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.
This sucks, but Montrose knew the rules and still only ran 5. I like the HS rules because it makes your 6 and 7 matter. Montrose learned today that their 6th man was the difference between a state win or a loss.
Why is the rule here different than the college tiebreaker rule??? Just why???
I think most people would ask the inverse—why is the college different from HS? The high school makes more runners matter. 7 runners is a full team. Teams can either field a full team or simply don’t leave it up to a tie breaker.
6th runner rule makes better sense to me than the NCAA. It's a team sport. 6th runner is important for multiple reasons and one is for tie breaker.
It's a team sport - 5 runners count towards the score. If the 6th and 7th runners want to have an impact, they can try to beat the other teams fifth runner to displace.
It's about who has the strongest top 5, not who has the least bad 6th runner.
I could see an argument for not breaking ties except for advancement. So you couldn’t score the least points - you have to share the crown. Using 6 as a tiebreaker makes some sense though, and everyone knew the rule in advance.
Imagine showing up to a football game with 10 players and getting mad that you lost. Run a whole team. We can debate which tiebreak rule is better, but you knew the rules when you stepped to the start line.
Imagine showing up to a football game with 10 players and getting mad that you lost. Run a whole team. We can debate which tiebreak rule is better, but you knew the rules when you stepped to the start line.
You are actually arguing against your point. If a football team only has 10 players they can still play and win the game.
Using the 6th runner to break ties is like saying teams can only use their 3rd string quarterback in overtime.
If you are allowed to get a team score with 5 finishers, you should NEVER be penalized for not having a 6th finisher.
Imagine showing up to a football game with 10 players and getting mad that you lost. Run a whole team. We can debate which tiebreak rule is better, but you knew the rules when you stepped to the start line.
You are actually arguing against your point. If a football team only has 10 players they can still play and win the game.
Using the 6th runner to break ties is like saying teams can only use their 3rd string quarterback in overtime.
If you are allowed to get a team score with 5 finishers, you should NEVER be penalized for not having a 6th finisher.
The team in question could have won with 5 if any 5 of those runners had run 1 place better.
They didn't.
Having the 6th runner serve as the tiebreaker has been the standard high school rule for over 50 yrs.
This rule makes more intuitive sense to me than comparing 1 v1, 2v 2, etc as it rewards teams with a larger number of quality runners.
I get the argument that the 1 v1 ,2 v2 rule gives the win to the team that would win in a duel meet but it's not a duel meet and again, I think the team that has more qulaity runners is the better team.
1. They knew the rule and essentially forfeited a chance to win in a tiebreak.
2. The assumption is they only ran 5. But lets say they ran 6 and the 6th runner dropped out. It would seem silly to score a tiebreak that would give an advantage to the team that didn't have 6 or 7 finishers.
3. The time I could see altering the rule is in a small school/rural division where many teams have trouble with numbers.
My basketball team lost the state championship. My team had 5 players while our opponent had 7. Their 6th man scored his 1st basket in OT. It wasn't fair.
You are actually arguing against your point. If a football team only has 10 players they can still play and win the game.
Using the 6th runner to break ties is like saying teams can only use their 3rd string quarterback in overtime.
If you are allowed to get a team score with 5 finishers, you should NEVER be penalized for not having a 6th finisher.
The team in question could have won with 5 if any 5 of those runners had run 1 place better.
They didn't.
Having the 6th runner serve as the tiebreaker has been the standard high school rule for over 50 yrs.
This rule makes more intuitive sense to me than comparing 1 v1, 2v 2, etc as it rewards teams with a larger number of quality runners.
I get the argument that the 1 v1 ,2 v2 rule gives the win to the team that would win in a duel meet but it's not a duel meet and again, I think the team that has more qulaity runners is the better team.
it's clear that those supporting the high school rule have never run in college. you are all fantasizing about your high school glory days because you were slow and couldn't even run D3.
The 6th runner is NOT considered a scoring member (as in their point total does not count towards the team score). Here is what World Athletics says:
In all races, IAAF member federations may enter a maximum of eight athletes, but no more than six shall be allowed to start in each race with four to score. The team results are decided by the aggregate of places recorded by the scoring athletes of each team. The team with the lowest aggregate of points will be judged the winner. If a team fails to finish with a complete scoring team, the runners finishing shall be counted as individuals in the race result and be eligible for the individual prize money (senior races only). In assessing the aggregate, no adjustment to the scoring of the finishing teams shall be made in respect of any non-scoring team runners or of individual entries. In the event of a tie, it shall be resolved in favour of the team whose last scoring member finishes nearer to first place.
This sucks, but Montrose knew the rules and still only ran 5. I like the HS rules because it makes your 6 and 7 matter. Montrose learned today that their 6th man was the difference between a state win or a loss.
they didn't have 6 and there should not be a penalty for that. the size of your team should not matter, it should only be the top 5 that matters.
This is the smallest school division and the 6th runner on the winning team ran 23:15.
So your top 5 would have won in a dual meet, they had a faster average time, but someone a full MINUTE behind the other team's 5th runner decides the race? No, that's idiotic and unfair.
So your top 5 would have won in a dual meet, they had a faster average time, but someone a full MINUTE behind the other team's 5th runner decides the race? No, that's idiotic and unfair.
This is NOT true. Notre Dame would have won a dual 27-28. Don't make up lies.
The 6th runner tie breaker makes the most sense of any tie breaker. The first five runners tied. Go to the next runner to break the tie. It is not punishing a team that doesn't have a 6th runner. It is rewarding a team for having better depth.
scoring the top 5 and then the scoring the top 5 again head to head is stupid. use the 6th man. or honestly, the iaaf thing which would be which teams 5th runner is closest to first. I kind of don't mind that.