Why is the minimum response time 100 ms for athletic starts? How are false starts detected & can fast starters be incorrectly disqualified with this limit?
The DQ by the letter of the law was right but absolutely disgraceful for world athletics. Is the calibration for the sensors .001? Whats the margin of error? He lost his dad right before US trials, feel so bad for Devon.
All three disqualifications today I do not consider false starts. They have to add the human element to this rule. Neither of the three runners disqualified todays got an advantage from their “too quick” reaction.
Sorry, but you have to set that cutoff somewhere. Once the cutoff is set, enforce it. Everyone knows the rules and can plan accordingly. Not sure why people are confused or angry.
Sorry, but you have to set that cutoff somewhere. Once the cutoff is set, enforce it. Everyone knows the rules and can plan accordingly. Not sure why people are confused or angry.
there is no reason you can't have a gray zone where you go to slowed down visual evidence. this isn't hard science they are using.
I saw that Allen in the semis started in .101. So you're telling me he just heard the gun on that one perfectly, but in the final he tried to jump the gun and was .002 faster?
Doesn't pass the sniff test. A likely scenario to me is the machine's calibration is off.
Sorry, but you have to set that cutoff somewhere. Once the cutoff is set, enforce it. Everyone knows the rules and can plan accordingly. Not sure why people are confused or angry.
there is no reason you can't have a gray zone where you go to slowed down visual evidence. this isn't hard science they are using.
So you are going to look at video .1 after the gun has fired and DQ anyone who is moving? That really isn't any different but we can then argue about what counts as movement.
The high level question is what is the fastest possible reaction time and that is some what hard to measure. If you go the fastest possible is like 130ms, we already have a pretty big margin of error built in. If you think it is more like 100ms then we can debate if someone is just really good.
Sorry, but you have to set that cutoff somewhere. Once the cutoff is set, enforce it. Everyone knows the rules and can plan accordingly. Not sure why people are confused or angry.
I saw that Allen in the semis started in .101. So you're telling me he just heard the gun on that one perfectly, but in the final he tried to jump the gun and was .002 faster?
Doesn't pass the sniff test. A likely scenario to me is the machine's calibration is off.
Are you kidding? He anticipated the gun the first time, got lucky that it eas 0.101 and not less, did the same again but was under the limit. Do you seriously think the equipment is just smoke and mirrors? Seriously? By looking into it for 2 seconds and thinking about it for 20?
I saw that Allen in the semis started in .101. So you're telling me he just heard the gun on that one perfectly, but in the final he tried to jump the gun and was .002 faster?
Doesn't pass the sniff test. A likely scenario to me is the machine's calibration is off.
It's absolutely this. Remember the Olympic Trials from last year?
The rule isn't even necessary. It's something that was made up to stop Ben Johnson (before he got busted for doping) when he was he most consistent fast starter ever because he had learned to watch the starter guy and read his body language and gain a few hundreds there. Which could have just as easily been solved by putting the starter behind a screen or having his back to the runners or something.
Sprinters should be allowed to "gamble" a little to get away within the 0,000-0,100 window. It was more fun to watch back when they were.
I saw that Allen in the semis started in .101. So you're telling me he just heard the gun on that one perfectly, but in the final he tried to jump the gun and was .002 faster?
Doesn't pass the sniff test. A likely scenario to me is the machine's calibration is off.
?? Seriously? I think it is a faulty design (maybe the numer should be .080 like the IAAF study stated it could be), but it doesn't have anything to do with it being off. The rule is based on fastest perceived human reaction time. There might be hyper focused, elite athletes in the biggest moment of their careers that can respond faster. Officials have to enforce it.
I think it should be really low. 0 to .02. If you want to risk it by guessing, then you are rolling the dice. No elite athlete will aim for a guess, but it leaves room for cases like this
Sorry, but you have to set that cutoff somewhere. Once the cutoff is set, enforce it. Everyone knows the rules and can plan accordingly. Not sure why people are confused or angry.
there is no reason you can't have a gray zone where you go to slowed down visual evidence. this isn't hard science they are using.
Actually it is hard science. That's where the .10 rule came from. They did actual tests.
Now if you do you own set of scientific tests and you come up with a different scientific conclusion, please let us know.
I just don't get this. The machine doesn't seem to even have that accuracy.
I don't know the rule or what's physically possible in terms of reaction time. But measuring 0.001 s in this configuration is well within the limits of what's possible from a timing and electronics perspective. I highly doubt they system they are using doesn't have 0.001 s accuracy.
there is no reason you can't have a gray zone where you go to slowed down visual evidence. this isn't hard science they are using.
Actually it is hard science. That's where the .10 rule came from. They did actual tests.
Now if you do you own set of scientific tests and you come up with a different scientific conclusion, please let us know.
Please link to hard science that doesn’t involve the general public (random Finnish people and med students). People literally did do their own tests work actually athletes and said .08 was possible. (Already posted above)
Also, how would you possibly test this? What if you tested 100 random med-school students and said 12.8 was the fastest possible time a human could run for 100m?
I just don't get this. The machine doesn't seem to even have that accuracy.
I don't know the rule or what's physically possible in terms of reaction time. But measuring 0.001 s in this configuration is well within the limits of what's possible from a timing and electronics perspective. I highly doubt they system they are using doesn't have 0.001 s accuracy.
What about the start point for this 0.1 second window? Do we go by when the starter pulls the trigger or when it's actually possible to hear the gun? The starter is supposed be "5-10 meters in front on the inside of the track." It takes the sound of the gun 0.029 seconds to travel 10 meters. This is even fractions longer in lane 8. What if the runner sees the guy pull the trigger and reacts?
Best solution is for the 0.1 second limit to trigger a video review. They would have found only one false start tonight on review and two runners would have been reinstated.
