn't appear to be the experience actually at an event.

I've heard it said, or strongly hinted at a few times. You yourself, have said you think people who stick to one circuit should be chosen ahead of people who do a variety of circuits. At the minute it doesn't happen, because we rarely limit numbers, but (a very few) people are advocating it if/when more selection comes in.

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

Those that need our help the most, we choose to kick them in the nuts. Brilliant.

This is already happens at the GP. In an ideal world, we would have just the right number of people, all of the time, but we don't. People who come out occasionally are very welcome and much appreciated, but when it becomes necessary to select people, I believe that is more in the interests of motorsport as a whole to 'reward' people who make the greatest contribution.

Consider the following situation; you work 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and earn £40000 profit for your employers, who decide to return some of this in a profit share. You get £10000, and so does the part-timer who does 3 afternoons a week. Would you think that fair? Would you continue to work there, or would you tell them to cram their job, and see if they make as much profit with the part timer?

What's fair, is to reward people in a way proportional to their contribution. Do we really want to risk losing our most dedicated marshals* in a charitable effort to favour those people who are in a position to come out only occasionally, or do we say, no, sorry, motorsport as a whole has to come first?

* yes, I know people who are able to come out only occasionally may well be just as dedicated, but, I'm really referring to the people who do actually contribute the most.

And how would you police it? How would you distinguish between people who genuinely can only come out occasionally, and people who just say that, to blag their way into the popular meetings?

[Steven Humphrey]

I still say picking names from a hat would be the only fair way to do it!

For those who argue that members of the organising club's marshals club should have priority-what about a BARC meeting at Silverstone (can't think of any other circuit who has it's own marshals club, apart from Goodwood)? Who would take priority then, BARC members or SMT members? I, as do others, have to work the occasional weekend & am married with children so can't spend as much time on the bank as someone who is single/retired/doesn't work weekends etc. Does that mean I should miss out on a meeting due to too many applicants? And for those who say it's healthy to have too many volunteers-let them all in! What would have happened if that cart wheeling Seat had ended up heading towards a post with 25 marshals? Something slightly more serious than clean underwear needed, I think.

So let's just set a sensible maximum number per post, including trainees & if that number is exceeded just draw names.

[Les Green]

Just a thought what happens when it is decided that x number are required for an event, then for whatever reason a significant number of that number can't attend? Is the meeting cancelled due to the lack of marshalls? I think not especially when there is a lot of money involved i.e. tv rights and the like.
Anyhow as with a few others I will not be attending any BTCC meets next year. With the exception of the Ginnetta juniors, who always give everything, I'd rather watch paint dry.
The problem of overmanning may not be a problem afterall.

[Steven Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Les Green

Just a thought what happens when it is decided that x number are required for an event, then for whatever reason a significant number of that number can't attend? Is the meeting cancelled due to the lack of marshalls? I think not especially when there is a lot of money involved i.e. tv rights and the like.

I can't ever seeing that being an issue. Some of the meetings I've attended this year have run with so few marshals, even losing half of the maximum 'safe' number would still leave enough to go round. Plus those not turning up should be banned from a similar meeting again (unless there's a valid reason for not showing) which will help keep numbers at a reasonable level.

[welche2]

why dont we do what the bsb do. racesafe does the bsb only, have one group , get everyone who wants to do the btcc to join, racesafe is £20 for life. only those who be in the group does it, training day must be attended before you can marshal the btcc.
there rule is dont turn up 3 times without notice your banned,
must have 12 signutures before being accreditded for the bsb(btcc).
wonder how you may feel about that suggestion.