Girls' D1 #3 Lakota East 49
Girls' DI #11 Lebanon 49
Girls'D1 #18 Oak Hills 49
Girls' DI #11 Lebanon 49
Girls'D1 #18 Oak Hills 49
Tiebreakers are real.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Officially there is no tiebreaker for XC. Let socialism rule.
Again, I have never seen a 3-way tie ever for 1st place in XC.
Again, I have never seen a 3-way tie ever for 1st place in XC.
My school's boys team made state on a 6th runner tiebreaker and proceeded to finish 6th at state.Many years ago in the east-southeast district with the top two qualifying to state (sectional-district format) three teams tied for second and the 6th man for each team were within 3-4 seconds of each other. It was quite a teachable moment about the importance of the 6th runner.
According to newspaper research I did years ago, the 6th runner tiebreaker came along in time for the 1978 XC season. Prior to that, the 4th runner was the tiebreaker. The 6th runner tiebreaker was put into action that very 1st postseason for the NE District Class AAA Meet:Many years ago in the east-southeast district with the top two qualifying to state (sectional-district format) three teams tied for second and the 6th man for each team were within 3-4 seconds of each other. It was quite a teachable moment about the importance of the 6th runner.
According to newspaper research I did years ago, the 6th runner tiebreaker came along in time for the 1978 XC season. Prior to that, the 4th runner was the tiebreaker. The 6th runner tiebreaker was put into action that very 1st postseason for the NE District Class AAA Meet:
GlenOak tied with Euclid for 9th and final state spot from NE in AAA. Both teams thought they advanced to state. The tie was broken by the OHSAA the day after the meet. After the OHSAA determined that Euclid won the tiebreaker, the results were examined again. In those days, it was the top "X" number of runners not on qualifying teams in addition to the runners on qualifying teams who advanced to the state individual meet. Having not advanced as team runners, 3 GlenOak runners made state individually which then knocked out 3 runners from other schools who left Saturday's meet thinking they had qualified individually. 1 of the adversely affected runners was from neighboring Canton McKinley HS.
If none of the teams involved in a tie have a 6th runner, then the 4th runner is the tiebreaker.
I believe you are correct regarding the NCAA's tiebreaking procedure. I've seen it on some race results where a tie occurred.Thanks. That is very interesting information. The situation I alluded to must've been around the same time -'78. It was in my first few years of coaching and I started in '74. I had forgotten that the 4th man was the tiebreaker until you reminded me. NCAA has been using another tiebreaker for the past 10 years or so. I think they score the top 5 head to head, such as Team A's #1 beat team B's #1, so 1-0 team A. Since 5 is an odd number there has to be a winner. Maybe some that are more informed can let me know if I have it correct.
Read your rule book.
NFHS Rule 8-2-4 said: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 sixthplace finisher shall prevail.
There are no tie breakers in track meets, but XC is quite clear. There is an actual rule on it.Umm...read your rule book again. Again, officially there is no tiebreaker in xc. If two teams tie...they tie. The exact same rule applies to soccer. Just because a team wins on penalty kicks officially in soccer it goes down as a tie. They only use penalty kicks to determine who moves on or who receives a trophy. But officially it is still a tie. In cross country if two teams tie it is officially a tie. We only use the 6th man to determine who moves on or who takes a trophy home. But officially it is still a tie.
Many people believe because they use the 6th man that a tie is broken. This is not accurate.
If none of the teams involved in the tie have a 6th runner, then the tiebreak is to compare the team score after each team's 1st 4 finishers.What if both teams only have 5 runners?
I'll tell Coach Sternberg at East Canton to go ahead and print those 1988 Division III State Champion T-shirts for his boys. After all, they tied Caldwell for 1st.Umm...read your rule book again. Again, officially there is no tiebreaker in xc. If two teams tie...they tie. The exact same rule applies to soccer. Just because a team wins on penalty kicks officially in soccer it goes down as a tie. They only use penalty kicks to determine who moves on or who receives a trophy. But officially it is still a tie. In cross country if two teams tie it is officially a tie. We only use the 6th man to determine who moves on or who takes a trophy home. But officially it is still a tie.
Many people believe because they use the 6th man that a tie is broken. This is not accurate.
This is correct. I've always hated this rule because it's basically saying the team with the faster #5 loses. Of course, I don't recall the last time I've had to use this rule and I don't think I've ever used it to determine who got which trophy. Usually it determines who got 8th and 9th out of 15 teams or something like that.If none of the teams involved in the tie have a 6th runner, then the tiebreak is to compare the team score after each team's 1st 4 finishers.
I hadn't heard of this before. On a hunch, I searched for the IAAF tiebreaker. The first two relevant links I found described this as the tie breaker for the meets they were promoting, one of which was the 2019 IAAF World Cross Country Championships. Though, it's described as the "last scoring member" rather than #5. Apparently they only scored 4 per team at that meet.I thought that the NFHS was going to change to #5 being the first tie breaker. I recall the meet management software that Milesplit has put out something about that. It had that as a setting for breaking ties.
Ties in team scoring shall be broken by comparing in order the place finish of each of the five scoring members of the tied teams. The team with the majority of winning comparisons shall be awarded the higher place.
For commoners like us anyway. I think I like Cross Country a little less than I did yesterday. Legally?Where was that NCAA quote from? NCAA Rule 7-3-3-d describes the same procedure you do, but it doesn't say anything about it only applying to regional championships meets. And it definitely says they are placed higher.
As for the NFHS rule, if you are going to argue that "prevail" does not mean "win," there's nothing else to say.
Legally you are still not interpreting the wording correctly. I will say it again, there is no official tie-breaker for cross country.
Officially the teams are deemed tied. Please educate yourselves.
First, let's look at the NCAA tie-breaker wording first:
"Breaking Ties Team ties in regional championships meets shall be broken by comparing the place finish of each team member 1-5 versus his or her respective competitor on the opposing team (Team A’s first finisher vs. Team B’s first finisher, etc.). The advancement advantage goes to the team winning the majority (best of five) of the comparisons."
In no part of the wording does the team win due to a comparison of runners. The word specifically says "advancement advantage." At the NCAA meet they specifically adhere to this because there is no advancement.
Second, let's look at NFHS rule section 2 article 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."
Again, in the wording nowhere does it say a team will win because of the 6th runner. The 6th runner helps the team prevail--that is interpreted as a trophy or advancement.
The long standing notion and misintepretation for commoners is well documented.