i see a grand total of 2 indoor meets on her WA results history, boston last week and this.
i would put it on the coach. athlete competing in a foreign land in a foreign language. the basic rules need to be explained. i get what folks are saying re the judges/marshals but they are really just trying to get last minute cooperation to stop an immediate DQ. their job isn't to read the rule book to all the athletes or bail them out. any more than a football linesman acknowledging a wideout pointing to him that he's on or off. their job isn't to force you onsides. it's in fact to call you off if you don't follow the rules.
you occasionally have youth meets who explain the rules in bulk in the waiting area. it's annoying redundancy if your coach did his job. ok ok let us race. geez. pro meets usually assume you know what you're doing. or that your coach will explain it. you start here. you can cut in here. smart people note context clues. ok, why cones there? if you don't know, ask the judge, ask your racing neighbors, usually someone will answer. but does eisa speak the language? ah. she won't get the judges other than vaguely obeying their ushering. she can't communicate with other than her nationals. ok, coach needs to do his job then.
she's young, it's a learning experience, and she had an excellent result (until). but she did get DQ'd and should learn from it, eg, read the rules (i often do when in a new context), ask questions, and learn one or the other international language where you can get by.
NBC showed it live so there should be a replay on peacock. however i don't think they replayed it in any depth, i think it's shown live as the race and then they come back from a break and are like, oh, btw, eisa was DQ'd, muir wins, as they show the revised standings. so you have to catch it from the race itself.
Painted yellow. Better than cones. Obviously an idiot.
Take it easy. Obviously not an idiot. Obviously a teenager learning a valuable lesson.
Yep its clear as day she did not understand what was going on even after they called for her to move back into place initially after she tried to cut in early the first time (she tried twice and no one corrected her). Seemed the starters felt it would be less work to let her get DQ'd than to take 20seconds to have another person explain it to her.
Thank you for the links. Yes, it is clear that she had no idea what to do. They should have stopped the start, had them stand up, and explained it to her prior to the gun (again...?). They had two opportunities. It was obvious that she had no clue what was going on. You can blame that on her coach, or even her, but at the end of the day it is best for the sport and all involved if the runners know the rules...
At 6:15 I was wondering why Muir was going wide. When looking at the finish it's obvious. WTF was the guy holding the finish tape doing standing out in the middle of lane 2?
Take it easy. Obviously not an idiot. Obviously a teenager learning a valuable lesson.
Yep its clear as day she did not understand what was going on even after they called for her to move back into place initially after she tried to cut in early the first time (she tried twice and no one corrected her). Seemed the starters felt it would be less work to let her get DQ'd than to take 20seconds to have another person explain it to her.
Hiltz lined up well outside of the yellow line to give Eisa room, so you would think that would have clued her in. And it looked like Muir gestured to her about where to line up also. Despite all of that she immediately cut in early.
Even if this was her first ever indoor race with a double waterfall start, you would think she would understand the concept of staggered starts and cutting in later from watching 800s and relays and ect.
I believe Millrose should pay her the prize money.
1) No cones set up
2) No translator to explain the instructions to her.
2) Starter didn't recall it. Easily could have just called them back.
Ridiculous.
This is not her first track meet. It is up to her to know the rules. If you're given a start position ahead of the start line that isn't a waterfall line, then you know for a FACT that you have to stay in lane till you get to the marked break line.
Further, she has coaches. Between her own personal responsibility and the guidance of her coaches she has no excuse.
Womens 2 mile at millrose. Looked like the “winner”, Eisa, cut in immediately from the outside effectively giving her a 10m head start in a race she won by 1 second
Interesting. Millrose Games also ran several 4x4 relay races (not shown on TV) with up to 16 teams in two waterfall starts. The "back" waterfall had up two nine teams with the ninth team way out in lane six. The instructions were to cut in immediately (as long as you didn't knock your inside competitor off the track). So the runner in lane one gets to run a normal lap, but the runner out in lane six, approximately 20 feet away, has to run down to get in lane one. How is this fair? It does not seem like the arc of the "waterfall" properly compensates for this. Perhaps the waterfall starts for 1500/3000 races are less of an issue, but waterfall starts for 4x4s right before the first turn with nine teams seems suspect.
The first mistake was separating the two teenage Ethiopians. One was in the front waterfall and the other in back. I saw that immediately and knew it was poor judgment from meet officials, even if I never expected anything like this.
They have a comfort level of training together and traveling together. One likely understands English better than the other. If there's a rules situation there's far greater likelihood one can explain to the other, beyond the chance that an official or fellow competitor will understand the need to do so, or take the time.
Both of them ran passively in Boston. I think their coaches told them to be more aggressive and do it from the outset. The Ethiopian in the back also tried to cut in immediately. If they had been in reversed waterfalls Elisa probably is okay and the other gets disqualified.
At 6:15 I was wondering why Muir was going wide. When looking at the finish it's obvious. WTF was the guy holding the finish tape doing standing out in the middle of lane 2?
It's not ideal but it's better than the alternative: if the tape crossed lanes 1-3 in an ideal setup for the winner then the other runners (the ones that still needed to run a full lap as the winner came into the homestretch) would have to move out to lane 4 to get around the tape
NBC showed it live so there should be a replay on peacock. however i don't think they replayed it in any depth, i think it's shown live as the race and then they come back from a break and are like, oh, btw, eisa was DQ'd, muir wins, as they show the revised standings. so you have to catch it from the race itself.
I should not be surprised that the announcers did not say anything about it. They were too busy talking about world indoors being 10 minutes from Laura Muir's house to comment about Eisa lining up in lane 3, being told to move to lane 4 and then immediately after the gun moving down towards the rail.