Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oregon's James West false start disqualification.

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Video is behind Flotrack's paywall, as far as I know. Maybe somebody who has an account will chime in.

    Checked Mr. West's twitter account and he has posted an article from the Stride Report discussing the incident. The article references the non-DQ of Kelati and suggests that West's violation was in the same category.

    Comment


    • #17
      Unfortunately, it applies to all events; and God help anyone who false-starts in an IAAF World Champs or Olympic marathon, let alone a relay. That definitely shouldn't happen in any race 400m or longer. Someone got yanked from an NCAA indoor 800 once. In my first HS race (a 600 on the Armory wood), someone got the boot for jumping the gun.

      Comment


      • #18
        I just went back to the NCAA indoor 5000m to refresh my memory and Kelati should have been dq'd. I understand that it's not a big deal in the 5000m or 1500m however the field had already been given a yellow card for a violation not replayed. Kelati just blatantly tips over prior to the gun. After a warning she should have been out.

        With West, since I haven't seen it, I hesitate to comment on it but if it were for a similar violation as for Kelati, I wonder if a post meet appeal and/or ruling could put him back in the field for the championship round.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
          Obviously you never did much distance running on the track...

          Most of the time you don't even want to be first off....
          I didn't do any Connor. Although we had a couple of of reasonable distance runners at WSU in the 70s.

          However, I still don't see that there is any justification or logic to punish sprinters but not distance runners for beating the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Really? Distance runners aren't trying to beat the gun, there is little advantage, but to keep from being trampled...is one reason....also it takes 1/10 of the time to reset the field...

            Meanwhile...sprinters would gladly take 3 false starts each if the rules allowed...

            Comment


            • #21
              Have to agree - no discernible advantage in doing so, hence rarely seen. Let him run.

              Comment


              • #22
                I saw it on Flotrack. Whilst he obviously was trying to get out fast rather than just over-balancing it is very harsh to apply the rule in the distance events.

                The irony is that, if one of the drivers of the rule is to try to prevent meetings going behind schedule, the strict application of the rule here delayed the race by 2-3 minutes. First the officials told the athletes to relax so they did some strides whilst the officials went in a huddle for a minute. Then it took about another minute to have a chat with James West.

                I'd like to see the rule done away with in all events. Instead, if you false start (but not for over-balancing), you should have to start a metre behind (amounting to a 0.1 to 0.2 second disadvantage).
                Last edited by LuckySpikes; 05-28-2019, 04:18 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jjimbojames View Post
                  Have to agree - no discernible advantage in doing so, hence rarely seen. Let him run.
                  Yes, stupid application of the rule. Distance runners - 800m and above - should get a warning first.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Here's what I think the officials should have done: immediately after the "false start" walk right over to James West and say,"okay, you have a warning" then line them up and start the race. This wouldn't have taken more than 1 minute and would have been the right thing to do.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LuckySpikes View Post
                      I saw it on Flotrack. Whilst he obviously was trying to get out fast rather than just over-balancing it is very harsh to apply the rule in the distance events.

                      . . .

                      I'd like to see the rule done away with in all events. Instead, if you false start (but not for over-balancing), you should have to start a metre behind (amounting to a 0.1 to 0.2 second disadvantage).
                      Thanks for the report. I do have to say that I don't think it's practical to make a distinction between "trying to get out fast" and "over-balancing" because the reason runners over-balance is that they are trying to get out fast.

                      And it's my impression in IAAF competition that the "over-balance" excuse is used as a blanket reason to issue a warning rather than a DQ in standing start races. There's no real attempt to make the distinction, at least at 1500m and up. Maybe an 800m runner gets DQd from time to time.

                      A one meter penalty is a creative idea and could be employed in races without blocks but will never happen.

                      As I mentioned above, I don't have a problem with IAAF's more lenient rule but anyone who doesn't think the start can matter in a distance race should re-watch the start of the Rio 1500m.

                      Centrowitz was very intent on getting out and getting position and, if he had not succeeded, the race may very well have played out differently and he might not have won.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by player View Post
                        T.....
                        A one meter penalty is a creative idea and could be employed in races without blocks but will never happen.....
                        Actually that's an ancient idea that was used in the early days (maybe even in the early 1900s?) of the sport

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by gh View Post
                          Actually that's an ancient idea that was used in the early days (maybe even in the early 1900s?) of the sport
                          And a terrible idea today. It destroys an important part of the sport, the stats. If Bolt had FSed and then ran a 9.68 at 101m, how would that have played out? His epic 9.59 would not exist.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by player View Post
                            Thanks for the report. I do have to say that I don't think it's practical to make a distinction between "trying to get out fast" and "over-balancing" because the reason runners over-balance is that they are trying to get out fast.

                            And it's my impression in IAAF competition that the "over-balance" excuse is used as a blanket reason to issue a warning rather than a DQ in standing start races. There's no real attempt to make the distinction, at least at 1500m and up. Maybe an 800m runner gets DQd from time to time.

                            A one meter penalty is a creative idea and could be employed in races without blocks but will never happen.

                            As I mentioned above, I don't have a problem with IAAF's more lenient rule but anyone who doesn't think the start can matter in a distance race should re-watch the start of the Rio 1500m.

                            Centrowitz was very intent on getting out and getting position and, if he had not succeeded, the race may very well have played out differently and he might not have won.
                            It took him 100 meters to get the lead and that was very important but it didn't hurt to not only have a group willing to allow him to lead, that Souleiman let him grab the lead back before the final bell and, most important, that Kiprop boxed in Makhloufi forcing him to lose valuable steps around the final turn.
                            Last edited by booond; 05-29-2019, 12:05 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post
                              I just went back to the NCAA indoor 5000m to refresh my memory and Kelati should have been dq'd. I understand that it's not a big deal in the 5000m or 1500m however the field had already been given a yellow card for a violation not replayed. Kelati just blatantly tips over prior to the gun. After a warning she should have been out.

                              With West, since I haven't seen it, I hesitate to comment on it but if it were for a similar violation as for Kelati, I wonder if a post meet appeal and/or ruling could put him back in the field for the championship round.
                              Of course its a big deal. The start is part of the race. If you can't wait for the gun, don't leave the stands.

                              This "one to the field" is rubbish as well. All it says is you can try one flier to see if you can get away with it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mal View Post
                                Of course its a big deal.
                                The start is a big deal of a 1500m and, in particular, a 5000m? You have to be joking.

                                If you want to say it's a violation of the rules and throw someone out because of it I have no problem with it but to say or imply it would have much if any bearing on the outcome (as it would in a sprint) is truly the rubbish.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X