Why no Emma Coburn DQ?

she didnt mean to

tinfoil Gary wrote:

Go back to the tinfoil hat.

Quit insulting people with RF tinnitus you knob.

ijenns318 wrote:

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.

It's only one step for USATF provided it provides the athlete with an advantage (doesn't matter on the straightaway).

But from the discussion on the USATF Officials Facebook page I don't think anyone caught it when it happened.

Interesting discussion all the way around and as an official I appreciate that there are some of you out there that care about these types of things. A few thoughts:

Some of you are rationalizing the correctness of not calling this rule infraction because it allows her to be selected onto the team to represent the US at Worlds. I think it is unfortunate that the the sole criteria for selection to the team is the performance at Nationals. In order to maintain the integrity of the rules that everyone agrees to abide by when they compete, we should allow a scenario where Emma gets DQ'd for violating the rule (as written) but still can be selected to represent the US at Worlds.

It would seem to me in this would allow (in this situation) for:

- the umpire to report the incident without worrying about whether or not something as "unintentional" as this might affect the makeup of the team for Worlds.

- the referee to make a call that follows what is written in the current rule book without worrying about whether that decision keeps Emma from being selected to the team.

- USATF to still select the best athlete to represent us in this event in Beijing

- the coach of the 2nd place runner to not have to worry about filing a protest for the correct call to be made knowing that by doing so he runs the risk of being the guy who caused our best athlete to not be selected to the team.

I also think that we would all benefit by more transparency in the calls/decisions made by the officials at these meets. There should exist some type of referee's report that is compiled to explain the reason for any yellow flag thrown by an umpire and decisions made by the referee after receiving that umpire's incident report. It would also include information on referee & jury of appeals decisions after protests are filed. This information already exists as all these things are put into writing - it is just a matter of compiling it and making it public.

With regards to the "spirit of the rule" vs "the rule as written" argument - I feel that if the rule as written doesn't accurately reflect the spirit of the rule then it needs to be rewritten so there is no discrepancy between the two. This alone would go a long way to clearing up the transparency issue above...there would be no guessing as to what the right call is/should be.

Lastly - kudos for those of you participating in this thread that are helping others understand some of the nuances that understand when it comes to rules & officials like:

- HS, NCAA & USATF have different rule books and you need to make sure you are referring to the correct rule before you can apply it to a situation. Even if you are using the right rule book, you need to make sure it is the most current version as rules can be revised from one to the next.

- The officials with the flags around the track are Umpires - not Referees. The Umpire is there to report observations of potential rule infractions which are given to the Referee to make a decision as to whether or not an infraction has occurred. Umpires do not decide anything - they are the eyes of the referee. This is why it is possible in some cases to see a yellow flag go up and no DQ - the umpire may read the umpire's report, talk to the umpire, review video (if allowable) and decide that what was observed is not an infraction.

Youngish Official wrote:

Some of you are rationalizing the correctness of not calling this rule infraction because it allows her to be selected onto the team to represent the US at Worlds.

No. No. No. No. No.

We agree with the no call because she gained no advantage.

Rules of sport are written to create fairness and to allow the best competitor to win.

This is letter of the rule vs. spirit of the rule.

The spirit of any rule is always to allow the best to win without gaining an unfair advantage.

As a competitor In this case you would not want to finish second and be awarded first.

I know I would not want to win like that.

ffvsdvbsdf wrote:

This thread reminds me of a PGA player getting busted by a tv viewer calling in a rules infraction.

Also, are these the current rules for T&F, it's what is on the USATF site:

http://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/3a/3a9201fc-329e-4ec6-bd02-ff81ea14e71c.pdf

I looked for the new rule for settling ties to advance to a world team and couldn't find anything. I searched: ties, dead(heat), coin, break. Anybody able to find the new rule, or hasn't it been approved yet?

If this was golf, Emma would have DQ'd herself.

Star wrote:

This is letter of the rule vs. spirit of the rule.

The spirit of any rule is always to allow the best to win without gaining an unfair advantage.

My point being that there shouldn't be any difference between the two. The rule as written should accurately reflect the spirit of the rule.

Once again, the subjunctive gets mangled.

PGA wrote:

If this was golf, Emma would have DQ'd herself.

PGA wrote:

If this was golf, Emma would have DQ'd herself.

[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. A few years ago, Tiger Woods took an illegal drop in the Masters. He was asked about it after he signed his card. He admitted to it and was given a 1 shot penalty. He should have been dq'd because he had signed an incorrect score card. Many of his fellow pros pointed this out. But no one was going to dq Tiger Woods. His infraction was minor and no one would have known had Woods not talked about the drop after the round. Even he did not know it was illegal. I doubt Coburn knew she committed a rules infraction.

Second look wrote:

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.

Absolutely, Everyone running in lane 1 should be DQd, period. Quit trying to cheat and run in lane 8 like God intended.

first look wrote:

Second look wrote:

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.

Absolutely, Everyone running in lane 1 should be DQd, period. Quit trying to cheat and run in lane 8 like God intended.

Track lanes are four feet wide. leading a race, you don't need to be in the outer half of the inside lane (that would be stupid in most cases), but when you take the curve stepping 6 inches from the curb the whole way, you risk making a mistep and earning a DQ.

It's not just the spirit of the rule that's important, it's the spirit of the sport. She was worlds ahead of 2nd place. The best and fastest woman obviously won. If I was 2nd place I wouldn't want her to be DQ'd, she so obviously deserves to be champion. I would protest that decision! I think (just like the recent decision for that Canadian athlete who can't compete because she didn't declare) enforcing the rule at this time would be meaningless and petty. It would just hurt an athlete without any benefit to anyone else really (leah is a honorable person, I bet she would have a sour taste in her mouth if she got to worlds this way). Rules are there to help everyone compete in a fair way. There was nothing unfair about her victory.

If we constantly nitpicked rules such as this at meets, people would be constantly looking for loopholes to win. There would be strategies set in place to undercut better runners. The sport would turn into a circus. We should just let people run! It doesn't have to be complicated! Only bring out these rules if there was an obvious unfair advantage.

frapp wrote:

Look here

http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&do=videos&video_id=150405

9:30 mark. She steps off the track. The Leah O'Connor thread says this should be a DQ.

I'm glad she wasn't DQd but can a rules official chime in? There isn't supposed to be discretion if you step out of the lane on a turn.

The fact that she is hotter than hell had nothing to do with it

USATF/IAAF rules specify one step. NCAA is 2 steps, HS is 3 consecutive with either foot. Unfortunately, in the US there are too many rulebooks with differing rules so it's sometimes hard to remember which set you're enforcing.

Yup. That's the HS rule.

used to be DIII wrote:

[quote]Bring Back the 880 wrote:

In sprints the first false start is "free" ...

No, it's not.

ffvsdvbsdf wrote:

I looked for the new rule for settling ties to advance to a world team and couldn't find anything. I searched: ties, dead(heat), coin, break. Anybody able to find the new rule, or hasn't it been approved yet?

Wasn't that settled back in 2012 when Felix and Tarmoh tied in the Olympic Trials? I thought they added a rule saying they had to do a runoff.

This whole thread is a joke. If she had been DQed oh my how the rage would have flowed at this website. Anyone who honestly thinks that is a DQ is out of theIr mind. Oh wait a minute this is letsrun.com. Silly me I stand corrected.