At Sunday’s meeting of clubs following our Trampoline East AGM, we had a long and serious debate about the current competition structure, how and why it evolved, and how the structure now being mandated by BG contrasts with it. (Webmaster note – discussion documents & minutes are available on this site – click this link).
The debate looked into the possible effects of the new structure, the lack of certainty about certain elements (such as how an arm-set would be judged), and the potentially serious effect it might have on retention, safety and welfare. We were particularly grateful to Sue Lawton who took the trouble to travel from Berkshire to be with us.
From the way the debate progressed it was clear that there was a strong consensus view that the current structure allows for a more measured development of individuals than the proposed structure. Having said that, it was also acknowledged that our ‘Elite’ performers need to have a competitive pathway open to them for possibility of national representation.
At the end of the debate we considered the following options:
Following a vote in which each club had one vote the results were:
|Option 1||No votes|
|Option 2||13 votes (voters for this would switch to option 3 if for some reason the Trampoline-East committee found option 2 unimplementable)|
|Option 3||5 votes (voters for this would switch to option 2 if for some reason the Trampoline-East committee found option 3 unimplementable)|
|Option 4||No votes (but only on the basis that the clubs felt that a pathway to the BG galas/nationals had to be left in place given that BG are intent on implementing their structure regardless of reasoned opposition to it, not because anyone thought the proposed structure had merit).|
It was debated and understood that the voted for option 2 would mean Eastern Region would not be able to take part in the Regional Finals.