Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 14 of 19 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 184
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Now, back to the meet. My practice is to watch the superfeeds of all the field events before seeing the spoilers in the track feed. The coverage of the Monaco MPV was 2 1/2 hours of great athletics. Lisek's 6.02 NR was clean all the way. I don't think he touched a bar. Five vaulters celebrating on the pad after that clearance was classic. Mondo and Braz(!) barely missed 6.02. Both Lavellenies stepped up. Great stories, plots and subplots, down through the entire competition.

    Considering where we are in the season, seeing every vaulter in the field on a positive trajectory, I would bet we will see a competition this year with at least four vaulters over 6 meters.

    (This fearless prediction brought to you by a middle distance runner whose only lifetime PV attempt had my pole missing the box, and me sliding on my back through sawdust, coming to a stop, and asking our real vaulter, "Did I make it?")
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Master403 View Post
    Lisek's 6.02 NR was clean all the way. I don't think he touched a bar.
    I believe he did touch it on his 6.02 clearance, but not by much. I wouldn't have called it a lucky clearance in any case.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    tallahassee
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Master403 View Post
    IAAF tightened Rule 146.4(a)

    “Competing 'under protest' shall not be allowed if the false start was indicated by an IAAF certified Start Information System, unless for any reason the Referee determines that the information provided by the System is obviously inaccurate.“


    The current IAAF Rulebook (unlike previous editions) embeds interpretations in the Rules, sort of a casebook. There is an extensive writeup following 146.4.

    As far as this case, I agree with all the posts that say Montgomery should have been booted. The officials mucked this up as badly as I can remember in a meet at this level. (Feel free to see me and raise me one.)
    I presume the officials assigned to the Monaco meet are familiar with the latest version of IAAF rules. I also can't see the slightest reason why they would want to bend the rules to favor Montgomery.

    A possible explanation is that, for some technical reason, the Start Information System did not provide an accurate data readout in this instance. The broadcast commentators complained about the non-DQ but they never said they had received transmission of a readout reflecting Montgomery's false start.

    The questions may then follow: If the readout didn't accurately show the false start, then why was Montgomery ultimately DQd, and why after the race rather than immediately?

    In reviewing the IAAF false start rule, I noticed a significant change in this year's notes. The notes were previously written to suggest that, when the electronic blocks start system was in use, only a detected release of pressure from the blocks could be the basis for a DQ, at least for a first offense.

    In this year's edition, a note has been added to Rule 162.7 to provide that the starter may DQ an athlete for body motion that begins before the gun, even if not detected by the electronic system. This new note does not come with any elaboration about when/how the starter is to make this determination and, in particular, whether it may be aided by video review after a race is run, under protest or not.

    I don't have the information to say that this is the explanation for the course of events, but it is at least possible Monaco officials were following a protocol consistent with the rules as now written.

    Track and field, IAAF and USATF, would benefit from a culture of more transparency and a more felt obligation to provide an intelligible explanation for officials' actions and lack of actions.

    http://hyderabadathletics.com/IAAF%2...02018-2019.pdf
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    3,370
    They showed the reaction time read out on the live broadcast.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    tallahassee
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by donley2 View Post
    They showed the reaction time read out on the live broadcast.
    You're right; they did flash the data. There had to be a thought process as to why they didn't show him the red card on the track and we don't know what it was.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    player:
    I liked your responses: well thought out and citing the appropriate Rules.

    I agree 100% with your comment on transparency. When there is a dq, the results reference the Rule violation by number. But when there is a recalled start, there is no record that it occurred. I would like to see as a part of official results of a race, a link to recalled start(s). That link would include the reaction times, then a note after RTs, such as:
    DQ Rule 146.4
    Green, noise at start
    Yellow, moved, but did not commence starting motion
    Green, reacted to other runner's motion
    Green, blocks slipped

    In Montgomery's case, discussion of the FS technology is irrelevant. Mr Magoo could have called the infraction. Possibly there was a noise only he and an assistant starter heard. In that case, it should have been announced and memorialized.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by scottmitchell74 View Post
    Yeah, I noticed that. Goule was all eyes head thrown back, Muir was grimacing and Wilson looked very collected the whole way. I think she can go way deeper.
    Wilson always looks like that, as does Muir. IMO, Wilson has mastered the art of not looking distressed, doesn't mean she can go a lot faster. Having said that, I hope she breaks her AR this year.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by berkeley View Post
    Wilson always looks like that, as does Muir. IMO, Wilson has mastered the art of not looking distressed, doesn't mean she can go a lot faster. Having said that, I hope she breaks her AR this year.
    If you look at Salwa Eid Naser when she's finishing a 400 she manages to run as relaxed as possible. Very little tension in her face, unlike most of those trailing. SMU ET and SFP also do this. Evelyn Ashford was unmatched in this respect.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by player View Post
    McLaughlin, Harrison and Wilson all with season's bests in their wins. First two should be favorites for Doha gold. Wilson is going to need a court ruling.

    Old men Rodgers and Gatlin looking good to keep their first two legs on the 4x1. As for Lyles, there's no American 100m runner showing the class to make it even a close call whether he should be on the 4x1, even if he doesn't run the 100m at champs.

    But I wonder whether Lyles and Coleman can get on well enough to share a relay exchange. And agree on who should anchor.
    Rodgers-Lyles-Gatlin-Coleman. That will avoid two younger hotheads having to exchange. Lyles will be better on the backstretch that the curve but Gatlin can do either.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by berkeley View Post
    Rodgers-Lyles-Gatlin-Coleman. That will avoid two younger hotheads having to exchange. Lyles will be better on the backstretch that the curve but Gatlin can do either.
    Why Coleman would be on any leg other than the lead off is beyond me.
    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
  •