Race Marshal Manning Levels

[Richard Duvall]

Surely it's not too big an issue. How many "popular events are there? Obviously BTTC is the key one, but beyond that I don't recall any other events this year where we've been swamped. With regard to BTCC at Brands this year, I don't recall it being too swamped on their first visit at the beginning of May when marshals were stricken down with hypothermia, and for the later event I help ease the overmanning by standing myself down.

[Steven Humphrey]

An easy way to prevent overmanning at Silverstone & Brands BTCC meetings would be to put them on the GP circuits but I suppose that wouldn't look so good on tv or for punters. So why not do it the old fashioned way & stick all the names in a hat & draw at random? As fair as any other selection process!

[Asp]

Sorry, off-topic but I can't let this go unanswered as it's my pet hate...

Originally Posted by Woolley

I'd take experienced graded flaggies first and then those who are actively training for the grade (once it comes back).

1. It is back.
2. In practical terms, it's never gone away. If you want to specialise in flags, you always could with the "Experienced Marshal" grade - just doing your 10 days flagging and 5 incident instead of vice-versa.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Richard Duvall

Surely it's not too big an issue. How many "popular events are there? Obviously BTTC is the key one.

I think that's basically what we're talking about, plus Goodwood and GP. All the events I avoid.

Actually, maybe that's why they're popular: "I'll go to that one, no risk of meeting the Woolley chap"...

[Power Bulge]

Mr Brand - you are a mischievous little imp with nothing better to do than wreak havoc

If you had waited a little longer, I would have nominated you for the Big Spoon of the Year Award, given to the biggest stirrer. As it is, you have followed the timely instructions to the letter - light blue touch paper and retreat

For the record, despite all the debate that went on before the final round of the BTCC at Brands Hatch, not one person posted a comment about overmanning afterwards. IMHO, I saw evidence of a lot of marshals on the Indy circuit, but nothing that I would describe as overmanning. YMMV

Shouldn't this thread be called Much Ado About Nothing?

[gachjoel]

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...d%3D12&h=48752

Marshal has written in Track Driver

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by HairyDJ

Yes we are volunteers, but we indicate our availability for a meeting in the hope that we are required and selected. We should never view the volunteering form as a demand for free admittance to an event that we fancy.

I'd like to see the "over-subscribed" meetings turn the numbers to great advantage via training using mentors. This could be offered to all grades looking to understand more about the duties in grades above their current level.
Most folk will step up to IO or PC to help out at a "short" meeting and do their best based on how they've seen others do the job. To have a spare IO or PC who is willing to spend the day standing with a few of us and talk in depth about how and why all of the minutiae of running a post happen as they do would be excellent.
In particular, nowadays we so rarely get the chance to coach / be coached on the finer points of flagging in the live environment. To be able to man the flag point and still have a "flagging god / goddess" standing back to pass on their expertise could improve standards significantly. So often you flag alone and even if manned as a pair, your partner has their own workload and is looking the other way to you & your role.
Finally, at these over-manned meetings, is it only Incident that gets swamped, or do the Specialist duties get equally increased numbers? I've helped out on Pits & Assembly occasionally, but never thought that these meetings are ideal to learn more by shadowing one of the regular crew ......


If you feel hard done by about the marshal selection process, then see how abrupt and demanding the Olympic volunteer site shows their attitude to be!
http://www.london2012.com/get-involv...nt-journey.php
They have publicised that they will have to whittle down the 240,000 applicants to a mere 70,000 places - worse than a one in three chance of getting asked!

I mentioned this in the thread regarding the last BTCC meeting at Brands Hatch. The silence was deafening!
IMO, priority should go to the locals, who loyaly turn up week after week despite what meeting it is, then trainees (2 per post) then gypsys, like myself, who have no loyalty!
It shouldn't be too difficult to organise, just needs a bit of communication between the organisers and those who chief marshal the different circuits (Mildred, Peter Rodwell etc).

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by White flag man

IMO, priority should go to the locals, who loyaly turn up week after week despite what meeting it is, then trainees (2 per post) then gypsys, like myself, who have no loyalty!

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.

I DARE you to tell me that 'locals' are somehow better or more deserving marshals than me. People who do so (and fortunately, it's rare that I encounter such an attitude) make me sick to the stomach!

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???

The only possible argument in favour is that they know the circuit better, to which people who only follow the BTCC could easily counter with better knowledge of the cars, drivers, rules, etc... In fact, while there may be some small element of advantage in both circuit and series knowledge, a good marshal has enough skill and knowledge to do their job to a sufficient standard without either specialst information.

To be clear; IMHO: people who are out week in, week out are all equally deserving marshals, whether they do one circuit or many.

[cornish]

Can somebody tell me what happens if you don't have a track on your doorstep !
My closest track is 180 mile away (360 miles round trip) not really local to any , should I stay at home ?

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by cornish

Can somebody tell me what happens if you don't have a track on your doorstep !
My closest track is 180 mile away (360 miles round trip) not really local to any , should I stay at home ?

Move house, numpty!

[cornish]

Yer thanks for that Guinness ,
After 15 years or so on the bank I should really know about our style of humour !!!!

[White flag man]

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.

I DARE you to tell me that 'locals' are somehow better or more deserving marshals than me. People who do so (and fortunately, it's rare that I encounter such an attitude) make me sick to the stomach!

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???

The only possible argument in favour is that they know the circuit better, to which people who only follow the BTCC could easily counter with better knowledge of the cars, drivers, rules, etc... In fact, while there may be some small element of advantage in both circuit and series knowledge, a good marshal has enough skill and knowledge to do their job to a sufficient standard without either specialst information.

To be clear; IMHO: people who are out week in, week out are all equally deserving marshals, whether they do one circuit or many.

Because that is the reward that loyalty should bring.
These guys/girls turn up every week even for meetings that you and I would probably not go near.
Yes , we have both spent a fortune, during the last season, travelling the length and width of the country, travelling to meetings that we like, because we can. Other people might not be able to afford to or have commitments which doesn't allow them to.
I am not, and would not say these marshals are better than anyone else but, surely they deserve something for their loyalty, if only the right to see one prestigious meeting a year.
I would not call people who regularly do only the big name circuits glory hunters. If it is their local circuit then it is only common sense to go there, and a bonus if they happen to have the big events.
Regarding knowing the drivers and the cars. An incident should be treated the same whatever the car or who is driving it. Knowledge of where incidents happen and what "usually" happens, IMO, is far more valuable.
Steve, we choose to go around like race gypsies, and I shall do so again next year, but I will not expect to be picked for a big meeting at a circuit before a marshal who has done most, if not all, of the meetings at that circuit regardless of grid sizes or weather.

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by cornish

Can somebody tell me what happens if you don't have a track on your doorstep !
My closest track is 180 mile away (360 miles round trip) not really local to any , should I stay at home ?

Cornish,
I would hope there would always be room for someone with such dedication but in my view, I could not guarantee it.
I'm sure Castle Combe will always welcome you.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by White flag man

Because that is the reward that loyalty should bring.

Steve, we choose to go around like race gypsies, and I shall do so again next year, but I will not expect to be picked for a big meeting at a circuit before a marshal who has done most, if not all, of the meetings at that circuit regardless of grid sizes or weather.

Someone who does all of the BTCC could very well argue that they should expect to be picked before a marshal who only does one circuit, as they have shown "loyalty" to the series, and gone to the circuits where numbers are fewer, to support that series.

Why, would you say, is circuit loyalty more important than series loyalty? How can it possibly be fair to tell someone who has travelled literally 1000s of miles to support a series, and been to every meeting of that series: "oh, sorry, you're surplus to requirements for this one," instead giving preference to somebody who can only be bothered to drive 10 miles each weekend? The fact is, that your "loyalty" argument works both ways.

My loyalty is to motor racing as a whole. I expect to be treated equally to anyone who has done a similar number of meetings to me. Nothing more, nothing less.

[White flag man]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Someone who does all of the BTCC could very well argue that they should expect to be picked before a marshal who only does one circuit, as they have shown "loyalty" to the series, and gone to the circuits where numbers are fewer, to support that series.

Why, would you say, is circuit loyalty more important than series loyalty? How can it possibly be fair to tell someone who has travelled literally 1000s of miles to support a series, and been to every meeting of that series: "oh, sorry, you're surplus to requirements for this one," instead giving preference to somebody who can only be bothered to drive 10 miles each weekend? The fact is, that your "loyalty" argument works both ways.

My loyalty is to motor racing as a whole. I expect to be treated equally to anyone who has done a similar number of meetings to me. Nothing more, nothing less.

So a "Glory Hunter" who does 10 meetings a year, should get preference over somebody that does 30 meetings a year.
Maybe certain people can only afford to travel 10 miles each weekend.
If we were all treated equally, there would be 800 marshals at the British GP,
something has to give!

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

somebody who can only be bothered to drive 10 miles each weekend?

By the way, I'd like to point out that I'm only playing devil's advocate here. I'd like to apologise now to anybody who take's offense at this somewhat inflamatory comment. It is certainly not my intention to imply that somebody who only does one circuit is 'lazy' or inferior. As I have tried to make clear, I believe that anybody who is out as regularly as me is equal to me, regardless of the distance they travel.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by White flag man

So a "Glory Hunter" who does 10 meetings a year, should get preference over somebody that does 30 meetings a year.
Maybe certain people can only afford to travel 10 miles each weekend.
If we were all treated equally, there would be 800 marshals at the British GP,
something has to give!

No, people who only do BTCC are lessferior* to people who are out every weekend. I'm simply saying that people who do 30 meetings a year at one circuit are exactly equal to people who do 30 meetings a year at a variety of circuits.

As per the my above comment, I have respect for people who can only do 10 miles each weekend. I do not think that they are inferior to me, but I certainly do not think that they are superior to me.

The British GP sets limits on a minimum number of days marshalled in a year. This limit does not state that those days must have been done at Silverstone - quite correct too (my point exactly)

* yes, I know it's not a real word

[Woolley]

Lets keep it civil, folks. This is a genuine issue and people are entitled to their own opinions, I just want to see them pleasantly expressed.

I'm fairly itinerant, having the luxury of 8 circuits or hill climbs in under an hour and a half (on the other hand, nowhere less than 50 minutes) so I pick and choose according to a few meetings I am committed to by way of position, several I don't like to miss and then whatever looks fun on the remaining free week-ends (all clubbie stuff apart from LMS and GTs). I am always made welcome wherever I go. However, I'm well aware that most circuits depend on a hard-core of regulars who they know will be there week after week whatever is on. I think that gives them precedence over me in any selection process to be honest, and if I were of their kind I would be unhappy not to be able to attend high profile meetings should I wish to because of large numbers of visiotors. I am a strong believer in loyalty and that it should be rewarded.

Personally, I fail to see the attraction of following a series round wherever it goes and while I'm sure the majority of marshals who do so are no different in ability from the rest of us there is a risk that some will suffer from complacency or superiority simply due to familiarity breeding content and that does not make for a happy team effort where it occurs. As I say, I avoid BTCC anyway, so I'm not speaking from experience and I would be delighted to discover that is wrong.

[numbersix]

With regard to BTCC, which I did not enjoy this year because of 'problems relating to overmanning', I will, in 2011, be voting with my feet, so that'll make selection 0.001% easier for someone!

The point about being loyal to a series, as distinct to a circuit is interesting because with the exception of the BMMC, race clubs have their own marshals. I would expect fee-paying member-marshals of a particular club, to be 'favourably considered' for any club event (irrespective of the circuit) before non-member marshals, in the same way as officials of that club. But even then I would have to give way to non-member marshals who are better qualified for that position.

The definition of 'who is better qualified' is a nuclear bomb, and I'm not going to fiddle with the Failsafe devices. And I suggest nobody else does either.

[saddelbags]

This is not any think new in 1977 the ES team at Silverstone did not sent out passes to a number of members due to too many volunters the only way you knew no passes came this was for all the season I was told later by Chis Kelff it had come from BRDC.I was chief marshal for the BRSCC midland center in the mid nineties we had lots of marshals at Mallory I had a letter from the MSA asking us to limit the numbers I wrote back and asked what number thy had in mind no reply I wonder why!!

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by numbersix

I would expect fee-paying member-marshals of a particular club, to be 'favourably considered'

The definition of 'who is better qualified'

Originally Posted by saddelbags

This is not any think new in 1977 the ES team at Silverstone did not sent out passes to a number of members due to too many volunters

And on those notes: RaceSafe!

RaceSafe, who deal with BSB, both limit membership numbers, and require you to be a member and to have attended one of their training days to attend one of their events. If you're a regular bike marshal at circuit x, but not a member of RS, you don't marshal when the BSB come along.


Anyway back on track, the point is simple. There ARE meetings that are overmanned, and we ARE going to have to do something about it. It is most definitely NOT a nice problem to have!

[warweezil]

Originally Posted by numbersix

The point about being loyal to a series, as distinct to a circuit is interesting because with the exception of the BMMC, race clubs have their own marshals. I would expect fee-paying member-marshals of a particular club, to be 'favourably considered' for any club event (irrespective of the circuit) before non-member marshals, in the same way as officials of that club. But even then I would have to give way to non-member marshals who are better qualified for that position.

So now as well as paying for all our kit we would be expected to pay an "entry fee" top be considered for a particular event visiting a circuit that we may support week in week out with events that others see as being "below them" to cover? I had to drop membership of everything this year, my income fell and everything went up. So I guess as a now "non-member" Marshal with travel problems arising from responsibilities for 2 sick family members, living way out on the coast with only 1 race circuit within daily commute (cant count Llandow for racing although I try to do sprints there now - and the roads to Anglesey don't allow for a daily commute) Id be well screwed according to many of the criteria suggested here. Sad as it may sound I cant afford to throw money at club membership.

But yet I have too often been part of a small group who are told by the chief at morning briefing " Glad to see that our hardcore have turned out again today, we really would be in trouble without people like you", yes I am one of those that will turn out even for events that hold little interest for me (in terms of the series/championship/grid size), but I realise that sometimes the pickings will be very thin, but if the clubs will pay for the circuit.. well its up to some of us to get out there spread as thinly as we often are - and help the venue "pay the rent", because there are many weekends in a year, but the "prestige" stuff only comes round occasionally. For me its about a love of Motorsport. Its nice when a club brings some Marshals with it, but often we just have to spread ourselves out and do the best we can with what we have, but you know what? some of the best weekends I have had on the bank have been those weekends where there has been a marked lack of Orange on the posts.

I think there should be an F1 type selection requirement based on attendance at some of the more modest events, but some consideration for the guys n girls who keep the place ticking over for the less fashionable events, including those miserable - "1 to an occasional post" test days that I try hard to cover wherever possible. As inconvenient as it may seem to some, those who regularly support the venue are of at least equal value and the nomadic variety, and the view that venues are likely to suffer a fall in support for the modest series if "regulars" are pushed out of the bigger events is very valid. This doesn't affect me much.. The day it does - you bet I will treat the venue the way it treats me - picking and choosing what I do rather than covering pretty much everything I am asked to (although I dropped a couple this year - unavoidably) Some places might just not be there without the people who cover the mundane stuff week in week out... it pays the rent! No venue.. nowhere to visit for the "Superstar Championship".

BSB is different thing - I have recently dipped my toe in the water of bikes having had a miserable first experience of them - now I have found a decent club to lend some support to, I will turn out for them, but from talking to people, many car marshals dont/wont do bikes so it maybe isn't so relevant to this discussion - especially as to follow the circus you would have to be a Racesafe member, AFAIK there is no similar requirement for any car series/championship, and if that starts to be the case we will risk driving some away from the sport.

So no doubt having annoyed a few people with an opposing view, I will point out that this is -
Just My Opinion.... YMMV

[Bodysnatcher]

Originally Posted by numbersix

. I would expect fee-paying member-marshals of a particular club, to be 'favourably considered' for any club event (irrespective of the circuit) before non-member marshals, in the same way as officials of that club. .

That was exactly the system used by the BRSCC when the Formula Ford festival was at the height of it's popularity. It was generally accepted, only club members could be marshals at that event.

I'm only a BMMC member and cannot forsee ever joining a club, as I'm one of those apparently lazy marshals that only does races at the track on their doorstep. (Brands, MSVR, no marshals club).

However club membership as a qualifier might a moot point for me, because as a post chief, I have found this years Brands Hatch BTCC meetings a right royal pain in the arse for a variety of reasons.

There are more relaxed meetings that I will probably be much happier at.

[HairyDJ]

We seem to be going back over the ground covered previously, but let's not forget that Dave Brand started this thread up because the MSA have now shown that they are considering the problem of meetings that are "grossly overmanned".

To my mind, this means that the MSA are now considering the legal implications of a marshal injury / fatality that might risk being attributed in part to an inability to move / escape or failure to fit everyone behind the designated safety fence on a post. The MSA , Clubs, Clerks, Stewards as well as the gaffers on each post would all risk being made to justify their manning decisions? It does raise the interesting situation where a PC is so concerned with excess numbers that he / she feels the need to refuse to accept that many, and passes the problem back to the Chief Marshal to drop some – “you accepted too many so you tell them to go home, not me!”

In the light of the MSA "going public", we must surely expect that some sort of restriction / cap will need to be applied - whether we like it or not. Our arguments (aka reasonable discussions) simply show how much whinging is likely to arise when (not if) the cuts are made. I also perceive the need for a tighter liaison between circuit and club at times – there’s no point one side turning away excess volunteers if the other side suddenly get an influx of “rejects” thinking on their feet and finding another (unrestricted) way in.

One problem with any capping scheme would be the need to address the number of folk who come as a pair (or even bigger group). If it was to be done simply by pulling names out of a hat, then it would be very unpopular to split couples, or parent / child combinations (real problem with under 18’s). There are also a significant number of folk who share the travel / accommodation costs who would need to be treated as “both or neither”.

So far, we seem to have gone over the old ground of how it will affect me, me, me, me ...... Let's try to look at it from the position of the clubs or circuits involved - but still keeping in mind that it's only going to be for a small percentage of all the meetings each year. This could apply whether it was a national club (e.g. BARC) or a circuit club (e.g. Silverstone).

If a marshal pays to join a club, then being dropped from any of their meetings could well mean that you will keep your money in your pocket next year. Presumably, saving your membership cash would also tend to equate to turning out for less of their other meetings due to how you feel.

If a club is struggling to get sufficient marshals for some of their less popular events, then perhaps they would be able to turn the over-manned meetings to their advantage by creating some sort of loyalty / incentive scheme. Whether paid-up membership would suffice, or whether some sort of points system would work better may need some sort of experimenting. I’ve tended to fall short of enough BARC attendances to gain enough credits to pay for membership, but I know many do so each year “for free”.

Another aspect of loyalty to a club could be the approach to non-attendance. Dropping out of the odd meeting is probably inevitable for all of us, but those who simply fail to turn up without the basic manners to apologise in advance (even if it’s a text / call on the day) don’t seem to deserve much consideration in return. Similarly, those who book for all sorts of conflicting meetings so that they can choose their best option closer to the day wouldn’t make me very happy if I was an organiser.


Perhaps we should also look outside of our narrow field to compare our plight with other activities?

Looking just a little further afield to bike marshalling, major events require the marshals to be “signed off” – qualified by 12 attendances and 2 training days. They also require commitment to more than one day of the meeting. I’m aware that one high profile meeting this year had a cut imposed at short notice by the governing body – the odd one-dayer was cut & the three-dayers were all kept, which left a proportion of the two-dayers being turned down. To sweeten this, they did offer free passes to the race day. Some were upset, but I have no doubt that they will still be oversubscribed in 2011.

Consider the local cricket club – just because you want to play every weekend doesn’t mean that you’ll always get picked does it? Those who really want to make it will keep offering themselves and try to help out with the less popular matches, and behind the scenes, until they become more and more invaluable to the club organisers. Of course, it also helps if you have proved yourself to be capable and can cope with rainy days!

What about your local Scout troop? However much some youngsters want to get in, there may be insufficient places. It’s not safe to have an unlimited number of them running around, particularly if there’s a shortage of leaders or facilities. When it comes to trips to a Jamboree, then the places tend to be allocated based on loyalty / attendance.


At the end of the day, life isn’t always fair (just ask your nearest teenager!) but with a bit of patience, what doesn’t happen for you one year may well come good next time – so live with it! I also wonder whether folk who show excessive anger / aggression / selfishness on a forum are indicating that they may not be a good (aka safe) team player when they put on the orange romper suit?

[blueoval2]

Well you will all be welcome at Snett because for our so called big meetings BTCC and British GT and the likes we where still low on numbers ( or is it us ?) and with the new circuit coming along we are going to need all the numbers we can get so bring your friends as well