Shanon Rowbury should have been DQ'd from the 5000.

I can't believe all the blabber on this board

People seem to think they know for certain what Molly thinks and that Shannon should have been DQ'd

Molly shared her feelings on this matter and that is all we know

The refs did not raise a flag and no protest was filed against Shannon

Those are the facts. The rest of the nonsense on this board is pure fantasy and hate directed at the wrong person

Blah blah blabber wrote:

I can't believe all the blabber on this board

People seem to think they know for certain what Molly thinks and that Shannon should have been DQ'd

Molly shared her feelings on this matter and that is all we know

The refs did not raise a flag and no protest was filed against Shannon

Those are the facts. The rest of the nonsense on this board is pure fantasy and hate directed at the wrong person

Exactly.

Blah blah blabber wrote:

I can't believe all the blabber on this board

People seem to think they know for certain what Molly thinks and that Shannon should have been DQ'd

Molly shared her feelings on this matter and that is all we know

The refs did not raise a flag and no protest was filed against Shannon

Those are the facts. The rest of the nonsense on this board is pure fantasy and hate directed at the wrong person

no you fvcking moron

the facts are that shannon swung to the inside to block molly from passing her on the inside. that is legitimate

what is not legitimate it when she then swung to the outside to IMPEDE molly's path.

then when molly swung even wider, Shannon proceeded to move out AGAIN to IMPEDE molly.

Shannon had a 3 part tactic

1) Sit

2) Kick

3) Block

Whether Molly feels impeded is irrelevant. She was impeded. It is against the rules to swing in and out to block another runner's path. This is was shannon did. It is against the rules.

Why do track's rules only allow for an all or nothing DQ? Shannon clearly committed an infraction, and had she won, a protest almost certainly would have been filed and upheld, but regardless of what happened at the very end, Shannon was clearly at least the second-best runner in the race. Why isn't there a way she can be penalized but still retain second place? In cycling, if a rider veers from his line, he is usually relegated to the back of the group of riders he is with, but still has a result that stands. In baseball, if a runner is obstructed, the umpires have the discretion to assign the runner the base they believe he would have reached had the obstruction not occurred, but in track and field, the only thing that can be done if an infraction occurs is a disqualification. This seems silly.

Eye Hate Nike wrote:

Based on the criteria put forth in Alberto's melt down at indoors, Rowbury clearly impeded Molly MF'N Huddle.

I thought what Shannon did was smart and you can't call a DQ when not one was tocuhed and even had to break stride. What Shannon did was try to sucker Molly to come inside but not give her quite enough space to squeeze through and when that did not work Shannon forced Molly to swing wide.

Doo wrote:

Why do track's rules only allow for an all or nothing DQ? Shannon clearly committed an infraction, and had she won, a protest almost certainly would have been filed and upheld, but regardless of what happened at the very end, Shannon was clearly at least the second-best runner in the race. Why isn't there a way she can be penalized but still retain second place? In cycling, if a rider veers from his line, he is usually relegated to the back of the group of riders he is with, but still has a result that stands. In baseball, if a runner is obstructed, the umpires have the discretion to assign the runner the base they believe he would have reached had the obstruction not occurred, but in track and field, the only thing that can be done if an infraction occurs is a disqualification. This seems silly.

Because then if two runners are battling one-on-one, the weaker runner has a very strong incentive to impede the stronger runner. Best case scenario, he/she doesn't get flagged and wins. Worst case scenario, he/she ends up second due to getting penalized or just getting beat.

But if that sort of thing is tolerated then you have a much higher risk of something bad happening, like a fall.

kybaws wrote:

Who won the race? HUDDLE. Enough with the DQ nonsense. If Rowbury had won I could understand the talk of a DQ for her, but Huddle dealt with it and in the end won the race.

There is no rule against the winner lodging a protest against someone who finished behind them. It shouldn't affect the protest committee's thought process.

The rule on this is simple. As stated in the Umpire' s Manual:

"A competitor may run anywhere on the track at any pace or any change of pace as long as the competitor does not impede or obstruct by any body or arm action the progress of another runner. It is a violation if the runner veers to the right or left so as to impede a challenging runner and forces the challenging runner to run a greater distance."

It was definitely a violation. It was also a violation, though, that had no effect on the outcome. The moment Rowbury did this, she'd lost the race, one way or the other, because if she did hold off Huddle, she'd have been DQed on the spot. (I watched this happen i the Pre once when someone tried to "close the door" on lane 1 in the final straight). She's actually lucky that Huddle out-kicked her, because this way she still gets her silver.

I don't know why the officials didn't raise a flag. They may have been waiting for the outcome. Nobody likes DQs in national championships.

messi wrote:

There is no rule against the winner lodging a protest against someone who finished behind them. It shouldn't affect the protest committee's thought process.

The other runners don't decide, the officials decide.

Yes. I agree. Huddle is all class. Rowbury's tactics are cringe-worthy. Maybe it was just a gut reaction but covering the inside was one thing but then weaving out to lane two to stop Huddle from passing was pretty questionable.

But MOlly's strength and will to win overrode Shannon's desperation.

Molly is an old style runner. She is not afraid to do the work and lead. She is competitive, sure of herself, and humble.

This sit and kick and block running tactic needs to die. Failure to DQ a runner for that sets an ugly precedence for the future. You will see it used again.

sanchobaile wrote:

So wrong. That is called smart tactical racing. There was nothing blatant or interfering about it. Like Rowbury said, there was no contact, so how bad of moves could it have been. You people are just looking for a reason to call NOP hypocrites, but there's no reason here.

I was so confused when I first read the LR recap saying Shannon was "weaving" because I didn't see that at all when I watched the race live.. and I don't see it watching again now. Too many runners give up the inside to allow passing on the rail, and that's dumb on them. Shannon gave Molly plenty of room.. Molly was still a step or two behind when Shannon moved inside, and she was a step behind when Shannon moved outside.. there was no "cutting off" of anyone.

I think all the disagreeing is a generational thing. younger folk are more ready to accept grey area cheating and call it clever or tactical. It reminds me of flopping dispute with lebron james. he was quoted as saying "You're just trying to get the advantage. Any way you can get the advantage over an opponent to help your team win, then so be it." I thought that was ridiculous, but apparently young track fans feel the same way. 20 years ago this wouldn't even be a conversation, everyone would say Rowbury was trying to block Huddle and that it was cheating.

Watch the tape again. Coming off the turn (14:43 into the race), Rowbury is in the middle of lane 1. She moves out to the inside of lane 2 (14:48 into the race), either thinking Huddle will try to come wide or begging Huddle to come up on the inside. Huddle starts to come up on the inside and Rowbury goes back to lane 1 (14:54 into the race). Huddle then comes wide and Rowbury goes way wide herself, out to the very outside of lane2 (14:59 mark), inside of lane 3.

There is no doubt she was weaving all over the place.

Here is the face video:

Another way to see it is the post-race replay. Go to the 16:40 time mark on the video (not race, video). You see it clearly.

That being said, I'm glad there wasn't a DQ.

That being said, I feel one could argue what Rowbury did was significantly worse than what Gruenwald indoors. This was clearly intentional.

Take a look at the rule book. As stated above, it's very clear.

Been an Umpire wrote:

The rule on this is simple. As stated in the Umpire' s Manual:

"A competitor may run anywhere on the track at any pace or any change of pace as long as the competitor does not impede or obstruct by any body or arm action the progress of another runner. It is a violation if the runner veers to the right or left so as to impede a challenging runner and forces the challenging runner to run a greater distance."

It was definitely a violation.

Hayduke wrote:

I think all the disagreeing is a generational thing. younger folk are more ready to accept grey area cheating and call it clever or tactical. It reminds me of flopping dispute with lebron james. he was quoted as saying "You're just trying to get the advantage. Any way you can get the advantage over an opponent to help your team win, then so be it." I thought that was ridiculous, but apparently young track fans feel the same way. 20 years ago this wouldn't even be a conversation, everyone would say Rowbury was trying to block Huddle and that it was cheating.

It's not generational. I've been a fan since '70. There was no foul.

There may not have been a technical "foul" but it's still pretty questionable racing.

So no DQ but I would be embarrassed if I was Shannon.

Ya know I read that when she was younger she was a "square dancer" or something. I guess her fancy footwork came into play. But Molly's strength and will came through.

In this case Molly worked for it and deserved it. And won. The better runner won.

There is such a thing as honest racing that you can be proud of because you won clean.

It is a matter of personal integrity.

It is clear and after just watching the mens 1500, close finish...there wasn't any of that BS. It can be spun any way people want, but it is the sign of a lesser competitor. I think Molly said what she did to be gracious in winning. Not sure Rowbury would have done the same if situation was reversed. It is certainly the case people have been DQ'd for less and some have not been for more, but stated clearly it is classless.

Maybe Casey should have pushed Leo out into lane 3! He didn't. He held his line and the better person won.

Was there blood on the track?

If not, no foul and you ladies need to grow a sack.

umpire wrote:

It's not generational. I've been a fan since '70. There was no foul.

fair enough. i don't have a rule book, so is it a foul? not sure, but under "you'll know it when you see it" principle I feel she was cheating. But that leads me to ask you about flopping. That was not really considered breaking the rules until enough people said it was. Do you feel that the NBA was correct in addressing the flopping or do you feel that it was not a foul until it became one?