PDA

View Full Version : Mistake or new Boys Mt. SAC course record!?



Coach Razor
10-26-2013, 12:43 PM
Peter Munoz, race #60 is listed at 14:19 finish time.... Can this be? Anyone see the race?

Coach Razor
10-26-2013, 12:49 PM
Found the answer = Mistake... He was incorrectly listed in race 60 from 59...

Coach Barnes
10-26-2013, 02:23 PM
Yes, there are many mistakes. Enough to have them stop handing out awards from Friday's races at the end of D3. I had two top ten finishes not counted alone in Race 4 and Race 15 that have still not been fixed. Too sad the kids may never see the medals they earned. Another coach had a 1-2-3 finish by his team that was not recorded. Seems sad for the kids. :(

Rex Hall
10-27-2013, 07:48 AM
Yes, there are many mistakes. Enough to have them stop handing out awards from Friday's races at the end of D3. I had two top ten finishes not counted alone in Race 4 and Race 15 that have still not been fixed. Too sad the kids may never see the medals they earned. Another coach had a 1-2-3 finish by his team that was not recorded. Seems sad for the kids. :(

Mt. Sac has been the class act in XC Invitationals forever. They hired an outside company to do the timing, and obviously it has some flaws. I am in hopes that all of these "mistakes" get fixed after the fact. In many cases it involves much more than a few medals. With our current at large system in CIF, this could affect some teams both up and down. When I spoke to the "problem Solving" guys yesterday about the mess of race #67 they assured me that they would be diligent with reviewing videos and the backup scoring system. Great job of perseverance and patients by those folks.

Rex Hall
Dana Hills Girls XC

Joe Wiley
10-27-2013, 08:55 AM
Mt. Sac has been the class act in XC Invitationals forever. They hired an outside company to do the timing, and obviously it has some flaws. I am in hopes that all of these "mistakes" get fixed after the fact. In many cases it involves much more than a few medals. With our current at large system in CIF, this could affect some teams both up and down. When I spoke to the "problem Solving" guys yesterday about the mess of race #67 they assured me that they would be diligent with reviewing videos and the backup scoring system. Great job of perseverance and patients by those folks.

Rex Hall
Dana Hills Girls XC

I'm sure they are doing their very best, and it has to be very frustrating for them as well. Unfortunately, there is no reason to think the scoring is a "mess" in just race #67 or the D3 sweeps. It is almost certainly every single race. It took a long time to review the two D3 sweeps races.

For instance, Rex, your #1 finisher in the boys sweeps is still listed online as being beaten by Warren's #2 guy, but if you watch the video it's clear that Ogden was ahead of him; it's not even debatable. Scanning the D1-2 sweeps results right away I'd wonder if Crescenta Valley actually finished in 11th. Did they only run 6 guys? Did Warren only run 5 guys?

Tony DiMarco
10-27-2013, 09:24 AM
The first thing I noticed is that times are about 3-4 seconds slower than on the clock... First question is then, is the clock accurate? The next thing I noticed is that there is a white square (like I-PAD length) item that is facing the finish line about 3 feet behind the line which is connected to the timing tent. If you watch the video the time on the clock and when the athletes pass this point behind the finish line match up perfectly? I noticed that athletes who ran past this point have a faster time than those who walk across it... So if the clock is correct then maybe only what I would imagine is a back up system was the only one that was working as I would assume there would have been a scanner located at the finish line? Athletes who are missing may be because they finished to the extreme left of the finish line and thus were not close enough to be scanned?

If this is true then team times are about 15-20 seconds slower than they should be?

This is just my opinion so I may be totally off, but I thought something was off when Tal wasn't giving the course record when it is clear that he crossed the line in 14:24 based on the clock at the finish line.

Joe Wiley
10-27-2013, 10:05 AM
Mt. Sac has been the class act in XC Invitationals forever. They hired an outside company to do the timing, and obviously it has some flaws. I am in hopes that all of these "mistakes" get fixed after the fact. In many cases it involves much more than a few medals. With our current at large system in CIF, this could affect some teams both up and down. When I spoke to the "problem Solving" guys yesterday about the mess of race #67 they assured me that they would be diligent with reviewing videos and the backup scoring system. Great job of perseverance and patients by those folks.

Rex Hall
Dana Hills Girls XC

Your boys sweeps race was affected as well. You have finishers listed at "8, 17, 23, 41, 46, 61, 70". Video shows, if I'm correct, it was "7, 17, 24, 40, 46, 61, 70". That takes you down 1 point, so doesn't change your placing.

However, here's the score I got for the D 1&2 Sweeps. It appears Dos Pueblos actually beat Great Oak, although both will advance to CIF Prelims so it shouldn't matter.

01. 075 - Arcadia
02. 107 - Warren
03. 124 - De La Salle
04. 134 - Dana Hills
05. 172 - El Toro
06. 206 - Dos Pueblos
07. 207 - Great Oak (credited with a 36th in official results, but was 37th)
08. 226 - Redondo Union
09. 245 - La Costa Canyon
10. 258 - Santa Monica
11. 258 - Crescenta Valley (official results show 5, 37, 45, 80, 91, 99, video shows 5, 36, 45, 80, 92, 99)
12. 266 - Poly
13. 272 - Glendora
14. 294 - Simi Valley
15. 325 - Woodbridge
16. 330 - Fountain Valley (credited with 8 finishers.)

Mt. Sac has been and still is a class act. This sort of thing could and does happen to anyone. The amount of time it would take to go through and rescore all of the races is just too much for a couple of people to do. If coaches/teams want to make sure their score is right they need to check it on their own with the finish line videos.

Coach Barnes
10-27-2013, 11:57 AM
I agree. But a similar thing happened in Florida at the Walt Disney World Classic and still have not been fixed. I only hope that the CIF officials are paying attention. Even with chip timing there should be a backup system of recording places and times. If this sort of thing happens at CIF then simply saying we will do our best to correct it will not be sufficient when it comes to qualifying for the next level.

JStepp
10-27-2013, 01:19 PM
I am going out on a limb and saying the chip timing is off. Looking at my splits from my kids, there is absolutely no way that my 21:35 boy out ran my 15:40 boy over the last 300 meters. I take a split at the announcers booth and my top boy crossed at 14:40 and finishes at 15:43, then my 21:35 guy crosses the announcers booth at 20:37. Not putting much stock in the official times this year.

Coach Barnes
10-27-2013, 01:57 PM
What I do not understand is how some athletes were missed altogether. They went through the entire process with their team, but are totally missing from the final results. Yet, the Flotrack video clearly shows them finishing and with no one else around them. Even the announcer says their name, but they are nowhere in the results. Sad.

Rex Hall
10-27-2013, 02:02 PM
What I do not understand is how some athletes were missed altogether. They went through the entire process with their team, but are totally missing from the final results. Yet, the Flotrack video clearly shows them finishing and with no one else around them. Even the announcer says their name, but they are nowhere in the results. Sad.

That's what I was alluding to in my previous post. My number 4 girl remembers passing a San Clemente girl and one other right at the chute. We know she was behind my No.3 and we know where my No. 5 was, but my No. 4 isn't listed. Just a little frustrating. Again, new timers and new system. Stuff happens. Hope they fix it!!!

George Ramos
10-27-2013, 05:34 PM
Updated Boys D5 Sweepstakes (Race 45) for those interested:

1 St. Joseph's 39
2 Flintridge Prep 72
3 La Jolla C. Day 88
4 Woodcrest Chr. 133
5 Thacher 146
6 St. Margaret's 151
7 L/Desert Chr. 211
8 Ontario Christian 217
9 Crossroads 226
10 Webb 268 (#2 crossed the line but wasn't in results)
11 Chadwick 276
12 Brentwood 312
13 Sage Hill 352
14 Hamilton 352
15 Poly 365

In the video of this race, I see someone on the left with a clipboard writing something down as runners finished ... is he our backup system?

CoachMedellin
10-27-2013, 07:24 PM
FYI, I had my managers time all of my runners and everyone was approximately 3-4 seconds slower.

Matt Rainwater
10-27-2013, 07:40 PM
Rich,

I had your girls at: 18:47, 19:16, 19:16, 19:19, 19:43 and 20:05. This is based on the video and I didn't catch your 7th runner. Nice work out there!

yesstiles
10-27-2013, 10:09 PM
FYI, I had my managers time all of my runners and everyone was approximately 3-4 seconds slower.

Slower? Your times were slower than the official results? Or do you mean the results were 3-4 seconds slower than the times your managers recorded?

Rich Gonzalez
10-28-2013, 08:36 AM
Overall, chip timing technology is not the issue. We have several meets in California now that have been using chip timing with excellent results, starting with the state meet a few years ago and already several meets this year. It has proven to yield results faster and just as accurate or more accurate that previous systems.

This particular weekend a timing crew from out of state was hired to come in and take on a monstrous challenge and they encountered some difficulty.

Unfortunately, what happened this weekend was an isolated but high-profile issue. Think back to last year, when results were also very problematic nearly 24 hours after the conclusion of the meet -- and chip timing wasn't used.

Mt. SAC deserves credit for putting in the time to actually get it right. It takes additional time and effort, but the importance of eventually getting it right is highly appreciated.

Coach Razor
10-28-2013, 09:05 AM
We also experienced the 3 second difference from observed results vs. posted official results. Those 3 seconds could make a difference for PRs, team records & such. I'd be interested to see if this was the case by most or all teams. If so, we will make the adjustments on our end for team purposes. As long as it all gets worked out I'm not going to be too worried.

I for one see this as the inevitable direction timing will go in our sport & see it as ultimately a good thing. Some growing pains are to be expected, but I'm definitely in favor of the chips in the bibs and not on the feet as that matches the way finishes are actually judged in our sport.

Rex Hall
10-28-2013, 09:44 AM
Rich, I agree. Having been involved with timing in our invitational for many years, I know the headaches that can develop. My comments, were just my concerns about the number of mistakes in the results, and not at Mt. Sac. The chip system is absolutely the way to go and the wave of our sports future. As a former Mountie, my loyalties are intact!! This is still the best Invitational in the nation. Well after ours of course. :~)

Jeremy Mattern
10-28-2013, 09:48 AM
It looks like some scoring results have already been corrected. We appreciate the Mt. SAC crew for taking the time to deliver accurate scores. Going back through that many race videos is quite the undertaking. Again, the effort is appreciated. Any word on what will happen with timing issues? The general consensus seems to be that posted times are about 3 seconds slower than what athletes actually ran.

Coach BL
10-28-2013, 10:08 AM
Most of the D3 results were redone yesterday (Sunday). A lot of work ! It is appreciated - Mt SAC people !! Thanks !!
As for the 3 seconds issue. I only had someone at the finish line for our varsity boys race (#15), so I just assumed my student timing had just missed the gun, since he was consistent.
Was this a problem with all Friday races? On Saturday as well?

Bozo
10-30-2013, 02:50 PM
Where exactly is the finish line? Is the first white line in the video? If so, the times I saw are off by 2-3 seconds. I reviewed Tal Braude's finish and he crossed the first white line at 14:25. If this is the case, his time should be changed.

For many kids, earning a gold or silver patch is an accomplishment. If a boy ran a 15:59 and was credited with a 16:01, he would miss out on the silver patch. Mt. Sac is a great race and run well. When it comes to records, I think it is important to get it right.

DCEnthusiast
10-31-2013, 05:04 AM
I was at the finish line, along with another of my coaches, and my manager. We had 3 stop watches going from start to finish for all of the D5 JV Championship and Sweepstakes races. The posted time for every one of my athletes was 3 seconds slower than all 3 of our stop watches. The team times are definitely posted 15 seconds slower for each team in the 4 races we timed than the times actually were.

Keith Chann
10-31-2013, 08:41 AM
I have less of a problem with the times than I do with the places. If you watch the video and look at the published results you will notice some significat differences. There were several athletes missed entirely and others placed in spots behind athletes that they clearly beat.

A couple of specific examples: In the D3 sweeps race, the runner from Indio at time 15:53 (published time, not finishline clock) is clearly ahead of both Rubidoux runners but is listed in the results as finishing between them. The runner from Yucca Valley at 15:43 is placed behind 2 runners that he was very clearly ahead of by watching the video.

It seems, from watching the finish videos, that runners who contunued to run past the white line under the finish line banner and passed others who stopped just after the finishline banner and white line were given credit for being ahead of those that they passed. Where exactly was the finish line and where exactly was the judgement for placing? That seems to be a bigger problem to me than the times.

Of course I would like for all the times to be 3 seconds faster!

Joe Wiley
10-31-2013, 10:37 AM
I have less of a problem with the times than I do with the places. If you watch the video and look at the published results you will notice some significat differences. There were several athletes missed entirely and others placed in spots behind athletes that they clearly beat.

A couple of specific examples: In the D3 sweeps race, the runner from Indio at time 15:53 (published time, not finishline clock) is clearly ahead of both Rubidoux runners but is listed in the results as finishing between them. The runner from Yucca Valley at 15:43 is placed behind 2 runners that he was very clearly ahead of by watching the video.

It seems, from watching the finish videos, that runners who contunued to run past the white line under the finish line banner and passed others who stopped just after the finishline banner and white line were given credit for being ahead of those that they passed. Where exactly was the finish line and where exactly was the judgement for placing? That seems to be a bigger problem to me than the times.

Of course I would like for all the times to be 3 seconds faster!

Bonita got shafted the worst.

Official scoring order totaling 308 points - 7, 36, 54, 93, 118
Unofficial scoring order totaling 229 points - 7, 35, 37, 55, 95, 99, 120

El Modena had their scoring order corrected for the most part the next day in the official results. I wonder why Bonita wasn't corrected as well. Maybe El Modena notified meet management and Bonita didn't?

Rex Hall
10-31-2013, 11:31 AM
They never corrected race #67, even after I spent about 1/2 hour explaining it to them. Luckily, Rich was up on the real results and it didn't affect our standings. If anyone from CIF reads this thread, I would highly recommend Jim Roldan and his crew at Episports for next year. We use them for league and they are great. My Two cents!!!

Aztecrunner08
10-31-2013, 10:30 PM
I'm also missing two runners. My 5th man in the varsity race as well as a freshman. All times for me are off as well. I emailed the race director and even gave the whereabouts of my guy's finish time and still no correction, even though it really doesn't directly impact my team's scoring.

Coach Razor
11-01-2013, 08:50 AM
Just to back up a lot of what is being said.... It's beginning to look like the 3sec difference is universal. The 'why' is the key question. Though it seems from reading the other posts, we've identified the issue is where the finish is set up vs. when the chips were actually read for the finish. This would match my observations, specifically in the Boys D4 Sweeps race. At the finish when my first two runners come in, Henry clearly beats Jack across the traditional finish line. In the results the two are switched. This can only be possible if the chips were being 'read' at a point aftr the finish. [And, yes, they were wearing the correct bibs ;) ]

While I care about PRs for my own runners, I do believe course records were at play at this yrs meet & were certainly affected by the 3secs if we are correct.

I hope that with a meet of this size, and lots of data to use, they use this as an opportunity to improve the timing system. As I've stated, I am all in for this technology and really believe it will enhance our sport... We just need to make sure someone is actively seeking to understand the problems we had, fix it, and grow from it.

Thoughts?

Coach Ibarra
11-01-2013, 09:39 AM
We had several athletes missed on the results... we notified problem solving and they have now been corrected... The only issue is that I'm sure there will be missed runners and times that may never be corrected if someone doesn't notify them...
Chip timing is great, when it works... we had three kids missing that actually went 1-3 in the race and it was a team win but they didn't get to celebrate their efforts at awards and stuff...
hopefully those issues get worked out for such a high profile meet...
If not, we're going Popsicle sticks!

Doug Soles
11-01-2013, 09:52 AM
We had several athletes missed on the results... we notified problem solving and they have now been corrected... The only issue is that I'm sure there will be missed runners and times that may never be corrected if someone doesn't notify them...
Chip timing is great, when it works... we had three kids missing that actually went 1-3 in the race and it was a team win but they didn't get to celebrate their efforts at awards and stuff...
hopefully those issues get worked out for such a high profile meet...
If not, we're going Popsicle sticks!

Hi Coach Ibarra,

Had a similar issue in a JV race. We went 1-2. They gave 1st to someone else that didn't win and wouldn't correct it. They also missed my 2nd place runner altogether and had to add him in a day later. The times were 3 seconds off across the board to what we had for our kids.

We have some amazing timing companies locally that can handle this type of a meet without many error issues and can get results fast enough to do the awards ceremony for the big races that they used to do. The last 2 years the awards have not been anywhere near the level of previous years and my kids are asking me if they even have to stick around for them...

Timers that I believe could do the job:
-Finished Results
-Royal Results
-EPI Sports
-G.Varvas & crew from Woodbridge

I'm sure there are others. At CIF we have an idea almost immediately following the race, which is something I think we now all expect and hope to have in races of this magnitude. It definitely shouldn't take 30 minutes to find out who won a sweeps race...

Mt. SAC is amazing and needs to be restored back to the levels of just a few years ago. :)

Doug

Brian Shapiro
11-01-2013, 10:09 AM
3 second errors were common but not universal. Races #6 and #8 were both off by 6 seconds.

And while the staff will add in your missed runner if you take the time to find out who is missing and when they finished and then contact the meet, they have not adjusted any times for any of the races. They will kindly add your runner to the pdf file with the wrong time for you.

Keith Chann
11-01-2013, 12:27 PM
For the time differences that are being mentioned by many coaches, are they contrasting the finishline clock with the published time? Or are these based on manager times versus the published times?

The finishline clock is not necessarily linked to the timing system. They are usually just started manually by someone standing next to the clock. The difference from manager times to "official" times could potentially be explained away by saying that the managers are off. However, many of the managers do this every meet and I do not think that there are seemingly so many managers from different teams suddenly becoming consistantly incompetent by getting the same 3 seconds difference.

I did not have any missing runners and did not have any managers collecting finishline times to be able to compare to published results. It does seem to me that there are a great number of questions that need to be addressed by someone.

honkforcookies
11-01-2013, 01:27 PM
There were two sets of mats, one set placed at the finish line, and one set placed a few yards past it. The official times look like they may have been when the athletes crossed the second mat, with the time discrepancies coaches are reporting being however long it took the athletes to jog/walk/stumble across the 2nd set. Perhaps some of the missing runners just avoided it all together? If this were the case, I wonder if there's a data set somewhere from the first set of mats?

http://i.imgur.com/sg0acBe.png