IHSA

IHSA Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 2005-06

Scholastic Bowl Advisory Committee

April 5, 2006

The IHSA Scholastic Bowl Advisory Committee met at the IHSA Office, Bloomington, Illinois on Monday, April 5, 2006, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Committee Members present were: David Riley, Coach, Wilmette (Loyola); Susan Martin, Coach, Wheaton (North); Cynthia Wierzba, Coach, Farmington; Barbara Gottenmoller, Coach, Decatur (St. Teresa); Kathy Smysor, Coach, Cuba; Scott Finders, Coach, Anna (A.-Jonesboro); Others in attendance, Ron McGraw, IHSA Asst. Executive Director; Cheryl Mitchell, IHSA Administrative Assistant; Rob Grierson, IHSA State Final Moderator Coordinator; Tom Egan, Officials; John Rathbun, IHSA State Final Tournament Manager; David Reinstein, IHSSBCA.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Item II-B. Dates and Sites

Recommendation: Move the Regional date from Monday of Week 36 to Tuesday of Week 36 to avoid the Casimir Pulaski Holiday.

Rationale: IHSA has a limited number of schools willing to host. Schools closed for the Casimir Pulaski Holiday are unwilling to host a Regional. This will avoid the Casimir Pulaski Holiday each year.

Item 1 Approved

2. Item VI-B2. Tournament Structure and Time Schedules (in 2006-2007 These items will move in the Terms and Conditions to be included with Advancement of Winners--Sectional to State Advancement)

Recommendation: If three teams are tied with identical records in a pool, the total points scored in pool play will be used to break the tie, and determine advancement. To read:
If three teams are tied with identical records in a pool, the total points scored in pool play against the tied teams will be used to break the tie, and determine advancement.

Rationale: The committee feels that the only teams involved in this tie breaker should be teams involved in the tie. This will hopefully encourage coaches to substitute in reserve players when the outcome of matches are obvious when playing schools that are far stronger or weaker then they are. Currently a coach that is beating a team badly will probably continue to play the starters because of the possibility of the three-way tie. Coaches are aware that the current tie breaker involves total points scored in all three matches. If they choose to substitute and another coach involved in the tie does not, then they put their team at a disadvantage if faced with this tie breaker. This also impacts the coach whose team is getting beaten badly. The coach may want to substitute but knows that he/she did not substitute in an earlier match and does not wish to give any team involved in the tie breaker an advantage due to substitutions he/she made.

Item 2 Approved

3. Item VI-B3. Structure and Time Schedules (in 2006-2007 These items will move in the Terms and Conditions to be included with Advancement of Winners--Sectional to State Advancement)

Recommendation: In the event that three teams are tied with identical records, and two of those three teams have identical total points scored in pool play, the head-to-head result in pool play will break the tie between those two teams, and determine advancement. To read:
In the event that three teams are tied with identical records, and two of those three teams have identical total points scored in pool play against the tied teams, the head-to-head result in pool play will break the tie between those two teams, and determine advancement.

Item 3 Approved

4. Item VI-B4. Structure and Time Schedules (in 2006-2007 These items will move in the Terms and Conditions to be included with Advancement of Winners--Sectional to State Advancement)

Recommendation: If three teams are tied with identical records in a pool, and all three teams have identical total points scored in pool play, the team with the larger number of toss-up questions answered correctly will break the tie, with the head-to-head result in pool play used to break any remaining ties. To read:
If three teams are tied with identical records in a pool, and all three teams have identical total points scored in pool play against the tied teams, the team with the larger number of toss-up questions answered correctly will break the tie, with the head-to-head result in pool play used to break any remaining ties.

Item 4 Approved

5. Item VII-C3. Advancement of Winners State Final Format

Item 5 Approved

6. Item VII-C4. Advancement of Winners State Final Format

Item 6 Approved

7. Item VII-C5. Advancement of Winners State Final Format

Item 7 Approved

8. Item VIII-F. On-Line List of Participants

Recommendation: Eliminate the On-line List of Participants and replace it with an On-line Interactive Team Record Report form. Schools must still present a roster for each level of state series competition.

Rationale: It was the feeling of the committee that the Team Record Report form would be a beneficial tool to Scholastic Bowl hosts. On-Line Team Record Report Form will be submitted to the IHSA Office by the deadline and released to our Scholastic Bowl hosts to aid them in seeding their meet. IHSA will have control in monitoring the schools entered in Scholastic Bowl who may or may not be aware of an impending deadline or seeding meeting that could make them ineligible to compete in the state series.

Item 8 Approved

9. Item VIII-M-7 Tournament Rules, Question Formats (addition):

Recommendation: The topic of the tossup must be different from its bonus. Question topics in a round should be ordered in a non-predictable, apparently random way but with some balance between halves. The last three (3) toss-up questions and the last three (3) bonus questions in each match may not be from the miscellaneous category.

Rationale: This is consistent with common practice; ensures the surprise element of the match; and avoids the appearance of a match being decided by a trivial question on pasta shapes.

Item 9 Approved

10. Item VIII-M-8 Tournament Rules, Question Formats (addition):

Recommendation: Bonus parts should be related in some way (which need not be obvious) and tied together with a setup that helps focus player’s thoughts.

Rationale: This is consistent with common practice.

Item 10 Approved

11. Item VIII-M-9 Tournament Rules, Question Formats (addition):

Recommendation: For non-computational toss-ups, the preferred style is multi-clue, starting with a more challenging clue and ending with a clue that most teams should reasonably be expected to answer correctly. Buzzer-beater questions that virtually any team can be expected to answer after hearing only a few words are discouraged. Toss-ups should begin in a way that uniquely identifies the answer so that an expert in the subject could answer early without having to guess what the question is asking for.

Rationale: This encourages questions that reward knowledge, bringing more legitimacy to our activity, while at the same time allowing a team without an expert to answer a toss-up correctly.

Item 11 Approved

12. Item VIII-M-10 Tournament Rules, Questions Formats (addition):

Recommendation: For non-computational bonus questions, the preferred style for each part is straight forward or single-clue, with brevity a consideration. This guideline is not intended to stifle creativity, limit necessary information, or require that all bonus parts be easy. Like a home run in baseball, sweeping all parts of a bonus should be rare; answering at least one part should be common.

Rationale: This is consistent with common practice, and keeps matches to a reasonable length.

Item 12 Approved

13. Item VIII-M-11 Tournament Rules, Questions Formats (addition):

Recommendation: For computational bonus questions, the preferred order of the parts is from most challenging to easiest. While the bonus parts should be in some way related, having all parts use the same exact formula, pattern, or algorithm is discouraged.

Rationale: This gives teams the most time to solve the most challenging part; allows for more variety; and makes it harder for a team to sweep a math bonus by knowing one method or formula.

Item 13 Approved

14. Item VIII-M-12 Tournament Rules, Questions Formats (addition):

Recommendation: Question writers and/or editors are encouraged to consider and research alternative correct answers and/or common, similar, or related incorrect answers and to list them with instructions to the moderator to “accept also,” “do not accept,” or “prompt on.”

Rationale: This makes the moderator’s job easier; will lead to fewer appeals; and helps guarantee that the same decisions are being made by moderators around the state during the state series.

Item 14 Approved

15. Item VIII-M-13 Tournament Rules, Questions Formats (addition):

Recommendation: Questions must be pristine. While there are many text and internet-based sources for facts from which questions can be constructed, word-for-word plagiarism from copyrighted sources or previously-used question sets is not permitted. Short excerpts from primary sources such as literature, poetry, music, film, and other media are permitted, especially when the intent of the question is to identify the source, author, era, or other information for which the excerpt is a clue.

Rationale: This is consistent with a belief shared by almost all coaches and question writers.

Item 15 Approved

16. Item VIII-M-14 Tournament Rules, Questions Formats (addition):
Recommendation: The vast majority of questions should be academic in nature and relevant to topics typically taught in Illinois high schools, including Advanced Placement courses, as per the sub-categories listed in VIII-O. Each round should contain questions from a variety of places and eras, and no one place or era should dominate any category or the series as a whole. While there should be some basic questions and some challenging questions in every round, the general trend and flow of the series should be increasing in difficulty from Regionals to Sectionals to the State Finals.

Rationale: This encourages questions that reward broad academic knowledge, bringing more legitimacy to our activity. It is also consistent with common practice that encourages a difficulty level of the questions that is commensurate with most of the teams playing at each level of the state series.

Item 16 Approved

17. Item VIII-O-2 Categories and Sub-Categories for Toss-up and Bonus QuestionsRecommendation: Replace “Computers” with “Programming and scripting”

Rationale: This keeps the Mathematics category limited to questions relevant to the fields of mathematics and logical reasoning and shifts questions about computer hardware and the computer industry itself to a proposed technology sub-category under miscellaneous.

Item 17 Approved

18. Item VIII-O-3 Categories and Sub-Categories for Toss-up and Bonus Questions

Recommendation: Replace “History” with “US History” and “World History” – both bold.

Rationale: This will better reflect the content of courses taught in a typical Illinois high school.

Item 18 Approved

19. Item VIII-O-3 Categories and Sub-Categories for Toss-up and Bonus Questions

Recommendation: Group “Psychology”, “Philosophy”, and “Sociology” as “Social Science” – not bold. (Social Science picks up Psychology, Sociology, and other minor courses not covered elsewhere.)

Rationale: This will better reflect the content of courses taught in a typical Illinois high school.

Item 19 Approved

20. Item VIII-O-5 Categories and Sub-Categories for Toss-up and Bonus Questions

Recommendation: Change “Arts” to “Fine Arts” and modify the sub-categories as follows:
Art History
Music History (mostly but not exclusively from the Common Practice Period 1600-1900)
Music Theory
Art Theory
Artistic Dance (dancing legends, choreographers, tap, jazz, modern, ballroom, ballet)
Musical Theater (Broadway, off-Broadway, classic musical cinema)
Architecture

Rationale: This will reduce the chance that a question that is better placed in the Pop Culture sub-category will be placed in an academic category that was intended for fine and performing arts.

Item 20 Approved

21. Item VIII-O-6 Categories and Sub-Categories for Toss-up and Bonus Questions

Recommendation: Replace “Business” with “Technology”

Rationale: A “Consumer Ed” sub-category already exists and is appropriate for questions about the business world. Technology is an area that continues to grow more important in our world.

Item 21 Approved

22. Item VIII-P-5 Breakdown of Questions at all levels of the IHSA State Final Series

Recommendation: Increase Fine Arts from 3 & 3 to 4 & 4 per round.

Rationale: There is widespread belief among coaches that the material in the Fine Arts category is more relevant to our activity than the material in the Miscellaneous category. This will help bring more legitimacy to our activity by reducing the number of questions that could be considered trivia.

Item 22 Approved

23. Item VIII-P-6 Breakdown of Questions at all levels of the IHSA State Final Series

Recommendation: Reduce Miscellaneous from 3 & 3 to 2 & 2 per round.

Item 23 Approved

Administrative Recommendations-Rule Book Changes in Response to Actual Situations

1. Item 3-E-6 Time-outs:

Recommendation: A team may leave the room during a time-out, but must be ready to resume play when the time-out ends. The moderator has the authority to resume play whether or not teams are seated and ready. To read:
A team may leave the room during a time out. In this situation, the moderator or a designated person should call the team back to the room as the time out draws to a close. If a team can’t be located or if they make no attempt to return and get seated in a timely manner, the moderator should declare illegal communication or delay of match as per Rule 4-G-2, apply appropriate (and perhaps ongoing) penalties as per Rule 4-G-3, and resume the match by reading toss-ups and/or bonus questions to or for one team only in an orderly environment.

Rationale: This brings uniformity to the way this situation has been handled, and prevents the match from resuming while players or coaches are talking or moving around the room.

2. Item 3-E-8 Time-outs:

Recommendation: If both teams and coaches are ready before the time is up, the moderator may continue. To read:
When time is up, teams should get seated and ready in a timely manner. If both teams and coaches are ready before time is up, the moderator may resume the match.

Rationale: This is more reasonable than expecting teams to try and predict when time will be up.

3. Item 3-F-1 Halftime:

Recommendation: There will be a 2-minute intermission between halves. To read:
There will be an intermission between halves of five (5) minutes; the match can resume sooner if both Head Coaches agree.

Rationale: This provides enough time for someone to go to the bathroom, but also permits the match to resume quickly if both teams are ready to do so.

4. Item 4-A-3h During the Match Communication (addition):

Recommendation: With the permission of his or her Head Coach, who has initiated an appeal, making a reasonable, civil, tactful, and professional appeal.

Rationale: This is consistent with a common practice that most moderators allow; allows an expert player to explain something on which their coach may not be an expert; and encourages players to think critically and to present an appeal in a manner consistent with what we expect from coaches.

5. Item 4-B-3 Answering:

Recommendation: A player's initial response to a question will be considered to be the player's answer. Corrections, if attempted, will result in an automatic ruling as an incorrect answer. In particular, once a player has started to spell a word, restarting the spelling, even if the same spelling is repeated, will result in an automatic ruling as an incorrect answer. To read:
A player’s initial response to a question will be considered to be the player’s answer. Corrections, if attempted, will result in an automatic ruling as an incorrect answer. Pausing and restarting, or going back and repeating a portion of an answer without changing the answer or introducing obvious confusion is permissible.

Rationale: This allows players to state their answer more clearly, if they start stuttering or get confused giving a long answer. It does not allow them to recover from mistakes.

6. Item 4-B-8 Answering (addition):

Recommendation: If a required form or constraint for an answer is specified in the question, answers in a different form should be ruled incorrect with no prompting, unless the alternative form is specified as “accept also” along with the answer on the question set. If an answer is given after an early buzz, before the required form or constraint is specified, and it meets the intent of the entire question but does not match the required form or constraint, then it should be ruled correct.

Rationale: This prevents players from being penalized for not following specifications they have not heard yet, while at the same time requiring them to follow specifications that they have heard.

7. Item 4-B-9 Answering (addition):

Recommendation: For computations, if a required form is not specified, then the answer must be in a “simplest form.” When there is a disagreement on what constitutes “simplest form” the proper procedure for appeals as outlined in Rule 4-I should be followed.

Rationale: This is consistent with common practice in most areas of the state; adds clarity and consistency to the rules; and requires that both teams complete math problems to the same extent.

8. Item 4-B-10 Answering (addition):

Recommendation: Answering with the former name of a person, place, or thing, including the birth name of someone who is more commonly known by a different name, should be ruled incorrect, unless the question is specifically constructed to elicit the former name, or the former name is listed as “accept also” by the question writer. With disputed names (e.g. Taiwan/Republic of China) or pen names (e.g. Clemens/Twain) either name is acceptable; an appeal may be required to establish the facts. Answering with a married woman’s commonly-known maiden name should be ruled correct.

Rationale: This clarifies a point of contention that has not previously been covered in the rules.

9. Item 4-C-1a Completeness-Names:

Recommendation (addition): For persons who are historically known primarily by their first name only or by a nickname, that name is sufficient (e.g. Moses, Dante, Raphael, Michelangelo, Pele)

Rationale: This is consistent with common practice, clarifying when first names are sufficient.

10. Item 4-C-2 Completeness-Additional Correct Information:

Recommendation (addition): If a required form or constraint for an answer is specified in the question, answers in a different form should be ruled incorrect with no prompting, unless the alternative form is specified as “accept also” along with the answer on the question set. If an answer is given after an early buzz, before the required form or constraint is specified, and it meets the intent of the entire question but does not match the required form or constraint, then it should be ruled correct.

Rationale: This clarifies situations that were being interpreted differently by different moderators.

11. Item 4-D-1c Toss-Up Questions:

Recommendation: Remove “WHICH SHOULD THIS BE, THE RED TEXT?”

Rationale: This was a typo.

12. Item 4-E-3c Bonus Questions:

Recommendation (addition): Requests to repeat from anyone else will be ignored with no penalty.

Rationale: This prevents teams from being penalized for a minor error that is best ignored, and is consistent with common practice since talking is already legal during consultation.

13. Item 4-I-1e Appeals to the Moderator

Recommendation: Change “two” to “three”.

Rationale: This was a typo.

14. Item 4-I-1g Appeals to the Moderator:

Recommendation: After initiating an appeal, the Head Coach may designate a player on his or her team, or the opposing team, including a player not currently in the match, to make the appeal

15. Item 4-K-3 Moderators Authority to Make or Change Decisions:

Recommendation: Moderators should understand that it is well within the rules to change a decision at the times enumerated in Rule 4-K-2, but may not change a decision once they have begun the next toss-up or bonus by reading the first word of the question. To read:
Once the moderator has begun reading a bonus question, any decision that was made on the toss-up for that bonus is final. Once the moderator has begun reading a toss-up question, any decisions that were made on the previous toss-up and/or bonus are final. Exception: The moderator can change a decision on one or more parts of the immediately previous bonus if new information comes to light and only if it is on a bonus part that both teams had a chance to answer.

Rationale: This allows a moderator’s error to be fixed if it can be fixed in a clean manner.

16. Item 4-K-4 Moderators Authority to Make or Change Decisions:

Recommendation: The Moderator may rule the first team’s possibly-correct answer to a toss-up incorrect without hesitation or pause, even if it might later be proven to be correct, in order to allow the second team to answer before a consultation or an appeal is initiated. This is done to avoid giving an advantage to the second team (via body language or visual cues) just in case the first team’s answer is indeed proven to be incorrect.

Rationale: This is consistent with common practice, and allows a moderator an option on questionable answers, allowing the second team to give their answer before the problem is resolved.

17. Item 4-L-1 Distractions (new):

Recommendation: A distraction is any unexpected sound or action that interferes with the flow of the match, such as a cell phone ringing, loud cough or sneeze, player suddenly yelling at a teammate, school bell going off, fire alarm, nearby explosion, noise in the halls, person bursting into the room, etc.

Rationale: This provides moderators with standard procedures to follow when unusual problems arise during a match, in particular Rule 4-L-4 on replacing a question.

18. Item 4-L-2 Distractions (new):

Recommendation: If the distraction is serious (e.g. fire alarm, severe illness, building collapse) the moderator should halt the match immediately and follow emergency procedures. The match may or may not resume, depending on the circumstances. The Local Manager will decide how to proceed.

Rationale: This provides moderators with standard procedures to follow when unusual problems arise during a match, in particular Rule 4-L-4 on replacing a question.

19. Item 4-L-3 Distractions (new):

Recommendation: If the distraction is minor the moderator should pause the match, issue appropriate warnings or penalties if necessary, and resume the match when order is restored.

Rationale: This provides moderators with standard procedures to follow when unusual problems arise during a match, in particular Rule 4-L-4 on replacing a question.

20. Item 4-L-4 Distractions (new):

Recommendations: If and when a match resumes after a distraction, the moderator should replace the question that was in progress when the match was interrupted if not doing so would give an unfair advantage to either team. If no unfair advantage would be gained, the question can simply be restarted.

Rationale: This provides moderators with standard procedures to follow when unusual problems arise during a match.

Case Book Changes and Additions that Clarify Previous and Proposed Rule Changes

1. Item 4-B-3: requires two cases, one to demonstrate confusion, one to demonstrate none

2. Item 4-B-8: may require several cases.

3. Item 4-B-9: may require a case to cover the most commonly-agreed-upon situations.

4. Item 4-B-10: may require several cases.

5. Item 4-D-1c: This case should be adjusted to demonstrate the use of the “blurt rule.”

6. Item 4-K-5: requires a case

Items of General Discussion

Selecting Regional/Sectional Hosts

Sending questions to Regionals and Sectionals
Move Regionals to Tuesday to avoid the Casimir Pulaski Holiday
On-line rosters/Record Report forms
Moderator certification
Length of halftime
Breaking ties in pool play
Eliminate seeding meetings
Minimum match rule for IHSA State Series entry
How to handle misrepresentations on the team record report forms
IHSA sponsored State wide proofing for Regional/Sectional questions via email
State wide Workshop for Coaches and Moderators
Online registration issues
How are seeded teams distributed in Regionals
Terms and Conditions that govern the question sets
Rule and Case changes in response to situations that have come up