Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adjusted world lists for Beijing qualification

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • donley2
    replied
    Couple things, it appears the link at the beginning of the thread is now set up for Rio. Secondly, GH had wondered out loud in one of his editorials whether the new qualification system would affect the size of team USA. I have not run the numbers, but it would appear to me that it did not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pakilo
    replied
    Originally posted by norunner View Post
    Have you seen ANY announcements anywhere that a federation declined invitations? I only saw announcement when one was accepted.
    Nope, I have not.
    So we have federations which will select as many athletes as possible (USA among them) and second group with Russian fed.which selects only two HJers when 5 or 6 have the standard. I prefer the first group.

    Leave a comment:


  • norunner
    replied
    Have you seen ANY announcements anywhere that a federation declined invitations? I only saw announcement when one was accepted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pakilo
    replied
    Women's TJ was mentioned more than once . Do we know for sure now that federations really received the invitations but didn't accept it?
    In this particular case I'm wondering about POL, GER, BLR, RUS... Ptashkina of Ukraine is selected with 14.08 and I saw Ukrainian fed.announcement about the IAAF invitation (same with Epps-USA) . Does that mean just those federations above didn't say offcially we received and we declined?

    Leave a comment:


  • NormZylstra
    replied
    Originally posted by donley2 View Post
    The preliminary entry list shows that in five different events (mTJ, wHJ, wPV, wTJ and wSP) the IAAF did not in fact fill the fields all the way to 32 (with field sizes varying from 27-31). So apparently at some point they simply gave up and stopped inviting people. Sort of an interesting development.
    I know of some qualified athletes whose federation refused to allow them to compete. Sadly, we do not have the best thirty-two in the world competing.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by norunner View Post
    I've been told for the wPV they didn't want to invite all 4.40 women because there would have been over 32 then.
    For the wHJ and wPV I can understand that sort of explanation. For the other three that can't possibly be it.

    Leave a comment:


  • norunner
    replied
    I've been told for the wPV they didn't want to invite all 4.40 women because there would have been over 32 then.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    The preliminary entry list shows that in five different events (mTJ, wHJ, wPV, wTJ and wSP) the IAAF did not in fact fill the fields all the way to 32 (with field sizes varying from 27-31). So apparently at some point they simply gave up and stopped inviting people. Sort of an interesting development.

    Leave a comment:


  • player
    replied
    Originally posted by bingisser View Post
    I am a practicing lawyer, so I am aware of the difference between "may" and "shall."
    As you can probably guess, I am similarly afflicted.

    I would defend USATF from the charge that it did not understand the process that would take place on grounds that the process was new and not under USATF's control. By use of the permissive "may" and the qualifier "to the extent possible" USATF did not commit itself to the risk of losing a team USA spot by waiting for a post-deadline invite that might never be extended.

    Leave a comment:


  • bingisser
    replied
    Originally posted by player View Post
    For extra credit, I suggest googling "may shall statutory interpretation".
    I am a practicing lawyer, so I am aware of the difference between "may" and "shall." But this line should also be read in the context on the entire section which also says "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." At worst the USATF did not follow its own procedures. At best it did not understand the actual process or think this thing through in the first place, which is also unacceptable.

    Leave a comment:


  • player
    replied
    Originally posted by bingisser View Post
    Exactly. Just wrote about this topic today on our site: http://www.hmmrmedia.com/2015/08/why...s-on-team-usa/

    I'm surprised no one is really talking about this much. Apparently USATF communicated to everyone that in this situation someone in Brown's position would be selected. But then why is the policy written otherwise. They need to stick to their policy...if they can just make rules up on the fly we are in for trouble.
    See my post #13 in thread "Official US team for Beijing announced" (and norunner's post #25 in that thread). Also see my post #218 in this thread.

    For extra credit, I suggest googling "may shall statutory interpretation".

    Also note that no athlete involved has complained.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    I wasn't meaning how useful were the lists created for here: meant trying to follow the IAAF protocols.
    I very much like filling the large majority of the fields to a set number. Gives the IAAF a lot of certainty in how to plan things logistically. Since we had Oliver/Norunner's list it was reasonably easy to figure out what was happening. Only the weirdness with the men's discus and USATF's seemingly going against it's own written guidelines that was truly confusing.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    It's probably the first time they've filled to any level.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by NormZylstra View Post
    Is 2015 the 1st time the IAAF filled the fields to thirty-two?
    Yes, I believe so.

    Leave a comment:


  • bingisser
    replied
    Exactly. Just wrote about this topic today on our site: http://www.hmmrmedia.com/2015/08/why...s-on-team-usa/

    I'm surprised no one is really talking about this much. Apparently USATF communicated to everyone that in this situation someone in Brown's position would be selected. But then why is the policy written otherwise. They need to stick to their policy...if they can just make rules up on the fly we are in for trouble.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X