Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More false start fodder

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • trackhead
    replied
    Re: More false start fodder

    that's what the narrator said on greenspan's olympiad set.

    that's all i got.

    Leave a comment:


  • Asterix
    replied
    Re: More false start fodder

    >I just recall hearing that Armin Hary was tested
    >and found to have a reaction to sound 3 times
    >faster than normal.

    What is defined as "normal"? Who tested him? How did they do the test? What were the results?

    Leave a comment:


  • trackhead
    replied
    Re: More false start fodder

    I just recall hearing that Armin Hary was tested and found to have a reaction to sound 3 times faster than normal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • trackhead
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • DTG
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DTG
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    Re: More false start fodder

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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!!!!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X