Andrew,

I understand your frustration with the implementation of the qualifying rules and Walt and Julie can attest to the numerous lengthy discussions (some may say arguments) we had over the procedure in the past. Please realize that these implications were all well hashed out, understood, and accepted (albeit sometimes grudgingly).

For the specific case of the boys 400 this year, let's go through the logic you propose: #17 through #19 would replace #13 through #15 because their trials time was faster than the other's finals time. But based off finals time, all three of #13 through #15 would beat #16, so why wouldn't they get priority over #16? OK, so then one of them knocks out #16, but now you have the situation where athletes who lost to another in the trials get in over the finals qualifier. Since an athlete who made finals has priority over someone who didn't (form the same league, that is), then we are in a bit of a pickle. In the simpler situation where only the first alternate is involved, we are left in a circular priority situation: A has priority over B who has priority over C who has priority over A.

Ultimately, to deal with this, the "priorities" were prioritized:

1. Finals performances and order of placing were most important: in this case, #13-#15 have priority over #16

2. Order of trials performance were next: #16 has priority over #17-#19

3. Trials times compared with opposite league finals time were last: this is where #17-#19 has the upper hand, but it only comes into play after the first two

Yes, in this situation a poor finals performance would have significant impact on the other athletes in the same league. I think I even have an old e-mail where I specifically warned that an athlete who has a really poor finals performance will screw over everyone else in their league. At one time I proposed changing the wording so that the qualifier list is ranked according the best of either trials or finals marks. This would insure that an athlete who beat another in the trials will always have priority, but it also introduces the possibility of an athlete who loses to another in finals getting priority because of a better trials mark. We ended up sticking with the current interpretation as an unusually poor finals performance was considered to be a rarer situation.

I haven't looked over the entries that carefully, but Walt and Julie have been very consistent using the above three criteria in the past so I assume that this years entries were handled the same way. Yes, there is a certain situation where things are unfair, but other solutions will just create different unfair situations. Sort of reminds me of that Churchill quote about democracy.

-ernie.

From: Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com>
To: Walt Van Zant <waltvz@aol.com>
Cc: Julie L'Heureux <jolheureux@aol.com>; David Barth <dbarth86@gmail.com>; ernest_lee@sbcglobal.net; erndog@alumni.princeton.edu
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: SCVAL Qualifier List

Sorry, some more...

Looking back at the SCVAL 2002 pre-season meeting notes, the spirit of the rule is clearly stated as ...

with the athletes with the best 16 marks in each event at the division finals (combining results) qualifying for the qualification meet. These marks include marks in the division trials if the athlete did not qualify for the division finals

I'm guessing that the parts about not replacing an athlete with a faster trials time was added and that makes sense. But this does not indicate that there should be some stoppage of the replacement logic with the possibility of a slow same league finalist protecting opposite league runners who should be rightfully replaced.

Feels a bit like the rules were written with good intentions, folks didn't realize all the implications, then later only realized that this can result in this absurd protection situation.

So, I'm not asking for a change in the rules. I'm asking that it be considered that the rules are not and have not be interpreted correctly and that that should change.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com> wrote:

Thanks Walt,

I've been chatting with PattiSue about this and she suggested I add in Ernie just to get one more opinion.

The email thread is super long so I just want to clarify my issue. We are not saying that Tyler (DAL) should be replaced because he by definition (DAL) ran a faster time in trials already. We are saying that the replacement logic should look further up the list for EC runners who ran both a slower finals time and a slower trials time. It should not stop because of Tyler's random bad race.

Here's why I feel this way: the opening sentence of the rule communicates an intent to consider replacement for any trials athlete not just one. And it communicates an intent to look at all marks from finals ("any of the top 16 marks posted in the event"). Because of that, it naturally follows that you'd have to look at more than just the worst mark to fairly consider replacement for all these people. In fact in this case, if Tyler hadn't run such a slow time, wouldn't it be the case that both Martin and Albin would have replaced the two slowest runners in finals from EC? I think so.

I follow your explanation (and agree with it) up to a certain point, but then I don't understand why the replacement logic doesn't consider more than the 16th runner nor why a bad finals performance by an protect opposite league runner protects opposite league athletes. Is that just an artifact of the wording that perhaps the coaches didn't realize at the time or was that actually the intention of the coaches? Is it possibly the case that they didn't foresee these types of cases when the rule was written?

Below you say: "The coaches also decided that they did not want to knock out an opposite-league runner who beat a DAL runner (in this instance) because they did in effect beat the DAL runner when they ran faster than his time in the league trials."

I agree with this. But that is not what is happening here. Those opposite league runners #14 and #15 ran slower in both finals and trials than Martin and Albin. I think the wording of the first sentence and the "worst mark" sentence are in conflict. When I read it, I took it to mean - "replacements will be made from the worst marks first". The reason I read it that was not just optimism, it was because of what the first and second sentence say and how the state that all trials athletes will be considered for replacement - which means you have to look at more than the worst mark.

Anyway, I'd appreciate a final clarification on this. One question: do you acknowledge that the current implementation of the rule does not result in the best marks going forward to SCVAL? Do the coaches all realize this and is everybody happy with that?

I think this should be discussed at the end of season meeting at minimum.

thanks for your time,
Andrew

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Walt Van Zant <waltvz@aol.com> wrote:
Guys,

I completely agree with Julie on this issue. It is not a matter of interpretation. I attended the meeting in 2002 where the Qualifier meet was added. We had a lengthy discussion about whether to add a Qualifier meet and what rules that we should apply to this meet. I do not recall how I voted on the various rules but I did my best to write the rules as agreed to by the majority of the coaches. And, I sent the rules to all of the coaches to insure that I did not impose my biases over the coaches intention.

What we have is a matter of philosophy. The coaches did not want to eliminate an athlete who had beaten the other athletes in the trials. Obviously if a runner from one league (the DAL) made the finals and non-top 8 finishers in the DAL did not qualify for the finals, then none of the the DAL non-qualifiers can displace the top 8 runners from the same league because all of them lost to the top 8 runners in the prelims and did not compete against them in the finals.

The coaches also decided that they did not want to knock out an opposite-league runner who beat a DAL runner (in this instance) because they did did in effect beat the DAL runner when they ran faster than his time in the league trials.

This instance of a fast trials runner running a terrible race in the finals (usually because of an injury or hitting a hurdle) has occurred several times since 2002 and the rule has been applied exactly in those instances as done this year. Ernie Lee, Julie, and myself have been involved in all of those decisions and no one complained of the decisions.

Rule changes can be proposed solely at the year-end meeting. You can propose a rule change at this years meeting. If you convince the coaches of your viewpoint, the rules could be changed (if approved by the ADs and the Board of Managers).

Walt Van Zant

On May 7, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com> wrote:

Hi,

I'm adding in Walt who maybe can shed some light on the original intention of bylaw Article VI 2.1

Sorry, I guess I'm stubborn. I just can't believe that the intention of this rule is to only look at the worst mark and stop if the person happened to beat the candidate in trials and not consider marks further up the list. In fact, the only time that you *would* replace somebody is if they happen to be lucky enough to not be in the same league as the 16th finalist. That's just random. It just doesn't make sense that the league status of the 16th finalist will protect runners further up the list from 50% of the non-finalists who might be faster than them.

The reason I think this is based on the wording at the beginning of Article VI 2.1. It says that "an athlete" (meaning any athlete competing in trials), will get to compete (barring the replacement rule) if their mark is better than one of the finalists in the top 16. That by definition has to mean that you could have multiple candidates worthy of replacing finalists and therefore that you must have to look at more than the "worst mark" to fairly consider them replacing finalists. If there are even two non-finalists who's times are better than the 16th finalist, you'd have to look at the 15th finalist to keep true to the starting part of the bylaw.

So, it naturally follows, that you'd look further up the list for any candidate non-finalist.

I mean, the intention of the the last two sentences just cant be that you would only look at the worst mark and stop the whole process if the person beat that one person in trials. Clearly, you're trying to get the best 16 athletes and thus the best 16 marks across those two days.

Is there a process for getting this reviewed by coaches and making a call? I think its unfair that these two faster athletes should run over the two slower ones? It doesn't match what even you are saying is the original intent when it was created - to make sure we're putting forth the best 16. Tyler of course should run. That's not in dispute.

Thanks,
Andrew

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com> wrote:
Thanks, yeah I get it and I wouldn't advocate for Tyler to be out. It's just that as interpreted we still don't have the fastest 16. Albin and Martin ran faster than 2 of these 16 (beating both their trial and final times).

My interpretation is much simpler and produces a better more fair top 16. Simply pick the 16 best people by ranking all marks across the two days. Finalist basically get two shots at the top 16 whereas the others get one.

Sorry, still feels like I'm not making a clear point.

Andrew

On Saturday, May 7, 2016, Jim & Julie L'Heureux <jolheureux@aol.com> wrote:
Andrew:

The original purpose of the SCVAL meet was to get the best athletes to CCS, not to allow many athletes, another competition. When CCS decided to get rid of the Northern and Southern meets, the number of qualifiers from SCVAL was drastically reduced. The SCVAL meet was the compromise between the DAL and the ECL to determine the qualifiers to CCS. When we had the northern meet, DAL got 9 qualifiers and ECL got 7. Once the Northern meet was cancelled by CCS, we were reduced to 5 or 6 entries to CCS, depending on the population of each league. At this point, we didn’t want to split the qualifiers to CCS by a predetermined number. Instead we created the SCVAL Qualification Meet. This way the best athletes from each event made it to CCS.

Originally, there were no alternates to the meet, since it was about getting the best athletes to CCS. The meet was never about having the best 16, it just seemed logical to have 16 because that is 2 heats of 8 and would insure we got the athletes with the best shot of making CCS.

That was the actual intent of the by-law to make sure we got the best, otherwise Tyler would have been replaced by the 17th athletes. Walt Van Zant wrote the by-law with that intent, both Walt and I have been here since the creation of the SCVAL Meet.

Julie
On May 7, 2016, at 6:18 PM, Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com> wrote:

Hi Julie,

Ok I see what you're saying. I think that is one way to read the rules and it sounds like that is the way it has always been done. At best, this rule is written pretty ambiguously.

You could also interpret "worst mark" as the athlete with the with the worst combined time from trials and finals.

Perhaps you know the history, but was this the actual intent of this bylaw or was it the result of a strict interpretation of a poorly worded rule?

If the intention is to get the best 16 marks to SCVAL from trials and finals, then this isn't working.

Thanks for explaining,
Andrew

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Jim & Julie L'Heureux <jolheureux@aol.com> wrote:
Andrew:

The second part of Article VI, Section 2.1 states that if an athlete is added then the athlete with the worst mark is removed, which would be Tyler. The only exception being if the athlete being removed has already beat the added athlete in the trials, which Tyler did, so he is can’t be removed. Since the athlete with the worst mark can’t be removed then no one is removed. The rule doesn’t state that you can remove the athlete with the second or third worst mark, it states the athlete with the worst mark will be removed.

Julie

On May 7, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com> wrote:

Hank's logic here matches what I've described too.

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com> wrote:
Ok, I think I got my interpretation slightly wrong too. I think its just just the "other league" but if their trials time beat the candidates trials time they can't be replaced.

I've tweaked the spreadsheet.
Albin and Martin should be in. Alec should not.

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Zaeske <azaeske@google.com> wrote:
Jumping in a bit late here, I just want to make sure we're doing this by the bylaws. I get the motivation and perhaps this is always how it has been done, but the process you describe (which maybe I don't understand) doesn't match the letter of the bylaws. I believe following the bylaws to the letter means Albin and Martin Lopez from Mountain View and Alex Capaletti Los Altos should be in.

Bear with me. Happy to be wrong and learn, but I think I'm right :)

The short version: the bylaws say that any qualifier can replace *any* finalist as long as they replacer wasn't beat by that person in the finals. Not just the #16 position. And it doesn't say you should stop looking at the other athletes just because they can't be placed.

Here is a spreadsheet that shows my reasoning and the logic used. I've also attached it as an Excel file.

The long version:

The bylaws state:
If an athlete does not qualify for the finals of the El Camino or De Anza Division meets but his/her mark in the Division trials is better than any of the top 16 marks posted in the event at the finals, he/she will be allowed to compete in the Championship Meet. However, no more than 16 will be allowed to compete in any event. Thus, each addition of an athlete to an event under this section means that the athlete with the worst mark will be dropped from the event. An athlete will not be added to an event under this section if it results in the displacement of an athlete who beat the added athlete in the trials.

The key point here is that *any* trials non-qualifier athlete can replace *any* finalist from the other league (i.e. somebody that didn't beat them in trials). So, I think the process you described as stopping after the first alternate does not reflect the intentions of the bylaws. You said:

When we do the list, the finalist from both leagues are combined and sorted fastest to slowest. Then the 16th qualifier is compared to the fastest non-finalist (first alternate). If they are both from the same league, the first alternate cannot replace the 16th qualifier. If the first alternate does not beat the 16th qualifier, then no more changes are made.

The bylaws state that anybody with a trials time that beats ANY of the qualifiers, will replace that person not just the first alternate (as long as they didn't beat them in the trials).

So, I believe the process you're using is incorrect in two ways:
1. You should not just compare the first alternate to position #16. The bylaws say *any of the top 16 marks posted*. You should find any time that is not from the person's league that has a slower time.

2. You should not stop the replacement logic just because you cannot place the first alternative. It might be the case that everybody that they could possibly replace beat them in their league trials. But the 2nd alternate, might be from the other league and would be a valid replacement.

Following that logic, both Albin and Martin Lopez and Alec Cappelletti should be in.

Thanks,
Andrew Zaeske
Los Altos Distance Coach

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Barth <dbarth86@gmail.com> wrote:
got it. Ok sounds good. Thanks for explaining I will pass this along.

Not sure I agree with it but I do understand it and respect it and appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me.

Thanks Julie.

See you Friday night.

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Jim & Julie L'Heureux <jolheureux@aol.com> wrote:
The original purpose of the SCVAL meet was to get the best athletes to CCS, not allow many athletes another meet. When CCS decided to get rid of the Northern and Southern meets, the number of qualifiers from SCVAL was drastically reduced. The SCVAL meet was the compromise between the DAL and the ECL to determine the qualifiers to CCS.
Julie

On May 7, 2016, at 2:29 PM, David Barth <dbarth86@gmail.com> wrote:

I see your point about Tyler and do not think that he should be eliminated since he had a great qualifying mark in trials. Its the guys who finished above Tyler that I have trouble wrapping my head around. I see your point about the other leagues getting slower times into CCS but it's hard to digest that some DAL athletes are allowed in because the 16th qualifier ran slow enough where in other events that's not the case. Basing it off the 16th qualifier works accept if the 15th qualifier runs slower in both the trial and finals then the first alternate.... If Tyler had run a 51 second in the final would Albin have gotten in? If the answer is no, then I have no issue at all. If the answer is Yes I am super confused because Albin would have beat runner 15, 14, 13, 12

Not the end of the world but maybe we should take a look at this at the end of the year meeting because this happened to last year and I would think that SCAVL would want their fastest 16 athletes represented or maybe not and all we care about is the top 6....

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Jim & Julie L'Heureux <jolheureux@aol.com> wrote:
I understand your concern. The qualifiers, ahead of the 16th guy, all beat him in the finals, so is it fair to have them eliminated. Conversely, the non-finalist did not have to run a second race, they may have had a bad race too or been DQ. This situation is the exception, not the rule. Usually if it happens, it is in the hurdle races. If you look at the VG 400m race, several of the 400m DAL non-finalist qualified for SCVAL which is what would have happened if Tyler had a good day.

The ultimate goal is to get the 6 best athletes to qualify to CCS. Those athletes have qualified to SCVAL, so the goal was met. The same thing happens in CCS, good athletes from SCVAL and WCAL are left out and athletes from weaker leagues make it to CCS Trials. In the distance events, some of our athletes don’t even make SCVAL and yet athletes from other leagues and slower times make it to CCS Trials.

Julie
On May 7, 2016, at 1:37 PM, David Barth <dbarth86@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Julie,

Thanks for looking at this. Here is my concern with the sorting and why this is confusing to me. I see the logic behind this but if you are only looking at the 16th qualifier from the league you are missing the 15th, 14th, 13th 12th.

Albin Mollerstedt beat qualifiers 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th all from El Camino division. His trials time was faster then both their trials and finals times. He ran faster then them in both the trial and final. Where the 16th qualifier is the only one between 12th-16th who had a faster mark that Albin in trials.

Something seems wrong with the system if you have athletes running 55 and 56 seconds in trials and finals from El Camino and then you have a 54second runner who does not make the final from De Anza and he does not get into SCAVAL when he beats both their trials and finals marks....

Dave

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jim & Julie L'Heureux <jolheureux@aol.com> wrote:
Gerri:

There is no error. If a finalist has a bad race, he cannot be replaced by someone from his league that he already beat in the trials. When we do the list, the finalist from both leagues are combined and sorted fastest to slowest. Then the 16th qualifier is compared to the fastest non-finalist (first alternate). If they are both from the same league, the first alternate cannot replace the 16th qualifier. If the first alternate does not beat the 16th qualifier, then no more changes are made.

Any questions about the Qualifier list, should be directed to me.

Julie L’Heureux

On May 7, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Gerri Baldwin <gerrib@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Hi Jim and Curtis
> Please take another look at the VB 400m qualifiers we believe there is an error. Albin Mollerstedt ran 54.38 in trials and should be in.
>
> Thank You Gerri
>
>> On May 6, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Jim & Julie L'Heureux <jolheureux@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Coaches:
>>
>> Attached is the SCVAL Qualifier List. Please read the following before asking questions:
>>
>> 1) For most events, it is straight forward. Combine the results of the 2 leagues, the top 16 are qualifiers and the next 4 are alternates. Anyone below 20th place are out.
>>
>> 2) If there is a tie for 16th place, both athletes are qualifiers, and there is 1 less alternate. In the high jump, there is multiple athletes tied for the 16th place. If the number of qualifiers is more than 20, then there are no alternates.
>>
>> 3) No alternates will be seeded until the number of qualifiers fall below 16. If there is a tie for first alternate, both will be seeded if there is a scratch.
>>
>> 4) Here is the tricky part, for the following events: 100m, 200m, 400, 110/100h, & 300h, athletes not making the finals can still qualify for SCVAL. You will notice I have listed their seed times for SCVAL. If an athlete competed in finals, then their seed time is that time. If an athlete did not make finals, then their seed time is from trials. Currently, the top 16 are listed in the order they qualified based on their best time from both finals and trials. When they are seeded for SCVAL, their ranking may change from what is shown. The alternates list for those events will stay in that order regardless of their seed time. The seed time is used if someone scratches and they become a qualifier.
>>
>> You are probably wondering why someone with a slow seed time is listed ahead of a faster seed time. That happens when a finalist has had a bad finals race but are protected by their trials time. Once a runner beats someone in the trials they cannot be replace by them, only from someone in the other league.
>>
>> Questions?
>>
>> Send all scratches to me and Jim Clark ASAP, even alternates. Also, it would be nice if you copy to the alternate’s coach unless it is the high jump or VG LJ. Then I will handle it. All scratches are due Wednesday night at 8pm. At that time, Jim Clark will do the seeding of the meet. After Wednesday, there will be no reseeding. If a scratch comes in from the fast heat, the fast qualifier from the slow heat will fill the spot and an alternate will take his spot. If it is the slow heat, then the alternate will fill that spot.
>>
>> Hopefully Ernesto will send out all the other information for the meet: time schedule, job assignments, rules, etc.
>>
>> Julie
>>
>> P.S. Jim Clark: you can make a performance list if you want, but I would not bother to seed anyone yet. Thanks.
>>
>> <SCVAL_Qualifiers_2016.xlsx>
>>
>>
>

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile