Does it stick in your craw that 2 Americans still medaled? I already know the answer
Why do sprinters get punished for “reacting too fast”?
Pro News/Info/Results
-
10
-
Yeah that was ridiculous. He literally got a perfect start and was dq’d for it. The one false start and out needs to change too. Person false starts then it goes on the entire field. From then on if anyone false starts then you’re out. Sucks for him but HAHAHA what a joke.
He said he’d set a world record (he dqs), the win a SB (he’ll be lucky to stick to the practice squad lol).43 -
Awful Rule wrote:
Run Really Fast wrote:
They aren't reacting too fast to the gun. They are reacting before they can hear the gun.
Still believe this take with Devon Allen? Nobody cares until it’s an American getting DQd, typical of you guys. Everyone hates the rule now that it took out your star
Yeah right!! Go back to Boys Town, you jealous knob. If this happened to SAFP, the reaction by American track fans would be the same or louder. Just because whatever country you’re from can’t win as much as Americans do, go cry to your mama.
12 -
Awful Rule wrote:
Run Really Fast wrote:
They aren't reacting too fast to the gun. They are reacting before they can hear the gun.
0.004 seconds difference is nearly negligible in terms of how long it takes for the sound to reach the athlete. If they want to actually make it scientific then each lane should have a different reaction time because lane 8 is further from the gun than lane 1…
That's not how the starting gun works. The "gun" is actually a gun sound that comes out of a speaker that is behind each starting block.
80 -
dmb wrote:
Yeah, my problem with this is, that just bc you measure something doesn’t make it meaningful. I’m going to read more about how they actually perform the measurement. Given the uncertainties present, I can’t see how they can be sure to within 1 ms
Exactly. What is the +/- on that parameter estimate? And what is the error sensitivity on the equipment? This seems ridiculously specific to not assume any error.
21 -
Didn't US track and field come up with the one strike rule years ago?
00 -
Deno wrote:
Used to make them move back a yard, dead serious. Would ya believe a world record was tied after moving back a yard?
A World Record with an asterisk would be the best publicity the sport could get!!!
Look at the Marathon. There's a reason people buy 1.59.40 shirts, not 2.01.xx (whatever the official WR is right now).
00 -
Five is the magic number wrote:
Deno wrote:
Used to make them move back a yard, dead serious. Would ya believe a world record was tied after moving back a yard?
A World Record with an asterisk would be the best publicity the sport could get!!!
Look at the Marathon. There's a reason people buy 1.59.40 shirts, not 2.01.xx (whatever the official WR is right now).
people actually buy those shirts?
30 -
Awful Rule wrote:
Run Really Fast wrote:
They aren't reacting too fast to the gun. They are reacting before they can hear the gun.
0.004 seconds difference is nearly negligible in terms of how long it takes for the sound to reach the athlete. If they want to actually make it scientific then each lane should have a different reaction time because lane 8 is further from the gun than lane 1…
Starting blocks have little speakers on the back of them so every sprinter hears the gun simultaneously.
40 -
Awful Rule wrote:
Run Really Fast wrote:
They aren't reacting too fast to the gun. They are reacting before they can hear the gun.
0.004 seconds difference is nearly negligible in terms of how long it takes for the sound to reach the athlete. If they want to actually make it scientific then each lane should have a different reaction time because lane 8 is further from the gun than lane 1…
It takes 0.0029 seconds for the sound to travel one meter. At roughly 8 meters difference between the lanes, this is well less than the 0.08 seconds minimum it takes humans to react to the sound. A reaction time of 0.085 would be justified by science, but sorry 0.1 is too high of a threshold not justified.
14 -
The idea of using a 0.1s threshold is senseless on a philosophical level because the very nature of the sport is testing the limits of human capability. It would be like disqualifying anyone who runs 100m faster than 9.7s, because that's not humanly possible.
41 -
dmb wrote:
Yeah, my problem with this is, that just bc you measure something doesn’t make it meaningful. I’m going to read more about how they actually perform the measurement. Given the uncertainties present, I can’t see how they can be sure to within 1 ms
Turns out it has nothing to do with the runner's reaction times.
What actually happened is that the starting blocks were set up incorrectly and everyone's reaction times were accidentally reduced by .02 seconds. So all the .09x reaction times were actually .11x reaction times and no one should have been disqualified.
The sh!t is going to hit the fan in Eugene!
70 -
Shocking News wrote:
Turns out it has nothing to do with the runner's reaction times.
What actually happened is that the starting blocks were set up incorrectly and everyone's reaction times were accidentally reduced by .02 seconds. So all the .09x reaction times were actually .11x reaction times and no one should have been disqualified.
The sh!t is going to hit the fan in Eugene!
That's believable. Sometimes people (timers in this case) screw up. But where is the analysis?
20 -
zzzz wrote:
Shocking News wrote:
Turns out it has nothing to do with the runner's reaction times.
What actually happened is that the starting blocks were set up incorrectly and everyone's reaction times were accidentally reduced by .02 seconds. So all the .09x reaction times were actually .11x reaction times and no one should have been disqualified.
The sh!t is going to hit the fan in Eugene!
That's believable. Sometimes people (timers in this case) screw up. But where is the analysis?
The number of reaction times for the sprints between .100 to .120 at this world championship is triple that of any other world championship in history. And the number of runners (4) who have a reaction time between .090 to .099 at this world championship is more than all the other world championships combined.
And if you take the average reaction times in this year's world championships it's .02 faster than all the other world championships. Any way you look at it, the rediculously fast reaction times at this year's world championships stand out like a sore thumb.
Now the question is what are the officials going to do to fix it, how quickly can it be fixed, and what recourse do the 4 incorrectly DQ'd runners have?
60 -
Shocking News wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That's believable. Sometimes people (timers in this case) screw up. But where is the analysis?
The number of reaction times for the sprints between .100 to .120 at this world championship is triple that of any other world championship in history. And the number of runners (4) who have a reaction time between .090 to .099 at this world championship is more than all the other world championships combined.
And if you take the average reaction times in this year's world championships it's .02 faster than all the other world championships. Any way you look at it, the rediculously fast reaction times at this year's world championships stand out like a sore thumb.
Now the question is what are the officials going to do to fix it, how quickly can it be fixed, and what recourse do the 4 incorrectly DQ'd runners have?
100%, this many issues says to me that this is a technology issue. No recourse for missed WC finals, no way to rectify. I think this will be a huge issue when they look into it more, absolutely absurd and an investigation should be started immediately before any more track races go off this evening.
30
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.