Eric Holt DQ

I hate to see it because I root for the underdog and he has been keeping at it through very difficult circumstances without a contract and doing great recently, but Holt appears to have lost his balance at the start and taken some steps (who know how many since the camera shifts away too soon to tell) on the lane inside of him, not outside, so he was dq'd by standard dq rules, since he necessarily ran less on that first turn. Of course, in the grand scheme of the race, it probably hurt him more than helped him, since he knew he might be dq'd and he would have had to correct his motion twice at that point, first to get back into lane 9 and then back to the left to stay in lane 9. You'd have to assess it if you considered clemency by whether it really helped him--which it likely did not--and whether you advanced people in similar situations in the past.

Mo Farah was reinstated at World's in the 5000m when he took a couple steps on the infield, but it was judged not to be his fault. Same thing happened to Paul Chelimo when he won, then lost, then won Olympic silver. Bernard Lagat was moved up to bronze with the disqualifications of Chelimo and Mo Ahmed, but then moved back to fifth (Edris's dq stuck). Lagat was very unhappy that they were dq'd and very happy when Chelimo was restored to silver.

army.mil

Soldier takes Olympic silver after disqualification is overturned

RIO DE JANEIRO -- Spc. Paul Chelimo relied on the strength he developed as a Soldier to get through the men's 5,000-meter run at the Rio Olympic Games, where he eventually claimed the silver medal.On the way to the medal race...

Open link

azcentral.com

Tucson's Bernard Lagat 5th in 5,000-meter race after disqualified runners reinstated

@azcentral

RIO DE JANEIRO – 41-year-old Bernard Lagat nearly became the oldest U.Sman to win an Olympic track medal.

Open link

I was wrong about Mo. He stepped off the track onto the infield on the last lap of the 10000m once but was not disqualified as they judged he wasn't at fault (they blame William Tanui in the thread below).

If you don't like the rule, change it. If you are going to compete, you compete within the rules as given. Seems pretty simple to me. Otherwise, why have the rule in the first place. Just let them run wherever they want? Come on. Hell, guys are called out on strikes when the pitch is not in the strike zone. Life goes on.

I guess some people would want to change the rules on the fly, just to suit their purpose of "being fair". Since 23 other guys didn't step over the line, I would guess it was fair to call a foul.

"only in track are you thrown out for stepping on a line"

Track races are based on running a specific distance (and that distance is measured 20cm from the actual line). So by running on the line you're actually "cheating" and running short. What's the point of having a line if you're not going to enforce anything from it??

As far as the official DQ protocol. They have camera's all around the track specifically for lane violations/interference protests. I guarantee that if there was a protest there's AT LEAST 2 camera angles around the turn that confirmed he made more than 1 step on the line.

"for these types move back the offender a place. not issue a life altering decision."

Everyone else in the 800m heats were able to stay off the line on the turns. It's not hard to avoid doing it, so why do we need to baby people that can't follow a simple rule??

over/under 9.5 students you reported to the hall monitor. how good did tattling on those kids make you feel? moron

You are both wrong! The rule says that in a race with lanes, a runner on a turn cannot be DQed for touching the inside lane once:

163.5: Unless a material advantage has been gained...a competitor shall not be disqualified if he:
(d) In all races run in lanes, touches once the line on their left...on a bend...

Unfair. That gross 200m runner didn't get DQ'd for stepping on the line.

They talked about this with Sha'carri's semi. Per the rules, she touched the lane once during the SF, so she got a warning, and if she would have touched it again during the final, she'd be DQ'd. Some people thought it affected her 200 final as she was actively thinking about it and trying not to touch the line on the turn. They probably DQ'd Holt for multiple steps on the line in the 800.

"...some people". Sure. Anything to excuse the wanna-be gangstah.

Obviously you know nothing about sprinting. She almost jumped to the right - outside of her lane - after her start to avoid running on the her inside line and that surely cost her .10 sec. Watch the race ("wanna-be-gangstah"?, check your racism at the door). Den may be large, but your brain is very small.

Umpire here, not working the meet. Have done OT, WC

Brazier was DQ’d several times for the exact same thing, once at NCAA championships. Later he won Indoor Nats, went to Birmingham for Worlds, and was DQ’d there. It’s a thing.

Damned shame. I’ve met Holt, good kid, great that Puma picked him up, incredible story of a guy who went all in. And none of that matters. Video review can pretty much read the date of a quarter sitting trackside, and referees are cold in their indifference to the runner’s identity. They go by the rule book.

Maybe Puma can do a Dan/Dave kinda campaign and get some mileage out of this. Like my buddy said, the 800m has collected souls this Olympic Trials.

Many such cases! Just another instance of loony lying libs rigging the system against hard working pro-Trump Americans! Unfair!

I am gonna throw a question to you then - honest one here (FTR I have also been an NCAA official and Umpire but not a starter). Now they did not broadcast the line in that first 50 or so - so I cannot see that. But what I do see in the coverage is that Holt was very unsteady at set almost fell over as the gun went off - question one should officials have seen him not set and called them off the line and question 2 would he have anything to stand on in that situation. Thanks!

above post was in reference to this post... Thanks again

Lots of ambiguities in the rule book.

The FS rule has language stating an ‘obvious’ advantage gained. The wording is stupid and raises plenty of questions.