False start rules will change in 3...2...1...

Let their muscles fire away! It would be their penalty for 'false starting', and as long as the other competitors are not aware of it (pretty simply, actually - especially with a foot-gate device and a blind between racers).

No one with a complete, functioning brain would think that.

Yes they would. Listen- admitting you or something is wrong is important. This rule is flawed. VERY few people like it. I coach high school and I hate it. For the pro's it's even more assinine.

They made a mistake, they have to get together- they're at the Worlds now- and change it- asap. Admit they made a mistake and go back to 1 FS to the field and the next you're out.

It's just not right from the athlete's perspective. I admit I would get really annoyed as hurdler after hurdler false started- it was stupid and boring. But you do not have to meet extremes with extremes.

Make it right and work it out with the athletes. You know, if they really wanted to make this sport a joke they could have DQ'd the whole women's marathon team. Or, to make it right, they could have made up some story about the gun misfiring in the 100.

Here's an idea - Bolt shouldn't false start.

Reacting to the gun is part of the event.

Letting everyone have one guess never was a good idea.

But there should also be an official cadence the starters should use. Inconsistent starters mess things up.

You really need to brush up on the subject before you get so adamant.

See Article 13 on page 36. The constitution very clearly spells out how to change a rule.

The fact that they follow this process means that they spent a fair bit of time and effort looking at it when then went to the old rule (one charged to the field) and then to the current rule (no false starts). It wasn't something cooked up on the fly after some hot heads on the internet told them they had a stupid rule.

Further, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. As much as you or I might want to think it is about the athletes, to the IAAF it is not. It is about presentation. False starts do not look good and mess up with their multi-million dollar TV contracts.

It is money that drives the IAAF, not coddling elite athletes.

The simple fact is that a no false start rule changes the dynamics of the start. With a freebie false start, athletes have an incentive to try and guess the gun or catch a flyer. With the no false start rule, athletes now know that they can't take a chance, hence there will be a lot fewer false starts. From the IAAF's view, this is a good thing.

Lastly, how did so many world class sprinters manage to develop through the NCAA system where they've had a no false start rule for years?

Perhaps you should have actually watched the women's marathon. It was very clear that the gun misfired the first attempt. That is not a false start, even if athletes responded to the 'click'.

The starter then didn't clearly announce to the field that they would be doing a test shot and so that gun fire caused several athletes to try and start again.

It was only after they lined everyone up behind the line again that they were able to do a proper legal start.

And if you were further paying attention to the track races, they are using an electronic gun, one that sends its sound out the speakers behind the blocks of each athlete. That means everyone is hearing the sound at exactly the same time.

But no, apparently you already know what is stupid and any facts suggesting otherwise are irrelevant.

toro wrote:

But there should also be an official cadence the starters should use. Inconsistent starters mess things up.

Actually, there shouldn't be. If you read the rule book it says that the starter will not call 'set' until all athletes on are on their marks and still in their blocks.

The starter will then not fire the gun until all athletes are still in the set position.

By definition, since not every athlete responds to the commands in exactly the same time, there can not be an exact official timing for the starter's commands and gun.

Further, if there were a defined timing, then that is just asking for athletes to anticipate the gun and try and catch a flyer. That will then have them called for a false start when their electronic blocks show they 'reacted' less than 0.1 seconds after the gun.

Um, yeah wrote:

...then they are calibrated and validated at the start of each session, so good luck with that).

The IAAF currently does not have a system, method or process for either calibrating or validating false-start detection equipment.

Can you imagine how pissed you would be if you got a speeding ticket on the basis of a radar reading obtained from a piece of equipment for which there was no legal system, process or method for calibration or validation?

Not saying this undermines any of your other arguments, but you are flat-out wrong on this one.

The olympics/WCs are about dollars, not presentation, not competition and not the athletes. Big Olympic sponsors lay out big money for ads for the broadcasts of big events with the assumption that Bolt will be there and millions of people will tune in to see him. False starting out of the final is not the worst case because people presumably tuned in anyway. But he could have gone out in the rounds. He almost false started in round 1. He did false start in Berlin, too. But there was no stupid rule and as a result we got 9.58 (and the sponsors got tons of viewers/replays) instead of DQ.

Um, no... wrote:

The IAAF currently does not have a system, method or process for either calibrating or validating false-start detection equipment.

I see you're right:

Haven't yet formalized their calibration.

But, as you pointed out, this doesn't change the fact the rules say you can't argue with the electronics.

Um, yeah wrote:

Um, no... wrote:

The IAAF currently does not have a system, method or process for either calibrating or validating false-start detection equipment.

I see you're right:

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/05/84/99/20101012110622_httppostedfile_CalibrationManual_2010_online_22551.pdf

Haven't yet formalized their calibration.

But, as you pointed out, this doesn't change the fact the rules say you can't argue with the electronics.

What is worse is that there is no definition of what constitutes "movement."

Couple that with the fact that no existing false-start system can detect upper body or hand motion and you have a situation that is truly FUBAR.

'But there was no stupid rule '

It's pretty much the only rule besides the not doping one. They could at least stick to one

According to this they are thinking about changing it which would be both reactionary and stupid over just 1 athlete

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/14700797.stm

Bolt being DQ'd is bigger news than him winning in 9.8 and I bet more watch the 200m now

ukathleticscoach wrote:

According to this they are thinking about changing it which would be both reactionary and stupid over just 1 athlete

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/14700797.stm

But if you look at their constitution, someone would have to propose the rule change and it would be discussed at the next IAAF Congress which I believe wouldn't be until 2013. The earliest the rule could be changed would be Jan 2014.

Two years from now, presuming there isn't a major final DQ in London, would there still be any emotion kicking around for people wanting to change the rule?

And change it to what? The unfair old rule of one against the field? Or the old-old rule that caused the IAAF many headaches and drove them to start making the changes?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'But there was no stupid rule '

It's pretty much the only rule besides the not doping one. They could at least stick to one

According to this they are thinking about changing it which would be both reactionary and stupid over just 1 athlete

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/14700797.stm

Bolt being DQ'd is bigger news than him winning in 9.8 and I bet more watch the 200m now

There are more than 2 rules in sprinting. There is a rule in races that break to the inside that you have to have a full stride to pass. No one sticks to that and it's not much of a problem. Swimming allowed those super fast suits for a while but they made a quick, reactionary decision to ban them when they saw that it was adversely affecting the competition.

DQs are not good for the sport. There is no way they think DQs will cause more interest.

this false start rule favors slower athletes. Kim Collins took big risks and got great starts in all 3 rounds because at 35 he had nothing to lose. The favorites have to start conservatively or risk a DQ.

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR sprinters could become disciplined athletes and learn to WAIT FOR THE GUN.

lewickerman wrote:

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR sprinters could become disciplined athletes and learn to WAIT FOR THE GUN.

Which is the whole purpose. Can't go back to charging the field, or the field (except one) is in the same position as now anyway. Swimming deals with a no-FS rule. It's kind of dumb for longer races (800m and up) as the advantage gained is minimal to non-existent, but still applies.

While it is unfortunate that Bolt did that - it was a mistake he could have made at any time unless there was no DQ for a false start - that was a joke as well. Glad that it happened here as it shows that even the best can make a mistake and pay for it. If the meets are only about Bolt, then the sport is in trouble anyway.

With Gay and Powell out this year, the 100m was a bit of a light-weight affair anyway, this just put the icing on the cake as being a down year for the 100m. Too bad that Lemaitre didn't take the opportunity to get on the podium - this was his year and he may not be in the same position next year. Just happy that it was Dix getting a medal and not Gatlin!

lewickerman wrote:

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR sprinters could become disciplined athletes and learn to WAIT FOR THE GUN.

I've coached athletes at all level of the sport for 42 years. I was among the doomsayers when the NCAA and then US High School Federation adopted the no-false-start rule. Athletes have adapted. It's probably the fairest rule about starts available. Of course in the everybody-gets-a-trophy world of "sports" today, we could just keep starting a race over and over until it is apparent no-body has gained an advantage. In that vein, everyone should get unlimited attempts at their opening heights in the verticals, and fouls should be eliminated in the horizontals (that one was actually proposed 30 years ago).