Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA Olympic Team Selection Clarification

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by olorin View Post
    Sorry, I am still slightly confused about the procedure.

    So let's assume that in a certain event (e.g. decathlon) three athletes have the auto-Q (say Scantling, ZZ and Devon Williams), while Simmons is ranked 20th (so he is in the qualifying list) but without an auto-Q.
    No other American is in a qualifying spot (and none will be after the end of the qualification period).
    If Simmons finishes a head of one of the Auto-Q decathletes (e.g. Williams) in the trials, who is going to the Olympics? Does it matter whether they will finish third and fourth or nine and tenth?
    Based on my interpretation, trials order is the deciding factor, more important than rankings vs auto-Q; a 4th placer with auto-Q won't be chosen ahead of a 3rd placer who has a qualifying ranking without auto-Q.

    Leave a comment:


  • olorin
    replied
    Sorry, I am still slightly confused about the procedure.

    So let's assume that in a certain event (e.g. decathlon) three athletes have the auto-Q (say Scantling, ZZ and Devon Williams), while Simmons is ranked 20th (so he is in the qualifying list) but without an auto-Q.
    No other American is in a qualifying spot (and none will be after the end of the qualification period).
    If Simmons finishes a head of one of the Auto-Q decathletes (e.g. Williams) in the trials, who is going to the Olympics? Does it matter whether they will finish third and fourth or nine and tenth?

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by dj View Post
    This is an unfair comment about USATF personnel. The fact that I'm in the dark only means that I don't know the situation and I'm confused by what I don't know. But nobody at USATF has denied me a clarifying response because I've not asked anyone at USATF for a clarification.
    I appreciate your defense of them - I did not mean to imply that they owe YOU (or PVP) an explanation - my point is that if plugged-in people like you two are unclear on something as central to their mission as assembling the Olympic team, then Houston-we-have-a-problem. If I were in that organization, I would be professionally embarrassed by the current situation. I would also be pro-active in clarifying it without the utmost expediency.

    Leave a comment:


  • dj
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post

    Not saying anything is wholly indicative of dysfunction somewhere in the system. The fact that people like dj and pvp are in the dark is a 'problem'.
    This is an unfair comment about USATF personnel. The fact that I'm in the dark only means that I don't know the situation and I'm confused by what I don't know. But nobody at USATF has denied me a clarifying response because I've not asked anyone at USATF for a clarification.

    I'll go back to my original statement, that this seems to be a case of sloppy writing and/or editing. I've been part of too many situations in which there were a dozen contributing authors and two dozen editors, all of whom helped turn the transparent opaque.
    Last edited by dj; 04-18-2021, 12:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    Not buyin' it. I was the Public Affairs (Communications) Officer twice in my Navy Career and Communications Chair for my job for quite a while. Not clarifying directives and functions was never an option.
    USATF is not an organization known for having military-level efficiency and effectiveness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
    No, Josh is a worker bee. The communications people cannot communicate things for which there is no answer. The issue around lack of info on World Relays is not with them. When they have information to release, they do so promptly.
    Not buyin' it. I was the Public Affairs (Communications) Officer twice in my Navy Career and Communications Chair for my job for quite a while. Not clarifying directives and functions was never an option. If the Powers That Be had nothing to say at the moment, I always asked when it would be available. I then reported that the matter was under review and further information would be forthcoming on [specific date and time].
    Not saying anything is wholly indicative of dysfunction somewhere in the system. The fact that people like dj and pvp are in the dark is a 'problem'.

    Leave a comment:


  • polevaultpower
    replied
    Originally posted by dj View Post
    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 . . .
    I asked and the belief was that this is not going to be allowed. I hope they add clearer language. We _do_ have existing language about criteria for a legal meet that states (among other things) meets have to be on the calendar a certain amount of time in advance.

    My personal speculation is perhaps USATF is leaving it vague in case there is a situation with no qualifiers, but language could be added that clarifies under what circumstances a last chance meet could be held.

    Leave a comment:


  • polevaultpower
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    Are the lights even on in Indy?

    No World Relays info?
    No clarification of selection protocols?

    Whoever is their Communications Director . . .Josh Gurnick? . . . you got some splainin' to do.
    No, Josh is a worker bee. The communications people cannot communicate things for which there is no answer. The issue around lack of info on World Relays is not with them. When they have information to release, they do so promptly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by gm View Post
    That is not their communications director.
    That little squiggly thing after his name indicates an interrogative, so thank you for the declarative statement!

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    Are the lights even on in Indy?

    No World Relays info?
    No clarification of selection protocols?

    Whoever is their Communications Director . . .Josh Gurnick? . . . you got some splainin' to do.
    That is not their communications director.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    i think at this point it's important to note that USOPC holds the ultimate whip hand on team selection

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Are the lights even on in Indy?

    No World Relays info?
    No clarification of selection protocols?

    Whoever is their Communications Director . . .Josh Gurnick? . . . you got some splainin' to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • dj
    replied
    Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post

    If nothing is said about it, then I would assume that we will fill the team based on order of finish with the top eligible people. If that means going down past 8th or 9th place, I'm sure they will fill the spot, rather than leave it empty.
    Yes, one would assume USATF will fill to the complement. But the fact that it is not spelled out, and that several things are ambiguous, allows USATF to do what is expedient. That could also be called making things up as they go along.

    Leave a comment:


  • polevaultpower
    replied
    Originally posted by dj View Post
    I also see no language that indicates whether or not a Q person who doesn't advance to the final remains eligible for consideration. This has been spelled out in the past, but not always.
    If nothing is said about it, then I would assume that we will fill the team based on order of finish with the top eligible people. If that means going down past 8th or 9th place, I'm sure they will fill the spot, rather than leave it empty.

    Leave a comment:


  • polevaultpower
    replied
    Originally posted by dj View Post
    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 . . .
    Asking about this too. I agree that this needs to be spelled out clearly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X