Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Get Ready for Small Individual Fields at NCAA Indoor Meet

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Here is a random video from 2008 at Notre Dame: http://www.flotrack.org/videos/track_ra ... 0-w-400-h4

    There was a curb then. Have they remeasured and remarked their track since then?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by polevaultpower
      So I don't get it... they set the track up wrong, an insane number of teams qualified, and now athletes in every single other event will not get to go to Nationals because of it?
      You'd have to first be able to prove that the faster times are only attributed to the track setup for your statement to hold water.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KevinM
        Originally posted by polevaultpower
        So I don't get it... they set the track up wrong, an insane number of teams qualified, and now athletes in every single other event will not get to go to Nationals because of it?
        You'd have to first be able to prove that the faster times are only attributed to the track setup for your statement to hold water.
        It doesn't matter. I think it is highly likely that a rule (an important rule!) was broken.

        Obviously there were great fields assembled for this race and it was going to be fast no matter what. But a few seconds make all of the difference in the world in this instance.

        I think that every coach with an athlete in positions 15-18 on the performance lists in every event should be protesting this.

        It's possible that Notre Dame was breaking this rule all year. I don't care. DQ all the running marks from all their meets if you have to. The rules need to be followed.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by dj
          The NCAA rule regarding curbing and track measurement which pertain to indoor events is Rule 10.2.3, which includes the following language:

          "Where the inside edge of the track is bordered by a white line, it shall be marked additionally with cones. The cones shall be at least 15cm high. Cones shall be placed on the track so that the outward face of the cone coincides with the edge of the white line closest to the track when the track is surveyed based on the existence of a curb. Otherwise, cones shall be placed on the infield adjacent to the line."

          So, if the ND track was measured 20cm from the line, the cones were properly placed. If the track was measured 30cm from the line, as if there were a curb, the cones were improperly placed.

          Qualifying for the outdoor championships must be on a curbed track. There is no such requirement indoors.
          That's very interesting. There's no such differentiation under IAAF or USATF rules. If there's no curb, you place the cones so the outward face of the cone coincides with the edge of the white line closes to the track AND you measure 20cm, from the line, not 30cm, as you would if there were a curb.

          Should there be separate records and statistics for tracks without curbs measured under NCAA rules? They're effectively running different distances.

          Comment


          • #20
            Other than the comment about having a curb in 2008 in one video we do not know if the track was measured from the inside line under the assumption of no curb (30cm) or a curb (20cm also with restricting curbs outside the edge. I saw a comment somewhere that FloTrack were there, so maybe there is video.

            Note also that the person the does not know how to apply the placing rules correctly is at it again in the men's PV (3/4 decided because the person given third had one more clearance with same misses.

            Looking at the video the inside lane looks like it could be the same width of other lanes so it could be legit.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 26mi235
              Other than the comment about having a curb in 2008 in one video we do not know if the track was measured from the inside line under the assumption of no curb (30cm) or a curb (20cm also with restricting curbs outside the edge. I saw a comment somewhere that FloTrack were there, so maybe there is video.
              You're right, none of us KNOW for sure.

              Has anyone heard of a major program installing an indoor track, having it measured for no curb, then adding a curb in the future and NOT remeasuring it?

              I think it is highly likely that the track was measured for a curb. Under any other set of rules, I don't think you can just remove the curb and add cones, even if they do come up to the line.

              This seems like a glaring inconsistency in the NCAA rulebook, that indoor tracks that are measured for curbs are even allowed to be used without a curb.

              Comment


              • #22
                Tweeted with Becca about this. What is the statistical likelihood that 60 people in the same event all peak on exactly the same day? I'd suggest it is somewhere around zero. I guess it could happen but all sorts of bells went off when I heard about the marks. Would be very interesting to see splits.

                Comment


                • #23
                  If I was on the selection committee, I would be inclined to only take 10-12 dmr's. I don't really think a team finishing 10-15th in a race deserve to go to nationals.

                  Also noticed at Iowa State 14 - 4x400's ran under 3:10! Florida State, with the Borlee twins running for the first time, ran 3:05.48.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I hate to copy anything from letsrun.com, and maybe this will get deleted, but I don't know if there is a way to link to an exact post there, only a page of a thread. But anyway, this is a really good summary of the situation.
                    http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... 209&page=1


                    Originally posted by Rman
                    For those who want the math, an indoor track with a maximum recommended curve radius of 21 meters (I don’t know the measurements of the ND track) would be reduced to a radius 20.9m when accounting for the absence of the curb (i.e., the 10cm difference that is being discussed). The total length of the curved part of the track (both ends) is equal to pi times the diameter (or pi times twice the radius). So the total length of the curved part of the track goes from 3.14x2x21=131.88 meters with the curb (as in previous years) to 3.14x2x20.9=131.25m when not curbed (as in 2009). This is a difference of 0.63m per lap (which is about 8.6m over the length of the DMR). Now, if the ND track was originally designed and certified for a curb, but the curb was not used, this would require that the outward face of the cones coincide with the edge of the white line closest to the track (i.e., away from the infield). Even then, the track has a smaller radius by 10cm (or 0.63m per lap). In other words, if the track had been certified without a curb, the white line would have to be 10cm out from where the curb normally goes to be certified for the same length (320m). This is because lane one is measured 20cm out from the line when there is no curb. Putting the cones on the inside edge of the line (another 5cm) is not only the incorrect placement when a curb is temporarily removed, but actually has the effect of permitting another 5cm of encroachment on the inside edge. A 15cm reduction in the radius is almost a meter per lap (0.94), or about 13m for the DMR. A miler running at 4:06 pace is going to take about 2 seconds to cover this distance. (Actually, it looked like the cones were even inside the line, and not even touching it – now we’re talking 2.5 seconds? 3 seconds?) No matter who ran on the line or who didn’t, who ran on the outside of lane one for most of the race, or whatever, that happens in every race. The dynamics of those two DMR heats were no different than any other. But a smaller track is a smaller track, no matter what, and the whole pack winds up running a shorter race, on average. That’s why the regulations are precise – because it matters.

                    You don’t even need to do the math. It makes no sense that 15 teams in 2 separate heats auto-qualified in the DMR. When has this ever happened before? Certainly never at this facility. It can’t be explained by a fast heat, a good day for a few teams, or anything else other than a change in the length of the race. And that is exactly what happened. The track was changed. The effect was across the board. Every team in both heats qualified in some fashion, even the crappy ones.

                    The bottom line is that the ND track either was certified with curb or it was not. If it was, then there is no question that the cones were in the wrong place and the track ran shorter than in previous years. If the track was certified without a curb, and it was “corrected” this year, then ND ought to be equally embarrassed for running it long for all those years. If you look at the past 3 years, in the longer runs (mile, 3000, 5000, 4x400, and DMR), there were 16 autos and 24 provisionals (16/24) in 2009, 0/17 in 2008, and 4/29 in 2007. And even though there were 3 autos and 15 provisonals in the DMR in 2007, the average time for the autos and provs was a full 7 seconds slower in 2007 than in 2009. It was also a full 7 seconds slower in 2008. If the curb was pulled in 2009 and the markings were changed accordingly and recertified, which I doubt, then there is no problem – every 2009 auto-qualification is valid, and good luck to the DMR 15 teams in Texas.

                    ND needs to provide the track certification for public scrutiny ASAP, before the field is selected for the championships. If there was a violation, then every coned race on that track should be thrown out. If there was not a violation this year, then they owe some apologies to the athletes that competed there all those years and missed auto-qualifying by tenths or hundredths of a second.
                    [/quote]

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Shouldn't we expect more dmr's to qualify this year, when you look at mile, 3k, 5k times being way faster and more plentiful than previous years?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If the track arrangement is correct with cones placed at the lines (and I think that this is legitimate), then at most, the cones are place 5cm too far inside. That is, this part makes no sense to me:

                        "This is because lane one is measured 20cm out from the line when there is no curb. Putting the cones on the inside edge of the line (another 5cm) is not only the incorrect placement when a curb is temporarily removed, but actually has the effect of permitting another 5cm of encroachment on the inside edge.

                        (you do not make both corrections, just one - 10cm no curb, or 5 cm, cones, serving as curb, were 5cm too far inside. There error is at most in the latter. This is one-third the 'correction' suggested above.

                        This is because the cones for the Washington race were at most 2 inches further in than those at ND and it was hard to tell on the video there because of the orange color makes it a bit hard to see. At both venues, the cones are quite tall (not the little ones used for the break lines (e.g., 1-turn break).

                        I did not watch the entire video closely, but I do not remember seeing anyone stepping on the inside line.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Will we be seeing more info on the ND DMR situation this week?
                          I think some valid issues have been raised here regarding track measurement (curb or no) and cone placement (on or inside the line). That, combined with the analysis from the Let's Run post, bring up questions which can easily be answered. But if the answers show fault with both afore mentioned issues, ND has some 'splainin to do and the NCAA has a real tough situation to deal with.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Helen S
                            Will we be seeing more info on the ND DMR situation this week?
                            I think some valid issues have been raised here regarding track measurement (curb or no) and cone placement (on or inside the line). That, combined with the analysis from the Let's Run post, bring up questions which can easily be answered. But if the answers show fault with both afore mentioned issues, ND has some 'splainin to do and the NCAA has a real tough situation to deal with.
                            There cannot be two problems with the set up. If the lane lines have been set for a curb (or for the cones in place of a curb), then the issue is if they cones were really placed inside the line rather on the outer edge of the line. If this is the case, the cones were set 5cm too far in.

                            The discussion on LetsRun seems to be centered on the vast number of fast times. Taking the 5cm as an error and noting that the standard lane is bout 108 cm and yields a 6m full-lap stagger, I get that there is a 1.5% factor for the distance per full lap and a 4.6% factor from the 2cm mistake. multiplying these I get a 0.00069 factor. Multiply this times the 9:30 of the DMR (570 seconds), yields a 0.39 seconds. Thus, the timing is not substantially affected by the cone issue and would not have changed the number of auto qualifiers. There still is an issue that ND needs to clean up and/or explain (e.g., I think that there was a move to a 320m track and it is possible that Lane One is set to be correct without a curb).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 26mi235
                              I did not watch the entire video closely, but I do not remember seeing anyone stepping on the inside line.
                              Whether or not anyone actually steps on the line is irrelevant. Wherever the cones are placed, the athletes will run a certain distance from them in order to avoid tripping on them. I believe that distance will be a constant for each runner, and will not vary depending on where the line is. And so the runners will run closer to the line (and thus a shorter total distance) if the cones are placed entirely inside of the line, rather than covering the line.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Bruce Kritzler
                                That's about 20 teams with auto's. Probably means two sections at ncaa. The total number of athletes in the meet is capped, so the dmr is contributing about 80. This does mean that the individual events will have smaller fields than usual. The usual size of dmr and 4x4 is about 10-12 teams.
                                Declarations now up; basically, men getting 14 athletes per individual event, women getting 17.

                                There should be some kind of safety valve for when too many people get auto qualifiers, or whatever reason. Allow something more than normal OK, but not everybody. So not only do we get severely depleted individual events, there's also a completely unwieldy DM. Dumb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X