4x400: time to make changes?

[26mi235]

The extra difference on the run down the straightaway is trivial, that is the piece the is a mere 5mm. You would have trouble measuring it on the track with a tape measure.

huh? how do you compute that? 5 mm? if the runner is running in the straightaway in lane 5 and has to get to the inside lane, how's this runner not running a longer distance than the runner in lane 1? and compute that this can happen 3 more times with the other teammates and that team might be running a much longer race than the leaders.

The runner generally knows which lane they will have to run to (2, 3, etc.), thus they vector at the end of the curve 100m away. A situation where they have to suddenly change several lanes 20 meteres away is not plausable under the base scenario under discussion (runner#2, who is become #1 goes to lane #2 (or the switch).

The only thing that really matters is orderlyness and lack of confusion at the hand-off line (which would avoid and big vector changes near the line -- such a change will still cause more of a problem because of changing directions at speed while tiring than from extra distance on the straightaway).

[piaba]

The extra difference on the run down the straightaway is trivial, that is the piece the is a mere 5mm. You would have trouble measuring it on the track with a tape measure.

huh? how do you compute that? 5 mm? if the runner is running in the straightaway in lane 5 and has to get to the inside lane, how's this runner not running a longer distance than the runner in lane 1? and compute that this can happen 3 more times with the other teammates and that team might be running a much longer race than the leaders.

[26mi235]

Time to change the rule that there has to be an affirmative finding that there was advantage taken by being out of place, sort of like stepping on the line in the straight (cf. Powell in the 100m).

But there was a definite advantage. Since Danvers was standing closer to the kerb, the third-leg English runner did not have to move quite as wide to pass the baton and saved a bit of distance, while the Australians had to run a longer distance.

i don't think that advantage is any bigger than the extra distance the runners in the back pack have to run as they are coming from the outside lane towards the curb or the inner lane.

The extra difference on the run down the straightaway is trivial, that is the piece the is a mere 5mm. You would have trouble measuring it on the track with a tape measure.

[tandfman]

The whiny bitches complaining about this rule were the same whiny bitches complaining about their team being pushed around under the old rule.

I'm not going to comment on who's complaining about this rule. But it is true that before the rule was passed, there was often a lot of pushing and other body contact as the receiving runners tried to change positions to reflect the changes in the perceived positions of the incoming runners.

Interestingly, the race that caused the rule-makers to do something about this also occurred in Australia. The last exchange of the men's 4x400 at the 1985 World Cup in Canberra was a real mess, probably caused by the Australian anchor man. The officials did not call a foul on him, but the whole world was watching and the conclusion was that this was an example not just of a home-team call by the officials, but also of an area where disorderly conduct was much too common. And it was too hard to do anything about that without a specific rule governing the exchange process. So they enacted just such a rule.

[piaba]

Time to change the rule that there has to be an affirmative finding that there was advantage taken by being out of place, sort of like stepping on the line in the straight (cf. Powell in the 100m).

But there was a definite advantage. Since Danvers was standing closer to the kerb, the third-leg English runner did not have to move quite as wide to pass the baton and saved a bit of distance, while the Australians had to run a longer distance.

i don't think that advantage is any bigger than the extra distance the runners in the back pack have to run as they are coming from the outside lane towards the curb or the inner lane.

[26mi235]

The whiny bitches complaining about this rule were the same whiny bitches complaining about their team being pushed around under the old rule.

The orderly queue is the ultimate achievement of the human race. Those incapable of queuing properly deserve to be punished severely and should never be allowed to represent their country.

So now we are back to saying that the reason to have the rule is so that you can obey it? A key issue on the table is the rule and this is no defense of the rule. You also do not really explain why another runner that is out of position is not a problem (#2).

[El Toro]

Will do sweetheart!

[Daisy]

The whiny bitches complaining about this rule were the same whiny bitches complaining about their team being pushed around under the old rule.

You go girl.

[El Toro]

The whiny bitches complaining about this rule were the same whiny bitches complaining about their team being pushed around under the old rule.

The orderly queue is the ultimate achievement of the human race. Those incapable of queuing properly deserve to be punished severely and should never be allowed to represent their country.

[lonewolf]

In my experience, 4x4 officials usually position outgoing runners as their team comes off the curve and enters the straight.. then waiting runners of trailing teams move in as their team arrives..

[26mi235]

The extra distance on the straightaway is negligable, since we have something like (100^2 + 1^1)^0.5, which is half a cm. The extra distance is a fraction of the amount running in an outside lane would amount to for the time to get the tanget to the curve. This is approximately 8 meters, or 8% of the curve. The fraction from being out a whole lane for only the very beginning; thus, it is under 0.5. 8% x 0.5 = 4%. One whole curve one lane out adds 3.25m or so. 4% of this is 13cm. Thus, the total difference is 13.5cm. However, this is the biggest possible differential. Does runner #2 actually start in Lane 3 or can they move in just so that they do not interfer with Runner#1? If they can start to move in, then we have only fraction of the 13cm difference. It was my impression that runners moved in. In this case, the A team ran no extra distance while the B team saved at most 13.5 cm.

Now, if the runners are such that Runner#1 is far enough ahead of #2 then they immediately move in and the path that Runner #1 now has to take may require moving out, which negates the disadvantage of already being out.

[Daisy]

Time to change the rule that there has to be an affirmative finding that there was advantage taken by being out of place, sort of like stepping on the line in the straight (cf. Powell in the 100m).

But there was a definite advantage. Since Danvers was standing closer to the kerb, the third-leg English runner did not have to move quite as wide to pass the baton and saved a bit of distance, while the Australians had to run a longer distance.

Powell makes a good point. Not sure how much extra distance since i don't know the standard lane width off hand.


English is Blue
Australian is Red

[Powell]

Time to change the rule that there has to be an affirmative finding that there was advantage taken by being out of place, sort of like stepping on the line in the straight (cf. Powell in the 100m).

But there was a definite advantage. Since Danvers was standing closer to the kerb, the third-leg English runner did not have to move quite as wide to pass the baton and saved a bit of distance, while the Australians had to run a longer distance.

[Daisy]

At the international level, I think it's perfectly natural to expect the athletes to know the rules. To me the question is whether Danvers knew in what position she needed to be standing, and if she didn't, was it through her fault.

Apparently Lewis went to lane three and held that spot. Danvers probably did not know for certain and assumed that lane two was hers, espescially since the English would have been in second place at that point. To me the question is whether Lewis knew in what position she needed to be standing, and if she didn't, where was the official to correct her? (or was it gamesmanship :shock: )

[26mi235]

At the international level, I think it's perfectly natural to expect the athletes to know the rules. To me the question is whether Danvers knew in what position she needed to be standing, and if she didn't, was it through her fault.

Time to change the rule that there has to be an affirmative finding that there was advantage taken by being out of place, sort of like stepping on the line in the straight (cf. Powell in the 100m).

We should never have a situation where a runner can act to help another runner get out of position. Also, who was out of position, it takes two athletes at least. Here we always penalize the earlier one taking the baton, but why does number 2 get a free pass when they were not where they belonged? If they had an incentive to be in the right place (i.e., more athletes monitoring the placement) would the frequency decline.