The no-false-start rule revisited

[CookyMonzta]

Here we go again. From the IAAF site:

This summer IAAF Congress on the recommendation of Council will decide whether or not to introduce a No False Start Rule. Are you in favour of such a rule?

YOUR VOTE HAS BEEN VALIDATED
1) No 57.56%
2) Yes 42.44%
[As of 4:00 P.M. E.S.T.]

[Marlow]

It's waaaay overdue. The starter always has the discretion not to charge a FS if s/he thinks it's no one's fault (loud noise, etc.)

[SantaCruz]

I support the no false start rule as it makes all competitors equal. They tested it at the Euro team champs and you it worked out well.

[sprintblox]

A no-false-start rule would be better than the current situation.

However, in my opinion there is a better alternative: Don't DQ them on their first false start, but DQ them on their second false start of the season (and third and fourth and anything after that). That is sort of (but not exactly) like how yellow cards are cumulative in World Cup football.

That way, there is a strong deterrent to false starting, while still making an allowance for a one-off mistake resulting from a noise in the crowd or a bad starter.

For those occurring late in the season, make a false start in or after the Olympics or outdoor World Champs carry over to the next season if that false start is their first of the season and they weren't DQ'd in the same meet. Of course, the IAAF would have to list what series of meets constitute a "season" for false start purposes.

But if they're going ahead with the no-false-start rule, as they probably will do anyway because they aren't looking for other ideas, I hope that at major meets like the Olympics and WC they will let the race run and then DQ people afterwards, after carefully analyzing the available evidence, unless the offending athlete moved so soon that they can call the race back before the others start really running off (similar to swimming's rule where they let the race go ahead unless the swimmer jumped in the water by him/herself).

[Jerome Marrow]

This is all well and good when you have good starters, but as most in the US can tell you that when starters hold athletes, unnecessarily, for excessively long periods of time and are sporadic in their starting habits (either holding that athletes 4 seconds or shooting a quick gun before everyone is even completely set). I would really hate to see a medal won/lost because of a shitty starter. Maybe you could have it like this for all of the non-world championship meets and then implement the OLD false start rule in the finals of the biggest meets.

[imaginative]

It's waaaay overdue. The starter always has the discretion not to charge a FS if s/he thinks it's no one's fault (loud noise, etc.)

I can see this in a small junior-high competition:

1. Someone makes a loud noise in the audience.

2. Sprinter pops up.

3. ``Official'' disqualifies sprinter.

4. Sprinter points out the disturbance and request another chance.

5. Official: The rules are the rules, you moved too soon.

6. Sprinter: But...

7. Official: No back talk! Go see the principal!

(Notwithstanding the idiocy of the current rules.)

[gh]

funny; high school and NCAA rules have been no-false-start for 30-odd years. What is it about turning pro that makes you forget all your previous years of training? Does money make you stupid?

[guru]

Does money make you stupid?

No, but as we've seen in other areas, it makes you try to get an edge. Imagine how many drug positives we'd have if everyone got one free pass when caught.

[sprintblox]

funny; high school and NCAA rules have been no-false-start for 30-odd years. What is it about turning pro that makes you forget all your previous years of training? Does money make you stupid?

1. If you want to talk about stupid, don't forget officials, who sometimes wrongly call a false start. Linford Christie in 1996 for example (granted, he contributed to his own demise, as his first false start was legitimately called). Not to mention those officials who hold athletes so long in the blocks that they start to tip over.

2. Many of the world's top sprinters did not go to high school or college in the US. So this no-false-start rule would be brand new to them. That's probably why many Americans want this rule -- it would give them a relative advantage over the home-grown Jamaican sprinters who didn't grow up with the rule.

3. The crowds at NCAA and US high school meets are much smaller and quieter than at the Olympics and WC (possible rare exceptions like Oregon).

4. And most importantly, the stakes are a lot lower in the NCAA and high school. I don't have a big problem with a no-false-start rule on the circuit, where the stakes are not so terribly high. But please don't bring it to the WC and Olympics.

[26mi235]

Imagine how many drug positives we'd have if everyone got one free pass when caught.

Like the (initial) rules for baseball, or the 2003 'tests'?

[unclezadok]

funny; high school and NCAA rules have been no-false-start for 30-odd years. What is it about turning pro that makes you forget all your previous years of training? Does money make you stupid?

Judging from who has the most money in today's world, the answer may be yes.
However, in pro sprinting it may be that the runners are little more antsy at the start due to the money or prestige involved. I don't like the no-false-start rule. The penalty is too great for the offense. And starters are way too inconsistent in excusing false starts because of sudden noises, etc. Some of them will charge a false start even if someone comes up and kicks a runner in the butt.

The worst occurrence of this was actually at the nationals in swimming a couple of years ago. A photographer's flash bulb went off and Ian Crocker reacted and false started and was disqualified despite the obvious distraction. The flash was on his side of the pool. Usually no-false start works OK in swimming because the start is not as important as in track.

[Speedfirst]

2. Many of the world's top sprinters did not go to high school or college in the US. So this no-false-start rule would be brand new to them. That's probably why many Americans want this rule -- it would give them a relative advantage over the home-grown Jamaican sprinters who didn't grow up with the rule.

How many of the worlds top sprinters and worlds top is the operative words didn't gop to high school or college in th U.S.

But see you see many did attend high school or college. Who said Americans want this rule? You went from world's top sprinters, to making this out to be the U.S. against Jamaica :shock: