m1500 prelims - what happened?

[jney]

he is in, I've heard from people there he has been confirmed in the final.

[trig]

confirmation

Event 5 Men 1500 Meter Run
================================================== =============================
2 Heats. Advance top 4 from each heat plus next best 4 times.
Name Year School Seed
================================================== =============================
Heat 1 Prelims
1 Leonel Manzano SR Texas 3:36.24
2 Garrett Heath JR Stanford 3:41.08
3 Dorian Ulrey SO N. Iowa 3:41.59
4 Kurt Benninger SR Notre Dame 3:42.49
5 Darren Brown SR Texas 3:41.78
6 Matt Debole SR Georgetown 3:40.73
7 John Richardson SR Kentucky 3:41.87
8 Lee Emanuel JR New Mexico 3:40.77
9 Russell Brown SR Stanford 3:40.96
10 Matthew Elliott SR Winthrop 3:45.72
11 John Mickowski SR Army 3:43.98
12 Craig Miller SO Wisconsin 3:41.61
13 John Kosgei SO LSU 3:42.98
Heat 2 Prelims
1 Andrew Bumbalough JR Georgetown 3:40.22
2 David Torrence SR California 3:40.90
3 Mark Davidson FR Tulsa 3:43.89
4 Evan Jager FR Wisconsin 3:41.24
5 Andrew Acosta SO Oregon 3:40.52
6 Kyle Miller JR Texas 3:41.67
7 Peter VanderWesthuizen SR Nebraska 3:42.02
8 Laef Barnes JR UCLA 3:41.76
9 Mark Matusak SO California 3:42.39
10 Michael Kerrigan SR Villanova 3:47.61
11 Jack Bolas SO Wisconsin 3:41.21
12 Andrew Jesien JR Virginia 3:43.69
13 Jeff See JR Ohio State 3:40.86

[jney]

that's a start list.

[trig]

that's a start list.

Oops, I thought there were 3 rounds and this was the start list for the 2nd round.
thanks

[26mi235]

I am still unsure about the ruling that has apparently been made to include AJ into the already-crowded final.

Not sure about this, the difference is 3 thousandths

12 Kurt Benninger SR Notre Dame 3:43.86q 3:43.856
13 Andrew Acosta SO Oregon 3:43.86 3:43.859

"Tie for Last Qualifying Position
ARTICLE 8. In the event of a tie for the last qualifying place for a subsequent race, and assuming positions on the track are available, the tying runners all shall qualify. If enough lanes are not available, the position(s) shall be determined by reading the phototiming devices to the 1/1,000th of a second or lesser fraction, whenever possible, and then by a runoff or drawn by lot, based on a decision before the meet by the games committee.


[I just realize that this is my "milestone" post; how appropriate it be about this distance.]

[Half Miler]

[I just realize that this is my "milestone" post; how appropriate it be about this distance.]

Metric-minded folks have no idea what you're talking about.

[bad hammy]

I am still unsure about the ruling that has apparently been made to include AJ into the already-crowded final.

"Tie for Last Qualifying Position
ARTICLE 8. In the event of a tie for the last qualifying place for a subsequent race, and assuming positions on the track are available, the tying runners all shall qualify. If enough lanes are not available, the position(s) shall be determined by reading the phototiming devices to the 1/1,000th of a second or lesser fraction, whenever possible, and then by a runoff or drawn by lot, based on a decision before the meet by the games committee.

My guess would be that they decided the track was big enough to handle 13 runners and therefore did not apply the tiebreaker.

[26mi235]

I am still unsure about the ruling that has apparently been made to include AJ into the already-crowded final.

"Tie for Last Qualifying Position
ARTICLE 8. In the event of a tie for the last qualifying place for a subsequent race, and assuming positions on the track are available, the tying runners all shall qualify. If enough lanes are not available, the position(s) shall be determined by reading the phototiming devices to the 1/1,000th of a second or lesser fraction, whenever possible, and then by a runoff or drawn by lot, based on a decision before the meet by the games committee.

My guess would be that they decided the track was big enough to handle 13 runners and therefore did not apply the tiebreaker.

But the field is 15, not 13 (two added in for falls).

[jney]

yes, but is there a rule for field caps? Like the 100 is an 8 or 9 person based on size of track and that's in the rule book. But is there a number for the 1500? And you have to advance these people. There is nothing going around that.

[Walt Murphy]

Thanks for that Walt. I assume you are on-scene? Can you tell us how many fell and who fell? The reason I'm asking is because the kid from my alma mater (winthrop) Matt Elliot was well out of it, but i dont know if that's because he ran like crap or got caught up in it.

I'm at home for this one--needed a break before the Trials.

[EPelle]

[I just realize that this is my "milestone" post; how appropriate it be about this distance.]

Metric-minded folks have no idea what you're talking about.

I have no idea what he is talking about, and haven:t for a few weeks.

[EPelle]

The Ducks also received some good news early on Friday when sophomore A.J. Acosta was advanced to Saturday’s finals of the men’s 1,500 meters. Following Thursday night’s semifinals, Acosta was judged to have missed the final by .003 of a second to Notre Dame’s Kurt Benninger, but upon appeal, the NCAA overturned its initial ruling.

"In non-laned events, if there is a tie both runners advance," said Lananna. "We appealed and the correct decision was made by the NCAA. It was really no big deal, but obviously it’s good for A.J. to have a chance to run in the final."

The men’s 1,500 final will feature a field of 15 runners, as opposed to 12, with Acosta and two other runners who were involved in falls joining the expanded field. Acosta, from Oceanside, Calif., ran 3:43.86 in Thursday night’s semifinal.

[tandfman]

"In non-laned events, if there is a tie both runners advance," said Lananna. "We appealed and the correct decision was made by the NCAA."

That could not have been the correct decision. The rules clearly say you should break ties by reading photos to the 1000th of a second.

Edited as follows:

In view of the posts below this, I have to retract that statement. I had been looking at Rule 5.12.2(b), which says:

b. When fully automatic timing (FAT) is used, and the timing system allows, ties will be broken by reading the picture to the 1/1,000th of a second.

That seemed pretty clear to me--if you can break the tie by reading the photo to the 1000th of a seccond, you do so and it is no longer a tie.

Rule 5.8, quoted in a post below this, contradicts this in the specific case where the tie in question is for the last qualifying position.

They really ought to clean that up so that 5.12.2(b) refers to 5.8 as an exception.

[bad hammy]

I am still unsure about the ruling that has apparently been made to include AJ into the already-crowded final.

"Tie for Last Qualifying Position
ARTICLE 8. In the event of a tie for the last qualifying place for a subsequent race, and assuming positions on the track are available, the tying runners all shall qualify. If enough lanes are not available, the position(s) shall be determined by reading the phototiming devices to the 1/1,000th of a second or lesser fraction, whenever possible, and then by a runoff or drawn by lot, based on a decision before the meet by the games committee.

My guess would be that they decided the track was big enough to handle 13 runners and therefore did not apply the tiebreaker.

But the field is 15, not 13 (two added in for falls).

Regardless, the same principle would appear to apply. The officials apparently decided that the track was big enough to handle on extra competitor, so there was no need to go to the tie-breaking 1000th.

[dj]

[quote=bad hammy]

I am still unsure about the ruling that has apparently been made to include AJ into the already-crowded final.

"Tie for Last Qualifying Position
ARTICLE 8. In the event of a tie for the last qualifying place for a subsequent race, and assuming positions on the track are available, the tying runners all shall qualify. If enough lanes are not available, the position(s) shall be determined by reading the phototiming devices to the 1/1,000th of a second or lesser fraction, whenever possible, and then by a runoff or drawn by lot, based on a decision before the meet by the games committee.

My guess would be that they decided the track was big enough to handle 13 runners and therefore did not apply the tiebreaker.

But the field is 15, not 13 (two added in for falls).

Regardless, the same principle would appear to apply. The officials apparently decided that the track was big enough to handle on extra competitor, so there was no need to go to the tie-breaking 1000th.[/quote:vwb92r7x]

Rule 5.9.e would seem to address this: "If 15 or fewer competitors for the 1,500 meters, the event shall be run as a final."

This specifically covers the need to create preliminary rounds, but the NCAA clearly feels 15 is allowable for a 1500.