New long jump rule?

The LJ often interferes with tv coverage of distance running events so I feel they should just scrap the LJ entirely

As a former long jumper and triple jumper (#1 jumper in my small high school - still absurdly proud of this as I was primarily a distance runner), I think this adds complexity to what is currently a simple, easy to understand sport. Overall, I'm not a fan.

That might be the dumbest proposed rule change in the history of Track & Field. Can someone name a worse one that has seriously been considered?

I thought baseball fans were ridiculously closed minded when it came to change, but this discussion is proving T&F fans may be also. I love this idea. I want to see who can jump the furthest, that is the whole idea, not who can plant their takeoff the most accurately. There are plenty of other changes the sport should consider. You want to reduce confusion, how about the Decathlon winner almost never crossing the line first in the final event, how is that for confusing and killing fan interest. Why not stagger the 1500m based on score, then let everyone literally chase the leader...whoever crosses the line first gets the crown of Worlds Greatest Athlete.

While I don't see this ever happening, which I agree with, it's probably going to be for the "wrong" reason. Both live and broadcast audiences want to see the yardstick and graphic overlays to gauge performances and results instead of having no idea what's going until they get the answer, so for the sake of the audience they won't change it.

The better reason not to change it is because timing the leap is part of the skill requirements.

Long jumping as a skill is useful for crossing crevasses, rivers, etc, bridging the gap, and if you don't time it right there can be consequences.

But there's at least one sport that's implemented what's essentially dynamic or fleeting inputs: ski jumping.

Ski jumping is:

- Sequential. One jumper at a time. The entire procedure takes between 1-2 minutes per jumper under normal circumstances. Same as long jumping.
- Point based. You get points for distance, and points for style. The style points take distance into consideration, so you don't earn high style points for short jumps.
- Gate and wind compensation. Points are added or removed depending on the wind conditions and start gate used (starting at a higher point in the hill gives more speed).

This means that the athlete with the longest jumps doesn't necessarily win, and that two consecutive jumps of equal length might yield very different scores. With all this ambiguity the sport is still wildly popular in its domain (it's likely the second most popular winter sport after ice hockey).

I absolutely agree with this, the response to this rule change has been very disappointing. Track and Field should be about pushing the limits of human performance. The long jump should be about absolute speed and power. I want to see the absolute limits that a human can project their body through the air, not watch some choreographed run down the runway so athlete's can hit some arbitrary mark. Remove the board and let 'er rip!

You obviously never jumped seriously.

Comparing this change to automated strike calls in baseball is completely out to lunch. Automating this umpire function DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES AND SPORT OF BASEBALL, but simply how the rules are enforced.

"How much of the event is hampered by trying to hit the board perfectly?" shows so much ignorance of the long jumps (or javelin, for that matter).

Your question is more like asking "How much of pitching is hampered by trying to hit the strike zone?"

This is not a question of how the sport is officiated, but the actual rules of the sport. See the difference?

the better solution:

videotape all takeoff (LJ, TJ. throws)

so there is video review. No ALL fouls will actually be called fouls.

The changing of the rule in the manner proposed is so unfair to all the previous competitors and records...it undermines a major element of the competition (having to adjust to the board/takeoff.

Next you want to measure HJ and PV not by whether they cleared the bar - but by how much and then count that as the record. Actually now that I say that out loud - this is a better proposal if there is to be a rule change.

hyperbole bores me. you could also argue "there is no reason we need people watching the start of races for false starts, we have the reaction timers and cameras." and yet.....

why can't humans and machines mutually reinforce? i thought i saw something, go check the machine. machine thought it detected something, go watch the feed.

i think one of the worst versions of your idea is the devon allen reaction time fiasco. no one can see the false start but we rule him out on a reaction time proxy which is designed to detect false starts except we can't actually see one in his situation. so, no, i think a human should look. and i want someone watching in case the machine glitches.

i also think the rule is bad because as some noted, it's not something many high schools and colleges are equipped to do. it's like if you put in rules for football or soccer, applicable down to school kids, which seem to assume VAR/video review. yes, we have more of that in the pros and dribbling down to D1. we don't have it for all D2/D3/HS or youth games in the parks. and i think you get a sporting integrity issue when you have different rules for different groups funneling into the same championships. (as with the kid who didn't run a HS indoor mile but wants to count his unattached in a meet outside what is supposed to count)

Long Jump should be like High Jump.

Get rid of the wood board and slowly move the "take off" board back 6" at a time.

You get 2 attempts to jump in the sand pit. If you don't make the sand it's a missed attempt.

Last standing jumper wins.

I mean if you do this there is no foul jumps anymore, you only give a couples of jumps max par person. You save a lot of time.

I supposed the best jumper wins.

John Ridgeon at world athletics was tasked with improving the marketing of the sport worldwide and this is what he comes up. What an idiot. One of the great things about the long jump is its history. Beamon at Mexico City. Lewis v Powell and this moron wants to erase all that because today’s long jumpers are soft. Half the balls served in tennis are fouls, no one cares

If we are going to use this comparison then they should use cameras so every time a foul ball is hit if it goes far enough in distance that would clear the fence then they should call it a homerun. Or maybe if they hit it into the crowd and no one catches it then we call it a hit. We don't need accuracy right?

Or, and did you hear that a cool thing about track and field is that anyone can do it, anywhere, without a set of lasers and cameras just to put on a long jump?

This would effectively make long jump untenable in most high schools and most of the world, where measurement is still with a tape measure from the fixed board.

I've never done a field event so I genuinely don't know the answer to this: how would spotting the takeoff point be any different than spotting the landing point of a shot put when it doesn't make a mark (such as in indoor)? Don't they spot the landing without high tech equipment?

So you are moving the official from the board to watch a screen. The official is still there.

That is how some para events for the visually impaired do the LJ.

I don't think increasing the size of the board would reduce the number of fouls. A jumper is still going to want to get as close to the edge as possible.