A lifeline for Colleen Quigley? London World Champ organizers put cones out in violation of IAAF rules

The line from entry to exit of water jump is normally straight and IAAF rules permits stepping on that line. Curved line at exit, and use of cones, is not in IAAF rule 169 re steeplechase. Quigley usually runs in center of water jump route but photo (URL below) shows the impedance (opponents hands) that forced her to abandon that location and her usual routine.

http://www.nation.co.ke/sports/athletics/Kiyeng-Jebet-Chespol-Kirui-storm-steeplechase-final/1100-4051856-yul7xh/index.html

cones wrote:

[bold]It's also funny that coming out of the water pit, there were many more cones in Rio then in London.[/bold] If the IAAF is going to get all huffy about enforcing the letter of the law while throwing out all logic and sense of fair play, the rule should be very explicit about how many cones there should be, the exact distance between them, where they start coming out of the pit and where they end leading onto the track. Down to the inch.

+1

But down to the centimetre as track is a metric sport. What does the rule say about how far apart the cones need to be placed? Would 2 cones either side of the water jump be sufficient. 4 cones in total? What if the Brits had a shortage of cones?

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?

Football used to do exactly that : review whether a receiver was forced out of bounds or ran out to gain an advantage changed the rule a year ago.

Basketball allows a player out of bounds so long as not playing the ball. And forced out by contact is a foul.

Maybe they should plexiglass the inside lane and that way contact would not force anyone out and no advantage could be gained. Not would start to resemble hockey.

So no sport A B C etc are not the same. The rules are different, for different purposes, and applied differently. so your analogy is not helpful.

Ghfhjhgnjjmhh wrote:

Gotta bee wrote:

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.

still crying like a baby smh

I didn't say anything about this when I saw she had stepped on the line, but when new evidence came out showing the iaaf was in the wrong I did because the rules should apply to the iaaf making a mistake. or do the rules not apply for the iaaf?

and there's one thread 4x the size of this one alone on kemboi, so youre wrong again

Gotta bee wrote:

and there's one thread 4x the size of this one alone on kemboi, so youre wrong again

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

I'm guessing the traffic on letsrun message boards comes disproportionately from Americans and that Americans are more likely to care when one of their own athletes is DQ'd. You can't attribute the disproportionate interest on the message board to her appearance without taking nationality into account. Also, this is a recurring issue in the steeplechase, and it's only natural for frustration to grow with each instance of nonsensical rule enforcement.

From IAAF Competition Rule 160:

1. The length of a standard running track shall be 400m. it shall consist of two parallel straights and two bends whose radii shall be equal. the inside of the track shall be bordered by a kerb of suitable material that should be coloured white, with a height of 50mm to 65mm and a width of 50mm to 250mm. the kerb on the two straights may be omitted and a white line 50mm wide substituted. if a section of the kerb on a bend has to be temporarily removed for Field events, its place on the surface beneath shall be marked with a white line 50mm in width and by cones or flags, minimum height 0.20m, placed on the white line so that the edge of the base of the cone or flag pole coincides with the edge of the white line closest to the track, and placed at intervals not exceeding 4m. (Flags shall be placed at an angle of 60° with the ground away from the track.) this shall also apply to the curved section of the steeplechase track where athletes divert from the main track to negotiate the water jump, to the outer half of the track in the case of starts according to Rule 162.10 and, optionally, to the straights, in this latter case, at intervals not exceeding 10m.

7. Full technical information on track construction, layout and marking is contained in the iAAF track and Field Facilities Manual. this Rule gives basic principles, which must be followed.

So the track was incorrectly marked according to the rules. What are the consequences of running a race on a non-conforming track?

Rule 149:

No performance accomplished by an athlete will be valid unless it is accomplished during an official competition organised in conformity with the Rules.

But I think that section refers to the rules governing the organization of officials, not necessarily the layout of the track. The only logical conclusion is that the entire race gets thrown out, but it would be nice to see that explicitly stated.

I agree.

Obviously they are different sports, congratulations. But they all have well defined out of bounds rules. There is 0 question Quigley broke the rule, so there is 0 discussion about her DQ. Look all you have to do is check if the USATF filed a protest. If they didn't even bother filing an appeal what does that tell you?

Gotta bee wrote:

Ghfhjhgnjjmhh wrote:

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.

still crying like a baby smh

I didn't say anything about this when I saw she had stepped on the line, but when new evidence came out showing the iaaf was in the wrong I did because the rules should apply to the iaaf making a mistake. or do the rules not apply for the iaaf?

You and the rest are the only ones crying here whaaaa. She got DQed.

She stepped on the line. The rule says DQ.

Show me where the rule says if the officials don't put the cones correctly the remedy is the other lane rules don't apply.

Plus we don't know why it was not on the line. Maybe someone hit it. You act like it was intentional

To stickle, or not to stickle ... that is the question.

with Fogrunr

rojo wrote:

rojo wrote:

The difference was in those case, we didn't have evidence of a clear screwup by the meet organizers that made the infraction much more likely to occur.

.

Actually, I just looked at the photos from the Kemboi race. It looks like the organizers did the EXACT same thing with Kemboi last year but no one realized it.

So the difference is this year people did realize it.

- Don't apologize... well done!

- Ever seen a NFL Coach critized for throwing the "red flag"?

- Plenty of room in the 3K steeple for another American.

No more than 4 meters. IAAF rule 160.1 pulled form the LRC article:

USAkarma wrote:

Look all you have to do is check if the USATF filed a protest. If they didn't even bother filing an appeal what does that tell you?

That the USATF is worthless and incompetent.

But we already knew this wrote:

USAkarma wrote:

Look all you have to do is check if the USATF filed a protest. If they didn't even bother filing an appeal what does that tell you?

That the USATF is worthless and incompetent.

Yet Quigley is 100% silent on the matter? If she thought she was wronged don't you think she'd speak out? Or are you saying she has that little pride in being a runner and doesn't want to actually be there?

That's a rules exception wrote:

NOP Skeptic wrote:

Mater-a-fact if you go back to the photo you can clearly see that Quigley barely had any room to get through as the Kenyan athlete (like all Kenyans who have terrible steeple/water jump form) made her way to the inside cutting off Quigley. I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the appeal, but since no actual contact was made, I'm guessing they won't reinstate her on those grounds.

According to the rules, when someone is forced on the line, that's an exception to there being a violation. Based on this alone, Quigley should be advanced to the final.

Thank-you. Someone else on this thread that gets it.

It seems the problem is that since there's a straight line coming off of the water jump, runners like to cut in and make a straight line so they can get into lane 1 coming into the straight.

That's reasonable but only if you have room. It completely screws over the people who are tucked on the inside at the water jump like Quigley and Kemboi when it's crowded as people try to cut them off to save distance. The Kenyan athlete clearly did this to Quigley.

This is why there should be a RAIL at all times. IAAF needs to own up to their mistakes and reinstate her.

In reply to your request I did not call you an idiot but I did point out the sports are different: as you admit and sarcastically congratulate me. Your analogy is not helpful to support or deny her DQ. Simple as that.

But because I too can be petty , lets play your game:

In the NFL if she ran out of bounds as a receiver she could not be involved in further play. But if she was a defender she could. In college she could be forced out and still count. In all football the pylon/cone is inbounds. So because she was not in possession of the ball she should not be DQ'd using football rules.

In basketball same thing she can go out of bounds freely as long as not makin a play on the ball. Again DQ is not the ruling with basketball rules.

Soccer: same

Hockey: same

baseball: same even with the ball

So assuming the other rules are helpful as you claim she should be reinstated.

Remember be polite and courteous always, no one need call anyone an idiot.

And the spirit of sport applies to her which allows anyone who has ever competed to feel for her and know that was not an advantage gaining touch of the line. Let the IAAF apply their rule just so long as it is consistent.

Ghfhjhgnjjmhh wrote:

Gotta bee wrote:

still crying like a baby smh

I didn't say anything about this when I saw she had stepped on the line, but when new evidence came out showing the iaaf was in the wrong I did because the rules should apply to the iaaf making a mistake. or do the rules not apply for the iaaf?

You and the rest are the only ones crying here whaaaa. She got DQed.

She stepped on the line. The rule says DQ.

Show me where the rule says if the officials don't put the cones correctly the remedy is the other lane rules don't apply.

Plus we don't know why it was not on the line. Maybe someone hit it. You act like it was intentional

sorry. you clearly haven't been following, maybe ill give you a break, photographic evidence before the water jump opened on the first lap showed cone already out of place, which means(I know you're having a hard time using your brain) that they were not placed correctly