Notre Dame DMR is questionable to me

Wow, and amazingly enough, the pole does not appear to even be on the inner lane line - it is INSIDE the lane line!

Seriously, what is their problem? Are they simply inept? Do they just not know how to set up a track?

New Math wrote:

Sorry but your math is wrong as applied to this issue. You don't need to keep repeating it. It makes you look dumb.

Please elucidate. Elucidating is not accomplished by trying the include two corrections for the same issue. The issue is if the cones were placed at the right position.

There is another post about the video showing that the curb, when in place, is INSIDE the line. This raises an interesting question: When the curb is in the runner "has to" maintain a 30cm distance. Without the curb, the runner has to be 20 cm out. The lane line could be placed so that when the curb is not in place the lane line functions like any other non-curb arrangement with line being outside the curb by 10 cm. If this is the case, then putting the cones on the inside of the lane lines amounts to making the marking 5cm TOO FAR OUT, making the race LONG, not SHORT.

Do all of the posters that are going on and on about the markings certain, in the sense of having specific knowledge, that this is not the case?

There are plenty of indoor tracks that are over 300m that do NOT have railings...i.e. UK.

after reading all of the posts on this subject, I am going to call my local coach and tell that man to make sure he puts his team in the ND or Wash. meets.

But did they have a rail the year before and then, without re-surfacing or re-marking the track, pull the rail up and do they also fail to enforce running on the inner lane and do they run a last chance meet specifically to get qualifying marks for the NCAA championships? Because that's what we are talking about here.

I was watching the men's Big Ten championship on TV yesterday and noticed that the curve was removed along the home stretch straightaway without the use of cones every 10 meters. Has anybody noticed this yet?

In photographs take a look at this link from PSU:

http://www.gopsusports.com/photogallery/gallery_index.html?school=psu&sport=c-track&

Go to picture #16 and you clearly see the end of the curb. To confirm that cones were not in place that whole stretch, click on photo #13. While it's entirely appropriate to remove the curbing around the exchange zone (which I assume is why that was done), the rule is to replace the curb with cones every 10 meters if on a straight and ever 4 if on a curve.

What does this mean about the times from the Big Ten Championship?

this is not nearly as bad as what happens in the CIS. Out west in Canada there is a warm-up lane on the inside of the track - many have qualified for the CIS (canada's national university meet)on this particular track. furthermore, the CIS accept these times run on an outdoor track simply because the temperate climate of western BC prevents the need for indoor facilities!

Apparently no one has any idea how the ND track length was certified, except perhaps the ND staff. Because it was an NCAA qualifying event, and regardless of the size of the track (oversized vs. undersized), it has to be measured accurately and in compliance with the rules. The rules clearly state that if a curb is not used, then the outside edge of the cones need to be aligned with the edge of the line closest to the runner (they were not). There is also a requirement that the curb and the line are in the same position (when you take the 5cm-wide curb out, there is supposed to be a 5cm-wide line there). This is in the rules. When the curb is temporarily removed and it is replaced by a line of the same width in the same place, the cones are supposed to go on the outside edge of the line, as I stated above. That is where the 10cm difference in how the length of the track is measured comes from (i.e., it's only fair because runners naturally stay a little farther away from the curb, and the T&F world has determined that 10cm is the right distance). The 20cm or 30cm distance specified in the rules is measured from the same point, the outside edge of the line/cones or the outside edge of the curb. A runner naturally runs a longer race when there is a curb in place, so 10cm of radius (or 20cm diameter, or 0.64 meters per lap for a 320 meter track) is the correction in the measurement of the track.

Now, if this track has some special certified layout that we're all missing, and it varies from meet to meet, or year to year, then someone who knows the certified distance needs to prove it. Shouldn't ND be required to produce a certified survey to the NCAA? If the track was certified for a line, and the length of the track is based on an imaginary line 20cm out from the edge of that line (trackside), then that is fine. Then the cones should be placed according to the rule, not inside the line altogether. The video that shows the curb -inside- the line was a shock to me, and just proves that something is very wrong here. Are they running against the curb or the line? I have yet to see a layout that agrees with the rules, and I don't see any case where the runner is forced to run 20cm from the edge of a line that is properly coned, or 30cm from a curb that is in the same position as the line. Sorry guys, but some of these races were long, some were short, and maybe none were exactly what they were advertised as. Whether the 2009 race was long or short, we can't know now because someone there at ND doesn't (or does?) know what they're doing. But 18 out of 18 quals (15 autos and 3 provs) in 2 heats of one race on the same day? C'mon. For a destination, I would say this track definitely has curb appeal.

Those South Bend weasels...

In less than 24 hrs we will all know the truth by the times.

If the teams from ND either speed up or slow down significantly when compared with whether the other teams speed up or slow down that might say something. But one problem is, most of the qualifiers came off of the oversized tracks and now are running on a 200 meter track. Maybe what we'll be seeing is something more like the differential between those two venues.

Funny how Oregon and Arkansas ran DMRs consistent with their qualifying times but all the ND teams were 5-7 seconds slower. Hmmmm...

The Truth is in wrote:

all the ND teams were 5-7 seconds slower

false

the ND track must be what, 6 seconds short by your estimation?

I would say a good 6-7 sec short. I just feel bad for they guys who didn't get to run because the NCAA took so many DMR teams!!!!!!!!!!

Proof in the results:

1 Oregon 9:29.59 (FR) 10.00

2 Arkansas 9:30.31 (FR) 8.00

3 California 9:30.39 (FR) 6.00

4 Texas 9:32.77 (FR) 5.00

5 BYU 9:35.36 (FR) 4.00

6 Virginia 9:36.89 (FR) 3.00

7 Indiana 9:37.47 (FR) 2.00

8 Georgetown 9:37.50 (FR) 1.00

9 Penn State 9:37.62 (FR)

10 Oklahoma 9:38.70 (FR)

11 Virginia Tech 9:38.94 (FR)

12 UTEP 9:38.97 (FR)

13 Auburn 9:39.11 (FR)

14 UNI 9:39.37 (FR)

15 Kent State 9:42.61

16 Villanova 9:50.41

17 Wisconsin 9:50.49

18 New Mexico 9:52.43

what does FR stand for?

couldn't have anything to do with moving to a 200m track...

I hope that we can learn from this experience and institute three changes:

1. Index the over sized tracks. (I suggest .15 for 200, .3 for 400, .6 for 800, 1.2 for mile, 2.2 for 3000, and 3.8 for 5k).

2. Require a rail on the inner lane.

3. Before the season starts, require accurate measurement of tracks.

If a facility can't or won't put down a rail or verify accurate measurement of its facility, it should not be allowed to be used for purposes of qualifying to the championships.

guygonemad wrote:

what does FR stand for?

it means facility record.

uh_no wrote:

couldn't have anything to do with moving to a 200m track...

NOT AT ALL. 200meter banked track is just as fast and a flat 300meter track