Evidently, officials went back and re-read the 100m photo from Weds. and Hardee's time was given as 10.35 instead of the 10.36 originally recorded. That raised his score to 8465.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
FLASH: Hardee score changes to 8465
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X
-
Yeah, back in the '80s, the photo of the HH for Thompson was reread (well after the fact) and that boosted him into a WR tie with Hingsen. Made a big difference, as when the great rescoring after the switch to the '85 tables, Daley had a clear lead, but, as I understood it, IAAF was not going to give him WR credit. Sorta like Bubka's best vaults don't have WR credit, even though the rules have changed, allowing indoor marks to be absolute WRs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ghHelps to run your home track eh? :-)
Comment
-
Originally posted by guruOriginally posted by ghI would think you T&FN guys would want to take a look at it and give an objective opinion however."Run fast and keep turning left."
Comment
-
Originally posted by trackstarOriginally posted by guruI would think you T&FN guys would want to take a look at it and give an objective opinion however.
"But E. Garry Hill, editor of Track & Field News, suggested Friday that the revision of Hardee's time in the 100-meter dash by one-hundredth of a second — which gave him three extra points to nip the previous record of 8,463 points by two points — should be reviewed by "some dispassionate third party with a reputation for knowing how to read (finish-line) photos well." "
Attaboy gh :wink:
Comment
-
Originally posted by guruOriginally posted by ghHelps to run your home track eh? :-)
Comment
-
Originally posted by ghIn all honesty, our "objective opinion" probably not worth all that much. In the old days we used to have an Accutrac reade and regularly vet photos, but since the process got computerized--and is the norm--we have basiclaly quit worrying about it. There are people who do this kind of thing for a living, and their opinion is far more important than ours. I'm asbolutely thrilled to see that FlashResults--the acknowledged masters of the field--have apparently signed off on it.
I'm sure the time is legit, but it is not 'computerized' in the sense that the machine is coming up with the number. It's still a person who runs the cursor by eye. I've seen some prettty strange reads at FAT meets around here.
Comment
-
-
& they also are official timekeepers of the track cycling wc, which require 0.001s accuracy ( & presumably that means they have to have 0.0001s precision ? )
http://www.tissot.ch/?page_tissotsports/id_cycling
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldrick& they also are official timekeepers of the track cycling wc, which require 0.001s accuracy ( & presumably that means they have to have 0.0001s precision ? )
http://www.tissot.ch/?page_tissotsports/id_cycling
Comment
Comment