Aussie Hollingsworth reinstated as Australian 1500m champion

Who had ties to Bideau? I'm American and don't know but it seems like there is a widespread belief he has too much influence. Who does he have ties to?

A bit new to this stuff but seems like I've seen numerous times when other runners including males pass on the inside when the runner in front is running on the outside of the inside lane. There was room to make a clean pass. I'll give Hull the benefit of the doubt that she cut inside instinctively to keep her position but she clearly did it. As others have said Hull would have likely been dq'd if she kept her feet.

Hull did what I've always wanted someone to do. Act like you are going to leave lane 1, then don't do it. Yes, her shift in was technically illegal. But guess what? So is every runner moving outside of lane 1 and finishing on the edge between lane 1 and lane 2.

I said on the emegency pod that it was a DQ. But the more I think about it logically, I'm fine with it not being a DQ. The reality is coming off the turn, Hull was on the outside of lane 1. There was enough space for Claudia to get by on the inside. What Hull did wan't egregious. It was no different than a runner winning by going outside but technically it's illegal and it resulted in Hull falling as a result. So no DQ.

This is a BAD take.

Hull is still VERY good. Basically as good as she's ever been. The take is Hollingsworth is the FUTURE. The energy she had at the end of this one reminded me of Cole Hocker in Tokyo.

A 56 final 400 is something we've ever seen in women's running other than from Faith Kipyegon. And she's only 20!!! Well, she's still 20 in the US. In Australia, she's already 21 (Birthday is April 12th).

I'm officially the leader of the Cooper L and Claudia H bandwagons.

It's kind of like the NCAA 3000. A tough call.

I've long said if WA really wanted to end these debates, they'd have a simple rule. IF you have the lead coming off the turn, you must finish in lane 1.

I need to update it, "If you have the lead coming off the turn, you must not leave the center of lane 1." Hull went about 2/3rds out which was enough space for Claudia to come inside - which is exactly waht she tried to do and then Hull weaved in.

0-20 lifetime vs Kipyegon at 1500 and mile

Jessica has finished 2nd or 3rd more than 20 times since the beginning of 2024. That's what I was getting at. I almost never look at times. I check how the athletes fare in relation to their peers. Jessica recently has by far the most lopsided ratio of being on the "podium" but not the winner.

I still stand by eveyrthing i just wrote but also LOVE most of this post.

That being said, yes, it's instinctual by Hull. Just like it's instinctual to drift out and finish into lane 2. But isn't it also technically illegal?

I guess you are arguing, no? The rule book does talk about DQs for 'intentional' obstruction. Are you saying an 'instinctual' obstruciton, isn't intentional?

I'm not sure that's the case. You know you are tired, you know someone is coming up on your outside, you drift out. I think that's intentional. Now, history has shown you are NEVER DQd for this. Hull did the same thing. She drifted in as she could senese Claudia. But a shift in is different as Claudia then has no option, she can't just keep drifting out and we find out who has the most in the tank.

No, watch her feet. They are never farther than center of the lane. There is not room to pass on the inside at any point without pushing Hull to the outside. If Hull had drifted towards the inside and gotten clipped that would be fine. That isn’t what happened though. Claudia is behind and makes an abrupt move to the outside that clips Hull. Should be a DQ.

Moving in on another runner is not impeding. For it to be impeding Hull would have to have literally stepped in front of Hollingsworth, forcing her to break stride or lose momentum, according to the World Athletics rule book.

Quite snide/ambivalent comments from Hollingsworth afterwards, too:

"I'm ok about it and I'm sure she is too. I'm happy to reach out to her".

What you are describing is your definition of impeding. According to World Athletics rules, impeding occurs when an athlete jostles, obstructs, or moves across the path of another runner, forcing them to break stride or lose momentum. This action, which includes elbowing, blocking, or tripping, can be intentional or unintentional, and often leads to disqualification (DQ) if it brings a positional advantage or disrupts a competitor.

Agreed. Hollingsworth could have put herself in a better position coming into straight, as she had the opportunity to own the space on right side of Hull. However, when that closed there was room to Hull's left which she closed at last minute.

Hollingsworth may have postioned poorly but Hull caused it

No way.

Hull is world class at 1,500m in a race where you go flat out. This was tactically poor by her, possibly because she wanted the treble (800,1500,5000) and thought she could get away with slow race. But Hollingsworth is an actual 800m runner which it effectively became

now i have seen another angle, yes, Jess does move imperceptibly left, but this appears to be at the exact same time that C goes right, not before. C had already made the decision to go right and as she was doing it, J went left. maybe that was why they touched; J was slightly left, closer, than C expected. anyhow, C was behind and veered right recklessly close to J. the move was reckless as evidenced by the result. reckless = dq.

J was never close to the rail. you cant veer from a position in middle of lane 1 to a position not close to the rail!

Look at this another way. If C had maintained her position, unable to pass, boxed on the right, J in middle of lane 1 and C without space to the rail; J 1st, C 2nd, would anyone be calling for J to be DQd? of course not. every race since time began would have DQs.

This talk about 'middle of lane 1' is a bit suss. a lane is a lane. we know that in a 100m race, athletes can impede each other even when all four feet are in the correct lanes. arms can be wider than feet. an athlete has the right to be somewhere. they have the right to space, and noone can run in a perfectly straight line. what they cant do, as a leading athlete, is veer crazily all over the place. J didnt do that.

What J did was absolutely perfect positioning for a leading runner; middle of lane 1, with just enough space to the rail to confuse the runner behind, but not enough space to squeeze through - isnt that what a coach would coach? runners cant run in perfectly straight lines. you need a little space to the rail since if you step on the line its instant DQ.

C had space to go right as the bend ended, that was the fatal mistake.

agree - the trip was not due to an inside pass attempt, it was on the shift to the outside.

ive watched the insta view again.

C should defnitiely be disqualified. From the rail, she swerves to the edge of lane 1/2 as she trips J, then to avoid J she goes back to the rail.

Then, in front, she swerves from the rail to the edge of lane 1/2. DQ.

Nah. BroRoJo, gotta let em race. Too many rules and you get a mass-start time trial.

Open image

lmao brutal.

I would argue/make the case for no (that an instinctual move isn't illegal) - but that's just my opinion. And I have that opinion because if we were in the business of calling out every instinctual move that happens in a race we would have 80% of every field DQ'd for some form of impeding or obstruction. Kind of like how your Baltimore Ravens offensive line egregiously holds on every play but they obviously can't call every holding infraction or NFL games would take 8 hours.

I would also clarify this - even though I think it's absurd that someone with the ability to win races would ever mess around hoping for a gap between an athlete in front of them and the rail to open up just so they can win, it's not that move that I would have upheld the DQ on Hollingsworth for. It's the decision to then say "okay no room I'm going to run across behind someones heels to now go round them on the other side". That's not instinct, that's a conscious decision. And of course she doesn't want to clip her - she could have fallen herself too, but she did and there simply has to be a penalty for that or else it's a dangerous precedent to set.

Hull falls because at the end of the day someone ran a diagonal line behind her, across her moving legs and clipped them. It's kind of that simple. I think there needs to be some level of accountability there and if this is the way that athletes learn more care, diligence and how to adjust their race strategies for different circumstances, then that's the way it has to be.

But we all know why this decision was made. Hollingsworth is the "next" Jess Hull and might very well have the ability to win in Glasgow. Athletics Australia want her on the team. Hull as the NR holder by a mile and (still for now) the golden girl of AA is going to find a way to get on the team to Glasgow (as a "guess" by way of something that "might" happen at one of the upcoming Chinese DL meets). It's really the other girls that suffer here (especially Caldwell or Billings) that "might" find themselves on the outer with whatever happens. Either way it's the most classic Athletics Australia thing ever - this organization can't get out of their own way when it comes to selection drama, each and every freaking year without fail.