D3 10k champ DQ’D

Quote from Braden Nicholson’s strava:

“NCAA 10k- OA Champion but actually 2nd place. Won the race on a stupid technicality and DQ, Nathan Tassey is your actual champion. He earned it. None the less, super happy with this race and wouldn’t change a thing other than the DQ.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by others in the 10k like Simon Heys and Aidan Matthai. Clearly they know for a fact that Nathan deserved that win. They’re just as angry as in 2023 when Gregg got unfairly DQed before the 5k. The good sportsmanship displayed by these athletes is incredible, something D3 definitely does better than other divisions. Hats off to Nicholson for a great collegiate running career (although he still has one more race!) and I really hope that Nathan and the other returners from the 10k remain healthy throughout the next year and give us some more amazing racing!

Love the "thumbs down" on this.

Look, I think it is a sad result and wish it hadn't happened and applaud the athlete for how he handled it. In a better world he would have romped to the finish and won his well-deserved title.

But the solution is not to ignore the rule, or make an exception, or say, "No harm, no foul."

It's frustrating that these are always the kind of topics on D3 running that get people talking. Let's go back to talking about Blaskowski breaking 10 seconds this weekend or something

Gregg false started. That’s a dq.

we don’t let the sprinters have a 2nd chance, why are distance runners special?

it’s the same when 4x4’s get dq’d for cutting in early. 10 feet or 1cm - it’s all the same.

1. It was a 5k, not a 100. Plenty of time for anyone in the field to make up ground. If Gregg ended up beating Phillip that day, it would NOT have been due to a false start.

2. If you watch the video of NCAAs in 2023, right as Gregg jumps over the line early you hear some loud noise (like a dog barking) from offscreen. That’s likely what triggered him to false start. Pretty awful on the official’s part to DQ him.

I think if you give it a few seconds of thought, you might be able to come up with a reason why the start of the 5000m should maybe be treated a little differently than the start of the 100m. While the letter of the rule might allow DQs for false starts in distance races, officials almost always just stand everyone up, tell them to settle down, and retry.

I haven't bothered to look back at the rules, but I'm assuming the officials' hands were tied and they were required to DQ him under the rules. But, this is a perfect example of why the rules should be changed. There's no reason a runner taking a few steps inside the rail on a straight while not passing anyone should require a DQ. I get that we don't want much subjectivity in the rules, but I see no reason the rules couldn't require a DQ if you take a few steps inside the rail on a curve or do it to pass someone, but not require a DQ when it happens on a straight.

You sound like a millennial. Zero accountability.

The result was "influenced" by the runner NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES.

How many steps inside the rail is OK in your eyes. 2? 4? 6? 10? (The correct answer is ZERO.)

Actually, according to the rules, you can take one step on/inside with no penalty

Can we have some small amount of flexibility/discretion with stuff like this. He didn't gain an advantage. 2nd place was well beat & looked happy crossing the line. They're creating more controversy by DQing versus letting the result stand. This is awful. Tough to see him celebrating & not knowing.

Nobody these days understands or gives any credence to nuance and circumstance. Everything is in a vacuum. BS DQ, good on that kid for his strava post.

It's sport. sometimes the best athlete on the day doesn't win. I like Nicholson's quote about not feeling like the actual champion and preferring not to win by DQ, but I also like to see the track/lane violations enforced (especially in obvious cases like this).

Sometimes in high jump you'll have the 2nd place athlete clear the final height by several inches and the champ just scrape over, but win on countback. It happens.

Track fans often brag about how our sport has very little subjectivity in scoring. I think running the full distance of a race is kind of important. The World Athletics version of the lane violation rule was actually liberalized a few years ago to not make only single step on/over the line/curb a DQ (college, i guess, used to be based on 2 consecutive steps, but recently conformed to WA by making it 2x in a single race equaling a DQ). I think allowing one mistake (one foot placement out) is that flexibility. Championship meets should follow the rules. If you make the rule much more lax, you'll have more athletes running close to the rail the entire race, and ultimately have more subjectivity and actual controversy.

Just because nobody likes the result, doesn't mean it is controversial.

This is just stupid. In cycling, judges are allowed to, you know, use their judgement. They can DQ, but they can also relegate the rider to the back of the group they are in, so maybe they get 4th or something, but not out of the race. This runner should have been given 2nd place, which would acknowledge his infraction while still giving him credit for his performance.

This is also stupid. It's a 5k. Make him start at the back, with a 10m penalty or something.

some of you have a "theoretical advantage" confused with an "actual one." if you watch the race the dude goes all wonky and has to recover. he actually lost time, he didn't gain it. he then won by 5 seconds, not some off-track margin.

in car racing terms, this would be the difference between f1 and something like indycar. f1 will dq or punish someone from front to back for technical offs. indycar will look more at did you gain anything by it, or is it systemic, like you're cutting that corner every time. say, the french 400H guy who went around a ton of hurdles.

if you have watched an indoor worlds where they start brainlessly enforcing this crap via video review IT. IS. ANNOYING. AF.

Accepting that the rule required a DQ here, do you really think this is a good rule? I'm against subjectivity in the rules too, but I don't think it would require much discretion by officials if the rule were to say that if (1) on a curve you take a few steps inside the rail or (2) pass another runner while stepping inside the rail, then you get a DQ. But (3) if you step inside the rail on a straight and don't pass anyone then it's not a DQ. You're not running any less distance by stepping inside the rail on a straight (in fact, you're running more distance) and you're not otherwise gaining any advantage.

Poor analogy - going over the line in the long jump actually increases the length of the jump, i.e. it is unquestionably advantageous to the athlete.

Nobody denies that going inside the rail COULD be used to gain an advantage. For instance, it could be used to pass people when there is no room to pass, or to cut distance on the curves. Situations like that - where someone gains an unfair advantage - are why there is a rule that you can't run inside the rail. But nothing like that happened here. The runner basically just stumbled a little, and didn't gain from it.

One has to consider the purpose of having rules for track and field in the first place. One of the main reasons is to make sure the "correct" athlete wins, finishes 2nd, etc. When track's rules are used to make sure the correct athlete doesn't win, as happened in this race, that's just a case of people being silly and getting all hung up on rule-worship. Literally everybody who saw the race - even those who think he should be dq'd - concedes that the guy won fair and square (other than semantic issues about what "fair" means, maybe), but some people find rule-worship more important than life itself.

Running less distance is an advantage.