I couldn’t see the DQ. They didn’t show an angle where it was clear.
-
30
-
mathemagician says wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
Kenya had 2nd, 8th and 15th. USA had 4th, 9th and 12th. Not a tie.
Lol, not a big math guy are you?
I think El Keniano realizes both sets of numbers add up to 25; my guess is the tie breaker might be the best placed runner between the two. Just my .02
50 -
hmm m wrote:
It’s kind of weird that there’s no running under protest and figuring it out later. Seems very quick to just have to leave the track
Especially if it’s close. It also holds up the race and hurts the other athletes. The timing system can be wrong, and the .10 is theoretical anyway. I get it’s the rule but I find it unlikely there aren’t outliers that can react slightly faster.
91 -
SAFP just pranced her way to a 10.93 - unbelievable 😂 - just give her the gold already
61 -
Pre_lives wrote:
Macca1959 wrote:
Track Town USA embarrassing the world of athletics with empty seats. Where are you all? Watching ‘My 600lb life’ and pretending ‘Pre’s trail’ means anything other than to deluded pretentious geeks.
$200 for a ticket to line Vin's pickets and with Biden's inflation is a lot to ask for when we didn't want historic Hayward torn down. Nike did it anyway without a chance for public comment.
There is inflation all over the world, not just here. Moron.
192 -
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Random question xyz wrote:
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.
Got it, I'll take your word for it! I mean I agree that Allred looked to be out from the field more obviously, but then would that imply an equipment error with the latter DQ?
00 -
The reaction time limit is outdated, humans have evolved. Should be changed to 80 ms.
65 -
The .1 DQ rule seems stupid. They’re going after the gun goes off and we are talking hundreds of seconds. Don’t like the rule at all.
71 -
Random question xyz wrote:
ML2000 wrote:
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)
.10 is the fastest human reaction time possible by the fastest reacting humans on the planet. It doesn't mean that EVERY human can react to a gun that fast, because most can't.
Some runners with a really fast reaction time of .10 or .101 are anticipating the gun, not reacting to the gun. But it's impossible to prove which is which.
The rules have to draw the line somewhere, so the line has been drawn at .10 seconds.
70 -
bcvb wrote:
The reaction time limit is outdated, humans have evolved. Should be changed to 80 ms.
Hayward Field doesn't exactly have a great history of the starting time reaction metrics operating properly from the blocks. I think it was the 400 and 400H on one of the Olympic Trials days last year where it was triggering a false start on nearly every race.
110 -
sprinter guy wrote:
hmm m wrote:
It’s kind of weird that there’s no running under protest and figuring it out later. Seems very quick to just have to leave the track
Especially if it’s close. It also holds up the race and hurts the other athletes. The timing system can be wrong, and the .10 is theoretical anyway. I get it’s the rule but I find it unlikely there aren’t outliers that can react slightly faster.
the .100 rule is obviously a totally arbitrary number
why isn't it .109 or .093 or some actual number based on science
possible to have a class-action lawsuit? no, i'm not joking.
76 -
This says the limit should be lowered to 80 or 85ms.
80 -
Run Really Fast wrote:
Random question xyz wrote:
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)
.10 is the fastest human reaction time possible by the fastest reacting humans on the planet. It doesn't mean that EVERY human can react to a gun that fast, because most can't.
Some runners with a really fast reaction time of .10 or .101 are anticipating the gun, not reacting to the gun. But it's impossible to prove which is which.
The rules have to draw the line somewhere, so the line has been drawn at .10 seconds.
^It's this. Even baseball hitters can't react quicker than 0.10. It literally takes that long for your brain to make a decision and single your muscles. Realistically, anything under .15 for track is somebody guessing and anticipating the gun.
62 -
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see either Hobbs or Jefferson getting a medal.
10 -
So Kyron McMaster is my pick for bronze and he's already listed as DNS. Wonderful.
40 -
They keep showing people in 2nd as the race finishes and then having to revise them down. Makes zero sense when watching.
Neita was listed as 2nd to a TV audience for 4/5 minutes before they finally announced the qualifiers.
20 -
blue 7 wrote:
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see either Hobbs or Jefferson getting a medal.
It's going to be Jamaican sweep or Asher-Smith or Ta Lou squeaking in there.
50 -
Run Really Fast wrote:
Random question xyz wrote:
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)
.10 is the fastest human reaction time possible by the fastest reacting humans on the planet. It doesn't mean that EVERY human can react to a gun that fast, because most can't.
Some runners with a really fast reaction time of .10 or .101 are anticipating the gun, not reacting to the gun. But it's impossible to prove which is which.
The rules have to draw the line somewhere, so the line has been drawn at .10 seconds.
Is that what the science says? Imagine if this was a championship final with millions of dollars on the line, how quickly scientists and law firms would be lining up to force this rule to be further modernized.
11 -
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Run Really Fast wrote:
.10 is the fastest human reaction time possible by the fastest reacting humans on the planet. It doesn't mean that EVERY human can react to a gun that fast, because most can't.
Some runners with a really fast reaction time of .10 or .101 are anticipating the gun, not reacting to the gun. But it's impossible to prove which is which.
The rules have to draw the line somewhere, so the line has been drawn at .10 seconds.
^It's this. Even baseball hitters can't react quicker than 0.10. It literally takes that long for your brain to make a decision and single your muscles. Realistically, anything under .15 for track is somebody guessing and anticipating the gun.
Wrong. For example .13 and .14 are very common.
50 -
hate arbitrary numbers wrote:
sprinter guy wrote:
Especially if it’s close. It also holds up the race and hurts the other athletes. The timing system can be wrong, and the .10 is theoretical anyway. I get it’s the rule but I find it unlikely there aren’t outliers that can react slightly faster.
the .100 rule is obviously a totally arbitrary number
why isn't it .109 or .093 or some actual number based on science
possible to have a class-action lawsuit? no, i'm not joking.
When they did the gun reaction tests many years ago, the actual fastest reaction time recorded was something like .115 . But they rounded it down to .10 just in case there was an outlier somewhere who had a reaction time that was legitimately faster than .115 .
The reality is that many runners whose reaction time is between .10 to .109 are actually anticipating the gun, not reacting to it.
60
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.