I think it is because they have to respond to the sound of the gun before starting, and they have decided the fastest someone can physiologically respond to the bang of a gun is 0.1 seconds (and less than that is them anticipating it and going early)?
This might be a stupid question, but why is a reaction time of <0.1 (as opposed to <0.0) count as a false start?
The current false start criterion used by the IAAF is based on an assumed minimum auditory reaction time. If an athlete moves sooner than 100ms after the start signal, he/she is deemed to have false-started.
This might be a stupid question, but why is a reaction time of <0.1 (as opposed to <0.0) count as a false start?
The current false start criterion used by the IAAF is based on an assumed minimum auditory reaction time. If an athlete moves sooner than 100ms after the start signal, he/she is deemed to have false-started.
IAAF Sprint Start Research Project: Is the 100ms limit still valid? | NEWS | World Athletics
The current false start criterion used by the IAAF is based on an assumed minimum auditory reaction time. If an athlete moves sooner than 100ms after the start signal, he/she is deemed to have false-started.
IAAF Sprint Start Research Project: Is the 100ms limit still valid? | NEWS | World Athletics
Based on these 2 DQs and Allen's 0.101 someone above noted, it does seem there could be a case for reducing the limit (knowing almost nothing about it)
IAAF Sprint Start Research Project: Is the 100ms limit still valid? | NEWS | World Athletics
Based on these 2 DQs and Allen's 0.101 someone above noted, it does seem there could be a case for reducing the limit (knowing almost nothing about it)
Allred's was pretty clearly a false start. She was out quicker than anybody else and seemed to guess the gun timing. Gaither's was not a false start other than that she reacted quickly.