Controversy at CO State Meet

Sure, it is the coaches responsibility to make sure all of the team uniforms are the same, but that is usually a matter of color and emblem. As an opposing coach, you have the right to issue a protest for any rule violation, but I can't see issuing a uniform protest because of a small design change. (Very nippy!) All coaches have to play by the rules and having an athlete in an XC race whose uniform is materially different from the other athletes can be a competitive advantage and if you don't understand this, you don't understand XC.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Exactly. In college, I ran for one of the richest schools in the world, but some of us still got old hand-me-down outfits while others got more fashionable updates. As long as the letters "MIT" were clearly visible, I don't think that any meet officials or opposing coaches had a problem with that.

The kids from the small town of Salida have perhaps learned one lesson -- that the adult world includes people who will take advantage whenever and however they can. The kids from Alamosa have, I hope, learned a different lesson -- that just because you can take advantage doesn't mean that you should.

I have never coached or had to buy uniforms but it has always been my understanding that nearly every uniform company changes the design ever so slightly every single year so it is virtually impossible to just buy a couple each year to replace the old worn out ones. If you want them all to match, have to buy the whole team new ones each year. That having been said, they are made of such poor quality these days I would be surprised if they lasted much longer than a year or so.

If I ever were to coach, I would buy plain white tshirts and give them to the kids on the line so I could ensure there is NO WAY there is any variation whatsoever. Who cares that no one would know them in the race, what matters are the results...

A "competitive advantage" because of a uniform LOL? Ran XC for many years. Won a lot of races and it had nothing to do with the uniform. Didn't see those with a "competitive advantage" behind me in the races as I was too busy racing for the win. These uniform police should stay out of XC as this kind of nonsense takes away from the kid's experience in the sport.

I ran for a major D1 program in the 90s. Even in the NCAAs, there would be some women in briefs and others in shorts, depending on preference. We didn't have those tight shirts back then, but I know there would have been half of us in those and the other half in proper singlets.

So if it is fine with the NCAA, seems odd that a random HS conference would have issues with it. The design is the same. This is like DQing a 800 guy b/c he is wearing speed suit while his teammate went with shorts and a singlet.

Rumor is Kenya is now filing protest against USA for uniform violation at 2012 World XC Champs. Derrick wore shorts... Damn.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-514f8af4/turbine/chi-naperville-runner-derrick-wins-team-silver-003/600/468x600

sadgdsjaf wrote:

I don't know how you can look at those two uniforms and get confused that the athletes might be on different teams. Sure, they have slightly different designs. But who cares? Seems nitpicky.

Glad it worked out, sorry for the two girls who didn't get to run, and inspired by their maturity for agreeing to give up their spots.

While I would normally agree with you that it is nitpicky, I will have to state that there is a reason for the rule. As a coach, I tell my Xc guys to look for uniforms of a certain team to tell where they are as a team in order to encourage them to try harder to get certain uniforms. If they do not look the same FROM THE BACK, it could confuse other runners. Clearly, they are the same team from the front, but runners behind them need to know it. The sides are different, so it could appear that they are not the same team.

Classless move by the (Alamosa?) coach. Great lesson he/she taught the athletes - if you can't be 'em in a race, find ways to get them disqualified. Those uniforms weren't gaining any advantage and that coach is a despicable excuse of a person.

Here is something that I have always questioned. It is the job of the official to check the unis on the line and obviously they approved of the situation (the first go around). What standing does a coach have in pointing this out to the officials? Why would an official say, "oh...you're right. I didn't do my job. Of course these guys are violating a rule!" Wouldn't this fall under protests? Maybe we need to define when, how, and by whom these objections can be raised. I know baseball managers can point out pine tar (etc) but baseball also restricts manager's ability to question balls and strikes. What is the official's duty, what is the coach's.

flyover wrote:

Great lesson he/she taught the athletes - if you can't be 'em in a race, find ways to get them disqualified.

That is the only reason he did this. Any other excuse is BS.

This had nothing to do with the race, strategy or his team.

He did it only for himself. I'm sure he must have his chest puffed out reveling in HIS victory.

…... wrote:

In the article, top picture (from the starting line at the meet), look at the shorts on #499, #498, #497, all in different shorts. That's a uniform violation just like Sedalia but for some reason not called.

The Alamosa girls all have different colored socks.

According to the rules, they should all be disqualified.

They have different head wear on too.

Former XC Runner wrote:

A "competitive advantage" because of a uniform LOL? Ran XC for many years. Won a lot of races and it had nothing to do with the uniform. Didn't see those with a "competitive advantage" behind me in the races as I was too busy racing for the win. These uniform police should stay out of XC as this kind of nonsense takes away from the kid's experience in the sport.

Exactly. Get rid of the uniform rules.

J.R. wrote:

…... wrote:

In the article, top picture (from the starting line at the meet), look at the shorts on #499, #498, #497, all in different shorts. That's a uniform violation just like Sedalia but for some reason not called.

The Alamosa girls all have different colored socks.

According to the rules, they should all be disqualified.

They have different head wear on too.

No, socks and head wear are not regulated in the NFHS rules. Meet management can have more restrictive rules (for example, the California State Meet used to regulate head wear, not sure if they still do), but unless specifically regulated, any socks are permitted.

Salida dusted Alamosa at the qualifying meet. My guess is the Alamosa coach or other staff member had noticed either at that meet or another earlier in the season that Salida had two different styled singlets (loose v. tight). He keeps that info to himself until the state meet, where he has a chance to sweep boys and girls titles, tips off the officials at the last minute to the uniform "problem," and surprise, surprise.... Alamosa sweeps. Seriously, what coach takes inventory of other teams' singlets 2 minutes before the gun goes off?

In a bit of irony, the Alamosa nickname is the Mean Moose.

That coach is a schmuck.

The uniforms pictured are not the uniforms in question. 5 uniforms had the S on the front, like the ones pictured. 2 uniforms said "Salida", which are not pictured. Rumor has it they were warned prior to the state meet.

May be a stupid rule but the jerseys were dramatically different and they had been warned.

My question is why wouldn't they just switch jerseys with the boys? All this would have been avoided.

Feel bad for Salida but you do have to follow the rules. Thankfully my daughter runs 5A so I didn't have to be bothered by this.

DDFF wrote:

flyover wrote:

Great lesson he/she taught the athletes - if you can't be 'em in a race, find ways to get them disqualified.

That is the only reason he did this. Any other excuse is BS.

This had nothing to do with the race, strategy or his team.

He did it only for himself. I'm sure he must have his chest puffed out reveling in HIS victory.

I do not question why the coach pointed out this infraction. A coach's job is to do whatever they can to ensure that their team places as high as possible. As long as the coach stays within the rules, we should expect nothing less from coaches.

Pointing out possible infractions made by other teams, and working the officials is generally an acceptable strategy that is used by coaches at all levels. Coaches do this all the time in other high school sports. The officials in those sports have learned to deal with it, and they have the ability to penalize the coach (and the team of the coach) if the coach goes too far (technical fouls, penalties, ejection). I doubt that HS XC officials have this recourse and I doubt such rules exist in XC running, but they need to be added.

I have personally been on all sides of the sport (athlete, coach and official) and this situation played out as it should.

The Alamosa coach pointed out to an official that the Salida uniforms did not match. He obviously did this as an attempt to improve his team's chances of winning, and we should expect nothing less from any coach. Some may question whether his actions were ethically correct, but he was within his rights as a coach to do so. At least he did it before the race, and not during or after as a protest.

The official made a judgment that the uniforms did not match, after being made aware of this by the coach. He made a decision based on his knowledge of the rules. We can't blame the official for this, as he was only acting to interpret the rules. The officials could have let the race be run and then disqualified the athletes afterwards, but that would have been worse. The officials at least delayed the start of the race slightly to give the Salida team an opportunity to correct the situation, which they did to the best of their ability.

Were officials acting improperly by not applying the rule consistently for all teams? Perhaps, but officials make judgment calls all the time and they also miss calls. No one brought the fact that other team uniforms did not match to the officials attention.

Were the Salida runners upset by the situation so they did not run their best? Perhaps, but it appears as though their top 5 runners did get to eventually run. They may have been distracted by this but overcoming adversity in all its forms is something that you need to learn to do to perform at your best as an athlete. Everyone still ran the race and as things shook out in the actual competition their team barely lost by 4 points and finished second overall.

The Salida Coach was man enough to step forward and state that this was fully his fault. That was huge and proper. Coaches make mistakes all the time and this was one of those.

Is it fair that all this happened? Life itself is not fair, and sports are not either.

Maybe they need to review the rules to clarify things so this does not happen again.

DDFF wrote:

flyover wrote:

Great lesson he/she taught the athletes - if you can't be 'em in a race, find ways to get them disqualified.

That is the only reason he did this. Any other excuse is BS.

This had nothing to do with the race, strategy or his team.

He did it only for himself. I'm sure he must have his chest puffed out reveling in HIS victory.

I do not question why the coach pointed out this infraction. A coach's job is to do whatever they can to ensure that their team places as high as possible. As long as the coach stays within the rules, we should expect nothing less from coaches.

Pointing out possible infractions made by other teams, and working the officials is generally an acceptable strategy that is used by coaches at all levels. Coaches do this all the time in other high school sports. The officials in those sports have learned to deal with it, and they have the ability to penalize the coach (and the team of the coach) if the coach goes too far (technical fouls, penalties, ejection). I doubt that HS XC officials have this recourse and I doubt such rules exist in XC running, but they need to be added.

I have personally been on all sides of the sport (athlete, coach and official) and this situation played out as it should.

The Alamosa coach pointed out to an official that the Salida uniforms did not match. He obviously did this as an attempt to improve his team's chances of winning, and we should expect nothing less from any coach. Some may question whether his actions were ethically correct, but he was within his rights as a coach to do so. At least he did it before the race, and not during or after as a protest.

The official made a judgment that the uniforms did not match, after being made aware of this by the coach. He made a decision based on his knowledge of the rules. We can't blame the official for this, as he was only acting to interpret the rules. The officials could have let the race be run and then disqualified the athletes afterwards, but that would have been worse. The officials at least delayed the start of the race slightly to give the Salida team an opportunity to correct the situation, which they did to the best of their ability.

Were officials acting improperly by not applying the rule consistently for all teams? Perhaps, but officials make judgment calls all the time and they also miss calls. No one brought the fact that other team uniforms did not match to the officials attention.

Were the Salida runners upset by the situation so they did not run their best? Perhaps, but it appears as though their top 5 runners did get to eventually run. They may have been distracted by this but overcoming adversity in all its forms is something that you need to learn to do to perform at your best as an athlete. Everyone still ran the race and as things shook out in the actual competition their team barely lost by 4 points and finished second overall.

The Salida Coach was man enough to step forward and state that this was fully his fault. That was huge and proper. Coaches make mistakes all the time and this was one of those.

Is it fair that all this happened? Life itself is not fair, and sports are not either.

Maybe they need to review the rules to clarify things so this does not happen again.

yesandyes wrote:

A coach's job is to do whatever they can to ensure that their team places as high as possible. As long as the coach stays within the rules, we should expect nothing less from coaches.

This is absolutely not what a coach's job is.

Furthermore, it desecrates the spirit of the sport - lining up against opponent in a race and seeing who is better. I don't live in CO and don't really know the programs involved, but the coach is classless and you are classless for defending him.

Also of note, the Salida coach is incompetent, which is only marginally better.

Steve Martin brings up a good point regarding competitors being able to identify a rival team. However, if the uniform rule is important, we need to check teams long enough prior to the start so that races aren't delayed. Officials should be able to make proper determinations on uniforms and teams given ample time (not a scramble on the start line) to rectify a uniform problem, if needed.

If the offending team was indeed warned earlier in the season, that changes things a little. Doesn't change that the protesting coach was way out of line though.

I understand this (having a #1 state ranked team with our school name in big letters on the back, it has haunted us). But there are some issues with this. What about pulling a York? (purchasing unique school issued uniforms not worn throughout the season just to confuse opponents at states) What is to stop a team from issuing unique state singlets with another school's colors? If the uniform rule is intended to prevent a team from visual deception, then these other scenarios should equally be out of bounds (especially since it favors schools with more money).

[quote]Bring Back the 880 wrote:

Steve Martin brings up a good point regarding competitors being able to identify a rival team.