More false start fodder

[Guest]

i apologize if I ruffle a few feathers, but the more I think of it, the more I believe the scanners (or whatever they are that determine if someone is false starting should be tossed in a giant dummpster and melted down to us as car parts. For eons, we have used eyes to determine if a runner has false started. Now it's a machine. Football, baseball, basketball, hockey et all use their eyes. (Football has instant replay, but can only overturn an event with indisputable evidence). The next thing you know, we'll be using robots to run races or at the very least, bionic parts. (No offense to the many fine athletes are blessed with artificial limbs because of an act of GOD or an accident that may have occurred).
Toss them things out the window, or keep them for training purposes.

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

>i apologize if I ruffle a few feathers, but the
>more I think of it, the more I believe the
>scanners (or whatever they are that determine if
>someone is false starting should be tossed in a
>giant dummpster and melted down to us as car
>parts.

don't apologize, ya not rufflin my feathers!!!!
i love it...

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

Technology can be a good thing. Electronic/Auto timing gives a more accurate (or is it precise) measurement of time. Same goes for measuring height and distance. One could argue that it also aids determining fairness of a start (perhaps not the way it's done now, though). In all these cases, the use of technology makes for an all-around better meet.

However, I do believe it is possible to go too far. Technology should not be used in a way that fundementally changes the nature of the competition. This happens to be the main reason I believe the current 0.100 reaction time/false start system is flawed. It will ultimately have a great impact on the progression of the event.

Consider this scenario... sometime in the future, the fiber-glass cross bar used in the high jump and pole vault may be replaced by a laser beam. An attempt will be judged a failure if the athlete breaks any part of the beam with his or her body.

Currently, the rules don't prohibit the jumper/vaulter from accidently touching the bar (i.e. not volzing). A slight nick of the bar will certainly make the it bounce/wiggle, but as long as it reamins in place, the attempt is successful.

Twenty to fifty years down the road, based on the available technology, it would not make sense to use a fiber-glass bar because the laser beam approach would be more accurate. However, that doesn't mean we should automatically abandon the real bar. To do so would fundemently alter the event to a point that it is no longer recognizable as the event today.

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

>i apologize if I ruffle a few feathers, but the
>more I think of it, the more I believe the
>scanners (or whatever they are that determine if
>someone is false starting should be tossed in a
>giant dummpster and melted down to us as car
>parts. For eons, we have used eyes to determine
>if a runner has false started. Now it's a
>machine.

Well, we used to have people doing the timing, too, and we got 9.1 100-yards that were really 9.4, 2nd-placers with faster times than the winner, etc. Human perception is faulty, period. It is less precise and less accurate than electronics. The same issue is now causing much debate in baseball, as QuesTec is being used to evaluate umpires' ball/strike calls. This is another area where humans simply cannot perceive fast enough to do the job.

The .100 standard can certainly be debated, but I feel the intent is valid - we are trying to remove the anticipation of the gun and measure the athlete's reaction to a stimulus.

As I see it, the new "one-false-start-for-the-whole-field" rule has this serious problem:

If an athlete believes that he/she can react to the gun faster than anyone else, assuming that everyone is waiting to hear the gun, why not go ahead and false start? Then everyone has to wait the second time or risk disqualification. Of course, reaction times vary; the best starter doesn't always get the best start.

Cheers,
Alan Shank

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

As I see it, the new
>"one-false-start-for-the-whole-field" rule has
>this serious problem:

If an athlete believes
>that he/she can react to the gun faster than
>anyone else, assuming that everyone is waiting to
>hear the gun, why not go ahead and false start?
>Then everyone has to wait the second time or risk
>disqualification. Of course, reaction times vary;
>the best starter doesn't always get the best
>start.

yup...the athletes know this...it would be perfect for carl!

[DTG]

Re: More false start fodder

Just some thoughts, but I will reserve my opinions. Could the 100 ms threshold for fs be a "safety factor" - not for the individual athlete anticipating the gun, but to protect the rest of the field from that one athlete taking "unfair advantage"? i.e., would the 100ms threshold define the "limit" to how much advantage an athlete could gain on the rest of the field at the start if he anticipated the start "perfectly" (100 ms) compared to the rest of the field reacting "normally" (130-160 ms)?
Note to Louise - I haven't forgotten the task. It's getting more interesting as I dig deeper. Thanks

[gh]

Re: More false start fodder

The rulesmakers would probably hate it, becuase it would make the rules a bit more complex, but I agree that perhaps the rules should be different for the 100 (and straightaway hurdles) than for other events. The importance of the start decreases by quantum leaps once you get away from there. Indeed, i could live with a 12-false-start rule for the 800 and above. Any falsies there are a mere accident, gaining no particular advantage.

This is clearly in keeping with my thinking on another thread about differentiated preferred-lane rules.

[ndamix]

Re: More false start fodder

Actually, I'm more inclined to have the IAAF adopt a false-start rule identical to the NCAA. One false-start and you're out.

One rule of thumb I think a lot of people overlook when it comes to the technology used in the start is to rely on those non-technological instruments (good old fashioned eyesight). Not wanting to beat a dead horse (and hindsight being 20/20), eyesight should have been used in the men's 100m quarterfinal to actually determine if Jon Drummond false-started. While the starter relied on the acoustic signal, good ol' eyesight detected no forward movement.

Eyesight would have been good enough for me not to charge a falsie to Drummond. Unfortunately, the starter didn't see it that way (well within his view) and, well, we know the rest....

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: More false start fodder

CAH, aside from your opinions on technology vis a vis starting blocks, etc., your hypothetical future of replacing PV and HJ crossbars with a laser beam just is not even remotely possible. The vision of the bar, by both participant and the spectator, is a very integral part of the event and will never, never be done away with.

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

Eyesight would
>have been good enough for me not to charge a
>falsie to Drummond. Unfortunately, the starter
>didn't see it that way (well within his view)
>and, well, we know the rest....

the starter was not even a factor because the seiko equipment automatically stopped the race 0.8 after the gun fired..no human intervention!!!!

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

6.5hjsteve,

I do agree. It was purely hypothetical and I sincerely hope that it never happens. I used it as a counter-example to the typical repsonse "We didn't have the technology back then, but we do now. So let's use it. Like you said and was the point I was trying to make, it would significantly alter the nature of the event.

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

NO, total mistake,it's impossible than the Seiko equipement automatically stopped the race 0.8 after the gun fired .0.8 is on the measuring react time.And not before the limit 99/1000 after the gun fired .The seiko equipement automatically recall after, but The starter intervention is ,also, his view of the situation permit to recall whithout to wait.

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

>NO, total mistake,it's impossible than the Seiko
>equipement automatically stopped the race 0.8
>after the gun fired .0.8 is on the measuring
>react time.And not before the limit 99/1000 after
>the gun fired .The seiko equipement automatically
>recall after, but The starter intervention is
>,also, his view of the situation permit to recall
>whithout to wait.


IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE AUTOMATIC RECALL AT .8 IS NOT ACCURATE, HERE'S SEIKO'S E-MAIL [email protected] -WRITE THEM..I'M QUOTING FROM THEIR INFORMATION.....

[jhc68]

Re: More false start fodder

I still think the reaction time rule is foolish. It amounts to a two-tiered start: the gun sounds to begin the race and then the real race begins 0.100 second later. Explaining that to a casual spectator (or to John Drummond, apparently)is a daunting task because it just doesn't make sense.

Lots of folks in these threads seem to think that no human can really react as quickly as 0.100 second, so why use that number as opposed to any other in the general neighborhood? And why not deduct the .100 second from the elapsed time since no one is in motion during that time?

Or just award the win to the runner who has the actual fastest elapsed time from the moment of his/her first movement, no matter where the runner finished in relation to the field. Such times are available instantly at the conclusion of major races... last time I suggested this people (correctly) complained that such a practice would take all the fun out of the race and make the visual finish meaningless. I think the reaction time rule does the exact same thing: it takes the fun out of the start and renders the visual start meaningless... thus a runner like Drummond can be dq'd even though he clearly did not gain any advantage from his actions. That's just stupid.

At any rate, if the goal is to prevent anticipation, then no false starts should ever be forgiven... every jumper should be removed from the race every time... sprinters should be glued to the blocks for fear of disqualification. 100 years ago weren't actual physical barriers used in some races, tape that would be raised at the start to prevent quick starts? Let's go back to that system.

[Guest]

Re: More false start fodder

".....because the seiko equipment automatically stopped the race 0.8 after the gun fired..." i say, this sentence is not correct without information.