DEVON ALLEN ROBBBED. .09999?

great comparison, especially as galarraga game was a catalyst for replay review in MLB. rule change incoming?

Wasn’t there another semifinal recently in which a sprinter was allowed to compete in their race even though they had been DQ and if she made them they would have to look at her protest

It may have been womens 100h OTs.

At the very least Allen should have been able to compete. I’ve been watching T&F since Montreal 1976 and this is the worst thing ever…

Good point. On another thread a poster cited Rojo. I don't think it would work practically, but the idea may have merit. Other Poster Stated: "I really like Rojo’s idea of pushing the violator back a few feet."

While the idea of penalizing the athlete may have some merit - from a practical standpoint moving back a person's start line in the 110 (or 100) hurdles could potentially heavily impact that person's race as their step pattern would be off to the first hurdle.
How about a different type of penalty or deterrence to guessing the start - add time (justice) AFTER the race so the athlete still gets to compete (mercy).

Step 1 - Definitively determine the fastest reaction time through multiple studies with different monitoring devices with athletes in difference competitions. Increase validity and reliability.

Step 2 - If it is found, for example, the reaction time is say .083 then simply ADD time on to that person's mark at the end of the race.

For example, if the reaction time is .082 to .078, then take the thousandths difference and double it - so a .005 becomes a .01 added onto the final time. Athlete gets to run (mercy) but is penalized (justice).

If the reaction time is faster such as .077 to .073 then perhaps triple it - so a .01 becomes a .03. .072 to .068 could quadruple it - and so on. The more under the reaction time threshold the more the athlete's time is penalized post-race.

Some sensors can be more sensitive than others. It isn’t possible to manufacture every one exactly the same. There is always a margin of error.

gutted for him. even in the slow motion you cant see a false start and definitely not a discernible advantage.

Track is the only sport in the world where if you commit the slightest penalty, you aren't even allowed to compete. What a joke.

What an awful system. You could see that he wasn't off. Nor was one of the two women who was DQed in the 100 semis. (The other was, barely.)

Gritty?

And their study resulted in EXACTLY .100000. Not .097. Not .104. Exactly .100. How convenient. All the 0’s make it clearly obvious it was a lazy estimation.

After reading Twitter and these threads, this is one of the most unanimous widespread opinion I’ve ever seen. Pretty much 100% of people think this was wrong in some way. I can’t remember the last time people were that much in agreement about anything

Shut up b**^ch

I don't mind the rule. I'll take an electronic system over a human-judged one every time. Other sports have gone in the same direction (tennis line calls for instance).

Maybe the cut-off time needs to be tweeked, but that's a decision to be made with proper study and by experts - not because of American outrage on Twitter.

Considering he's going out for the NFL and his dad just died yet they would have but I like your point.

Jared Fogle. That's pretty much it.

All the athlete names on results from worldathletics.org have disappeared now

How reliable is the technology they use? Machines can and do make measurement mistakes. When the initial 110m hurdles results were televised right after the finish, Cunningham was listed in fourth even though he finished second.

Wtf is the rational for going out to the thousandth of a second for this arbitrary cutoff? What a joke

Faster RT than Coleman (0.104) in the men's 100m final.

I've never liked the absolute one false start and you're out rule. Use a buffer (of some number of milliseconds within which the first false start by the field gets a warning).