Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adjusted world lists for Beijing qualification

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • norunner
    replied
    That's actually your fault. ;-)
    Their situation is different because Popowicz was in the list of selected athletes you posted, so i entered her as selected, while Swoboda was not on that list, therefore nS. Only later did you add the info that Popowicz was injured, so she got a DNS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    What is the difference between 'nS' and 'DNS' in the lists? Looking at Polish athletes in the women's 100, Ewa Swoboda is included in the main list as 'nS' and Marika Popowicz is on the separate 'DNS' list, while their actual situation is exactly the same - they've both got the Q mark, but are not going to Beijing due to injuries.

    Leave a comment:


  • AS
    replied
    Originally posted by donley2 View Post
    For me the most revealing part about watching this list and then the teams play out was how many countries have restrictive qualification rules. Are the US and Australia unique among the top 15 or 20 countries in team size, in that they both seem to send nearly everyone who has any kind of qualifier?
    The Australian 'select all' strategy is very, very new. In the past it's usually been about 'top 16 potential' or the like. This opening quote from the selection policy for this year explains the new logic:

    "For most events the new IAAF entry process is likely to make qualification for the Beijing IAAFWorld Championships tougher than previous Championships but exactly how much tougher isunknown at this time. Therefore for this World Championships Athletics Australia will select themaximum number of individual athletes eligible within this policy and the IAAF limits of, forexample, three athletes per individual event."

    There is one notable exception: "The selectors will not accept IAAF invitations for athletes qualified only by IAAF statusqualification achieved through winning the 2015 Oceania Championships"

    For more see: http://www.athletics.com.au/Portals/...0Published.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • norunner
    replied
    Something strange is going on, the IAAF has started to send out invitations to athletes without the standard: http://www.yleisurheilu.fi/uutinen/r...ina-haaveillut
    Finnish steeplechaser Camilla Richardson received confirmation from the IAAF that she has been invited.
    The deadline for federations to send their selections to the IAAF isn't over yet, so athletes could still be trying to make the team, i doubt all federations have entered their teams yet. Finnish hammer thrower Söderberg for example threw the standard just a few hours ago with 76.03m.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    For me the most revealing part about watching this list and then the teams play out was how many countries have restrictive qualification rules. Are the US and Australia unique among the top 15 or 20 countries in team size, in that they both seem to send nearly everyone who has any kind of qualifier?

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by NormZylstra View Post
    T&F News, when you write:

    "2015 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS – TEAM USA
    Athletes in parentheses have NOT met the WC standard..."

    Are you including the IAAF standard of Filling the Fields (ie. top-32 for field events) as a 'WC standard'?
    No.........................

    Leave a comment:


  • NormZylstra
    replied
    T&F News, when you write:

    "2015 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS – TEAM USA
    Athletes in parentheses have NOT met the WC standard..."

    Are you including the IAAF standard of Filling the Fields (ie. top-32 for field events) as a 'WC standard'?

    Leave a comment:


  • player
    replied
    I claim no inside info but it is possible whoever wrote the selection procedures did not, at the time, understand that invitations from the IAAF could not be solicited before the selection deadline.

    If solicitations based on rankings are out, and if USATF goes ahead and fills out an event based on available Qs, then the part about accepting any invitations extended based on rankings becomes irrelevant, because IAAF will not extend any such invite if a federation has already filled out its event by selection.

    Leave a comment:


  • NormZylstra
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    Madison and Brown don't need to be top 32, as they have Q-standard marks.

    So here's the question: if it comes down to somebody with a lower place having a Q vs. a higher placer who is in only with the top-32 stricture, what's USATF's protocol?
    Originally posted by tandfman View Post
    I believe USATF would choose the higher placer. There's obviously a tricky matter of timing, but I assume (or at least I hope) they have a plan for dealing with that.
    Originally posted by norunner View Post
    ...There is no removal of any athlete from any list. Madison and Brown have thrown over 65m, so they can be selected by USATF, there is no need to make room for them, they have a guaranteed spot in Beijing IF USATF selects them... all USATF can do is not select Madison and Brown and hope for Winger and Evans to be among the top 32.
    Originally posted by tandfman View Post
    ... I do think that USATF won't finalize their entry until they're pretty sure they know whether not selecting Winger and/or Evans would make room for another American. I doubt if they'd leave it up to hope. All this may be mooted by what happens in at the NACAC meet this weekend.
    Originally posted by NormZylstra View Post
    From Duffey Mahoney, "It's only relevant if there aren't enough people who have attained the standard."
    • "It's" being the top-32 list.
    • "standard" mean distance standard, 65m.
    So for the USATF, performance marks trump competitive results.
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    the way I read it, if Evans is in the top 32, Brown can't displace him, even with a Q.
    Originally posted by donley2 View Post
    That is in direct opposition to the written procedures.
    Someone with some juice may want to get in touch with USATF. Duffy Mahoney (Managing Director of High Performance Programs 317-713-4673) seems to be in error.
    Last edited by NormZylstra; 08-09-2015, 06:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    In some events, the IAAF may invite athletes based on the IAAF ranking lists in order to reach the target number of competitors for each event as listed by the IAAF for the 2015 IAAF World Championships. USATF shall accept any invitations extended to U.S. athletes if such acceptance does not displace an athlete who has finished ahead of the invited athlete(s) at the Trials and who has met the qualifying standard or who is also in a position to receive an IAAF invitation. In the event that one or more of the top three placers in the Trials has not met the qualifying standard but has a performance that appears to be good enough to warrant an invitation based on the ranking list and number of known qualifiers, USATF may solicit an invitation from the IAAF for that athlete(s) notwithstanding that other U.S. athletes have met the qualifying standard.


    The intent is that, to the extent possible, the order of finish at the U. S. Championships shall determine whether an athlete competes in the World Championships.


    There will be no invitations through the use of the ranking lists in the 5,000m, 10,000m, race walk and marathon.


    So I am posting this one more time.

    And also since I am apparently not smart enough to bold anything I have left the important part by itself

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by NormZylstra View Post
    From Duffey Mahoney, "It's only relevant if there aren't enough people who have attained the standard."

    • "It's" being the top-32 list.
    • "standard" mean distance standard, 65m.

    So for the USATF, performance marks trump competitive results.
    That is in direct opposition to the written procedures.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    the way I read it, if Evans is in the top 32, Brown can't displace him, even with a Q.

    Leave a comment:


  • NormZylstra
    replied
    From Duffy Mahoney, "It's only relevant if there aren't enough people who have attained the standard."

    • "It's" being the top-32 list.
    • "standard" mean distance standard, 65m.

    So for the USATF, performance marks trump competitive results.
    Last edited by NormZylstra; 08-09-2015, 02:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    Snippets from the USATF guidelines have been posted a few times on different threads, but the bottom line is that place at USATF trumps everything else. So per the guidelines Schuurmans and Winger are in and Madison is definitely out. Schuurmans because he won and has a auto qualifier. Winger because he finished in the top three and won at NACAC today (which is considered a qualifier as well). The only question is whether Evans maintains a place on the top 32 list. If he does he is in as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • NormZylstra
    replied
    Okay, in the USA, does the performance qualifying standard trump the top-32 qualifying standard?

    For example–in the men's discus, the US champion, Jared Schuurmans (66,10m), has hit the performance standard of 65,00m so he's in.

    The 2nd (Russ Winger 64,34m) and 3rd (Andrew Evans 63,91m) placers do not have the performance standard (no headwinds today at NACAC) BUT they are both in the top-32 on the world list (32nd is 63,34m) so they qualify for the Worlds according to the IAAF.

    Both 4th placer Rodney Brown (65,04m) and 7th placer Chase Madison (65,42m) have the performance standard.

    Does Winger's NACAC win move him ahead of Madisonas the Area Champion?

    Who should go?
    Who will go?
    From what I understand, seems like Brown and Madison go.
    Is it written in USATF bylaws that performance trumps top-32?

    add: Our Throwholics reporter on site at NACAC says Winger is on the WC team. (video interview)
    Last edited by NormZylstra; 08-08-2015, 02:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X