IHSA Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

The IHSA Scholastic Bowl Advisory Committee met at the IHSA Office, Bloomington, Illinois on Monday, April 28, 2008, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Committee Members present were: Thomas Egan, Coach, Park Ridge (Maine South); Susan Martin, Coach, Wheaton (North), Cynthia Wierzba, Coach, Farmington; Jeannine Johnson, Coach, Macon (Meridian); Others in attendance, Ron McGraw, IHSA Asst. Executive Director; Rob Grierson, Coordinator of Officials, Winnetka (New Trier); David Reinstein, Coach, Winnetka (New Trier) & representative of the Coaches Association; John Rathbun, State Meet Manager, Peoria.

1. Item V-B–8: Sectional Seeding Procedure Modification
Recommendation: To modify the seeding process as follows: The best team should be given the numerical ranking of 8 instead of 1. The team with the highest total will be given the number one seed.

Rationale: Because only the top eight teams are seeded in a sectional (instead of all teams), this is necessary in order for the process to work as intended.

2. Item VII-C-3: Advancement of Winners
Recommendation: To modify the procedure for breaking ties at the State Finals as follows: 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 all advancement (regardless of head to head records in that pool).

Recommendation: Make “Interdisciplinary” a major (bold) sub-category under “Miscellaneous”

Rationale: Interdisciplinary questions are academic, and have been well-received in recent years.

4. Item VIII-R-3
Recommendation: No coach should at any time prior to the conclusion of the competition, view the questions in any round(s) in which their team will compete.

Rationale: We know that some coaches serve as local tournament managers. We also know some coaches serve as moderators, typically for preliminary rounds. Section R should include language that states that no coach should see questions their team will hear, prior to that match, whether that coach is the local manager or a moderator for a preliminary round.

5. Item VII-J-2: Uniform Rule
Recommendation: If it is discovered that a player with an illegal uniform started or entered the match, and at least one toss-up has been read while that player was in the match, the moderator will call a time out. The player must leave the match, and a substitute player with a legal uniform, if available, may enter in his/her place. The player with the illegal uniform may not re-enter the match until he/she has a legal uniform and the coach has called a time out. If a substitute player with a legal uniform is not available; 30 points shall be awarded the opponents and the player with the illegal uniform may re-enter the match immediately.

Rationale: Allows for correction of the moderator’s error (not catching it) without penalty unless the team does not have five players with matching tops, in which case the penalty is the same as it it would be at the start of the match.

RULE 4-B-8: A well written question will be clear in what it is asking from the start and will guide the listener towards that answer throughout. Inevitably, though, players will sometimes buzz in, early or not, and give an early alternative answer or a different form of the printed answer (i.e. plural instead of singular, adjective instead of noun, etc.). Moderators have the authority and the responsibility to accept or reject alternative answers and different forms of answers, using their best judgment, as long as their decision is not contrary to a decision made in the moderator’s meeting, or an instruction by the question writer to accept or reject a specific alternative answer. If a moderator (or a coach, on appeal) believes that a toss-up has misled the listener by clearly changing intent or direction (also known as a “hose”), and that has resulted in a wrong answer on an early buzz by one or both teams, the moderator should discard the toss-up and replace it for both teams to hear.

Rationale: The proposed version of the rule gives much more leeway for the moderator to make commonsense decisions based on whether the player actually has the knowledge that the question is designed to elicit, rather than penalizing a player (and a team) for responding with a mostly-correct but slightly different answer.

Rule 4-C-2: Additional Correct Information: If, on an early buzz, prior to a clear specification of what is being asked, a player gives additional correct information that pertains to the correct answer, without pause, up to a total of two pieces of information (i.e. the correct answer and one other piece of information), the answer will be ruled correct. If a player gives additional correct information that has no direct bearing on the question or the answer, or a player includes additional incorrect information, the answer will be ruled incorrect. If the moderator is in doubt if any additional information is correct, they may choose to consult match personnel in the room, coaches, or other resources in the room within a reasonable amount of time. In any case, the moderator's decision must be rendered quickly. This rule may apply to, but is not limited to, creator/creation situations such as those that arise with authors, artists, and scientists. Whether on an early buzz or not, giving common-sense extra information, such as additional geographic specificity, subtitles, additional specificity for a person’s name, additional designations for an act, law, battle, or other historical event, and so on, should –if the extra information is deemed factual-always be ruled correct. Adding extra information that was given in the question to a correct answer should never result in an incorrect ruling.

Rationale: The proposed version of the rule gives much more leeway for the moderator to make common-sense decisions based on whether the player actually has the knowledge that the question is designed to elicit, rather than penalizing a player (and team) for responding with a mostly-correct but slightly-different answer.

*Three Part Bonus Requirement: A lengthy discussion took place as the proposal to change all bonus questions to 3 parts with each part being worth 10 points was reviewed. The specifics of the proposal were outlined for the committee. The proposal suggests that each part of the question would be read separately. The teams would have 10 seconds (could be a different time allowed) to confer and then the team in control can answer the question. If correct, they receive 10 points, if incorrect the other team has the opportunity to answer the question (without further discussion). This represents a major change to our current format. The question was tabled for now as our member schools have time to investigate the system for themselves. Apparently there are 4 or 5 tournaments across the state that currently uses this system. Schools will be informed by the coaches association about opportunities to participate in or observe competitions in this format. Input from member schools would be important prior to making a change of this magnitude. Look for future information from the coaches association. Adopting this format could make questions easier to write and the matches to be shorter.

*The move of the State Finals to Friday and a review of the new facilities.
*Tiered questions, the pros and cons.
*The All State selection process and recognition opportunities for those students.
*The future of team lunch at the State Final venue was reviewed.
*Make the category, Music History a major sub-category as was approved last year.
*Dropping “Driver’s Ed.” as a sub category
*Requiring that zero round matches in regional tournaments be played as a dual match on an evening or afternoon the week before.
*Numbers of volunteers at the State Finals.
*Are we creating too many rules to be clearly understood by coaches and officials?

IHSA Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 2007-08

Scholastic Bowl Advisory Committee