BYU and Portland TIE for WCC title wow!!!

I don't care who was supposed to win, I like this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yTH-72w9rgk#

!

It does matter who wins or for this matter may "tie" for a conference championship. Anybody saying otherwise has clearly never had the opportunity to win one. Clearly both teams have Nats in mind, regardless, for the integrity of our sport I agree that rules ought to be followed and the correct placement of each runner should be awarded.

Thanks to the OP for bringing to light some important issues, whether all the information is spot on remains to be seen....either way, a good thread to discuss some issues with the sport.

cheers.

Championship meets are supposed to have dual cameras so 'eyeballing' the finish is left to the cameras, not someone making an instantaneous decision in a very short time interval with other runners flooding in. I agree that I like the torso rule. If it is a chip and they have to verify the results, do they use a video of the feet? Also, I think that the timing strip is often just behind the official finish, so it is likely to given flawed ordering if one runner,s foot comes down after the line and before the strip and the other's comes down after the strip. If it is a timing strip and the runner dives across the line and the feet stay behind does the runner ever finish?

Not much from my copy of the rules and not much of an improvement on the prior posting. Note that "All provisions of Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5 and Rule 7 ... apply, except as amended with this rule." Thus, if Rule 8 is silent, the T&F rules apply as written and applicable.

SECTION 1. General Statement

All provisions of Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5 and Rule 7 that have appropriate

application to the administration of a cross country competition or to

the conduct of competitors during the cross country competition shall

apply, except as amended within this rule. Procedures for cross country

championships are established by games committees and detailed in the

championship handbooks.

Manual or Automatic Timers

ARTICLE 7. The timers shall have the following additional responsibilities;

f. Transponder (chip) system - When this system is being used for the

official meet results, a ranked order list of times of all competitors shall

be determined by reading the printout produced by the system, and

recorded to the slower 1/10th second. The ranked order of competitors

separated by not more than 1/10th second shall be verified.

Skeptic:

No, we aren't reading the same rules. The link I posted leads to the 2013-2014 rules. The quotes I posted are from the 2011-2012 rules which are still in effect. Note the blue highlighting on the rule you quoted. That means there is a change in that text from the previous version of the book.

26mi365 is correct that Rule 8-1 incorporates relevant parts of the T&F rules into the XC rules.

You are thinking of the high school rule regarding use of transponder times for placement. The NCAA book is fairly clear here once you notice Rule 8-1. (While not perfect, I think the NCAA book is as a whole clearer than the HS, USATF, and IAAF books.)

There is no reason FAT cameras cannot be used for XC, and for championship meets they should. The only reason they might not be used is cost. Meet directors, ask yourselves, is it worth the risk to save a few hundred bucks?

26mi235 wrote:

If it is a timing strip and the runner dives across the line and the feet stay behind does the runner ever finish?

In high school, no! This is why the finish criterion must be made clear in a championship meet. For example, at the DI West Region coaches' meeting last year the head timer stood up and explicitly stated that the finish was by torso and that the order would be verified by FAT camera. Otherwise athletes used to the high school rule might try to slide in as was mentioned.

In the case of athletes crawling to the finish, it is important to keep the trainers in check until the athlete is finished. So in college meets we turns the trainers loose when the top of the torso/bottom of the neck crosses. In HS meets we wait for the athlete to crawl until a foot is across.

West Coast Conference Cross Country Coaches and Administrators,

The West Coast Conference staff has spent the past few days working to finalize the results of our Cross Country Championships, which concluded on Saturday, October 27th, and was perhaps the most competitive in its long history. During this time, we appreciate the patience of the membership as we worked to assure our championship management is executed thoughtfully and with the best interest of our student-athletes in mind. The WCC staff throughly reviewed the various timing methods to ensure accurate results. We are providing this communication in order to provide the final results as well as fully clarify the protest process and protocol utilized.

FINAL RESULTS:

Team Results: The correctable administrative errors did not impact the men's or women's team place finishes.

Individual Results: Attached are the final individual results from the 2012 Cross Country Championships, which include the times to the 1/10th second and include the following administrative errors adjustments:

Women's Race 5th and 6th Place (Correction: 5th USF, 6th POR)

Women's Race 26th and 27th Place (Correction: 26th BYU, 27th POR)

Men's Race 57th and 58th Place (Correction: 57th SCU, 58th PEP)

Inquiry (Mens's 11th and 12th Place Finish): The WCC staff and I personally reviewed the videos and all timing methods for potential administrative errors in the results of both the men's and women's race. We did not find conclusive video evidence to overturn the official's determination of the 11th and 12th place finish for the men's race. The place finish for the GON and BYU runners were confirmed by the chip timing, official determination, and bib tracking system. The appropriate process to challenge the results of a close finish is to file a formal protest with the Games Committee.

PROTEST PROCESS:

WCC Cross Country Games Committee Members: The individuals involved in the Games Committee review of the protest included: Sarah Wilhelmi (WCC, Meet Director), Doug Bowman (USATF, Head Official), Marty Kinsey (SMC, Chair of Cross Country Coaches), and Maria Behm (LMU, Executive Council Cross Country Liaison). NOTE: Buzz Stroud (POR, Meet Director) was also a member of the Games Committee, but was not involved in the protest review process due to a conflict of interest as a POR staff member.

Protest: BYU Men's Cross Country expressed concern regarding place finish order, asserting the results were incorrect for the men's race stating their belief that the BYU 12th place runner finished in front of the GON 11th place runner. The discussion was overheard by a WCC staff member who contacted Wilhelmi, WCC Meet Director/Chair of the Games Committee.

Timeline:

10:17am – The last male runner finished the men's race.

10:20-10:25am (approx) – The results were released/posted at the timing table at the finish line. Coaches were able to retrieve results directly from the timing table and/or the results box at the results table at the finish line. The head official, Doug Bowman, instructed the WCC staff that he was available at the finish line to hear any protests of the results for 30 minutes.

10:31am – The trophy presentation began to recognize the team winners.

10:55am (approx) – The head official signed the results as final at the results table at the finish line noting he did not receive any protests.

11:32am – The chair of the Games Committee, Wilhelmi, was notified by a WCC staff member of the need to contact the head official as there was a question regarding the results.

12:45pm (approx) - The Games Committee convened to review the oral protest of the BYU men's team at the hotel and the attendees included: (1) Sarah Wilhelmi, (2) Maria Behm, (3) Marty Kinsey, (4) Doug Bowman, and (5) WCC staff who were present at the track to hear the oral protest. NOTE: Buzz Stroud (POR) was not present at the hotel or on site for any of the Games Committee deliberations.

1:00pm (approx) - The Games Committee reached a decision.

1:15pm (approx) - The Games Committee decision was shared with the two involved head coaches.

Protest Decision: The request to file a protest with the head official and/or Games Committee was not received within the 30 minute window as outlined in NCAA Track and Field Playing Rule 4, Article 6(a); therefore the Games Committee did not accept the protest request.

Appeal Request: BYU Administration submitted an appeal to the Conference Commissioner citing concern that the head official did not review video prior to confirming the final results. NCAA Track and Field Playing Rule 8, Section 7(f) states results collected from chip timing should be reviewed by video when the finishers are within 1/10th second of each other. NOTE: The results provided at the conclusion of the event did not include the 1/10th second time, but the 1/10th second was recorded by the chip system and was later provided when requested by the Conference.

Appeal Decision: The Commissioner and WCC staff ensured that all of the results were reviewed for times that fell within the 1/10th of a second and a separate review of the GON/BYU 11th/12th place finish, which was outside of the 1/10th second criteria. After reviewing all available official video, the Commissioner ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the decision of the head official for the 11th and 12th place finish; thus, the appeal request was denied.

PROTEST POLICY NOTIFICATION: (Coaches' Meeting Discussion – See Attached)

During the coaches meeting, William Wyckoff from Eclectic Edge Racing, inquired if the WCC has a policy requiring review of finishers within 1/10 of a second. The coaches discussed the four methods that would be utilized during the race to track results including: (1) chip timing, (2) bib tracking, (3) spindle, and (4) video.

Sarah Wilhelmi, the WCC Meet Director, Cross Country Liaison and Chair of the Games Committee, redirected the conversation by quoting the WCC Protest Policy, which states all protests shall be reviewed by the Games Committee. The WCC Staff and Coaches reviewed the names of the members of the Games Committee and noted that if a specific individual had a conflict of interest in the matter, that the individual would be recused. Wilhelmi then asked the head official to describe the protocols for the start line and finish line. The Games Committee Policy was shared in writing with the head coaches in the championship meeting materials.

NCAA PLAYING RULE CLARIFICATIONS:

The WCC staff reviewed the application of NCAA Track and Field Playing Rules with Bob Podkaminer, the NCAA Track and Field and Cross Country Secretary of Rules Editor, regarding the appropriate application of the following Playing Rules:

Playing Rule 4, Article 6 (a): Podkaminer confirmed the current method to announce results and issue copies of the results to the coaches would meet the criteria for "posting" the results and would trigger the start of the 30 minute timeline to file a protest.

Playing Rule 8, Article 7 (f): Podkaminer explained that cross country meets conducted with chip timing should include video review if the place finish is within 1/10th second. Although the chip timing system did capture the 1/10th second, the results presented at the finish line did not include the 1/10th second. The head official did not utilize the video to confirm the results as the 1/10th second information was not provided at the finish line. The lack of conclusive video evidence does not invalidate the results. As noted above, the results were re-reviewed by the Commissioner and WCC staff and updated due to any administrative errors in compliance with NCAA Track and Field Playing Rule 4, Article 9.

The West Coast Conference staff is confident the four methods utilized to monitor finishing results including, chip timing, bib tracking, spindle, and video, did provide accurate results in the end and is committed to providing a safe and fair competitive environment for all of it's student-athletes. If you have questions, feel free to contact our office.

Sincerely,

Jamie

Jamie Zaninovich

Commissioner

Would not have happened if the meet was conducted at Crystal Springs. Thats what you get when you mess with tradition.

" After reviewing all available official video, the Commissioner ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the decision of the head official for the 11th and 12th place finish; thus, the appeal request was denied"

At least the appeal was not denied for not being filed within 30 minutes after the results being posted.

I wonder if consideration would be given to delay the first race results, especially if you coach both men and women, until after the second race.

When you have a banquet scheduled later in the afternoon, why are awards handed out at the race site, especially under the conditions present at the meet this year?

Thanks for cleaning this up Coach!

Cant you guys look this stuff up for yourselves? It isnt that hard:

Rule 8, Section 6 , Article 2b. An officially designated video or photograph must be used to verify the order of finish in all cases in which the timing system indicates a one tenth second or less differential.

So they are only required to do it where the times are ONE TENTH apart. Tate Kelly and Steve Flint were TWO TENTHS exactly apart(24:11.74, 24:11.94). So no, according to the rules this was not required to be verified by video.

MissionHarrier wrote:

I wonder if consideration would be given to delay the first race results, especially if you coach both men and women, until after the second race.

Rule 4 Section 3 Article 6:

ARTICLE 6. a. Protests relating to matters that develop during the conduct of the meet should be made at once and not later than 30 minutes after the results have been announced or posted. FOR CROSS COUNTRY, NOT LATER THAN 30 MINUTES AFTER THE LAST RACE OF THE MEET HAS BEEN POSTED. All implicated coaches must be notified of a tendered protest.

b. Any such protest may be immediate and oral by a competitor or a competitor's coach in order to protect and preserve evidence used in the determination of a written protest filed in the appropriate manner. A protest shall include any communication by the athlete that requests the

preservation of the evidence.

c. The protest shall be reviewed by the referee, who shall render a decision after determining and considering evidence. Evidence specifically excluded is all visual material, except that produced in conjunction with officiating an event, official photo-timing and official video designated by the games committee before the meet.

Special Informant - this all could have been avoided? The results are the same unlike what you claimed in the beginning. This all could have been avoided if you didn't post anything at all. I spy with my little eye a win for Portland.

BS Alert wrote:

Special Informant - this all could have been avoided? The results are the same unlike what you claimed in the beginning. This all could have been avoided if you didn't post anything at all. I spy with my little eye a win for Portland.

What the "final post" does not tell you, is that some of the chip times were in error as much as 5 SECONDS...and the results of the race DID change:(see USF women's 6th to 5th correction etc..) kind of a big gap don't you think? If that chip time could be off that much doesn't it make you wonder about the rest of it? Also, video of the finish line was practically useless due to blurriness of freeze frame, so verifying the places separated by 1/10th was practically impossible.

But whatever, it only determined a conference champion so really not that big of a deal. In the future a FAT system should be used and then there is no debate.

Inside wrote:

This post is a shame, and I hope people don't take it too seriously. This person is obviously only partially informed. I can tell you as a coach involved in the WCC, both head coaches were gracious and very collaborative in this discrepancy. On top of it, both WCC finish line officials had Tate in front of Flint. I agree about the misfortune of the sequence of events, and be assured that they got it right and it's really unclassy of this poster to minimize the efforts of both teams and the meet officials by trying to spread lies and stir up adolescent drama. Trust me, BYU has bigger fish to fry this year!

To be fair: in no way was my initial post meant to detract from the efforts put forth by Portland, Byu, the WCC or any of the teams involved with the meet. The effort was AWESOME and provided for one of the great battles a spectator could ever wish for. The post was merely an excited fan who saw some errors in meet management that could have changed the entire outcome. It is clear that there was no mal intent on the part of the host university or the WCC, they honestly prepared and did the best they could with what they had. Hind sight is 20/20 and knowing what we know now, would we all feel better about having a FAT camera at the finish to verify chip times? Yes. Will there be one at future championships? Probably. But what is in the past is in the past. Bottom line: there were some errors, some became public knowledge, the results were corrected and we move on to next year with a better understanding of how to avoid future errors.

Congrats to Portland for a big win in front of the home crowd, really incredibly entertaining to watch, and for all the time and effort put into the meet. Not a small undertaking.