The way I always understood the rule was that you must finish the race with maximum effort (i.e. not jogging 25 laps), or if you don't finish, there must be a medically justified reason. From the rumor mill, it sounds like Mary's dehydration might have been the reason for the DNF.
The entire attitude toward rules of this sort needs to be rethought. There is actually absolutely no justifiable reason for keeping someone who's qualified for an event out of that event. What does it MATTER what that person did in a previous event? It all just means there is potential punishment for having qualified in two events. It's juvenile, and it's stupid.
This absolutely stupid rule!!!!somebody should be able to compete no matter what!! i like ya point.
Yanqui wrote:
The entire attitude toward rules of this sort needs to be rethought. There is actually absolutely no justifiable reason for keeping someone who's qualified for an event out of that event. What does it MATTER what that person did in a previous event? It all just means there is potential punishment for having qualified in two events. It's juvenile, and it's stupid.
Well obviously Mary was allowed to run and I for one was happy to see that. I did not know about the dehydration aspect of her dropping out, nor did most of the other posters. I was honestly just trying to point out the rule the way I have seen it interpreted and the way it is written in the rule book. To be honest I have never seen someone drop out of a race that they were able to walk away from and be allowed to compete in later events. It did happen here and I commend the providence coach for getting that to happen because I am sure he had to work hard for it. Mary ran awesome today and as I said in previous posts I was hoping she would be able to run, but didn't think she would be based on what I have seen with the rules.
so then you're the one who knows absolutely nothing about track and field?
You said to me, "You sir continue to amaze me with your posts. You absolutely do not understand track & field and every post you make shows that this is so."
But I assure you that I do know quite a bit about track and field, as I have spent a life time in direct, active participation in it. Anything I say is open to debate, but not on grounds of lack of experience or understanding of the sport, but usually, from a differing sense of "right" or "wrong" or "fairness" - all fairly subjective issues.
That Mary got run again doesn't prove I know about the sport any more than if she were blocked from the race would have proved that I don't know anything about the sport.
I await your apology.
perspective wrote:
You said to me, "You sir continue to amaze me with your posts. You absolutely do not understand track & field and every post you make shows that this is so."
But I assure you that I do know quite a bit about track and field, as I have spent a life time in direct, active participation in it. Anything I say is open to debate, but not on grounds of lack of experience or understanding of the sport, but usually, from a differing sense of "right" or "wrong" or "fairness" - all fairly subjective issues.
That Mary got run again doesn't prove I know about the sport any more than if she were blocked from the race would have proved that I don't know anything about the sport.
I await your apology.
Sorry, but no apologies here. I do not have a problem with apologizing if I feel I am wrong. In your post you kept saying things like we are not machines, she shut it down mentally, etc. etc. and that is why she should and will be able to race tomorrow. Absolutely everything you said had nothing to do with the honest effort rule and how it applies to track & field. I did not think she would be able to race today, but like everyone else on this board, we did not know that she was dehydrated and that her coach was able to get a doctor to verify that and therefore she was able to run. If you had went to the meet officials with the things that you were writing about, they would not have let her run the race today.
As I thought.
chuck d wrote:
so then you're the one who knows absolutely nothing about track and field?
So how does my not knowing about Mary's dehydration show that I know nothing about track & field.
Throughout this post I was trying to show what the honest effort rule is and how it works. Many people did not even know about this rule and now they do. Everything went exactly according to how the discussion on this thread in regards to the honest effort rule. She would not have been able to compete if she had simply dropped out because she surged too hard in the middle of the race and mentally lost it when they caught back up to her. Her coach was able to "prove" that she was dehydrated and that is why she was able to compete, just like the honest effort rule states.
You don't know how little you know.
perspective wrote:
As I thought.
I guess I am wondering where your apology is. Please look back at your post and realize how silly it is. As I said, what you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with why Mary was able to compete. You can talk with any coach or official and they will tell you that just because she didn't "plan" to drop out, or that she lost it mentally does not qualify for getting out of the honest effort rule. Only a "medical" reason could have allowed her to compete and that is what everyone that understands the rule was saying throughout these posts.
perspective wrote:
You don't know how little you know.
To be honest, there is a lot I don't know about track & field, which most likely many of us on here don't know a lot of things. When there is something that do I understand and have had experience with, then I will try to post information on here to help people understand what the rule is and how it is usually interpreted. That is what happened on this post.
It's a toss up whether you are more naive than pig headed or more pig headed than naive. Either way, it's a bad combination.
perspective wrote:
It's a toss up whether you are more naive than pig headed or more pig headed than naive. Either way, it's a bad combination.
You continue to amaze me with every post. I give up. Eventually you will get it, or maybe you won't. Read through this entire post. Read what the honest effort rule is. Talk with people who undersand what the honest effort rule is and why there is even such a rule. Read your post. Then think about your post. Then go to bed.
funny maybe you should do the same.
axel,
anyone who knows anything about ncaa championships knew exactly what was going to occur. the medical exemption to the honest effort rule is used in nearly every single championship. no one had to know about her supposed "dehydration" to figure out what was going to happen. they were going to come up with something to get her in.
You said, "The entire attitude toward rules of this sort needs to be rethought. There is actually absolutely no justifiable reason for keeping someone who's qualified for an event out of that event. What does it MATTER what that person did in a previous event? It all just means there is potential punishment for having qualified in two events. It's juvenile, and it's stupid."
One underlying purpose of the honest effort rule is to prevent someone from entering the mile, the 3k, and the 5k, and then, upon seeing who the competition is in the various events, effectively withdrawing from one or more of the events by jogging through or false starting or running half a lap and stepping off the track. After all, there are only 16 spots or so available in each event and the majority of coaches and administrators feel that those spots should be given to athletes who truly intend on competing, rather than as merely options to be exercised as suits the whims of a given individual.
Yanqui wrote:
The entire attitude toward rules of this sort needs to be rethought. There is actually absolutely no justifiable reason for keeping someone who's qualified for an event out of that event. What does it MATTER what that person did in a previous event? It all just means there is potential punishment for having qualified in two events. It's juvenile, and it's stupid.
As perspective wrote, there are reasons for the honest effort rule and it has to do with fairness to the other competitors and the fans. Would it be right for someone to enter the mile, 3k and 5k, with no intent to run all of them or to give an honest effort in each. They would be keeping someone else out of the meet that is planning on competing and everyone else in the meet would not be sure what event this person was running, including the fans. Imagine if Solinsky had entered all three races and people were excited to see him try to win all three and then he drops out of the mile or 5k. There is a strategy to track & field for the team title and the honest effort rule is there so that the coaches have to do some thinking ahead of time as to what is their best chance to score points. They may have a 3k/5k type runner and they need to decide if they should keep him fresh for the 3k, or have him run the 5k as well. Should he be able to then drop out of the 5k if it isn't going well, to save himself for the 3k? That would not be fair to the coach and athlete that planned ahead and decided to only enter the 3k to keep him fresh. It is all about strategy, trying to figure out what events will be stronger or weaker, how well your athlete can double, etc. There is a reason for the honest effort rule and it should be enforced more than it was this weekend. In Mary Cullen's case, if she was that dehydrated she could not have even surged like she did in the middle of the race and she would not have been able to walk off the track with no aid from officials. I like Mary Cullen, I was impressed with her season and her 3k, but they either need to get rid of the rule, or have it more strictly enforced.
Isn't everbody technically "dehydrated" by the middle of a 5000 meter race? Theoretically, anyone who drops out of a distance race can say they are dehydrated, and this will always be a defense to outweigh the "honest effort" rule. Is it possible Mary Cullen knew she was falling apart, and didn't want to deal with the consequences, so she dropped out?
bit of a bitc* fight going on here