Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What do you think of 3 race semifinals?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by kreynolds
    perhaps we should lobby for a new term.
    Why, we all perfectly understand what the IAAF means by 'semis' now - the second to last round. I guess we could call it the 'penultimates'!

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by Smoke
    It is not the three heats, as has been mentioned. It is the simple fact that you can take second in your heat and end up in lane one for the final! I have had it happen twice to my athletes and it definitely affected their races (Hadi 01 and Tasha 07). Meanwhile a timed qualifier ends up in lane seven or eight.
    You're not up to date. Seeding rules were changed last year, so it can't happen now.

    Leave a comment:


  • rabalac
    replied
    Next thing you know, they will be having five "quarter" finals.

    Leave a comment:


  • kreynolds
    replied
    First off, I don't like three semifinals, either.

    If you look at:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semifinal
    the definition says, "of or pertaining to the round preceding the final one in a tournament from which losers are eliminated."

    But if you look at:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/semi-final
    the second definition says, "One of the two competitions of the next to the last round in an elimination tournament."

    So the prefix 'semi' can seem to mean either 'half' or 'partial':
    http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=semi#a/484484
    and the IAAF has taken this to heart.

    Given that track and field's use of semi-final has historically meant two races leading to the final, perhaps we should lobby for a new term. How about mero-final? Or Poly-semifinal? Elimination final? I'm sure others can think of more useful terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Love it!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

    Three semis makes everyone MORE competitive, plus there's 24 athletes under the gun, not just 16.

    The word 'semis' means whatever we deem it to mean! If we say that IN THIS CONTEXT it simply means the round that precedes the Final, then that's exactly what it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    This brought a tear to my eye. I thought I was alone in this. As a acoach of 4hers I have been dealing with this foolishness for at least ten years.

    It is not the three heats, as has been mentioned. It is the simple fact that you can take second in your heat and end up in lane one for the final! I have had it happen twice to my athletes and it definitely affected their races (Hadi 01 and Tasha 07). Meanwhile a timed qualifier ends up in lane seven or eight.
    Now one possible balance to this isiocy is the new lane draw rules, which apparently the IAAF are not using this year.

    The fairest way is either 9 lanes, or 2 heat semis and take the top three plus 2. In straight races it has to be top 4 to eliminate the wind from being a factor.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by 3a
    I'm sorry, I thought the athletes were the most important part of the champs, not the TV Networks.
    Oh, my!

    Not since about 1960, I'd guess...

    Leave a comment:


  • Halfmiler2
    replied
    It sometimes becomes a trade-off of three choices:

    1. A three-heat semi;
    2. An extra round; or
    3. Using nine lanes instead of eight.

    I'd vote for the last as being the least bad choice.

    With nine lanes, it is possible to run up to 54 athletes in three rounds with at least top three always advancing and a two-heat semi. With eight lanes, the limit for this is only 40 athletes.

    Also, with nine lanes, if a three-heat semi-final is unavoidable, at least the top three in each semi-final advance to the final.

    And when the ninth lane is not being otherwise used, it gives the referee/jury additional options when there is a worthy protest.

    The bottom line is that an OG or WC track should always have nine lanes. Use only eight if possible but have a ninth lane available for when it is needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeksreal
    replied
    I agree 100% with Vault-emort! If there are more than 40 entrants there needs to be a quarter-final before semis.

    Leave a comment:


  • wineturtle
    replied
    Originally posted by Vault-emort
    When there are THREE medals to be decided, NO RACE (heat or sf) should allow less than the THREE first across the line to qualify for the subsequent round.

    THREE lane semi-finals should be purged from the championship calendar until every track conducting championships has NINE lanes to use in the final.
    agree on both

    Leave a comment:


  • Slowrunner
    replied
    I hate it as well, especially in events where the first round becomes nearly meaningless. Take today's 200, you basically had to have a leg fall off to fail to qualify.

    Anything under 40 entrants should be top 3 + 1 = 16

    More than 40 (6 heats) becomes a problem - would top 2 + 2 = 16 work?

    More than 56 (7 heats) would require a quarterfinal round. Top 4 + 4 = 32

    How about a repachage round similar to rowing?

    Let's say 7 heats...top 2 in each heat go directly to semis, third place plus fastest 4th place finisher to a heat where top 2 go to semis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault-emort
    replied
    When there are THREE medals to be decided, NO RACE (heat or sf) should allow less than the THREE first across the line to qualify for the subsequent round.

    The craze of THREE semi-finals should be purged from the championship calendar until every track conducting championships has NINE lanes to use in the final.

    Leave a comment:


  • cacique
    replied
    one solution to avoid the 3 semis scenario is however an extra round, so the athletes may not like that. so using lalala's example of the w200 (i haven't counted how many are entered) but from six heats, i'm guessing there are close to 40-ish entrants. to go from 40+ to 16 is too drastic. to go to 32 then 16, it involves another round. 3 semis then becomes the "best" solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • cacique
    replied
    3a, please tell us how you really feel. don't beat around the bush now!

    how do you like the fact that they put jepkosgei again with semenya in the semis (after they ran the prelims together)?

    Leave a comment:


  • cacique
    replied
    Originally posted by Weights&Shoes
    I hate it, but what determines 3 or 2 Semi's? How many people qualify for the Championships? or does the IAAF set that in advance so only a certain amount of people get in?
    it's obviously a function of how many athletes are entered. so to go from let's say 38 athletes to 16 is a bit too draconian, so they have to compromise and pare it down to 24, which makes it a 3 semis round. on the other hand, if they have let's say 58 athletes (for 100 m e.g.), they can pare it down to 32 (QT) then 16 (semis).

    i think 3 semis is tougher and a different affair for 1500 m than let's say the 100H/110H. hopefully the seeding is done correctly. but it's tough.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X