Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WAF wPole vault

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • WAF wPole vault

    Startlist

    1 61 Spiegelburg Silke GER
    2 46 Boslak Vanessa FRA
    3 32 Badurová Katerina CZE
    4 111 Polnova Tatyana RUS
    5 104 Feofanova Svetlana RUS
    6 106 Golubchikova Yuliya RUS
    7 108 Isinbaeva Yelena RUS
    8 95 Pyrek Monika POL

  • #2
    pela - whats the best mark for place look like in the womens vault?

    3 over 4.82 - that has to be close yeah?

    Comment


    • #3
      standings

      1= Isi and Pyrek 4.82m
      3 Feofanova 4.82m

      Great competition so far!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        best for 2nd place is Brussels '05, Rogowska 4.83
        best for 3rd is WC Osaka '75, Feofanova 4.75 (Pyrek also had 4.75 there)

        according to iaaf.org

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by paddyb
          pela - whats the best mark for place look like in the womens vault?

          3 over 4.82 - that has to be close yeah?

          we have never seen 3 over 4.80 earlier!

          best ever mark-for-place before today

          2 4.83 Anna Rogowska POL 2 Bruxelles 26.08.2005
          3 4.75 Svetlana Feofanova RUS 3 Osaka 28.08.2007
          4 4.75 Monika Pyrek POL 4 Osaka 28.08.2007
          5 4.70 Vanessa Boslak FRA 5 Osaka 28.08.2007
          6 4.65 Fabiana de Almeida Murer BRA 6= Osaka 28.08.2007
          7 4.65 Yuliya Golubchikova RUS 6= Osaka 28.08.2007

          Comment


          • #6
            Isi PASSING 4.87!!! :shock: :shock:

            Comment


            • #7
              awesome. big fan of pyrek and fotfanova

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tafnut
                Isi PASSING 4.87!!! :shock: :shock:
                She's still in 1st, right? She clearly doesn't expect either of the others to clear it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Am I confused or are the IAAF radio folk?
                  Code:
                   Athlete             440 450 460 467 472 477 482 487 492
                   Yelena ISINBAEVA    -   -   -   xo  -   o   o   -   x
                   Monika PYREK        o   -   o   -   o   x-  o   xxx
                  Doesn't Pyrek's miss at 4.77 put her in second behind Isi?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It is irrelevant since a minute or so ago, but if one finishes in a shared first place with someone, does it still count als a 'winning streak'?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      doesn't the countback work as
                      - amount of attempts at highest (final) height
                      and then
                      - amount of misses on lower heights (whatever height that was).

                      If that's the right reading, then they both cleared 4.82 in their 1st attempt, which starts a tie. And since they both had one miss on lower heights, that mean a tie also?

                      That was the IAAF radio reading, I think.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BruceFlorman
                        Am I confused or are the IAAF radio folk?
                        Code:
                         Athlete             440 450 460 467 472 477 482 487 492
                         Yelena ISINBAEVA    -   -   -   xo  -   o   o   -   x
                         Monika PYREK        o   -   o   -   o   x-  o   xxx
                        Doesn't Pyrek's miss at 4.77 put her in second behind Isi?
                        I think IAAF radio folk are correct:

                        From IAAF competition rules 2006-2007:

                        Ties shall be resolved as follows:
                        (a) The athlete with the lowest number of jumps at the height at
                        which the tie occurs shall be awarded the higher place.
                        (b) If the tie still remains, the athlete with the lowest total of
                        failures throughout the competition up to and including the
                        height last cleared, shall be awarded the higher place.

                        And part c), which I didn't quote at first because I thought Isinbayeva had cleared 5.92, says

                        (c) If the tie still remains:
                        (i) If it concerns the first place, the athletes tying shall have
                        one more jump at the lowest height at which any of those
                        involved in the tie have lost their right to continue jumping,
                        and if no decision is reached, the bar shall be raised if the tying
                        athletes were successful, or lowered if not, 2cm for the High
                        Jump and 5cm for the Pole Vault. They shall then attempt one
                        jump at each height until the tie is resolved. Athletes so tying
                        must jump on each occasion when resolving the tie (See
                        example).
                        (ii) If it concerns any other place, the athletes shall be awarded
                        the same place in the competition.
                        Note: This Rule (c) will not apply to Combined Events.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why no jump-off? Even in a little HS dual meet, we do that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            And I misunderstood the Radio report, I thought Isinbayeva had cleared 4.92 - it turns out she didn't. So it is indeed a tie for first.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tafnut
                              Why no jump-off? Even in a little HS dual meet, we do that.
                              it's a jump-off just now. Isi just cleared 4.87.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X