GRANT FISHER DQs AT NBN

Agree that the coach was apparently given bad reasoning to justify the no DQ.

It's not clear from the story that an official protest was ever actually filed. The protest indicator never went up on the results screen. Could have just been a verbal exchange in which the coach was discouraged from doing so and in effect told not to bother.

A lot of times the people who are supposed to know the rules in fact do not. NSAF specifically advertises that it is governed by USATF competition rules but I would wager that many NBN officials do no research and simply bring their own understandings from their high school experiences.

Olympicbound wrote:

Is the National Federation of High School's Rule rule book not in effect? Rai Benjamin wins on a disqualification and many others DQ on false starts. Official results from the meet show Fisher with the win. Can't have it both ways. Awfully administered meet.

If he wasn't flagged or protested there is no DQ. Btw, if there was a DQ, there would have been outrage...USATF can't win either way.

Hmmmm. Lot's to think about on this one. I always thought it was the two-steps and your're DQ'd rule. Now we have the discretionary "material advantage" element combined with the peer pressure associated with DQing the star performance of a meet. This is getting us into unhealthy territory.

Let's raise the stakes.

What if he had taken his 5 steps inside the rail, and still managed to break 4:00! Assume that all other aspects of the race remain the same including the overruled protest.

Do we count the mark as an official sub 4?

Maybe the rules regarding records are different than those regarding race disqualification. Can anyone shed light on that?

I raised this issue already multiple times. My guess is that this mark is within the top 6 ever run indoors, at least top 7.?

Does it count? How can it , he ran less than a mile. And to the other poster or on another thread, that said I need to understand geometry? Get a clue, and view the video, He exits the track at least 10M prior to re entering.

Now, was he going to win? yes.

Easily, yes.

But I do not know how you reconcile the clear fact that he was way off the track ON HIS OWN DOING, not just running on a line for two or even three steps steps.And he did not even come close to any halt, he was moving forward the whole time albeit struggling to maintain his balance. so not running as fast as he could, or was.

How can that time stand? That is why this IS a big deal to me. Someone gets moved down a National List, which is not as big a deal as counting the mark at all, is.

The rumored rule is 3 steps, but I have seen professionals take up to 5 at the nike invitational just because positioning gets jumbled. For those of you who think there is some magical set in stone rule, there is not. That was an honest mishap that happened to him and he was still able to recover and roll in at 4:03.x. It did not improve his time, he was going much faster before that happened. He wasn't DQ'd because I know officials came to realize that and did not make a fus about it.

In my opinion... it shouldn't count as a meet record but he should still get the national title.

Even though he was about to blow away the meet record and run about 4:01.

Btw, I have this happen a few times where there was not DQ.

So how many of you who are against the DQ think a sub-4 mark should count on the record book if someone steps inside the curve like this?

How about a world record?

Track Coach, you have seen a guy run that far and for that may strides in a mile or distance race and not be DQ'ed?

I have been watching for over 35 years and never seen anything quite like what I saw yesterday.

I don't think there should be a DQ. It was not intentional and there was not advantage. It cost him a 4 flat maybe 4:01. I think the kids coach that filed the protest just to get his kid all american status was a jerk move. The kid wasn't fast enough and didn't earn it bu the lets give everyone a trophy just for participating philosophy came into play here.

"Actually he's very fortunate that he wasn't injured."

Couldn't agree more! This dude is seriously prepped for a Sub-4 effort soon! I'd love to see him do it. Thank goodness he didn't f'up his foot - remember seeing Alberto Juantorena all those years ago stepping off the track after a successful come back and totally messing up his foot!

Sub-4 is so close!

TRYHARDS wrote:

The rumored rule is 3 steps, but I have seen professionals take up to 5 at the nike invitational just because positioning gets jumbled. For those of you who think there is some magical set in stone rule, there is not. That was an honest mishap that happened to him and he was still able to recover and roll in at 4:03.x. It did not improve his time, he was going much faster before that happened. He wasn't DQ'd because I know officials came to realize that and did not make a fus about it.

Except there is a "magical set in stone rule":

-------------

163.5.

Each competitor must keep in the lanes outside the line or curb marking the inside of the track, including the curved part of

the diversion from the track for the steeplechase

water jump.......

the Referee shall disqualify a competitor if an Umpire reports that the competitor has stepped out of the lane.

-------------

What others need to understand is there is no wording in the rule as it applies to this situation that acknowledges any "material advantage" or "honest mishaps" or " x number of steps". It's pretty clear- leave your lane, be DQed, if reported.

What happened here is that an umpire, for a reason known only to him, but assumed by us, did not report it as an infraction.

The only questions are why it wasn't reported and why the protest was not accepted.

rochesterxc wrote:

Interesting - looks like a protest was filed but overturned.

http://highschoolsports.nj.com/news/article/-1261727957483935454/haddown-township-miler-luke-petela-has-record-setting-day-at-new-balance-nationals/

"But while Petela missed the podium, his coach Dave Welsh asked for an official protest to disqualify senior standout Grant Fisher of Grand Blanc, Michigan.

The Stanford-bound Fisher ripped a head-turning 4:03.54 to win by more than five seconds but stumbled over the rail on the final turn and stepped onto the infield.

Welsh was told his protest would not be honored because Fisher did not gain an unfair advantage and was not running in a pack when he stepped off the track."

Well I guess we all know who the jealous @sshole coach is.

Regardless of whether he should have been DQ'd, I am interested in how fast he would have run if he had not tripped.

From reviewing the video (and assuming the clock on the Flotrack video is correct), it appears that he covered the 100m from 1409 to 1509 in 13.6 seconds. He appeared to maintain that pace, and maybe faster, until he stumbled at about the 3:51 mark (so there probably were about 70 meters remaining). If he could have covered the final 100m, from 1509 to 1609 at the same pace that he covered from 1409 to 1509, in 13.6, he would have run 4:00.8. He would have needed faster than 12.8 for the final 100m to break four minutes. From the video, I think he was going faster when he started the final 100m than when he started the penultimate 100m, so a time slightly faster than 13.6 and 4:00.8 would have been possible.

For those who say, "he ran less than 1609"- I'm not sure that's true, but it doesn't matter anyway for this analysis, because this estimate of 4:00.8 is not based on his actual final time or distance run.

On some level, this does not matter- but as a fan of the sport, I was curious to see what he was on pace to achieve, and I'm convinced the answer is 4:00.8, plus or minus a few tenths.

CrossFan wrote:

Actually he's very fortunate that he wasn't injured.

Correct - it would have been WAY worse if he had rolled his ankle on the rail. That could have spelled major trouble for his outdoor season. I've seen plenty of runners mess themselves up pretty bad on the rail.

You are missing an important part. "If an Umpire reports...." It doesn't matter what you or I or the flotrack video saw.

Also, the 3-or-more steps rule is a real one, and comes from NFHSS:

Some people don't realize that USATF, NCAA, and NFHSS rulebooks differ slightly. Different meets are run by different rulebooks.

If you use the NFHSS rulebook it also has to be a DQ by the last sentence of Rule 5, Section 13, Article 2

SECTION 13 INFRACTIONS FOR RACES NOT RUN IN LANES

ART. 2 . . .

In a race involving a curve where lanes are not specified, a

competitor may move toward the inside or outside of the track provided he/she

is one full running stride, approximately 7 feet, in advance of the competitor

whose path is crossed. It is not a foul if a competitor crosses to the inside or

outside if this action does not interfere in any way with another competitor’s

stride. A competitor shall not, when running around a curve, step on or over the

curb, or painted curb line, for three or more consecutive steps with either or both feet.

PENALTY: (Arts. 1, 2) Disqualification from the event

According to the NFHS rule book, 13.2 is very clear that more than 2 consecutive steps inside the curb on a turn means disqualification. The only way "intention" comes into this is addressed in 13.1 where even a single step inside the curb will get you DQ'ed if you use it to pass someone or gain an advantage of any kind. You don't get to run inside the lines with impunity simply because it was an accident or you didn't mean it.

He should have been DQ'ed without a doubt. The sport is kind of silly if we allow that to stand.

1. The clock on the Flotrack video is not correct. Stop it when he hits the finish--it's 0.3 off.

2. Why are people even citing the National Federation rulebook? The meet was run by USATF rules. There is still plenty of room for argument, but please quit bringing up the wrong rulebook. It's about as relevant as Robert's Rules of Order...