USA's 4x1 DQ was travesty of justice...

[richxx87]

I don't think I can post this S.I. pic here due to copyright issues (GH or Bhall, if you can post it, that would be cool), so I've only provided the link. It shows the baton directly over the zone marker and that Patton's hand is NOT yet grasping it -- maybe touching it, but not conclusive. Interestingly, it appears that Crawford is pointing down at the yellow zone marker.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/p ... ackone.jpg



By the way, alongside that pic, Sports Illustrated has several dozen more gorgeous photos of the WCs.

[mor'fiyah]

Re: USA's 4x1 DQ was travesty of justice...

I don't think I can post this S.I. pic here due to copyright issues (GH or Bhall, if you can post it, that would be cool), so I've only provided the link. It shows the baton directly over the zone marker and that Patton's hand is NOT yet grasping it -- maybe touching it, but not conclusive. Interestingly, it appears that Crawford is pointing down at the yellow zone marker.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/p ... ackone.jpg



By the way, alongside that pic, Sports Illustrated has several dozen more gorgeous photos of the WCs.

*sigh*

I know its still hard to grasp... but the track officials likely had way more evidence than just that one angle to look at... and quite frankly, even that one angle is itself condemning enough. The baton (which is really all that matters) is definitely on the wrong side of the marker. In addition all that has to happen for a pass to begin is for Paton to TOUCH the baton. He doesn't have to actually grasp it. One touch and the pass has begun. I am pretty sure they looked at it and had enough evidence to disqualify the US team.

[gh]

One longtime IAAF official told me off the record, "The jury screwed it up completely. Their decision goes against everything we've been teaching around the world in their officiating courses for the last 20 years."

Having said that, I don't think he was privy to all the possible sources of documentation that the Jury may have had. But from what he saw, that was his take.

[Mikewats]

I'm happpy, it won me £725 from £5.

I was banking on one of the top 3 screwing up with the change overs.

[Alexm]

One longtime IAAF official told me off the record, "The jury screwed it up completely. Their decision goes against everything we've been teaching around the world in their officiating courses for the last 20 years.".

Are we all allowed to post unsubstantiated claims like that, without revealing our source?

[7-sided]

One longtime IAAF official told me off the record, "The jury screwed it up completely. Their decision goes against everything we've been teaching around the world in their officiating courses for the last 20 years.".

Are we all allowed to post unsubstantiated claims like that, without revealing our source?

Well, if we are allowed to post "sourceless" claims (or at least "off the record" IAAF officials remarks), then a member of the jury of appeals told me that the evidence - provided by UKAthletics in high definition - was ironclad. The IAAF official even lamented that UKAthletics had better angles, and clarity, than the IAAF cameras.

The only way to reinstate the U.S. team would have been to ignore the damning evidence, or make up a NEW rule on the spot.

[gh]

One longtime IAAF official told me off the record, "The jury screwed it up completely. Their decision goes against everything we've been teaching around the world in their officiating courses for the last 20 years.".

Are we all allowed to post unsubstantiated claims like that, without revealing our source?

In a word, no. As the proprietor of this here establishment, I'm comfortable in knowing what the provenance of the information is. And my status within the IAAF is well known, so you know it's good "insider info" if I offer it up.

So it's not really unsubstantiated: it's a journalist protecting his sources, for obvious reasons.

"Anonymous" posters don't have the same level of latitude, no.

Having said all that, my personal take on the situation (after a less-than-exhaustive examination of the facs at hand) is that the DQ was proper. (And, of course, the lodging of the protest by the Brits--or anyone--was a perfectly acceptable part of the game.)

[Marlow]

the DQ was proper.
the lodging of the protest by the Brits--or anyone--was a perfectly acceptable part of the game.

At this point, that's the only rational way to look at it . . . but it's still mighty galling.

[TrainerPhil]

Re: USA's 4x1 DQ was travesty of justice...

I don't think I can post this S.I. pic here due to copyright issues (GH or Bhall, if you can post it, that would be cool), so I've only provided the link. It shows the baton directly over the zone marker and that Patton's hand is NOT yet grasping it -- maybe touching it, but not conclusive. Interestingly, it appears that Crawford is pointing down at the yellow zone marker.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/p ... ackone.jpg



By the way, alongside that pic, Sports Illustrated has several dozen more gorgeous photos of the WCs.

According to the rules, the pass commences when the receiving athlete TOUCHES the baton. The rules go on to say that passing cannot commence before or after the zone. Patton definitely touched it before the zone. gh says he has info that the officials did some things they never do. But based on the rules, the US team had a violation and the right decision was made.

[Marlow]

Re: USA's 4x1 DQ was travesty of justice...

Patton definitely touched it before the zone.

I have YET to see conclusive proof of that. I do see in the picture above that Patton's hand is NOT around the stick as it enters the zone.

I agree with the NFL overrule rule. If there is not CONCLUSIVE PROOF to overturn the call on the field, it stands.

[ATK]

Re: USA's 4x1 DQ was travesty of justice...

Patton definitely touched it before the zone.

I have YET to see conclusive proof of that. I do see in the picture above that Patton's hand is NOT around the stick as it enters the zone.

I agree with the NFL overrule rule. If there is not CONCLUSIVE PROOF to overturn the call on the field, it stands.

you cant even see his hand in this picture...

[Speedfirst]

Travesty is correct, the whole situation sucked. :x
The IAAF screwed up a few things in this meet.

[unclezadok]

I have yet to see any photo or video that shows the baton touching Patton's hand outside the zone. His hand is always open. To say that the US should have been DQ'd because there is some remote possibility that his hand touched the baton outside the zone is ludicrous. No such call has ever been made before and only an idiot or a crook would make it.

[Dutra]

Re: USA's 4x1 DQ was travesty of justice...

Patton definitely touched it before the zone.

I have YET to see conclusive proof of that. I do see in the picture above that Patton's hand is NOT around the stick as it enters the zone.

I agree with the NFL overrule rule. If there is not CONCLUSIVE PROOF to overturn the call on the field, it stands.

Not sure what the basis of a DQ is in this case....ie....does it have to be conclusive to DQ.

That's what I was thinking as it was happening....that it was difficult to tell but that if the IAAF was supposed to make a decision in which each "side" had equal weight that they would choose to DQ.

[robert5744]

Until and or unless the IAAF goes to "instant" replay these type of calls will continue. Right or wrong the call was made, the US team was DQ'ed. End of story.