# Thread: ¶2019 mWC SP: Joe Kovacs (US) 75-2 (22.91) (WL)

1.
Originally Posted by lonewolf
When a official rushes to a blurry spot on the grass and jabs the reflector pin somewhere in the impact crater. . .
The official is supposed to plant the pin at the very front of the impact crater--the spot nearest to the ring, not "somewhere" in the crater. That having been said, there are obviously limits to the accuracy of that placement.

2.
If they were using 2 centimeter increments in measuring (which is close to the nearest lower inch 2.54 versus 2.00 cm as the increment) then the order would have been Crouser, Walsh and Kovacs.

If the throws were measured in inches (rounded down to the nearest inch), then the original order would be maintained. If measured to the nearest quarter inch Walsh beats Crouser by a mere 0.0295" or 0.075 cm.

75’ 4.0157” => 75’ 4”Kovacs
75’ 3.7795” => 75’ 3”Walsh
75’ 3.7008” => 75’ 3”Crouser

3.
Originally Posted by tandfman
The official is supposed to plant the pin at the very front of the impact crater--the spot nearest to the ring, not "somewhere" in the crater. That having been said, there are obviously limits to the accuracy of that placement.
Key word "supposed".... versus what actually happens most of the time....and, yes, determining that spot nearest the ring is problematic within a cm.

4.
Originally Posted by 26mi235
75’ 4.0157” => 75’ 4”Kovacs
75’ 3.7795” => 75’ 3”Walsh
75’ 3.7008” => 75’ 3”Crouser
Oopsie - math errors!

5.
Originally Posted by Atticus
Oopsie - math errors!
Here are the correct numbers. I grabbed the algebra off of my Metric/Imperial table and I had a rounddown formula with a 2 (number of decimals to round down to) and it got left in when the formula got corrected by Excel for an extra ). Since I was focused on the inch differences I did not catch it. It does mean that even with quarter inches the order is the same as the original order with meters.

 2.00607 1.88796 1.84859

6.
Companies such as Seiko spend \$Millions in developing accurate timing and measurement systems, because their reputation depends upon it. They will not sell a lot of watches if they are not thought to be accurate. Much of this development is aimed at reducing the impact of human error, such as finding the correct landing point of a discus or shot put.
This is why they have been developing the Video Measuring System, which has been used in the LJ/TJ for some years now and was introduced at a trial for Shot in 2017 World Champs and used for first time officially at 2018 World Junior Champs.
This system uses 2 high definition/high speed cameras located along each sector line and uses a form of Direct Linear Transformation to determine measurements. Each camera can spot the exact impact point and an official can go frame by frame looking at the image from both cameras at the same time to determine the landing point of the shot when it enters the ground.
This is seen as the most accurate measuring system and offers two big advantages over other systems, 1: the elimination of human error in locating and staking correct landing point, and keeping EDM reflector level, and 2: the opportunity to go back after the event and review the results and re-read the images when required.
This is similar to reviewing the photo-finish image and determine times to 1/1000 second when necessary. There is still a human involved in reviewing the image, but some are seen as experts in this task, just as some radiographers are seen as better at reviewing medical images!
I believe that the IAAF is looking at a margin of error below 3mm in these systems, but we see how close this competition actually was! 4mm separated the top 3 athletes!
The problem was that the VMS was not used in the Final of the Mens Shot, so there was no chance to review these results, and the reason that it was not used was that the MEns Javelin was scheduled for the same evening, and the Cameras for the VMS would have been placed within the landing sector for the Javelin, so they decided to go back to the EDM laser system.
As this system has been used in all major competitions for the past 20 years or so, without too many questions (except in the case of mismarks of landing point by official), it is strange that so many people are suggesting that we do not accept these results and share the medals, they do not do that in the 100m if they are split by 1/1000s, they accept the accuracy of the system.
All of these systems have to be calibrated accurately, but are all much more accurate than a tape!

7.
Originally Posted by ShaunPickering
Each camera can spot the exact impact point and an official can go frame by frame looking at the image from both cameras at the same time to determine the landing point of the shot when it enters the ground. . . . the elimination of human error in locating and staking correct landing point
I did not know that!

8.
In terms of measurement, the LJ surface is smoothed at the same height (ground equal to the take-off board) to try to get distances to be comparable across jumps (and competitions).

How level is the shot put landing area? The 'crowned' surfaces of many multi-use stadiums (e.g., football) make events like the Javelin problematic in such stadia. In swimming I have heard that even though they can time to fine detail, they cannot assume that the measurement of the pool length is the same across lanes. This must especially be the case in longer events where any discrepancy is multiplied by the lengths swum.

9.
As previously noted, we can measure and time our best guesses/estimates with extreme accuracy

10.
Originally Posted by lonewolf
we can measure and time our best guesses/estimates with extreme accuracy
And that's it. Trying to impute significance to the measurement is where we often go wrong. But we have to do something, so we trust the measurement, even when the human factor is often unreliable.

Page 21 of 22 First ... 1119202122 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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