Why no Emma Coburn DQ?

Star wrote:

F the stupid rules as written.

Does she deserve to be DQed or not?

No.

/thread

A few random claims / observations to add to this thread [since it doesn't seem to be going away].

1) If the same thing happens at World Championships, Emma will probaby be DQd.

In recent years, IAAF has shown little tolerance for any form of lane violation [cutting in early in the 800m, stepping on/across the line in the 200m or 400m, etc.] On the other hand, they have seemed disinclined to DQ runners for any form of impeding.

2) USATF wouldn't ratify Coburn's AR steeple time last summer because she wasn't drug tested immediately after the race, but they'll effectively look the other way when she commits a violation during a USATF event that is a DQ according to USATF rules.

3) Per IAAF rules, there's nothing stopping USATF from DQing Coburn in this race AND naming her to the US team for World Championships - this is purely a USATF issue.

Star wrote:

F the stupid rules as written.

Does she deserve to be DQed or not?

A couple of observation:

1) As Clint Eastwood said to Gene Hackman in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

2) If we are going to F the "stupid" rules as written, which rules should we respect? The "smart" ones? The unwritten ones?

3) This all reminds me of George Washington Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, who once asked, "What is the Constitution between friends?"

I still read the rule as "no material advantage" but at the end of the day, thank goodness she wasn't DQ'ed. My absolute favorite runner. Can't wait to see how she stacks up this year against the East African's. Go Emma!

I'm a high school track coach I was always under the impression that it is the official's discretion.

She "tripped" or stumbled. She did not veer to the inside to run less distance.

She did recover and most likely lost a little time- no gain at all.

This This debate is about as stupid as it gets on LR.com. Stop with the "she's a pretty white girl" stuff. The steeple had a lot of pretty white girls. But more to the point. The ump didn't see it and therefore no foul.

I've seen this happen quite a bit in track meets and I rarely see a foul or DQ called. Yes it doesn't happen. No it doesn't excuse it, but think of the NFL. You could probably call holding on nearly every play, but the refs don't.

They want to let the action on the field decide unless it is so egregious. I suspect there is a little of that. Most people notice Emma doing it because the CAMERA was on her. It could have happened to another runner for all you know.

now to the text of the rule itself. I don't know if there is an intent element to the rule or not. If you look at what happened, she stepped on the elevated rail and lost her balance. So clearly, there was no intent to cut the line or even get close. It was an accident pure and simple and she corrected it quickly. Again, I don't know if the rules take that into consideration.

Or maybe the ref thought it was on the straight part of the diversion from the track for the steeplechase water jump - which would be no foul if no material advantage was gain.

Now put away your tinfoil hats and "I believe in following the rules." BS.

Not every foul is called, not everyone gets a ticket for driving over the limit.

No DQ should occur. Emma is easily the class of the field. It was something that occurred by accident and not any intent to cheat or gain an advantage. The only lesson for her is not to run so close to the curb, and pay attention.

DiscoGary wrote:

A willful refusal on behalf of a referee to make the correct call can be defined as corruption.

Do you have substantive proof of this? Yeah. i thought so. Go back to the tinfoil hat.

good call wrote:

No DQ should occur. Emma is easily the class of the field. It was something that occurred by accident and not any intent to cheat or gain an advantage. The only lesson for her is not to run so close to the curb, and pay attention.

How exactly does she learn that lesson if there are no consequences - not even the trouble of having to appeal a DQ - for having violated that rule? In fact, who cares if she does or doesn't run close to the curb and pay attention in the future? Why should she? She didn't need to in this race.

Spirit of the law, not letter of the law. No harm done, no advantage gained. Coburn easily won, and we want our best at the World Championship. If I were a race judge, I sure wouldn\'t have missed it (how could you miss it when it\'s just so great to watch Coburn run?), but I also sure wouldn\'t have called it. Same thing as a cop not calling someone for going over the speed limit by one mile an hour on a deserted country highway. Maybe someone else said something similar on this thread, but I\'m not reading five or six darn pages to see.

She took 2 steps on the infield. That's the limit of steps one can take...if she took 3 steps she would have been DQd.

I was thinking about all of you.

For almost half a year I've been talking to you - a group of some of the brightest minds in our country.

I believe we can do good and do well $$

And if we can't encourage innovation in doing both, it's our failing.

Trackfan334 wrote:

Our sport has become a joke, that's why. USATF picks their favorites, to whom the rules do not apply.

We thank the Brojos for making sure no woman can be DQed ever and ruining the sport for everyone in never ending quest to destroy Alberto Salazar.

No one is getting fired. To me, the meaning of a partner is someone is watches out for another. Do you think it's fair to call that one partner dumb when the room is full of people who are experts at pointing out weaknesses in companies?

You're not dumb. You're just too close to see it. I once heard a speaker say that in order to lead, you have to see the organization from a macro and micro perspective. You have to fly your plane high and low.

Took another look at this. If a runner knows and understands that the track is measured 30cm (about 1 foot) from the inside rail, and attempts to run closer to the curb on the curves to lessen their race distance, then all bets are off. They would be trying to get away with something in that case. In that case step inside the curb on the curves due to your trying to run a tightrope around the curve to lessen your race distance then a DQ is in order.

tinfoil Gary wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

A willful refusal on behalf of a referee to make the correct call can be defined as corruption.

Do you have substantive proof of this? Yeah. i thought so. Go back to the tinfoil hat.

No, he is correct. He didn't say that the willful refusal actually occurred. He just defined it.

Sure, DQ one of the sport's best American medal hopes and most marketable people for an unintentional incident that had no effect on her overwhelming victory. That's just what the sport needs.

Idiots, all of you. Rule geeks are the worst.

I keep seeing people harping on "no advantage gained." Not true.

She lost her balance - through her own fault, by the way, by running too close to the rail and courting disaster. If she faced the certainty of being DQd for a step inside the curb on a turn, as the rule mandates, then she would have - should have - done everything in her power to avoid that step. And that would have required either not running right on the rail or throwing herself, once she lost her balance, toward lane 2, likely falling in the process or at least stumbling and slowing much more than she did. But she did not have to do either of these things, thus gaining an advantage.

Heck, if she would have fallen to the *inside* of the track, I could understand the "no advantage gained" argument: Falling could never be considered advantageous, no matter what direction you fall in. But again, she got away with not having to pay *any* price for her own mistake.

DiscoGary wrote:

A willful refusal on behalf of a referee to make the correct call can be defined as corruption.

The referee is fine. All is well in the world.