What? It's a timer. Swimming timers can capture to the thousandth from venue to venue and from day to day
And if they have documented proof of a 9.579 by Tebogo (if he does it) and they call it 9.579, then they need to recognize Bolt's 9.572 as the WR if they have documented proof of an actual 9.572
No, they don't need to do any such thing.
World Athletics has their rules and they follow their rules. They don't follow your opinion.
And if they have documented proof of a 9.579 by Tebogo (if he does it) and they call it 9.579, then they need to recognize Bolt's 9.572 as the WR if they have documented proof of an actual 9.572
No, they don't need to do any such thing.
World Athletics has their rules and they follow their rules. They don't follow your opinion.
I'm discussing the issue and you're arguing about me. I stand by my point about what they need to do.
Everyone agrees with that statement. But timing to thousandths is not accurate for several reasons that have been explained. It would be great if we could time to 10 decimals.
I agree that if a 9.572 is faster than a 9.579, the 9.572 should be the only WR.
You are constantly obsessing with the time but in reality the measurement is a compound measurement. The following factors all play into the measurement:
The measurement accuracy of the timing device
The length of the course (See WA Facilities Manual for the allowed tolerances)
The location of the finish line camera
The assessment of when the torso broke the line.
Zero Gun Test delay (See WA Rules for allowable delay)
I know, its a millisecond here, a millisecond there but they all start to add up. Ultimately you can have no confidence that a the runner who records 9.572 is actually faster than a runner who recorded 9..579.
Agree with all this. Also - comparing two runners in the same race on the same day is a totally different thing. You can look at the camera and see who crossed the line first. The timer to the thousandth will bear that out. Doesn't mean you can compare thousandths with a different race.
I agree that if a 9.572 is faster than a 9.579, the 9.572 should be the only WR.
You are constantly obsessing with the time but in reality the measurement is a compound measurement. The following factors all play into the measurement:
The measurement accuracy of the timing device
The length of the course (See WA Facilities Manual for the allowed tolerances)
The location of the finish line camera
The assessment of when the torso broke the line.
Zero Gun Test delay (See WA Rules for allowable delay)
I know, its a millisecond here, a millisecond there but they all start to add up. Ultimately you can have no confidence that a the runner who records 9.572 is actually faster than a runner who recorded 9..579.
Then with that, I'm changing my position about those who said 9.57. if all those factors come into play, then by that, in and of itself, it should provide that there's not enough evidence (besides final time) that Bolt didn't run a 9.57.
Whether or not you meant to, you made a compelling case for 9.57.
You are correct that we can't be certain of 9.57 or 9.572 or 9.573. That is why the official time is a time that we have to be 100% certain of. That time is 9.58. Nobody cares about your position. I think he ran 9.50.
Why are you hung up on rounding? The fact of the matter is, when the clock hit 9.57, he hadn't yet crossed the line. In what world should he be credited with running a 9.57? When it hit 9.58, he had crossed the line. His finishing time was 9.58.
Timing is accurate to the 1,000th of the second. We know that T+F officialdom believes this as it goes that far out to determine who won if needed.
Why not use it.
Your reasoning is flawed. Why not call it 9.60? Why not call it 10.00?
Everyone agrees with that statement. But timing to thousandths is not accurate for several reasons that have been explained. It would be great if we could time to 10 decimals.
Why are you hung up on rounding? The fact of the matter is, when the clock hit 9.57, he hadn't yet crossed the line. In what world should he be credited with running a 9.57? When it hit 9.58, he had crossed the line. His finishing time was 9.58.
Timing is accurate to the 1,000th of the second. We know that T+F officialdom believes this as it goes that far out to determine who won if needed.
That's not how it works. If a race is that close, then the officials look at the photo taken at the finish.
Timing is accurate to the 1,000th of the second. We know that T+F officialdom believes this as it goes that far out to determine who won if needed.
That's not how it works. If a race is that close, then the officials look at the photo taken at the finish.
So T+F officialdom does not recognize accuracy to 1,000ths of a second? They feel it is not accurate? If that's the case then I agree go to the 1/100th of a second.
Seems that timing can be done accurately to even 10,000th of a second with modern technology.
In the women’s downhill this morning, Slovenian Tina Maze and Dominique Gisin of Switzerland tied for the gold medal with a time of 1:41.57. Couldn’t the timing equipment have broken that tie by ca…
Yes. It is printed right there. They were all credited with official times of 9.88. Look up the official results on their world athletics pages. Thousandths are only used head-to-head for reasons that have been explained many times in this thread. This is the perfect example of that. Thank you for clearing it up.
Timing is accurate to the 1,000th of the second. We know that T+F officialdom believes this as it goes that far out to determine who won if needed.
Why not use it.
Your reasoning is flawed. Why not call it 9.60? Why not call it 10.00?
The original post on this thread talked about world records. This means you are comparing times set on different tracks using different timing systems, different finish line cameras, different ZGT calibrations etc, etc.
Each of these will introduce a level of uncertainty in the actual time when comparing performance across different races. As a result claiming an accuracy of 0.001 sec across different races is not reasonable.
In a photo finish the athletes are in the same race so all the factors listed above are null. Therefore you can state that Athlete A was faster than Athlete B by 0.002 seconds in a particular race. What you cannot say with any confidence that Athlete A was faster than Athlete C by 0.002 seconds when Athlete C raced on a different day in a different country with a different timing system and different cameras.
Yes. It is printed right there. They were all credited with official times of 9.88. Look up the official results on their world athletics pages. Thousandths are only used head-to-head for reasons that have been explained many times in this thread. This is the perfect example of that. Thank you for clearing it up.
So there's no reason they can't be used in real time for real results to the thousandth.
