. . . ultimately he ended up 5m ahead of Kidder so it's hard to make a logical case 5 inches translated to 5 meters at the finish.
So how does the punishment fit the "crime"?
This is not how dq decisions are made, but if it were, the relevant margin of victory would have been the 7 hundredths of a second faster that his time was relative to Tinoda's. Do you think officials should measure the distance gained by runners who run in the wrong lane, approximate the time that it saves them, and add that amount to their times?
Too bad there isn't any discretion that could be applied. What he did has no impact on the race or any other competitors. It sucks but I think he should at least get invited to some big meets now that his name is out there. Late bloomer too so he probably has a couple more years of prime running. Would like to see him go mid 1:44's to get a shot at a world team.
Correction: Both Mu’s and Holt’s appeals were denied. Appropriately so.
Uhhh - no my friend, SHE should have been DQ'd. Her appeal was denied because she caused all of that carnage herself.
And my point is that I couldn't care less they didn't DQ her -what happened was bad enough. But if we are nullifying the result of a guy that took a handful of steps fractionally over a line that had zero impact on a race, surely we are nullifying the results of someone that had a massive (negative) impact on a race for people other than themselves. Therein lies the massive inconsistencies to these rules. That's the end of the discussion.
Nullify the result? Mu ran 2:19 and finished last. Do you think that result looks good on her record?
What difference would nullifying Mu’s result make, other than removing a horrendous time from her record? Neither one of them made the team, neither one of them deserved to make the team, and neither one of them should get special treatment. That’s the bottom line.
Except the rules leave plenty of room for interpretation. 163.5 says you can step on or over the line and not be DQ’d as long as you don’t gain an advantage. In Holts case how do you measure his advantage? It’s pretty hard to argue that he gained anything be stepping over the line.
Except the rules leave plenty of room for interpretation. 163.5 says you can step on or over the line and not be DQ’d as long as you don’t gain an advantage. In Holts case how do you measure his advantage? It’s pretty hard to argue that he gained anything be stepping over the line.
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that stepping over the inside line on a turn is ALWAYS interpreted as gaining an advantage.
The whole thing reminds me of that time at Worlds when a certain NFL player who is also really good at the hurdles was DQ’ed for an imaginary false start on the grounds that a study of a couple dozen European amateur athletes ostensibly proved that it’s humanly impossible to react faster than 0.100 sec and the brain-dead officials abdicated their responsibility to use their judgment and instead literally blamed the computer but upheld the DQ.
if you go to Friday’s W200m results, ShaCarri’s name has an “L” next to it indicating a lane infraction WARNING. She was all over that lane line, did not impede anyone, and was given a warning but allowed to run the next round.
i don’t understand why Holt wasn’t given the same technical consideration and simply given a warning.
The easing of the rules regarding lane infringements are among the competition rule and technical rule changes approved by the World Athletics Council which come into force from 1 November 2021.
Except the rules leave plenty of room for interpretation. 163.5 says you can step on or over the line and not be DQ’d as long as you don’t gain an advantage. In Holts case how do you measure his advantage? It’s pretty hard to argue that he gained anything be stepping over the line.
Read the rule again. The discretionary part of it applies to the straight not the curve.
If Holt stepped over the line at the start then back into his lane, that would be wasted motion, w no advantage gained, only disadvantage. He then proceeded to run ~807m (portions in lane 2 and 3) so probably capable of <1:44
only in track are you thrown out for stepping on a line.
it is archaic insanity.
for these types move back the offender a place. not issue a life altering decision.
It's not far from an offsides call that nullifies a goal in a tourney match. VAR is getting a lot of scrutiny in Euros / Copa. so i mean track doesn't have a monopoly on such rulings (calling off a goal can certainly be life altering)
There will be a day when a robot calls strike three in the ninth of a World Series game, that will be a hoot and a holler
Looking at the start holt almost falls over because he is so uncoordinated. But with his recent sponsorship by puma it reminds me a a favorite puma running shoe i used to you for intervals in hs/college and will look for a similar shoe in the line up. While i dont like holt I will purchase a pair of pumas bc of him
Except the rules leave plenty of room for interpretation. 163.5 says you can step on or over the line and not be DQ’d as long as you don’t gain an advantage. In Holts case how do you measure his advantage? It’s pretty hard to argue that he gained anything be stepping over the line.
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that stepping over the inside line on a turn is ALWAYS interpreted as gaining an advantage.
I think the rule is 3 steps. I'm sure someone has the energy to check that out.
