Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New LJ/TJ Takeoff Foul Rule.

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • lonewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Peter Michaelson View Post

    OK, please forgive my ignorance. 1) How tall is the 90-degree plasticine thing? 2) Suppose you are 6 inches over on your takeoff. Doesn't that thing sticking up hit the arch of your foot as your foot comes down and maybe cause an injury? Or is the plasticine thing entirely made of plasticine and therefore soft?
    Plasticine is a soft, putty-like substance screeded the length of the take off-board in a groove at a 45-degree angle to the height of the top surface of the plasticine tray. There is no danger to the foot. The vertical plane of the plastice simply reduces the likelihood of an upturned toe oveririding the foul line without touching the plasticine, as often happens. ,

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter Michaelson
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf View Post
    Back to calling visual fouls and competent board judges. The 90-degree plasticine instead of 45 degree should take care of the toe override, although I don't know how you screed a 90-degree plasticine strip. Since the advent of the "eagle eye", I have actually seen timid board judges refer to the camera before making every call.
    OK, please forgive my ignorance. 1) How tall is the 90 degree plasticine thing? 2) Suppose you are 6 inches over on your takeoff. Doesn't that thing sticking up hit the arch of your foot as your foot comes down and maybe cause an injury? Or is the plasticine thing entirely made of plasticine and therefore soft?

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    I have seen that and wondered, but never seen any documentation to verify it.
    I was told that by someone who is very knowledgeable in the technical details of T&F. But no, I don't have any 'official' sources to confirm it.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    Did I mention, I like the new LJ/TJ takeoff rule?

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    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!"

    Leave a comment:


  • dj
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X