Announcement

**Jon** · 12-10-2004, 11:08 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

>men's 4x1
>Great Britain 0.232
>United States 0.300

OK, cut to the chase. This is what this thread is all about, isn't it?? :-p

**bad hammy** · 12-10-2004, 11:17 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

> men's 100
> (lanes: 1. Collins; 2. Zakari; 3. Gatlin; 4. Crawford; 5. Obikwelu; 6. Powell; 7. Greene; 8. Thompson)
> (reaction times: Greene 0.151, Crawford 0.161, Obikwelu 0.163, Thompson 0.164, Powell 0.166, Collins 0.175, Zakari 0.178, Gatlin 0.188)

Based on who won the men's 100, reaction time is clearly just a small part of the picture.

**DrJay** · 12-10-2004, 11:19 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

It would be neat to see a graph of this in TAFNEWS, the mean reaction time by lane with standard deviation bars (which, by the looks of it would be pretty small.)

**mike renfro** · 12-11-2004, 12:42 AM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

Part of the reason people get lane 8 (and 7, 1, 2) in the final is that mostly they were mostly slower than their competitors. The slowness may have involved poor reaction times. A better check might be the first round reaction times (available?). Those lane assignments are random draw (aren't they?) and if the disparity persists, a real case could be made.

It seems that for awhile, their were speakers behind all blocks to give the entire field access equally to the gun report. I will confess that I didn't notice if that was the case in Athinai. The gun report at St Denis was kinda an electronic ping, and that should carry over wires to speakers just fine.

**Daisy** · 12-11-2004, 01:33 AM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

I participated in the original thread from Suso.
The take home message was that the speakers behind the blocks were not working and this probably happened at Atlanta too. Of course, the problem with this is that the starters assume that the speakers relay the sound accurately to the athletes and postion themselves in a non optimal postion. This is especially detrimental for the 400m, 4x400m and 4x100m relays since the athletes are spaced at a large distance (compared with the 100m).

I have reposted some data that I had put in the previous thread. In my personal opinion this problem may not have existed for all races. For example, the semi final starts in the 4x100m look OK but the final for the 4x100m is defintely skewed.

This is not becasue the slower athletes are on the outside for two reasons. First there is no equivalent increase in lane 1 times. Secondly a comparison of mens semi final reaction times compared to the mens final of the 4x100m shows a lot of variation for, in most cases, the exact same athletes.

P.S. I'm British so this has nothing to do with Jon's statement.

there..................A.................B........ .........C
>1..........0.133..........0.176..........0.189
>2..........0.150..........0.212..........0.202
>3..........0.132..........0.204..........0.221
>4..........0.151..........0.238..........0.242
>5..........0.147..........0.269..........0.262
>6..........0.150..........0.300..........0.281
>7..........0.151..........0.276..........0.300
>8..........0.142..........0.331..........0.317

A reaction times with speaker working and silent gun
B reaction times from Atlanta 4x100 (averages)
C predicted reaction times if speakers not working

>No speculation here, except for the doubt whether the problem has been fixed by now --which I bet it has not.

This data for Atlanta looks quite convincing to me, however, I was a bit suspicious if this was actually occurring in Athens.

I checked the reaction times in the men’s two semi finals as well as the final. They are as follows for each lane.

lane.....semi#1........semi#2.........final ----> semi time
1..........0.152..........0.162..........0.199 ----> 0.199
2..........0.211..........0.212..........0.159 ----> 0.138
3..........0.156..........0.146..........0.232 ----> 0.162
4..........0.149..........0.206..........0.266 ----> 0.211
5..........0.237..........0.153..........0.300 ----> 0.289
6..........0.158..........0.289..........0.295 ----> 0.152
7..........0.199..........0.406..........0.372 ----> 0.149
8..........0.252..........0.138..........0.344 ----> 0.156

From Suso’s analysis above the two semi finals look fine (conform with the A column) but the final does look suspiciously slow on the outside lanes (more like the C column).

The fourth column is to confirm that the slower RT’s in the final are not due to some athletes having slow reaction times as their norm. The fourth column represents the RT for the athlete in the final from his respective semi final (not necessarily in the same lane).

In summary, for the final the inside lane reaction times seem comparable, however, the outside lanes reaction times are significantly slower, when compared to the semi final times. For example, lane 2 was 0.159 in final and the same athletes RT was 0.138 in the semi#2 (lane 8). Conversely, lane 7 was 0.372 in final and the same athletes RT was 0.149 in the semi#2 (lane 4).

Clearly this is not a statistically relevant analysis since there are so few data points and the circumstances of each race are different (athletes physiology with regard to RT, crowd noise, nervousness etc.) This cursory analysis does, however, give credibility to Suso’s hypothesis that the speakers were not working for the final.

**Daisy** · 12-11-2004, 02:04 AM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

>It would be neat to see a graph of this in TAFNEWS, the mean reaction time by
>lane with standard deviation bars (which, by the looks of it would be pretty
>small.)

Suso has graphed some of the races if you delve through the previous thread. here are a couple of his links:

http://home.insightbb.com/~j.dapena/sta ... rg-men.jpg

http://home.insightbb.com/~j.dapena/sta ... ns-men.jpg

http://home.insightbb.com/~j.dapena/sta ... -women.jpg

See the original thread for context.

**Daisy** · 12-11-2004, 04:50 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

> Hopefully Dapena and Julin are all over this again and
> can light a fire under the IAAF.

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/result ... times.html

According to this link the noise of the gun is not even transmitted through the block speakers.

QUOTE
What the loudspeakers relay to the athletes is just the Starter's verbal commands, not the "bang". That sound still travels through the air from the gun to the ears of the athletes. And it even has to be like this! Because if the "bang" would be coming through both loudspeakers and air the athletes would be experience two distinct shots, which would then be interpreted as a starting "bang" followed by a recall!!
END QUOTE

If that is the case why don't the starters stand in a more equidistant poition to the athletes at the 400m start.

I checked an online video for the 4x100m starts and there is no sign of the starter in the HJ area which is where he would need to be for the gun to be a roughly equal distance from all the athletes (disclaimer:: the video is very poor resolution so I could have missed the starter). Does anyone kow or remember where the starter stood for the 400m etc starts in Athens?

**jhc68** · 12-12-2004, 12:01 AM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

Why don't we create a system where at big time meets the bang does not sound through the gun at all, but rather only sounds electronically through the speakers in the lane? That doesn't seem like a big technological challenge and that way all athletes would hear the sound stimuli at the same time, thus putting any controversy to rest.

ALSO(reviving yet another endless thread!), if not all athletes hear the gun sound at the same time how in the hell is it fair to disqualify athletes whose reaction times are fractionally less than the allowed .1 second? If not everyone hears the sound at the same instant, this system is patently unjust.

For example, in the men's 200: Unger, in lane one reacted in .153 and Fredericks out in lane eight reacted in .248. The implication of gh's post is that maybe Fredericks did not hear the gun until .095 second later than Unger heard it (.248 - .153 = .095). Hypothetically, if it were true that Unger heard the gun .095 earlier than Fredericks, and then IF Frankie Fredericks had a recorded reaction time the same as Unger's .153, then that means that Fredericks REAL reaction time would have been .058, way below the allowable limit. In this hypothetical Fredericks in lane 8 might have prompted a recall based on visual perception but he would not have been caught electronically.

If this all sounds too complex to digest it is because the reaction disqualification rules that aim to eliminate anticipation and kick out runners who started AFTER the gun but to soon after are indigestably non-sensical.

**Daisy** · 12-12-2004, 03:03 AM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

>Why don't we create a system where at big time meets the bang does not sound
>through the gun at all, but rather only sounds electronically through the
>speakers in the lane? That doesn't seem like a big technological challenge and
>that way all athletes would hear the sound stimuli at the same time, thus
>putting any controversy to rest.

You mean like the system they us for the World Championships? You should read the link I posted above but here is a relevant quote from the link:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/result ... times.html

QUOTE
But there is one obvious solution to this problem: To have the "bang" only via the loudspeakers, i.e. to use a "silent gun". A silent gun is a "gun" that doesn't fire a conventional shot but one that when the trigger is pulled sends not only a starting impulse to the electronic clock of the timing device but also an impulse that manifestates itself as a distinct "bang" sound coming out of the individual loudspeakers in each lane.

<snip>

Because after performing an analysis like the one above the organisers of the 1995 World Championships decided to request to achieve maximum fairness to the athletes - a "silent gun" type of starting system for their meet. The request was granted and since then "silent gun" starting has been used at all following World Championships, outdoors, indoors as well as juniors! And it has indeed worked precisely as intended!

This knowledge makes it even more astounding that "silent gun" starting was not used in either the 1996 or the 2000 Olympics!
END QUOTE

And obviously not used in the 2004 Olympics either.

**jrun** · 12-12-2004, 03:34 AM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

Jon,

E-mail addy?

Thanks.

**Kevin** · 12-12-2004, 10:03 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

I think an analysis should include the distance from the starter's pistol to each of the athletes. The factor that we are talking about here is the delay in sound reaching the runner. Given the speed of sound being roughly 770 miles per hour, would the observed reaction time delays be commensurate with the delay of the sound reaching the blocks?

I tend to see a correlation in the data Garry provided, but the scientist in me is not ready to call it a done deal.

**Jon** · 12-12-2004, 10:04 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

>Jon,
E-mail addy?
Thanks.

Only just seen this message. Sure thing,

[email protected]

**DrJay** · 12-12-2004, 10:30 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

>I think an analysis should include the distance from the starter's pistol to
>each of the athletes. The factor that we are talking about here is the delay
>in sound reaching the runner. Given the speed of sound being roughly 770 miles
>per hour, would the observed reaction time delays be commensurate with the
>delay of the sound reaching the blocks?

I tend to see a correlation in the
>data Garry provided, but the scientist in me is not ready to call it a done
>deal.

At about 331 meters/second, it would take three-thousandths of a second to travel one meter. I don't know the exact width of a lane, but it's probably about a meter. The reaction times in the 100 and 110 hurdles were more like two to three hundredths of a second slower from lane one to lane eight so your point is well-taken--the the difference in time between when runners in lane one and lane eight here the gun could not account for the different reaction times in the straight-line starts. The starts on the curve may be a bit different but I'm too lazy to play with the numbers now, though I suspect the same would hold true.

**DrJay** · 12-13-2004, 01:49 PM

Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

At about 331 meters/second, it would take
>three-thousandths of a second to travel one meter. I don't know the exact width
>of a lane, but it's probably about a meter. The reaction times in the 100 and
>110 hurdles were more like two to three hundredths of a second slower from lane
>one to lane eight so your point is well-taken--the the difference in time
>between when runners in lane one and lane eight here the gun could not account
>for the different reaction times in the straight-line starts. The starts on the
>curve may be a bit different but I'm too lazy to play with the numbers now,
>though I suspect the same would hold true.

Well, that was a real bonehead move. I checked my brain at the door on Friday and only just found the claim check at breakfast today.

0.003x7=2.1 seconds, which quite nicely could account for the entire difference in reaction times between lane 1 and lane 8 in the 100m and 110m hurdles. I hope there's nothing in the Message Board "Rules of Engagement" about pure stupidity or I'm gone.

Announcement

The Screwy Olympic Starting System

Unconfigured Ad Widget

The Screwy Olympic Starting System

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment