Live Debate: Should The NCAA Re-Run Races After Blatant DQs, Should There Be DQs in 800s or 3ks?

Am totally backing this live debate format, love not having to weed through the adolescent pablum. Please continue hosting these debates, even if you can only arrange one or two/month. Perhaps when you run short of material, solicit ideas from the peanut gallery where we could suggest future topics?

Soprano wrote:

Whoever the official was who made these DQs (I assume it was the same guy) shouldn’t be allowed to officiate meets at this level.

That's a strong Rojo type statement. I should have tried to interview the guy.

Never give up, never surrender wrote:

On the false starts, for anything over 400, they only need to go back to 2 false starts is a DQ. Remember, there was a false start in Bannister's sub-4.

On the relay, no re-run. it is there own fault they had a DNF. All the guy had to do was jog in. I get that he thought that he could not win, but I have seen stranger things.

It would be different if he fell and was hurt, but...

They definitely weren't winning. They jog in they don't score or get 1 point so it's not like it made a huge difference. I can't remember if there were 3 sections or 2. Someone might have been All-American who wasn't.

The 800 false started occurred before the 3k false start. Also, the 800 guy appealed the ruling and was denied. This set the stage for the 3k false start. The officials had no choice but to dq the 3k girl after setting the precedent in the 800 and denying the appeal. I'm willing to bet that if the 3k false start occurred first, they likely would have just restarted the race.

Regarding the false starts:

It's not as simple as saying, no DQ's for false starts ONLY in distance events and trying to decide whether we'd include the 800m or mile would be tough cause there would be sides arguing whether the starts in the respective events are detrimental or not. Some people mentioned that a tenth of a second wouldn't make a difference in a distance event compared to a sprinting event, while that's statistically true, it's not a 100 percent true. There's many times where places are decided by tenths and one hudrenths of a second in distance events, it matters. Making false start and DQ rules any different in particular events isn't being "equal and fair". What I don't like is when the gunman tries to shoot the gun 5-6 seconds after he says "set". All the runners need to take their couple of steps and be ready quickly. If a runner is taking an excessive amount of time after you yell, "set", say stand back up, start over again, and if he takes too long again, DQ the runner. The other 7 or 15 runners in the race who got to the line quickly shouldn't have to wait around and keep their balance for one guy who's being cocky and thinks the world revolves around him. Likewise the gunman shouldn't wait anymore than 3 seconds after saying "set" to shoot the gun. If so, replace him.

Regarding the LSU vs Florida controversy:

This situation is just very foul. It was clear the Florida runner already had the inside lane, I don't know what type of move the LSU runner was trying to pull. I looked at the video multiple times, the LSU runner knew what he was doing. In this situation with teams, if you're going to pull a move like that, I'm disqualifying the whole team. The individual runners and other relay teams still get their individual awards and are awarded their respective places, but they are completely out of the team score. If a rule like this was enforced, how many situation like this would you see anymore? Not many. Track is more of an individual sport, but at the end of the day it still is a team sport, and there's many sports where one athletes actions can screw it up for the whole team. I'm really just not sure about how I feel regarding the reruns. As far as non-team sports, I'd say reruns might just have to be an option.

Here's my take on this situation:

UW-Whitewater was the team who was DQ'd and UW-Eau Claire was the team that ended up winning that race. I was at the meet (spectating), but I am from neither of those teams. What happened was there was some jostling that was going on in the huge pack of guys from about 200-300 meters into the race. On the backstretch, in the middle of all of this, the 1200 leg of the WW team had the baton knocked out of his hand. He then had get his way out of the pack, stop, turn around, grab the baton and then get going again. He took off trying to do all he could to catch the pack again and then died pretty bad the last lap. The kid was a frosh, I felt really bad. The 400 leg went after it doing all he could, then when it came to the 800 leg it looked like he put in an honest effort for a little over a lap then backed of significantly for the last 3 laps.

The anchor for WW, Dawson Miller, a 4:10 miler and 8:53ish steepler, got the baton and ran in lanes 2 and 3, running like 70s or so. Just planning to finish the race. When he got the baton he had no intention of pacing or anything. It wasn't until they were about to get lapped for a 2nd time that EC came up on him and he decided to go with him.

Now, the Amherst anchor had gone out in a 56 for the 400, and then came through in a 3:01 for the 1200. This is not a sub 4:05 guy, according to TFRRS the best miler on their team had a PR of 4:14, on a banked track, which converts to 4:17 for a flat 200 track. So either this kid was about to run out of his absolute mind or he was going to pay the price. He paid the price in closing in a 69 for the last 400.

The EC anchor, Josh Thorson had a PR of 4:13 from a flat 200 track. From the look on his face during that race, he was on a mission, he knew the Amherst kid was dying and he just kept hammering along knowing what he had to do. He ended up splitting 4:05 (and then ran 8:11 for 3rd in the 3k the next day). He would have caught that Amherst kid whether or not Dawson ran with him or not. The only question was by how much.

Anyone who actually thinks this was planned is an absolute moron. If you were to DQ Eau Claire for what Dawson did that would be one of the dumbest officiating calls I had ever heard of. Was Thorson just supposed to slow down and not run next to him or something? You're honestly an idiot if you think so.

There is an insane amount of solidarity and friendship in the WIAC conference. It's the best conference in DIII, hands down, not even close, a 9 year old can figure that out. It's the conference against everyone else. There has been an immense amount of support given to Dawson, from schools who were in the race and from teams that were just at the meet. The only team that threw a hissy fit was Amherst. THEY DIDN'T EVEN GET SECOND. UW-LaCrosse caught them too, and that team was still 4 seconds behind Eau-Claire.

This comment is for the original post that said that Amherst is the National Record holding team in the DMR. Amherst ran 9:48 on a banked track, which converts to 9:56 on a flat track. Eau-Claire ran 9:54 on a flat track. Do the math. Amherst's DMR are not record holders.

That's interesting and bad luck for Maggie Montoya. I think Jon said she was a Arkansas native and had a lot of people there for her and was devastated by the whole thing. You have to feel for her and Garn. I mean, anyone who is DQd is going to be, but in this case I think it sucks they were so needlessly DQd.

Can anyone name a high profile case where someone was DQd for a false start in an event 800 or over? I can't think of any.

I 100% agree and that's a great point about the bank of the track. Makes the whole thing even more BS.

I disagree with this point. The start in a sprint and a distance event already has different rules since sprints have a 3-command start and blocks, while distances events are no blocks and a 2-command start. Why do sprints use blocks? It's because a fast start matters and in a mile it really doesn't.

I understand your point that a race can come down to a hundredth of a second at the end in the final sprint, but no one is trying to get a tenth of a second jump on the field at the start. A marathon (or more realistically a 10,000) can come down to a tenth of a second finish, but should we really DQ someone in those events because lack of balance or nervous energy has them move in place a bit on the line? The tenth of a second advantage came in the final kick, not at the start.

Link to the meet replay:

Race starts around the 5:03:10 mark, the mile legs start around the 5:09 mark.

Clearly it wasn't preplanned as WW got the baton knocked out 300m in. However, the 800leg clearly had packed it in, so I'm not sure why they were even bothering to continue. Miller had no incentive to tire himself out as he was entered in the 3k the next day. The fact that they continued to run in lane 2/3 is suspicious as the clearly felt they were not trying, so why keep running at all?

When the mile legs got handed off to, there was a group of several schools. Amherst's anchor, despite not having a fast open mile time had run 4:07 when they ran their 9:48 time (I think, according to the other d3 thread.) Going out super hard and trying to separate from the pack was a very bold (or stupid) move which might not have worked anyways.

Its tough to say EC should be dq'd because as you rightly point out, they didn't do anything wrong. But go back and watch the ustfccca interview of the EC team, their anchor admits that WW said something to him, and it really helped to have him there pulling him along. Amherst's move was risky enough knowing that there were 4-5 teams running in a chase pack, but it seems downright futile when another team steps up to pull those teams along.

Your point about Amherst finishing 3rd doesn't make much sense if you watch the video, they were clearly going all out for the win. Why else would the anchor risk the move he made? Also your points about the conversions and nr and such are just dumb and have no real relevance to the situation.

I have no connection to Amherst or NE but as a fan of the sport watching that race pissed me off. A team that had no right impacting the outcome of the race (WW) ended up doing their best to impact it. Its not as egregious as getting in the way of other racers, but they should have just stepped off the track instead.

Replay Reply wrote:

I have no connection to Amherst or NE but as a fan of the sport watching that race pissed me off. A team that had no right impacting the outcome of the race (WW) ended up doing their best to impact it. Its not as egregious as getting in the way of other racers, but they should have just stepped off the track instead.

Pride bro, pride. I've never dropped out of a single race in my life (and I've run some shitty races, like running an 8k over 29 min when I was in low 25 shape) and never will unless I literally cannot finish the race.

Another thing, but they probably didn't think of it at the time, was the honest effort thing. It's tough to argue that when they didn't run anywhere even close to a fast time, but had they just dropped out, Denu (400) and Urbanski (800), may not have been allowed to run the 4x4 and Dawson may not have been allowed to run the 3k. The officials may not all directly be a**holes, but they are under control of the NCAA people, who are a bunch of corrupt c*s, so they may have done anything in their power to get those guys out of those other events just to prove a point.

Couple things

1. The Amherst anchor had split 4:06-07 i believe during their record run, so while running 3:01 through 1200 was aggressive, it wasn't out-of-this-world crazy. He is also, from research, apparently a strength guy. Almost all-american in xc, 14:30ish 5k, etc. Obviously he didn't want the race to come down to a kick at the end.

2. It was very obviously a coordinated pacing effort from the lapped runner. Not pre-meditated from the start of the race, but he clearly said something to his "conference buddy" and then picked it up to run with him and help him bridge the gap to Amherst. In a national meet DMR, that is very disappointing. Amherst earned that lead on it's own, by taking the race from the front and soloing to the lead. They shouldn't have to contend with 2nd place getting pacing help from a lapped team. Bush league move.

3. Dawson obviously had to keep running so he could compete in the 3k the next day, but he had no business impacting the race like he did.

I agree with this. I was watching the stream live and didn't notice this at first and thought that guy who ended up winning just had a a great kick (and helped pull the other team to second place). But watching the video again you can see the lapped runner glancing over his shoulder to stay in front of and pace the other guy.

I don't think it's good enough to just DQ the lapped team.

But what was the other team supposed to do? Surge past the lapped team so nothing looked suspicious? Stay 15 meters back so nothing looked suspicious? If you just so happen to be going the same pace, it's just coincidental, if I'm the laping team and someone in front of me (whether I lapped him or not) is setting a decent pace, I'm going with him... I'm honestly surprised they DQ'd the lapped team, I guess they logically said, "oh since the team was being lapped, they probably have a slower anchor leg", but still, think if it was an outdoor track, going into the 1600m leg, one team is up on another by 200m, they're on opposite sides of the track, both 1600m legs run around the same time, what's so odd about that? The only difference indoor is that they were in a convienient position to help each other out since its only a 200m track...

Another high profile time when a runner was dqed in the 800... Indoor 2011, Joey Roberts was dqed in the prelims of the 800 at his home track and Texas A&M lost the team title by 8 points. Not saying he would have won but definitely high profile.

Results:

http://www.tfrrs.org/results/20091.html

Article:

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/the-local-scene/2011/05/roberts-breaks-24-year-old-texas-am-record-in-800/

I believe they actually lost that team title by 12 points, rather than 8.

http://www.directathletics.com/results/track/20091.html

Also, [Joey Roberts] appears to have a NT from the previous outdoor (2010) Regional 2nd round, so perhaps he liked to try and jump the gun or had a tendency to false start. Seems like a silly tactic to try and jump the gun, but the Tex AM men seemed to usually be front runners, so that first 100m could be more important to them than most others…

http://www.directathletics.com/athletes/track/2216635.html

For one, the Amherst anchor went out in a 56/57. That's not ending well for any 4:07 miler, and even so they got the anchor within a second or two of EC. EC's anchor runs 4:05, Amherst's runs 4:07 again (disregarding how a 56 feels in his legs) and it's a neck-and-neck finish. That's with some major assumptions about Amherst's anchors ability to deal with lactic acid.

Either way, is this really the type of controversy that we want to dwell on? Is this the most disrespectful event that our sport can find to point out?

At the end of the day, one team helped another, even though the aid wasn't asked for. This can't be the worst controversy. How many other sports would have one athlete attempting to aid another competitor in a national competition? And do we really imagine that this is going to be a trend? Are relay teams going to start throwing batons to aid another conference school's relay at every national championship?

Amherst is bitter, but if they want to be mad at anyone, be mad at their anchor for going out to hard and running a 35 second last 200.

PS if we're talking about strength runners, EC's anchor was 3rd in cross, 40 seconds ahead of Amherst's, and ran 8:11 the next day, 18 seconds faster than Amherst's anchor...

Just watched the video, it looks like Whitewater helped for one lap, maybe 300 meters at the most. If that's the case, I can't believe the controversy that's been made over this. False starts are much more controversial than one lap of pacing.