Discussion: Interscholastic Rules Proposal

For discussion. These modifications will be on the USOF board agenda at the October 24 meeting. Feedback received so far from persons who served on the Interscholastic Rules Task Force has been very positive for #1 and #2, but based on this feedback we are looking at phrasing changes to #3 to make it more restrictive.


In the interest of broadening participation in the annual United States Interscholastic Orienteering Championships (ISOC), as well as promoting the overall growth of junior participation in orienteering, Michael Minium and Guy Olsen hereby propose several revisions to USOF's ISOC competition rules. They are intended to build upon the sweeping revisions adopted in 2005, which took effect starting with the 2006 ISOC.

In summary, these proposals would revise the Rules of Competition to: add a Primary School team competition; add Intermediate and Primary School club team competitions; and establish "vertical eligibility", by which students attending lower level schools would be eligible to be members of higher-level school teams, under certain conditions.


PROPOSAL #1
Add a Primary School Championship competition for teams composed of individual PSM and PSF competitors, which meet the overall requirements for ISOC team competition. An additional, but smaller Brunton-style cup should be obtained as a traveling trophy. (Private funding has been offered for this award, so USOF's budget should not be an issue).

Considerations:
-- The 2005 revisions established primary school competition for individuals, but team competition was deferred.
-- In two of the four ISOCs since the individual primary school categories were introduced, there have been sufficient competitors to qualify for a school team.
-- In 2007, DVOA awarded prizes -- albeit non-US Championship -- for primary school teams.
-- Two of the interscholastic orienteering leagues in the USA (COOL and TROL) offer team competition at the elementary/primary school level.




PROPOSAL #2
Add Intermediate and Primary Club Team championships to the Interscholastic Championship competition for teams composed of individual ISM and ISF competitors, and PSM and PSF competitors, respectively, which meet the overall requirements for ISOC club team competition.

Considerations:
-- One of the most controversial of the 2005 revisions, club team competition at the ISOC has proven quite popular at the HSJV and HSV levels.
-- Expanding club team competition would make categories offered (club team and school team) consistent across all grade levels (Primary, Intermediate, Junior Varsity and Varsity).
-- More opportunities for team formation will further encourage junior participation in orienteering.



PROPOSAL #3
Change the rules for all Intermediate and High School Teams to permit "vertical eligibility". Under vertical eligibility, some -- but not all -- members of a school team could be enrolled full time at a different, lower level school that is located within the same public school district, within the same parochial school diocese, or on a separate campus of an independent private school. Where public school districts are not defined or are separated on the basis of grade levels, the lower level school must on an average annual basis "send" at least 25 percent of its students to the school represented by the team in question, as certified by a principal, vice principal, or similar administrative authority.

Considerations:
-- The 2005 revisions considerably tightened eligibility by requiring members of school teams to be full time students at the school fielding the team. This was primarily intended to prevent teams from including students of other schools at the same level, i.e. "horizontal eligibility".
-- In at least one state (New York), qualified middle / junior high school students are allowed to compete on high school athletic teams, including at competitions sanctioned by the National Federation of High Schools.
-- Allowing for vertical eligibility would be consistent with US and worldwide -- orienteering competition rules that allow participants to "run-up" in more competitive categories.

On #3, in Alabama, middle school students are allowed to compete on high school teams as long as the middle school doesn't have a team competing in that sport.

I support all three of the IS Champs rules proposals. With respect to #3, the only reason I have thought of for USOF to restrict vertical eligibility is to prevent the formation of "super teams," however the 25% feeder school rule takes care of that. Other than that, if a team with middle school students can beat out a team of high school students only, then more power to them.

Dabond, on #3, I have found that is also true in NY and KY. I was surprised as I don't often hear of this happening in sports other than orienteering. But it seems to be pretty widely accepted.

With #3, it seems quite tricky to come up with a phrasing that meets every situation. But, I tend to agree with Eric... if a younger student can actually beat an older one, especially with as competitive as the high school and middle school divisions have now become, is it really a big deal if the rules are broad enough to handle most of the weird combinations of magnet schools, single grade "freshman" schools, etc. Locally, I see students who take 2 or 3 classes at the public high school, then drive 15 miles and spend the rest of the day at a regional vocational school. So who's to say which (or both) schools they are eligible to run for. There will always be a few unusual eligibility cases which will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

dabond: In Alabama, how is it determined for which high school a middle-schooler is allowed to compete? Is it strictly by district?

All seem very reasonable proposals.

The mechanism in NY appears to be driven by statewide regulations, and a 7/8 grader may apply to be classified as an "exceptional athlete" and bump to the high school level.

This is a modestly difficult test that is meant to provide some guidance in allowing a younger athlete to compete at the higher level.

I doubt we need the extra control, and my rationale is that a parent is most able to determine if their child is capable of competing at the higher level. The proposal might want to mention something along those lines.

And the exemption happens with some regularity in NY - at least in volleyball. The best player on the (varsity and nearly undefeated) team my daughter played last night is an eighth grader. Our league MVP last year was a 10th grader in her FOURTH varsity year. In fact, half the teams we play have at least one eighth grader, albeit not usually a "star". While I don't know the letters of the law but the cases I've observed make sense in that the girls end up playing for the high school team they move up to. Thus, I believe that the "play up" rule makes sense; these athletes should not be "penalized" by being forced to compete at their grade level when their abilities clearly place them higher.

I support all three proposals as well.

I thought that vertical eligibility was the norm. I'm not sure why it would be controversial - it's not like running up a course in orienteering would harm a child's physical or social development.

Cristinah, I don't know that there are controversial aspects, from what I see, the intent seems to be safety.

You don't want little Timmy playing football with the varsity squad if he's there just so that the team can take the field - especially if Timmy doesn't have a base athletic ability.

It's an attempt to keep things reasonable with policy.

In O worlds, you'd hope a parent wouldn't allow their young child to head out on the Green course without the training, skills, and aptitude to take on the challenge. [and a "team's" thought process may become cloudy if they are short 1 competitor...]

We probably don't have to try to come up with a governing policy, but we might want to mention that we expect parents (or other delegated-responsible adults) to have made the decision considering these factors...

Once again, speaking for volleyball in NY state, there are apparently "play up" standards that measure, as Steve noted, "base athletic ability". The standards include measures of general fitness (e.g. time to run a mile) rather than skills for the sport in question. The goal seems to be to ensure that the student involved won't be hurt by participating more than to be a real barrier to entry for any student who would actually qualify. My daughter met them all "first try, in [her] sleep; they were a joke!" when she wanted to try out for JV as an eighth grader.

[Posting based upon conversations with parents and coaches, not upon having read the actual regulations.]

I suspect that the safety aspects of NY's regs are mostly there because contact sports are included.

Orienteering does not require any specific qualifications for someone choosing to "run up". For juniors, it is presumed to be done with parental consent, and -- where appropriate -- coach's input.

Guy, its only the high school that the middle schooler would normally be going to if they stayed at the same residence.

I don't see any way to prevent people from running a course that would be too difficult for them. In the high school XC meet I helped with this afternoon, there were guys and gals taking more than 35 minutes to cover 5 km. At least one scored for their team. All we can do is strictly enforce the time limits.