well, both inadvertently and overtly. perhaps a better word would be mistakenly. one report i read indicated that the marshal thought the course had been mismarked, so he moved the flagging to conform with the course he thought was correct, but wasn't.
i wasn't there and have no great insight on the matter, but it's nice to see that people can -- and do -- behave with integrity, even those at the top of their chosen niche of the running world.
Julian wrote:
Malmo - The officials at our meet were local citizens who gave up their Sat. to help out - This aint the Olympics, it was a 5 team HS district championship. If you weren't there to see the finish you cant really judge the judges.
Bob Julian Jr.
Ashland HS XC Coach
What exactly is your point?
I thought I made it - You said the ruling was wrong without being a witness to the event.
Julian wrote:
Malmo - The officials at our meet were local citizens who gave up their Sat. to help out - This aint the Olympics, it was a 5 team HS district championship. If you weren't there to see the finish you cant really judge the judges.
Bob Julian Jr.
Ashland HS XC Coach
A 5 team district championship? 28 total finishers? Jesus - who cares then? I thought this would have been a competitive race in a district that mattered. I always loved seeing the results from small district championships where some kid running 17:00 took the crown and punched his ticket to states.
Sheesh. Much ado about nothing. Mtn. View can have fun getting their asses handed to them at states.
Sounds to me like there's only one kid on the team who was willing to vote the way a number of the runners might have been feeling. The way the story reads, the varsity guys were really debating the issue until one of them asked you, Coach Julian, what you would have done. I don't claim to know that they would have voted any differently, but the influence of your coach saying we should give it to them (which I think I can safely assume was the general recommendation) would have made a huge impact on my vote in high school. Not that it wasn't the right way for the vote to go, but it seems to have been heavily influenced by a coach with, admittedly, much less of a right to vote than any of the runners. Let's not Oprah-ize this...the runners aren't superheroes of running justice...they're probably just normal kids with average moral compasses that were heavily influenced by their coach in this instance.
Not a big deal to you but certainly a big deal to them.
Julian wrote:
I thought I made it - You said the ruling was wrong without being a witness to the event.
If the ruling wasn't wrong, then this whole affair is contrived then? The kid should either be DQ'd or not. What I read is that the kid got DQ'd for incidental contact. If that was the case then your team did the right thing. If the kid got DQ'd justly then your team EARNED the right to go to State.
If the rules are deemed unfair or lacking then petition the appropriate authorities to change them. The downside to this is that Mountain View would miss the 2010 State Meet. The upside to this is that you don't put the onus on young impressionable runners who just tanked at districts or AD's who may not know squat about running (not sure if that's the case here but usually it is.) To me it is still preferable to place the burden of fairness on the judges to come up with an equitable ruling, like described below, rather than individuals in the heat of battle. But, as Malmo and Coach Julian have pointed out; having to rely on ego driven old men in jackets or weekend volunteers can come with its own set of issues. While it is conceivable that the correct decision was eventually made (I don't think we had enough evidence to know for sure) I guess I just really have a problem with the ruling on the field essentially being overturned by an AD, a coach’s influence and a bunch of disappointed kids.
oftenrunning52 wrote:
I have seen this situation before, and sometimes when the intent is not obvious, the decision is to put the offending runner behind the offended runner (in this case flipping the positions of the runners) instead of an outright DQ. The DQ is a huge consequence for what everyone seems to agree was an unintentional breaking of the rule. This decision would also create the score that would have been true without the offense. In that case, as I understand it, Mt. View is second, Ashland third, and the better team advances. As it was, a harsh consequence creates a situation where a better sits in third and an inferior team is in second.
Indeed. It's a terrible thing when people flout rules and choose generosity over self-interest.
Malmo you stupid twit: Coach Julian's response to you isn't about the correctness of the official's decision. He is saying you have no right to criticize the official since you weren't there to see what happened.Coach Julian was trying to teach a lesson about sportsmanship, you're complaining about the officials - at an event you didn't even witness.
malmo wrote:
Julian wrote:I thought I made it - You said the ruling was wrong without being a witness to the event.
If the ruling wasn't wrong, then this whole affair is contrived then? The kid should either be DQ'd or not. What I read is that the kid got DQ'd for incidental contact. If that was the case then your team did the right thing. If the kid got DQ'd justly then your team EARNED the right to go to State.
totally lame, its not a question of intent or sportsmanship
its: would the kid who accidentally got blocked, and the team that lost, have won if the other guy hadn't accidentally blocked him?
the fact is - YES. the dq should've stood but the kids got pressured into doing the "right" thing even if it wasnt the RIGHT thing
What's interesting about this short post is that it uses more different kinds of punctuation (mostly correctly) than almost any other post on Letsrun, while simultaneously omitting more punctuation than you can shake a stick at.
malmo wrote:
Julian wrote:I thought I made it - You said the ruling was wrong without being a witness to the event.
If the ruling wasn't wrong, then this whole affair is contrived then? The kid should either be DQ'd or not. What I read is that the kid got DQ'd for incidental contact. If that was the case then your team did the right thing. If the kid got DQ'd justly then your team EARNED the right to go to State.
But you see Malmo, just because someone does something accidentally does NOT necessarily mean it isnt illegal too. You can accidentally cut someone off, you accidentally impede someone to the finish line. The fact of your intentions is irrelevant to the application of the rule. If you impede someone's progress to the line, you broke the rule.
The judge thought the rule was violated, the athlete who was impeded thought he was impeded. He made the calling to the best of his ability as he say it to the way the rules are stated.
It was impressive that those young men allowed the better team to go, that they only beat on a technicality, when few would fault them taking the spot state.
I congratulate everyone involved. Both teams, all the athletes, the coaches, and the judge, who was volunteering and doing his job to the best of his ability too.
oslo wrote:
What exactly is your point?
Julian wrote:
I thought I made it - You said the ruling was wrong without being a witness to the event.
OWNED.
The Mom of they boys who had been disqualified wrote a leeter to the local paper congratulating the Ashland team and coach, and now some others have written in response to that.
BTW the Mt. View team finished 6th at the state championship meet.
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101110/SPORTS/11100319/-1/SPORTS
The problem seems to be with the consequences of an infraction being out of proportion to the event. I think unsportsmanlike conduct merits disqualification, but inadvertant impedence should be correctable by reversing finishing places of runners involved, if appropriate.
The purpose of penalties should be (a.) to discourage cheating, and (b.) to restore competitive balance to what it would have been had the infraction not occurred.
Disqualification is akin to throwing a football player out of a game for a foul on a basketball shot, or pass interference in football.
In our league, we emphasize to officials that their role is, to the extent possible, to PREVENT DQs.
I have seen the league's premier 800m runner DQed at District for not being completely still when gun was up. Her balance caused her to wobble. A travesty, when all the official had to do was have everyone stand up, and start over.
This is a great story. The letter of the law may have been violated, but I think it's admirable of the Ashland kids to recognize the spirit of the law instead.
maybe I am missing something. If the kid who is DQ'd (who finished 4th) and the kid he interfered with who finished 5th, ended up switching places (DQ'd kid)finishes 5th and interfered kid finishes 4th does this impact the score? If not then the Ashland coach did the right thing. Letting the better team go to states. If switching 4th and 5th place does change the outcome then the Ashland coach (his athlete still claimed he was interfered with) should have gone to states.
I would have given the third place team a chance to disqualify themselves, and be the heroes, then the two best teams would be represented.