Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Worst Rule In Track?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

    That's incredibly hard to assess because drawn in a lane 1 many big-time sprinters simply give up. And who can blame them? They haven't got a chance.

    (unless you're Tommie Smith in the '68 OT)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

      Perhaps the runners could select their own lane, with the fastest qualifer given the fisrt choice, and down the line? It may not work well in a "finals only" meet when there are no heats, but it could work for major meets like WC, OLY, PANAM, etc...

      But, yes, it does seem like a silly rule/policy. If a strong case can be made that lane 7 may be better than one of the "fast lanes" (3, 4, 5, 6), then is it fair that the slowest qualifier could draw into the fasted lane, when the fastest isn't even elgible for lane 7?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

        You know, I've often thought of suggesting such a system, but I wonder if you don't get into a situation where the top seed could actually get a bad deal. If he has a close rival that is, who is seeded No. 2. So seed 1 says "give me 4" (which is his favorite lane). Seed 2 is then likely to ask for 3, pissing top seed off.

        The only workable (hah!) model I ever came up with was something like the Xmas-present game, where you get a priority number and can dictate to those below you.

        So seed 1 would not only get his lane, but then also then be able to dictate that 2 had to be outside him, etc., etc. Heck, the seeding meeting alone would be better TV than the race!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

          "They" will never go for that. Too much power to the "mere" athlete. After all he is no ranking IAAF official
          why don't people pronounce vowels anymore

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

            Because of the tightness of the curve, I'm guessing lanes 1 and 2 are the "worst" lanes for the 200m (and maybe the 400m). Right? Lane 8 is bad because you're all alone (can't see any of the other runners) for the first half of the race, but it may be ideal because of the wide turn. Based on the discussion so far, lane 7 may not be so bad, after all.

            So, on an 8 lane track, there are at least two "bad" lanes (1 and 2) and possibly a third (8). This leaves five "good" lanes (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Let the best five qualifiers be assigned to the good lanes. Or, at a minimum, force the two slowest qualifiers into lanes 1 and 2.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

              I always thought that Michael Johnson (out of a sense of "paranoia"? I'll ask him next time I see him, since we always end up on the same planes coming back from Europe) (name-dropper!) blew "many" chances at a WR(s) by always taking 4 or 5 just to keep his rivals--such as they were--in view. Given that he could have whatever lane he wanted, he should have asked for 8 every time and just blown away.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                <<...So seed 1 says "give me 4" (which
                is his favorite lane). Seed 2 is then likely to
                ask for 3, pissing top seed off... Heck, the
                seeding meeting alone would be better TV than the
                race!"

                If you really want drama at the seeding meeting, consider this...

                Seed #1 is given the choice of choosing his lane, or he can wait and not choose. Seed #2 is then given the same choice. If Seed #2 chooses his lane, then it goes back to Seed #1, so could then choose his lane or continue to wait. Of course, if Seed #2 decided to wait, then it still goes back to Seed #1, who could wait again. Then it's on to Seed #3 and the drama continues.

                If I'm not mistaken, the Ohio High School Athletic Association uses a procedure similar to this when determining the brackets for the state playoffs in basketball. Anybody out htere from Ohio?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                  >Anybody out htere from Ohio?>>

                  ohchrist.... here comes jsquire.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                    Perhaps it should be on a height basis - putting the shortest runner in lane 1 - he/she would be less affected than a lanky type. Sounds silly I know, but not when you see Coby Miller run under 20.10 from lane 1

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                      ><<...So seed 1 says "give me 4" (which
                      is his
                      >favorite lane). Seed 2 is then likely to
                      ask for
                      >3, pissing top seed off... Heck, the
                      seeding
                      >meeting alone would be better TV than
                      >the
                      race!"

                      If you really want drama at the
                      >seeding meeting, consider this...

                      Seed #1 is
                      >given the choice of choosing his lane, or he can
                      >wait and not choose. Seed #2 is then given the
                      >same choice. If Seed #2 chooses his lane, then it
                      >goes back to Seed #1, so could then choose his
                      >lane or continue to wait. Of course, if Seed #2
                      >decided to wait, then it still goes back to Seed
                      >#1, who could wait again. Then it's on to Seed #3
                      >and the drama continues.

                      Yes, and then you'll have US TV networks showing 2 hours of the seeding meeting, leaving only 1.5 minutes for actual action :-P
                      Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                        My opinion has always been that, in championships, the first in each semi (and there should only be two semi's, none of this 3 SF nonsense) should be drawn between 4 and 5, second in each semi gets drawn 3 and 6, third in each semi gets drawn either 2 or 7 and fourth in each semi get's 1 or 8.

                        IMHO that should be the case for ALL the sprint events including hurdles. That was there is a clear, fair, upfront way where athletes are aware exactly what they have to do in order to get which lane. In the field events athletes know that by the end of round 3 whatever position they are in dictates the rest of the competition, why can they not do something simialr in principle in sprinting?

                        I dont agree with the top 2 in each semi being randomly drawn for the middle lanes. To me, the first in each semi should have the priority, and generally the 'best' lanes are the middle two in the 100. You could argue lane 3 is preferrable to lane 5, but I'd say generally lane 5 is better as you'd still have a good athlete in lane 6 and the bend isnt as tight as in lane 3.

                        In the past the general rule has been the top two in each semi get randomly drawn lanes 3-6, and the second two get drawn either 1-2 or 7-8. (although in the 88 Olympics this didnt hapen, and Drechsler had lane 1 even though she came second in her semi! Atrocious officialling IMHO)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                          >My opinion has always been that, in
                          >championships, the first in each semi (and there
                          >should only be two semi's, none of this 3 SF
                          >nonsense) should be drawn between 4 and 5, second
                          >in each semi gets drawn 3 and 6, third in each
                          >semi gets drawn either 2 or 7 and fourth in each
                          >semi get's 1 or 8.

                          IMHO that should be the
                          >case for ALL the sprint events including hurdles.
                          >That was there is a clear, fair, upfront way
                          >where athletes are aware exactly what they have
                          >to do in order to get which lane.


                          The NFHS rule mandates that seeds 1-8 get lanes 4-5-6-3-2-7-8-1. Semifinal winners are seeds 1&2, seconds are 3&4, etc. It's pretty clear and works well. If you like you can mess with the lanes (maybe 5-6-4-3-7-8-2-1) but it's one of the instances where the HS rule is far wiser than the IAAF one.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                            >My opinion has always been that, in
                            >championships, the first in each semi (and there
                            >should only be two semi's, none of this 3 SF
                            >nonsense) should be drawn between 4 and 5, second
                            >in each semi gets drawn 3 and 6, third in each
                            >semi gets drawn either 2 or 7 and fourth in each
                            >semi get's 1 or 8.

                            The point is that lane 8 is actually (from the purely physical point of view) the best lane of all, while lane 1 is the worst from just about any point of view. Under both the current system and the one you're proposing it's only a matter of luck whether an athlete gets lane 1 or 8. The objective should be to give the best qualifiers the best lanes, not make the whole thing totally random.
                            I think the idea with fastest qualifiers getting the first pick is a pretty good one (not sure about the refinements to that idea - they would make the whole thing more complicated than it needs to be).
                            Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                              Actually all the fastest 400's have been run in lanes 1 and 2, sometimes both! That's where all the 4x400 legs are run. Doesn't seem to bother them.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

                                Yeah, but the fastest ever relay leg is 42.94 - considering that was with a rolling start, it's a lot slower in real terms than the actual 400 WR. And I believe no woman has ever run relay leg in less than 47.60.
                                Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X