Do You Think the 6th Runner Tie Breaker Rule in XC is Fair or Unfair

I believe its fair. In the instance of a tie, the better team is the one with the faster 6th runner.

I don't think it's unfair as long as everyone is aware of the rule beforehand. Of course, ties happen infrequently enough that many people, especially at the high school level, never bother to learn the rule until it becomes an issue.

An alternative system that I have heard of creates "matchups" between the two teams' 1-5 runners. So, if my #2 runner finished ahead of your #2 runner, my team wins that matchup. Whichever team gets the majority of the 5 matchups is awarded the win. Frankly, this system seems pretty arbitrary to me, and I prefer the 6th man tiebreaker.

qdog wrote:

We then looked at the place of the 6th runners for both teams and declared one team the champion because their 6th runner placed higher then the other teams 6th runner.

Wait, why would you award the win to the team whose 6th runner finished higher? That seems really unfair.

It is very fair and widely used. Until now, I've never heard anyone suggest it is unfair.

I could understand how someone who doesn't understand the sport would think that the "faster 6th place finisher" tie breaker is odd and a little backwards.

You have to look at the bigger picture. It's being used to determine the best TEAM. Individuals also have their own trophies/awards and whatever. But, for the team competition, it is normally who has the best overall top 5 guys. When two teams are tied through 5 runners, the faster 6th place guy means that school has an overall better squad through 6 guys.

So, don't think of it as "they won because their sixth best guy was faster than our sixth best guy". Think of it as "they won because their top six guys were collectively better than our top six guys".

qdog wrote:

Does anyone on this message board agree that the rule is unfair? Could you post your thoughts on either side of the issue? I never thought it was a controversy.

I don't think it's unfair, but I like the NCAA's rule better. In NCAA-land, ties are allowed in cross country (even to determine conference winners) EXCEPT in the case of advancement to nationals. Then the places of the first five runners are compared on a one-to-one basis (i.e., first runner from team A vs. first runner from team B, second runner from team A vs. second runner from team B, and so on). Whoever wins this "best of five" matchup is the winner. Much better system than having a tie fall onto the shoulders of one runner from each team.

You can also think about it this way: the sixth runner has already influenced the team score by pushing back runners on other teams. Why should his influence be increased by also making him the tiebreaker?

The places I have heard of where they use ties are leagues with very small schools. It is kind of unfair if half the teams in the league don't actually have a sixth runner and all the winner of the tie breaker did was have their manager walk the course.

However, in most cases the sixth man tie breaker is the best part of the sport.

I like it a lot because it potentially includes more runners in the team scoring. All systems of scoring are arbitrary but as long as everyone know about the rule, it is, what it is. I think the losing coach, should have just congratulate the winning team and not made any other comments.

I also never heard a complaint about the rule, nor do I have one. Pretty sure the complaining coach would not have been whining about it had his team won.

kjzqeoirOD wrote:

The places I have heard of where they use ties are leagues with very small schools. It is kind of unfair if half the teams in the league don't actually have a sixth runner and all the winner of the tie breaker did was have their manager walk the course.

However, in most cases the sixth man tie breaker is the best part of the sport.

This is interesting. What if a team didn't have 6 runners? Do they lose because of a lack of a 6th runner? While I don't disagree with the 6th man deciding, is there a contingency for no sixth man?

It is completely fair. The sixth man is a legitimate factoring member of the team so his or her performance compared to another team can matter. Sixth and seventh men can displace to begin with. Also, some posters mention that it might not be fair for a team that only has five members. However, those five have every right to beat the five of another team and beat them outright. If you tie another team with your first five you make your own bed in a sense. I say this as someone who coached a college team with only five members and someone who competed in college as a sixth man at times.

It's totally fair! Can't believe we're even debating it.

XC is a team sport and the inclusion of the 6th runner is an awesome element of the sport. You never know who on your team will score and this further encourages all runners to run their hardest. This is a great example for all coaches to reinforce the importance of all of those on the team and their potential role in scoring. Great question but the #2 coach sounds like a sore loser.

dadrunnr wrote:

It's totally fair! Can't believe we're even debating it.

XC is a team sport and the inclusion of the 6th runner is an awesome element of the sport. You never know who on your team will score and this further encourages all runners to run their hardest. This is a great example for all coaches to reinforce the importance of all of those on the team and their potential role in scoring. Great question but the #2 coach sounds like a sore loser.

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the OP awarded the win to the team with the higher placing 6th runner? It would be fair to award the win to the team with the 6th man with the lowest finishing place, but how is it fair to do a tiebreak where the win goes to the team with the slower 6th man?

Absolutely fair! That team performed better as a whole. It's like how if there is a tie in long jump judges look at other attempts to see who was the overall better jumper at that meet.

If we don't go by the 6th runner, whats the point of the 6th and seventh runner? If we do a tie based on the top 5, 6 and 7 are left with no purpose other than to block points.

To all of you saying "Yay! Now the sixth runner gets to count."

THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH RUNNERS ALREADY IMPACT THE TEAM SCORE.

Sixth and seventh, as I'm sure we all know, displace runners from other teams, including the team tied with their team. They've already affected the team score.

If you want to include the sixth runners, the only fair way to do it would be to rescore the entire meet, including the sixth runner from each team as a scorer and the seventh as a displacer.

Can I hear an "Um What", to my pal "um wut"?

The win went to the team with the "fastest" 6th runner. Not sure what you're talking about.

dadrunnr wrote:

Can I hear an "Um What", to my pal "um wut"?

The win went to the team with the "fastest" 6th runner. Not sure what you're talking about.

That's not what the OP said. He said that the win went to the team with the highest placing 6th man. A higher place means a slower time, right? If I place 55th, and you place 60th, you placed higher than me and ran a slower time.

um wut? wrote:

dadrunnr wrote:

Can I hear an "Um What", to my pal "um wut"?

The win went to the team with the "fastest" 6th runner. Not sure what you're talking about.

That's not what the OP said. He said that the win went to the team with the highest placing 6th man. A higher place means a slower time, right? If I place 55th, and you place 60th, you placed higher than me and ran a slower time.

The fact that you couldn't figure out what he meant based on context says more about you than it does about him.