Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA Olympic Team Selection Clarification

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by player View Post

    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.
    With respect, I believe you are incorrect. The final part states that:

    "• 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."

    4 will be selected by being the 3rd placed person of those who are on the WA list of qualified athletes.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post

      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.
      The last part should be something like "we'll fill in with WA qualifiers if any of the top 3 do not have the standard working down from the highest placer without the standard".

      Comment


      • #33
        So here's what happens.

        Matt Centrowitz, master tactician that he is, goes undefeated in USA competition, and is ranked very highly in the World Rankings, but does not have the auto-Q, Three guys in the Final do have their auto-Q.
        He WINS the Oly Trials.
        . . . he does not go. The WA says he IS 'qualified' by virtue of his high ranking, but he is not on our team.

        Ain't that a bitch!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Trickstat View Post

          With respect, I believe you are incorrect. The final part states that:

          "• 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."

          4 will be selected by being the 3rd placed person of those who are on the WA list of qualified athletes.
          I see what you're saying but I take the language after the asterisk* to be a factual description of what the WA Qualified Athletes list constitutes. I do not take it to subvert the meaning of the first two bullet points of the rule at issue, which provide that athletes with the Q are, for purposes of the Trials and team selection, in head-to-head competition with each other.

          That competition determines what spots might be left to be filled and then those spots are filled in rank order per the language you emphasize.
          Last edited by player; 04-08-2021, 11:02 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Atticus View Post
            So here's what happens.

            Matt Centrowitz, master tactician that he is, goes undefeated in USA competition, and is ranked very highly in the World Rankings, but does not have the auto-Q, Three guys in the Final do have their auto-Q.
            He WINS the Oly Trials.
            . . . he does not go. The WA says he IS 'qualified' by virtue of his high ranking, but he is not on our team.

            Ain't that a bitch!
            No he would go as, even if the the Auto Q guys get 2, 3, 4 he would get priority over the 4th placer who would be made an alternate.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by player View Post

              I see what you're saying but I take the language after the asterisk* to be a factual description of what the WA Qualified Athletes list constitutes. I do not take it to subvert the meaning of the first two bullet points of the rule at issue, which provide that athletes with the Q are, for purposes of the Trials and team selection, in head-to-head competition with each other.

              That competition determines what spots might be left to be filled and then those spots are filled in rank order per the language you emphasize.
              There will always be team spots left to be filled unless all of the first 3 in an event have got the Q mark. There is nothing to say that an athlete with the Q mark who doesn't make the top 3 will make the team above a WA qualified athlete who beat him or her at the trials.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Trickstat View Post
                No he would go as, even if the the Auto Q guys get 2, 3, 4 he would get priority over the 4th placer who would be made an alternate.
                How does that square with gh's comment.

                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).

                Comment


                • #38
                  that's not what I said

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                    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!

                    To me it looks like a fine example of inelegant drafting. I think what it means is:

                    1. If the first four finishers have met the standard, they are it.

                    2. If there is a position left unfilled (because one of the first four finishers has not met the standard), then that position goes to the highest finisher, not yet on the team, who is on the WAQA. [Note that that may be someone who finished in the top four, because they have not met the standard, but are on the WAQA list by virtue of their ranking. Also note that it doesn’t matter how they got on the list, as for the purpose of selecting the team trials finishing order ranks those on the WAQA.]

                    3. If there are still positions left unfilled, because two or more of the first four finishers have not met the standard, then apply 2 above one or more times until the team is filled, or you run out of finishers who are on the WAQA.
                    Last edited by spinoza; 04-09-2021, 02:06 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      OK let me see if I can get a straight answer...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by gh View Post
                        that's not what I said
                        ?
                        It's the entirety of your post verbatim.
                        Am I being punked?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
                          OK let me see if I can get a straight answer...
                          My simple interpretation is:

                          Step 1. The 3 spots and the alternate won't yet be decided at the end of the trials, unless the top 4 placers have the auto-Q standard.

                          Step 2. For events where the top 4 don't have the auto-Q, wait 4 days after the end of the trials, look at the world rankings, then eliminate all athletes who have neither the auto-Q nor a high enough ranking (top 32, or 48, or however many WA has decided for the event).

                          Step 3. Choose the top 4 (based on trials placing) remaining athletes in each event.

                          By the way, have they yet decided on a tiebreaker rule to determine what happens if there's a repeat of the Felix-Tarmoh scenario?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
                            My simple interpretation is:

                            Step 1. The 3 spots and the alternate won't yet be decided at the end of the trials, unless the top 4 placers have the auto-Q standard.

                            Step 2. For events where the top 4 don't have the auto-Q, wait 4 days after the end of the trials, look at the world rankings, then eliminate all athletes who have neither the auto-Q nor a high enough ranking (top 32, or 48, or however many WA has decided for the event).

                            Step 3. Choose the top 4 (based on trials placing) remaining athletes in each event.
                            That's a pretty good summary.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The second bullet point of the rule at issue reads as follows:


                              "• The fourth (4th) place finisher in the 2020 U.S. Olympic Trials, provided they have met the 2020 Olympic Games qualifying standard during the prescribed period, will self-select himself or herself via head-to head competition for an alternate position."

                              If we give this language a "simple" reading, it seems to say that an athlete who finishes fourth place in an event, and who carries the Q, will be the alternate.

                              But this obviously can't be true, as an unqualified statement, since one or more of the first three places in the event could be taken by an athlete or athletes who are not qualified by the Q or by any other means. In which case the athlete finishing fourth in the event would not be the alternate but rather one of the top three team members.

                              So how do we make the text of this bullet point read true, giving meaning to the words that it contains, while not introducing anything that it does not contain?

                              When you have that answer and apply the same approach to the first bullet point of the rule, which contains the same qualifying phrases, you will have the correct approach to the rule as a whole.
                              Last edited by player; 04-09-2021, 06:33 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
                                My simple interpretation is:
                                Step 1. The 3 spots and the alternate won't yet be decided at the end of the trials, unless the top 4 placers have the auto-Q standard.

                                Step 2. For events where the top 4 don't have the auto-Q, wait 4 days after the end of the trials, look at the world rankings, then eliminate all athletes who have neither the auto-Q nor a high enough ranking (top 32, or 48, or however many WA has decided for the event).

                                Step 3. Choose the top 4 (based on trials placing) remaining athletes in each event.
                                So we're all agreed (now) that an auto-Q trumps Trials finish position for someone on the WA list?
                                If 2-4 have auto-Q and the Winner is at top of WA list, but no auto-Q, he ain't going.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X