Pages: | 1 | 2 |
Your Mom
US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 10:36AM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
We need to protest that hand off from 3 to 4.

PH U C K !
Pat Henry Rono
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 10:41AM - in reply to Your Mom Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
What's to protest, Spencer F'd it up bad, no one else's fault
Standard Bearer
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 10:44AM - in reply to Pat Henry Rono Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Pat Henry Rono wrote:

What's to protest, Spencer F'd it up bad, no one else's fault


Correct; the hand off order is determined by the previous runners place at the 200m mark. The US runner should have stayed in lane 2 in the final,
Your Mom
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 10:47AM - in reply to Standard Bearer Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The third Russky moved to lane two. The officials kept the fourth Russky in lane 1. The the 3rd Russky cut in front the American at the exchange - thus impeding her.

Bamm!
bs man
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 10:47AM - in reply to Your Mom Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Your Mom wrote:

We need to protest that hand off from 3 to 4.

PH U C K !


get your facts straight bro. the positions for the handover are set 200m out. the people receiving the baton aren't allowed to change positions after that. it's up to the runner to find their teammate. the USA screwed that one up. nobody to blame but themselves.
Your Mom raised a MORON
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 10:50AM - in reply to Your Mom Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Dumb American chick on 3rd leg didn't even look where her teammate was standing.
NYER1
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 11:30AM - in reply to Your Mom Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
We did the best we could with the talent we had available. No Allyson, no Sanya... what does anyone expect?
You Stupid
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 11:39AM - in reply to Your Mom raised a MORON Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
From the looks of things, your mom raised one as well. At least that chick has enough talent to become a world class athlete. What about you?
expect gold
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 11:42AM - in reply to NYER1 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

NYER1 wrote:what does anyone expect?

never less than gold my man
never expect not to get the gold
always go for the gold
kipwot
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 1:05PM - in reply to expect gold Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
hahah bad losers u yanks most cant even raise a smile or handshake .....poor sportsmenship ...from a country celebrating medals from DOPERS
Have a seat!!
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:15PM - in reply to Your Mom raised a MORON Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
How disrespectful to call a young up and coming athlete a dumb ass!!! Can you please list your accomplishments/ accolades you have obtain during your years of running!!! This young ladies has done a magnitude of things this season alone! I'm waiting!!!!
marguis of queensbury
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:15PM - in reply to Standard Bearer Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The lead runner in lane one should not be allowed to move out to lane two in that circumstance because there is no reason to do so except to impede the runner behind, who (by rule) must hand off in lane two.

Smart move if you can get away with it but the rules should not permit.
Lord cumuppance
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:19PM - in reply to marguis of queensbury Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

marguis of queensbury wrote:

The lead runner in lane one should not be allowed to move out to lane two in that circumstance because there is no reason to do so except to impede the runner behind, who (by rule) must hand off in lane two.

Smart move if you can get away with it but the rules should not permit.


Maybe if that scenario had occurred you'd have a point. However it didn't so you don't.
RuKiddingMe!!
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:22PM - in reply to marguis of queensbury Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The U.S. lost when the second leg runner gave UP a 10 meter lead in the last 15 meters!...I think it was Hasings?

all the rest is just desperation and excuses!
marguis of queensbury
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:33PM - in reply to Lord cumuppance Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Lord cumuppance wrote:


marguis of queensbury wrote:

The lead runner in lane one should not be allowed to move out to lane two in that circumstance because there is no reason to do so except to impede the runner behind, who (by rule) must hand off in lane two.

Smart move if you can get away with it but the rules should not permit.


Maybe if that scenario had occurred you'd have a point. However it didn't so you don't.


I've rewatched the video. The Russian runner is in the lead as she comes off the turn. She allows her momentum to carry her wide into lane two, rather than staying in lane one. The result is that the runner behind cannot herself take lane two (where she must hand off) without being impeded.
RichE
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:39PM - in reply to marguis of queensbury Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

marguis of queensbury wrote:


Lord cumuppance wrote:


marguis of queensbury wrote:

The lead runner in lane one should not be allowed to move out to lane two in that circumstance because there is no reason to do so except to impede the runner behind, who (by rule) must hand off in lane two.

Smart move if you can get away with it but the rules should not permit.


Maybe if that scenario had occurred you'd have a point. However it didn't so you don't.


I've rewatched the video. The Russian runner is in the lead as she comes off the turn. She allows her momentum to carry her wide into lane two, rather than staying in lane one. The result is that the runner behind cannot herself take lane two (where she must hand off) without being impeded.


If the Amrerican had made a move to get by the Russian on the rail, she'd have had the right-of-way to move ahead of the Russian to the pass. When it became apparent the American could not go definitely into the lead, she did what she had to. BTW, the passes from 1-2 were almost dead even. Any advantage at the break was from the American #2 who, over the course of 400 meters, ran even with the Russians.
*
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:42PM - in reply to marguis of queensbury Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
It was strange for the Russian woman to swing wide coming out if the turn.
It was only natural for the American to take the wide open shot at passing on the inside.

Now if the American could cleanly take the lead and go to lane two to hand off, the Russian would have had to do the stop and slide over move to make the exchange.

It was all about who won that straightaway to the handoff.
marguis of queensbury
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 3:54PM - in reply to * Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
You and RichE both have a point as far as it goes. My point is that the rules should not encourage what could easily turn into a crash at the handoff point and has nothing to do with fair competition.

If the rules are going to award the inside handoff spot based on position at 200m mark, then the rules should also require that the lead runner not drift wide of that inside spot without good reason. Both safe and fair.
ryan foreman
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 4:37PM - in reply to marguis of queensbury Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I was thinking about this. But I'm curious what would have happened if the U.S. runner had been aggressive and moved into the second lane against the Russian runners space and forced her even farther away from lane 1. Not sure what the rules are, but conceivably she has that right to go there if the rules say she has to hand off in lane 2 in that situation.


marguis of queensbury wrote:

The lead runner in lane one should not be allowed to move out to lane two in that circumstance because there is no reason to do so except to impede the runner behind, who (by rule) must hand off in lane two.

Smart move if you can get away with it but the rules should not permit.
TrackCoach
RE: US Robbed in 4 by!! 8/17/2013 5:28PM - in reply to Standard Bearer Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Standard Bearer wrote:


Pat Henry Rono wrote:

What's to protest, Spencer F'd it up bad, no one else's fault


Correct; the hand off order is determined by the previous runners place at the 200m mark. The US runner should have stayed in lane 2 in the final,



Technically that is the rule, but the out going runners usually establish their position based what they see coming off the final turn. I only happen to know the rule from being an official, but I bet you half of the athlete don't. It's sometimes difficult to see the incoming runner's position at the 200m mark, this is especially true when the runners are close together and sometimes the ploe vault setup at a few stadiums is in the way. Chances are Ashley has never run the 3rd on a relay in her life. Ashley definitely screwed up, but it is an easy mistake to make.
Pages: | 1 | 2 |