Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Jump Injustice at the Olympic Trials?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • cigar95
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    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.
    We certainly know that the USATF rule was worded poorly in terms of weird situations like this.

    But do we know if the IAAF (yeah, I know) procedures allowed the "moving up" resulting from non-entered athletes? I suppose they would have in order to fill the field to if a higher-ranking athlete wasn't submitted at all.

    That's why the idea you floated a couple days ago of a preliminary entry step made sense. It's possible that non-entered athletes could impact someone from another country as well as one's own.
    Last edited by cigar95; 07-07-2021, 02:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • booond
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    I 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.
    Athletes and managers need to understand what goes into the ranking. If you're in a weak event - High jump in US - you need to get into international competitions which have higher rankings than US competitions.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by nico21 View Post

    It's funny though that's what the WA ranking is all about 😉.
    I wish. The convoluted ranking of the various meet types and the fact that fields can vary immensely within a given meet make that not remotely true.
    Last edited by donley2; 07-07-2021, 02:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nico21
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    At the end of the day, it's who beats whom.
    It's funny though that's what the WA ranking is all about 😉.

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
    Do you think that the extended qualifying period was whst ultimately messed up McPherson's world ranking?
    I 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:


  • Tuariki
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    You're right. I just think that USATF's policy was so poorly worded that no one was sure till the very end how it worked. That should never be the case.

    As it turned out it did work out in a way that the policy covered, but with just a few more amplifying comments, it could have been much clearer. The object of communication is to ensure quick and easy understanding of that which is communicated.

    This AP Lang grader gives the essay a 4 (out of 9). It was 'adequate', but the development and proof of its thesis were poor, leaving readers to try and make sense of it themselves.
    Do you think that the extended qualiying period was whst ultimately messed up McPherson's world ranking?

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
    True, but only for the competition that you are jumping in. Not for qualifying for the Olympics. The USA doesn't get to set its own qualifying rules. Like every other country the US has to follow the rules of the IOC and WA. And, under the rules she didn't jump high enough during the year or two of the qualifying period, and didn't jump well enough to get a sufficiently high ranking.
    You're right. I just think that USATF's policy was so poorly worded that no one was sure till the very end how it worked. That should never be the case.

    As it turned out it did work out in a way that the policy covered, but with just a few more amplifying comments, it could have been much clearer. The object of communication is to ensure quick and easy understanding of that which is communicated.

    This AP Lang grader gives the essay a 4 (out of 9). It was 'adequate', but the development and proof of its thesis were poor, leaving readers to try and make sense of it themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Al in NYC View Post

    This whole Road to Tokyo page seems to have been taken down. At least for now.
    don't know how long it was down, but is fine for me now

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuariki
    replied
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    At the end of the day, it's who beats whom.
    True, but only for the competition that you are jumping in. Not for qualifying for the Olympics.

    The USA doesn't get to set its own qualifying rules. Like every other country the US has to follow the rules of the IOC and WA.

    And, under the rules she didn't jump high enough during the year or two of the qualifying period, and didn't jump well enough to get a sufficiently high ranking.
    Last edited by Tuariki; 07-07-2021, 12:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotDutra5
    replied
    Originally posted by Al in NYC View Post

    This whole Road to Tokyo page seems to have been taken down. At least for now.
    Works for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotDutra5
    replied
    Originally posted by ATK View Post

    When were the final rankings? Because Im seeing Butts-Townsend as #21 and McPherson as #27.
    If you include the height standard achievers she's one spot out of top 32.

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
    At the end of the day the reality is that she just didn't jump high enough
    At the end of the day, it's who beats whom.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuariki
    replied
    At the end of the day the reality is that she just didn't jump high enough

    Leave a comment:


  • sprintjump
    replied
    Originally posted by gm View Post

    I'm guessing it is this part of Rule 1.2.4 at https://www.worldathletics.org/world...g-rules/basics

    "In order to ensure that performances achieved at the Area Senior Outdoor Championships are calculated in the Rankings, the latest editions of the Area Senior Outdoor Championships are included in the Rankings calculation regardless of whether they fall in the Events’ respective Ranking Period, given that they were held within 3 full calendar years (e.g. after 1 January in the 3rd year prior to the date of the Rankings."

    For European jumpers, this would have been the 2018 Euro Champs. For anyone in our part of the world, it would have been the 2018 NACAC Championships in Toronto.
    Got it. Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    Originally posted by sprintjump View Post

    gm, what is with the claim that some athletes are able to use marks from 2018? Inika has made this claim in several of her social media videos.
    I'm guessing it is this part of Rule 1.2.4 at https://www.worldathletics.org/world...g-rules/basics

    "In order to ensure that performances achieved at the Area Senior Outdoor Championships are calculated in the Rankings, the latest editions of the Area Senior Outdoor Championships are included in the Rankings calculation regardless of whether they fall in the Events’ respective Ranking Period, given that they were held within 3 full calendar years (e.g. after 1 January in the 3rd year prior to the date of the Rankings."

    For European jumpers, this would have been the 2018 Euro Champs. For anyone in our part of the world, it would have been the 2018 NACAC Championships in Toronto.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X