USATF Chip Rule Hellp: Robbed of Victory

Robbed of Victory wrote: Also, how long after the gun should someone be allowed to start the race? Can someone wait around 15-20 min for the winner of the local 5k to cross the finish then go out and time trial it and try to beat the time?

You're getting a little petty here. The person in question did not start around picking their nose attempting to do a solo time trial, they were 13 seconds back, maybe they were tying their shoes when the gun went off.

I see the "wait around" argument all the time. It's BS. They're not going to stand around at the start leaving the mats on for 15-20 minutes unless it's a megathon with people still streaming across the line. In any case the person didn't "wait around", they just were a few seconds back and ran from the start mat to the finish mat faster than you.

Now the "first one to the line" argument sounds romantic but I'll give you the flip side. A friend of mine ran a USATF sanctioned race where they gave the "elites" ahead start of about a minute. He was robbed of an award (and money) every though he ran faster than the "elites".

Now the best solution is everyone having a fair start (i.e. cross country). That just isn't going to happen in road racing. Since road racing is by and large regulated by locale and custom it's the runner's job to understand the rules of that particular road and the RD's job to make them clear and available. In this case you didn't ask and it sounds like they didn't tell. Plenty of fault to go around. Know the rules; don't like them, don't run.

Well, you ran 21 minutes for a 5k. Did you really "Win"?

Going by chip time is a very POOR way to do it. The chip can obviously tell exactly when everyone crossed the finish line. There is no need to even bring in the start time other than to verify that all runners did start behind the mat. Runners who have a chance at an award should be responsible for starting in a position that would not put them at a disadvantage.

We have been through this before. If you knew who the top guy in your age group was, all you would have to do is wait at the start line 4 or 5 seconds. You could then run behind him without him ever knowing where you were. You could then move up just behind him at the finish and be declared the winner. We all know that is wrong to have rules that would allow that to happen.

MSCoach wrote:

I wasn't referring to this specific situation regarding timing. However, I was referring to the earlier statement regarding sanctioning and certification. In general, why get your course certified by USATF (which this race happened to be) and then turn around and not follow the finish rules of the USATF? Why would USATF allow that or even bother?

You're not paying attention. USATF has NO SAY if a race isn't sanctioned, so "not allowing it" isn't an option for them. Course certification has nothing to do sanction. If USATF tried to force every race that got their course certified to get a sanction races would simply stop going to USATF for measurement.

You get your course certified to make it records eligible and to tell runners the distance is correct. USATF rules are more than "don't use chip time", so agreeing to them is a level of rigor most races aren't going to sign up for.

For example, you can qualify for Boston with a chip time, if Boston strictly followed the "gun time only for scoring" rule then people going for BQ times would crowd the front of races, including older people that would run much slower. No RD really wants that.

By USATF rules, courses with a net downhill of more than 1 meter per kilometer aren't records eligible so you can't set an American Record (or World Best) on the Boston course. You can qualify for Boston on net downhill courses like St George or the old Vegas course. Races pick and choose what rules they want to follow all the time, including major ones, for mostly legitimate reasons.

Some USATF rules are a bit obsolete in the eyes of many race directors and participants, and you needn't look any further than the headphone ban for an example.

Chip timing is another trouble spot because USATF says "gun time only" and the chip time is for the runner's edification. That's really problematic for age groupers which are the majority of participants. In my area there's a nationally ranked 72 year old woman. She always shoves her way to the front line because if she's going to set an age group record she needs to be up front so she doesn't take the few seconds of delay. That means a 24+ minute 5Ker is lined up in front of people that will finish minutes ahead of her.

Even elite women are minutes slower than elite and many sub-elite men, so should they always start in front of faster runners or should they be expected to take the time hit and line up farther back?

Ideally everyone would run small races with no start delay, but that's not happening either. More race directors are going to chip times because more runners expect (and in some cases demand) chip timing because of the perception it's more accurate. That means either USATF is going to bend on "gun time only" or more and more races are going to ignore USATF.

The whole "mano-a-mano" argument sounds romantic and makes for good theater but it ignores the realities on the ground at most road races. For every person that was "robbed" by crossing the finish line before someone that covered the course faster there's that person that ran faster who would feel robbed if the ruling goes the other way. That person isn't a cheater, and it can be argued that if the person that "won" feels they could have run faster why didn't they? They didn't because they didn't think they had to, so is that really in the spirit of giving your best?

I would agree that for age group awards using chip time is OK. The "it's a race, first one across the line wins" doesn't really hold up in this case because, for the most part, age-groupers have no idea how many in their age group are ahead of them or behind them anyway.

But I think this woman is talking about the overall female winner of the race. That should definitely not be decided by chips. It would be ridiculous to overturn the men's overall winner result with a chip time. The same should be true for women.

All the times look pretty slow, race web site says 4500 elevation and 150 ft. elevation gain on the course.

Have you posted a pic of the overall winner yet? I must have missed something.

dukerdog wrote:

I would agree that for age group awards using chip time is OK. The "it's a race, first one across the line wins" doesn't really hold up in this case because, for the most part, age-groupers have no idea how many in their age group are ahead of them or behind them anyway.

But I think this woman is talking about the overall female winner of the race. That should definitely not be decided by chips. It would be ridiculous to overturn the men's overall winner result with a chip time. The same should be true for women.

Should not and can not are really the issue here. Sure, first over the line should be the order of the day for overall. Can a race director decide to do everything via chip time, sure, and in the eyes of many who ran the fastest is more important than who crossed the line first. Others don't want to do it two different ways and tell the timing company to use chip time. If that was the RD decision before the event then trying to change it after the fact is pointless. You need to know the scoring and make your call before the gun goes off.

The other "issue" is the ruling party. If you don't like the payment method for your property taxes complaining to the IRS does no good, they don't collect or have anything to do with property taxes so their rules don't apply. Same theory applies here.

I'll also point out it's perfectly valid under USATF rules to give out prize money any damn way you please. The NC USATF 5K championship gives overall prize money only to NC USATF members and "age group" prize money based on WAVA performances. It's possible you could win the race and not get a dime.

The point there is it's the runner's responsibility to know the way awards are presented if it's important to them. And that means before they sign the registration form. If they disagree then they should not sign up, potentially sending a note to the RD why.

Keith Stone wrote:

Marathons got their own insurance (the primary reason to get a sanction) and did things their own way. That's exactly what happens with 90% of the road races. They don't get USATF officials, bother with sanctions, rules, etc, they just get the course measured and call it a day.

I agree w/pretty much everything Keith has said except I'd put the % above at closer to 99% of events have no USATF connections (sanction, officials or certification).

Also, he's right that runners should beware how a race plans to distribute awards. Having said that, it's difficult to fathom ANY race not giving the overall prize to the very first runners that cross the finish line.

Funny story of race organizer incompetence - I crossed the line 2nd at the Philly Marathon last year. When I went up to get my award they announced me as the 3rd place finisher. The Mayor of Philadelphia and Bill Rodgers were up on the stage (there were about 50 people looking on) and they said - "no, he was 2nd, we saw him cross the line 2nd" (Mayor Nutter is a funny guy). It felt good to have those 2 on my side :)

apparently the race organizers looked at the automatic timing results and believed the computer which said someone behind me had a faster chip time.

So I took the 2nd place trophy but had no idea whether I'd get the 3rd or 2nd place check ($1000 difference) and nobody from Philadelphia contacted me. So the next few days I told people "I think I got 2nd but they're telling me I got 3rd".

A Costa Rican guy finished 5th (last money spot) but they told him he wouldn't be getting paid... for the same reason they were bumping me down a spot. He was cool about it.

Turns out he and I both were 2nd and 5th and nobody had a faster chip time. But the computer screw-up almost cost us our deserved prize money!

I don't understand why any race wouldn't have a policy of "whoever crosses the line first wins". And then if someone doesn't get to start with the elites and runs a great time that WOULD have won them money, then pay them too (a la Wesley Korir in Chicago)

Anyway I hope rational thinking prevails for you and you get whatever prize you won. But either way then forget about it and have a good time!

Haha. Cheers.

Everything you say is fine Keith, except that...

Robbed of Victory wrote:

The entry form and web site do not include anything about physical finish vs. chip time finish.

"Could" and "should" do matter when it is not clearly stated ahead of time what the rules are. You can't expect everyone who might win the race to call up the RD before they sign up to confirm what should be obvious to everyone, that the first person to cross the finish line will be declared the winner?

I think there are some confusing replies on this thread.

Let me see if I can help.

1. A race director can decide upon the method for determining awards (net time vs. gun time) REGARDLESS if it is a USATF Sanctioned event or not. The only time you must use Gun Time is for a USATF Championship (Association, Regional, National). A race director can give out awards based on blood types if the want.

2.Records

USATF only accepts gun time for records EXCEPT for Masters (40+). The rule states that a Master runner can set a masters record in a race ONLY if he/she wins their division by Gun Time. This rule was written to maintain the integrity of competition.

3. Boston Marathon Qualifiers.

It's their event. They can decide their own rules for qualification.

4. Gun Time vs. Net Time.

Many large races will give out overall based on Gun Time and the age group awards based on Net Time.

5. Read the application before you enter.

Mr Mountain wrote:

The chip can obviously tell exactly when everyone crossed the finish line.

Not really.

You need to understand how chips work (and I am not an engineer so someone else can probably explain all the deficiencies in chip systems better).

Why do they have two mats at the finish?

Why are the two mats 3 to 4 feet -- sometimes 6 feet -- apart?

Was there rebar in the street beneath the finish?

Did they have chips on both feet?

There are many reasons why chips don't work, or fail to register, and why they often read the chip up to 2-3 feet BEFORE the mat and possibly several feet behind one of the mats.

A chip can not tell exactly when anyone crosses the finish line.

It can give a pretty good guess, and it may guess well for one finisher and not for another.

That's why in all QUALITY races awards are distributed based on gun time.

Chip timing is often inaccurate but it's due to the failure and inadequacy of the equipment.

You'd need FinishLynx or a camera set-up of some sort to get the exact moment of finish and it would have to sync with the gun.

Thankfully new technology is coming that is much, much better.

a journalist wrote:

There are many reasons why chips don't work, or fail to register, and why they often read the chip up to 2-3 feet BEFORE the mat and possibly several feet behind one of the mats.

A chip can not tell exactly when anyone crosses the finish line.

It can give a pretty good guess, and it may guess well for one finisher and not for another.

That's why in all QUALITY races awards are distributed based on gun time.

Chip timing is often inaccurate but it's due to the failure and inadequacy of the equipment.

You'd need FinishLynx or a camera set-up of some sort to get the exact moment of finish and it would have to sync with the gun.

Thankfully new technology is coming that is much, much better.

Friend, because you generalize so much, your point is lost. Yes, sometimes times are wrong but nowhere near as frequently as you infer. Technology that is better? Yep, there is always research, changes & improvement. You are wrong, however, to say the current tech isn't accurate. If that were so, nobody would employ scoring companies that use 'chips' or 'dtags' & the cry from unhappy runners would be heard loud & clear across the land.

Employee #1 wrote:

I don't understand why any race wouldn't have a policy of "whoever crosses the line first wins". And then if someone doesn't get to start with the elites and runs a great time that WOULD have won them money, then pay them too (a la Wesley Korir in Chicago)

rodgers and the mayor backing you up is pretty cool. but wanted to say that i disagree with you and keith on the point above. if the elites get a separate start (head start) and a non-elite cuts into their times, the non-elite should not be awarded an elite prize. the elites had no idea they were racing this guy, and strategy is completely different.

i realize you're implying that korir should have be given an additional prize. that's a pretty good idea, but instead of doing it on the fly, i think race directors should have a separate prize offered to anyone who can break into the elite top 5, 10, whatever. they probably won't have to pay it that often if they do the odds right, and it's good motivation for the crowd.

dukerdog wrote:

Everything you say is fine Keith, except that...

"Could" and "should" do matter when it is not clearly stated ahead of time what the rules are. You can't expect everyone who might win the race to call up the RD before they sign up to confirm what should be obvious to everyone, that the first person to cross the finish line will be declared the winner?

As I said there's fault to go around, but yes I do think a runner who might win and is expecting prize money will contact the RD to determine the rules if they are not clearly spelled out (as they should be, but weren't). We're not talking a large amount of people, and the RD should know that they're not living up to their part of the bargain.

They could win based on first person across the line and still not get prize money because they are not eligible for some other reason. They'd still be pissed, just because they weren't a USATF member or a state resident or some other reason.

I work registration for a local trail 30K. I kept getting queries about camping nearby. Guess what, now the web site explains nearby accommodation, shower facilities, etc. As I've said many times before race directors should advertise what they deliver and deliver what they advertise, but that doesn't mean I think they couldn't use some reminders from time to time.

That means if you show up expecting prize money but weren't sure because the web site or brochure wasn't clear then I feel both you and the race director are at fault. If you're not sure, then either contact the RD and be sure or don't register.

Keith Stone wrote:

That means if you show up expecting prize money but weren't sure because the web site or brochure wasn't clear then I feel both you and the race director are at fault. If you're not sure, then either contact the RD and be sure or don't register.

So when I call the race director to make sure the first person across the finish line will be the overall winner, do I also have to ask him if blood type counts, and whether or not people will be able to wear jetpacks, and if they can hitchhike during the race, because he didn't mention any of that on his entry form either?

I know I'm being absurd here, but it's also pretty absurd to decide your overall winner on chip time without telling anybody ahead of time that you're going to do that. Runners are not at fault if they assume a race will be conducted the same as 99% of all other races, if there is nothing on the entry form to indicate otherwise.

No you call the RD and ask what the conditions for receiving prize money are and how the event is scored. Simple as that.

I agree on the first point, but as we just saw it's not unheard of. Looking at the results I see the finish times aren't in the range of people that would expect to be "in the money" so this looks more like bad information from the RD. There is ample reason to contact the RD in advance here since they give procedures for requesting seeding on the web site.

I find it odd is the "gun/chip" times are not posted. Normally for chip times races that use both start and finish mats (necessary for net times) both are posted. I'd have to fault CEP Timing for that since they obviously have the information.

Maybe they should introduce a similar idea to chip timing in other sports. I mean, why should a running back who starts the play 7 yards in the backfield have to get the whole way to the goal line just like a wide receiver who starts right on the line? They can do it just like this guy's road race and decide after the fact whether or not the player actually crossed his personal imaginary goal before he was tackled. That wouldn't take away from the game, would it?