Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

    :-) I dunno, Asterix... seems like a quagmire to me.

    Taking in to account that one of the world's most experienced sprinters got DQ'd and raised a hell of a fuss, that the title of this thread is that he got robbed, that the volume of responses on this matter at this website runs to triple digits (on this thread and earlier ones) and the debates involve the very limits of human potential down to thousandths of seconds... well, it certainly ain't simple, is it?

    Really, I don't like deciding winners based on elapsed time rather than finish place. That would not be absurd, in my view, just no damn fun! But it would be MUCH simpler than any other solutions offered here.

    Just change the rule... penalize those who break before the gun, period. Make it simple - the rule is not runner friendly nor fan friendly. Suppose some casual fan stumbled into this conversation; do you think it would make sense to them to throw out a runner who did not break before the gun? Or to DQ a runner who left after the gun but at .099sec instead of .010sec? Would any of this argument even make sense to such a person?

    As for starters being instructed not to have a rhythm. Well, there is no more certain source of discontent among runners and fans at any level than starters who are truly inconsistent and a-rhythmic. Listen to the gripes in the stands when there are lots of false starts and note who gets blamed. People blame the starter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

      My error above... .0099 instead of .0100... see, isn't it odd to be arguing about such small margins?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

        We went all through this before and concluded that he did not fs in the traditional sense, but the argument was made that the human element was intentionally taken out of the equation by the IAAF and that he had de facto fs-ed by the block reading. All this does is reemphasize the point is that the human element must be reintroduced or else perfect a block that only senses the correct stimulus.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

          It seems impossible to eliminate anticipation. The athletes know they are in a race and they know that after the set call the gun will be fired shortly. So it seems obvious that they are anticipating the gun just by the situation in which they have placed themselves.

          Unless we can find some way to catch them off guard to make them think that they are not in a race until the moment the gun is fired, I doubt you will be able eliminate anticipation.

          Also, asterix, I'm surprised that you think this is a far cry from a quagmire. A rule was made and supported without adequate "scientifically accepted" evidence that could be applied to the act of world class sprinters in a starting situation. It may be that the numbers used are correct, but without evidence to show this it seems premature to make a rule.

          Another problem is that the apparatus used to enforce this rule doesn't differentiate between movement applied toward a start and "wiggling" prior to the start. This problem has burned at least one sprinter (Drummond).

          Other problems are found in the fairness/unfairness of charging the field with a false start even tough only one runner committed it. Further, can the official easily interpret the readout and correlate it to what he or she saw to render a ruling in a timely manner?
          All of these situations surround the split second of the start. I think the word quagmire is an appropriate description.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

            >:-) I dunno, Asterix... seems like a quagmire to
            >me.

            Taking in to account that one of the
            >world's most experienced sprinters got DQ'd and
            >raised a hell of a fuss, that the title of this
            >thread is that he got robbed, that the volume of
            >responses on this matter at this website runs to
            >triple digits (on this thread and earlier ones)
            >and the debates involve the very limits of human
            >potential down to thousandths of seconds... well,
            >it certainly ain't simple, is it?

            Maybe life was simpler when races were hand-timed to tenths of seconds - and everyone knows about the fairness issues that presents.

            The complexity comes from attempt to extract another digit of accuracy - but that last digit is one that's possibly beyond human control. No starter can see it.

            If all Drummond did was "twitch", was that beyond his control ? Or are these lean mean racing machines, drilled to relax on the blocks because anything else has been shown to slow their reaction (muscles tensed in the wrong way aren't ready to go) ?

            Maybe Drummond did something that an athlete would not have trained for - i.e. made a mistake.

            His subsequent antics on the track showed he was in fine form for mistakes that day.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

              Didn't the same thing happen to Raelene Boyle in a major meet. I was there, it was either Montreal 76 or Edmonton 78, I can't remember which.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

                It was Montréal 200 semis. She went ape.

                Comment

                Working...
                X