Rojo: Track and field needs to join the modern world when it comes to officiating

Rojo has naive ideas of what World Athletics is really about, why they operate the way they do.

Rojo wrote:

Moving forward, the fans (and athletes) need to know if a race is under review before the athletes step off the track. The review should be done publicly like it is in other sports, whether it's the NFL or Premier League, and then announced to the crowd within a matter of minutes just like it is in the major sports leagues...

I agree to a point, but the meet should absolutely NOT be delayed for this.

Every major meet should have a smart phone app with real time results and notifications for results under review. Problem solved.

For 1500m+ races I'd love if the phone app could give real-time lap splits for runners along with their season and personal best. As a spectator context is everything when you are watching a race and you don't personally know everything about the participants.

Almost nobody cares about track races.

World Athletics can do whatever they won't, nobody will care either, except a couple of people here.

Draconian? In modern usage, there are almost no times in which the use of draconian is correct. This is not one of them .... twice!

Horse Racing has immediate and after the fact DQs. A horse can be disqualified before the race becomes official depending on the decision of the track stewards following an inquiry or objection. After that decision, the race immediately becomes official and winning bets are paid. However, there is no recourse for bettors if a horse is disqualified several weeks later by a state racing commission. Those DQs affect purse money only.

Rojo wrote:

In the NFL if pass is uncatchable, they don’t call pass interference. In track, if an infraction has zero bearing on the outcome, it similarly shouldn’t be called)

If a last place runner in the 10,000 is more than 200 meters behind the 2nd to last runner, should the last runner be allowed to just cut across the infield as long as he doesn't move up a place? His actions have zero bearing on the outcome of the race; he still finishes in last.

I agree that something needs to be done about the appeals process. Niyonsaba finding out about the DQ from the press was inexcusable. I think the same thing happened to Chelimo in the previous Olympics before he was eventually reinstated.

The rule change regarding exchange zones in the relays that went into effect a couple years ago was a good decision. Teams almost never exchange the baton too early and it made accurately judging a zone almost impossible unless you had several officials on each zone.

Rojo, there already was subjectivity and discretion by officials on the exact topic prompting this essay. Don't you remember the shortcut Farah took in London? One foot completely over the rail. Quigley also took a shortcut - a much less significant one. She was touching the line; Mo was completely over. I'm sure you remember which one was DQ'd.

Maybe you're suggesting that neither should have been, and indeed, that is consistent with how I read the new rule. However, shouldn't they both have been booted out according to the rule in effect at that time? I'm not suggesting that the old rule is superior - we probably do not disagree there. Where we do not agree is that I contend we always did see officials making the call even if their decisions were inconsistent with the written rules.

Farah was supposed to have been DQ'd. Quigley too. Isn't that what the rule at the time says? I personally prefer neither would be, so I, like you, believe the new rule is an improvement. Nevertheless, the officials broke their (IAAF/WA's) own rule for Mo. The dissimilar outcome between the 2 was unjust: the officials did indeed exercise discretion.

This happened all the time. I seem to remember Jakob taking multiple steps inside just this year. No problem. A clear foul under either the old or new rule. Schippers false started and still ran. (That was a couple years ago, but inconsistent with the rules.) Domestically, it was no better, by which I mean USATF officials either enforce or break the rules depending on subjective opinion. This was several years ago admittedly, but I'm sure you, Rojo, and many readers remember Al ducking into the tent and changing results.

I suspect the only aspects where you and I may disagree is that I believe that there always has been ruling by whim, and I don't believe more of such is an improvement. Thank you for reading.

From the article:

LetsRun.com wrote:

Moving forward, the fans (and athletes) need to know if a race is under review before the athletes step off the track. The review should be done publicly like it is in other sports, whether it’s the NFL or Premier League, and then announced to the crowd within a matter of minutes just like it is in the major sports leagues.

I agree with this but I believe that, rather than solve problems, it will just change the nature of the complaints. The current system allows coaches, national federations and even the media to lobby like crazy to get rulings overturned. This thread already has multiple examples. The general perception of whether a ruling, or overturning of a ruling, was fair is more about the athlete in question rather than the infringement. A big name will get a lot more lobbying than a third-stringer. There was a case recently of a coach threatening to pull his athlete from a race if another of his athletes was not reinstated.

Having a system like the NFL or Premier League where the official's confer and then their decision is final will remove that power from the coaches, national federations etc. I am not sure they would accept that. Actually, I am certain they would not. I think they would much prefer the status quo. The Rules problem is much like the Drugs problem. We have our rules but we also have plenty of wiggle room for exceptions. What are those exceptions? Well, we will decide what they are as and when we have to.

Agree with the post below. Actual race officials (real humans) are still making decisions and interpreting rules the way they see them. We do not have chips in shoes that sense if the shoe makes contact on a line, inside a line, etc. There are many decisions made in track that are open to a referee's discretion. One of the better things about track and field is the relatively simple black and white objectivity of the rules. You finish in a shorter amount of time, you jump higher, you throw farther than anyone else and you win. Athletes either do it or they don't. Results are objectively and accurately measured. There is no judgement based on style, form, artistic interpretation, etc. Times and distances achieved are not modified or adjusted based upon a subjective interpretation by an official. I believe it would be better if we minimize, if not eliminate (when possible), discretionary decisions by track and field referees. Fully automatic timing, measurement of wind speed, and reaction time sensors in starting blocks are examples of good improvements made in track rules where decisions made by referees were eliminated and minimized.