No creek crossings permitted without bridges
- Thread starter SLS
- Start date
I believe they outlawed the haybales as well.
Normally that creek crossing isn't much more than a few inch deep puddle. But I remember one year it was up and raging. Saw a few kids go down(nothing serious) and was surprised OHSAA didnt act then. But I agree it's hardly a safety issue. Indeed the bridge may have been more dangerous than the water lol
Normally that creek crossing isn't much more than a few inch deep puddle. But I remember one year it was up and raging. Saw a few kids go down(nothing serious) and was surprised OHSAA didnt act then. But I agree it's hardly a safety issue. Indeed the bridge may have been more dangerous than the water lol
Supertramp
Active member
My thoughts exactly. Thanks OHSAA! Always finding new, exciting, and innovative ways to make our sport worse.
CincyIllinifan
Active member
There was a team from Missouri (Rock Bridge) last year who complained about the creek crossing after the meet to the OHSAA. I guess their lead runner got stuck in the mud for a few seconds. As a result, Mason was told to get rid of it. Of course, Rock Bridge was not at the meet this year.
JAVMAN83
Well-known member
On top of this idiocy, are they now going to ban the steeplechase in HS meets? A lot more water there than I've ever seen in any cross country race. Throw in the 30" (b) / 24" (g) barriers in front of that water, too!
Hurdles - running awfully fast...might get hurt..
On and on and on...
Getting angry now on this one...
Hurdles - running awfully fast...might get hurt..
On and on and on...
Getting angry now on this one...
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
Liberty Center is going need to build two bridges in order to host district meet. Hitting a bridge going downhill is way more dangerous than taking 5-7 steps in 2 inch water on top of crushed stone. What if a course gets a lot of rain, I have seen puddles way deeper.
Smarty2022
Well-known member
The word dangerous I think is a tad strong but nothing surprises me with OHSAA these days. Next “problem” will come when Runners are injured on the temporary bridge
Supertramp
Active member
The real kicker is that this wasn’t in response to some terrible accident. It was in response to a school from Missouri complaining.
Meanwhile, coaches from Ohio have asked to OHSAA to make certain changes for the betterment of the sport for years, and get completely ignored.
Makes me wish more and more the governing body of our sports were run by a coaches association.
Meanwhile, coaches from Ohio have asked to OHSAA to make certain changes for the betterment of the sport for years, and get completely ignored.
Makes me wish more and more the governing body of our sports were run by a coaches association.
Smarty2022
Well-known member
Definitely. Seems like OHSAA ran by a bunch of woke old men and women!
JAVMAN83
Well-known member
What a pathetic excuse of that team's coaching is that?
I'm confident that more kids get hurt running the hurdles (broken arms, etc.) than any hay bale (which they could literally step on and over) or creek crossing. Then there are kids doing backflips during steeplechase races.
I think that they should keep the hurdles, the steeplechase, hay bales and creek crossing and use some common sense. These are part of the sport and the low level risk vs many of the other sports that the OHSAA approves.
I don't know the protocols but coaches need to unite and speak up.
I think that they should keep the hurdles, the steeplechase, hay bales and creek crossing and use some common sense. These are part of the sport and the low level risk vs many of the other sports that the OHSAA approves.
I don't know the protocols but coaches need to unite and speak up.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
Ran? Seems like someone has not been awake in school since the 3rd grade.
I wanted to clarify some items related to this topic.
- The issue related to crossings and obsticals was brought forward by Ohio schools and officials during the season last year asking for clarification on the rule. It involved several meets. Some meets in the state had both of those and some thought they could not.
- The rule that required their removal is a national rule not an OHSAA rule and we cannot rewrite the rule. It is not a new rule. Other states following the rule or not is not something we take into consideration. The guidance to remove both was gained from the NFHS, we use NFHS rules.
- We don't have a choice to ignore rules we don't like. There are many I don't like but we follow them just the same.
- In collaboration with the coaches association we requested a national rule change that would allow safe water crossings. The rule was not approved by the rules committee.
- The issue related to crossings and obsticals was brought forward by Ohio schools and officials during the season last year asking for clarification on the rule. It involved several meets. Some meets in the state had both of those and some thought they could not.
- The rule that required their removal is a national rule not an OHSAA rule and we cannot rewrite the rule. It is not a new rule. Other states following the rule or not is not something we take into consideration. The guidance to remove both was gained from the NFHS, we use NFHS rules.
- We don't have a choice to ignore rules we don't like. There are many I don't like but we follow them just the same.
- In collaboration with the coaches association we requested a national rule change that would allow safe water crossings. The rule was not approved by the rules committee.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
* I edited this post for clarity.
Every school is sent a rule book, they are also available for purchase on the NFHS website both in hard copy and via their app.
As for guidelines that is not correct.
* NFHS Rules are not guidelines or suggestion. They are the competition rules we follow.
Last edited:
Smarty2022
Well-known member
You are right! It should say RuiAnd
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
We’ve had this same discussion in years past. It is not a new topic. There have been other district races in the past sanctioned by OHSAA that had creek crossings while the “rule” was on the national books. Mason or any other school can have creek crossings. What would prevent them? OHSAA doesn’t police nor sanction every meet held in the state.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
So I searched the web a little deeper and found this. So it appears the OSHAA was choosing to not follow the rule until Oct 3rd 2022. So I am confused as it was said they have to follow the rules but clearly were not before this date. To me that means they get to pick and choose which rules to follow which means they are just recommendations.
CedarBuck92
Well-known member
The OHSAA wants to keep their voting status on the NFHS so they will follow all rules the NFHS pushes down. Why they didn't start following this rule until last year is unknown to me.
I think the confusion between "guidelines" vs "rules" comes from the NFHS approving changes like a shot clock in basketball that they allow states to pick and chose on. My guess is this water crossing/obstructions rule is not one of the ones that states get to pick and chose on.
Rule 8-1-3b is not a new rule. It has been there for 30+ years.
"No ground obstructions which might cause tripping, turned ankles, etc. No overhead objects such as tree branches lower than 8 feet above the ground."
Some officials were allowing the ankle-deep stream crossings with clear water where you could see where you were stepping as we did not consider it dangerous. Some officials raised their objections to stream crossings that were much more than ankle deep and in dirty water so that you had no idea what was under the water or where it was safe to step. So, the OHSAA asked the NFHS for clarification on when it was a problem and when it was not. When they got that ruling last October, they passed it on. It's not a case of the OHSAA choosing not to follow a rule until now. They were allowing the referees and meet management to use their judgement on what was considered a ground obstruction. The NFHS just confirmed that our judgements were incorrect.
As for the hay bales, case book 8.1.3 Situation C has been in the case book for at least 30+ years (paraphrased):
Bales of hay or logs have been placed on the course. Coach objects. Ruling: The artificial barriers shall be removed. (8-1-3b)
Those should never have been on the course.
"No ground obstructions which might cause tripping, turned ankles, etc. No overhead objects such as tree branches lower than 8 feet above the ground."
Some officials were allowing the ankle-deep stream crossings with clear water where you could see where you were stepping as we did not consider it dangerous. Some officials raised their objections to stream crossings that were much more than ankle deep and in dirty water so that you had no idea what was under the water or where it was safe to step. So, the OHSAA asked the NFHS for clarification on when it was a problem and when it was not. When they got that ruling last October, they passed it on. It's not a case of the OHSAA choosing not to follow a rule until now. They were allowing the referees and meet management to use their judgement on what was considered a ground obstruction. The NFHS just confirmed that our judgements were incorrect.
As for the hay bales, case book 8.1.3 Situation C has been in the case book for at least 30+ years (paraphrased):
Bales of hay or logs have been placed on the course. Coach objects. Ruling: The artificial barriers shall be removed. (8-1-3b)
Those should never have been on the course.