Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

    It was Montréal 200 semis. She went ape.

    Leave a comment:


  • niemand
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • steve
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: Drummond Got Robbed--Visual Proof!

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

    Leave a comment:


  • JRM
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • 6 5.5hjsteve
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 6 5.5hjsteve
    replied
    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 ?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X