Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New LJ/TJ Takeoff Foul Rule.
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by gh View Postthen why are you so intent on playing official by remote?
My statement was
Originally posted by Atticus View PostThat's good, but I also didn't like that Belocian was thrown out of Doha, just on RT (.08ish), when the naked eye, even on video replay, could not detect it. That should be a yellow card, not a red.
The video replay is obviously available quickly, so they can determine whether they see 'starting motion' ahead of the other runners. As in soccer, a second sub-.10 RT could be a red card automatically.
This seems like a reasonable opinion to me (and lonewolf). You often refer to changes you'd like to see in T&F. This is one I'd like to see. That's all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alan Shank View Post. . . I can't believe they would do that in the Oly/WC, but why this rule change?
Is it the thin end of a wedge?
No cheer,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA
The devil's lurking in the details.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dj View PostI like the change for allowing that reasonable latitude, but I hope we don't see an overreach. The devil's lurking in the details.
"Sure, that was foul, but as of five minutes ago, the board was moved forward by six inches, so mark it!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by donley2 View Post
Frankly I think multiple people were anticipating the gun.Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Powell View Post
For me, the idea that any athlete is trying to anticipate the gun is pure BS. You would need to be able to guess the moment at which the gun goes off to within a couple of 1/100s to gain any advantage from it. This is so unlikely to succeed as a strategy that no one in their right mind would try it.
Comment
-
The problem is the methodology used for measuring RTs varies among manufacturers of starting equipment. That is the main reason why you have some meets with a slate of RTs in the 0.10-0.12 range and others where hardly anyone breaks 0.15.Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Powell View PostThe problem is the methodology used for measuring RTs varies among manufacturers of starting equipment. That is the main reason why you have some meets with a slate of RTs in the 0.10-0.12 range and others where hardly anyone breaks 0.15.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Powell View PostThe problem is the methodology used for measuring RTs varies among manufacturers of starting equipment. That is the main reason why you have some meets with a slate of RTs in the 0.10-0.12 range and others where hardly anyone breaks 0.15.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Powell View Post
For me, the idea that any athlete is trying to anticipate the gun is pure BS. You would need to be able to guess the moment at which the gun goes off to within a couple of 1/100s to gain any advantage from it. This is so unlikely to succeed as a strategy that no one in their right mind would try it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by donley2 View Post
Did you see the reported reaction times from that meet for all three of the attempted races? The announcers mentioned that the standard at that meet appeared to be a "quick" gun. There were several numbers below 0.12 for reactions which I frankly am not sure I believe are legit.
The thread has a lot (too many?) comments but here is a link. There is another thread that has mikli, I will search for it and the data.
Added: The thread has comments by mikli and a link from him to the data; unfortunately, I get this message
[/QUOTE]Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete[/QUOTE]
The link I can get to resolve is in this post by mikli
Here is another chart: percentage distribution of each reaction time (baseline 0.1%, intentionally, to remove the noise), based on a dataset of 24108 reaction times.
http://imageshack.us/f/8/percentagedistribution.png/
Below the peak (0.164s, 1.5%) the populations decrease at increasing speed, approximately by:
0.15% from 0.16s to 0.15s
0.4% from 0.15s to 0.14s
0.5% from 0.14s to 0.13s
Thus, the bottom is expected for the next 0.01s range (0.13s to 0.12s), but the decrease slows down because the "false starts" come into play.
Reaction times below 0.120s are extremely rare, not to talk about the real ones. RTs below 0.100s are virtually impossible.
I would say that more of an issue than the reaction time rule (which clearly is not an issue at all) is the current false start rule as we saw in the previous games.Last edited by 26mi235; 09-30-2020, 11:07 PM.
Comment
Comment