Another way to think about this is to delve into what constitutes a "team."
You have a qualifying team when you have five runners. Any less than that and the runners are considered individuals. There is no requirement to have more than five.
The sixth and seventh runners are optional, but are not required to have a team and a team score.
In the event that a qualifying team finishes in a tie, why would you then require that team to have additional, optional runners to able to participate in and possibly win a tie breaker?
Counting the sixth runner for a tie breaker alters the already agreed upon requirement for the minimum standard for team participation.
(And again, for those who missed it, the losing team in this event beat the winning team by over a minute of actual running time by the first five runners, and would have won with both the NCAA and IAAF rules in place.)
This is EXACTLY right. If only 5 are required to attain a team score, requiring a 6th for a tie breaker is STUPID.
The point of XC is to see has the STRONGEST TOP 5. Thus the ties should be broken by looking within those 5 runners. The 6th runner had a chance to be top 5 and FAILED.
This is totally wrong. If you are allowed to run 7 and #6 and 7 on your team can displace the scoring position of the top 5 from another team, the sport is not simply set up to be 5 v 5. You may be able to compete as a team with only 5, but you are at a disadvantage for multiple reasons, including the tie breaker and everybody knows it. It’s a 7 v 7 sport. Everybody knows it and if you run with only 5, you do so at your peril.
This is EXACTLY right. If only 5 are required to attain a team score, requiring a 6th for a tie breaker is STUPID.
The point of XC is to see has the STRONGEST TOP 5. Thus the ties should be broken by looking within those 5 runners. The 6th runner had a chance to be top 5 and FAILED.
No, the rule is that the best 5 runners of 7 man team are chosen to calculate the score.
The point of XC is to bring the strongest team up to 7 runners.
A team must have five members finish to constitute a score. There is no requirement to have a sixth or seventh runner finish or even compete.
While there might be a "point" to having the strongest seven runners possible, that is a separate issue from what constitutes a team for scoring purposes.
The rule in this case creates a de facto requirement that a team must have a sixth runner to compete in a tie-breaker. It essentially places an additional burden on a team beyond what is required to qualify for a team score.
To be a team you must have FIVE finishers.
To win a tie-breaker you must have SIX finishers.
That alters the definition of "team" in one situation. That's bad policy.
How exactly did the ND 5th runner get placed higher than the Cranberry runner? preliminary results showed Cranberry finishing 25 and ND 26. Magically, ND moves to 25 and Cranberry 26.
Now we have a tie. Initially, Montrose was scored at 78, ND 79. Then, they switch the finishing places and the Cranberry runner (who was part of a team but not in contention for 1st/2nd place) ends up in 26 forcing the tiebreak.
Was there really indisputable evidence to overturn the initial placement of runners?
No, the rule is that the best 5 runners of 7 man team are chosen to calculate the score.
The point of XC is to bring the strongest team up to 7 runners.
A team must have five members finish to constitute a score. There is no requirement to have a sixth or seventh runner finish or even compete.
While there might be a "point" to having the strongest seven runners possible, that is a separate issue from what constitutes a team for scoring purposes.
The rule in this case creates a de facto requirement that a team must have a sixth runner to compete in a tie-breaker. It essentially places an additional burden on a team beyond what is required to qualify for a team score.
To be a team you must have FIVE finishers.
To win a tie-breaker you must have SIX finishers.
That alters the definition of "team" in one situation. That's bad policy.
It’s a 7 v 7 sport. Yes, you are allowed to compete as a team with 5, but you are at a major disadvantage and that’s on the team that only runs 5: 1) no back up if a runner dnfs, 2) loss of 6-7 runner to push up the scores of opposing teams, 3) loss of the 6th runner in a tie breaker. There’s no requirement that the team have 6, but yes, without 6, they ended up in 2nd. If they had a 6th runner who had finished before the #5 of the other team, they would have added to their opponents score and won without the tiebreaker. You can run with 5 and be scored as a team but this doesn’t mean it’s not 7 v 7 or that a team of 5 is not rightly disadvantaged. If xc was not 7 v 7, then the places of 6 and 7 would not factor into the scoring at all, but they do.
By the only metric that matters, they lost. They had all season to get 1 more kid out but for whatever reason nobody was interested. If a school shows up with 4 runners, are you going to award them a win based on top 3 scoring?
Your first sentence is correct. By the metric that matters, they lost. Nobody is arguing or discussing that point.
The bigger question is whether that rule, in general, best serves the sport, given that teams are in no way required to have a sixth runner. The NCAA breaks the tie within the five scoring runners. The IAAF breaks the tie within the scoring runners. Why doesn't high school?
The argument "they won because the rule says they won" doesn't add anything here.
Why doesn't the IAAf or NCAA use the high school rule? This topic comes up every time there is a tie and the person's who team lost one way but wins the other way argues about how unfair the system used was. They all reward different things than just racing to get the lowest 5 person score. None of them are fairer than the others. You either accept ties or accept that you picking a system that will have results that some people disagree with.
The OP is right. The college rule is a better tiebreaker objectively. Counting all 5 scorers head to head makes more sense than an optional 6th runner to me.
How exactly did the ND 5th runner get placed higher than the Cranberry runner? preliminary results showed Cranberry finishing 25 and ND 26. Magically, ND moves to 25 and Cranberry 26.
Now we have a tie. Initially, Montrose was scored at 78, ND 79. Then, they switch the finishing places and the Cranberry runner (who was part of a team but not in contention for 1st/2nd place) ends up in 26 forcing the tiebreak.
Was there really indisputable evidence to overturn the initial placement of runners?
Sounds like they used the finish lynx camera to correct the chip places. When runners cross the finish line simultaneously, the chips do not always register the correct places, so a finish lynx camera is often times used to correct places in important races. That way the places are actually based on the torso of the runners as opposed to the chip.
2 teams in PA tied with 78 points. Notre Dame ran 7 runners and Montrose ran 5. Montrose would have won under NCAA rules where it's head to head as a tie breaker 3-2. But high school rules go to the 6th runner and since they only raced 5, they lose the tie-break.
The 6th runner rule is BAD because those 5 are getting penalized because they didn't have a 6th runner.
If the other team has an advantage, that is the same as saying they are stronger. If 2 runners start a race and one has a PR of 15 minutes and the other 17 minutes, the one with the 15 minute PR has an advantage and is stronger.
They ran the race based on the agreed upon rules and one team won and another lost. That is the literal way of determining which team is better. Predictions end. Social media discussions are over.
The coach knew the risk of not running a 6th man and now paid the price. It would be like any other team not having a "bench" to go to if one of your starters were to get hurt.
It's a risk you take by not having adequate back up players.
No, I said work harder, look for areas for improvement. What you are saying is let's teach the team to be complacent. There is room for improvement. You are looking to change rules to benefit your team. And then other teams who lose under your new rules can find reasons to complain and find others scoring systems that benefit them. You lost under the rules. My high school coach always looked for areas to grow especially in tough losses. My high didn't go on to win several section titles, state, and be ranked #1 nationally for nothing.
But in this case, you can like the team that had a 6th runner. I'll like the team that ran the course over a minute faster. We can agree to disagree.
Don't get caught up in the average time, that can be completely misleading, especially on the girls side where the margins from the from the top girl to the last girls is much greater than the boys side.
One girl wins by over 2 mins completely skews the average and how close the finishers PLACE actually were. It doesn't matter if you win an XC race by 5 min or 5 seconds, first place is still only 1 pt.
The 6th runner rule is BAD because those 5 are getting penalized because they didn't have a 6th runner.
The tiebreaker is a longstanding established uncontroversial black and white rule. If it's a close race and the team only has five runners it's on the coach to make sure his runners know exactly where they need to place at the finish to avoid a tiebreaker situation.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.