yogibear wrote:
What is the tie break process used when high jumpers or pole vaulters have exactly the same result of jumps made and jumps missed?
This might be the non sequitir of the year.
yogibear wrote:
What is the tie break process used when high jumpers or pole vaulters have exactly the same result of jumps made and jumps missed?
This might be the non sequitir of the year.
Nell carter wrote:
She can decide what she wants to run AFTER the 1500m. Why should she have to decide anything beforehand. Should Shalane not have run the 10k since she knew she was not going to run the 10 in London? Should Lagat of skipped the 1500 at Nationals before the last world meet? USATF said she made the final. She should lace up and race.
The difference is that Shalane qualified to be on that starting line. She had the time, and there was no qualifying round. Schmidt had the opportunity to qualify and didn't earn the spot in the final. I think they should have finished the appeals for the DQ before putting Schmidt in the final. Again, Schmidt could potentially change the outcome of the race even if she doesn't finish in the top 3. In Schmidt's defense, she was told she was in and I don't think they should take it back once they gave her the spot. Unfortunately, for both Schmidt and Anderson, the emotional toll of the whole situation could come into play and hurt both of them. It doesn't look like Anderson should ever have been DQ'd so the whole thing is quite unfortunate.
So USATF made a mistake (the initial DQ) and then compounded it to avoid further embarrassment by letting both Anderson and Schmidt into the final?
Not sure why Wejo is upset about this but was all for Alan Webb being allowed to run the 5k.
"(2) The notion that once you tell a runner that he/she advanced you cannot tell that runner later that he/she isn't advancing is poppycock. That's precisely what USATF did with Anderson (and then told her that she was advancing)."
Say what, waht? Anderson's and Schmidt's situations are exact opposites.
wejo wrote:
We are trying to find a USATF rule for this. Any help would be appreciated.
I don't "know" the rule...but...once the DQ occurs, the final results are Schmidt as the final qualifier automatically. If no protest was filed, they wouldn't then say, "Schmidt is a qualifier and is now a qualifier because no protest was filed.". Once the protest occurs, THEN they look again at the race and see if the final result...which was th DQ'd runner and the new finalist (Schmidt)...should be changed to allow the DQ'd runner back in. All the while, Schmidt is considered a finalist as this stuff is being hashed out. Anyway, that's what makes sense to me.
rentawreck wrote:
(1) If Schmidt makes the team in the 1500, she said that she will drop the 800.
(2) The notion that once you tell a runner that he/she advanced you cannot tell that runner later that he/she isn't advancing is poppycock. That's precisely what USATF did with Anderson (and then told her that she was advancing).
(3) Letting Schmidt into the final is a much bigger deal than most are making it out to be because she is only 1 of 5 with the A and it's unlikely that a B is going to get the A in this race (we have seen time and time again that nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb in the 1500). Having her wrongly in the race greatly impacts how the other 4 As will run. It's not like she just missed it either. She wasn't in the top 5 and had 2 more little qs ahead of her.
(4) If anyone had any doubt that the fix is in with Nike and USATF, this should eliminate it.
For those saying this is a non-issue, this is a very good point; Schmidt has a very realistic chance at making the London team. As much as I like Alice Schmidt, she shouldn't be in the final, even if the race can easily support an additional runner.
The same exact thing happened at our conference championships. It was determined that since the DQ was overturned to not let the person who was just let in.
Wejo do you have a problem with Alice Schmidt??? Quit whining about a none story and get a life! An extra runner in 1500 is not going to inconvenience anybody! I hope she makes the team!!
My former post came before I read page 2 of the thread. However, now I'm curious. Who was it that filed the protest again? Mortimer? Anyway since she wasn't advanced and had no possible expectation of advancement, then my question is ---who sponsors her??? If she is also sponsored by Nike and this protest was done to assist Schmidt---that, my friends, is scandalous! Not trying to stir a pot. I don't know the rules or the sponsorships well enough to know what I'm talking about.
pogo wrote:
Augusto E. Perez wrote:What IOC rule interfers with sending Tarmoh in the Women's 100m?
Are you serious or just trolling?
What is there to troll about? There is nothing in the rules of the IOC that says that Tarmoh cannot represent the US in the 100m at the Olympic Games. Nothing in the IOC rules says that USATF and the USOC can't send Tarmoh as its third entrant in the 100m. They won't just send her over Felix because they announced her as the third place finisher before having a closer look at the results, but they could.
I guess this thread proves if I ask 10 people what 50 + 50 is at least 10 of them aren't going to say 100.
Man o man. How can not everyone think this is ridiculous?
There is ZERO reason why Alice Schmidt should be in the 1,500 final. She wasn't that close to qualifying and from what I understand not even involved the in the contact that was determined to not be worthy of a DQ.
Under the theory of "But we told Alice Schmidt she's in so we have to let her run" well then I guess Tarmoh is on the 100m team as they gave her a flag and let her run around the stadium and go to the press conference as an Olympian.
AGAIN. Apples and oranges. How is a tie using two cameras (and needing more cameras) remotely similar to this situation???
rojo wrote:
I guess this thread proves if I ask 10 people what 50 + 50 is at least 10 of them aren't going to say 100.
Man o man. How can not everyone think this is ridiculous?
There is ZERO reason why Alice Schmidt should be in the 1,500 final. She wasn't that close to qualifying and from what I understand not even involved the in the contact that was determined to not be worthy of a DQ.
Under the theory of "But we told Alice Schmidt she's in so we have to let her run" well then I guess Tarmoh is on the 100m team as they gave her a flag and let her run around the stadium and go to the press conference as an Olympian.
rojo wrote:
I guess this thread proves if I ask 10 people what 50 + 50 is at least 10 of them aren't going to say 100.
Man o man. How can not everyone think this is ridiculous?
There is ZERO reason why Alice Schmidt should be in the 1,500 final. She wasn't that close to qualifying and from what I understand not even involved the in the contact that was determined to not be worthy of a DQ.
Under the theory of "But we told Alice Schmidt she's in so we have to let her run" well then I guess Tarmoh is on the 100m team as they gave her a flag and let her run around the stadium and go to the press conference as an Olympian.
Actually, she was close to qualifying. She had the next fastest time out of the semi-final, and, so, if anyone was DQed, dropped out, or decided not to run, she would have been the logical and right next choice to let into the final.
The decision to let Schmidt into the final should not be an issue. According to you and Wejo, the decision to KEEP her in the final is an issue, and to me, and seemingly many others, it's not a huge deal.
This isn't a challenge in football. This isn't a foul ball in baseball. This isn't a finish line photo or a stop watch that goes to the hundredth of a second (though now I guess that's an issue too). This is a subjective decision made by a judge, and not it's a human decision to keep someone in when there really isn't a whole lot to lose if you keep her in. It's a waterfall start. It's a distance race.
Seriously, guys, the amount of Nike-bashing, tabloid-like reporting, and unnecessary whining going on on this site is making me sick.
Here is your answer:
Anderson was DQ'ed by referees after reviewing the tapes at 6:30pm on Friday.
The official field was then set with Alice Schmidt in it that same night.
Anderson appealed the next morning. The referees reconvened and reversed their initial decision. She was re-added to the field.
Seems logical to me.
I have no idea how people could argue that having an extra person in this final doesn't drastically alter the race. There should be one less body in there and one less athlete with the A standard. You must not understand the 1500 and how we qualify our athletes to the Olympics if you think its of little consequence that she is in the final.
Plain and simple, she did not earn her spot in the final. Some bogus decision was made and she apparently got lucky to be put in the final, then the right decision was made after an appeal and she should not be in now. The proper decision was eventually made and the race was in the books. Top 5 plus next 2 fastest times should be in this race.
I am with the Brojos on this one and think its pretty simple. You make the final by finishing in the top 5 or having one of the next two fastest times. Alice Schmidt had neither of these criteria when the semis ended. The DQ and appeal resulted in the original results standing which means she still hasn't met the criteria to be a finalist.
If you need an analogy, try this: Harvard wins the Ivy league basketball title and advances to the NCAAs. The next day it is found that Harvard used an ineligible player and are forced to forfeit the title, and runner up Cornell is awarded the title and qualifying spot. A subsequent appeal overturns the decision. You can be damn sure in this case you would not be seeing both Cornell and Harvard making the tourney.
rentawreck wrote:
Having her wrongly in the race greatly impacts how the other 4 As will run.
Uceny, Simpson, Rowbury, and ???
another difference wrote:
"(2) The notion that once you tell a runner that he/she advanced you cannot tell that runner later that he/she isn't advancing is poppycock. That's precisely what USATF did with Anderson (and then told her that she was advancing)."
Say what, waht? Anderson's and Schmidt's situations are exact opposites.
Logic doesn't to be your strong suit. Let me help:
Anderson: after the race, she was told that she qualified for the final with the big fat Q, was then told late on friday that she was DQed and then was told on saturday that she was back in -- told in, told out and then told in.
Schmidt: after the race, she was told that she did not qualify for the final and then was told late on friday that she was added to the final -- told out and then told in.
Anderson was told that she was in and then was told that she was out. The belief that Schmidt cannot be told that she is out after already being told that she was in was precisely what happened to Anderson so that argument fails. Get it now?
Also, the notion that the final must be filled to the stated max also is a false belief. Look at the semis in the M200, which had multiple scratches -- they ran 3 semis each with 7 (not 8) athletes. The fastest not q did NOT get a free pass to the semis when Gatlin and Dix scratched. Schmidt never should have been given a free pass to the finals when Anderson was DQed even if she were legitimately DQed. She should NOT be in the final and her presence as an A with 4:05 and sub 2:00 credentials, in what likely will be a slow tactical race, will have a large impact on the race.
Also, as always, Ruth W makes some great points on here. We should be honored that she is willing to wade in the morass that often clutters these boards. Thanks Ruth!
Anna Pierce.