Am I missing something? (false starts)

[Marlow]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

it is NOT important that the 100 meter dash is accurately measured. It just isn't.

Ohhh, I get it now. And we should just round the times to the whole second, I see.

Seriously, illegal drugs are illegal for a reason!

[26mi235]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

You shouldn't call me "idiotic" when you are apparently blind to the fact that your argument relies on assuming your conclusion.

You say "measuring a 100m on the track is not primarily about human considerations, it is about accurate measuring".

Two things, first, I did not call you idiotic and did not mean to have it appear that way. I referred to the position you were taking in that manner.

As for the rest, my guess is that if you are trying to convince others of your position, stating that accuracy is not particularly important will not appeal strongly to most posters. If you do not particularly care about who fast the time really is and whether the fastest runner wins as opposed to the one that guesses best, there is not much left in the sprints.

[NormZylstra]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

This issue made the Sunday comics:
Tank McNamara by Jeff Millar and Bill Hinds

[El Toro]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

There was a story in the Australian on the weekend about the new Omega starting blocks and pressure measurement regime being introduced in the Diamond League this year. I could only find a recent, generic article on starting technology in the news section on the home page but it lacked any of the interesting detail here.

Bolt shouldn't have been disqualified

If the direct link hits you with one of Rupert's paysite blockages, search for Omega Timing on Google News search and it should let you through.

[Daisy]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

So Blake was moving and set off Bolt.

Omega timing spokesman Peter Huerzeler, who has led the company's research and development team for 40 years, said the new electronic timing system would have revealed that it was Blake rather than Bolt who moved first in the blocks before the 100m final.

"The person closest to Bolt was moving first and he forced Bolt to go," Huerzeler said.

"With the new electronic system, the starter can see (on a screen) who is moving instead of a judge deciding who is moving. We see this as a big advantage in determining false starts."

So is the implication that Blake should have been disqualified? This is starting to get a little tricky. Surely movement alone is not enough for a DQ? Doesn't the athlete actually need to leave the blocks to be a real false start? Could a flinch be misinterpreted as a false start?

[El Toro]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

It is not clear, to me at least, whether "the starter can see (on a screen) refers to being able to see a force profile or if they are talking about a high speed camera that they use for swimming relay early takeoffs.

Also are they really saying that they will be looking at force applied below existing thresholds? How else could they tell Blake was "moving before Bolt", whatever that means? I couldn't find anything on Omega's website except advertising bumpf, so I extracted a background section from a Linthorne paper from a few years ago but there doesn't seemt o be any hard evidence cited that is directly relevant to appropriate thresholds/force curve/what constitutes the start.

Design and Materials in Athletics. N. Linthorne 2007

12.7.2 False start detection

At major competitions, including the Olympic Games and World Championships, the athletes must use starting blocks that are linked to an approved false start control apparatus.

If the force exerted by the athlete on the blocks exceeds a certain threshold before 100 ms after the gun is fired, the athlete is deemed to have committed a false start and the starter is alerted by a tone throught a set of headphones.

The false start time threshold is based on the assumption that the minimum physiological reaction time to an auditory signal is at least 100 ms, but this assumption has recently been questioned (Pain and Hibbs, 2007).

The threshold force required to trigger a false start (typically about 200N) depends on the design of the blocks. Unfortunately, continual changes in technology and subtle refinements in equipment specifications make it difficult to compare start time data from different competitions.

However, on average, female sprinters record slower reaction times on starting blocks than male sprinters, even though no gender bias is evident for reaction times in general (Martin and Buoheristians, 1995).

The difference is believed to be due to the fact that male athletes are usually heavier and stronger than female athletes. A stronger athlete is able to generate a force that crosses the threshold sooner. Also, a heavier athlete exerts more force on the blocks in the set position, and so is closer to the threshold force. Therefore, male athletes appear to react faster than female athletes when measured using starting blocks.

[toyracer]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

With the old starting blocks, reaction times were measured mechanically and the athlete had to move his or her back foot about 5mm (30kg of force) to activate the rear starting block and register a start.

But the new starting blocks are more sensitive, measuring any force on the blocks, and will take the possibility of human error out of the equation in judging which athlete moved first.

Thankfully they will be testing at DL meets. I'm wary of the new increase in sensitivity and it measuring "any" force on the blocks.

[tandfman]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

So Blake was moving and set off Bolt.

Omega timing spokesman Peter Huerzeler, who has led the company's research and development team for 40 years, said the new electronic timing system would have revealed that it was Blake rather than Bolt who moved first in the blocks before the 100m final.

"The person closest to Bolt was moving first and he forced Bolt to go," Huerzeler said.

"With the new electronic system, the starter can see (on a screen) who is moving instead of a judge deciding who is moving. We see this as a big advantage in determining false starts."

So is the implication that Blake should have been disqualified? This is starting to get a little tricky. Surely movement alone is not enough for a DQ? Doesn't the athlete actually need to leave the blocks to be a real false start? Could a flinch be misinterpreted as a false start?

How can the starter watch the athletes, which he/she must do, and at the same time watch a screen?

[lonewolf]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

Yeahhh?? :?

[Daisy]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

How can the starter watch the athletes, which he/she must do, and at the same time watch a screen?

Is this the new essential head gear for a starter in the 21st century?

[Smoke]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

Anyone want to still say this is black and white? Shall we revisit 2003? BTW, in 1995 we used the sensors and they were too sensitive and caused a boat load of call ups because every shake was setting the sensor off in the starters ear but no one was actually moving. Reading this is a joke. Athletes feet slip on the pads, shake from positioning, shake from nerves, etc.
The elephant in the room is we need to have visual confirmation. In this day of instant replay, use it! And use it with all the technology available! RT times, video replay with audio, and please rewrite the rule to state the first person moving can only be dq'd!

Like I have stumped for years, this is a human issue. Technology is not resolving this. New sensors are not negating bad rules and unregulated starting

[lonewolf]

Re: Am I missing something? (false starts)

I don't care about theoretical or real reaction times.. If the starters don't see someone move forward after Set before they hear the gun.. let em run...think about how many millions of races were run under those rules.. and we still honor the reported/purported times.