Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USATF qualifying standards changing?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • einnod23
    replied
    Drop that 100 to 10.3, and you save a lot of money!

    In fact, how about eliminating B marks altogether? That'll go very well in this economy!

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    First and foremost, I didn't know where to look on the USATF site; it's a site I frequent 1-3 times a year. Mr. Google enabled me to more quickly find the 2007 rules, which, incidentally, I wasn't looking for. Secondly, I wanted to see if there were any changes between 2007 and what has been mentioned of late.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    I still don't quite understand. If anything, the 2009 rules are easier to find on the USATF web site than the 2007 rules. If there was no change, why look at the 2007 rules at all? What am I missing?

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Why would you link to the 2007 Rulebook when the 2009 Rulebook is available online? ...

    It happens that in this particular case, there appears to have been no change in the rule.
    For that exact reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by EPelle
    Indexes only to 2008-02-14.

    A different USATF link, 2007 Rulebook:
    . . .

    http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2007/2 ... frules.pdf
    Why would you link to the 2007 Rulebook when the 2009 Rulebook is available online? (Just change the 2007's in that url to 2009 and you've got it.) It happens that in this particular case, there appears to have been no change in the rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charley Shaffer
    replied
    Nos. 7 & 8 were not posted on the USATF Web site as of May 11; the list of Qualifying Guidelines ended with No. 6 (thanks to paper copies!).

    "Make 'em up as you go along" - unlimited hydroplane racing.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Indexes only to 2008-02-14.

    A different USATF link, 2007 Rulebook:

    Section II Track Events
    Rule 166 Regulations for Forming Heats

    1/c/iv: If more than 24 report for the 10,000 Meters or the Open Women's 5,000 Meters, the event should be run in sections of no more than 24, but may be run as heats of no more than 24, with no more than 20 advancing to the final of the 10,000 Meters and no more than 16 advancing to the final of the 5,000 Meters.
    v: The Games Committee of all meets other than the Open National Championships may elect to run these events as sections because of facility or scheduling conditions. The election of this format must be stated in the entry form.
    http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2007/2 ... frules.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    knock yourself out

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Try the waybackmachine on the link.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    I see from USATF site that their was a posting as of 5/20.. I don't recall if these two codicils were in place before that:

    <<7. The Men's 10,000m Run Event will be contested as a Final on Time. The number of Declared Entrants will dictate if timed Sections will be run. If Sections are run the Fastest athletes entered and declared will compete in the second section.

    8. The Men's 5,000m Run Event will be contested as a Final on Time. The number of Declared Entrants will dictate if timed Sections will be run. If Sections are run the Fastest athletes entered and declared will compete in the second section.>>

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Huh? Who said they had to run a fast* 10,000 a month before the nationals? They can run it anywhere in the preceding 11 months, including at the '08 OT.

    * = in this day and age, you consider 29:01 to be a tough task for somebody with WC aspirations? 18 guys Qed at the alone, and that about makes for all the field anybody needs, let alone everybody who was added a the Stanfords, etc., from this year.

    And I don't need to be a devil's ad. to make that assessment.

    Leave a comment:


  • dl
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    a devil's advocate question: if you haven't reached the requisite standard in almost a 12-month period, do you deserve to be in the Nationals?
    Yes, depending on the event. Does it make sense to force someone to run a fast 10,000 in May of 2009 to qualify for Nationals if they ran a fast one in May 2008?

    Leave a comment:


  • NormZylstra
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    a devil's advocate question: if you haven't reached the requisite standard in almost a 12-month period, do you deserve to be in the Nationals?
    Good question. But if folks care about those marginal athletes then yes. I work with a discus thrower who was 9th at her first US Nats (which were the trials). She moved back to Michigan from the ATL last fall. Few meets (for open athletes) and poor weather doomed her season. If she's in Eugene I could see her in the top-10 again, instead she'll be home.

    But maybe US track & field isn't about a 57m discus thrower.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Let's put it this way: at Hayward Field if you didn't like your guy's pace after the first lap of the 10K and couldn't get his attention by waving, you could leave the stadium, run over to the student bookstore, buy a big chunk of construction paper and a Sharpie, craft a sign saying "PICK UP THE PACE" AND be back at trackside to wave it to him with a mile still left in the race :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    a devil's advocate question: if you haven't reached the requisite standard in almost a 12-month period, do you deserve to be in the Nationals?
    Didn't they used to go back to January 1 of the previous year? I know the IAAF still does that. The qual period for the Berlin World Championships began January 1, 2008. The devil's advocate could ask the same question.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X