The rule is 2 or more consecutive steps inside the rail AND MUST GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. If there was no advantage gained then it is not a DQ.
You must prove both parts of the rule to make a call.
The rule is 2 or more consecutive steps inside the rail AND MUST GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. If there was no advantage gained then it is not a DQ.
You must prove both parts of the rule to make a call.
Correct answer wrote:
The rule is 2 or more consecutive steps inside the rail AND MUST GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. If there was no advantage gained then it is not a DQ.
You must prove both parts of the rule to make a call.
So what you are saying is that since he had such a big lead, if he had cut off the full last turn and run behind the high jump pit (think that was off the last turn) that he would not have been DQ'd since it caused no advantage.
Question? wrote:
So what you are saying is that since he had such a big lead, if he had cut off the full last turn and run behind the high jump pit (think that was off the last turn) that he would not have been DQ'd since it caused no advantage.
If he had done that I would guess someone would have filed a protest, so no, he would have been DQed.
How can you all be so stupid? I'm sure that was the race plan to increase the "he coulda" speculation.
Ok, I'm joking. I was there and was glad he didn't get hurt but I do believe I saw Webb in the building and scampering off the track after the incident as he dropped his invisibility cloak
Wrong. Your scenario means that he would have gained an advantage on the distance. the second part of the rule is clear. Did he gain an advantage by tripping inside the rail for 3 steps? The officials obviously thought NO.
Well duh wrote:
Question? wrote:So what you are saying is that since he had such a big lead, if he had cut off the full last turn and run behind the high jump pit (think that was off the last turn) that he would not have been DQ'd since it caused no advantage.
If he had done that I would guess someone would have filed a protest, so no, he would have been DQed.
Correct Answer in post 21 said that you need to gain an advantage to be DQ'd. I was just giving an extreme situation where an advantage would not have been gained by his interpretation of advantage.
Correct answer wrote:
The rule is 2 or more consecutive steps inside the rail AND MUST GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. If there was no advantage gained then it is not a DQ.
You must prove both parts of the rule to make a call.
I support the no DQ result in this case but what you say is far from the truth. Under the governing USATF rule (which NSAF follows), there is no two step provision and a step inside the inside curve can be grounds for DQ without consideration of material advantage.
I do interpret the rule to give an Umpire discretion not to report a step inside a curve to the Referee and leave the issue to a competitor protest. If a protest had been made in this case, it should have been upheld. Since there was none, the result properly stands.
The rule:
163.5.
Each competitor must keep in the lanes outside the line or curb marking the inside of the track, including the curved part of
the diversion from the track for the steeplechase
water jump. In races run entirely in lanes, each competitor must keep in the allotted lane from start to finish. In races run partially in lanes, each competitor must keep in the allotted lane from the start to the marked cut
-
in points. Unless a material advantage has been gained or the athlete is in violation of Rule 163.4, a competitor shall not be
disqualified if he or she:
(a)
Is pushed or forced by another competitor to step out of the
lane, or
(b)
Steps out of the lane on the straightaway, or
(c)
Steps or runs outside of the outer lane line
on the curve, or on any straight part of
the diversion from the track for the steeplechase water jump
.
Excluding the above exceptions, the Referee shall disqualify a competitor if an Umpire reports that the competitor has stepped out of the lane.
NOTE:
Material advantage includes improving position by any means, including
exiting from a 'boxed' position in the race by having stepped or run in
side the inside edge of the track.
Based on the text above, " material advantage" plays no role in this case. This case is a clear cut DQ.....IF the umpire reports it. The rule itself is simple- don't step inside. But it just simply wasn't called by the umpire for some reason.
Indeed, by rule it is a DQ.
I had an athlete get bumped and took 1 step in and got DQd. That was the wrong call then but that said I know the rule. It is a DQ.
Why would anyone care, considering the kid lost 2-3 seconds in the mishap? I could see if he ran inside the rail and didn't lose any speed, but it completely ruined his race......and he still ran 4:03.
Breakline wrote:
Based on the text above, " material advantage" plays no role in this case. This case is a clear cut DQ.....IF the umpire reports it. The rule itself is simple- don't step inside. But it just simply wasn't called by the umpire for some reason.
Not According to Correct Answe wrote:
Correct Answer in post 21 said that you need to gain an advantage to be DQ'd. I was just giving an extreme situation where an advantage would not have been gained by his interpretation of advantage.
Doesn't matter. He wasn't DQed because no one in the position to protest noticed or felt he gained enough of an advantage to warrant a protest. You asked if it would have been a DQ. My response is that it probably would have been. This case, however, was not, so the discussion frankly should be over. You can't change the past and this won't affect the future so it doesn't matter.
I'm curious as to what he would have run sans-trip. This is also two times he's had stumbling incidents indoors. He seems poised to give 4:00y a shot outdoors solo; can he stay on his feet if a crowd goes with him? I don't think he'll break four unless he races at Pre, and even then I'd probably bet against it, but would love to be proven wrong.
Sounds clear to me. All that matters is he didn't get hurt. Don't think Grant would give a squat if he was DQ'd. Didn't look to me, winning the race was what he was doing out there. What is really scary to me, he seemed like this stumble, has just put him on a mission. He is on a collision course, with sub 4:00, and sub 4:00 won the first round. Good luck Grant.
The link is here:
I think that in this case everyone was a good sport for not DQing him.
Actually he's very fortunate that he wasn't injured.
"he was heading for 4:00. all by himself too."
That is ridiculous. He might have run at best-- 4:02.8-4:03.0. He continued his forward momentum throughout the "issue". Great run for him.
He should run under 4:00 this spring if everything goes well.
Regardless of your sympathy for the guy ... If I were coaching an athlete (especially the 2nd place finisher) I'd file a protest and maintain that the "material advantage" would be that the distance he ran was short of a mile.
We don't want to DQ him because it doesn't look like he got an advantage ... and because he was so far ahead. Well, geometry, he did run shorter. And the second part is irrelevant. He competed with the other runners. His strategy involved going out fast and it affected the races for every position. The risk of that strategy is losing your focus, getting tired or clumsy, and in the worst case just tripping over yourself. I've never run 4:00, but I've tripped over the rail plenty of times and never taken that extra step inside off the elevated track that Fisher did. If you're on the edge of control, you risk a DQ unfortunately.
It would be sad to DQ such a fine effort, but I wouldn't fault someone for protesting it.
30:45XC1978 wrote:
"he was heading for 4:00. all by himself too."
That is ridiculous. He might have run at best-- 4:02.8-4:03.0. He continued his forward momentum throughout the "issue". Great run for him.
He should run under 4:00 this spring if everything goes well.
Thank you for the perspective of someone who has never run a step on a track and who has no concept of what almost coming to a dead halt while jumping over random impediments would do to the final time.
Coaching Fail wrote:
Regardless of your sympathy for the guy ... If I were coaching an athlete (especially the 2nd place finisher) I'd file a protest and maintain that the "material advantage" would be that the distance he ran was short of a mile.
We don't want to DQ him because it doesn't look like he got an advantage ... and because he was so far ahead. Well, geometry, he did run shorter. And the second part is irrelevant. He competed with the other runners. His strategy involved going out fast and it affected the races for every position. The risk of that strategy is losing your focus, getting tired or clumsy, and in the worst case just tripping over yourself. I've never run 4:00, but I've tripped over the rail plenty of times and never taken that extra step inside off the elevated track that Fisher did. If you're on the edge of control, you risk a DQ unfortunately.
It would be sad to DQ such a fine effort, but I wouldn't fault someone for protesting it.
If my Coach tried to DQ a guy for tripping on the rail while completely DOMINATING me and everyone else in the race, I'd punch him or her in the face. End of story. You are ALL PATHETIC, JEALOUS, LOSERS.
Fortunately for the sake of the Sport, none of you whining about this are capable or were in the position to coach a top high school athlete this year and were not able to file protests.
stuffhappens wrote:
Mistakes happen.
What an incredibly stupid post.
Interesting - looks like a protest was filed but overturned.
"But while Petela missed the podium, his coach Dave Welsh asked for an official protest to disqualify senior standout Grant Fisher of Grand Blanc, Michigan.
The Stanford-bound Fisher ripped a head-turning 4:03.54 to win by more than five seconds but stumbled over the rail on the final turn and stepped onto the infield.
Welsh was told his protest would not be honored because Fisher did not gain an unfair advantage and was not running in a pack when he stepped off the track."