Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WA certified tracks around the world

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #46
    Yes, it could be interpreted that "allowing competition in either direction by two groups of athletes simultaneously" is what is mandatory for Construction Categories I and II. Angels on the head of a pin.

    Comment


    • #47
      important bottom line: no matter how the rule is meant to be read, Eugene's WC will go off with the interior runways

      Comment


      • #48
        And thank goodness...

        Comment


        • #49
          In my long experience, there are far more LJ/TJ facilities inside than outside the track. What I hate is when they are behind the stands or in the end zone or somewhere out of sight.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by bad hammy View Post
            Portland had an Indoor WC a few years back, but on a temp track (presumably certified) that ended up somewhere I don't recall.

            The University of Iowa bought it. Since then, they have hosted a lot more indoor meets than they had on their old surface.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Alan Sigmon View Post
              ------

              It seems to me that there is some ambiguity in the phrase "This is mandatory for Construction Categories I and II." In particular, exactly what is the antecedent of the word "This"? Does this refer to "outside the track" or does it refer to "two adjacent runways .... allowing competition ... by two groups of athletes simultaneously." The positioning of the word "usually" at the beginning of the sentence suggests that it modifies the word "placed," suggesting that the location is not mandatory.
              I favor this interpretation.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Alan Sigmon View Post

                "2.3.1 LONG JUMP FACILITY (See 2.1.1.2)

                2.3.1.1 Layout (Figures 2.3.1.1a and b)

                The Long Jump facility includes a runway, a take-off board and a landing area. Usually, it is placed outside the track along one of the straights with two adjacent runways with the landing areas offset at each end as shown in Figure 2.5a, thus allowing competition in either direction by two groups of athletes simultaneously. This is mandatory for Construction Categories I and II.

                Now, to me, it's clear that the final sentence negates the "usually" of the previous sentence making all elements of that sentence mandatory for Class 1 and II arenas."


                ------

                It seems to me that there is some ambiguity in the phrase "This is mandatory for Construction Categories I and II." In particular, exactly what is the antecedent of the word "This"? Does this refer to "outside the track" or does it refer to "two adjacent runways .... allowing competition ... by two groups of athletes simultaneously." The positioning of the word "usually" at the beginning of the sentence suggests that it modifies the word "placed," suggesting that the location is not mandatory.
                Obviously, I don't agree with your interpretation but I think we can all agree that whatever, IAAF/WA intended to say, they shouldn't have used those woeful sentences to try and say it! There should be no argument about a simple policy requirement.

                Here's two rewrites with the opposite meanings:

                1. The Long Jump facility includes a runway, a take-off board and a landing area. The layout shown in Figure 2.5 a is mandatory for Construction Categories I and II. Alternative layouts are allowed for other Construction Categories.

                OR, the opposite meaning

                2. The Long Jump facility includes a runway, a take-off board and a landing area. A layout which allows two groups of athletes to compete on parallel runways simultaneously within the arena is mandatory for Construction Categories I and II. The layout shown in Figure 2.5a is strongly preferred but not mandatory for any construction category.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by gm View Post
                  Is there any requirement for a facility to be Class 1 or 2 in order for marks made there to count as world records or for Oly/WC qualifying?
                  The Ukrainian federation are only counting marks made at certified facilities and they have asked Tilastopaja and I believe WA to do the same (though they include class 3). Viktoriya Tkachuk ran 54.59 for 400h in Kyiv on 9 August but the stadium was not certified so it didn't count. (She'd still be 3rd on the world lists, behind compatriot Ryzhykova as well as Bol.) She doesn't count it as her PB either on her instagram page.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Interesting note on Gately Track in Chicago, they hosted their first indoor meet this weekend The Morolake Akinosun Elite Invitational.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Arkansas's indoor track just got certified.... story on home page

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X