A False Start Solution?

[Atticus]

Bromell's FS in Birmingham was disappointing, as are all. How's this for a solution?

Allow all FSers to 'protest' the ruling and run the race. They can be DQed after the race, but at least they get to race and we get to see them race. They are running the race with anyway with an open lane, so no harm, no foul.

The only down-side I can see is that this might encourage FSs, cuz runners may not care if they are DQed as long as they get to run. The no-place-no-time is punishment enough (though they should list the time next to the DQ).

This would only apply to non-championship meets.

[TN1965]

I asked the same question before on this board, and it was immediately shot down.

[aaronk]

Maybe they should do (for false starters) what they did for the US women's 4X100 team awhile back---let them run a time trial, by themselves, and let their time be legal (assuming everything else is legal).
So--in the case of Bromell--DQ him for the race, but let his time in a single person time trial place him in the final, time-wise!

[Atticus]

Maybe they should do (for false starters) what they did for the US women's 4X100 team awhile back---let them run a time trial, by themselves, and let their time be legal (assuming everything else is legal).
So--in the case of Bromell--DQ him for the race, but let his time in a single person time trial place him in the final, time-wise!

That would never work..
A. That's no punishment.
B. What if he has much better wind?
C. The 'losers' from the first race would all want another shot.

[cigar95]

Yeas ago someone mentioned (in the magazine, I think) making a FS a penalty instead of a DQ. For each false start, move the blocks back by a meter. In the 200, move it back 2 meters.
I think the issue there was a practical one moreso than philosophical.

[reggaeirie1234]

Yeas ago someone mentioned (in the magazine, I think) making a FS a penalty instead of a DQ. For each false start, move the blocks back by a meter. In the 200, move it back 2 meters.
I think the issue there was a practical one moreso than philosophical.

1% penalty for first false start and DQ for the second but I think the WA gets into the same issue they want to avoid which is time the event takes to be completed. We now add another factor of adjusting the blocks which takes time. There would be a safety issue for the sprint hurdles as the steps have to be precise.

[ATK]

Isnt the running under protest thing allowed already? I know athletes used to do it super often in the years right after the 1 FS rule was put in place, but did something change where athletes cant run under protest anymore?

[treadwater1]

When the IAAF went from the old false start rule to the new one part of the reasoning was to speed things up, an athlete running the race again after a clear false start could false start again and lead to a further delay. Athletics meetings don’t need slowing down unnecessary

[Atticus]

When the IAAF went from the old false start rule to the new one part of the reasoning was to speed things up, an athlete running the race again after a clear false start could false start again and lead to a further delay. Athletics meetings don’t need slowing down unnecessary

A second false start (while running under protest) leads to automatic suspension from the meet, as in bye-bye from the stadium. That's not a big deal, but rather humiliating.

No to any 'handicap' penalty as it completely disrupts the meet and leads to all sorts of statistical problems.

[Atticus]

Isnt the running under protest thing allowed already? I know athletes used to do it super often in the years right after the 1 FS rule was put in place, but did something change where athletes cant run under protest anymore?

There used to be cases where the athlete didn't think the 'proof' was sufficient and asked for a more detailed ruling after the race, so they ran under protest.

[Trickstat]

I don't think 'running under protest' was ever actually allowed under the competition rules but was sometimes allowed by officials in preference to allow an athlete disputing a false start call to delay the race.

[TWalsh]

Bromell's FS in Birmingham was disappointing, as are all. How's this for a solution?

Allow all FSers to 'protest' the ruling and run the race. They can be DQed after the race, but at least they get to race and we get to see them race. They are running the race with anyway with an open lane, so no harm, no foul.

The only down-side I can see is that this might encourage FSs, cuz runners may not care if they are DQed as long as they get to run. The no-place-no-time is punishment enough (though they should list the time next to the DQ).

This would only apply to non-championship meets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you allow athletes to race after false starting, we will get many more false starts. I like the heavy price paid for false starting. Strict consequences for false starting!

[ATK]

I'm not sure if anyone remebers, but in one of the semi-finals (or heats) of the women's 400mH in Tokyo, they allowed an athlete to run after a blatant false start. I forget who it was though.

[Atticus]

If you allow athletes to race after false starting, we will get many more false starts. I like the heavy price paid for false starting. Strict consequences for false starting!

Even when they get DQed afterward, i.e., no credit, no time that counts, no prize money or WA ranking pts?

[aaronk]

It's only when athletes of the caliber of Bolt or Bromell FS that anyone really cares.
Bolt handled that one (2015 WC??) by mixing with the crowd afterwards, many of whom were there mainly to see HIM!