Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA Olympic Team Selection Clarification

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Where is LawDude when we need him?! Tandfman?
    Maybe bambam can suss it out.
    gh?
    Last edited by Atticus; 04-08-2021, 04:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Events where we may be short of athletes who meet the standard:
      wHJ
      wTJ
      wJT
      wHept

      mHJ
      mDT
      mHT
      mJT
      mDec

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gm View Post
        not addressing issue!
        Hey, you know people who know people - ask them!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
          Hey, you know people who know people - ask them!
          Ask them.... what, precisely?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by gm View Post
            Ask them.... what, precisely?
            [where's the exasperated emoji?]

            Is my assessment (first post) correct? Or is one of the following posts correct?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by player View Post
              In context, those words signify that, as an initial matter, athletes with the qualifying standard are only competing against other athletes with the standard for spots on the team. And only if this "head-to-head competition" does not fill the three team spots and the alternate spot do the WA rankings come into play, as a backup means of selection.
              From across the pond, I agree with this interpretation. This strikes me as much less complicated than the usual British selection criteria!

              Some examples of how I understand it would work (A=someone with the QS, B=someone qualified via WA rankings, X=someone with neither the QS or qualified by WA rankings):

              1st place in trials A
              2nd " " " A
              3rd " " " A
              4th " " " A
              first 3 on team 4th is an alternate

              1st A
              2nd B
              3rd X
              4th B
              5th B
              1, 2 and 4 on team, 5th is an alternate

              1st B
              2nd A
              3rd X
              4th B
              5th X
              6th A
              1, 2 and 4 on team, 6th is an alternate

              Comment


              • #22
                When I read this and note the conjunctions underlined:

                "If, after the close of the 2020 U.S. Olympic Trials, there is a place or are places in an event(s) on the 2020 U.S. Olympic Team that have not been filled, USATF will enter an athlete(s) or designate an athlete as an alternate, based upon their rank order of place finish at the 2020 U.S. Olympic Trials, and who are on the July 1, 2021 list of World Athletics Qualified Athletes*.
                *As best defined by World Athletics the qualified athletes list: A full list of athletes eligible to compete in Tokyo 2020 by virtue of having been granted a universality place, of having achieved the relevant entry standard and/or of their position in the World Rankings."

                That 'and' means you have to be on the WAQA qual list, however you got there (auto-Q mark OR World Ranking points).
                The 'and/or' also means they are equally weighted, auto-Q or ranking.

                So how do we interpret that to mean that having the auto-Q mark trumps the place on the qual list (WAQA)?

                I must be missing something obvious!


                Comment


                • #23
                  the obvious is that WA has made it clear that anybody who has a Q-standard mark is in (subject to 3-per-country stricture).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Trickstat View Post
                    1st B
                    2nd A
                    3rd X
                    4th B
                    5th X
                    6th A
                    1, 2 and 4 on team, 6th is an alternate
                    Im seeing this situation as a bit more complicated though.

                    What if 6th place:​​​​​
                    a. has the standard but no ranking
                    b. has the standard AND a ranking HIGHER than 4th place
                    c. has the standard AND a ranking LOWER than 4th place

                    I imagine there could be a few NCAA athletes who have the standard but no world ranking or a lower world ranking.

                    But If gh is right, then the Q standard takes precedent anyway.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If you look at the road to tokyo lists shown above, anyone with the auto-q is listed at the top of those lists and whether they have a world ranking or not is a non-issue, they are in. On that I 100% agree with GH. The issue here is this

                      what if using Trickstats A, B, X coding the results are like this
                      1. B
                      2. A
                      3. B
                      4-22 X
                      23rd A
                      24th A
                      Some of the interpretations suggested above are trying to say that the team is 2,23 and 24 or an even more extreme example could be 22,23 and 24.

                      With Atticus interpretation (which is the one I prefer) the team is 1,2,3.
                      Last edited by donley2; 04-08-2021, 09:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by gh View Post
                        the obvious is that WA has made it clear that anybody who has a Q-standard mark is in (subject to 3-per-country stricture).
                        oh . . . so USATF just left that out. The TOE does not approve. C- on that essay! Harrrumphhh.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by gh View Post
                          the obvious is that WA has made it clear that anybody who has a Q-standard mark is in (subject to 3-per-country stricture).
                          So instead of lawyering up the language how about something simple such as "first three across the line with the standard are in. Next one gets the alternate and we'll fill in with WA qualifiers if there aren't enough with the standard"?

                          It's remarkable that with every major qualifying meet the method has to be interpreted.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Atticus View Post

                            So how do we interpret that to mean that having the auto-Q mark trumps the place on the qual list (WAQA)?

                            I must be missing something obvious!

                            If you finish in the first 3 in the Trials and you have the auto-Q mark you are 100% guaranteed on the team. I assume it might just about be possible to make the top 3 in the Trials, not have the auto-Q and be just in on the WA rankings at the time of your event but be pushed down the rankings by the end of the meet?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by donley2 View Post
                              If you look at the road to tokyo lists shown above, anyone with the auto-q is listed at the top of those lists and whether they have a world ranking or not is a non-issue, they are in. On that I 100% agree with GH. The issue here is this

                              what if using Trickstats A, B, X coding the results are like this
                              1. B
                              2. A
                              3. B
                              4-22 X
                              23rd A
                              24th A
                              Some of the interpretations suggested above are trying to say that the team is 2,23 and 24 or an even more extreme example could be 22,23 and 24.

                              With Atticus interpretation (which is the one I prefer) the team is 1,2,3.
                              I agree with Atticus. The athlete who came 2nd made the team at the end of this event. At the end of the meet, the 1st and 3rd athletes qualify via their WA ranking. The athlete in 23rd would be an alternate.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Trickstat View Post

                                From across the pond, I agree with this interpretation. This strikes me as much less complicated than the usual British selection criteria!

                                Some examples of how I understand it would work (A=someone with the QS, B=someone qualified via WA rankings, X=someone with neither the QS or qualified by WA rankings):

                                1st place in trials A
                                2nd " " " A
                                3rd " " " A
                                4th " " " A
                                first 3 on team 4th is an alternate

                                1st A
                                2nd B
                                3rd X
                                4th B
                                5th B
                                1, 2 and 4 on team, 5th is an alternate

                                1st B
                                2nd A
                                3rd X
                                4th B
                                5th X
                                6th A
                                1, 2 and 4 on team, 6th is an alternate
                                I thank you kindly for the comment and the support but have to differ on the last scenario.

                                The team would be 2,6 and 1. The alternate would be 4.

                                The only way an A finisher can be the alternate is if three A's finish ahead of him at Trials.






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X