Utah State Record Team DQed Unjustly When Evidence Shows Wrong Call Was Made

I don't think there is much that can be done for this particular team, but from that picture on the Facebook page, the official who called a DQ on that handoff must have been Mr. Magoo. Both legs of runner 2 are clearly behind the line.

From the coach's description, three officials saw the handoff, and the one in the worst position called the DQ. Perhaps his protests will lead to better officiating for handoff zones during future state meets. If two officials see a relay handoff, with one official deeming it legal and the other illegal, you must default to a LEGAL ruling.

It's pretty clear she is legal in the picture. Not to be a jerk, but it looks like the team is way behind as all of the other runners have already exchanged. How did they come back to not only win, but also set a record? Super fast leg?

I feel bad for Moody, hopefully this gets rectified.

Soprano wrote:

Also, you seem to be implying that coaches might try to deceitfully manipulate photos/videos before submitting them. That of course could happen, but with only a 30-minute window after the race to file a protest, it's not likely.

I'm struggling to understand how you came to this conclusion from reading JustTheFacts's post - all that he (she?) is saying is that you can have different images of the same thing taken from different angles that seem to portray the subject in radically different ways. How is that news? Seems incredibly obvious but maybe that's because I'm an engineer with an understanding of why a single view of an object is insufficient to recreate a part

We were in this position because of a botched handoff on that exchange so that is on me as a coach for not preparing the athletes better for the handoff. If we would have done that currently we would have never had any problems.

The picture was the handoff in question. The sprint medley goes 2-2-4-8 and this was the exchange between the two 200m legs which unfortunately is the only handoff that the official camera doesn't record. There were not any issues with the other handoffs.

Thanks for the feedback so far! We have gotten a lot more attention over this than I expected.

reading comprehension wrote:

Soprano wrote:

Also, you seem to be implying that coaches might try to deceitfully manipulate photos/videos before submitting them. That of course could happen, but with only a 30-minute window after the race to file a protest, it's not likely.

I'm struggling to understand how you came to this conclusion from reading JustTheFacts's post - all that he (she?) is saying is that you can have different images of the same thing taken from different angles that seem to portray the subject in radically different ways. How is that news? Seems incredibly obvious but maybe that's because I'm an engineer with an understanding of why a single view of an object is insufficient to recreate a part

It's also unfair to other competitors. Another team might be DQ'd under the same circumstances, but for whatever reason, not have any pictures of their handoff to offer as proof. I can imagine every parent and asst coach packing the turns, trying to get shots of handoffs.

On the other side of the coin, do we want coaches/parents taking pictures of opposing teams, asking officials for post race DQ's for various infractions? No way.

We were in this position because of a botched handoff on that exchange so that is on me as a coach for not preparing the athletes better for the handoff. If we would have done that currently we would have never had any problems.

The picture was the handoff in question. The sprint medley goes 2-2-4-8 and this was the exchange between the two 200m legs which unfortunately is the only handoff that the official camera doesn't record. There were not any issues with the other handoffs.

Thanks for the feedback so far! We have gotten a lot more attention over this than I expected.

Just the facts wrote: "I could live with meet management having their own videos of the finish line, exchange zones, and field events, but agreeing to view one handed to them from someone else is a slippery slope with many potentially negative unintended consequences."

I misinterpreted "slippery slope" and "unintended consequences" to mean he was suggesting people would manipulate photos. I apologize as apparently I was wrong. Cut me some slack though, I did say "you seem to be implying" in my post. It's not like I jumped down his throat.

"Just the facts" and others have posted some fair arguments against using submitted video and photo evidence. This post however is just silly. Parents "packing the turns" trying to get photos of handoffs? Please. I ran XC/track all through HS and college, post-collegiatly and I cover it as my profession and my parents are just as clueless as anyone else when it comes to the finer points of T&F. Do you think all these parents will be up to date on the latest state association rule book changes?

The only people who will know or care will be the coaches. I don't think making a rule change like this would turn every coach into an obsessive maniac trying to get photos of his team and all the other teams to double check the handoffs. Not every coach is Alberto Salazar.

Personally, I would just like that if in a situation where clear evidence exists that the wrong call was made, then it could be overturned. If they won't consider photo evidence, then what evidence will they consider? Under what circumstances would they EVER overturn a DQ like this? There were witnesses who stated it was a fair exchange, but the petition was still rejected. Of course witnesses could be biased. What if Obama or the pope were there and swore that they saw a fair exchange. Would the officials overturn the DQ then? It's pointless to have a review process at all if they're not even open minded to changing the initial ruling.

All that said, there were some good points made about why you shouldn't consider non-official video or photo evidence. And if there was any official video I would agree. However, in a situation where there isn't any, I'd be fine with outside evidence being considered, especially to overturn a DQ.

The whole thing upsets me because as I stated earlier, officials should always error on the side of not-DQing rather than DQing incorrectly. With a call this close, what was this official thinking DQing in the first place? How could he have been confident enough to do that? And when there was a petition with multiple eye-witness accounts, he should have admitted he could have been mistaken.

Soprano wrote:

The whole thing upsets me because as I stated earlier, officials should always error on the side of not-DQing rather than DQing incorrectly. With a call this close, what was this official thinking DQing in the first place? How could he have been confident enough to do that? And when there was a petition with multiple eye-witness accounts, he should have admitted he could have been mistaken.

First of all, it's "err on the side" not "error on the side."

Second, what was the official thinking when he DQed the team? He was thinking they were outside the zone, which results in a DQ. Why should be not DQ if he thought they committed a DQable offense? That makes no sense.

No official is infalliable. They will always get calls wrong. But if you think opening up the review process to "eye witness" accounts and third party photos/videos will result in the correct calls being made, you're sadly mistaken.

If there's a close play in an NFL game, should the official's call be overturned by the 50,000 eye witnesses in the stands?

ready for liftoff wrote:

whaaaaat? wrote:

^Utah track official

Nope! Just someone looking at a slightly blurry, slightly off-balance, slightly fisheyed photo posted with no context.

What I'm not seeing are the other two handoffs.

Two questions: why in the world would you need to see "the other two handoffs" and are you optically and/or technically challenged?

If it is true that two or three officials were at the exchange and only one noted an infraction the protest should have centered around why the objecting official's call was allowed to stand. Has anyone looked into that?

I would have no problem having any head official using anything at his discretion to ensure that, during the fog of competition, a call was just. Of course who am I kidding - these are HS officials of the Baby Boomer persuasion. Their response would be a lot like Liftoff's.

I have heard the professional sports (football and basketball) comparison a number of times but I don't think it is very applicable. I would like to believe under IAAF rules that something could have been done with a petition.

There were 3 officials on the turn - one was by the acceleration zone in lane one (he was responsible for lanes 1-5 and made the call), two was right in by the end on the inside of the exchange zone in lane 5 (responsible for lanes 6-9) and the 3rd was on the outside by the 200m mark. We initially thought that the first one was watching the beginning of the zones and the second one was watching the end of the zones. The first official made the call. I had another coach ask the official on the outside, who he knew, what the official rose his flag for and he said that there weren't any zone violations and left it at that. So we thought we were good because we knew our hand off was bad and potentially in question. In retrospect, I wonder if emphasizing the position of the official that made the call would have made any difference or the fact that they lied to us about there being a disqualification. I partially wanted to know because if my team was DQed I could have stopped the team right there and then and save the runners for their later races.

ready for liftoff wrote:

If there's a close play in an NFL game, should the official's call be overturned by the 50,000 eye witnesses in the stands?

I've called into PGA tourneys when I see infractions on telecasts. Two of which have resulted in penalties.

High school sports exist in order to add to what we learn in the classroom. Your student-athletes just learned a lesson: sometimes life is completely and totally unfair, you get screwed through no fault of your own, and there is not one thing you can do about it. Your choices are to let it go and live your life, or allow it eat you up from the inside and destroy you. I know what I would teach them. If they achieved a goal of a lifetime, then they know they did it and what's on paper is irrelevant.

And remember, track and field does not exist in a vacuum and especially not in high school. If the UHSAA lets your video be used, guess what happens when a ref reaches for a flag in pretty much every football game ever...

What if another coach came forward with a video/picture showing one of your girls committing a violation? Would you want them to be able to submit evidence?

In baseball you have to call ball or strike. You have to call safe or out. Often very very close calls and officials need to make the best judgement they can in a split second. In track and field you do not need to DQ. If it is "too close to call", keep your little red flag down and put up the white one. That's the attitude I'd like to see officials take.

I mentioned eye witness accounts because they were originally mentioned as part of the Utah review process. Honestly I don't think eye witness accounts mean much because the official himself was an eye witness so who is to say which witness saw it right? Why will Utah officials accept an eye witness account as part of the petition process, but not a photo or video? That was my point.

Yes, I believe that in the majority of cases allowing a video as part of the review would lead to more correct calls being made. I actually don't know how you can argue against that. As "just the facts" said, some videos and photos can be misleading, but officials can evaluate the reliability of the video quality/angle when they review it. In the case being discussed, I don't think the angle of the shot is relevant.

Don't know what you're getting at here. In the NFL a coach can challenge a play and the officials review the call with VIDEO evidence. I already agreed that where official video is available, outside photos/videos need not be considered.

Seems to me that the solution would be to have official cameras at each exchange zone to allow for review. Seems simple enough.

simple solution wrote:

Seems to me that the solution would be to have official cameras at each exchange zone to allow for review. Seems simple enough.

Agreed. I just assumed not every state could afford that though. I have no idea what the cost involved would be.

Photos are not enough. The official may have DQ'd based on something he/she saw (or thought they saw) before or after the photo was taken. The coach admits this was a botched handoff. One can assume from that photo the team has successfully completed the handoff, but without video, that is not a certainty. Only review on an official video, and not one taken by a coach or parent.

BTW, you think parents aren't looking for an advantage? When I was a volunteer GRADE school coach, I had a parent want to submit video evidence that little Johnny finished ONE place ahead than he actually did. One percent of the sports parents out there are enough to drive you crazy.

HS teacher wrote:

High school sports exist in order to add to what we learn in the classroom. Your student-athletes just learned a lesson: sometimes life is completely and totally unfair, you get screwed through no fault of your own, and there is not one thing you can do about it. Your choices are to let it go and live your life, or allow it eat you up from the inside and destroy you.

Yes, yes of course, valuable life lessons for our student athletes. Maybe that was in the back of the official's mind when he saw something that wasn't there; "doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong - it will be a valuable life lesson for those student athletes!"

You also left out another choice. So let's review:

Choice 1: "Let it go and live your life" - Poor choice coming from an educator. Here is something the student athletes have worked so hard to achieve and they should just say life sucks? What if latter on in life they run into trouble with their marriages/relationships/careers - just let it go? Live your life? I think not.

Choice 2: "Allow it to eat you up from the inside and destroy you" - This is clearly hyperbole; these kids are champions who were very clearly wronged. The fact that they are champions points to their character and mental fortitude. The only way this will eat them up and destroy them is if they don't fight for their rights or, as you so aptly put it, Choice 1. If at the end of the day, they get nowhere but, just maybe, their efforts will prevent this injustice from ever happening again. Fighting injustice on behalf of yourself, teammates and others to follow - I'd call that a pretty valuable life lesson.

Choice 3: (You probably already know where I'm going with this...) You gotta fight, for your right, to paaaaaaarrrrrty! Turn the screws on those officials so that they'll think twice before entering the competition.

Please refer to the case;

G Brady v. Westside.