ADRIAN MARTINEZ USES WRONG MILE START LINE?!?!?!

Yeah, I get it.

They add the rail to make the marks IAAF eligible.

Since a rail changes the measurement rules, they move the lines forward to compensate.

It makes the curb requirement seem useless to me.

I guess the IAAF doesn't trust officials to watch runners that step over the line.

Yet you don't need a curb for each lane of the 200 where cutting would have more of an affect since distance runners usually run further because of pack running and passing on the outside.

Actually a smart move to put the lines forward and stay compliant.

This is my home track.

The rails are temporary for this event. The start lines for the events run at this race are temporary- they are just tape.

So the track looks like a normal, rail-less track 364 days of the year.

You may not like the 20 vs 30cm rule, but a) that's the rule, and b) it makes sense to me- I can definitely take the bends tighter without the rail, as the consequences of a mis-step are much different.

Raced a mile there once. Rail was not up. Started from the white line.

Lesson: when there is no rail, ride the curve TIGHT.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Ok, we saw this thread and went to talk to the race director about it. He said that normally the track does not have a rail. When you don't have a rail, you measure lane 1 30 cm the line. When you do have a rail (which was added so these times could count), you measure 20 cm from the line so each lap is longer.

So the white line is where you'd start if there was no rail. The green line is where you start if their is a rail. David Katz has been consulted. These times count.

This makes no sense

Even if this was the case every other race would be long. Where do they start the 800m for example?

Like I said, it's a smart move.

Any other place would simply lay a rail down and leave it at that.

The correct way to design a track (considering this 20cm/30cm rule) would be to design it to always be run with a rail and make it 400m per lap with the rail measurement.

Bu if the track was laid down a little longer to be legit without a rail, and you need to place a rail, then add those extra start lines like they did.

I certainly learned something in this thread.

This track is a little longer than a standard track so they adjusted the starting lines with tape.

I think the 20cm vs 30cm rule is arbitrary, but I'm not sure why it's seemingly only an issue in this particular case. Every time you run on a curbed track, it is measured at 30cm, and every time you run on an uncurbed track, it is measured at 20cm. Why should a curbed track not be measured like a curbed track simply because the curb is temporary?

If you're not bothered by two separate tracks being measure differently based on presence or lack of a curb, why is it an issue when a single track is measured differently based on the same factor?

Do you think they ever move home plate forward at a baseball game if they add a little bumper cushion on top of the outfield fence? Do you think they extend the length of football fields depending on the type of grass, since some synthetics are definitely faster to run?

No wonder track is so confusing to the average spectator...

Torrence mentioned that he was surprised by the time.

I bet that many tracks in the US were designed to be run without a rail.

So when they put a rail down without adjusting the start lines, they are all running further than at this meet.

So it wasn't short of a mile but it was shorter than other mile races.

Steve Lane here, meet director for the Martinez Classic. First, many thanks to David Katz (D.Katz) for weighing in on the topic already, and for helping us solve the issue originally when we added the rail.

Second, thanks to LRC for tracking me down last night after the meet to ask about the start lines.

Third, I probably should have preemptively weighed in, but just to reiterate: per IAAF standards, the line-of-measure changes when you add the rail. Just to correct the LRC post (as others have done), the line-of-measure without a rail is 20cm from the line; when you add a rail, the line-of-measure is 30cm from the line. Thus, on a track originally configured without a rail, when you add the rail, each lap becomes slightly longer than 400m

The green starting line is the correct one. And there are green starting lines for the 800m as well.

Steve

Steve, that was a pretty clever thing you did there.

As you can see, I was skeptical at first. (Us Letsrunners are not always prone to changing our minds.)

I have seen officials make errors and put runners on the wrong line (like the break line instead of the 1500m start line).

I thought that may be the case here at first.

Way to be proactive in adjusting to the rail so the runners don't run longer than they have to.

Thank you Steve for the shout out.

The bottom line is to comply with the rules and ensure that a runner does not have to run an extra cm.

I applaud all those meet directors (like Steve) and officials who go the extra 1609.34m to get it right

It's all about the athletes!

bleeding blue wrote:

Do you think they ever move home plate forward at a baseball game if they add a little bumper cushion on top of the outfield fence? Do you think they extend the length of football fields depending on the type of grass, since some synthetics are definitely faster to run?

No wonder track is so confusing to the average spectator...

I'm not arguing for or against the rule. I'm just not sure why this particular application of the rule seems to have people uniquely worked up.

If turf football fields were longer than grass, it would be a dumb rule, but it would be a uniformly dumb rule every time it was implemented. I don't think I'd wait until the rule had been in place for years and then suddenly make a fuss about it regarding one particular game.

I will say that in all my years and all of the tracks I have run on and seen, I have never seen one lined like this.

That's what has us uniquely worked up in this situation.

Every track I have ever seen was lined as if it was either 400m around or 440 yards around. (this was lined as a 400.6 m track)

I never saw anyone lay temporary lines for a temporary rail before.

It's not wrong. But it is unique.

And maybe it's more common now as I don't visit track meets anymore.

Maybe people can post about other tracks that do this.

Okay, once the experts came in and actually got the numbers and explanation correct, I agree that the correct line was used.

I don't know that I agree with the reasoning behind the rule, but I do agree that the rules were followed.

Ohyeah wrote:

Lesson: when there is no rail, ride the curve TIGHT.

Exactly.

Or to restate the lesson: running races wide can add quite a bit of distance to your race. Ventolin is quaking in his lazy boy.

observer_of_things wrote:

Ohyeah wrote:

Lesson: when there is no rail, ride the curve TIGHT.

Exactly.

Or to restate the lesson: running races wide can add quite a bit of distance to your race. Ventolin is quaking in his lazy boy.

Actually a better lesson is don't host an elite meet that needs to conform to IAAF standards at a podunk HS track

Why is the waterfall line moved back from the original line? Shouldn't it be ahead by ~63cm x 3.5?

Star wrote:

Every track I have ever seen was lined as if it was either 400m around or 440 yards around. (this was lined as a 400.6 m track)

My guess is that every "400m" track without a rail you've ever seen has been lined the exact same way as this one is.

You've never seen a meet add a temporary rail and make an adjustment like this one did presumably because either

(a) not many elite meets are taking place on tracks without a rail to being with, so there's no need to add a temporary rail

or

(b) the average meet director doesn't know enough to make this correction and all the races end up being slightly "long."