Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sprint Semi-finals

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Sprint Semi-finals

    It used to be that there were 2 semi-finals and the top 4 finishers in each race would qualify for the final.

    Then in recent years, the trend has been to have 3 semi-finals with the 2 fastest in each automatically qualifying for the final along with the next 2 fastest times.

    Now, I just saw the results of the Euro-U23 semi finals, and the qualifiers are the 3 top finishers in each of the 2 semis, plus the next 2 fastest times.

    To me, this seems to be the best method of these 3. Less chance of someone getting left out if they were in the fastest heat; and less chance of someone qualifying if they were in a slower semi.
    Plus, I think a semi-final by definition, should be one of 2 races, not 3.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jacksf View Post
    Now, I just saw the results of the Euro-U23 semi finals, and the qualifiers are the 3 top finishers in each of the 2 semis, plus the next 2 fastest times.
    To me, this seems to be the best method of these 3. Less chance of someone getting left out if they were in the fastest heat; and less chance of someone qualifying if they were in a slower semi.
    Plus, I think a semi-final by definition, should be one of 2 races, not 3.
    We've had a thread about this before (more adept posters could find it) and my only contribution was that 'semis' are whatever the organizers wish them to be. The idea of 'semi' in this context does not mean 'two'; it means 'the round before the final'. That's exactly how language works: it means what you want it to mean. I let the school-marms worry about what 'should be' and focus on what 'is'. I'm sure they had fainting spells when proper nouns got verbed, as in

    I had to xerox a hundred copies of my résumé.

    When is the last time you skyped your relatives?

    Comment


    • #3
      I just plated my dinner

      Comment


      • #4
        If we are voting, I prefer the 3+3+2 format to the 2+2+2+2...at least, the third best runner ha a shot at the podium

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by maggot View Post
          I just plated my dinner
          I drank too much beer and got maggoted.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Atticus View Post
            I let the school-marms worry about what 'should be' and focus on what 'is'. I'm sure they had fainting spells when proper nouns got verbed, as in

            I had to xerox a hundred copies of my résumé.

            When is the last time you skyped your relatives?
            I think this has been more of a concern of trademark lawyers than of school marms. https://www.fastcompany.com/3004901/...d-becomes-verb

            Comment


            • #7
              It's amazing that Band-Aid has never fallen to genericide.

              Comment


              • #8
                Different formats for different events, even at the U23. The 110mh has three semifinals and 2+2+2+2.

                But I would agree, I very much prefer two semifinals and 3+3+2.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by trackk View Post
                  I very much prefer two semifinals and 3+3+2.
                  Except when the wind is gusting, so that one semi has a +1.0 and the other -2.0
                  Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It depends on the field size and rounds, because [2+2+2]+2 has 24 entries while the others have 16.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The greatest advantage to the 2+2+2+2 format is more bang for the buck (3 races), plus it keeps the top athletes away from each other longer - more anticipatory suspense. I hate when the top two are in the same semi because of the vagaries of seeding. One's quarter-final time can vary according to conditions and competition.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My main concern with having 'fastest losers' qualifying spots in sprint races is the possibility of very different wind conditions between the 2 heats. I don't think this is a major worry at the kind of stadia used for Olympics and World Senior Champs but at those often used for meets like Euro age-group champs there is a slight chance that one heat could be -0.3 and the other -3.3. In such an event you are almost certain to have 5th place in the former run faster than 4th in the latter. Perhaps more so on the flat than in hurdles where fallers & dnfs are more likely to make the 2 heats very different from each other regardless of wind.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                          The greatest advantage to the 2+2+2+2 format is more bang for the buck (3 races), plus it keeps the top athletes away from each other longer - more anticipatory suspense. I hate when the top two are in the same semi because of the vagaries of seeding. One's quarter-final time can vary according to conditions and competition.
                          Precisely. I hated it the first time I saw it. That was mainly cos it was a Euros where Susanna Kahlur missed out on finals and her much slower sister made it because of a massive wind variation between the three semis.

                          Now I absolutely love it. Making the top 2 is not easy and so even the top athletes need to put in some real effort in the semis. Plus in the 200m and 400m you need to finish first or make sure you are the fastest 2nd placer to make sure you get a good lane. That means even more effort. As a result we get 3 really great races rather than 2 average races that we used to get under the first 4 into the finals format.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by etuoyo View Post
                            Plus in the 200m and 400m you need to finish first or make sure you are the fastest 2nd placer to make sure you get a good lane. That means even more effort.
                            Not really; the slower 2nd-placers get lanes 7 and 8 (or 8 and 9), which are great lanes in the 200 and 400.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Trickstat View Post
                              My main concern with having 'fastest losers' qualifying spots in sprint races is the possibility of very different wind conditions between the 2 heats. I don't think this is a major worry at the kind of stadia used for Olympics and World Senior Champs but at those often used for meets like Euro age-group champs there is a slight chance that one heat could be -0.3 and the other -3.3. In such an event you are almost certain to have 5th place in the former run faster than 4th in the latter. Perhaps more so on the flat than in hurdles where fallers & dnfs are more likely to make the 2 heats very different from each other regardless of wind.
                              Not to mention rain conditions from race to race. I prefer equal numbers advancing from each heat / semi in all races. Knowing what is needed to advance based upon earlier races is an unfair advantage.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X