Is The RunningLane Course 5K? Or Is It Short?

monguse wrote:

Somebody explain to me what changes if my buddy and I go there this weekend and measure it with our steel tape and report back that it is 4992 meters?

If done correctly, that would help add validity to the course.

What changes if you and your buddy measure it at 4819m?

coachy wrote:

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

Leonn for the win! It really is that simple!

Yep it's that simple so get out there and measure it! Oh wait, it's not. Someone would have to invest time, travel, etc. No one is stopping any of the four to five people that don't trust the distance. The course is out there all the time. Measure the college courses while you are out there too.

Actually, I have volunteered to do that, but feel at least three others should join me.

You coach? So your team runs 12 races per year on 12 courses that haven't been certified but yet the kids and you have found some method for comparing their efforts. Now you focus your attention on getting a course certified that your team didn't run. The only people wanting this course certified are people who didn't compete there.

We have a wheel and GPS. If times seem too fast, we look at GPS and may wheel the course. Pretty simple. This course is accurate.

Nothing changes in either case.

coachy wrote:

Darn SPR hasn't been figured out yet either!

Yes, that still is an issue.

Well I would do one right up next to the line

"right up next to the line" is not an acceptable measuring distance, but I would do a measurement inside the "SPR" for my own inquisitive nature and would share that as well.

, one at 10 cm

way too close to what you have listed above, but YOU can do that if YOU would like

and another at 1 foot away.

that's about what USATF uses but personally feel in CC that is too close to inside boundaries unless crowd control devices are in place to keep people back from the course.

replies in bold

marwar wrote:

This is absolutely a no issue in rest of the world. Who the f-k care about the actual length of a XC-course ? Comparing times between different courses ? Come on this is XC.

I know it seems ridiculous to people in Europe and others outside the US, but high school XC in the US is different than other parts of the world. Many high school courses in the US are limited in scope & difficulty due to available land at or near the schools. Nearby parks and golf courses can have restrictions-limitations … some limitations can exclude barriers, uneven footing that could foreseeably results in injury, etc. due to liability issues schools & facilities do not want to deal with.

The absolute final times of XC races are very meaningful to many high school runners, coaches and parents … and setting PRs is a goal of many runners (and PR does not necessarily mean the same course). Comparing times on the same course is also important to many coaches & runners because it may indicate progress, current form or relative ability to other runners ... And XC time is also important to many coaches because they are also Track coaches … That’s what exists in the US.

An acquaintance knowing I’m a Game of Thrones fan just sent me an email … He told me to think about finale episode where the character Tyrion Lannister said “There's nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it” … the acquaintance himself added, “and based on the Letsrun threads, when enough people believe a story that a “National XC Record” really exists and it determines who is best, it must true:) … High school XC seems to be evolving into Track-on-the-Grass.”

Replies in bold

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

coachy wrote:

Darn SPR hasn't been figured out yet either!

Yes, that still is an issue.

Well I would do one right up next to the line

"right up next to the line" is not an acceptable measuring distance, but I would do a measurement inside the "SPR" for my own inquisitive nature and would share that as well.

, one at 10 cm

way too close to what you have listed above, but YOU can do that if YOU would like

and another at 1 foot away.

that's about what USATF uses but personally feel in CC that is too close to inside boundaries unless crowd control devices are in place to keep people back from the course.

replies in bold

I ran in the community race as did my team. In several cases I ran right next to the line, I could have ran on the line if I wanted. When I watched my team there were several cases where they ran right next to the line. SPR would be right next to the line but you can invent whatever rules you like. I have always used 1 foot from the curb when measuring road courses for USATF Certification.

Yup. So let's add another chapter to the story.

In 2000 when Ritz ran 14:10 in Michigan, the NFHS rule book said that courses should be setup according to the center-path methodology, instead of the current shortest-possible-route (SPR). If the MI course was setup based on the center-path rule, then measuring it along the SPR will show it being significantly shorter than 5k, just like Detweiller came up ~40 meters short of 3.0 miles.

coachy wrote:

I ran in the community race as did my team. In several cases I ran right next to the line, I could have ran on the line if I wanted. When I watched my team there were several cases where they ran right next to the line. SPR would be right next to the line but you can invent whatever rules you like. I have always used 1 foot from the curb when measuring road courses for USATF Certification.

Great!! Did you PR?

When you say "right next to the line" is that 1/8", 1/2", 1", 3", or 6" from the line? Why didn't you run on the line?

To have a consistent SPR we need to know how close to the line that is - that is not inventing rules - that is clarifying rules - like what you have with USATF at 30cm or just under 1'.

Much like anyone in every race ever I didn't run measure how close my foot was to the line, nor was every foot strike exactly the same. I didn't run on the line because I don't like to break rules.

No I didn't PR nor have in the last 19 years.

Yes people in this thread are inventing rules on how XC courses should be measured.

coachy wrote:

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

Great!! Did you PR?

When you say "right next to the line" is that 1/8", 1/2", 1", 3", or 6" from the line? Why didn't you run on the line?

To have a consistent SPR we need to know how close to the line that is - that is not inventing rules - that is clarifying rules - like what you have with USATF at 30cm or just under 1'.

Much like anyone in every race ever I didn't run measure how close my foot was to the line, nor was every foot strike exactly the same. I didn't run on the line because I don't like to break rules.

No I didn't PR nor have in the last 19 years.

Yes people in this thread are inventing rules on how XC courses should be measured.

Can you guesstimate how close you were when you say "right next to the line" - this is not a trick question.

Alabama has rules that state you can't step on a CC course boundary lines?

I don't know what Alabama rules are. I was going with track rules where you can't step on the line. Honestly I don't know what RunningLane's rule is. Since we weren't racing as a High School because of my own State's rules I don't know what rules RunningLane would be governed by.

I was as close as I could possibly be to the line so maybe an inch. Looking for every tangent I could find.

DiscoGary wrote:

Yup. So let's add another chapter to the story.

In 2000 when Ritz ran 14:10 in Michigan, the NFHS rule book said that courses should be setup according to the center-path methodology, instead of the current shortest-possible-route (SPR). If the MI course was setup based on the center-path rule, then measuring it along the SPR will show it being significantly shorter than 5k, just like Detweiller came up ~40 meters short of 3.0 miles.

Maybe somebody in Michigan involved with the course setup before and after the rule change would know if anything was changed.

In NY after the rule change, a group of coaches and others measured various courses by (1) cutting the tangents and (2) mid-point ... the mid-point was actually varied at different venues ... some did course mid-point, some did mid-point of where kids typically ran in packs, or a combination.

Measuring was done by common wheel and/or a couple of bicycle racers who had training bikes with measuring devices attached to the front wheel ... So not the most accurate methods ... But they worked for the purpose.

I wheeled the my home Tully course (run by Lopez Lomong) with one bicycle guy ... we were within 10 meters of each other and the course was within a few meters of 5K ... I don't believe Tully coach Paccia knew about the mid-course rule when he originally setup the course, and he wheeled it as he would run it (cutting the tangents). I did several other local courses. Others did their local course. Some downstate guys did Van Cortlandt, Bowdoin and a few others ... They were found to be already 5K cutting the tangents.

I don't know anybody who changed their course due to the NFHS rule change ... Some did not know it existed (or did not care).

Overall, we found that cutting the tangents versus "sorta mid-point" made a difference of roughly 40 to just over 100 meters ... That was important to coaches ... Something runners should know.

Yeah, it is amazing on how few coaches know the few rules of CC Course set up.

I still see numerous meets that have 5' or shorter directional flags that are useless in big meets.

Does anyone know how many of these courses get rolled before meets? Seems like a name change might be in order. How about Grass Track?

lucy the unbanned wrote:

Does anyone know how many of these courses get rolled before meets? Seems like a name change might be in order. How about Grass Track?

That was interesting! I think on many courses it would condense the ground too much and create a low area which would not be good in areas that receive much rain. It would be interesting to see what would happen to a course like UW-Parkside in their start area if the course was rolled with something like what was used in Alabama.

I just got off the phone with my contact at NFHS. She is in agreement that a distance from inside boundaries should be listed in the rules to use while measuring the "shortest possible route". The request to add to, or amend, the current language needs to be submitted prior to their June meeting and then would need to be voted on and approved, which should be a slam dunk.

So... now we just need to establish the distance that should be listed in the rules on where to measure on inside turns.

I think THREE Feet would be best since most people understand that distance and in so many meets I go to, with people leaning onto the course to cheer and take photos/shoot video, it's hard for kids to get close to the boundaries.

Will David want 20cm when no natural boundaries like tall grass/tree lines exist, just painted boundaries; but 30cm on true trails?

Thoughts from the LR Gallery?

Here are the rules for road courses:

http://www.rrtc.net/procedures_manual/html_version/Version-2019-1-001/RRTC/The-Shortest-Possible-Route.html