Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More false start fodder

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    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.

    It sure is daunting, if you assume that the casual spectator doesn't understand the concept of cause and effect. If I call you on the phone and say "turn on the TV, there's a car chase on channel 2", and you tell me you just turned it on as the phone was ringing, would you have me believe that you were reacting to what I told you? I hope not. The message may have been on its way, but there was no way that you could have received it and reacted to it.

    I agree that Drummond did not deserve to be disqualified, but only because an apparent "twitch" triggered the violation, and not his actual starting motion. Changing the 0.10s limit won't do anything to prevent another Drummond incident. Take another look at the pressure-plate readout. Drummond very nearly exceeded the threshold approximately 0.05s before the gun was fired. If anything needs to be changed, it's in applying an algorithm that would ignore these little twitches that aren't part of the starting motion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: More false start fodder

      If anything needs to be
      >changed, it's in applying an algorithm that would
      >ignore these little twitches that aren't part of
      >the starting motion.

      or incorporating into the block sensors, a signal to the starter that all athletes are set/still....so the starter can follow his own iaaf rule 162.3

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: More false start fodder

        One more time, do you folks really think it is possible to eliminate anticipation through application of technology? If so, I have some Enron stock I'd be interested in selling you.

        See, Daunted uses the analogy of calling me on the phone to tell me to turn on the tv as a cause and effect demonstration. But the way I see it is more like this: if I know that Daunted is going to call and I know that he is going to ask me to turn on the TV and I know that all that is going to happen with just a couple of seconds and I am already poised with the phone in hand next to the TV, well, won't I turn on the TV as soon as the phone rings, or even as soon as any noise similar to the phone occurs? Wouldn't that be the normal human reaction?

        Isn't a sprinter in the up and set position in the blocks in a similar, anticipatory set? If we want to eliminate anticipation then we ought to have runners just mill around in their lanes and start the race at some random time without warning. If, instead, we tell runners to get into a set position (a position no one can hold for a prolonged period of time) and tell them the gun is imminent and will sound within a second or two, aren't humans going to anticipate that event?

        Then we impose an artifice, a made up number, the time period of .100 seconds and say a runner is the world's best starter if he/she can react in exactly that time, but is a cheater if he/she leaves one one-thousandth of a second earlier. ONE ONE-THOUSANDTH OF A SECOND! To parse down reaction times to that level, to say that .100 is humanly possible but .099 is not, that is not science, that is bunk.

        Shoot the gun and let 'em run, never mind shifting pressure plates and guesses at possible reaction times. Use photos or laser sensors to determine if someone actually, physically leaves the blocks before the gun. Pressure plates and reaction time penalties will never eliminate anticipation and controversy.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: More false start fodder

          >One more time, do you folks really think it is
          >possible to eliminate anticipation through
          >application of technology? If so, I have some
          >Enron stock I'd be interested in selling
          >you.

          you're absolutely right, they'd have to be dead not to go through the whole process you described....and, anticipation is not against the rules!!!!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: More false start fodder

            Baseball umpire don't need mechines. Football officials use replay but overrule their deceison only if it's conclusive evidence. Basketball officials don't use machines. (On a personal note, I missed out on qualifying for state in the 100 yard dash my senior year in high school and if an electronic eye camera would been in place when I crossed the line that would have proven I was in what I deemd as 3rd place. However I was awarded 7th. I was in lane 8 for one, and the 8th place finisher pulled up lame halfway down the track and that's probably the only reason I wasnt given 8th place. The 4th place runner who ran in lane 6 even approached me and acknowledged that I had beaten him. Regardless it's still more exciting to have human eyes. That's part of the challenge.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: More false start fodder

              Louise, you are absolutely right... anticipation is not against the rules, just being too good at it is illegal :-)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: More false start fodder

                In a report on Eurosport, Jon's trainer says that for a start it is necessary to work on anticipation. Thus if an athlete has a usual reaction time of 140, an anticipation can perhaps make it possible to gain 20 or 30, and the final reaction time is still good, not under 100. No and No, it is not the good method nor a correct approach of the sport, the only drive correct is to become the best to react when you hear the shot.I am completely sorry for Jon, but I believe that there it took too much risk.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: More false start fodder

                  >The "artifice" of 100 milliseconds is not "bunk", it is indeed based on science. The actual threshold (0.1 sec = 100 milliseconds)is somewhat arbitrary only in the sense that some threshold had to be chosen below a "true" threshold that may be closer to 115 milliseconds to avoid,as much as possible, a false start called on a true reaction (without anticipation). That is why I mentioned on an earlier thread that the 100 millisecond threshold may be in place to allow a small (acceptable) amount of anticipation while "protecting the field" from the athlete who anticipates rather than reacts to the gun start. I maintain, I still want to see the FASTEST RUNNER win the race, not the one that has the fastest reaction time to the gun start. I'd therefore like to see more emphasis on "high-end speed" and maintaining such high-end speed for longer.
                  In regards to Jon Drummond's 100m start tracing, I think the mistake was made by the Starter (not reviewing the actual tracing? not interpreting the tracing correctly?) in his FS. The false start system sends a signal to the Starter that there was suspected false start. The Starter fires the gun a second time to indicate a probable false start. The Starter then confers with the person manning the false start system. If the person manning the false start system says that Lane X false started according to the false start system, the Starter can either take that person's word for it, OR the Starter SHOULD review the tracing from the false start system to determine himself whether it represented a "true" false start. For that, he must have some knowledge about what a tracing should look like at the different times of a start. If the Starter misinterprets the tracing at this step, this is also a point of contention. The false start system computer is usually nearby for quick perusal. This usually takes 30 seconds, 1 minute tops. This doesn't condone JD's antics afterwards, no matter how much spin is put on it. Thanks

                  Then we impose an artifice, a made up
                  >number, the time period of .100 seconds and say a
                  >runner is the world's best starter if he/she can
                  >react in exactly that time, but is a cheater if
                  >he/she leaves one one-thousandth of a second
                  >earlier. ONE ONE-THOUSANDTH OF A SECOND! To parse
                  >down reaction times to that level, to say that
                  >.100 is humanly possible but .099 is not, that is
                  >not science, that is bunk.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: More false start fodder

                    I disagree, DTG... the .100 rule IS an artifice and it IS bunk. If the "true" threshold is really .115 and that can be shown conclusively, then that ought to be the allowable reaction time, period. But it cannot be shown conclusively; no one on earth can say with certainty that .115 or any other time is the quickest possible reaction time now or in the future. Certainly the number must be somewhere in that neighborhood, but what exactly it might be, what the quickest person on earth might be able to do on any given day cannot be known. My own bias is that the "true" fastest reaction time may be considerably slower than .115 and that all the quickest starters are talented anticipators, but I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else.
                    To build in a .015 cushion to allow an "acceptable" amount of anticipation is bunk upon bunk. The logic is that .015 secs worth of cheating is ok, but .016 is not. Say what??? Bunk, I say. Simply start the race with the gun and swallow the idea that everyone anticipates and you ain't gonna be able to stop it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: More false start fodder

                      To build in a .015 cushion to allow an
                      >"acceptable" amount of anticipation is bunk
                      >upon bunk.
                      I didn't mean to imply that the 115 millisecond threshold was in fact the lower (fastest) limit for a "true" reaction without anticipation. That's my guess based on the ANALYSIS (science) of studies done (actually, more studies than I originally had imagined). But I have to agree with you on one level also - the "real" data relating to the specifics of reaction time (leaving the starting blocks) to an auditory stimulus (gun start) have not been done. It's not just a matter of my not finding the data yet - it ain't there. I know of at least one person (who is a contributor to these forums) who is trying to talk to "the powers that be" in regards to doing such a study. Thanks

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: More false start fodder

                        DTG, I agree... lots of studies on reaction time are comprehensive and reliable for the specific circumstances of the study, but measuring reaction time to the gun stimulus and in the body positions of a sprinter and all the other variables involved with a real race start are very complex. And no matter how accurate the study, if some ultimate reaction time is found, couldn't someone else be faster at some later date?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: More false start fodder

                          how do you go about determining human capability for something like this? .100s seems a farily arbitrary number. How can it be determined that no human can react quicker than that limit?

                          I am curious how that is determined.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: More false start fodder

                            When it does not have there High Speakers which repeat the sound of the shot, the distance between the shot causes a delay to hear the shot for the competitors (speed of sound), we see well then by the reaction times which are to measure starting from the shot the same shift beyond 100/1000, the reaction times then are in order of 240 to 280/1000. Any movement which appears before 100 is well the result of a decision with the brain (anticipation) before to hear the shot which allows to make a start movement.
                            in a report on Eurosport, Jon's trainer says that for a start it is necessary to work on anticipation. Thus if an athlete has a usual reaction time of 140, an anticipation can perhaps make it possible to gain 20 or 30, and the final reaction time is still good, not under 100. No and No, it is not the good method nor a correct approach of the sport, the only drive correct is to become the best to react when you hear the shot.
                            With an other machine,per example a systheme with volumetric measurement,the fault would be as of the shot. Look at the graph, before the shot there was stability of all the competitors, then Jon starts to have starting veleity, there is the beginning of the fault, sorry for Jon.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: More false start fodder

                              >how do you go about determining human capability
                              >for something like this? .100s seems a farily
                              >arbitrary number. How can it be determined that
                              >no human can react quicker than that limit?

                              >I am curious how that is determined.

                              Because the processes involved in registering a sound, acting on it and sending instructions to the muscles is dependent on chemical and electrical processes which cannot be done in zero time and cannot be improved by training.

                              Study after study has shown that humans take around 0.2 to respond to an aural or visual stimulus, ie take the stimulus in, process it and react. This changes with age but not with any other factor. It can't be trained. Athletes don't perceive the world or react to stimuli any quicker than the rest of us.

                              The human race spent millenia honing reflexes and reaction times in an environment where slow reactions got you a nastier penalty than a false start warning. Reactions to stimuli are part of our fight-or-flight response, but think of this - even the reflex action of withdrawing your hand from a fire (which happens with no brain input at all) takes a fraction of a second. That is as fast as any human can possibly react to anything. The idea that it can be changed by training is absurd.

                              This has been gone over again and again, btw. Check the other threads for more biology.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: More false start fodder

                                I allow myself a small adjustment, because for an athlete handisport, blind man, one however notes an improvement of the reaction time (but never under 100), it is an equivalent adaptation which an athlete can acquire seeing by training to react to the shot

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X