Who wheeled the course? Tangents, SPRs, and which line are you?
11/04/2012 1:14:44 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2878
I was at Holloway Park today and shooting pictures at a certain point and my brain started going on a tangent about tangents. I noticed that most of the runners in the race where not running tangents. They were taking the turns pretty wide and middle of the course. Perhaps you could argue that it's because they're middle schoolers and not as experienced. Maybe that's the case, but I think it's pretty common for high schoolers too. And then I got looking at this particular spot on the course and thinking about how different people would wheel it. Many solid meet directors would be on the white line or just six inches to a foot inside of it (green line). @CoachRaposo's "Raposo Wheel" would be the red line on the very edge of the high grass, cutting that corner off (true shortest possible route SPR and tangents). And then some short old school "middle of the course" or less experienced meet directors would be yellow line in the middle (where the leaders are actually)... the worse short course offenders would be where the leaders are running in this picture AND only using GPS and not a wheel. So my question for you is... which line are you? I won't lie, I'm an unrepentant green-liner. [img]http://cache.milesplit.com/user_files/1/39691/tangents2.jpg[/img] [i]Note: The white line is the painted line actually physically on the course, not one I digitally added.[/i]
I was at Holloway Park today and shooting pictures at a certain point and my brain started going on a tangent about tangents. I noticed that most of the runners in the race where not running tangents. They were taking the turns pretty wide and middle of the course. Perhaps you could argue that it's because they're middle schoolers and not as experienced. Maybe that's the case, but I think it's pretty common for high schoolers too. And then I got looking at this particular spot on the course and thinking about how different people would wheel it. Many solid meet directors would be on the white line or just six inches to a foot inside of it (green line). @CoachRaposo's "Raposo Wheel" would be the red line on the very edge of the high grass, cutting that corner off (true shortest possible route SPR and tangents). And then some short old school "middle of the course" or less experienced meet directors would be yellow line in the middle (where the leaders are actually)... the worse short course offenders would be where the leaders are running in this picture AND only using GPS and not a wheel.

So my question for you is... which line are you? I won't lie, I'm an unrepentant green-liner.



Note: The white line is the painted line actually physically on the course, not one I digitally added.
11/04/2012 1:35:20 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2878
The other thing to note about a course like this one, is that there is a lot of loose sand. So wheeling a course like this, you have to be cognizant of wheel slippage... which is to mean on loose sand the wheel can over-rotate because of the sugar sand. So you have to keep firm contact with the ground. Believe it or not, the purpose of this post is not to re-ignite any controversy. (even though controversy promotes more page views haha) It was just a sincere thought process I was having today out on the course, which the short district topic reminded me of. So I am posing the "which line are you?" question as a serious one. I think this place on the course illustrates the differences particularly well. So also using it as an example of how different people wheeling the same course can potentially come out with substantial variations. More than most realize.
The other thing to note about a course like this one, is that there is a lot of loose sand. So wheeling a course like this, you have to be cognizant of wheel slippage... which is to mean on loose sand the wheel can over-rotate because of the sugar sand. So you have to keep firm contact with the ground.

Believe it or not, the purpose of this post is not to re-ignite any controversy. (even though controversy promotes more page views haha) It was just a sincere thought process I was having today out on the course, which the short district topic reminded me of. So I am posing the "which line are you?" question as a serious one. I think this place on the course illustrates the differences particularly well. So also using it as an example of how different people wheeling the same course can potentially come out with substantial variations. More than most realize.
11/04/2012 8:13:26 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1746
@jason A. I'm a green line guy or maybe even an inch or so right of the green line as we're looking at the picture, and I'll tell you why. Kids DON'T run the shortest, straight-line tangents, especially when going around sharper curves. Example, I watched kids taking two different turns at the district meet we were in Friday. One was a sharp, left turn and they were definitely not using the inside tangent. Swinging wider in an arc more to the middle to smooth out the turn and just naturally because of momentum. Other was a long curve around a stand of trees and they were doing better running that one on the shortest route (but still not straight line tangents which would be the shortest route). And, 2. Isn't that a beautiful shot? And pretty much the whole course looks like that!
@jason

A. I'm a green line guy or maybe even an inch or so right of the green line as we're looking at the picture, and I'll tell you why. Kids DON'T run the shortest, straight-line tangents, especially when going around sharper curves. Example, I watched kids taking two different turns at the district meet we were in Friday. One was a sharp, left turn and they were definitely not using the inside tangent. Swinging wider in an arc more to the middle to smooth out the turn and just naturally because of momentum. Other was a long curve around a stand of trees and they were doing better running that one on the shortest route (but still not straight line tangents which would be the shortest route).

And, 2. Isn't that a beautiful shot? And pretty much the whole course looks like that!
11/04/2012 8:47:51 AM
Power User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 280
I would measure to the inside of the white line, not as far in as the red line but definitely as far over as I would reasonably expect a kid to run. And that brings me to "path of least resistance." I believe the measurement should be made along the shortest possible route that a runner would take, not could take. Just because a kid could run where the red line is located, would they? I see kids take a longer route all the time just because it's easier to run on the terrain there. An example is the Bale n Trail meet. Kids run around those hay bales but we learned long ago it's just plain faster to go over them. On the DeLand course we have little hills, more like moguls, and I give kids the option to go around to the outside and many do, but it is way faster to just go over them. Then there's the speed factor. We have a hair pin turn on our course that 16:00 guys have to swing way wide on to maintain speed and momentum but guys running 25:00 will cut close and actually almost stop and pivot when they go through. So we measure the pivot point or we measure over the hill because it is the shortest route a runner could/would take but the choice is there for each runner to choose their path of what they think is the least resistance. That way the course is at least 5k for the kid who wins and for the kid who is trying to break 30:00.
I would measure to the inside of the white line, not as far in as the red line but definitely as far over as I would reasonably expect a kid to run. And that brings me to "path of least resistance." I believe the measurement should be made along the shortest possible route that a runner would take, not could take. Just because a kid could run where the red line is located, would they? I see kids take a longer route all the time just because it's easier to run on the terrain there. An example is the Bale n Trail meet. Kids run around those hay bales but we learned long ago it's just plain faster to go over them. On the DeLand course we have little hills, more like moguls, and I give kids the option to go around to the outside and many do, but it is way faster to just go over them. Then there's the speed factor. We have a hair pin turn on our course that 16:00 guys have to swing way wide on to maintain speed and momentum but guys running 25:00 will cut close and actually almost stop and pivot when they go through. So we measure the pivot point or we measure over the hill because it is the shortest route a runner could/would take but the choice is there for each runner to choose their path of what they think is the least resistance. That way the course is at least 5k for the kid who wins and for the kid who is trying to break 30:00.
11/04/2012 9:56:58 AM
Power User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1975
[quote=CoachHoward]Kids DON'T run the shortest, straight-line tangents, especially when going around sharper curves[/quote] @CoachHoward And with this same logic a track would be measured in lane 4 just because some kids decide to not run in lane 1 for a 3200m. It's faulty logic. If a kid decide to run extra, either because they haven't been coached properly, or because they're not as bright to the fact that they're running extra distance. In either case, it stinks to be them. That argument always reminds me of a break-line in an 800m. Every year I see dozen of kids running the break-line wrong from almost every lane, but particularly the outside lanes. They'll cross the break-line and then gun for lane 1 instead of making the tangent to lane 1 over by the 200m starting line. Does that mean we change the break-line or the way a track is striped to accommodate the non-coached or less intelligent? Never. :-S
CoachHoward wrote:
Kids DON'T run the shortest, straight-line tangents, especially when going around sharper curves

@CoachHoward And with this same logic a track would be measured in lane 4 just because some kids decide to not run in lane 1 for a 3200m. It's faulty logic. If a kid decide to run extra, either because they haven't been coached properly, or because they're not as bright to the fact that they're running extra distance. In either case, it stinks to be them.

That argument always reminds me of a break-line in an 800m. Every year I see dozen of kids running the break-line wrong from almost every lane, but particularly the outside lanes. They'll cross the break-line and then gun for lane 1 instead of making the tangent to lane 1 over by the 200m starting line. Does that mean we change the break-line or the way a track is striped to accommodate the non-coached or less intelligent? Never.
11/04/2012 1:07:53 PM
Power User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 220
Green line looks to be correct in this case, if the white line represents the right edge of the course. The course measure by rule is tangents based on SPR a runner could run without cutting the course. Taking a hard line approach the side lines of a course should be considered walls, straight up from the ground (many times it is with fences, trees, posts, etc.). A body is appox. 24 inches wide shoulder to shoulder so the wheel should come no closer to the line than 12 inches because that is the closest a runner could pass without clipping the 'wall'. The red line in this case is out of bounds and technically grounds for DQ. Realistically do runners step over side lines negotiating curves during XC races, yes multiple times at nearly every meet I have ever been to, but I have rarely seen anyone DQed for it unless it was totally flagrant or persistent. Note: that doesn't make it right, but this infraction does seem to be ignored by even the most hardcore meet directors/officials. Track however is a different story. One foot on the grass of the infield, forced or not, is always called. It is also true that in track there are no facilities that I have ever seen or been told of that have side line obstructions like the ones listed above that would require one to measure 12 inches inside in order to avoid collisions. So on these two points track is very different from XC for course measure and cannot be compared logically. My 2 cents (sense?). ~Twangster
Green line looks to be correct in this case, if the white line represents the right edge of the course. The course measure by rule is tangents based on SPR a runner could run without cutting the course. Taking a hard line approach the side lines of a course should be considered walls, straight up from the ground (many times it is with fences, trees, posts, etc.). A body is appox. 24 inches wide shoulder to shoulder so the wheel should come no closer to the line than 12 inches because that is the closest a runner could pass without clipping the 'wall'. The red line in this case is out of bounds and technically grounds for DQ.

Realistically do runners step over side lines negotiating curves during XC races, yes multiple times at nearly every meet I have ever been to, but I have rarely seen anyone DQed for it unless it was totally flagrant or persistent. Note: that doesn't make it right, but this infraction does seem to be ignored by even the most hardcore meet directors/officials. Track however is a different story. One foot on the grass of the infield, forced or not, is always called. It is also true that in track there are no facilities that I have ever seen or been told of that have side line obstructions like the ones listed above that would require one to measure 12 inches inside in order to avoid collisions. So on these two points track is very different from XC for course measure and cannot be compared logically.

My 2 cents (sense?).

~Twangster
11/04/2012 1:20:59 PM
Coach
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 469
I actually agree with Raposo. I'm gonna go check my pulse....
I actually agree with Raposo. I'm gonna go check my pulse....
11/04/2012 2:06:33 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 167
I would be a green liner too Jason and here is why. In a 3200 meter race in track I could argue that most runners are actually running more than 3200 meters even though it is theoretically possible (and legal) to run less than 3200 meters because the actual measurement around the oval is measured 12 inches away from a curbed lined curve and 8 inches away from a painted line curve. Though difficult (and probably needed to be done slowly) one could run 4 inches away from the curve line and legally run less than 3200 meters. In track, the standard measurement seems to introduce a reasonable consideration for where the runner is most likely going to run and not necessarily where he could run. This would seem to me to be the green line.
I would be a green liner too Jason and here is why. In a 3200 meter race in track I could argue that most runners are actually running more than 3200 meters even though it is theoretically possible (and legal) to run less than 3200 meters because the actual measurement around the oval is measured 12 inches away from a curbed lined curve and 8 inches away from a painted line curve. Though difficult (and probably needed to be done slowly) one could run 4 inches away from the curve line and legally run less than 3200 meters. In track, the standard measurement seems to introduce a reasonable consideration for where the runner is most likely going to run and not necessarily where he could run. This would seem to me to be the green line.
11/04/2012 5:34:36 PM
User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 207
maybe we can look to how tracks are surveyed. How are they? I do not know. Do they measure from the inside rail? Do they measure and then put the inside rail some small distance inside that measurement? Long, long ago, I thought tracks were measured one foot from the inside rail because no one can run right on the inside rail--to easy to slip off and be disqualified or sprain your foot. So how is a tack measured? Maybe that method should be used to wheel cross country courses?
maybe we can look to how tracks are surveyed. How are they? I do not know. Do they measure from the inside rail? Do they measure and then put the inside rail some small distance inside that measurement? Long, long ago, I thought tracks were measured one foot from the inside rail because no one can run right on the inside rail--to easy to slip off and be disqualified or sprain your foot. So how is a tack measured? Maybe that method should be used to wheel cross country courses?
11/04/2012 5:38:18 PM
User
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 33
@cghswift From the 2011 USATF Rule book : RULE 160 TRACK LANES AND MEASUREMENTS 1. In all outdoor races at distances up to and including 400 meters, wherever pos- sible, each competitor shall have a separate lane with a width of 1.22m ±0.01m (4 ft.) measured as provided in paragraphs 2 and 4 hereof and properly marked 2011 USATF Competition Rules • 66 by lines 5cm in width. On tracks whose width does not permit 8 lanes of that width, the minimum width of the lanes may be 91.4cm (3 ft.). Only the line on the right hand of each lane shall be included in the measurement of the width of each lane. The inside radius should be limited to between 35.00m and 38.00m unless the curve is a double bend track designed to fit a playing field on the infield. In that case the minimum bend radius is 24.00m. [b]2. All distances run or walked shall be determined on the basis of a hypothetical line 30cm outward from the inner edge of the track, except that for races upon straight- aways, the distance shall be measured in a raised direct line from the starting mark to the finish line. For any track without a raised border on the curve, the measure- ment shall be made 20cm from the outer edge of the white line marking the border of the track. For events run in lanes around a turn, all lanes except the one on the inside border shall be measured 20cm outward from the inner lane line. NOTE: If a track with a removable curb is used without the curb in place for races longer than 10,000 meters, it must then be regarded as an uncurbed track according to Rules 160.2 and 160.3. In this case the distance, which would normally be mea- sured 30cm from the curb, must be recalculated to a path 20cm from the line mark- ing the inside border. Assuming that this line lies directly under the intended curb location, this reduces the measured distance by 0.63m per lap (for example, 400m would become 399.37m). This reduced distance must then be used for all calcula- tions of the distance run.[/b] 3. The nominal length of an outdoor track shall preferably be 400 meters. It shall consist of two straights and two turns. The inside of the track shall be bordered by a raised curb of suitable material approximately 5cm high and 5cm wide. The curb may be raised to permit surface water to drain away, in which case the maximum height shall be 6.5cm. The curb on the two straights may be omitted and a white line 5cm wide substituted. If a section of the curb on the curve has to be removed temporarily for field event competitors, its place shall be marked with a white line 5cm wide and by plastic cones or flags (minimum height 20cm) placed on the white line so that the edge of the base of the cone or flag pole coin- cides with the edge of the white line closest to the track, and placed at intervals not exceeding 4m to prevent any athlete running on the line. This shall also apply for the section of the steeplechase track where runners divert from the main track to negotiate the water jump, at intervals not exceeding 10m. 4. The direction of the running shall be left hand inside, except for track events longer than 100 miles or 12 hours. In such events, competitors may, at the discretion of the Race Director, be permitted to reverse direction around the track at regular intervals. Direction reversal shall be done around a fixed object (e.g., a traffic cone) and shall be done at either the official starting line or the official finish line of the event, never at any other points on the track. Direction reversal shall be done only at regular time intervals (e.g., every 3 hours), not at fixed distance intervals. During direction reversal, runners who have reversed shall yield right-of-way to the inside lane to runners who have not yet reversed until the entire field of competitors has reversed direction.
@cghswift

From the 2011 USATF Rule book :

RULE 160
TRACK LANES AND MEASUREMENTS
1. In all outdoor races at distances up to and including 400 meters, wherever pos- sible, each competitor shall have a separate lane with a width of 1.22m ±0.01m (4 ft.) measured as provided in paragraphs 2 and 4 hereof and properly marked
2011 USATF Competition Rules • 66
by lines 5cm in width. On tracks whose width does not permit 8 lanes of that width, the minimum width of the lanes may be 91.4cm (3 ft.). Only the line on the right hand of each lane shall be included in the measurement of the width of each lane. The inside radius should be limited to between 35.00m and 38.00m unless the curve is a double bend track designed to fit a playing field on the infield. In that case the minimum bend radius is 24.00m.
2. All distances run or walked shall be determined on the basis of a hypothetical line 30cm outward from the inner edge of the track, except that for races upon straight- aways, the distance shall be measured in a raised direct line from the starting mark to the finish line. For any track without a raised border on the curve, the measure- ment shall be made 20cm from the outer edge of the white line marking the border of the track. For events run in lanes around a turn, all lanes except the one on the inside border shall be measured 20cm outward from the inner lane line.
NOTE: If a track with a removable curb is used without the curb in place for races longer than 10,000 meters, it must then be regarded as an uncurbed track according to Rules 160.2 and 160.3. In this case the distance, which would normally be mea- sured 30cm from the curb, must be recalculated to a path 20cm from the line mark- ing the inside border. Assuming that this line lies directly under the intended curb location, this reduces the measured distance by 0.63m per lap (for example, 400m would become 399.37m). This reduced distance must then be used for all calcula- tions of the distance run.

3. The nominal length of an outdoor track shall preferably be 400 meters. It shall consist of two straights and two turns. The inside of the track shall be bordered by a raised curb of suitable material approximately 5cm high and 5cm wide. The curb may be raised to permit surface water to drain away, in which case the maximum height shall be 6.5cm. The curb on the two straights may be omitted and a white line 5cm wide substituted. If a section of the curb on the curve has to be removed temporarily for field event competitors, its place shall be marked with a white line 5cm wide and by plastic cones or flags (minimum height 20cm) placed on the white line so that the edge of the base of the cone or flag pole coin- cides with the edge of the white line closest to the track, and placed at intervals not exceeding 4m to prevent any athlete running on the line. This shall also apply for the section of the steeplechase track where runners divert from the main track to negotiate the water jump, at intervals not exceeding 10m.
4. The direction of the running shall be left hand inside, except for track events longer than 100 miles or 12 hours. In such events, competitors may, at the discretion of the Race Director, be permitted to reverse direction around the track at regular intervals. Direction reversal shall be done around a fixed object (e.g., a traffic cone) and shall be done at either the official starting line or the official finish line of the event, never at any other points on the track. Direction reversal shall be done only at regular time intervals (e.g., every 3 hours), not at fixed distance intervals. During direction reversal, runners who have reversed shall yield right-of-way to the inside lane to runners who have not yet reversed until the entire field of competitors has reversed direction.
11/04/2012 5:54:58 PM
User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 207
so in American English, the track should be measured between 8 and 13 inches from the inside rail (or no rail). Then using Jason's picture and colors, should we measure 8-13 inches to the right (looking at the picture) of the red line? However, between the red line and the white line, running would be slippery because of the sand. So then to make it fair and "runnable" should be measure 8-13 inches to the right of the white line? When I measure a road race, with a calibrated (that is a big deal too) wheel, I measure one foot off the curb or sand or grass of whatever. That means if a runner runs the entire race in first and is totally aware of the tangents, they could cut the course by a few feet/yards. But realistically, with these cross country races, no runner can really run within a couple of inches of the inside "rail" for the entire race. So maybe measuring within one foot of the "runnable" tangent of the course is fair(?)
so in American English, the track should be measured between 8 and 13 inches from the inside rail (or no rail). Then using Jason's picture and colors, should we measure 8-13 inches to the right (looking at the picture) of the red line? However, between the red line and the white line, running would be slippery because of the sand. So then to make it fair and "runnable" should be measure 8-13 inches to the right of the white line? When I measure a road race, with a calibrated (that is a big deal too) wheel, I measure one foot off the curb or sand or grass of whatever. That means if a runner runs the entire race in first and is totally aware of the tangents, they could cut the course by a few feet/yards. But realistically, with these cross country races, no runner can really run within a couple of inches of the inside "rail" for the entire race.

So maybe measuring within one foot of the "runnable" tangent of the course is fair(?)
11/04/2012 5:57:17 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 684
Last year day before state meet I set out to measure LER from the SPR any runner could run. I measured so close to inside that basically my arm was touching the railing that goes around the course, and going up the hill I was as close to the cones as possible going up the hill and I concluded about 250 feet short. We can't worry about whether a runner chooses to run in the middle of the course or not. If they do, yeah they are running longer than 5k. Looking at pictures and tagging my runners from MS state meet, there were runners running inside of the chalked white line, but true most probably ran outside of the line, but I would have measured closer to the red, because regardless of the white line that was there, some kids will still run inside of it unless there is some kind of other barrier. On our home course we have long greenways where most kids are running to the middle even though I have white dotted lines painted where they need to be running. So if a kid's Garmin, which he shouldn't be wearing anyway reads 3.2 at the finish line it is because they did not run the tangents properly
Last year day before state meet I set out to measure LER from the SPR any runner could run. I measured so close to inside that basically my arm was touching the railing that goes around the course, and going up the hill I was as close to the cones as possible going up the hill and I concluded about 250 feet short. We can't worry about whether a runner chooses to run in the middle of the course or not. If they do, yeah they are running longer than 5k. Looking at pictures and tagging my runners from MS state meet, there were runners running inside of the chalked white line, but true most probably ran outside of the line, but I would have measured closer to the red, because regardless of the white line that was there, some kids will still run inside of it unless there is some kind of other barrier. On our home course we have long greenways where most kids are running to the middle even though I have white dotted lines painted where they need to be running. So if a kid's Garmin, which he shouldn't be wearing anyway reads 3.2 at the finish line it is because they did not run the tangents properly
11/04/2012 7:43:10 PM
Power User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1975
[quote=twangster]Green line looks to be correct in this case....A body is appox. 24 inches wide shoulder to shoulder so the wheel should come no closer to the line than 12 inches because that is the closest a runner could pass without clipping the 'wall'. The red line in this case is out of bounds and technically grounds for DQ.[/quote] @twangster No, no, and no. 100% incorrect. You do not measured from the middle; you don't measure someone's body and decide how to measure a course because of it; there is no wall for someone's shoulder to clip; and as long as there is proper footing on the red line and you're not in the grass then that is the true / correct inside measure: [b]Shortest route possible / tangents.[/b] [quote=mark4606]I would be a green liner too Jason and here is why...[/quote] @mark4606 Your track analogy is completely inconsistent with your cross country argument. A track is measured a few inches from the inside of lane 1, NOT in the middle of the track, THEREFORE the consistent belief structure would argue that a cross country race should be measured a few inches from the inside curb, NOT the middle of the course. [quote=aholmes80]Last year day before state meet I set out to measure LER from the SPR any runner could run...I concluded about 250 feet short.[/quote] @aholmes80 Good man. Pre-state was 236 feet short for me. I'm glad at least Andy on here knows the meaning of tangents! :-p
wangster wrote:
Green line looks to be correct in this case....A body is appox. 24 inches wide shoulder to shoulder so the wheel should come no closer to the line than 12 inches because that is the closest a runner could pass without clipping the 'wall'. The red line in this case is out of bounds and technically grounds for DQ.

@twangster No, no, and no. 100% incorrect.

You do not measured from the middle; you don't measure someone's body and decide how to measure a course because of it; there is no wall for someone's shoulder to clip; and as long as there is proper footing on the red line and you're not in the grass then that is the true / correct inside measure: Shortest route possible / tangents.

mark4606 wrote:
I would be a green liner too Jason and here is why...

@mark4606 Your track analogy is completely inconsistent with your cross country argument. A track is measured a few inches from the inside of lane 1, NOT in the middle of the track, THEREFORE the consistent belief structure would argue that a cross country race should be measured a few inches from the inside curb, NOT the middle of the course.

aholmes80 wrote:
Last year day before state meet I set out to measure LER from the SPR any runner could run...I concluded about 250 feet short.
@aholmes80 Good man. Pre-state was 236 feet short for me.

I'm glad at least Andy on here knows the meaning of tangents!
11/04/2012 7:49:56 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 167
@CoachRaposo I think you are wrong here. Check your NFHS rule book section 5 article 6 which reads that the distances are measured 12 inches outward from the inner edge of the track when a concrete curb is used and 8 inches outward from the painted lane line when no curb is present. Lanes 2 through 8 are also measured 8 inches outward from the lane line and certainly not 2 inches.
@CoachRaposo I think you are wrong here. Check your NFHS rule book section 5 article 6 which reads that the distances are measured 12 inches outward from the inner edge of the track when a concrete curb is used and 8 inches outward from the painted lane line when no curb is present. Lanes 2 through 8 are also measured 8 inches outward from the lane line and certainly not 2 inches.
11/04/2012 8:06:33 PM
Coach
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 170
From that picture, I would wheel just inside the white line. The white line looks like a guide more then a boundary. Since the white line is not being enforced as a boundary.
From that picture, I would wheel just inside the white line. The white line looks like a guide more then a boundary. Since the white line is not being enforced as a boundary.
11/04/2012 8:39:10 PM
Power User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 280
@JupCoach That's the way I took it. On every course we have been to this year the line IS the course, not a boundary. If there is a possibility of a runner choosing to run inside the line on a turn or curve, we put up posts and surveyors tape to prevent that from happening.
@JupCoach That's the way I took it. On every course we have been to this year the line IS the course, not a boundary. If there is a possibility of a runner choosing to run inside the line on a turn or curve, we put up posts and surveyors tape to prevent that from happening.
11/04/2012 8:46:15 PM
Power User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1975
[quote=mark4606]@CoachRaposo I think you are wrong here. Check your NFHS rule book section 5 article 6 which reads that the distances are measured 12 inches outward from the inner edge of the track when a concrete curb is used and 8 inches outward from the painted lane line when no curb is present. Lanes 2 through 8 are also measured 8 inches outward from the lane line and certainly not 2 inches.[/quote] @mark4606 I know track & field measurements. I've heard anywhere from 6-12 inches (depending on the rail). But I was pointing out a horrible analogy trying to compare the two sports. As for cross country the rules change that was necessary to clarify, for the people who never understood the common understanding to begin with, is this: [i]"Measurements shall be along the shortest possible route a runner may take."[/i] http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5563 Jason used to argue 12-18 inches from the inside, and while I can understand THAT argument, everyone else must understand that would mean you're still to the left of the white line, although not to the red line, in the picture above. Anyone claiming anything white line or to the outside (right) of that, shows exactly why we have all of the problems we do each year. Those coaches are being liberal in their measurements and are making slightly shorter courses. But then when you bring around someone who really has no clue what they're doing, assumes that green is the 'norm' and then throws down a GPS measurement and we get these substantially incorrect courses that are hurting the sport in multiple capacities. UGH!! :-(
mark4606 wrote:
@CoachRaposo I think you are wrong here. Check your NFHS rule book section 5 article 6 which reads that the distances are measured 12 inches outward from the inner edge of the track when a concrete curb is used and 8 inches outward from the painted lane line when no curb is present. Lanes 2 through 8 are also measured 8 inches outward from the lane line and certainly not 2 inches.

@mark4606 I know track & field measurements. I've heard anywhere from 6-12 inches (depending on the rail). But I was pointing out a horrible analogy trying to compare the two sports.

As for cross country the rules change that was necessary to clarify, for the people who never understood the common understanding to begin with, is this: "Measurements shall be along the shortest possible route a runner may take."
http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5563

Jason used to argue 12-18 inches from the inside, and while I can understand THAT argument, everyone else must understand that would mean you're still to the left of the white line, although not to the red line, in the picture above. Anyone claiming anything white line or to the outside (right) of that, shows exactly why we have all of the problems we do each year. Those coaches are being liberal in their measurements and are making slightly shorter courses. But then when you bring around someone who really has no clue what they're doing, assumes that green is the 'norm' and then throws down a GPS measurement and we get these substantially incorrect courses that are hurting the sport in multiple capacities.

UGH!!
11/04/2012 9:27:26 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2878
@CoachRaposo Just for point of scale in the picture... the white line was about 18 inches from the imaginary red line. This post obviously is not about Holloway Park specifically, but I believe the white line is where the course was actually measured. Although... another point to bring up is that the inside and outside of a course will shift with curves, so you have to properly tangent and adjust obviously when it does.
@CoachRaposo Just for point of scale in the picture... the white line was about 18 inches from the imaginary red line. This post obviously is not about Holloway Park specifically, but I believe the white line is where the course was actually measured. Although... another point to bring up is that the inside and outside of a course will shift with curves, so you have to properly tangent and adjust obviously when it does.
11/04/2012 10:51:04 PM
User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 186
Interesting discussion but a tad theoretical for those familiar with Holloway. Runners avoided the area between the red line and the white line not due to inexperience but due at least in part to the fact that the surface was loose and uneven as you got in that area. Running a shorter distance over loose sand and uneven treacherous ground is not the formula for winning a race. Let's give the athletes a little more credit here. The idea is to cover the race course from start to finish in as little time as possible. No awards are given for those "smart runners" who chose to run the least distance possible over the uneven and soft sands (to the detriment of their time and perhaps their ankles). I was there for Jim Ryun as well and saw experienced collegiate racers taking similar lines for similar reasons. Holloway is a true cross country course and not a pancake lined softball/soccer field or golf course with nicely manicured bermuda grass. If you are running on the manicured lawns of the athletic fields or golf courses, then the fixation on tangents and SPR makes more sense. At Holloway and doubtless other true cross country courses, there are some good reasons for it being less important.
Interesting discussion but a tad theoretical for those familiar with Holloway. Runners avoided the area between the red line and the white line not due to inexperience but due at least in part to the fact that the surface was loose and uneven as you got in that area. Running a shorter distance over loose sand and uneven treacherous ground is not the formula for winning a race. Let's give the athletes a little more credit here. The idea is to cover the race course from start to finish in as little time as possible. No awards are given for those "smart runners" who chose to run the least distance possible over the uneven and soft sands (to the detriment of their time and perhaps their ankles). I was there for Jim Ryun as well and saw experienced collegiate racers taking similar lines for similar reasons. Holloway is a true cross country course and not a pancake lined softball/soccer field or golf course with nicely manicured bermuda grass. If you are running on the manicured lawns of the athletic fields or golf courses, then the fixation on tangents and SPR makes more sense. At Holloway and doubtless other true cross country courses, there are some good reasons for it being less important.
11/04/2012 11:00:28 PM
User
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 59
I think you will find that no two courses will be the same, and that is why the comparison to a track does not apply. Althought you would think the best stategy would be to run a straight line from point A to point B, in some cases that might not be the way to get a faster time, which is the object of the race. The slower the runner, the closer they can be to a point where a turn is made. The faaster runners will seek the part of the course where the footing for both feet is the best,even if this means running a little extra. Even running the same course in dry and wet conditions might vary depending on the drainage and where the trouble spots are in the course. So you might have a course that is accurately measured at 5K, but most runners running more, because that is the best way to get a better time.
I think you will find that no two courses will be the same, and that is why the comparison to a track does not apply. Althought you would think the best stategy would be to run a straight line from point A to point B, in some cases that might not be the way to get a faster time, which is the object of the race. The slower the runner, the closer they can be to a point where a turn is made. The faaster runners will seek the part of the course where the footing for both feet is the best,even if this means running a little extra. Even running the same course in dry and wet conditions might vary depending on the drainage and where the trouble spots are in the course. So you might have a course that is accurately measured at 5K, but most runners running more, because that is the best way to get a better time.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.