NCAA Shot Put mismeasured? Should Florida have won?

NCAA Shot Put mismeasured? Should Florida have won?

yep, and yeppers

Kansas Coaches are the prime example of whats wrong with the profession.

They don`t care as long as they get away with a good result. They don t care about teaching their kids a lesson of fair play.....

a REAL COACH and a REAL PROGRAM would have refused this tainted result.

polevaultpower wrote:

There are two likely ways in which the mistake could have happened... one is that the official misread the tape, being off by a meter. This happens sometimes, and a 19.68m is certainly possible for Finley, though seems a little less likely based on his reaction.

The other possibility, and the one that eyewitnesses claim, is that the official picked the wrong mark. It's possible there could have been an indent at 20.68m from one of Whiting's warmup throws.

I would read the opinions on

http://www.effortlessthrow.org/

many of those posters were actually at the meet and witnessed it first hand.

If they measured the wrong spot they likely would not be ten feet off; this is much more likely if he were within several feet of that location. In this version it does not change the outcome. Neither, of course, does 19.68 vs 20.68.

26mi235 wrote:

If they measured the wrong spot they likely would not be ten feet off; this is much more likely if he were within several feet of that location. In this version it does not change the outcome. Neither, of course, does 19.68 vs 20.68.

A little less than four feet is where it matters for the NCAA scoring, not ten.

When a shot guy has a massive PR, he knows, right? Finley knows what happened and his coaches likely do as well. If the mark is legit, that's great. If not, this is bad on a bunch of different levels, from NCAA fairness all the way down to a coach's proper role to how an athlete views himself. Just bad.

You people are so pathetically dumb and unresourceful.

Heres' the tech manual tards, clearly lists the structure of the meet:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ncaa/sports/c-otrack/auto_pdf/D1OTFParticipantManual.pdf

The Stache wrote:

It is also life, because the NCAA track committee ain't listenin to me and the athletes just have to take it.

And just how are the NCAA qualifying/advancement rules different than those of the IAAF in this regard?

Are you suggesting the NCAA track committee should listen to you and ignore the protocol from the IAAF rule book?

Yeah, and Petreaus fainted testifying in front of Congress on national TV because the Afghan Freedom Fighters are kicking the U.S.'s ass, his written plan is a joke. It only proves Pertreaus is qualified to be a scriptwriter UFC / MMA / WWE matches. BP's cleanup plan is a joke. Chevron's cleanup plan lists the Walrus yet that animal hasn't been in the Gulf for millions of years.

Again, Nike and OTC muscled their way over NCAA and USATF and effed up the NCAA Championships again. What a sham !

sfdgh wrote:

26mi235 wrote:

If they measured the wrong spot they likely would not be ten feet off; this is much more likely if he were within several feet of that location. In this version it does not change the outcome. Neither, of course, does 19.68 vs 20.68.

A little less than four feet is where it matters for the NCAA scoring, not ten.

When a shot guy has a massive PR, he knows, right? Finley knows what happened and his coaches likely do as well. If the mark is legit, that's great. If not, this is bad on a bunch of different levels, from NCAA fairness all the way down to a coach's proper role to how an athlete views himself. Just bad.

Two responses:

1) If they measured from the wrong point, the closer the real mark was to the measured mark the more likely they were to use the wrong mark -- thus, the closer to 70 feet the real toss the more likely it is that this was the type of mismeasurement (conditional on a mismeasurement).

2) The 'reaction' (or lack thereof) is one of the keys that lead people to question the mark.

Finally, there still has been no video/pictures evidence that has arisen from all the spectators despite all the heat that this has generated, what does that say?

Which committee? wrote:

The Stache wrote:

It is also life, because the NCAA track committee ain't listenin to me and the athletes just have to take it.

And just how are the NCAA qualifying/advancement rules different than those of the IAAF in this regard?

Are you suggesting the NCAA track committee should listen to you and ignore the protocol from the IAAF rule book?

I never claimed the NCAA was not following the IAAF rulebook.

I do contend that qualifying through to later rounds in a 100m based on time is crap. Especially when one heat gets a +2.6 wind, another a +2.2, and the third a +0.2. Aided times do not count for records, for world leads, and are corrected for iaaf scoring (or may not even count - someone correct me here). Therefore, those raw times from wind-aided heats should not count for advancement over someone who did not have a wind aid. I'm not arguing this for the sake of Terrell Wilks, that is just coincidence. I am arguing this for the sake of track and field. Heats should be set up as evenly as possible, and place should get you through, not time. Not in an event where wind aid or hindrance can have such an effect on advancement. The same could be said for the javelin or discus flights, where wind can be a huge boost or huge hindrance.

But as I said, the NCAA (and the IAAF) ain't listenin' to me. Just because the IAAF or the NCAA makes/follows a rule, doesn't mean I or the athletes have to like it. It doesn't mean we have to agree with it, either. We do have to follow it while it is a rule, but can still think it's a crap rule.

Finally, there still has been no video/pictures evidence that has arisen from all the spectators despite all the heat that this has generated, what does that say?

Have they contacted the unpaid volunteers, high school track coaches, etc. who were granted NCAA T&F Championship Media Credentials and gathered videos and pictures with personally owned expensive pro cameras ?

I have Googled Mason, Kansas track and field, etc. and have yet to find a statement from Mason, the coaches from Kansas or the head official of the event as to their opinion on the fiasco. Seems to me that just a simple interview with the people directly involved and then post it on trackandfilednews would be enough. I don't think posting on Let's Run is the best idea as there is a credibility issure with many of the items posted on this site.

You're an a_ _ hole. Is that all you have to add. Do your parents know that you are on the computer again?

It's well known that OTC and Nike muscles their way every event and interferes. They insert painted boxes as OSAA and UO meets to place the media into which is a serious safety hazard and liability issue. It was an ex-1960s Hippie and Draft Dodger and OTC official who messed up the kid and the University of Florida. The other officials are at fault too for not being honest. They have to keep hush, else Nike and OTC will have them banned for life from any meet at Hayward Field. Those fat old boys have only one hobby that keeps the ticker going and the blood flowing and that's officiating T&F.

Are you saying that wind-aided marks shouldn't count? So if one jumper gets lucky and get wind for all his first three jumps and another doesn't get any wind at all, if the second guy is close we qualify him because he was unlucky? There is no perfect solution so the one they are using now is the best one.

The entire shot put competetion can still be seen online at:

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/c-otrack/champpage/inc/div1/c-otrack-div1-livestreams.html

It says live streaming but it is currently playing the recorded event.

Mason Finley's 4th round shot occurs after the 1:28:00 time mark.

That throw was nowhere near the 20m line.

I'm taking your word for it that the throw shown at about the 1:29:00 mark was his 4th.

It's likely that the throw might have been a 19.68, as I've seen officials record the closest meter. As an official, I've almost done the same thing when the distance is in the top half of a meter (such as 19.68). If the mark was actually the 19.68, he'd still be 2nd. The irony is that in '04, at the East Regional at Florida, Holloway almost got into a fight with a coach from Pitt, when Holloway's kid had a 3 foot "PR" and made the Finals. The Pitt kid was 6th, and his coach was mad as hell. We all saw it, and knew that it wrongly recorded. We told all of the officials, but they refused to make the correction. If Holloway was honest that day, maybe he would have had better karma lst weekend.

I've been thinking the same thing about Holloway. I'm happy that his Whining and sniveling got him nowhere with the protest committee. I hadn't heard about the earlier incident but it certainly proves that what comes around goes around and I do believe in karma.

Here is another NCAA Champs measuring controversy... not as big of a deal, but disturbing nonetheless:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40270

It involves a triple jump mark recorded of less than 42', when they were jumping from a 43' board! Oh yeah and a Florida athlete:

6 Omar Craddock FR Florida 16.13m 2.3 52-11.00 3

12.77m(0.4) 16.13m(2.3) 15.95m(2.4) 16.02m(1.1) FOUL FOUL