Deltatiming

Results Please wrote:

Central Fan wrote:

Are the official results going to be corrected to move Central to 12= in light of the fact that Eau Claire have 8 runners in the results and place 147 was an alternate watching at the finish line and not an actual runner???

If not, why not?

This

I suspect the results are STILL wrong because we're past the 30 min protest period. If this stays this way, the 2012 DIII NCAA XC National Championships will be forever incorrect past 10th place in the team results. This is very embarrassing.

If you're a DIII runner affected by this, please have your coach contact the NCAA or feel free to message the guy directly responsible. Here is his Facebook:

Central Fan wrote:

Are the official results going to be corrected to move Central to 12= in light of the fact that Eau Claire have 8 runners in the results and place 147 was an alternate watching at the finish line and not an actual runner???

If not, why not?

I heard that the extra finisher for Eau Claire was an alternate that was not at the meet. So your theory doesn't seem like what caused the error. If anyone with a chip on was watching the finish outside the fence at Terre Haute, I hope the timing mat wouldn't pick them up and they certainly wouldn't show up in the video review.

Damn. D3 is f'd up. I didn't think it was possible to be worse than D1, but how the heck do you have so many ties? I counted 19 "ties" but somehow the team places differ.

PL Pts Name YR Team Time

26 18 Nick Kramer SR Calvin 25:01.9

26 19 Aaron Easker SR Wis.-Eau Claire 25:01.9

31 23 James Waterman JR Wheaton (Ill.) 25:02.3

31 -- John Dewitt SR Wis.-Oshkosh 25:02.3

36 26 Kyle Marks SR Tufts 25:06.8

36 25 Logan Steiner FR Allegheny 25:06.8

39 -- Ian LaMere FR Wis.-Platteville 25:08.5

39 28 Cole Decker FR Central College 25:08.5

46 32 Dan Kerr SR Calvin 25:14.5

46 33 Kevin Bonilla SR NYU 25:14.5

48 34 Matt Rand SR Tufts 25:17.3

48 35 Joel Christian SO Haverford 25:17.3

68 49 Dylan Karten JR NYU 25:29.3

68 50 George Degen SO Carnegie Mellon 25:29.3

78 57 Adam Moline SO Wis.-Eau Claire 25:33.4

78 58 Brian Sutter SR C-M-S 25:33.4

95 70 Avi Bregman JR Haverford 25:39.8

95 69 Greg Whittle SR Calvin 25:39.8

105 75 Josh Budman SR Johns Hopkins 25:45.5

105 -- Ryan O'Connell SR Springfield 25:45.5

111 79 Julian Saliani JR Johns Hopkins 25:46.4

111 78 Tom Linner FR Wis.-La Crosse 25:46.4

111 80 Andrew Wortham SR Bates 25:46.4

123 88 John Fowler FR Pomona-Pitzer 25:51.7

123 89 Ryan Moynihan SO Geneseo St. 25:51.7

167 124 Parker Thompson SR Wheaton (Ill.) 26:10.4

167 -- Andy Gallagher SR TCNJ 26:10.4

176 -- Matt Melvin SR Albion 26:14.1

176 131 Alex Rigdon SR Luther 26:14.1

187 141 Nick Boyce SO Wabash 26:16.7

187 140 AJ Licon JR La Verne 26:16.7

193 145 Brendan O'Hara JR Carnegie Mellon 26:19.8

193 146 Matt Scott JR Wis.-Eau Claire 26:19.8

195 147 Matt Wenaas JR Wis.-Eau Claire 26:20.2

195 -- Blake Rottschafer SR Hope 26:20.2

223 170 Sloan Beninga FR Central College 26:38.5

223 171 Zeth Baker SR Manchester 26:38.5

231 -- Chansler Poole JR St. Vincent (PA) 26:44.2

231 177 James Boeding JR Bowdoin 26:44.2

Ties to the tenth are not ties, it's just the way the times are reports.

The real problem is this:

193 146 Matt Scott JR Wis.-Eau Claire 26:19.8

So the meet officials and timing company missed this runner-how does this happen? Matt Scott crosses no split points during the race yet shows up at the finish? A quick review of the finishers show Eau Claire with EIGHT finishers - how do the meet officials not look into this?

I will continue to disagree with David Katz, whom I respect greatly.

Until everything is verified, all results are Unofficial. One mistake at this meet, is that unofficial results were used to announce a winner. The problem was not with unofficial results. In fact, while there was some confusion related to the issue of a possible DQ (which are rare in XC at this level), I felt that any result other than Oregon winning was unlikely, as it did not fit the facts, including all of the incremental scoring which consistently showed Oregon winning after early tight racing. A release of the placings, unofficially listing of all of the runners would have solved the problem pretty quickly because having a lot of eyes does that, and there is a lot of use of the internet using this very successfully.

Again, I really, really hate it when NO results are provided at all until the results are official. In fact, doing this is more likely to make the official results actually wrong and in a manner that might make them difficult to fix.

This really is the right answer. Everyone needs to understand that the "instant" results are unofficial and not treat them as final and announce winners until they are made official. Maybe this needs to be emphasized more and people need to be reminded of it - especially announcers.

It is better to give instant preliminary results, however, because then you have everyone looking at them and in a better position to detect errors.

Lynx Timer wrote:

"I don't know how practical it would be because I've never worked a major chip meet. But, maybe part of the solution could simply involve a "results committee (made up of coaches?)" who scans through the results to make sure no one is missing or misplaced before making them 'official.'"

This is ridiculous! You were obviously trained by the wrong people (Delta Timing) and have no concept of how to do this correctly. To call yourself a Lynx Timer and then to suggest to have a group of coaches look over the results is asinine. Please do not comment on this thread if you have no experience timing higher level events.

I agree with the above poster, they should explain what happened exactly, if not, their other events should be notified (like an angieslist).

All of your conjecture and hyperbole aside, are you saying that my solution could not have prevented the fiasco that took place at DI Nats? Or, would you just rather the results get reported erroneously than to have a games committee review them to ensure their legitimacy?

Btw, what is your solution for reducing the probability of this occuring in the future (as it seems well known that chip technology isn't perfect yet)?

Note that the 'instantaneous' ones basically were right, it was later that things got dropped. In addition, with the unofficial ones jumping up and down a little bit, it was clear that big gaps mattered but little ones might not.

Since the mid-race team scores and the mid-race individual results all seemed correct, how about refining the results display system (online, on the scoreboard, etc.) so that these remain active and accessible immediately after the race. Then the timing company, coaches, and/or any review committee can see more easily if something seems out of sorts.

If Oregon's women's team was listed as winning at 2k and 4k, then losing at the finish, you'd know to look for some falling apart by a top five runner, which didn't happen. As it is now, the mid-race splits show up for a few moments, and then disappear when a new set comes up 2k or so later. Full splits sets for individuals are given much later in the official results, but no mid-race team scores are made available, unless they're tweeted, and live on in tweet land.

More data like this doesn't mean the unofficial results immediately after a race are correct. They can just help if there are questions about the unofficial results.

Another Lynx Timer wrote:

[quote]Lynx Timer wrote:

All of your conjecture and hyperbole aside, are you saying that my solution could not have prevented the fiasco that took place at DI Nats? Or, would you just rather the results get reported erroneously than to have a games committee review them to ensure their legitimacy?

Btw, what is your solution for reducing the probability of this occuring in the future (as it seems well known that chip technology isn't perfect yet)?

Yes, that IS what I am saying. Having a "group of coaches" in there looking over results A. slows things down B. Complicates things. Most coaches don't have a clue what they're looking at (yes, even top tier D1 coaches).

What am I suggesting? Ummm I don't know, how about reviewing the entire photo prior to releasing results? This will catch false positives like they had at D3's (which is still wrong). This isn't rocket science folks..

"But, like some else previously stated, you'd be REALLY surprised if you realized how many significant timing errors happen at meets. The main difference between this and an ordinary meet is that the major errors weren't noticed/corrected before the results were released publicly. The one time there was a glitch at a Delta meet I worked, everything appeared normal (thankfully) and no one was ever aware there was a problem."

I'm not sure about some other timers, but I do not have "significant timing errors" at my races like you mention above. Do you know why that is? It's not our first day at the office! We prep for the event, make a plan and execute. If that plans fails, we have two more back-ups to it.

Once again another distance runner who thinks he is entitled to something.Ive timed many xc and track meets, you are dealing with technology and when dealing with it sometimes things go wrong.Delta timing is a very reputable company and have timed more meets where there has not been problems than where they have had.But no one from that company owes no one on here anything...once again I state distance runners whine and bitch and think they are entitled to explanations and answers to everything.

Jonesy54 wrote:

Can a rep from their company please get on here and explain what exactly happened, who exactly was at fault and how it will corrected in the future? We're all human and make mistakes, now please man-up and tell us how you're going to fix it.

If it is not done, I will be sending this thread and other articles to races on their schedule to give them a heads up

[quote]Distance entitlement wrote:

Once again another distance runner who thinks he is entitled to something.

Ive timed many xc and track meets, you are dealing with technology and when dealing with it sometimes things go wrong.

Delta timing is a very reputable company and have timed more meets where there has not been problems than where they have had.

But no one from that company owes no one on here anything...once again I state distance runners whine and bitch and think they are entitled to explanations and answers to everything.[quote]

You're illiterate, but kudos for trying to write a coherent sentence with the limited tools at your disposal. If this was my business I'd be falling over myself to provide explanations and do damage control.

A. Maybe this fiasco wouldn't have happened if things were "slowed down," and the results were verified/corrected by a second set of eyes before the fiasco ensued.

B. You clearly know nothing about games committees and their purpose/value within the sport.

Wait, wouldn't that "slow things down?"

Plus, even if the entire photo was reviewed by the timers, it doesn't mean errors can't slip through. People make mistakes.

Earlier, you tried to make the ignorant generalization that "most coaches don't have a clue what they're looking at," even though, it seems that the coaches at this year's Nats seemed to be able to determine which of their athletes were listed in the results and which athletes weren't listed. Many times, it's the coaches who catch these kinds of errors.

So, why take the risk of reporting the results incorrectly at a National meet? Because it takes too long for a second set of eyes to review them? Or, because you have too much arrogance and apparently no humility?

Wait, why would you need two or more back-ups if you don't have "significant timing errors" at your meets? Seems like you really missed my point on that subject.

And, not that I ever came here just to dazzle you with my credentials, I trained the guy who went on to become the head timer at the 2008 US Olympic Trials. Is that a big enough meet for you?

Probably most people close to a program in the sense of knowing all the individuals racing etc., would catch a missing runner. It gets harder when you are missing a sixth or fifth runner, but even then I would be hard pressed to think of any of these DI coaches that would not be able to go through the results and spot anything unusual about all of their athletes.

Also, if they happen to have the split times and have them for all entrants the 'many eyes' would spot anomalies very quickly. In the case of Pappas, for instance, she would be there through the last split point and then disappear. In fact, I think that those running this that did not notice something as aberrant as that not only made a mistake, they failed to catch an obvious mistake, despite major clues (there were incremental results and there were preliminary results. I sure as heck would check anything (and everything that I could think of) that could account for the discontinuity between the preliminary results and the 'Final" and between the incremental splits and the 'final'. It is one thing to be unfamiliar in a high school invite. It is an entirely different thing to be so clueless at the DI National Championships.

Jonesy54 wrote:

Can a rep from their company please get on here and explain what exactly happened, who exactly was at fault and how it will corrected in the future? We're all human and make mistakes, now please man-up and tell us how you're going to fix it.

If it is not done, I will be sending this thread and other articles to races on their schedule to give them a heads up

Because they failed to comply, I sent this thread and two other articles to about a dozen of their larger clients. I have received "thank yous" from 4 of them. I will keep sending this out until there is some accountability.

Lolol Jones wrote:

I just went to Delta's site and I find it pretty funny that they still have this under their headlines:

"NCAA Awards Div. I and Div. III Cross Country

Championships to Delta Timing. Delta is pleased to continue it's relationship with the NCAA and looks forward to showcasing the premier collegiate cross county event in the country."

Congrats, Delta...you did a great job of SHOWCASING the meet! You've got more people talking about the Championships now then ever before. Job well done!

So does this mean Louisville was not responsible for hiring the timing company for D1? Was that decision made solely by NCAA and the host city / school has no say?

Ipipco is far from foolproof.

I've been to many meets in the last few years where they've left out runners.

And, the shoe tags are bulky. It's hard for runners to tie their shoes correctly (tightly) with those big things flopping around.

This isn't an argument about which system to use, its about the USER.

There are some timers that I have met that could have done this meet more accurately with pull-tags (sans splits of course).

Hopefully next years crew brings their A-game..