Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Worst Rule In Track?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

    Agree, 200 m indoor , "Downhill", is the most unfair event.
    Though I do not understand a lot of the posts here, people talking about lane 2,3 and 8...???..How many tracks have EIGHT lanes INDOOR??
    Tell me one...

    Most of the best "results" 200 m indoor is from lane six (out of six lanes). Why? You start on the highest point, in the curve and the difference to the finish line is 1-1,5 yards in height.

    Just two out of uncountable examples: World records: Frankie Fredricks 19.92- Lievin, 1996- Lane 6
    Marlene Ottey 21.87 - Lievin - 1993 - Lane 6

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The Worst Rule In Field?

    (Excuse this illiterate post; I seem to have misplaced my meds)

    MEET DIRECTORS ALLOWING DRUG STARS IN THEIR MEETS WITH RAISED, FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED HEMATOCRITS...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The Worst Rule In Field?

    I hate the three-heat semi but it does suggest an easy seeding solution for the 200 final: Give the three winners lanes 4,5, and 6 in the final, give the three runners-ups lanes 3, 7, and 8, and give the two time qualifiers lanes 1 and 2.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The Worst Rule In Field?

    Has anyone ever presented the idea of making the 400 a one turn stagger only? If we could get beyond the initial fear that times would suffer, it could possibly be one of the most exciting rules changes in a long while. What do you think?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    I believe T&FN uses 0.7 as rule of thumb for the running start. MJ's flat 400 is (far) better than his best relay split using that protocol.

    Leave a comment:


  • NormZylstra
    replied
    The Worst Rule In Field?

    Measuring the long throws to the low centmeter instead of the low even centimeter ... come on ... they do not mark it that well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • rh
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: The Worst Rule In Track?

    >Anybody out htere from Ohio?>>

    ohchrist.... here comes jsquire.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X