good description of the process--- so then the umpires decided that it was not an infraction? that is rediculous because it was a clear rules violation. Just because it might not have impacted the results does not mean it is not a rule violation.
Example: if the slowest runner, the girl who got lapped, ran across the grass rather than around the curve, but still got last, would she not have been DQed?
This is in no way about the rules. It's totally about track and field public relations. THERE WILL BE NO ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS. GOT IT?
yellowflag wrote:
good description of the process--- so then the umpires decided that it was not an infraction? that is rediculous because it was a clear rules violation. Just because it might not have impacted the results does not mean it is not a rule violation.
Not quite. The umpires don't make decisions. They just observe and document (most probably have track diagrams and forms to fill out).
They would signal the referee that they observed something (presumably an infraction). They would give the ref the documentation and possibly a verbal report and the referee would make the decision on whether an infraction actually occurred and whether to take any further action (such as a DQ).
The umpires are essentially the eyes of the ref, not the decision makers.
I read it. Fair enough. They aren't idiots but obviously the IAAF interprets this rule to mean it 'should' be coned all the way around otherwise the IAAF woman that Wejo quoted wouldn't have referenced the cones. I don't think there should be cones in the first place. It's not that hard to know which line not to cross if you're an elite athlete.
runamile wrote:
9,999 Meter Final!! wrote:I still believe though that there may have been a different outcome given the discrepancies but if IAAF isn't going to enforce their rules because of their officials' idiocy then let the results stand.
I'll ask you the same question, what rule in
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42192.pdfdid the officials not enforce (other than DQ'ing the illegal cut-ins)?
Read rule 162, specifically the part about alley starts.
It says the cut in point should be flagged/marked/coned, but doesn't say you have to mark the entire turn. Yes, it would definitely help to have done so, but before you start accusing people of "idiocy", maybe you should be familiar with what rules they are supposedly being idiotic about.
yellowflag wrote:
good description of the process--- so then the umpires decided that it was not an infraction? that is rediculous because it was a clear rules violation. Just because it might not have impacted the results does not mean it is not a rule violation.
Example: if the slowest runner, the girl who got lapped, ran across the grass rather than around the curve, but still got last, would she not have been DQed?
i like the idea of waiting for a protest though
it lets the athletes decide the outcome rather than the beaurocrats
if any of the athletes thought it made a difference they undoubtedly would have filed a protest....but they didn't think it was an issue
so kudos to the officials for the handling of the situation this way
but as to the official who said they would not have been DQed pending a protest need to check the rule book
Thanks for the illiterate take on the subject.
Blown Away wrote:
Nipples,
Maybe you have never run a distance race but I do know that in any distance race and especially slow ones with tactics your starts many times mater more than people think. In these races it is all about positioning. If I am on the inside and everyone on the outside runs short and therefore comes to the break line in front of me I am going to hang back for awhile in most cases instead of mess with all the crap in the first couple of miles. What this means is that for this point in time I am being sped up and slowed down more than everyone up front. This can lead to me being more down than other people who were up front the whole time. At the same time yes I could choose to surge down the backstretch and pass those who ran the shorter distance but at the same time I will be pushing and shoving for position the whole time to get up there. Also physiologically these women never ran at a pace that would be recovery pace, due to this the entire time they are running their body is building upon any amount of hard effort they put out early in the race.
I don't give a good goddamn what you believe is or isn't in your little rules document, I know what I have seen used in races at championship events well above the high school level.
runamile wrote:
hardset nipples wrote:They certainly do, there were cones for the alleys at the start of the 10,000 in Beijing. Know the sport.
Since you know the sport, can you highlight for me which part of rule 162 mandates that cones be placed throughout the entire turn?
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42192.pdfIt says the cut-in point should be marked/coned/flagged as it apparently was in Berlin, but doesn't say anything about the rest of the turn.
Having cones definitely would have helped ensure this problem didn't arise, but it does appear that not having the cones is a violation of the rules (and hence a screw-up by the officials as some are declaring on this thread).
where was the cone supposed to be?
the rules also seem to say that instead of a cone you can just have a marking on the laneline at the cut-in point
i refuse to believe that if they had had no cone and a marker on the laneline, kiplagat would not have started moving in from the gun
The consequences of correcting according to the rules takes hind tit to public relations. You people are naieve beyond belief.
hardset nipples wrote:
I don't give a good goddamn what you believe is or isn't in your little rules document, I know what I have seen used in races at championship events well above the high school level.
It's not my rules document, it is that of the IAAF, as in the rules that govern the sport throughout the entire world. Just how would you run a track meet if you don't have some kind of documented rules?
You seemed to have missed the point I made, that being that cones throughout the turn would have been rather useful. But they are not mandated by the rules (feel free to cite a rule in any rule book that says otherwise).
You still also have not answered the question as how much of a discrepancy your personal rule book would allow. Would it have been ok if the outside alley had started from the 4x400 relay start line (ie three turn stagger) and cut in immediately? That would have lopped off close to 40m from their race distance.
Talk rules all you want, there will be no adjudication.
chrisdiaz16 wrote:
where was the cone supposed to be?
According to 162.9:
"The breakline for 800m described in Rule 163.5 indicates where the athletes in the outer group in 2000m and 10,000m may join the athletes using regular start. The track shall be marked at the entrance to the finish straight for group starts in 1000m, 3000m and 5000m to indicate where athletes starting in the outer group may join the athletes using the regular start. This mark may be a 5cmx5cm mark on the line between lanes 4 and 5 (lanes 3 and 4 in a six-lane track) on which a cone or flag is placed until the two groups converge."
That seems to me to say that they HAVE to mark the cut in point. Several posters have said they saw such a cone on the track.
It doesn't say they have to mark the entire turn, although we all know that would definitely help.
S. Heater wrote:
Talk rules all you want, there will be no adjudication.
what does that even mean?
S. Heater wrote:
The consequences of correcting according to the rules takes hind tit to public relations. You people are naieve beyond belief.
I wouldn't doubt that that might color things, but ultimately it was up to the athletes to file a protest if they felt wronged by the 'violation.' They're savvy enough to realize that running a few extra meters on the first lap of a 10,000 really wound up not affecting what happened in the final km. It's not as if they were on world or meet record pace right from the gun. The general public and average sports fans are too obtuse to recognize that there was a 'rules violation' without the Chicken Littles of the sport squawking around that the sport is "a joke" if there are no DQs as a result. No one's the wiser if you clowns don't go around spewing dorkiness out your pieholes.
I don't think I ever said they were mandated! You're chasing down claims you invented in your own head. They've used them in the past for this kind of race and even the IAAF official Weldon heard from admitted that the officials on the track didn't get cones out that were supposed to be there. That works for me and pretty well trumps any thoughts that come out of the twits who post here. As for your other question, though I have addressed it and since you still don't freaking get anything more subtle I'll spell it out: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
runamile wrote:
hardset nipples wrote:I don't give a good goddamn what you believe is or isn't in your little rules document, I know what I have seen used in races at championship events well above the high school level.
It's not my rules document, it is that of the IAAF, as in the rules that govern the sport throughout the entire world. Just how would you run a track meet if you don't have some kind of documented rules?
You seemed to have missed the point I made, that being that cones throughout the turn would have been rather useful. But they are not mandated by the rules (feel free to cite a rule in any rule book that says otherwise).
You still also have not answered the question as how much of a discrepancy your personal rule book would allow. Would it have been ok if the outside alley had started from the 4x400 relay start line (ie three turn stagger) and cut in immediately? That would have lopped off close to 40m from their race distance.
you people wonder why our sport is going down the rat hole of public disinterest? QED
Is cutting in 10 metres early worse than systematic EPO use?
If not, those Ethiopians have nothing to complain about, looks like they got their dosages wrong today.
I'm trying to figure out if you have some kind of disability or if you're the greatest letsrun troll ever.
Don't hurt yourself there.
hardset nipples wrote:
As for your other question, though I have addressed it and since you still don't freaking get anything more subtle I'll spell it out: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
Forgive me for being so slow, but you don't care about ANY rules?
If that is an incorrect conclusion, can you identify which rules you do give a f*** about? Can I start the 100m from wherever I like? Do I have to stay in the shot put circle on each put?