Finn is NOT the AJR holder for 5 & 10

162430 wrote:

Yes, I just searched this myself instead of being lazy. Completely ridiculous and arbitrary, but rules are rules. Some kids can set junior records at age 19 years, 364 days whereas others are ineligible at 19 years, 1 day. Absolutely ridiculous.

It is not arbitrary and it is not ridiculous. You really are not thinking about the complications such a seemingly 'simple' switch introduces. Since there is Junior competition that is official you do not want who is a Junior to be changing during the competitive season.

Switching to age at the time of the event is as completely arbitrary and is not as easily assessed because birth years are more reliable than dates of birth. They also cannot be manipulated (e.g., setting a Junior event just prior to the athlete turning 20).

Finally, you would lose consistency with all prior records, so even if it was a complete toss-up in terms of which to do, it would be stupid to give all future runners an advantage compared to earlier athletes.

26mi235 wrote:

It is not arbitrary and it is not ridiculous. You really are not thinking about the complications such a seemingly 'simple' switch introduces. Since there is Junior competition that is official you do not want who is a Junior to be changing during the competitive season.

Switching to age at the time of the event is as completely arbitrary and is not as easily assessed because birth years are more reliable than dates of birth. They also cannot be manipulated (e.g., setting a Junior event just prior to the athlete turning 20).

Finally, you would lose consistency with all prior records, so even if it was a complete toss-up in terms of which to do, it would be stupid to give all future runners an advantage compared to earlier athletes.

I agree that they should not introduce a "switch". I was originally thinking that the rule should have been 19 and under all along. However, I am not a stubborn man and the responses that I am reading do make sense. Being a Junior is about more than setting Junior records; in fact, it is primarily about being eligible for Junior competition. I do understand why having the Dec. 31/Jan. 1 cutoff makes more sense for this. Also, I was not considering the fact that many countries have extremely inaccurate birth records. Particularly some countries that are very competitive in athletics. Birth year is certainly more reliable than birthday. It still does suck for athletes like Ritz, but I now get it.

Sorry, I was drunk last night.

Actual birthdays make the most sense. Making everyone born the same day doesn't make sense at all.

I know you're just pretending now, but I still find it amusing that you would even pretend to prolong an argument that most sporting federations resolved about forty years ago.

J.R. wrote:

Whether or not she is eligible, Finn is a junior until she turns 20.

The rules are dumb.

Finn is 19 and therefore is a junior.

Do you often find yourself bumping against the ceiling of your mom's basement? I'm just wondering because you seem to exist in a world in which you believe concepts and rules too complicated for you to understand simply shouldn't exist. Does gravity apply to you?

J.R. wrote:

Whether or not she is eligible, Finn is a junior until she turns 20.

The rules are dumb.

Finn is 19 and therefore is a junior.

J.R. wrote:

canspo wrote:

J.R. in another thread you previously stated it wasn't going to count as a record.

I said no such thing.

Whatever is stated by the rules, Finn is a junior until she turns 20.

What are you talking about?

J.R. "The record won't count because of the arbitrary end of year date."

Read more:

There is a somewhat arbitrary, or at least unequal, character to any record cut-off. Even if the criteria is 19 and under based on age on that date, an American student born on October 1 is going to be at a disadvantage versus someone born on July 1 unless you want to run a track race by yourself or in Australia.

canspo wrote:

J.R. wrote:

I said no such thing.

Whatever is stated by the rules, Finn is a junior until she turns 20.

What are you talking about?

J.R. "The record won't count because of the arbitrary end of year date."

That's an entirely different statement. My response to someone that the record won't count in achaic officialdom, is because of the arbitrary end of year date, which is NOT her real birth date.

Finn's record counts to me, and to other rational people, because she's 19 and is therefore a junior.

162432 wrote:

Sorry, I was drunk last night.

Actual birthdays make the most sense. Making everyone born the same day doesn't make sense at all.

Last night? I wish… I was just already awake and getting ready for my morning run. I am in MI, so it was actually 5 something and not 4 something. Actual birthdays do make the most sense for records (at least in the US), but not necessarily for Jr. competition. As others have pointed out, this could result in an athlete losing eligibility for Day 2 of a 3 day meet. That would be nonsense. I can understand both sides of the argument.

J.R. wrote:

That's an entirely different statement. My response to someone that the record won't count in achaic officialdom, is because of the arbitrary end of year date, which is NOT her real birth date.

Finn's record counts to me, and to other rational people, because she's 19 and is therefore a junior.

I know you're trolling but I'll play anyway.

You do realize that if you use your method of recognizing what is a junior, then you need to make sure that no American 19 year old has run faster than Finn.

I did a quick check and Abbey D'Agostino ran 15:23.35 a little over one month before turning 20 in 2012. So in the case of the 5000 Finn doesn't have the J.R. American Junior record for 5000 unless you qualifying by months or days.

BTW, I didn't check the 10000 yet so she still might have your record in that event...

Check the records wrote:

Abbey D'Agostino ran 15:23.35 a little over one month before turning 20 in 2012. So in the case of the 5000 Finn doesn't have the J.R. American Junior record for 5000 unless you qualifying by months or days.

That's fine with me.

Run the time, get the record.

How is it possible that the highly knowledgeable LRC is discussing something that is clear, well known and has been the same for nearly half a century.

If graduate from an American H.S. at the appropriate age, which is 18, the following year year you will be 19 and still eligible of Junior competition. Unless you are a year older than normal, an NCAA freshman is a Junior.

trackcoach wrote:

If graduate from an American H.S. at the appropriate age, which is 18, the following year year you will be 19 and still eligible of Junior competition. Unless you are a year older than normal, an NCAA freshman is a Junior.

Ritz was 18 when he graduated HS but was not eligible as a Junior as an NCAA freshman in track. Because he has a December birthday. Most people would consider someone like Ritz slightly "old" but not a year older than normal.

Anyone who is 18 in June of the year they graduate high school and has a birthday from July through December will not be eligible for Junior competition as a freshman in college track.

NTTAWWT

Punt Pass and Kick was the same way in the 70s

Since I had a December 25 birthday, I always had to compete against the kids in the grade above me.

obviousmente wrote:

trackcoach wrote:

If graduate from an American H.S. at the appropriate age, which is 18, the following year year you will be 19 and still eligible of Junior competition. Unless you are a year older than normal, an NCAA freshman is a Junior.

Ritz was 18 when he graduated HS but was not eligible as a Junior as an NCAA freshman in track. Because he has a December birthday. Most people would consider someone like Ritz slightly "old" but not a year older than normal.

Anyone who is 18 in June of the year they graduate high school and has a birthday from July through December will not be eligible for Junior competition as a freshman in college track.

NTTAWWT

Correct. I was considerably older than Ritz for my grade. I turned 18 in September of my senior year. While I was definitely older than a lot of my classmates, I was nowhere near the oldest kid. I can think of no fewer than 7 kids off of the top of my head who had earlier birthdays than me and I only graduated with 123 total. Had I been in the grade above me, then I am pretty sure I would have been the 2nd youngest kid in the entire class (there was a girl in the grade above me who was 2 days younger). I think it depends on your school district. We have a "Young 5s" program where I live and nearly all kids with a late summer/fall birthday attended.

J.R. wrote:

Whether or not she is eligible, Finn is a junior until she turns 20.

The rules are dumb.

Finn is 19 and therefore is a junior.

Great, I'll tell my 10 yr old who turns 11 later in the year that she can run as a 9-10 next meet. After all, she is 10 right?

fact is... wrote:

J.R. wrote:

Whether or not she is eligible, Finn is a junior until she turns 20.

The rules are dumb.

Finn is 19 and therefore is a junior.

Great, I'll tell my 10 yr old who turns 11 later in the year that she can run as a 9-10 next meet. After all, she is 10 right?

Um… Yes, that is exactly what J.R. is saying. I don't really understand the point that you are trying to make. Not trying to be a jerk, I am just genuinely confused. J.R. has made his argument clear; we do not need an example that is exactly the same as his point, but with different ages.

fact is... wrote:

Great, I'll tell my 10 yr old who turns 11 later in the year that she can run as a 9-10 next meet. After all, she is 10 right?

How would I know?