Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA Olympic Team Selection Clarification

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    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.
    Huh. How do you get that out of what 18.99 wrote? I read that as squarely in line with your original post.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Atticus View Post
      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.
      That's not how it reads. At the end of the trials, the second and third finishers are on the team, as they have met the standard. The winner does not, in the lovely language of the criteria, "self select", as they have not met the standard. Then you fill the third position "...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." I.e. who was the first finisher in the trials who is not yet on the team and is on the WAQA? That's the person who finished first in the trial.

      Comment


      • #48
        I'm thoroughly confused now!
        So if you want 3 on your team, two MUST have the auto-Q, but the third can come from the list?!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
          I'm thoroughly confused now!
          So if you want 3 on your team, two MUST have the auto-Q, but the third can come from the list?!


          No - Say if no one has the auto-Q, but there are five people in the race who are on the WAQA, then the first four finishers are the team and the alternate.

          Again - any of the first three finishers who have the qualifying time are on the team. If the team isn't full, then fill it by picking the highest finishers who are on the WAQA but are not yet on the team.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by spinoza View Post
            any of the first three finishers who have the qualifying time are on the team. If the team isn't full, then fill it by picking the highest finishers who are on the WAQA but are not yet on the team.
            OK, I'm getting closer.
            Only the top 3 are guaranteed a spot with an auto-Q.
            4th place with an auto-Q does not get a spot if one of those top 3 (with no auto-Q) is on the List?
            Now that I reread the protocol, that does fit, but they sure couldadunna a better job writing it!
            Last edited by Atticus; 04-09-2021, 08:13 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Atticus View Post
              OK, I'm getting closer.
              Only the top 3 are guaranteed a spot with an auto-Q.
              4th place with an auto-Q does not get a spot if one of those top 3 (with no auto-Q) is on the List?
              Now that I reread the protocol, that does fit, but they sure couldadunna a better job writing it!
              That's appears to be the result. What's unclear - and I certainly agree that it could have been crafted with far more art - is whether the first three positions and the alternate are treated as a four person team, or whether the three person team, and the alternate, are treated separately. I.e. - whether an unfilled place in the team is distinct from an unfilled alternate position. The problem arises if one of the first three finishers doesn't "self select" by virtue of having a Q time, but the person in fourth does have a Q time. By the second paragraph, that person has "self-selected" for the alternate position. Then the only unfilled position is one of the 3 person team. Assume the person who finished fifth also has a Q time. As the only unfilled position is on the three person team, the person who finishes fifth is on the team. Note that the alternate position has been filled by someone who finished ahead of them, and may well have a better position on the WAQA list. That seems wrongheaded, but is one way to read the paragraph. I think the intent is that if the team (i.e. 3 + the alternate) isn't filled because they don't all have a Q time, then you complete the team by adding to the team the top finishers that are on the WAQA list, and the alternate is the person who finished last in the trials considering only the 4 now on the team. But that isn't actually what the language of the criteria says - certainly not with any clarity.

              Comment


              • #52
                As I see it, the underlying goal appears to be to stick to the trials order as much as possible; they won't select the 5th placer over 4th, unless the 4th placer is ineligible due to having neither the auto-Q nor a qualifying world ranking.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
                  As I see it, the underlying goal appears to be to stick to the trials order as much as possible; they won't select the 5th placer over 4th, unless the 4th placer is ineligible due to having neither the auto-Q nor a qualifying world ranking.
                  I’m sure that’s the intent, which reflects what I said as to what was intended. I also agree with Atticus that they “...couldadunna a better job writing it!” Nothing really hinges on it, as they have the luxury of interpreting what they said in accordance with what they meant to say.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
                    OK let me see if I can get a straight answer...
                    So other than player the rest of us seem to be in agreement. Did you actually get anything from the real people in the know?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by donley2 View Post

                      So other than player the rest of us seem to be in agreement. Did you actually get anything from the real people in the know?
                      Yes, I did!

                      The team will be filled by the order of finish, regardless of how they qualify. The complication is that if they don't have the auto standard, we have to wait and see if they get in, they cannot be officially announced at the conclusion of the event.

                      Hopefully we only have a handful of events in this situation.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post

                        .... The complication is that if they don't have the auto standard, we have to wait and see if they get in, they cannot be officially announced at the conclusion of the event.

                        .....
                        I'm somewhat surprised to hear this; USOPC has been dogmatic last c ouple of cycles that the team be named for each event at the end of play each day.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
                          The team will be filled by the order of finish, regardless of how they qualify.
                          ??!!
                          Wasn't that my original post?!
                          I'm back to being thoroughly confused again.

                          as far as "Hopefully we only have a handful of events in this situation" [don't have auto-Qs] goes,

                          we have several events in which that could be the case:

                          Men's DT, JT, Dec!
                          Women's HJ, JT

                          If what you say is true, it changes the dynamics of team-selection in quite a few cases. The USA will get lots of people high into the Qual lists that won't have the auto-Q. Having that auto-Q isn't what it was; if 3 or less have it, and you do, you're still gonna hafta finish top 3 to protect yourself from getting shoved out by someone on the list.
                          Last edited by Atticus; 04-15-2021, 06:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by gh View Post

                            I'm somewhat surprised to hear this; USOPC has been dogmatic last c ouple of cycles that the team be named for each event at the end of play each day.
                            They recognized that the new auto-Q standards are so tough that sticking the old approach of "name the team by the end of the day" would significantly decrease the relevance of placing in the top 3 at the trials. They used to be able to count on all of the top 3 having the standard in most events, but sticking to the old rule in 2021 would result in many unwanted scenarios like 3rd, 5th and 8th place being named to the team.

                            And such scenarios could be more extreme in distance races, where if there are 3 or fewer entering with the auto-Q they could just hang out at the back of the pack and jog the rest of the race once they realize the early pace made it too slow to for the winner to finish with an auto-Q. That could result in the team for the 10,000 being made of 18th, 19th and 20th place, and USATF certainly doesn't want that if the alternative is using world rankings to choose the top 3 (or 3 out of the top 5 or whatever).
                            Last edited by 18.99s; 04-16-2021, 06:14 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Although the latter scenario was theoretically possible under the old rules, it was far less likely to occur because it was more likely for there to be at least 4 entering the trials with the less-stringent standard in their pocket. And whenever that wasn't the case, it wasn't as difficult for the other runners to achieve the standard in the trials race itself.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Sloppy writing (and worse editing to not see the problems in the language) created this mess.

                                Apart from everything that's been discussed, there's another loophole that I've not seen mentioned.

                                There is nothing in here to prohibit a series of last-chance meets on June 28-29-30 allowing a non-Q top-3 (or 4) finisher to get a Q and thus becoming eligible before the July 1 entry deadline. In fact the last-chance meets could begin the day after the conclusion of any event. I doubt USATF wants to allow this situation, but I don't see that they've disallowed it.

                                The worms are slipping out of the can . . .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X