Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

weirdness in the ECAC 800

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • weirdness in the ECAC 800

    I note that the Infeld sisters were the first and third-fastest qualifiers in the 800, but didn't run in the final. OK, that happens all the time, but in this instance they still had an 8-woman final.

    Indeed, so many "qualifiers" dropped out (perhaps becuase they all got Regional Q's in the heats?) that the No. 13 qualifier ran the final!

    Do the rules permit this?

    I've long thought that in any major meet that if somebody knows they're going to drop out of the next round that provisions should be made for the next in line to fill the spot.

    It's criminal to see any major race, in particular, have a final go off (in a lane race) with an empty slot.

    Not only eminently more fair to the athletes, but also makes for better presentation, the thing the sport gets its biggest failing marks at.

  • #2
    Re: weirdness in the ECAC 800

    Originally posted by gh
    Do the rules permit this?
    Are you saying this is against the rules at the international level?

    Originally posted by gh
    Not only eminently more fair to the athletes, but also makes for better presentation, the thing the sport gets its biggest failing marks at.
    Agree 100%

    Comment


    • #3
      There were a fair amount of dropouts at the IC4A/ECAC this year because of conflicts with Sunday graduations. So at least on the women's side, they allowed the next fastest times from the Sturday trials to move up. Had not seen this done in previous years at the meet.

      The IC4A/ECAC is in a sort of unique position since the advent of the NCAA regionals. Except for a handful of teams in the mix for the team titles, it is an in-between meet for athletes after their conference meets and before the regional meet. Some use it as a last chance qualifier, some as a tune-up, some as a finale to their collegiate careers, and some as an opportunity for one more collegiate title.

      Comment


      • #4
        Halfmiler 2 is right, but it's a shame that the IC4A, which was once a very important meet that meant something to athletes and fans, has come to that.

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree with you on most of your sentiments, but also I must say that I disagree with trials and finals in the relays....I don't get that, they should just have a qualifying time for the relays. Takes too much out of the athletes, its another reason why some athletes either don't particiapte or only do a round here or there in this meet.

          Just my two cents.

          Comment


          • #6
            For relays, the ultimate idiocy has to be the Pac-10, where it's actually the Pac-9. Yet at the Conference meet they insist on running heats in the 4x1, a 4 and a 5, with the winner and 6 fastest teams advancing. Every school has had plenty of chances to run earlier in the season. How about just knocking off the slowest school, rocket scientists?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by knite
              I agree with you on most of your sentiments, but also I must say that I disagree with trials and finals in the relays....I don't get that, they should just have a qualifying time for the relays. Takes too much out of the athletes, its another reason why some athletes either don't particiapte or only do a round here or there in this meet.

              Just my two cents.
              I don't think two rounds of the 4x100 over two days is that arguous, and for most of the athletes in the 4x800, it is the season's finale. So I suppose the real issue is with the two rounds in two days of 4x400 which usually has about 30 teams split among 4 trial heats on the men's side and almost that on the women's side. I doubt anyone wants a four-section final, so the issue is whether you stick with the status quo or tighten the standards considerably. The coaches probably prefer the status quo.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                Originally posted by knite
                I agree with you on most of your sentiments, but also I must say that I disagree with trials and finals in the relays....I don't get that, they should just have a qualifying time for the relays. Takes too much out of the athletes, its another reason why some athletes either don't particiapte or only do a round here or there in this meet.

                Just my two cents.
                I don't think two rounds of the 4x100 over two days is that arguous, and for most of the athletes in the 4x800, it is the season's finale. So I suppose the real issue is with the two rounds in two days of 4x400 which usually has about 30 teams split among 4 trial heats on the men's side and almost that on the women's side. I doubt anyone wants a four-section final, so the issue is whether you stick with the status quo or tighten the standards considerably. The coaches probably prefer the status quo.
                I still think that if you really want this to be the "the elite of this conf" then have a qual mark or something that doesn't allow for so much with the end of the season in the next 4 wks, and 2 wks for some trying to achieve optimal performance at regionals...of course you do have the option of not allowing your team to participate, but this is in fact the issue with the women's 800m's that some folks brought up. I don't mind people pulling out and you sliding others in...but at least that are for the individual races. The rounds for relays is a bit much, JMO.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: weirdness in the ECAC 800

                  Originally posted by Daisy
                  Originally posted by gh
                  Do the rules permit this?
                  Are you saying this is against the rules at the international level?
                  ...
                  There's no rule that flat-out says, "no, you can't add somebody to fill the field."

                  If the officials want to play hard-ass, they can cite the lack of a rule that says that you can as meaning you follow the formula (first 4 from each heat, or whatever) without deviation.

                  I'm guessing that perhaps it's just something that nobody has ever thought of. Perhaps they should, eh?!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: weirdness in the ECAC 800

                    Originally posted by gh
                    Originally posted by Daisy
                    Originally posted by gh
                    Do the rules permit this?
                    Are you saying this is against the rules at the international level?
                    ...
                    There's no rule that flat-out says, "no, you can't add somebody to fill the field."
                    This is true at the international level (which was the question that was asked), but there is a USATF rule that flat-out says that. It's Rule 166.7.

                    When an individual or relay team, having qualified for a susequent round, withdraws for any reason, no additional individual or relay team shall be advanced to fill the vacated position.
                    The rule goes on to make it clear that things are different with when the vacancy results from a DQ.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: weirdness in the ECAC 800

                      Originally posted by gh
                      I'm guessing that perhaps it's just something that nobody has ever thought of. Perhaps they should, eh?!
                      Certainly it makes no sense to have an empty lane or fewer jumpers and throwers than can be accommodated. Tie breakers are pretty trivial so there should be no arguments.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X