The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- September 27, 1999

Chip off the old clock

New technology would reduce the wait for cross country results

BY SCOTT DEITCH
STAFF WRITER

It is always a tense time for cross country coaches and competitors. The race is completed, but no one is sure in what order the teams have finished.

Coaches and spectators may think they have the team scoring calculated correctly, but what if they missed a runner crossing the finish line or incorrectly noted a runner's school? The minutes before results -- even unofficial results -- are posted can seem like hours.

A way to reduce this wait and relieve anxiety may be on the horizon. Through the use of computer chips on each runner and sensor pads at the finish line, complete unofficial team scoring would be available just moments after the race was finished.

The NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee has agreed to explore the use of such technology for use at future championships. And though the committee's exploration could prove to be exciting, there may be problems ahead when it comes to where the chip is located on the runner and the costs involved.

"I like the technology, but it needs to be applied appropriately," said Mike Johnson, head cross country and track and field coach at Boise State University and the track and field committee's Division I cross country subcommittee chair. "We need to address the location of the chip on the runner as well as some other issues."

The most obvious advantage of the system is the speed in which results would be available. When a runner passes over the sensor, the competitor's time and place is entered simultaneously into a computer programmed with scoring software.

Consequently, individual placing and team scoring would be completed as soon as the final runner crossed the finish line. In fact, a team's score would be available once the chip on its fifth finisher was read by the sensor.

Time savings, not cost savings

Currently, a meet official must manually input into a computer the competitors' numbers in the order in which they finish. In races with hundreds of finishers, such as the Division I men's and women's championships with their starting fields of 255 runners each, the time savings are obvious.

The immediacy of results also has coaches thinking about the possibility of adding sensors at various points on the course. That would enable coaches and spectators alike to know which team is in the lead during a cross country race, where competitors are often out of view.

"The idea of having intermediate scoring is the real important feature this system would provide," said Marshall Goss, head men's track and field coach at Indiana University, Bloomington. Goss researched the possibility of Indiana securing a chip-based setup for use on an experimental basis when it hosts the 1999 Division I championships November 22.

Such a possibility did not come to fruition, however, as Goss began to calculate the costs involved. The price for the chips themselves (approximately $1.50 per competitor) was not so much of a factor as was the expense attached to the sensor pads.

"To place as many sensors on the course as we wanted to provide intermediate scoring was just not financially feasible," said Goss. "In addition, there is a $25 charge for each unreturned chip. You have to expect that some of them will be lost with more than 500 runners."

The sensors currently are manufactured in lengths too short to satisfy the NCAA rule mandating that the finish line be at least 10 meters in width. That necessitates multiple pads at that spot. If the location on a course where intermediate scoring would be logical is even wider, the number of pads and the cost involved goes up.

Location, location, location

Rules also are an issue when it comes to the location of the chip. Since the sensors are on the ground, the chip is fastened to runners' shoes for maximum effectiveness. The rule governing finishes states that runners shall be placed in the order in which any part of their torso reaches the nearer edge of the line.

"Among the questions to be asked is whether the chip can be attached securely to the competitors' numbers or jerseys and what impact that would have on the system's effectiveness," Johnson said.

Even if the cost and chip location factors can be solved, the technology is not likely to bring about the disappearance of the funnel and chutes at the finish area.

"Regardless of the reliability of the chips and sensors, you still need to be able to sort the runners in some manual fashion into a chute," Johnson said.

"You definitely must have backup systems for timing and placing," Goss added. NCAA rules call for the use of four video cameras at designated locations to ensure the complete accuracy of placing at the finish.

Precedent for use

The track and field committee can look at possible solutions to some of its problems with the technology by studying the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) championships. That organization began using the chip technology three years ago and, after some difficulties the first year, is more than happy that it did.

"I cannot say enough good things about the system," said Nate Hampton, MHSAA assistant director. "There really are no disadvantages with it."

The rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations, of which MHSAA is a member, also state that a runner's finish is dependent on the time that any part of the torso reaches the nearer edge of the line. Hampton believes his organization has dealt with the situation effectively by having a chip placed on both shoes of every competitor.

"If both shoes have to cross the finish line, the torso will too," Hampton said. "The chips are secured with the shoelaces and we have experienced virtually no problems with them falling off."

Interestingly, the Michigan organization maintained its chutes for the first year that it used the chips but has not used them since. It does continue to use cameras as a backup for placing purposes and also puts sensors at two points on the course to provide accurate one- and two-mile times for each participant.

"We installed a second set of sensor pads five yards past the finish line to encourage the competitors to keep running through the immediate area," Hampton said. "The handful of coaches' challenges to the order of finish have all been rejected because the video has shown the results produced by the chips to be accurate."

Coaches no longer have the same amount of time to file such challenges because of the speed in which results are produced. "We cut the challenge period down from 30 to 15 minutes," Hampton said. "It really could be 10 minutes because the results are ready to be posted at that point."

Goss hopes that the chip technology will make its way into the collegiate cross country scene. "I would like to see the NCAA make the funds available to have the system installed at the championships for a trial," he said. "It would make a believer out of most people."

The system first must make a believer out of the track and field committee, which would be responsible for requesting that the system be implemented at a future championship.