For more of CITIUS MAG's coverage from the 2022 World Athletics Championships We're doing a daily show, CITIUS MAG LIVE at Worlds and a podcast called CHAMPS...
We have to remember what sprinting was like before the rules; lots of false starts and delayed meets. Terrible for both the athletes and the spectators, and the networks especially hated it. This may seem unfair, but we're always going to have to draw a line somewhere.
I feel bad for Devon but everyone competes under the same rules.
But that's why the 0.100 rule was in place, to stop people trying to guess. Because everyone was having a go with their free-roll and we were seeing loads of false starts.
Now that it's 'one and done', why not let people roll the dice? Most are going to wait in the blocks anyway.
what's the margin of error on these sensors, anyway? Probably more than 1/1000 of a second.
Machines have 0 margin of error. That is why we trust and love the science bro.
But this is not true - the Hayward blocks have been notoriously over sensitive causing a number of races to be restarted and athletes given a warning. Why they didn’t fix them before worlds and decide to give him a warning is the most horrible thing I can’t seem to get over
Rule 16.6 When a World Athletics certified Start Information System is in use, the Starter and/or an assigned Recaller shall wear headphones in order to clearly hear the acoustic signal emitted when the System indicates a possible false start (i.e. when the reaction time is less than 0.100 second). As soon as the Starter and/or assigned Recaller hears the acoustic signal, and if the gun was fired, there shall be a recall and the Starter shall immediately examine the reaction times and other available information from the Start Information System in order to confirm which, if any, athlete(s) is/are responsible for the recall. Note: When a World Athletics certified Start Information System is in operation, the evidence of this equipment shall be used as a resource by the relevant officials to assist in making a correct decision.
That is interesting, and does seem open to interpretation. Perhaps they felt obliged to do same for all three Dq.
I don’t find it ambiguous at all. It doesn’t answer the question of whether Devon Allen should have been disqualified, but it clearly states that the “relevant officials” are empowered to make a “correct decision,” and that they shall use the system to “assist” them. When the relevant official just points to the screen and says “there’s nothing I can do,” that is imply incorrect.
Doha - Avg RT 155.5ms, 3 under 115ms Eugene - Avg RT 133.1ms, 25 under 115ms
With 170+ samples in each population, a t-test suggests that the chance of this happening randomly is 2.86*10^-21. Like...atoms in the universe type of improbability.
Devon's RT of 99ms is just under 2 standard deviations better than average (1.98 to be exact). A Z-score of 1.98 equates to a percentile of 97.6. The data appears fairly normally distributed, which means that we can reasonably expect about 1 in 42 athletes to be (falsely) disqualified based on the performance of the population as a whole. Obviously we can't have a system that just arbitrarily disqualifies the best 2%, but it seems that's what we're working with.
The next fun thing will be to see how the 200m RTs compare. If we end up back in the 150ms range it'll be another 1 in a million (or billion or whatever depending on the actual number) situation and we'll be able to assess whether officials have quietly attempted to remedy the problem without admitting it ever existed
Doha - Avg RT 155.5ms, 3 under 115ms Eugene - Avg RT 133.1ms, 25 under 115ms
With 170+ samples in each population, a t-test suggests that the chance of this happening randomly is 2.86*10^-21. Like...atoms in the universe type of improbability.
Devon's RT of 99ms is just under 2 standard deviations better than average (1.98 to be exact). A Z-score of 1.98 equates to a percentile of 97.6. The data appears fairly normally distributed, which means that we can reasonably expect about 1 in 42 athletes to be (falsely) disqualified based on the performance of the population as a whole. Obviously we can't have a system that just arbitrarily disqualifies the best 2%, but it seems that's what we're working with.
The next fun thing will be to see how the 200m RTs compare. If we end up back in the 150ms range it'll be another 1 in a million (or billion or whatever depending on the actual number) situation and we'll be able to assess whether officials have quietly attempted to remedy the problem without admitting it ever existed
Can you think of any other reason why this can possibly be the case other than clear technological or mechanical error? This certainly seems like one of those things that we can draw reasonable assumptions based simply on the data. Every other explanation I can think of seems incredibly improbable.
Doha - Avg RT 155.5ms, 3 under 115ms Eugene - Avg RT 133.1ms, 25 under 115ms
With 170+ samples in each population, a t-test suggests that the chance of this happening randomly is 2.86*10^-21. Like...atoms in the universe type of improbability.
Devon's RT of 99ms is just under 2 standard deviations better than average (1.98 to be exact). A Z-score of 1.98 equates to a percentile of 97.6. The data appears fairly normally distributed, which means that we can reasonably expect about 1 in 42 athletes to be (falsely) disqualified based on the performance of the population as a whole. Obviously we can't have a system that just arbitrarily disqualifies the best 2%, but it seems that's what we're working with.
The next fun thing will be to see how the 200m RTs compare. If we end up back in the 150ms range it'll be another 1 in a million (or billion or whatever depending on the actual number) situation and we'll be able to assess whether officials have quietly attempted to remedy the problem without admitting it ever existed
Timing..., you would be able to correct me here but to elaborate on the conventions gaining meaning from histograms, it is my understanding that if the sample size of both datasets are significant enough, and it is your base understanding that you are comparing two equal datasets (i.e. elite, comparable event distances, final rounds etc...), but the resulting histogram plot produces two distinct normal distribution curves, then that strongly suggests that there are variables not being taken into account, meaning something is different between the two data sets. So unless there are a more reasonable variables not being taken into account (maybe something like weather) that would create the difference, there are high odds that the variable may be related to something like (sound system / acoustics, timing measurement system, etc...).
A rules a rule, the other athletes in the meet throughout the events followed it so he has to follow it as well. No clue why this is even up for discussion, cant just change rules mid meet as we see fit. Sounds like we are arguing a rule that dq'd an athlete for something that gave them no competitive advantage. Hmmm where have I heard that before?
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.
Step two: Sure, and let's add the centimeters that LJ/TJ take off behind the board, and let's add the centimeters by which HJ/PV cleanly clear the bar. Cripes, doesn't anyone on the World Famous Message Board read the starting rules?
With respect to Hurdles400m, you are missing the point. The contexts of the jumps and the start of a sprint are different.
In the LL/TJ, for example, if a person goes over the line and scratches they have at least two more chances. And if they jump 20cm behind the board they've "penalized" their own performance, but they have at least 3 attempts to "get it right" and 6 if they advance to finals. Thats one part of the technical aspect of those events that are unique.
With a sprint start it isn't practical to provide 3 attempts (or 6) per athlete to "get it right" so a different rule to balance justice/mercy needs application.
This is honestly one of the most unbelievable things I've seen in track and field and you couldn't write it any worse. Allen, the U of O hero, possibly his final race before the NFL, on the back of his family tragedy and then get's DQ'd by the smallest numerical margin possible. I mean of all people - simply unreal.
But as I was watching them deliberate on this I was saying to myself there is simply no way they can let him run after DQ'ing Alfred in the womens 100 - for obvious reasons. Based on their rules they had to do this - they left themselves no option. Couple of thoughts that pertain to all the DQ's yesterday.
Rules like these (with limits/thresholds etc) are rarely perfect and sometimes you need extreme cases to highlight this. Allen does not leave those blocks faster than anyone else - to the eye it doesn't even look like he got the best start. Could his foot have released pressure on the block pad enough at 0.099 seconds without him actually propelling himself "early" - yes, absolutely. I wouldn't bet against this incident changing things - this was pretty horrific and it's awful for the Allen first and foremost and then for the sport. It was bad enough that Parchment put himself out, but then to have a world final with on 6 people thanks to DQ'ing a potential winner thanks to a 0.001 second starting violation? Ridiculous.
How to fix this overnight?
Keep the damn reaction time info to yourselves. Because once you broadcast it and make it public you essentially tie yourself into the accountability of upholding it. Common sense could have prevailed yesterday and Alfred and Allen both could have run - they could have simply said it was a malfunction but after showing that technically it wasn't they have no choice. There needs to be some wiggle room/room for nuance on this because there clearly has to be a margin of error to account for potential malfunction, unobvious occurrences. Last night that footage could have been reviewed and a human decision made on the fact that there was no evidence that Allen left those blocks faster than anyone else in the field.
I'm still completely stunned about what happened. The worst case for Allen and the sport and we missed out on potentially one of the great stories in the history of track and field as only 13.03 got the job done and Allen was definitely capable of that.
It isn't a science rule so much as a statistics rule. What was the sample size to set this limit? That's the first problem. How was <.1 considered an outlier? Pretty sure it is not.
Completely reasonable to round up in this case. How many 9s do you need to see after the zero before you call it .1?
Absolutely sure the decision was wrong.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that 0.999* is, mathematically speaking, exactly the same as 1.0.
You must have been reading a new Woke math book, because throughout the history of numbers, 0.999 has never been "exactly the same as 1.0."
Rule 16.6 When a World Athletics certified Start Information System is in use, the Starter and/or an assigned Recaller shall wear headphones in order to clearly hear the acoustic signal emitted when the System indicates a possible false start (i.e. when the reaction time is less than 0.100 second). As soon as the Starter and/or assigned Recaller hears the acoustic signal, and if the gun was fired, there shall be a recall and the Starter shall immediately examine the reaction times and other available information from the Start Information System in order to confirm which, if any, athlete(s) is/are responsible for the recall. Note: When a World Athletics certified Start Information System is in operation, the evidence of this equipment shall be used as a resource by the relevant officials to assist in making a correct decision.
That is interesting, and does seem open to interpretation. Perhaps they felt obliged to do same for all three Dq.
I don’t find it ambiguous at all. It doesn’t answer the question of whether Devon Allen should have been disqualified, but it clearly states that the “relevant officials” are empowered to make a “correct decision,” and that they shall use the system to “assist” them. When the relevant official just points to the screen and says “there’s nothing I can do,” that is imply incorrect.
I agree with you 100% but how many of these officials do you think know this and what this specifically means. The easy option here is to just go with the numbers as they did and they backed themselves into a corner on it with the other DQ's - especially the one from the womens 100m semi. After that there was no way they could do an about face and let Allen run - especially as what Allen did (even in going over to plead his case) was a carbon copy of Julien Alfred only 2 hours earlier. It was lazy and uninformed officiating at it's finest but the precedent was set and they had to uphold it. Ugh.
It isn't a science rule so much as a statistics rule. What was the sample size to set this limit? That's the first problem. How was <.1 considered an outlier? Pretty sure it is not.
Completely reasonable to round up in this case. How many 9s do you need to see after the zero before you call it .1?
Absolutely sure the decision was wrong.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that 0.999* is, mathematically speaking, exactly the same as 1.0.
You are correct. 0.999... = 1, however that's only true when the decimal representation of the number we are describing is represented with a never-ending sequence of 9s. In the case of a reaction time, the sequence ends, and is therefore not equal to 1.
If Devon Allen ran a race and his time was xx.09999, his time would get rounded up to xx.10?
Why didn't the IAAF round up Allen's reaction just the same?
The automatic reaction time false start is a horrible rule. If the starter doesn't see the false start, it doesn't happen, in my book. This ridiculous rule also took Tynia Gaither out of the women's 100m semis.
A rules a rule, the other athletes in the meet throughout the events followed it so he has to follow it as well. No clue why this is even up for discussion, cant just change rules mid meet as we see fit. Sounds like we are arguing a rule that dq'd an athlete for something that gave them no competitive advantage. Hmmm where have I heard that before?
90% of the people in this thread are arguing exactly that - the rules should be changed in the middle of a track meet to account for an adverse ruling on a runner everyone seems to favor. Some extremely childish people here.
I have to say, I have been in, or watching Track Meets for over 49 years. I fully understand that notion of "too fast" a reaction time. But I watched this race 5 times last night and 10 today, and I cannot pick up a false start, sorry , if I am just that stupid. It really was a shame, when we become so dependent on technology that what seems logical is not.........hmm...I always love that they run the race, put auto time UP and it is almost always rounded down? How is that again? I guess I am that stupid..LOL
I have to say, I have been in, or watching Track Meets for over 49 years. I fully understand that notion of "too fast" a reaction time. But I watched this race 5 times last night and 10 today, and I cannot pick up a false start,
You couldn't pick up the false start because he didn't false start. It was an error with Eugene's reaction timing system. Everyone's reaction times in Eugene are .02 lower than they are supposed to be.
If Devon Allen ran a race and his time was xx.09999, his time would get rounded up to xx.10?
Why didn't the IAAF round up Allen's reaction just the same?
The automatic reaction time false start is a horrible rule. If the starter doesn't see the false start, it doesn't happen, in my book. This ridiculous rule also took Tynia Gaither out of the women's 100m semis.
F you IAAF!
Agreed but let's be honest...those old starters can hardly see as is. Nice the sport is giving the officials something to do in retirement though. Nothing like abusing power time and time again while forgetting people are there for the athletes not officials.