Notre Dame DMR is questionable to me

It is a 320 meter track.

Has anyone looked at the results in the other running events to see if those results were suspect?

The curb/no curb issue could not have just had an impact on a single race....

Yeah, you're right. Each lap is about 319 meters. Thanks and, finally, duh.

The OP has a very good point, and probably a valid complaint...but the difference is nowhere near 5 seconds. Here are some of the relevant sections from the NCAA rulebook, which should be required reading for everyone posting on this thread:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/mw_trackandfield_rulese88cb2a4-3dac-4a6d-b6c2-c0fe5a66ffe7.pdf

"The track may be bordered on the inside by a curb of suitable material approximately 5 centimeters in height and a minimum of 5 centimeters in width. The edges of the curb shall be rounded. See Figure 1. If a section of the curb must be temporarily removed for any reason, its place shall be marked by a white line 5 centimeters in width and by cones at least 15 centimeters in height. The cones shall be placed on the track so that the outward face of the cone coincides with the edge of the white line closest to the track. The cones shall be placed at distances not exceeding 4 meters."

"Measuring Distances

ARTICLE 5. The distance to be run in any race shall be measured from start to finish between two theoretical hairlines. Lane one, and all distances not run in lanes, shall be measured 30 centimeters outward from the inner edge of the track if a regulation curb is in place. If a curb is not used, lane one shall be measured 20 centimeters from the left-hand lane line. For world, American and NCAA meet records, and championships qualifying, a regulation curb or cones must be in place. In races run on straightaway courses, the distance shall be measured in a straight line from the starting line to the finish line. For all races in lanes around one or more curves, the distance to be run in each lane, except lane one, shall be measured 20 centimeters from the outer edge of the lane line that is on the runner's left. Lane one is to be measured as stated above."

Indoor Track:

"Where the inside edge of the track is bordered by a white line, it shall be marked additionally with cones. The cones shall be at least 15 centimeters high. Cones shall be placed on the track so that the outward face of the cone coincides with the edge of the white line closest to the track when the track is surveyed based on the existence of a curb. Otherwise, cones shall be placed on the infield adjacent to the line. The cones shall be placed at distances not exceeding 2 meters on the curves and 10 meters on the straightaway."

Now for my analysis--the rules make it clear that any track used in championships qualifying has to have a curb, so the Notre Dame track must have been "surveyed based on the existence of a curb." When the track doesn't have a curb, cones on the outside of the lane line are just as good--so if the cones had been in the correct location there wouldn't be an issue (though it's pretty bogus to not put out the curb for such a high level meet). From the Flotrack video it looks like the cones were on the inside edge of the lane line, which is where they would be for a track surveyed without a curb. This means a 10 cm difference in the track's official radius, or a 20 cm difference in the track diameter. On a 320 meter track, that's about 63 cm per lap, and 785 cm for a 4000 meter race. A 9:30 DMR team averages 7.02 m/s and would take 1.12 seconds to cover that 785 cm. 13 out of those 15 teams would still have auto-qualified.

According to a strict interpretation of the rules, the misplacement of the cones means all races on that day are useless for qualifying. However, since the race is documented on video and not controversial (besides the track length issue), the fairest treatment of the athletes involved is to allow marks from the meet, but apply a conversion based on track length.

NCAA rulebook wrote:

....the rules make it clear that any track used in championships qualifying has to have a curb, so the Notre Dame track must have been "surveyed based on the existence of a curb."

Incorrect- rules say that you can have a curb or cones.

There were 2 heats. And I'm not a f***ing retard... I just believe in fast running when I see it with my own two eyes.

The officiating was very sloppy to say the least. In the mile yesterday, the winner, Miller, took at least 5 consecutive steps on the line right at the start. Does that make a big time difference? Probably not, but it underlines the fact that no one seems to be paying close attention to the rules and it's obeying the rules that creates a fair situation for all competitors. Neglecting the rules or allowing them to be short changed, short changes the sport and athletes who competed according to rules.

Who goes and doesn't go to nationals is decided by very slim margins. So accuracy is important.

last yera there were like 7 teams in the race, and they all ran fast. no autos but a lot of provisional times. So a coach looks at that and says, "O wow, competitive race, lets go there" so 15 of the top teams in the nation basically go to pre nats and race there. All the coaches talk to each other.

A:"where are you going to run a dmr?

B""notre dame"

A"ok well go there"

C:

where r u going to run a dmr"

A: Notre dame, B will be there too!

etc....

Thanks for checking my math. At 0.63 meters per lap, this means over 1 second per 10cm difference in the radius for the DMR. The longer the race, the more significant and obvious the impact. So you all can debate whether it was a >1 sec (10cm), >2 sec (20cm), or >3 sec (30cm) advantage for the runners. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a fan of the sport and I will feel bad for all those that won't go to the NCAAs because of others' incompetance. But I also would feel bad for the ND DMR runners that were just doing their thing - running darn fast. It certainly wasn't their fault.

Rules are good for structure but it is good to have someone at the top that can grant exceptions. Everything cannot be fit into a perfect box.

Throw out the auto qualifying standard and just grant entry to the top 10 teams since there may be some extenuating circumstances.

That would eliminate many but not all of the ND qualifiers.

They finished behind these guys head to head so that's about as fair as you can get.

I know many think rules should be black and white and they should take all or none but sometimes you need subjectivity to bring order. Sport is never perfect.

Reading the pole vaulter point of view and the NCAA rulebook points this is how I have ruled.

so my team ran 9:29 at ND this weekend

i ran most of my race in the outside of lane one and at least 400 meters in lane 2.

so if you are going to do the math... add 10 meters to my race....

we ran 9:27!

this whole thread is a joke.

i read it the night after my race and so the next morning i looked a tthe cone location.... 2 inches tops. it doesn.t even matter.

How is it that I noticed the missing railing and nobody else? Or did participants notice but were willing to take that little advantage and stay quiet about it?

If so, they really need to sit down and get their priorities in order. If somebody wants to displace others by benefitting by an unfair or illegal advantage they have sold themselves out and the sport out.

Fight the good fight, run your heart out - but don't bend the rules, don't look for an edge when that edge breaks the rules. Compete with honor. Respect your sport and yourself.

kprunner wrote:

so my team ran 9:29 at ND this weekend

i ran most of my race in the outside of lane one and at least 400 meters in lane 2.

so if you are going to do the math... add 10 meters to my race....

we ran 9:27!

this whole thread is a joke.

i read it the night after my race and so the next morning i looked a tthe cone location.... 2 inches tops. it doesn.t even matter.

you're wrong all those teams would not of run that fast on any other track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boooooo to ND!

2 inches tops. it doesn.t even matter.

That's what she said.

kprunner wrote:

so my team ran 9:29 at ND this weekend

i ran most of my race in the outside of lane one and at least 400 meters in lane 2.

so if you are going to do the math... add 10 meters to my race....

we ran 9:27!

this whole thread is a joke.

i read it the night after my race and so the next morning i looked a tthe cone location.... 2 inches tops. it doesn.t even matter.

Your team ran 9:27 and congratulations. It was probably worth 9:29. Again, great. I sincerely believe that your team should be at nationals.

But that's not the whole story nor is it the main story. The main story is that we are looking at a major qualifying meet flagrantly violating a simple principle of the sport: the accurate measurement of race distances.

Was that done because no one is paying attention? Or was that done to gain a small advantage? Either way, it is not acceptable practice.

Should we ignore lane violations from now on? Should we ignore slight fouls on the long jump? Is passing outside the zones by just a little bit ok? If a sprinter false starts by just a tiny bit, shouldn't we just let it go?

If a jumper gets off a 27' jump, but fouls by a tenth of an inch, should he get the mark?

But if the rule book doesn't rule, by what rules do we compete? How many steps short can a track be before it's too short? How many steps long before it is too long? You tell me. And - oh yes - if a guy is edged out of nationals by .1 of second by a guy who ran a mile that was .7 of a second shortened, how should he feel about that?

just look wrote:

How is it that I noticed the missing railing and nobody else? Or did participants notice but were willing to take that little advantage and stay quiet about it?

If so, they really need to sit down and get their priorities in order. If somebody wants to displace others by benefitting by an unfair or illegal advantage they have sold themselves out and the sport out.

Fight the good fight, run your heart out - but don't bend the rules, don't look for an edge when that edge breaks the rules. Compete with honor. Respect your sport and yourself.

Are you serious???

How about option c: Nobody else gave it a second thought. They just saw there was no railing and said "ok" and moved on.

Not everyone looks at everything from the point of view of "hmmm, how could this be a rules violation/circumvention?"

Many of the athletes would be unaware that removing the rail would result in an improper track distance (understandable to some degree). Some of the coaches would be unaware (which is nothing to brag about). Even some of the officials would be unaware (which is something to lament about). But nobody?

Well, perhaps it's because I have worked in a situation to set up tracks and I know firsthand that where the pole sits is critical to getting the track the right length that it jumped out at me as something that needed explanation.

Still, let me ask you this. If at the meet there had been rail set up four inches to the right of the inner lane, making everyone run four inches wider every curve, do you think the coaches at Notre Dame or the athletes or the officials would have noticed? It's only four inches, right?

thewayitis...... wrote:

you're wrong all those teams would not of run that fast on any other track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boooooo to ND!

I take it that you of run this meet before as well?

What is wrong with you people? You are in college! It should read "teams would not HAVE run that fast..."

"would not of run" makes no sense.

I have run.

He has run.

I will run.

I am running.

They all make sense.

I of run. Makes no sense.

I see it all the time and what you are trying to do is phonetically spell the contraction "would've" as "would of" without thinking what you are really writing. "Would've" is fine as a contraction for the words "would have", but there is no place in English for "would of".

14-flat wrote:

thewayitis...... wrote:

you're wrong all those teams would not of run that fast on any other track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boooooo to ND!

I take it that you of run this meet before as well?

What is wrong with you people? You are in college! It should read "teams would not HAVE run that fast..."

"would not of run" makes no sense.

I have run.

He has run.

I will run.

I am running.

They all make sense.

I of run. Makes no sense.

I see it all the time and what you are trying to do is phonetically spell the contraction "would've" as "would of" without thinking what you are really writing. "Would've" is fine as a contraction for the words "would have", but there is no place in English for "would of".

You're gay! You are gay!