Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

[gandalf]

Anybody else seen their latest TFN yet? They've got a picture from Sieko of the readout from the pressureplate on Drummond's blocks.

You can see where a "wiggly foot" may have indeed triggered the sensor (but should it have?), but he clearly did not false start.

Pressure at 0.52 they DQed him for while he was actually "still" then you can see his actual starting motion at about 0.130 (not so coincidentally, I suspect, right around the figure that those who respect the 0.100 max say is where it should be).

The system is broke!

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

If the IAAF has such incredible power to fix things, how come they haven't suppressed this "scoop" of yours?

[RussJD]

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

Don't talk about it. He's probably found a horse's head in his bed by now.

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

You can
>see where a "wiggly foot" may have indeed
>triggered the sensor (but should it have?), but
>he clearly did not false start.

Pressure at
>0.52 they DQed him for while he was actually
>"still" then you can see his actual starting
>motion at about 0.130 (not so coincidentally, I
>suspect, right around the figure that those who
>respect the 0.100 max say is where it should
>be).

>The system is broke!

I haven't seen the TnFNews issue yet, but I think your claim that the system is broke is a little misleading. My understanding is the blocks are pressure sensitive, in that they measure any change (positive or negative) in pressure and beyond a certain threshold, send a signal to the starter or automatic recall gun.

The electronics do not have the subjectivity of humans and don't discern between 'wiggling' in the blocks and actually commencing the starting motion. Besides, don't the rules for starting dictate that the gun shouldn't be fired until all competitors are "motionless" in the set position?

That Drummond moved before the allowable reaction time is not questioned. That his movement conferred no discernable advantage to him does not alter that initial fact.

[bhall]

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

I wouldn't go defending the rule until you see the reaction graphs, read the related rules, and maybe even read the T&FN analysis of the situation.

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

I'm not so much defending the rule as explaining that by my understanding, the rule was correctly applied.

As I'm in Canada, it may be a while before I get my TnFNews to see these reaction graphs myself, but looking up the relevant IAAF rules, I'm still under the impression that they were properly applied.

From http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/9579.pdf rule 161, paragraph 2 states that when the electronics detect a false start, either an automatic recall is shot, or is done so by the starters. They would then examine the display in order to see which athletes actually moved.

Rule 162, paragraph 2 refers to competitors being "steady" in the correct starting position prior to the gun being fired. If Drummond was "wiggling", then he was not "steady".

I can understand the whole debate with respect to whether Drummond was actually starting and gaining a competitive advantage, or just "wiggling", but unless these reaction graphs tell a different story, both involve movement on the blocks, movement that was detected and reported to the starters as occuring before the allowable reaction time. Inanimate electronics I don't think, have the ability to subjectively determine what movement was which.

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

To large degree, the IAAF brought this on themselves. We can argue about whether a flinch of the foot should be a false start, but the bottom line is that it will almost never be picked up without an elctronic device. So effectively, we have two sets of rules for false starts: one for the WC and OG, and one for the rest of the curcuit. If electronic devices are going to be used at the WC and OG, then they should be used at every Golden League meet, so the sprinters are used to them.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

am I being too simplistic with the following ?...

Runner is in blocks, comes to set position. He's exerting a certain amount of pressure against the front block. Involuntarily, he lets up just a tad, or ( and more important) increases just a tad, with no discernable movement of his foot or leg. Then, the gun sounds, he reacts, and off we go .

Those involuntary twitches should be a false start ? I do not think so.

Can you push your hand against a table for 1 or 2 seconds without the pressure of your push changing to some degree ?

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

>>I'm not so much defending the rule as explaining
that by my understanding, the rule was correctly
applied.

As I'm in Canada, it may be a while before I get my TnFNews to see these reaction graphs myself, but looking up the relevant IAAF rules, I'm still under the impression that they were properly applied.

From
http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/9579.pdf rule 161,
paragraph 2 states that when the electronics
detect a false start, either an automatic recall
is shot, or is done so by the starters. They
would then examine the display in order to see
which athletes actually moved.

Rule 162, paragraph 2 refers to competitors being
"steady" in the correct starting position prior
to the gun being fired. If Drummond was "wiggling", then he was not "steady".

I can understand the whole debate with respect to
whether Drummond was actually starting and
gaining a competitive advantage, or just
"wiggling", but unless these reaction graphs
tell a different story, both involve movement on
the blocks, movement that was detected and
reported to the starters as occuring before the
allowable reaction time. Inanimate electronics I
don't think, have the ability to subjectively
determine what movement was which.<<


You're reading the wrong rules. If the athlete is not steady, the starter should not start the race. The rule that defines a false start is 162.6. It is not the clearest sentence in the world--I would't try to parse parts of it. But the violation is defined as commencing onc's starting motion after assuming the full and final set position but before the report of the gun or starting apparatus. The point that you will see clearly from the Seiko printout is that the motion that the apparatus detected, that "wiggling," as you put it, was NOT part of his starting motion. And therefore he did not false start.

The apparatus did require the starter to recall the start. It did not require that he find Drummond guilty of a false start. The problem is that this equipment is detecting something that is not in itself a violation. While all starting motions may initiate with a change in the pressure on the blocks, not all changes in the pressure on the blocks are related to a starting motion. When they are not, the equipment will produce false positives. It appears that not all starters and referees are aware of this problem. They certainly weren't in Paris and because of their ignorance, they did this athlete an injustice.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

rule reader, you are saying just what i said, only in more detail. The pressure can change on the blocks without "wiggling."

And THAT'S why he have live human Officials to make decisions. The official in this case blew it, influenced by the runner that did false start a millesecond after Drummond's pressure increase. That other runner ( sorry, typing here, I cannot remember the name ) did not false start due to Drummond.

Drummond's behavior of course is an entirely different topic. But did he get a bad deal ? He sure did.

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

You're reading the
>wrong rules. If the athlete is not steady, the
>starter should not start the race. The rule that
>defines a false start is 162.6. It is not the
>clearest sentence in the world--I would't try to
>parse parts of it. But the violation is defined
>as commencing onc's starting motion after
>assuming the full and final set position but
>before the report of the gun or starting
>apparatus. The point that you will see clearly
>from the Seiko printout is that the motion that
>the apparatus detected, that "wiggling," as you
>put it, was NOT part of his starting motion. And
>therefore he did not false start.

At the risk of drawing this down to a discussion of semantics, how does one define what motion is or is not part of someones starting motion? Drummond's situation, from what people are saying, is pretty obviously not a starting motion. But what is the determining criteria? It is this subjectivity that is attempted to be removed by relying on electronic devices.

The
>apparatus did require the starter to recall the
>start. It did not require that he find Drummond
>guilty of a false start.

I'll agree that the apparatus, or even the explicit interpretations of the rule, do not require the labelling as a false start. However, as I mentioned previously, this becomes a subjective human decision as to what constitutes a false start versus "wiggling". Just look at the arguements about whether or not someone Voltzed as to the merits of depending on the human factor.

>The problem is that
>this equipment is detecting something that is not
>in itself a violation. While all starting
>motions may initiate with a change in the
>pressure on the blocks, not all changes in the
>pressure on the blocks are related to a starting
>motion. When they are not, the equipment will
>produce false positives. It appears that not all
>starters and referees are aware of this problem.
>They certainly weren't in Paris and because of
>their ignorance, they did this athlete an
>injustice.

That said, I'm not attempting to come off as a complete anti-Luddite wishing to give up all control to the machines, but rather pointing out that there are no absolutes in this issue with both methods being open for misapplication.

As you mentioned at the beginning, the starter should not start the race until all athletes are steady. However, Drummond's motion occured after the starter subjectively determined all athletes were steady and fired the gun. Perhaps athletes need to learn that they should keep in motion continuously until they are fully 'set'. Pausing for a bit before wiggling again only leads to the starter thinking you are completely set. (Which then leads to the whole discussion of how long the starter should hold athletes in the set position before firing the gun.)

[JRM]

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

>>Runner is in blocks, comes to set position.
>>He's exerting a certain amount of pressure
>>against the front block. Involuntarily, he lets
>>up just a tad, or ( and more important)
>>increases just a tad, with no discernable
>>movement of his foot or leg. Then, the gun
>>sounds, he reacts, and off we go .

What you're describing is possible, but you have to stop thinking about this in slow motion. The pad was triggered at about 0.06s or so (round figure), and his forward motion began at about 0.12s, roughly 0.06s after. The question which needs to be asked is: can there be a *voluntary* correlation between the foot movement and subsequent forward motion?

It may well be that the two are uncorrelated, which could suggest that it was a random twitch instead of an intentional one. However, it could also be the case that the 0.06s is a sufficiently small enough amount of time at the start for forward motion to not be noticeable, in which case his "start" could have begun at 0.06s, and evolved over the next 0.06s.

What this discussion really needs is an appreciation for how fast several hundredths of a second is!

Since I have yet to see the T&FN spread, I'll hold off any further comments.

[gh]

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

we'll be posting the charts for everyone in that race later today

[jhc68]

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

The issues involved here (wriggles, starting motions, the limits of human reaction time, etc) all become akin to medieval debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin... there are no answers because the premise itself is nonsense. Re-read this and other threads about the incident, the complexities are absurd.

The rule supposes that machines can be used to prevent runners from anticipating the gun. I still believe that every runner in every race anticipates the gun... they always have and always will. We encourage them to anticipate by having rhythms to the starting sequence. Rules used to prevent anticipation clearly are not working... just look at the problems and debate following this one race (and there are lots of others we could move on to!)

Simplify one of two ways:
1)Forget about penalizing for reactions that are ruled to be too fast and only throw people out who leave the blocks before the gun.
2) Or use electronics to measure elapsed time from each runner's actual start to his/her finish to determine the winner and ignore physical placements at the end of the race. This approach might lead to interesting tactics... a runner might slow start intentionally in order to have targets to catch up with, thus lowering his/her elapsed time!

Efforts to prevent anticipation are a hopeless quagmire.

Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

>The issues involved here (wriggles, starting
>motions, the limits of human reaction time, etc)
>all become akin to medieval debates about how
>many angels could dance on the head of a pin...
>there are no answers because the premise itself
>is nonsense. Re-read this and other threads about
>the incident, the complexities are absurd.

With all due respect, simply stating that the complexities are absurd or nonsense does not necessarily make it so.

The
>rule supposes that machines can be used to
>prevent runners from anticipating the gun. I
>still believe that every runner in every race
>anticipates the gun... they always have and
>always will. We encourage them to anticipate by
>having rhythms to the starting sequence. Rules
>used to prevent anticipation clearly are not
>working... just look at the problems and debate
>following this one race (and there are lots of
>others we could move on to!)

I though instructions are often given to starters not to have rhythms to their starting sequence? How are the no-false start rules in the NCAA causing great distress to the athletes there?

Simplify one of
>two ways:
1)Forget about penalizing for
>reactions that are ruled to be too fast and only
>throw people out who leave the blocks before the
>gun.

Plausible solution, but since it as least scientifically accepted by all concerned that one can not react in a time as fast as, say, 0.01 seconds, then you will be allowing people to violate the rule about reacting to the sound of the starting gun. To some, that is not acceptable.

2) Or use electronics to measure elapsed
>time from each runner's actual start to his/her
>finish to determine the winner and ignore
>physical placements at the end of the race. This
>approach might lead to interesting tactics... a
>runner might slow start intentionally in order to
>have targets to catch up with, thus lowering
>his/her elapsed time!

And will obviously result in the winner and fastest runner to not necessarily be the first person across the finish line. And you were talking about absurdities?

Efforts to prevent
>anticipation are a hopeless quagmire.

Actually, I think there is generally pretty close agreement from most of those involved on this topic. There is agreement that there is some physical human reaction limit, just not as to what that exact limit it, or what specifically constitutes a starting motion. A far cry from a quagmire.