You're gay!
This is a mute point but supposably, its YOUR gay! At least in principal.
I mean i definately could care less about rules of grammer for all intensive purposes. But irregardless of that, let me ax you something ... isnt some of the stuff on this bored rediculous? I havent seen nothing like it anywheres.
So remember ... its a doggy dog world out there, so watch out.
Just use some duck tape wrote:
You're gay!This is a mute point but supposably, its YOUR gay! At least in principal.
I mean i definately could care less about rules of grammer for all intensive purposes. But irregardless of that, let me ax you something ... isnt some of the stuff on this bored rediculous? I havent seen nothing like it anywheres.
So remember ... its a doggy dog world out there, so watch out.
"You're gay" is correct
I believe he also meant a moot point, rather than a mute one.
Either you failed it or I just did. I think English102 passed.
I know the matter will be discussed prior to announcing NCAA acceptance announcement. I don't believe that anybody will be pushing for all races run at ND to be thrown out - that would be unduly penalizing athletes for mistakes made by meet management. My hope is that a small adjustment to times will be made to marks made at ND such that the advantage gained will be neutralized.
Furthermore, I hope the NCAA will mandate that in the future that tracks be required to have railings on the inside lane for purposes of posting qualifying marks to the championships.
just look wrote:
Furthermore, I hope the NCAA will mandate that in the future that tracks be required to have railings on the inside lane for purposes of posting qualifying marks to the championships.
That's not feasible for most facilities that weren't designed for rails. You'd have to drill into the surface to add them, and for a multi-sport facility where track is the low man on the totem pole, that's not going to happen.
But they need to remove the loophole that allows tracks that were measured for curbs to ever be used w/o curbs. Any track designed for a curb should be used with one. Any track measured for no curb should be heavily coned.
I have a curb on my track - there are no holes in the floor. The curb, once assembled, does not move about readily. If there were some problem, you could use additional devices, such as a weighted curb, to secure its position. Setting up curbing doesn't take that much more work than it does to set up and break down the hurdles and move the high jump and pole vault mats.
I don't think - but feel free to correct me if you know better - that Notre Dame, Univ. of Washington, or Iowa State can't put down a curb for meet days.
Just use some duck tape wrote:So remember ... its a doggy dog world out there, so watch out.
Coffee spitter time.
"doggy dog"?
just look wrote:
My hope is that a small adjustment to times will be made to marks made at ND such that the advantage gained will be neutralized.
Can you site the rule from either the NCAA or IAAF rule book that dictates how much of an adjustment to times should be made?
Bravo. You had me going until "intensive purposes", but I caught on about there. It just seemed to impossible to make that many common mistakes.
Just use some duck tape wrote:
You're gay!This is a "mute" point but "supposably", its "YOUR" gay! At least in "principal".
I mean "i" "definately" "could care less" about rules of "grammer" for all "intensive purposes". But "irregardless" of that, let me "ax" you something ... "isnt" some of the stuff on this "bored" "rediculous"? I "havent" seen "nothing" like it "anywheres".
So remember ... "its" a "doggy dog" world out there, so watch out.
Yeah. Doggy dog. I guess you didn't read the rest of his post?
Have to correct myself - "too" impossible. My bag.
Um, yeah wrote:
[/quote]
Can you site the rule from either the NCAA or IAAF rule book that dictates how much of an adjustment to times should be made?[/quote]
Of course there is no rule in either NCAA or IAAF rule book that dictates how much of an adjustment should be made. I would think that a strict use of the rulebook would disqualify all marks made on an improper track. YET, such an action would penalize all the athletes, for meet management's mistake and I don't think that is fair or warranted.
The committee can decide to rule on the situation as a games committee does and make a practical and sensible - if not perfect adjustment - to the mistake. I think that makes more sense that turning a blind eye to what is a demonstrable error in meet conduct, which is tantamount to a license to rule breaking.
Is it really "a demonstrable error in meet conduct"?
So far all the evidence you've provided is that last year you remember there being a rail and this year there were cones.
Do you know for sure how the track was measured (20cm or 30cm from the inside)?
Do you know for sure it hasn't been re-surveyed/marked over the past year?
Can you show that any error was done deliberately and with cheating intent?
Since apparently there are no documented rules, what guidelines should be used to come up with your proposed adjustment factor? Could you defend that criteria adequately to the fastest team that would end up being excluded from NCAAs?
It does seem a little contradictory to say on the one hand that they need to absolutely follow the rules and always have a rail on the inside and then go on to say they should make up a new rule on the spot to come up with an adjustment factor.
You may very well be correct and that an incorrectly laid-out track was used. However your insistence on the absolute nature of your position leads me to question if there may be something you've missed.
I've asked much the same question of the appropriate person in the NCAA structure. That is, I asked him to ascertain if the track has be redone since the conclusion of the 2008 season.
The basis of my inquiry is about as clear cut as I can imagine - the railing of 2007 and 2008 was absent in 2009. It's not a function of my memory, you can easily visit Flotrack and see with your own eyes.
I don't claim infallibility and, to be candid, I wish someone at Notre Dame came forward with an explanation for the discrepency and I would feel a lot better. I like to think that track and field is run on the up and up.
But I will also tell you that if you watch the many races Flocast recorded at Notre Dame, you will seem many instances of runners running ON the inner lane. Miller does it for the first 5 steps of the mile, the winner of the 5k Mecheso steps on the line several times, as do a number of other runners. Nobody cares! Nobody gets dq'd!
They run right by officials and nothing. It's there on the video if you care enough to look. I'm not calling for them to be dq'd BUT I am saying that this type of flaunting of the rules is not good for the sport. It's shoddy and not befitting what our athletes are owed.
Are there separate rules at ND? I was at a meet this weekend and a guy stepped on the line going around the curve and was dq'd. You tell me - what rules govern? I'm not out to get anybody, I'm out to say let's pay attention to the rules of our sport so we have a sense that we're all on a level playing field, at least in the conduct of a meet.
But let me sign off with one more statement.
NOTHING WHATSOEVER will come of this. For the same reason that the 320 meter track is declared equivalent to the 200 meter track. It's called getting the edge on the competition. And if you challenge "the edge" you will be told to shut up and just play the game. It's been like that for a long time and will stay that way.
But I don't have to like it.
One of the things I love about track is the pure simplicity of it. You pick a distance and the first to cross the finish line wins. You can be disqualified for 1) starting the race early 2) unfairly or intentionally impeding the path of your competition and 3) not running the full distance that was agreed upon. In other sports, uniform application of the rules at different competitions is not as important e.g. basketball refs in one game calling every touch as a foul vs refs in another game allowing a lot of contact is inconsequential because both teams in a basketball game play by the same referee's interpretation. In track, performances from different days and different tracks are routinely compared so there must be an agreed upon way to measure distances and times. It is not clear whether officials at Notre Dame properly measured the distance of the race. If so, then teams in the race did not follow one of the fundamental rules of the sport. Some people should not be so quick to dismiss these potential violations.
On another note, why do they even have the dmr at nationals when you could practically crown a national champion at Notre Dame a week before NCAAs? Only a few teams (some very good ones) will be added to the field for next week. It reminds me of Penn Relays where they essentially crown national champions in the distance relays, but in that case it is for events that don't have a spot in the outdoor championships.
just look wrote:
But I will also tell you that if you watch the many races Flocast recorded at Notre Dame, you will seem many instances of runners running ON the inner lane. Miller does it for the first 5 steps of the mile, the winner of the 5k Mecheso steps on the line several times, as do a number of other runners. Nobody cares! Nobody gets dq'd!
They run right by officials and nothing. It's there on the video if you care enough to look. I'm not calling for them to be dq'd BUT I am saying that this type of flaunting of the rules is not good for the sport. It's shoddy and not befitting what our athletes are owed.
Haven't you heard the old line referring to a field event at a last chance? 'Foul? There is no fouls at last chance meet.'
Not the first time and not the last time someone qualified for Nationals with someone not quite correct.
I know.
Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.
Won't help for this year and won't make it fair between venues if there is a disparity, but the way to keep one event from hurting others again in the future is just to do away with the auto marks. There is no need for them.