in west regional kid from new mexico goes to line forgets his chip on shoe, tells official who didn't even notice they dq him and pull him off line with police. no rules say you have to wear chip ncaa just screws kids over
in west regional kid from new mexico goes to line forgets his chip on shoe, tells official who didn't even notice they dq him and pull him off line with police. no rules say you have to wear chip ncaa just screws kids over
What place did he get?
This wasn't an NCAA rule. This was something that used to keep track of lapping and where each athlete was in the race at all times. The kid was escorted off the track by a security official. The head referee should never have put that kid in that type of position. It was completely unfair and he was not allowed to compete.
you must be kidding me wrote:
in west regional kid from new mexico goes to line forgets his chip on shoe, tells official who didn't even notice they dq him and pull him off line with police. no rules say you have to wear chip ncaa just screws kids over
Yes, I am going to do this. (It's a slow Friday.)
What the hell is wrong with you? First of all, this ridiculous combination of run-on sentence and randomly placed punctuation begs the prompt: "Your IQ is just below the line."
Secondly, why the hell did you chose that one random comma? Do you even know what that little thing is? Even if we entertain that you refuse to use a complete sentence or thought, why then did you add that comma? Are you only partially retarded or inept? Have you seen someone use a comma before so you know that they exist as tools and you are unsure how? I just want some clarification into the clouded mind lacking means of communication.
Lastly, can anyone verify that the NCAA is not allowed to DQ a runner for not wearing a chip? What the hell do they use chips for anyway? Is the NCAA 10,000 a road race now? (The second two questions were facetious, if they aren't funny to you, please ignore them.)
That's terrible. Bet if the kid had just run the race without saying anything it would have been fine.
Wait a minute. I do not believe that the NCAA has athletes putting chips on their shoes like they are in some road race. The torso is what counts for finishing. First, prove that they do this and give a reason why.
I have no idea if they use chips but if they do it is just for tracking splits.
Like you said, the timing is by the torso at the finish line.
Any chip would not be used for anything official regarding the race.
You can't pull someone off the track for not having a chip.
Grammar Hitler wrote:
Yes, I am going to do this. (It's a slow Friday.)
Secondly, why the hell did you chose that one random comma? Do you even know what that little thing is? Even if we entertain that you refuse to use a complete sentence or thought, why then did you add that comma? Are you only partially retarded or inept? Have you seen someone use a comma before so you know that they exist as tools and you are unsure how? I just want some clarification into the clouded mind lacking means of communication.
Always funny when someone tries to correct someone else but are incorrect. Thanks for the laugh.
ooo no wrote:
Always funny when someone tries to correct someone else but are incorrect. Thanks for the laugh.
but IS also incorrect
Truth88 wrote:
This wasn't an NCAA rule. This was something that used to keep track of lapping and where each athlete was in the race at all times. The kid was escorted off the track by a security official. The head referee should never have put that kid in that type of position. It was completely unfair and he was not allowed to compete.
How was the referee responsible for putting the chip on his shoe? Should he have tied his laces in double knots and promised him cookies after the race?
The kid put himself in that position. Typical millenial.
The object should be to help and assist the runners, not to pull them out of races for no good reason.
The chips were used as a method to track the number of laps each runner had run. They used them to be sure nobody stopped a lap short. The kid had already passed pre-checking and moved onto the track for the race. As the athletes lined up he noticed he didn't have his chip and he ran over to the officials to tell them. So after he was already cleared he noticed something wrong that the pre-check officials did not. Yes it was him that forgot the chip, but there is no ncaa rule or regulation that states chips are required for track and field. They disqualified him on a notion that he forgot a tool that made it easier for the officials to count laps. Watching the poor guy plead for them to just let him run was heartbreaking. After all the work student athletes put forth, an official can just decide to not let someone run because of something as small as that....
As if assigning lap counters would be too much of an inconvenience.
Grammer Hitler:
I apologize if my typing has offended you. I was sitting with our college coach of my son who ran the race and I was typing on my cell phone. Just for your information I am a doctor, so I am quite sure I can type a coherent sentence.
The point of this is that there was no reason to not let this young man run. It would have been easy for any official to count his laps. Yes, he should not have forgotten his chip, but as a first-time NCAA qualifier he was nervous. And remember, HE was the one who brought it to the attention of the officials, they would not have noticed his missing chip, and the race would not have been negatively affected if he ran.
There has been a protest filed with the NCAA over this. Whether he was going to qualify is not really the issue. He just deserved the right to compete. I feel very bad for him and if it was my son that this happened to I would have been outraged. And to call police on to the track that appreared to have guns is over the top.
Are you happy with this post Grammer Hitler?
you have to be kidding me wrote:
"Grammer" Hitler:
Anyone want to hit this softly-lobbed softball?
But, wouldn't he have been DQed anyway if he ran the race without informing the official he didn't have his chip ? I am assuming someone at the NCAA reviews the data collected by the chips ? In reviewing the data of the 10K someone would have noticed that there was no data from one runner and DQed him. They don't make them wear chips just for the sake of wearing chips.
you have to be kidding me wrote:
Grammer Hitler:
I apologize if my typing has offended you. I was sitting with our college coach of my son who ran the race and I was typing on my cell phone. Just for your information I am a doctor
That's pretty good, for a doctor.
Deadman Running wrote:
But, wouldn't he have been DQed anyway if he ran the race without informing the official he didn't have his chip ? I am assuming someone at the NCAA reviews the data collected by the chips ? In reviewing the data of the 10K someone would have noticed that there was no data from one runner and DQed him. They don't make them wear chips just for the sake of wearing chips.
No. He should not get DQed for not wearing a chip.
The chip is just for statistical purposes.
It is not an official timing device.
If you run the distance and gain no advantage there is no grounds for a DQ.
Star wrote:
Deadman Running wrote:But, wouldn't he have been DQed anyway if he ran the race without informing the official he didn't have his chip ? I am assuming someone at the NCAA reviews the data collected by the chips ? In reviewing the data of the 10K someone would have noticed that there was no data from one runner and DQed him. They don't make them wear chips just for the sake of wearing chips.
No. He should not get DQed for not wearing a chip.
The chip is just for statistical purposes.
It is not an official timing device.
If you run the distance and gain no advantage there is no grounds for a DQ.
What if he ran it naked? Clearly we have to have some rules in place beyond: no advantage, no foul.
I feel for this kid, but it will be one of those moments in his life where he can either let it defeat him, or he can dust himself off and convert that disappointment into some victories.
If the chip is for counting laps, that it's more than just statistical purposes.
That the 10,000 is a ridiculous event to run on a track is a subject for another thread, but the chip might be needed. Lots of championship meets have goofy rules not in place during normal meets. This is one example.
Now, the fact that this wasn't caught when the athlete checked in puts this mistake on the officials. He should have been allowed to run.
Was there a controversy with a regional 10k a couple of years ago as well...involving about the honest effort rule our something?
When I saw the thread title I figured John Chaplin must have moved on to NCAA officiating.