Richard Kitty DQed for 0.09 Reaction Time lashes out "PATHETIC ... STUPID RULE" vs WA

Let me put it to you this way - as long as your reaction is after the gun goes off (even if less than .01 or whatever seconds the standard is), why is it not fair? Why is it even considered an "advantage," as you put it?

There are two problems with that idea.

First, let's say they make a new rule that allows for a .09 start. Eventually a sprinter will start in .089 and people will say "but .09 is arbitrary, it's not fair, maybe he really did react that fast."

By having a buffer zone of .09 - .099 you avoid that whole issue. Because then if someone is slightly under the .10 rule they aren't DQ'd.

Second, if World Athletics changes the rule to .09 and says "OK, maybe people can react faster than .10", then that opens up a whole can of worms about the 4 people DQ'd in Eugene last year for having reaction times between .09 - .099.

World Athletics would be admitting that they screwed up big time because they DQ'd people who shouldn't have been DQ'd, and World Athletics doesn't want to admit that they made any mistakes.

1.) So if the gun goes off and I don't leave the blocks aka a rection, has my race not started?

2.) But if I leave the blocks .000000000000001 seconds after the gun is fired because I anticipated it, I am not leaving the block when the gun is fired. According to this point, why shouldn't I be allowed to do since I am not leaving the blocks "at the same time the gun is fired," but afterards?

3.) Why are arguing this is a bad rule that needs to be thrown in the bin, just FYI.

4.) Why shouldn't a sprinter be allowed to gamble? "Gambling" and taking risks is necessary and ubiquitous in sports. They are only gaining an "advantage" because they executed their start better, a skill essential for sprinting. This is like saying having top end speed is a "clear advantage" and shouldn't be allowed, which is obviously ridiculous.

5.) Again, l as long as I haven't "reacted" (for lack of a better word) until after the gun is fired, why does it matter if I anticipated it or not?

Oh one more point regarding the bold text - Reaction times, by definition, are a measurement of how fast sprinters leave the blocks, drawing attention to the fact sprinters DON'T "all start at the same time,"as you define it. Your whole post is null because what your assumption on sprinting starts is a.) not physically possible b.) would negate a critical part of the event if it were possible.

Oh yeah like this guy?

Yeah let's not worry about it.

Him and that Bolt guy. That's two people of any consequence who have FSed their way out of a major championship race. That certainly meets the definition of "few".

Rule says .1, it is what it is.

Linford Christie false-started his way out the 1996 Olympic 100m under the old rule.

Looks like the story in the newspapers back in the 80s is unavailable on the web, the one where an MIT physics professor publicly proclaimed it was impossible for Michael Jordan to jump from the free-throw line and dunk a basketball (Jordan had proclaimed he would do this.) The professor even included some mathematical calculations to "prove" his point. Then Michael Jordan went ahead and did it in the NBA slam dunk contest.

So much for MIT physics professors.

espn.com

How Chris Paul wishes the Suns handled his trade - ESPN Video

Chris Paul discusses being traded to the Wizards and what's next for him and his family.

Open link

The video was so short the YouTube url changed. Here it is. Also, the MIT professor's "proof" was published in Sports Illustrated, he sent a long letter to the editor.

This is the very definition of a false start.

Agreed. In addition, the "evidence" that it is physiologically "impossible" to react in under 0.100 is based on a study of a small sample of normal people. By the same logic used to conclude that it is impossible to react in under 0.1 sec it would also be impossible to run 100m faster than 10 sec or a mile faster than 4 min. The basis for the rule is a total farce.

Take the study used to substantiate the 0.1 sec, replicate it with world class athletes, and subtract 10%. Whatever the result, I say use that.

Yup. Bolt clearly false started. Devon Allen didn't even get the best start of that field and was DQ'd in what was clearly a malfunctioning equipment scenario as two other women were DQ'd the same day in the 100m for "false starts" that were clearly bogus.

Follow the money 1.

The rule exist primarily for the benefit of meet time tables and television time tables. Can't have runners upset those important things. For every false start random viewers tune out or even off. The show must go on, there's a checklist to follow.

Follow the money 2:

Sportswise it makes sense to let athletes gamble a little at the start to make up for a 0,10 difference in capacity - but the biggest sponsors off those guys at the very top with that 0,10 advantage stands to benefit of the current rule and the elimination of such gambles. Therefore it's also not likely to change.

You have effectively made an argument that the gun is irrelevant. The runners should be able to start when they like. The gun is a mere sideshow. It's easy to see then why the rules are what they are. You can't "jump" the gun.

Clearly to you, perhaps, but do you have any verifiable insider knowledge that the equipment indeed malfunctioned?

You are captivated by your own "cleverness". Not. Your fatuous comment that runners don't all start at the same time merely says they have different reaction speeds. But they are reaction speeds and are not permitted to be anticipatory responses. That is why the rule is that if they have left the blocks before a specified time they cannot physically have reacted; they anticipated - jumped - the gun. But of course once they have reacted to the gun the race is simply then decided by how they cross the line. It's quite simple, except for those dazzled by their own little mind games.

If you remove Eugene 2022, where the starting blocks were calibrated incorrectly, and you looked at the top 10% fastest reacting sprinters in the previous 10 global championships, and you averaged the reaction times of the top 10%, you would end up with an average reaction time of around .115 .

Subtract 10%, and bingo - you are back to right around .10 . So nothing would change.

Nope. I already pointed out a study (at the top of the previous page) that suggests 0.085 is possible, so it's not an arbitrary change in the 0.1 limit, it's a reasoned one. I also pointed out the study that points out different start systems made by different companies have different average reaction times... The system that disqualified Devon Allen and had wholesale faster reaction times across all participants in that World Championships an obvious example.

Also, I was responding to the poster who said 0.09 to 0.099 should be called back, NOT DQ'd, and re-raced. Under that scenario, that poster is assuming 0.09 to 0.099 is a legit fast reaction time and that's the reason for not DQing. But if that's so, legit reaction is legit. Just change it to 0.09 or 0.085.

That can of worms for World Athletics SHOULD BE OPENED. When someone admits they screwed up, that's GOOD. Having to admit things weren't fair in some past event shouldn't be an excuse not to make things better. I've always had more respect for people and organizations that fess up previous mistakes rather than try to pretend they walk on water.