"he rule is in place to make sure people aren't saving distance by abusing the line."
Everyone one in that race ran over 3000m including Quigley.
And I am sure Quigley didn't run the shortest distance of all the competitors if you really added it all up since they go wide now and then.
So if she saved one inch on one step but went a meter wide in another part of the race did she really save distance?
As I read the rule, I think this is getting the analysis wrong. The analysis depends on where the step out is.The first situation is that she steps on the line on the straight.In this situation the analysis is whether any advantage is gained.The second situation is she steps on the line on the curve.In this situation the question is whether she was pushed or forced. There is not a question of advantage gained or not gained if the step was on the curve.
Shoebacca wrote:
Quigley might not have gained an advantage, but she does seem in the still shot to be trying to run on the inside of the runner in front of her. There wasn't any room, so she didn't gain an advantage, but it sure seems like she was trying to squeeze into there. I would say that she gained no advantage, but the problem with touching the line on a curve versus the straight is that you theoretically save distance by hugging the line on the curve. So even if she doesn't pass her with an obvious advantage, the rule is in place to make sure people aren't saving distance by abusing the line.
A quip about accountants is that they would rather be precisely wrong rather than roughly right. That all describes track officials. They can measure to the tiniest part of an inch whether somebody steps on a line, so they enforce that rule to the full extent. However, they can't figure out how to measure the effect of pushes and shoves, so they permit runners to barge and elbow and do things that, quite literally, affect races 10x or even 50x more than stepping on a line.
I find that foolish, but then again, I am not an accountant.
A few points to consider:
1) Rule 160.2 (Track Measurements) states:
The measurement shall be taken 0.30m outward from the kerb or, where no kerb exists on a bend (or the diversion from the track for the steeplechase water jump), 0.20m from the line marking the inside of the track.
In other words, to run a true 400m lap you have to perfectly maintain a distance, depending on the presence of a curb, seven to eleven inches away from the line marking the inside of the track. Any lap ran where the runner stays, say, two inches from the line marking the inside of the track –and this describes a lot of laps-- is already shortening the distance. Yet that’s technicality allowed by the rule. Perfectly acceptable.
So my question: where then do you draw the line? At what point does a runner violate the rule and is considered to have gained a material advantage when running a bend?
2) Is the presence of a curb a deterrent from stepping on the line marking the inside of the track? There’s a lot of mayhem coming out of the water. Is the presence of a curb a trip hazard? Because if you step on the curb that’s directly over the line marking the inside of the track on a bend, it’s loud, you may fall and technically you’re still violating of Rule 160.2.
3) Track could benefit from more of an “out of bounds†mindset. In basketball, football and tennis the playing field is defined by clear, accepted boundaries. No one argues or files a protest if Steph Curry’s heal touches the out of bounds line even so little as a quarter of an inch. Is a quarter of an inch really a material advantage? Doesn’t matter. He’s out of bounds.
she stepped on a straight line? i thought the straight lines were fine as long as you don't impede anyone's progress
gern_47 wrote:
So my question: where then do you draw the line? At what point does a runner violate the rule and is considered to have gained a material advantage when running a bend?
I would assume that you draw the line at the line.
The curbing and line are out of bounds markers. You don't see people step on the curb because you will probably twist and ankle and fall. The line needs to be treated the same way. If there was a rail there Quigley would have stepped on it and fallen.
That is how you get dq'ed
wowwowow wrote:
Video shows her stepping on the line a few times right after the water jump.
[quote]gern_47 wrote:
In other words, to run a true 400m lap you have to perfectly maintain a distance, depending on the presence of a curb, seven to eleven inches away from the line marking the inside of the track. Any lap ran where the runner stays, say, two inches from the line marking the inside of the track –and this describes a lot of laps-- is already shortening the distance. Yet that’s technicality allowed by the rule. Perfectly acceptable.
So my question: where then do you draw the line? At what point does a runner violate the rule and is considered to have gained a material advantage when running a bend?
Gaining a material advantage only applies to running on a straight. Say, a runner cuts into the infield to pass. On a curve, stepping on the line means the runner is not running the full distance -- basically cutting the course -- so that is a DQ.
No runner is going to run two inches from a curbed track because you risk injuring yourself by stepping on the curb. On a straight there is no advantage gained running two inches or 11 inches from the curb -- it's the same distance so no reason to run so close.
The reason for the measurement/rules is to ensure all runners run a MINIMUM of 400 meters/lap.