Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 75
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    Actually, at least in LJ and TJ, they now have the technology to measure attempts without putting markers in the sand.
    Seiko debuted that, I believe, at Daegu in '11

    https://www.iaaf.org/news/feature/se...rate-the-stars
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,052
    Quote Originally Posted by gh View Post
    Seiko debuted that, I believe, at Daegu in '11[/url]
    Nowadays, the technology is used in Polish national champs, so I guess it's no longer that cutting edge or prohibitively expensive,
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Indian Territory
    Posts
    13,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    Actually, at least in LJ and TJ, they now have the technology to measure attempts without putting markers in the sand.
    Some form of laser point measurement has become common but there is an an occasional problem when sand condition/texture/moisture and light almost dictate a physical marker.
    Caveat: Check calibration periodically/frequently.. batteries get weak,stands get jostled and stuff happens
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    So while EDM and VDM both involve an official marking a point (either in sand, on turf, or on video), this modest proposal suggests that we “let electronic eyes determine the lowest height that 100% of the body clears.” Throw in the complication of an athlete possibly hitting a bar on the way up or down and I’m not so sure the technology already exists.

    VDM can probably determine whether a pre-set height was "touched" by the athlete's body, if we want to set that as the definition of a failed attempt. I happen to agree with gh that a brushed bar clearance is one of the most exciting moments in the sport.

    Also, I think the idea of not moving pole vault standards (and thus the horizontal placement of the bar) changes the event significantly, probably to the detriment of many vaulters.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,460
    Quote Originally Posted by bad hammy View Post
    Well if you like chess matches you might want to go to a chess tournament instead. Or if you like chess in track so much, why not change the other field events to be more PV/HJ chess-like. In the SP, for instance, start everyone (pro meet) shooting at a line 65 feet out, give everyone three shots, then add six inches, until your late-event chess match plays out.

    And from an athlete's perspective, when I was one I wanted a PR on every attempt. For HJ/PVers there's a lot of attempts taken each meet before you get a chance at a PR. I say go for a PR every time . . .
    There you go....an interesting idea...a lot easier to follow...
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Quote Originally Posted by wamego relays champ View Post
    Also, I think the idea of not moving pole vault standards (and thus the horizontal placement of the bar) changes the event significantly, probably to the detriment of many vaulters.
    The electronics will be built into devices that sorta look like standards (21 feet high and as wide as we allow standards to move horizontally (two-three feet??)). The athlete could request a specific bar height and standard setting, the electronics would take care of the positioning of the virtual crossbar.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    And while were looking at field events, in the horizontal jumps count all of the distance between the first foot plant and the pit entry. If the jumper misses the takeoff board by a foot it doesn't matter; they get the foot. In fact get rid of the takeoff board. All aiming for the board does is force athletes to focus on something besides the length of the jump, causing choppy steps and shorter jumps. After all, the goal is to see how long you can jump. All those constraints reduces overall length.

    The Olympic motto is Faster, Higher, Stronger. Nothing there about clearing bars or hitting takeoff boards . . .
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Fishers, IN
    Posts
    7,544
    Quote Originally Posted by LuckySpikes View Post
    The building tension over 1 or 2 hours as the heights progress, the clutch clearances at the 3rd attempt, the wobbling bars (will it, won't it?) ... these are what make vertical jumps great to watch.

    No need to change them. They're fine as they are. And there's certainly no need for laser beam bars. Having to clear an actual solid bar is all part of the skill involved.
    Read the above, and CASE CLOSED
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    England
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by bad hammy View Post
    And while were looking at field events, in the horizontal jumps count all of the distance between the first foot plant and the pit entry. If the jumper misses the takeoff board by a foot it doesn't matter; they get the foot. In fact get rid of the takeoff board. All aiming for the board does is force athletes to focus on something besides the length of the jump, causing choppy steps and shorter jumps. After all, the goal is to see how long you can jump. All those constraints reduces overall length.

    The Olympic motto is Faster, Higher, Stronger. Nothing there about clearing bars or hitting takeoff boards . . .
    But what about long & triple jumpers competing at meetings/stadiums that can't afford to purchase or hire the technology that would be necessary to pinpoint where the take-off point is? They are put at an immediate disadvantage, one that could be the difference between qualifying for a major championships or not.

    It simply wouldn't be fair to bring in such rule changes if not everyone had the opportunity to benefit from them.
    Last edited by LuckySpikes; 09-07-2019 at 10:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,460
    Of course before all these fancy ideas how about a one turn stagger in the 400....that would be progress...
    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
  •