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

  • #31
    Agreed. If the start to a 1500 or 5K was a big deal, there would be a lot more false starts, and distance runners would be practicing their starts. Anyone know of a distance coach that actually has his/her charges work on their start the way sprinters do?

    Comment


    • #32
      The move from one false start for every athlete to one for the field (then to none at all) was, I believe, to avoid debacles like meets gh has referred to, where there are a couple of dozen false starts in the heats of the 100 (an old NCAA meet?) slowing the meet down by a good 45' or hour. How often did you see that problem in the distance events prior to the one-for-the-field or the no false start rule changes? Answer: never. Allowing one false start for the field makes sense above 400 or 600m.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post
        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.
        Of course its a big deal.
        Without a start there'd be no race.
        Its perhaps the only time the entire viewing public have their eyes 100% on the race.
        Its part of the skills. Its a big part of the drama.
        Don't fall on your face if its such a minor part of the race. Shouldn't be too hard to stand there and wait for the gun. Should it?
        Just obey the rules.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by mal View Post
          Of course its a big deal.
          Without a start there'd be no race.
          Dude.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post
            Dude.

            Dude is right...mal your logic is fatally flawed...

            Comment


            • #36
              Kierkegaard arguments now...

              Can you have a race without a start...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mal View Post
                O....
                Its perhaps the only time the entire viewing public have their eyes 100% on the race.
                . ....
                and there's nothing the "viewing public" as a whole hates more than false starts and seeing people thrown out.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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
                  Thank you for the history tip. I went looking for some discussion of it and came across this presentation by an IAAF technical official.

                  http://www.usatfne.org/officials/rul...ory_zemper.pdf

                  Use of the "set back" penalty apparently persisted at NCAA, AAU and IAAF levels into the early 1930's. Details varied, but the most common version seemed to be that a runner could get two set back penalties before being disqualified on the third violation.

                  The author, who mentions that he is a starter himself, comments that he would like to see the "set back" resurrected. I agree with him and LuckySpikes, at least for races without starting blocks.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by player View Post
                    Use of the "set back" penalty apparently persisted at NCAA, AAU and IAAF levels into the early 1930's.
                    Pro racing (such as Stawell Gift) in Australia still maintains this approach whether the race is scratch or handicap.

                    Here is the Victorian Athletic League rules that, thankfully, in line with mal's philosophy, kicks lazy, useless distance runners that can't even stand still and upright, right up the arse in proportion to their uselessness:

                    12.18 Any Athlete who causes the false start shall be penalised as follows:
                    a) 1/2 metre in distances up to and including 70 metres;
                    b) 3,4 metre in distances of 90 metres and 100 metres;
                    c) 1 metre in distances over 100 metres up to and including 200 metres;
                    d) 2 metres in distances over 200 metres up to and including 400 metres;
                    e) 3 metres in distances over 400 metres up to and including 800 metres;
                    f) 5 metres in distances over 800 metres;
                    g) Disqualification from the event shall follow if any Athlete breaks twice.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Notice the commentary Re: this on Flotrack by Lincoln S. He said exactly what I think.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cannon View Post
                        Notice the commentary Re: this on Flotrack by Lincoln S. He said exactly what I think.
                        https://www.flotrack.org/video/65085...distance-races

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cannon View Post
                          Notice the commentary Re: this on Flotrack by Lincoln S. He said exactly what I think.
                          The flotrack commentary seems to be behind a paywall. Is the link below really what you think?
                          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Us-1XNT9A
                          To me, it is barely coherent, and completely misstates the rule(s). Everybody on this board knows that "stumbles a little bit, falls over the line" is not a false start.
                          Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            In the girl's 1600 at the Wisconsin State meet a girl at the start line lost balance a bit and barely touched over the line and was stepping back - she was DQed. This was even less of a 'violation' than for West. I would think that having it up to the discretion of the starter would make for some better outcomes.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X