Aussie Hollingsworth reinstated as Australian 1500m champion

I don't think you can say that the Aussies have caught up to her. This was in a 4:17 race. She just won two medals at World Indoors.

Isn't there more nuance around impeding? In Hocker's Olympic gold, I seem to recall
Ingebrigtsen blocking off Hocker, and then JI blocked Kerr to maintain his position and "impede" his competitors. In most races where the leader detects a challenge, they drift in their lanes. Can someone who has competed in college/professionally please clarify the rules around impeding?

These are just tough situations. Stating the obvious.

Let's just look at Hull. As she comes off the turn she does push out more to the outside of lane one - which by the way in the desperation and oxygen debt of the final 80 or so meters of a 1500m race is understandable. She does also then "realign" after that and clearly does look to reestablish the center of the lane which closes down space Hollingsworth believe she finds.

I always try and break this down into "instinctual" vs "deliberate". If it's deliberate then by simple logic Hull has impeded CH and if she trips, it's her fault. If it's instinctual then CH has just misjudged the circumstances and it's her fault.

In this case I don't think anyone can look at the front on footage (out there on social media etc) and say "Hull actively looked to shut down her space". The move across the lane is so imperceptible and completely instinctual, I have no problem with it. It wasn't George Mills basically sidestepping 2 feet across lane lines to get position like that London 1500m last season where he bought guys down. This was like Jakob not allowing Hocker through on the inside of the Paris 1500m final which I personally believe he has every right to do as he'd earned the front of the race - as Hull has done here. I don't even find Hulls shift careless.

What is careless is this increasing trend of looking to find space between runners in lane one and the rail, which is literally an effing rail. That is stupid, careless and dangerous. Hollingsworth could have easily stepped on that little 3 inch wide piece of aluminum and caused even more havoc, including really hurting herself. In the end she takes a slightly "better" option which is to run diagonally across the back of Hull and yeah, no kidding that is going to happen. Bigger picture I just don't understand why these athletes (like Hocker, Hollingsworth) who clearly have the physical ability to win these races, are even putting themselves in this position. If she had positioned herself better with only a slight variation in positioning, she wins by 2-3 meters, Hull gets second and we have the right result.

Now we have Hollingsworth which a highly debatable nation title and Jessica Hull gets nothing, which just can't be right.

Athletes need to take more care, and even though CH of course didn't mean to do this, she did, and this was her fault and there has to be some accountability which will embed in her subconscious to the degree she won't do it again (even though you'd think it might have with Cole Hocker but it seemingly hasn't). Wrong decision here (to reinstate) and with Commonwealth Games selection on the table it's obvious it's a political one/beyond the events on the track - but it's Athletics Australia who always seem to find a way to create team selection drama so no surprises at all on that level.

Hull stepped in after stepping out. Didn’t have a full stride when moving into the other runner… the rule is the same whether you’re moving out or in.

No, there is not more nuance to impeding.

You bring up a good example. JI never impeded Hocker, and when he gave up the rail, he gave up that position: it was then Hocker’s to take.

He did not impede Kerr drifting wide because that takes a deliberate and forceful move to impede a runner in the free space (radially outward). But impeding a runner towards the rail (radially inward) is a much easier task/mistake to make, as all it takes is a step or two to force that runner into the infield.

This is why it is easy to rule that a runner impedes another when they forced them inward, as Jess Hull did in this race.

A comparative example is Lagat holding off Kipchoge in the 2007 world championship 5k. He made a full body length pass before moving inward and “cutting off” Kipchoge, as many said at the time. Except he didn’t actually cut off Kipchoge, Eliud had plenty of space to move over to lane 2 and try to pass again, but never tried to make that move (his own loss).

Lagat 2007 was a legal, savvy move. What Jess Hull did was an illegal, sloppy move, contrary to what many posters here will tell you.

Simple question then. The first time that Cole Hocker tried to run though the inside line immediately off the curve - where Jakob clearly moves slightly back towards the pole line to stop that happening, was that impeding Hocker and worthy of a DQ?

What happened in this race could easily have happened in Paris - had Kerr not come up to the shoulder of Jakob only 15-20m later which forced him to go wide, Hocker (with a lot of running in him just like Hollingsworth in that race) would have had to do the exact same thing she did, basically strafe across the lane behind Jakob (and also now Kerr) and hope like hell he didn't clip anyones back kick.

It’s a fair point Stitchmo. There are 2 differences by the rule book:

1) Hollingsworth pulled essentially level, on the straight. Hocker was never near level, and it was on a curve. This is the concept of “establishing position”. Cole never did. Claudia did. Therefore Jakob was still entitled to that space, as he had no visibility or potential awareness of another runner there.

2) Hull actually forced contact. Forcing contact is a big part of the ruling in most decisions. Hull pushing inside so quickly (and it was only in 3 strides) forced Hollingsworth to either jump the rail or fall back. That, by definition, is impeding.

If you’re coming up the inside, you have to be fully clear. Hull didn’t cut her off, she held her position. That’s normal racing, not a foul under World Athletics rules. Hollingsworth Should be DQ’d and its shames the officials are so off in this one by reinstating her.

Ok good point. I didn’t want to agree with you, and I feel like the leader should be able to pinch down on the lane, but it is the case that she sort of cut in front of her and made the trip inevitable. I don’t love the final decision, but it doesn’t look so crazy after watching your point of view.

To me, it looks like Hull was forcing Hollingsworth off the track by moving inside and basically tripped herself as a result. What was Hollingsworth supposed to do? Move into the grass?

Hull tried to move into Mackay's space down the homestretch at in the World Indoor 3000 as well. It's something that she does.

I agree with the reinstatement.

Hull was never farther out than middle of the lane. At no point is there a lane to pass on the inside. Hollingsworth causes the fall by trying to abruptly go outside. That is completely her fault. Should be a DQ.

AA are a joke. Should have kept the DQ in place. The front on footage is really damning. Hull is mid lane the whole time. Claudia 100% causes this.

It's all a shame/shambles really. But how impressive was hollingsworth to via left then right then left ... what an athletic girl . She was obviously feeling extremely good to pull all those moves and not once did she lose her balance .

You would think her future is going to be way more than just this. Hopefully they send hull and hollingsworth to comm games as well as Caldwell as IMO they are their best medal chances but NB seems to have a lot of power so I'm sure one or both of his athletes will find a way in.

You obviously haven't seen the head on footage bud. Because Hull did not hold her line, and in the post race interview literally said "I tried to close the rail". Do I need to type that out for you again?

Good god, I do not understand the hoop jumping for Hull, it's almost blatant bias at this point.

If Hull didn't cut her off, then why did hull say "I tried to close the rail" in her post race interview?

Honestly to me that makes it clear it was Hull's "fault", not Hollingsworth. Hollingsworth was coming up on the inside and Hull moved closer to the rail to block but they were already too close, Hollingsworth tried to get out of the way with a move to the outside but it was too late, and Hull went down. So reversing the original decision and leaving the win with Hollingsworth was definitely the right decision.

This sort of stuff happens sometimes in close races, too bad for Hull, but glad they aren't punishing Hollingsworth simply for racing and winning.

I agree with you. The athleticism from Hollingsworth is a bigger story from this race than whether or not she was disqualified. It hints at bigger upside than I imagined for her. Previously my only impression was from the U20 800 final when Sarah Moraa surged away from Hollingsworth during the final meters.

Jessica Hull doesn't win many races. Commentators and fans never seem to recognize that. Hull is touted to win at least 3x as often as she does win. This year her only individual victory is a 2000 indoor race. Otherwise it's the same pattern all the time. Jessica thrives in the time trial races against Kipyegon. Both clear the field and fun very fast times. But when Kipyegon is not in the race, Jessica gets run down late and finishes second or third. Indoors and outdoors.

Consequently Jessica has become frustrated at that and now is resorting to more race running tactics than earlier in her career, when less was expected. Australia has been her safe haven, where she can dependably win every year. Now that the dominance had come under threat, Jessica was prepared to apply tactics in this race. It didn't end well for her.

Very strange to look at Hull's past performance chart on World Athletics and now see a 12 instead of a 2 or 3

Hull had the right to close the gap. Rule 17.2

"Leader has the right to close the gap" has nothing to do with how rule 17.2 is applied. I'm not sure where you pulled that out of?

(17.2)
If an athlete is jostled or obstructed during an event so as to impede their progress, then:

(17.2.1)
if the jostling or obstruction is considered unintentional or is caused otherwise than by an
athlete, the Referee may, if they are of the opinion that an athlete (or their team) was
seriously affected, in accordance with Rule 18.7 of the Competition Rules or Rule 8.4 of
the Technical Rules, order that the race (for one, some or all of the athletes) be re-held or
allow the affected athlete (or team) to compete in a subsequent round of the event;

(17.2.2)

if another athlete is found by the Referee to be responsible for the jostling or obstruction,
such athlete (or their team) shall be liable to disqualification from that event. The Referee
may, if they are of the opinion that an athlete (or their team) was seriously affected, in
accordance with Rule 18.7 of the Competition Rules or Rule 8.4 of the Technical Rules,
order that the race (for one, some or all of the athletes) be re-held excluding any
disqualified athlete (or team) or allow any affected athlete (or team) (other than any
disqualified athlete or team) to compete in a subsequent round of the event.