t.
USAkarma wrote:
Pale Fire wrote:A track is not a basketball court, and track isn't basketball. The rules of the game are different.
They both have out of bounds lines which you cannot touch. Would you be in favor of stopping every basketball game every time someone touched a line and convening a panel of officials to judge intent, and any possible advantage gained? Of course not. Rules are rules. She broke it trying to run inside and paid for it.
Lol. You're an idiot.
DiscoGary wrote:
But if the rules say you can't step on the line and she stepped on the line then no matter how good looking you are, you should get disqualified.
____________________________
Why do people assume that the anger has to do with a pretty woman being DQ'd? People are angry because this is petty rule enforcement, and Colleen Quigley was clearly the better runner in that heat.
Trollolol wrote:
t.
USAkarma wrote:They both have out of bounds lines which you cannot touch. Would you be in favor of stopping every basketball game every time someone touched a line and convening a panel of officials to judge intent, and any possible advantage gained? Of course not. Rules are rules. She broke it trying to run inside and paid for it.
Lol. You're an idiot.
Sport A says you're not allowed to touch the line. Sport B says you're not allowed to touch the line. Tell me how I'm an idiot, and which sport in my example is different and deserves special treatment, A or B?
Yes, I think the course is defined by the cone. My thinking is that cones are traditionally been put there for some reason and not no reason. They are put there as a sort of redundancy measure to reinforce the course and anchor the runners *where, by virtue of the type of race that it is, it would be easy for runners to stray*.
Is there any word on whether or not Colleen's coaches/USATF are trying this angle? Or is it a done deal that she has been DQ'd?
Ghfhjhgnjjmhh wrote:
Gotta bee wrote:jealousy doesn't look good on you
She still isn't going out with you
That's supposed to hurt my feelings? Snow flakes like you are a joke
And btw plenty of people cared about the Kemboi dq including myself
I didn't even know of this cone rule or I would have tried alert someone to get Kemboi reinstated, still a travesty he was dqd
Pale Fire wrote:
Yes, I think the course is defined by the cone. My thinking is that cones are traditionally been put there for some reason and not no reason. They are put there as a sort of redundancy measure to reinforce the course.
So you say you think the course is defined by the cone, but your entire argument is proving that it isn't defined by the cone. If the cone is a redundnacy measure, than something is already defined. If it's there to reinforce the course, well how could it reinforce the course, if it itself is the course. The cone is not the course, those giant white lines that have been the course forever are still the defined course.
agip wrote:
Walter Sobchak wrote:She was clearly over the line.
This is running, there are rules.
This is a semi-final and determines who goes onto the next round.
Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one here who gives a s**t about the rules?
do you care about the rule citing where the cone needs to be? don't you think the whole point of that rule is to prevent these situations?
THIS!!!! Let her in!!!
rojo wrote:
The timeline hasn't passed.
Um, yeah wrote:
Based on what? "Protests concerning the result or conduct of an event shall be made within 30 minutes of the official announcement of the result of that
event."
The protest was filed within the required time period.
The protest was filed wrote:
rojo wrote:The timeline hasn't passed.
Um, yeah wrote:
Based on what? "Protests concerning the result or conduct of an event shall be made within 30 minutes of the official announcement of the result of that
event."
The protest was filed within the required time period.
Somehow we all must have missed it in the 3 or 4 threads criticizing USATF for not protesting on her behalf.
Space Ghost wrote:
Yes, this is running and it's a very simple sport. The rules are there for only two reasons. To prevent an athlete from gaining an advantage by cutting the course and to prevent one athlete from intentionally interfering with others. That's it. That's all that's needed. Only someone who has never run a race would say Quigley did either of these things.
As to your last question, unfortunately no, you are not the only pedant who insists on the narrowest possible reading of the rules, even if that leads to indefensible outcomes. Go to any high school meet and you'll plenty of your compatriots. It's a shame they are also at the World Championships.
Walter Sobchak wrote:She was clearly over the line.
This is running, there are rules.
This is a semi-final and determines who goes onto the next round.
Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one here who gives a s**t about the rules?
You want a ruling? I can get you a ruling. There are ways. You don’t want to know about it, believe me. I can get you a ruling by 3 o'clock.
Details? There's no evidence of a protest.I argued on the original thread that she broke the rule and, sadly, should be disqualified. (Sadly because I'd rather all runners get the chance to compete to their potential; a DQ for a lane infraction eliminates that chance, though sometimes it's warranted.)That said, I still think USATF should have protested the original DQ. What do they have to lose? Are they spending some sort of good faith capital by protesting when the infraction appears to be clear?Now, however, they have grounds to protest again. If they don't stand up for their athlete and protest on the basis of misplaced cones it's shameful behavior on their part.
The protest was filed wrote:
rojo wrote:The timeline hasn't passed.
Um, yeah wrote:
Based on what? "Protests concerning the result or conduct of an event shall be made within 30 minutes of the official announcement of the result of that
event."
The protest was filed within the required time period.
LRC seems to be wanted to split hairs for Colleen.
Well dang, maybe she has a really bad foot pronation and the part of the foot that appears over the line, wasn't actually touching the line. So she shouldn't get dq'd!!! How about that angle guys?,,,, guys???,,,, Guys??????
Er... wrote:
Now, however, they have grounds to protest again. If they don't stand up for their athlete and protest on the basis of misplaced cones it's shameful behavior on their part.
She stepped on the line and was DQd for it. She's out.
Past the timeline to protest. She's done. Deal with it.
Whats the purpose of a rail then? You already have a line or inner boundry.
Never ran SC but aren't cones used as replacement available in absence of a rail when a rail will be a time constraint and interfere with field events like high jump ?
The rails orcone are to assist both runners and officials, reducing the chance the runner from making inconsequential contact with the line and requiring an official to rule as such, preserving sporting aspect, not making it a game of chance - first one to finish line with touching inside corner.
IMO the IAAF writing such specific rules about the exact placement of cones back this thinking. to that point the cone placement error lead to exact infraction the rule was written for. To avoid unneccesary DQ over incidental contact with the line on turns without rails. Reinstate her
she is very active on social media and hasn't posted one way or another, which makes me think there is at least still hope and she is waiting until she knows for sure that she didnt or did make it to post
rojo wrote:
So it has nothing to do with sex or race.
Maybe not to you, but it does to me. Hot blonde chicks have been able to do whatever they want, whenever they want for years. Changing that unwritten rule of society is a step too far. First they let guys run in the women's 800, then they started enforcing testing in Jamaica, now hot chicks get kicked out for breaking the rules? STOP THE INSANITY!!!
USAkarma wrote:
Trollolol wrote:t.
Lol. You're an idiot.
Sport A says you're not allowed to touch the line. Sport B says you're not allowed to touch the line. Tell me how I'm an idiot, and which sport in my example is different and deserves special treatment, A or B?
Track's rules for touching the line are different. As you know, they already include a number of exceptions.
Also, I think they'd be a bit more judicious with calling out of bounds in basketball if the punishment for going out of bounds was forfeiture of the game.
If there was a rail, then it would be okay to have touched it with side of foot while foot on track but you could not step on it?
And the rail would be placed on the line?
I am confused about how a rail vs cones would help keep you off the white line.
Gotta bee wrote:
Ghfhjhgnjjmhh wrote:She still isn't going out with you
That's supposed to hurt my feelings? Snow flakes like you are a joke
And btw plenty of people cared about the Kemboi dq including myself
I didn't even know of this cone rule or I would have tried alert someone to get Kemboi reinstated, still a travesty he was dqd
Yo ar full of it. You seem to be the typical snowflake millennial who thinks that rules shouldn't apply.
Go look at the Kemboi threads. There were not even close to as many a people have started.
Sorry facts are facts.