Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bogus Mark Report/Beach Invitational TJ

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Bogus Mark Report/Beach Invitational TJ

    Someone needs to correct the 18.76/61-06 3/4 (+0.0) triple jump credited to freshman Anders Pendergrass of Idaho. It's what HY-TEK has on the meet, as does TFRRS.

  • #2
    Originally posted by CKuykendall View Post
    Someone needs to correct the 18.76/61-06 3/4 (+0.0) triple jump credited to freshman Anders Pendergrass of Idaho. It's what HY-TEK has on the meet, as does TFRRS.
    TFRSS lists the marks they get, without thinking or editing!
    They also change marks due to altitude or, when INdoors, due to flat vs banked tracks!
    NOT reliable for REAL marks!!
    (I was fooled by TFRSS before also!!)

    Comment


    • #3
      Two things:

      -- It's probably best to address corrections to the meet host, not this board, since it's unlikely that any of us can make the correction.

      -- TFRRS results are perfectly fine and accurate. The various lists are to be used only for their intended purpose, NCAA championship qualifying.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gm View Post
        -- TFRRS results are perfectly fine and accurate. The various lists are to be used only for their intended purpose, NCAA championship qualifying.
        ?!
        There are indeed occasional errors, and the lists serve a very important OTHER function - to allow college track fans to follow the sport better, but yes, we shouldn't look this gift horse in the mouth; it's a great service and the infrequent errors are pretty obvious.

        Comment


        • #5
          ...and why would a 61 foot TJ stick out?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post
            ...and why would a 61 foot TJ stick out?
            Good point. Is it the 18.76 mark that he is concerned about being incorrect, or the 0.0 wind? I'd think you would need a pretty good breeze behind you to go that far. If it were a legal wind, we'd have heard of the WR, so I bet they just forgot to input the correct reading in the results. Maybe it was 20.0 m/s, and the "2" just got truncated.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Merner521 View Post
              Good point. Is it the 18.76 mark that he is concerned about being incorrect, or the 0.0 wind? I'd think you would need a pretty good breeze behind you to go that far. If it were a legal wind, we'd have heard of the WR, so I bet they just forgot to input the correct reading in the results. Maybe it was 20.0 m/s, and the "2" just got truncated.
              Throw in the mistype on the altitude and POOF! 61 feet!

              Comment


              • #8
                Whatever the problem was, it has apparently been solved. The mark no longer appears on TFRRS.

                Comment

                Working...
                X