I think we can assume the 0.10 reaction time being the fastest humanly possible is arbitrary given it is such a nice round number. Doubtful any actual testing and data analysis came up with this number
You are partially correct. The testing that was done to determine the fastest a human could react came up with a number around .11
It was rounded down to .10 just in case.
Any documentation on that? I'd like to see that study
This. You should be allowed to start running once the gun has gone off.
I know the point of the rule is to keep people from trying to time the gun, but the punishment for that should be that if you guess wrong and start before the gun you get DQed, not that you get DQed for starting some arbitrary amount of time after the gun has gone off.
A defensive player in football can try to time the snap. If they guess wrong, they jump offsides and get a penalty. Only a moron would think it would be a good idea for the NFL to make it a penalty for the defender to cross into the neutral zone 0.1 seconds after the snap.
As I understand, starting from Paris '24, a false start with a fast but plausible reaction time can be left up to the official's discretion as to whether to DQ or not, and the athlete can run under protest and the situation will be reviewed after. Seems like a mess compared to just making the threshold 0.08, but whatever.
Any idea why they aren't implementing that new system starting in Budapest 2023?
If they think that the new system is a good idea, then why wait another year?
Statistical analysis by math experts proved that the reaction times in Eugene were literally impossible.
There are several threads in letsrun about it. And the Brojos or Gault wrote an article about it.
So, no actual proof. Thanks!
I'd explain it to you, but you clearly aren't smart enough to understand statistical analysis. Go take an advanced stats course, and come back when you are smarter.
As I understand, starting from Paris '24, a false start with a fast but plausible reaction time can be left up to the official's discretion as to whether to DQ or not, and the athlete can run under protest and the situation will be reviewed after. Seems like a mess compared to just making the threshold 0.08, but whatever.
Any idea why they aren't implementing that new system starting in Budapest 2023?
If they think that the new system is a good idea, then why wait another year?
Exactly. They can use it as a 'test run' during worlds before WA embarrasses themselves on the biggest stage.
Reaction time is the time interval between the application of a stimulus and the appearance of appropriate voluntary response by a subject. It involves stimulus processing, decision making, and response programming. Reaction...
a study among normal participants that showed reaction times under 100 ms, within only one standard deviation of the mean reaction time. This is literally the first paper that comes up when you look up "human auditory reaction times". The 100 ms reaction time was chosen by World Athletics arbitrarily and without any sort of rigorous investigation into reaction times.
Why is the minimum response time 100 ms for athletic starts? How are false starts detected & can fast starters be incorrectly disqualified with this limit?
The limit of human auditory reaction time is not 100 ms. a study among normal participants that showed reaction times under 100 ms, within only one standard deviation of the mean reaction time. This is literally the first paper that comes up when you look up "human auditory reaction times". The 100 ms reaction time was chosen by World Athletics arbitrarily and without any sort of rigorous investigation into reaction times.
You should have actually read the second link that you posted :
"The 100 ms limit is based on research from the 1990s in which the total response time of eight male Finnish sprinters was investigated [2]. The average response time between the start signal and reaching a value of 110% of the force exerted on the starting blocks in the ‘ready’ position was 121 ms with a standard deviation (typical variation) of 14 ms for the front leg and 119 ms with a standard deviation of 11 ms for the rear leg"
So it wasn't just arbitrarily chosen, like you claim. It might be wrong, but that's not the same thing as being arbitrarily chosen.
The limit of human auditory reaction time is not 100 ms. a study among normal participants that showed reaction times under 100 ms, within only one standard deviation of the mean reaction time. This is literally the first paper that comes up when you look up "human auditory reaction times". The 100 ms reaction time was chosen by World Athletics arbitrarily and without any sort of rigorous investigation into reaction times.
You should have actually read the second link that you posted :
"The 100 ms limit is based on research from the 1990s in which the total response time of eight male Finnish sprinters was investigated [2]. The average response time between the start signal and reaching a value of 110% of the force exerted on the starting blocks in the ‘ready’ position was 121 ms with a standard deviation (typical variation) of 14 ms for the front leg and 119 ms with a standard deviation of 11 ms for the rear leg"
So it wasn't just arbitrarily chosen, like you claim. It might be wrong, but that's not the same thing as being arbitrarily chosen.
I would encourage you to read the REST of the link I posted, as most of it is centered around addressing exactly what you have quoted. The very next paragraph:
“However, no elite sprinter was investigated in this study. It is possible that elite sprinters react faster than sub elite sprinters, so the lower limit of 100 ms may not be correct for use at international top matches. Furthermore, the response time in this study was not measured in a race situation, while athletes in a race situation may respond faster due to increased arousal and motivation. The question that arises is therefore whether it is possible to respond to the start signal within 100 ms.”
Eight participants in a study that was not peer reviewed does not constitute rigor. I would encourage you to dive into some of the references at the bottom of the post, or refer to the literature review that the University of Clemson maintains.
Lol so they make such a punitive rule based on 8 finish people. I'm certain there's elite sprinters on the planet who could react faster than them.
Why is it so restrictive though? TV times? I thought one false start allowed for the field was acceptable.
All these guys who are so sure about human reaction times who have never done any research on it or acquainted themselves with any studies that have been done. The usual here.
Seems like they are proving it in races 🤣. It just seems to punitive for me.
Who is "they" exactly?
Do you have any idea how rare it is for someone to get DQ'd for a reaction time between .09 - .099 ? It's a VERY small number. A handful per year out of hundreds of thousands of starts.
The limit of human auditory reaction time is not 100 ms. a study among normal participants that showed reaction times under 100 ms, within only one standard deviation of the mean reaction time. This is literally the first paper that comes up when you look up "human auditory reaction times". The 100 ms reaction time was chosen by World Athletics arbitrarily and without any sort of rigorous investigation into reaction times.
You should have actually read the second link that you posted :
"The 100 ms limit is based on research from the 1990s in which the total response time of eight male Finnish sprinters was investigated [2].
So it wasn't just arbitrarily chosen, like you claim. It might be wrong, but that's not the same thing as being arbitrarily chosen.
That's still totally arbitrary and it's asinine that they used that research as a basis for their criteria. Furthermore, how the hell did they find 8 male Finnish sprinters. They certainly weren't world class ones.
I think we can assume the 0.10 reaction time being the fastest humanly possible is arbitrary given it is such a nice round number. Doubtful any actual testing and data analysis came up with this number
You are partially correct. The testing that was done to determine the fastest a human could react came up with a number around .11
It was rounded down to .10 just in case.
What testing? How was the instrument calibrated? What was it calibrated with? Do we know the impact of usage on the pressure plates? How many false counts does the instrument produce? All the above are shrouded in mystery. If someone can point me to the instrument being used, I can dig up the datasheet and figure out the metrology.
I'd explain it to you, but you clearly aren't smart enough to understand statistical analysis. Go take an advanced stats course, and come back when you are smarter.
You can't explain it because your reading comprehension is around newt-level. I want a link to proof that the block sensors used in Eugene were not calibrated properly. You got that handy, Doc?
I'd explain it to you, but you clearly aren't smart enough to understand statistical analysis. Go take an advanced stats course, and come back when you are smarter.
You can't explain it because your reading comprehension is around newt-level. I want a link to proof that the block sensors used in Eugene were not calibrated properly. You got that handy, Doc?
Another sprint even has largely been run since the Devon Allen DQ and the men's and women's 200 data shows that something is amiss with the start reaction times in Eugene.
The data is in and there is something MAJORLY wrong with the reaction timing equipment here in Eugene. Devon Allen was screwed. World Athletics needs to make amends. At a minimum, an exhibition race with him and Grant Hollowa...
One year on from a record-setting athletics program at the 2021 Olympics, the track and field world descended upon Oregon’s fabled Hayward Field for the World Athletics Championships, with the chance to prove that Tokyo was n...
"in the World Championships between 2011-2019, there were a combined 5 reaction times under 115ms in the men’s 100m and 110m hurdles. In the 2022 Championships alone, there were 25 reaction times under 115ms in the same events." It definitely seems like something was going on.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
