Originally posted by booond
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
High Jump Injustice at the Olympic Trials?
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by KevinR View Post
Are the points assigned to the meet, as a whole (irrespective of the quality of individual events)? I would assume so, because of the enormous work that would need to be done to tailor it by event.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by booond View Post
This is correct.
Sha'Carri Richardson (some of you may have heard of her) got almost as many ranking points running 11.44 at Gateshead as running 10.86 at the OT because the DL meet has more value for a 2nd place finish than the USA OT for a 1st place finish.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ATK View PostSo to clarify the rules basically are, if you are in a weak event and unfortunately cant get the standard, top 3 at USAs doesn't matter. Get a high world ranking, put down an honest effort mark and you're good to go.
Sha'Carri Richardson (some of you may have heard of her) got almost as many ranking points running 11.44 at Gateshead as running 10.86 at the OT because the DL meet has more value for a 2nd place finish than the USA OT for a 1st place finish.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by aaronk View PostLet me repeat what I said in my other comment here--
Ty Butts (-Townsend) has NEVER HJ'ed 6-5.
My FAST Annual of 2021 lists her PR as 6-4, which she's reached more than once, the last time being at the 2019 WC's, where she finished in 8th place!!
So the initial post saying she's done 6-5 is WRONG!!
And this year, according to the list in this site, her best so far was 6-2.25!
So why was she put on the team?
Leave a comment:
-
Let me repeat what I said in my other comment here--
Ty Butts (-Townsend) has NEVER HJ'ed 6-5.
My FAST Annual of 2021 lists her PR as 6-4, which she's reached more than once, the last time being at the 2019 WC's, where she finished in 8th place!!
So the initial post saying she's done 6-5 is WRONG!!
And this year, according to the list in this site, her best so far was 6-2.25!
So why was she put on the team?
Leave a comment:
-
So to clarify the rules basically are, if you are in a weak event and unfortunately cant get the standard, top 3 at USAs doesn't matter. Get a high world ranking, put down an honest effort mark and you're good to go.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Atticus View PostAs I look at the 'Road To' final list. I see McPherson is listed as the 33rd person (one out of the quota)
Originally posted by NotDutra5 View PostThe opportunity to rank better if the standard couldn't be reached was there for all of the athletes.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
A big source of confusion is that there are really two sets of world rankings. There's the list we're most familiar with, where athletes are listed in the order of their rankings points.
I and many others wrongly understood that an athlete who ranks in the top X on that list (where X is the field size for their event) would have achieved the equivalent of the auto-Q standard, and then national federations can select up to 3 athletes who have achieved either.
But then there's another list, the "Road to Tokyo" list, where they merge in athletes with the auto-Q standard, while also adjusting for the 3 per country limit. Athletes with the standard take precedence over those who don't; each athlete with the standard (up to 3 per country) effectively bumps down the ranking of those who don't. That's how Inika McPherson is #27 on the simple list but #33 on the blended list, and the blended list is what is used to determine who is eligible to go to Tokyo.
Theoretically, if there were 32 athletes with the standard (after considering 3 per country) in an event with field size 32, nobody could qualify via world rankings in that event, not even the #1 ranker (of course, in practice the #1 ranker is almost certain to have the standard anyway).
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
WA let USATF decline those spots ... sort of. The deadline for countries to decline spots was June 29, but the final ranking list was published July 1. So USATF would have had to decline a spot based on expectations of how the rankings would shake out 2 days later, not based on the actual final rankings.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Atticus View PostI think that was fair, given the Covid circumstances.
As I look at the 'Road To' final list. I see McPherson is listed as the 33rd person (one out of the quota), BUT . . . two people ahead of her were Americans she beat at the OT. I think that WA should have let USATF decline tose two spots, raising her to 31st, inside the quota. Simple as that.
Now you can argue that they should have done that, particularly since we now know the answer but had it worked against the US, there would be screaming about that as well.
The opportunity to rank better if the standard couldn't be reached was there for all of the athletes.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Atticus View PostI think that was fair, given the Covid circumstances.
As I look at the 'Road To' final list. I see McPherson is listed as the 33rd person (one out of the quota), BUT . . . two people ahead of her were Americans she beat at the OT. I think that WA should have let USATF decline tose two spots, raising her to 31st, inside the quota. Simple as that.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Atticus View PostI think that was fair, given the Covid circumstances.
As I look at the 'Road To' final list. I see McPherson is listed as the 33rd person (one out of the quota), BUT . . . two people ahead of her were Americans she beat at the OT. I think that WA should have let USATF decline tose two spots, raising her to 31st, inside the quota. Simple as that.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gh View Post
don't know how long it was down, but is fine for me now
Hopefully all good now
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: