Lakota East, Lebanon, and Oak Hills girls in 3-way tie at Lebanon Invitational

SLS

Member
So after the sixth runners are scored Lebanon was first, then Oak Hills followed by Lakota East.

Places of sixth runners Leb 22 OH 25 Lak E 28
 
Again, I have never seen a 3-way tie ever for 1st place in XC.
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.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
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.
My school's boys team made state on a 6th runner tiebreaker and proceeded to finish 6th at state.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
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 the 9th and final team state spot from the NE in Class 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 race 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 compete in 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 district meet thinking they had qualified individually. 1 of the adversely affected runners was from neighboring Canton McKinley HS.

Today, if none of the teams involved in a tie have a 6th runner, then the total score of the 1st 4 runners is the tiebreaker.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
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.
I believe you are correct regarding the NCAA's tiebreaking procedure. I've seen it on some race results where a tie occurred.
 
Wow. Incredibly close race between three really good teams. Seems they match up well through the scoring runners. Diving into the results, it looks like Lebanon wins the depth award - they had 10 in before the other teams' sixth girl.

Hopefully we'll see some rematches this season. Anyone know where any of the three teams race the next few weeks?
 

EuclidandViren

Active member
Read your rule book.
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.
 

Altor

Well-known member
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.
 

Running Man 101

Active member
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.
There are no tie breakers in track meets, but XC is quite clear. There is an actual rule on it.
 
Last edited:

ENA2

Member
Thanks Altor. I also interpret that "prevail" means "wins" therefore breaks the tie. True, the final score does not change, but the better placing 6th runner is ranked higher in the final score. Does not matter if it is for 1st, 10th or 50th place, the "tie breaker" is NOT for scoring points it is for team placing. I read all the rules and did not see that it is only for advancement, or first place or advancement.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

Altor

Well-known member
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.
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.

I like the NFHS sixth-man tiebreaker better than the NCAA tiebreaker (compare #1s, #2s,#3s, #4s, and #5s...best of five wins), but I'd like to see the NFHS use the NCAA tie-breaker as their second tie-breaker.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
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.

I like #6 being the tie breaker. I'd prefer #5 being the second, but if not that, I'd go with treating it like a dual meet. Whichever of the teams would win a dual meet against each other. (I guess that is real close to the NCAA, but not exactly.)
 

Altor

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Here is how bad it is to get old. I was thinking that it was just last year that the NFHS was changing to the 5th man or last scorer as the tie breaker, but now that I think about where I was and what I was doing at the time, it was probably more like 5 or 6 years ago, so either it did not happen then, or Ohio did not adopt it. I'm sure I was doing something with RaceTab and was looking to set up tie Breakers for a meet. I was helping someone out and it was probably 5 years ago. So, my bad. (I had a dream 2 nights ago that I was racing in a CC meet. Man could I run. I woke up feeling 40 years younger. That lasted about 10 seconds. I thought it was real though)
 

EuclidandViren

Active member
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.
 

Altor

Well-known member
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.
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.
As for the NFHS rule, if you are going to argue that "prevail" does not mean "win," there's nothing else to say.
 

ENA2

Member
Prevail: to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority : TRIUMPH
OR to gain a higher placing or ranking order.
The reason why it may not say "win" is that if the tie takes place between teams after first place they can not "WIN" They just "prevail" over the team with the same score. The team scores will still be the same, but the "ranking order" will be determined. This is the same for meets where there is no trophies or advancement....including dual meets.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
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.
For commoners like us anyway. I think I like Cross Country a little less than I did yesterday. Legally?
How hard is it to say,"I'm sorry, you guys are right. I way over thought it."
 

SLS

Member
"Prevailing" and advancing to the next level or "prevailing" and being awarded a championship would feel a lot better than tying and not "prevailing." I can't imagine those who did not "prevail" saying, " You didn't beat us. You just prevailed."
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
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.
Nice try. How long did it take you to climb to the top of Mount BS to come up with that post?

The tiebreaking procedure is in the rule book. How much more official would you like it to be?
 
Last edited:

psycho_dad

Well-known member
I'm trying to educate myself, but I can't get past that the proof that there are no tie breakers in cross country can be found by reading the "Tie Breaking Rules" for cross country.

"First, let's look at the NCAA tie-breaker wording first:"

"...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."

Prevail and win are synonyms right? “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is."
 
.
Top