Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New LJ/TJ Takeoff Foul Rule.

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    Which is why you have OFFICIALS, who make that call.
    then why are you so intent on playing official by remote?

    Comment


    • #17
      Forget the new horizontal jumps take-off ruling, I'm more worried about the changes to Technical rule 1, allowing the Olympics & Worlds to include non-standard formats....by the time the next Worlds are here, it'll be that awful last clutch round, you can bet on it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gh View Post
        then why are you so intent on playing official by remote?
        ??!!

        My statement was

        Originally posted by Atticus View Post
        That'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.
        Since we were discussing the change to a track rule, I expressed my opinion that there's another change I'd like to see: officials having the option of giving a yellow card for an offense which they could not see on video replay. In a video slow-motion replay, the commentators could not see a jump, but mentioned that sometimes a small wiggle on he pad causes the sensor to detect a 'start'. Wouldn't it be nice if officials could decide if it was NOT a FS, by video evidence, and just give a warning?
        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


        • #19
          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 rule change allows for alterations to be made based on COVID considerations. I like the change for allowing that reasonable latitude, but I hope we don't see an overreach.

          The devil's lurking in the details.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by dj View Post
            I like the change for allowing that reasonable latitude, but I hope we don't see an overreach. The devil's lurking in the details.
            I propose Calvinball rules, where you can make changes in mid-competition.
            "Sure, that was foul, but as of five minutes ago, the board was moved forward by six inches, so mark it!"

            Comment


            • #21
              Did I mention, I like the new LJ/TJ takeoff rule?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by donley2 View Post

                Frankly I think multiple people were anticipating the gun.
                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.
                Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Powell View Post
                      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.
                      Do you have a link to something that gives details/background on what you are talking about here?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Powell View Post
                        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.
                        I have seen that and wondered, but never seen any documentation to verify it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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.
                          Really??? It is an age-old tactic that is still in evidence.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.
                            Back a while ago, mikli in a thread about September 2011 (he stopped posting under that name in 2013; he is Finnish)) provided a lot of data on the RTs in the sprints (maybe just the 100) that came from the top-level meets (what was DL before DL, the WCs/OGs). The number of observations was quite large. As I remember it (and I I cannot find my Excel file with the data and my analysis of it; unfortunately it is a couple machines back and one had disk failure...) When you look at the frequency domain (i.e., how many starts in different time bins such as 0.15 - 0.154) there was a broad peak in the 0.15 - 0.18 range, which started declining increasingly rapidly below 0.130 and very rapidly below 0.115 or 0.120, such that there were only a handful below 0.115, including the what were likely false starts that were just above the conservative threshold. My memory of my understanding of the data is that it is possible that none of the marks below 0.110 were legitimate starts. It gets a little messy because there are a few cases of one athlete 'twitching' in a manner that did not set off a FS but another reacting to it and ending up in the 0.090 - 0.115 range. It is my opinion that a time like 0.089 is not an actual response to the 'gun'.

                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by gm View Post
                              Really??? It is an age-old tactic that is still in evidence.
                              Back in the old FS-rules days, I could see it. Not any more.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                                Back in the old FS-rules days, I could see it. Not any more.
                                Duly noted.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X