9.77!

[Powell]

The VERY FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE SOMEONE SCREWED UP THE READING OF THE PHOTO!! People mess up. That should be a clue. :-)

Yes, but that doesn't mean the timing is subjective. Had the time been taken correctly in the first place, it would have been 9.77 - it's a fact, not a matter of opinion.

[bekeselassie]

I understand your curiosity bu the environmental differences mean the thousandths are kind of moot, even the hundredths, which is why people are always refering to the basic times.

Good point. Does this then have implications for the possibility of someday beginning to officially keep 100-meter times to the thousandths? Can they even do it? Or would they have to change the wind or track restrictions?

I am of course looking WAY down the road.

[Daisy]

The VERY FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE SOMEONE SCREWED UP THE READING OF THE PHOTO!! People mess up. That should be a clue. :-)

but they didn't mess up in placing the cursor. They were numerically challenged.

It seems:
1) There are two cameras, one each side so the torso should be easy to see (not obscured by the athletes head ior another runner).
2) The resolution on the screen is great enough to unambiguously identify the body outline.
3) The data set from the photo finish equipment are always available for scrutiny in the case of an unqualified user messing up (that is why this got caught).
4) The claimed accuracy of the equipment with respect to frames per second and resolution on the screen is 0.0005 seconds (this is more than enough to determine to nearest hundreth).

The major flaw is where the operator places the line that first contacts the torso. Given all the above we can be confident that 1000ths are accurate if a qualified user is operating the equipment and placing the equipment in the correct location of the track.

By the same argument we must also rely on the lines being painted correctly on the track.

At the end of the day the weather conditions have a more dramtic effect on times than the measuring errors we are discussing here.

[tafnut]

Yes, but that doesn't mean the timing is subjective. Had the time been taken correctly in the first place, it would have been 9.77 - it's a fact, not a matter of opinion.

We still seem to be encountering semantic differentials. Timing IS subjective, because a person has to decide what constitutes the torso and where (precisely) that torso begins. Sometimes it's very clear, but even gh has to admit that HAS been controversy about where the cursor should be lined up. At least the IAAF got rid of the 'top of the neck' interpretation. But what part of the shoulder is part of the arm or which the torso? And just exactly where does the arm begin when it's outstretched in front of the athlete? There is a gray area there. And now that the neck doesn't count, what if the athlete is in full dive-lean mode and the bottom of the neck is simply a continuation of the line of the torso? The human torso is inherently part of other parts of the body. What to do; what to do?

[this is getting rather silly now, he admitted sheepishly]

[JRM]

Here's a concession - if JRM (or gh) is telling me that the finish photo can be blown up so that 1cm of athlete = 3 inches of monitor image, and that the image is crystal clear, then yes, even I could probably distinguish 1/1000s - ASSUMING THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE TORSO. How's that?

From my experience at the photo finish booth, confusion about what constituted the torso was a non-issue. At times, the athlete would lean in such a way that his/her shoulder crossed the line first, so then it becomes a bit of guesswork. HOWEVER, the length scales we're talking about here are a few centimeters at best, or a few thousandths or a second -- but certainly no more than 0.002s or 0.003s at the most.

That being said, take a look at that photo finish again. Even such confusion surrounding Gatlin's torso (which was very well-defined) would not have changed the fact that he should have registered as 9.77s.

[tafnut]

As Daisy points out:
a. the accuracy of the locating of the camera
b. the accuracy with which it's aimed
c. the lines of the track

all reasons why 1/1000s are silly.

[tafnut]

HOWEVER, the length scales we're talking about here are a few centimeters at best, or a few thousandths or a second -- but certainly no more than 0.002s or 0.003s at the most.

Isn't that what I have been arguing?

[Daisy]

As Daisy points out:
a. the accuracy of the locating of the camera
b. the accuracy with which it's aimed
c. the lines of the track

all reasons why 1/1000s are silly.

Could that be why they don't record times to the thousandth? :-)

HOWEVER, the length scales we're talking about here are a few centimeters at best, or a few thousandths or a second -- but certainly no more than 0.002s or 0.003s at the most.

Isn't that what I have been arguing?

Yes this is the point you are making here.

But what part of the shoulder is part of the arm or which the torso? And just exactly where does the arm begin when it's outstretched in front of the athlete? There is a gray area there. And now that the neck doesn't count, what if the athlete is in full dive-lean mode and the bottom of the neck is simply a continuation of the line of the torso?

I think this is a valid point where does the torso start since this is not always obvious. It would be interesting to see some grey area examples of real photofinishes to see just what kind of accurracy is possible in the extremely ambiguous examples.

The human torso is inherently part of other parts of the body. What to do; what to do?

Nelli Cooman won a race once (european indoor champs?) her shoulders were behind the second place runner. So it is definitely everything below the shoulders and above the hips.

[Grasshopper]

Judging by this picture of the finish, it appears that all if this could've been solved, and then some, had Gatlin simply LEANED AT THE TAPE!!! It always bothers me when my sprinters don't execute a good lean at the finish, and this is a perfect example of why you should always reach for that extra 1/100th.

[tafnut]

so looking at this, we see the red cursor (top of image) between 9.76 and 9.77 and the print-out of 9.76. So was that 9.76 manually typed in or did the computer come up with that number (erroneously)?

[dukehjsteve]

I'm still incredulous that it was ever called 9.76 in the first place, by ANYONE that looked at the above photo ! He clearly ran closer to 9.77 than he did to 9.76, and the rule in T&F is that always, repeat always NEVER ROUND ANYTHING down in Track ( or up in Field) ! These clowns should have been officiating at a Middle School meet. And absolute magificent display of ignorance.

[deca-pat]

Please forgive me if this has been covered already, but why cant we call 9.766 just 9.76. Even if it was 9.769, it still is in that 6 hundredth of a second. To me, the thousandth should only be used to declare the winner if two athletes run the same time to the 10th. Am I wrong? Help me out here.

[skyin' brian]

Please forgive me if this has been covered already, but why cant we call 9.766 just 9.76.

um...the rules

To me, the thousandth should only be used to declare the winner if two athletes run the same time to the 10th.

they already do this

[dukehjsteve]

[quote=skyin' brian]

Please forgive me if this has been covered already, but why cant we call 9.766 just 9.76.

[/quote:x58oj11w]

um...the rules

And not just " the rules" but also basic mathematics. " 9.76 " implies that it its also 9.760000_

And just more basically how can a record be " 9.76 "when the actual time was SLOWER ??!!

It has always been this way, even when all races were timed by hand, in tenths. Those old fancy "sprint stopwatches" that swept all around the dial in 10 seconds were then read, for official timing purposes, rounded up to the next tenth, unless flat on. Just a smidge above, and wham, up you go to the next tenth. By the law of averages, this happened 90% of the time. Exact same thing is done with all handtiming still today, since even el cheapo digital watches record a time to the 100th. Exact same concept still applies except now it is electronic and to the 100th instead of hand to the 10th. At your hum-drum middle school meet, a kid that runs a handtimed 100 in 12.01 is officially recorded as running a 12.1. The kid that finishes second and is timed in 12.09 also is recorded at 12.1. Lastly the kid in 3rd in 12.10 gets the best deal; he gets a 12.1 too.

And I am 99.99 % percent sure that this same concept now applies in electronic timing, just now rounded to the slower 100th, if not coincident with.

[Track fan]

It's no different then if you went into a store and the taxes on an item made it 97.6 cents, you have to pay 97 cents. I think the meet officials for this race were layed of Enron accountants......... :lol: