Facts, Not Fiction

 
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. Collapse Details
    Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA
    Posts
    5,480
    Rank Athlete Nation Result Wind Diamond Points Diamond Ranking
    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

    1 SPANOVIC Ivana SRB 6.88 +1.5 =WL,NR 6 1
    6.77(+1.0) 6.75(+1.4) 6.62(+1.5) 6.86(+1.9) 6.77(+0.9) 6.88(+1.5)

    2 KLISHINA Darya RUS 6.88 +0.6 =WL 2 3
    6.74(+0.8) x(+1.2) 6.88(+0.6) x(+2.4) 6.81(+2.5) 6.67(+0.9)

    3 LESUEUR Éloyse FRA 6.87 +1.0 SB 1 4
    x(+2.3) x(+1.6) 6.87(+1.0) x(+2.0) x(+1.5) x(+1.9)

    4 REESE Brittney USA 6.86 +1.6 SB
    6.86(+1.6) x(+2.4) x(+1.4) x(+1.4) 6.69(+1.4) 6.80(+2.5)

    5 BOWIE Tori USA 6.82 +0.7 SB
    6.63(+2.1) 6.82(+0.7) x(+1.7) x(+1.0) 6.81(+1.7) 6.73(+0.9)

    6 PROCTOR Shara GBR 6.60 +2.3
    6.58(+0.7) x(+2.1) 6.12(+1.3) 6.60(+2.3) 6.38(+1.3) 6.47(+1.7)

    7 DELOACH SOUKUP Janay USA 6.41 +1.5
    6.23(+1.6) 6.30(+1.7) 6.41(+1.5)
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Re: Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Just outside London
    Posts
    2,959
    Disappointing from Proctor....
    My heart is still in the Caribbean....
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Re: Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,618
    One of the best LJ competitions I've ever seen; too bad it got so little play.

    And on I think it was her third jump, Reese landed at what I thought was close to AR distance, but they called it a foul. Looked to me like she was an inch or two behind the plasticine, but they showed her a mark and she accepted it.

    I'm still not convinced.

    But then, I am entering my Mr. Magoo years.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Re: Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Indian Territory
    Posts
    13,719
    Calling the board can be difficult enough when you are sitting on the foul line, 4 feet away.
    Accurately calling fair/foul jumps from 20-30 meters away, often at an angle, is .... problematic.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Re: Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Everybody knows this is nowhere
    Posts
    6,278
    Stupid question: Why don't they use an infrared sensor?
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Re: Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Indian Territory
    Posts
    13,719
    Quote Originally Posted by booond
    Stupid question: Why don't they use an infrared sensor?
    I have seen them used for visual fouls to determine whether the toe was across the line. However, when plasticine is in use, the rule is "does not touch the ground beyond the foul line". I don't know how a laser would determine that..
    In the Reese jump, a mark was detected in the plastine, presumably confirming a visual call. A laser would only determne that the foot did not cross the foul line whereas in USATF/IAAF rules, it can still be a legal jump if the foot crosses the line but does not touch the ground, implying no impetus was gained beyond the foul line.
    If, as gh suspects, she took off an inch before the foul line, a laser could have confirmed that but I cannot imagine a board judge at this level making that egregious an error.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Re: Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Everybody knows this is nowhere
    Posts
    6,278
    I'm not saying that the judge would miss such a thing. With the technology we have it would seem that the better way to handle things like fouls would be with technology. It may mean a change in distinction as to what is a foul and what isn't a foul.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Re: Pre Classic: LJw - Ivana SPANOVIC 6.88 (+1.5w) =WL, NR
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Indian Territory
    Posts
    13,719
    Quote Originally Posted by booond
    I'm not saying that the judge would miss such a thing. With the technology we have it would seem that the better way to handle things like fouls would be with technology. It may mean a change in distinction as to what is a foul and what isn't a foul.
    Yep, we already have two sets of rules for what is a foul..would be nice to have just one.
    Personally, I would do away with the plasticine rule... NCAA adopted plasticine for a couple of years back in the 1990s... thankfully ran its course...
    I reported to work a meet to find the "grounds crew" , ignorant of plasticine boards, had slathered an inch of plasticine on the metal base plate to which the board should have been attached...had to fix that before we proceeded.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •