Just watched Tobi Amusan set the world record in the 100m hurdles. Not impressed at all, but I would have been had the timer on screen been correct (11.7 when she crossed the line)
Why does the timer have to be so ridiculously misleading?
Just watched Tobi Amusan set the world record in the 100m hurdles. Not impressed at all, but I would have been had the timer on screen been correct (11.7 when she crossed the line)
Why does the timer have to be so ridiculously misleading?
Because you don't understand timing in the sport. What you seen on the screen is not the result. What makes the result "FAT" is the examination of the photo generated by the high speed finishline camera.
Just watched Tobi Amusan set the world record in the 100m hurdles. Not impressed at all, but I would have been had the timer on screen been correct (11.7 when she crossed the line)
Why does the timer have to be so ridiculously misleading?
Because you don't understand timing in the sport. What you seen on the screen is not the result. What makes the result "FAT" is the examination of the photo generated by the high speed finishline camera.
So why have the on-screen timer at all when it's so ridiculously inaccurate?
Because you don't understand timing in the sport. What you seen on the screen is not the result. What makes the result "FAT" is the examination of the photo generated by the high speed finishline camera.
So why have the on-screen timer at all when it's so ridiculously inaccurate?
Because the onscreen time is good enough for government work. Most important of all, your claim that the on-screen time is "ridiculously inaccurate" is itself ridiculously inaccurate.
Who knows that the issue there was. In most races, probably 95%, the auto vs the FAT is within a couple 100ths. But the FAT time is the only one that counts.
So why have the on-screen timer at all when it's so ridiculously inaccurate?
Because the onscreen time is good enough for government work. Most important of all, your claim that the on-screen time is "ridiculously inaccurate" is itself ridiculously inaccurate.
Delusional if you think this. I can supply for you dozens of races, and even high-stakes races, where the timer is off by more than a tenth of a second. If the on-screen timer is to be taken seriously, then Usain Bolt really ran 18.9 and 9.4, or thereabouts.
So, I have every right to complain that they do something to get that sh*t fixed.
Because the onscreen time is good enough for government work. Most important of all, your claim that the on-screen time is "ridiculously inaccurate" is itself ridiculously inaccurate.
Delusional if you think this. I can supply for you dozens of races, and even high-stakes races, where the timer is off by more than a tenth of a second. If the on-screen timer is to be taken seriously, then Usain Bolt really ran 18.9 and 9.4, or thereabouts.
So, I have every right to complain that they do something to get that sh*t fixed.
There is nothing that needs to be fixed. The photo is the only thing that counts. Complain all you want, nothing needs to be fixed.
Delusional if you think this. I can supply for you dozens of races, and even high-stakes races, where the timer is off by more than a tenth of a second. If the on-screen timer is to be taken seriously, then Usain Bolt really ran 18.9 and 9.4, or thereabouts.
So, I have every right to complain that they do something to get that sh*t fixed.
There is nothing that needs to be fixed. The photo is the only thing that counts. Complain all you want, nothing needs to be fixed.
You said the on-screen timer exists for "government work." Want to elaborate on what you mean by this? Because it seems pretty clear to me that the timer is there for live audiences, and if that's the case, they definitely should improve it.
There is nothing that needs to be fixed. The photo is the only thing that counts. Complain all you want, nothing needs to be fixed.
You said the on-screen timer exists for "government work." Want to elaborate on what you mean by this? Because it seems pretty clear to me that the timer is there for live audiences, and if that's the case, they definitely should improve it.
It's an idiom. "Good enough for government work."
There is nothing to improve about auto-timing. The high-speed photo IS the improvement.
You said the on-screen timer exists for "government work." Want to elaborate on what you mean by this? Because it seems pretty clear to me that the timer is there for live audiences, and if that's the case, they definitely should improve it.
It's an idiom. "Good enough for government work."
There is nothing to improve about auto-timing. The high-speed photo IS the improvement.
So explain why the on-screen timer is even there at all if it won't yield accurate timings? Take your idioms elsewhere.
There is nothing to improve about auto-timing. The high-speed photo IS the improvement.
So explain why the on-screen timer is even there at all if it won't yield accurate timings? Take your idioms elsewhere.
My goodness you're stubborn. The on-screen times add to the experience of spectating. You don't really want to wait around until the official results are determined do you?
So explain why the on-screen timer is even there at all if it won't yield accurate timings? Take your idioms elsewhere.
My goodness you're stubborn. The on-screen times add to the experience of spectating. You don't really want to wait around until the official results are determined do you?
Official results are determined in like 30 seconds or less, and it's better than being misled into believing that a given athlete ran a world record time.