that's actually a good point - if they weren't actually reacting to the gun and indeed guessing/trying to time it, wouldn't you expect a relatively even distribution of "false start" reaction times between 0.000 and 0.999s? But you rarely see a .205 or .544 reaction time, it's usually like .91 or .99, especially in these championships.
Those are so obvious that the starter calls them back. You have never seen that?
i've scanned the race "summary" link on the world athletics results page which shows reaction times for the races shorter than 400m.
from what i can tell there have only been 4 false starts in all of those events combined these first 3 days.
.092, .095, .096, .099
statistical odds of 4 people guessing when the gun will go off and coming within a few thousandths of one another seems pretty far-fetched to me.
there were multiple .101s, .104s, etc as well, which only adds to the frustration of how stupid this rule is.
"I really like Rojo’s idea of pushing the violator back a few feet."
While the idea of penalizing the athlete may have some merit - from a practical standpoint moving back a person's start line in the 110 (or 100) hurdles could potentially heavily impact that person's race as their step pattern would be off to the first hurdle.
How about a different type of penalty or deterrence to guessing the start - add time (justice) AFTER the race so the athlete still gets to compete (mercy).
Step 1 - Definitively determine the fastest reaction time through multiple studies with different monitoring devices with athletes in difference competitions. Increase validity and reliability.
Step 2 - If it is found, for example, the reaction time is say .083 then simply ADD time on to that person's mark at the end of the race.
For example, if the reaction time is .082 to .078, then take the thousandths difference and double it - so a .005 becomes a .01 added onto the final time. Athlete gets to run (mercy) but is penalized (justice).
If the reaction time is faster such as .077 to .073 then perhaps triple it - so a .01 becomes a .03. .072 to .068 could quadruple it - and so on. The more under the reaction time threshold the more the athlete's time is penalized post-race.
That’s fine too - anything but booting athletes out of a final. Hell I’d even be cool with them letting the DQ athlete race in their lane and still DQ them so we can at least know in our hearts who really won. I just know the current false start rule is disgusting and feels against the spirit of competition.
This is great. We have a crossover mainstream athlete in Devin Allen and now track and field makes itself look like an even bigger joke quibbling over literally nothing. No advantage.
Crossover mainstream = white. Lol.
Sorry, what? Devon Allen is Black so I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
Jackson wasn’t good? Were we watching the same race? 10.73 and a PR with a very solid all around race and beating #2 all time isn’t good? What are you smoking because I’d like some
Yeah I don't get this either. ETH definitely looked off but SAFP and Jackson were phenomenal.
He’s dealing with traumatic brain injury.
The women in the 100m last night ran phenomenally. Elaine isn’t in last year’s shape but Jackson may run 21.4 this week.
Dan O'Brien's insight on multi-event training is really interesting. I can't imagine being able to mentally focus and develop the skills in all of these events. 😯