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

AKMarmoset wrote:

Ha ha HRE, glad you're having fun but this is too easy

I was. It is.

I've always preferred the NCAA's rule.

As several have pointed out, the sixth runner has *already* had a chance to determine the outcome. Why, exactly, does a lesser athlete (face it, that's what #6 is) rate a second bite at the apple, and no one else? Why not compare, say, the teams' #1 runners? Is that somehow more arbitrary?

A team's own score is determined by its first five finishers. If two teams' first five are equally good (as determined by the scoring--the only fair measure), then the two teams are equally good. They've tied. Leave it at that!

If the sixth runner wants to "win" the meet, s/he should beat one more (score-affecting) person; if s/he can't manage that, then s/he's done for the day.

hgihgii wrote:

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?

If neither team has a 6th runner, the two teams are re-scored through 4 runners to break the tie. I believe if only one of the teams has a 6th runner, they get the win.

lease wrote:

I've always preferred the NCAA's rule.

As several have pointed out, the sixth runner has *already* had a chance to determine the outcome. Why, exactly, does a lesser athlete (face it, that's what #6 is) rate a second bite at the apple, and no one else? Why not compare, say, the teams' #1 runners? Is that somehow more arbitrary?

A team's own score is determined by its first five finishers. If two teams' first five are equally good (as determined by the scoring--the only fair measure), then the two teams are equally good. They've tied. Leave it at that!

If the sixth runner wants to "win" the meet, s/he should beat one more (score-affecting) person; if s/he can't manage that, then s/he's done for the day.

Ties don't happen as frequently as you seem to make it out. This isn't an every meet sorta thing, so 6th runners don't normally get to contribute anymore than bumping the scoring some. And even with that, unlike the number 1 and sometimes 2 or 3 runners, they never get individual achievements, so they're often left feeling that they did nothing for the team and aren't part of their win. According to you, they contributed just as much as they're teammates, but my bet is that if you were a #6 runner whose team just won unanimously, you wouldn't feel like you did anything at all for it. This is a rare opportunity to include more team members in the scoring AND determine who the better OVERALL team is.

lease wrote:

I've always preferred the NCAA's rule.

As several have pointed out, the sixth runner has *already* had a chance to determine the outcome. Why, exactly, does a lesser athlete (face it, that's what #6 is) rate a second bite at the apple, and no one else? Why not compare, say, the teams' #1 runners? Is that somehow more arbitrary?

A team's own score is determined by its first five finishers. If two teams' first five are equally good (as determined by the scoring--the only fair measure), then the two teams are equally good. They've tied. Leave it at that!

If the sixth runner wants to "win" the meet, s/he should beat one more (score-affecting) person; if s/he can't manage that, then s/he's done for the day.

A lot of dumb things in your post.

You think using the sixth runner placement to break ties constitutes a "second bite of the apple" as the sixth placement runner already had a chance to determine the outcome? Not sure what you mean but maybe you are referring to the fact that the 6th man can displace the other teams' runners? Well, the first through fifth guys displace other teams' runners as well in addition to contributing to the score so I don't see how that "second bite" as you so stupidly called it would apply to the 6th man alone.

Scoring 1 through 5 and then breaking a tie with the first place runner as you suggest is actually the "second bite on the apple" as the first place runner on each team is already factored into the 1-5 scoring that resulted in the tie. Breaking the tie by whoever had the faster top runner would be like breaking a tie in basketball by awarding the win to the team who had the highest individual scorer.

If you think that two teams should remain tied if they have the same score for 1-5, then that is your opinion. Most people prefer sports that do not allow ties as has been reflected in the growing trend over the years in college football, hockey, etc, to eliminate or at least decrease the possibility of a tie.

The sixth man solution for XC is actually perfect. You are just looking at it wrong. You are thinking, the winner was decided by the teams' sixth fastest person, how backward!

Actually though, the winner was decided by the team who was strongest from 1 through 6. Usually it is the top 5 that determine the winner, but if the two squads are even after each got five across the line, then you have to go six deep.

Lease just got taken to the wood shed.

um wut? wrote:

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.

This. I recognize that these situations do not happen often, but still, it's not a fair tie-breaker.

Yes, it *would* be ridiculous to break a tie by comparing the teams' #1 finishers. (That was kind of my point.)

And at least as ridiculous to break it with #6 runners.

People need to be bothered less by ties. Occasionally races end in a dead heat (http://thomastobin.com/drugsmeds/fig06.jpg); occasionally cross teams finish with a tie score. We should simply recognize that the two teams were equally good *in terms of how scores are determined*.

maybe it will help you to realize that using the sixth man tie-breaker is mathematically equivalent to adding up the top six places for each team in question and comparing that score.

lolz wrote:

maybe it will help you to realize that using the sixth man tie-breaker is mathematically equivalent to adding up the top six places for each team in question and comparing that score.

I think this is a really good way of stating the proposition, actually, and I thank you for it and will remember it for the future.

I don't have any *intrinsic* opposition to determining team scores by totaling the places of the first six finishers for a team. As a matter of fact, in my high school league a team's score was determined by its first *four* finishers (there were some small squads, and consistently getting five finishers was not a given for multiple teams). [For that matter, I'm not offended to remember that, for decades, women's basketball was played with six-person teams on the floor.]

But the current fact is that, for just about all of the US, the sport is conducted in such a way that five runners determine a team's own score (and place). To change the nature of the game post hoc, in order to avoid a tie score, to me simply doesn't make sense.

Hey, I just thought of this. If people are *really* interested in using a team's "depth" to break ties, let's put squads of EIGHT on the course: five, to score for their own team; the next two finishers, to potentially hurt other teams' scores; and the eighth finisher to break any potential ties. That way, nobody gets more than one chance to affect the outcome!

spiked up guns out wrote:

[quote]qdog wrote:

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?

WTF? You can say that about any of the runners?

You people are amazing.

I don't think so wrote:

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.

WTF are you talking about? That is not how XC is scored. There are rules for the sport.

I am glad you think it is arbitrary, but even bringing it up suggests that there can be alternative ways of scoring XC. No.

Rules are Rules wrote:

WTF are you talking about? That is not how XC is scored. There are rules for the sport.

I am glad you think it is arbitrary, but even bringing it up suggests that there can be alternative ways of scoring XC. No.

Please advise where these rules are published and what is the tie breaker rule

first five out of seven score wrote:

Please advise where these rules are published and what is the tie breaker rule

The rules are published in the NFHS handbook.

Rule 9-3

ART. 4 . . . Ties in team scoring shall be resolved by comparing the sixth-place

finishers from the tying teams. The team with the best sixth-place finisher shall

prevail. If one team does not have a sixth-place finisher, the team with the sixth place finisher shall prevail.

ART. 5 . . . If only five competitors of tying teams finish, the tie shall be

resolved by totaling the scores of the first four finishers.

Rules are Rules wrote:

[quote]I don't think so wrote:

WTF are you talking about? That is not how XC is scored. There are rules for the sport.

I am glad you think it is arbitrary, but even bringing it up suggests that there can be alternative ways of scoring XC. No.

That is absolutely how ties are broken...at the NCAA level when advancement to nationals is in question. At other meets (invitationals, conference championships, etc.) ties are not broken.

For high school leagues/associations that follow the NFHS rules, comparing sixth runners is the method used to break the tie.

Both have merits, both have downsides. As long as the rules are published before the race and adhered to after the race, what's the problem?