What I see with many of you is if you don’t like the result of a rule being enforced, you don’t want it enforced. This would be a more honest approach if you would acknowledge that this is at the core of the controversy for you. Honesty is important. I do see your points and would have been fine if the athlete was permitted to compete. But let us be honest.
It is always about fairness. If a rule is enforced inconsistently or incorrectly, then fairness goes out the window. In this case, it was an active lineup with people bobbing and flinching. In other races I have seen the starter stand them up and get them to calm down. But here, they let it go on until one runner's brain synapse snapped and he took a step before the gun. They should have issued a warning to the entire field because of all the movement, and let the false start go.
Fairness is the only thing that makes sports worth our time.
This.
No way should we be throwing someone out of D3 nationals. It's potentially a lifetime race for them. I feel like the long holds are not helping things. The 110 hurdles in Rabat had a ton of false starts because of crowd noise/hearing issues/long holds. That's an event where false starts obviously matter. We're talking about a 5k & about an athlete who probably ties a lot of their college experience to d3 racing. The sport shouldn't be in the business of stepping in to cause problems/make headlines. We don't talk about this if everyone is just sent back & the race goes off.
The question we should be asking is why would someone false start a 5K?!
I have seen it several times, they just are ready to go so they take a step without thinking.
In one small school regular season meet, the favorite was going to win by at least 40 seconds in the 3,200. He had no reason to get a fast start, but he took that same false step, he didn't even know why he did it. Because it was an inconsequential meet, the starter just let him back up and fired the gun.
Again, I think it goes back to the starting procedure. They should have three commands so the runners have a chance to get on balance and make sure they are in the right space before they have to get set.
In one small school regular season meet, the favorite was going to win by at least 40 seconds in the 3,200. He had no reason to get a fast start, but he took that same false step, he didn't even know why he did it. Because it was an inconsequential meet, the starter just let him back up and fired the gun.
This isn’t the ‘85 Oak Harbor Invitational, it’s a NCAA championship meet. Basic rules should be enforced.
The but it's a rule, it must be enforced crowd is small minded and unable to accommodate nuance in life, so they advocate for ridiculous outcomes because their pea brains can't handle thinking beyond yes sir, no sir. Sad.
This is a very close call IMO. It doesn’t look like he lost his balance, he almost definitely intended to take the step. If he lost his balance, the protocol would be to “save the runner” and tell them to stand up before he completely fell. That wasn’t possible here, so a false start is a reasonable call. Though I’ve never called a false start in a distance race, this might be the very rare instance where it’s just impossible to avoid. The rule is clear; a false start is a red card.
That being said, you might be able to give him a yellow card/warning here for “disobeying the starter” instead of a false start. It’s rarely done because it’s not explicitly mentioned in the rule book, but it can be done when an athlete isn’t steady but is not “commencing the motion of the start” (in rule book terms). I’d probably try to give the yellow here if I were the starter, but I support the red card here.
There is literally no guidance in the false start rule for how it applies to distance races in any of the rule books. That is part of the problem: it’s so rare that none of the rules committees have addressed it in any official training. Whatever you do, don’t blame the starter for the call here. It’s a tough situation and he made a subjective call in the moment without any replay available.
If you want to learn about the normal starter guidance, see this link:
This is a very close call IMO. It doesn’t look like he lost his balance, he almost definitely intended to take the step. If he lost his balance, the protocol would be to “save the runner” and tell them to stand up before he completely fell. That wasn’t possible here, so a false start is a reasonable call. Though I’ve never called a false start in a distance race, this might be the very rare instance where it’s just impossible to avoid. The rule is clear; a false start is a red card.
That being said, you might be able to give him a yellow card/warning here for “disobeying the starter” instead of a false start. It’s rarely done because it’s not explicitly mentioned in the rule book, but it can be done when an athlete isn’t steady but is not “commencing the motion of the start” (in rule book terms). I’d probably try to give the yellow here if I were the starter, but I support the red card here.
There is literally no guidance in the false start rule for how it applies to distance races in any of the rule books. That is part of the problem: it’s so rare that none of the rules committees have addressed it in any official training. Whatever you do, don’t blame the starter for the call here. It’s a tough situation and he made a subjective call in the moment without any replay available.
If you want to learn about the normal starter guidance, see this link:
This is a very close call IMO. It doesn’t look like he lost his balance, he almost definitely intended to take the step. If he lost his balance, the protocol would be to “save the runner” and tell them to stand up before he completely fell. That wasn’t possible here, so a false start is a reasonable call. Though I’ve never called a false start in a distance race, this might be the very rare instance where it’s just impossible to avoid. The rule is clear; a false start is a red card.
That being said, you might be able to give him a yellow card/warning here for “disobeying the starter” instead of a false start. It’s rarely done because it’s not explicitly mentioned in the rule book, but it can be done when an athlete isn’t steady but is not “commencing the motion of the start” (in rule book terms). I’d probably try to give the yellow here if I were the starter, but I support the red card here.
There is literally no guidance in the false start rule for how it applies to distance races in any of the rule books. That is part of the problem: it’s so rare that none of the rules committees have addressed it in any official training. Whatever you do, don’t blame the starter for the call here. It’s a tough situation and he made a subjective call in the moment without any replay available.
If you want to learn about the normal starter guidance, see this link:
It is hard to determine someone else's intention. I doubt he intended to get a jump on the field in a distance race, although being in lane 1 can be dangerous if people cut in quickly, so he surely was thinking about getting out fast.
I maintain that this was just a brain synapse firing at the wrong time, brought on by the squirrely lineup. The guy next to him flinched at the same time, which may have led him to take the step instead of just flinching himself.
Because of the movement on the line, I don't think it was a fair start and they should have given him a second chance, with instruction to the rest of the field not to move around at the line.
This is a very close call IMO. It doesn’t look like he lost his balance, he almost definitely intended to take the step. If he lost his balance, the protocol would be to “save the runner” and tell them to stand up before he completely fell. That wasn’t possible here, so a false start is a reasonable call. Though I’ve never called a false start in a distance race, this might be the very rare instance where it’s just impossible to avoid. The rule is clear; a false start is a red card.
That being said, you might be able to give him a yellow card/warning here for “disobeying the starter” instead of a false start. It’s rarely done because it’s not explicitly mentioned in the rule book, but it can be done when an athlete isn’t steady but is not “commencing the motion of the start” (in rule book terms). I’d probably try to give the yellow here if I were the starter, but I support the red card here.
There is literally no guidance in the false start rule for how it applies to distance races in any of the rule books. That is part of the problem: it’s so rare that none of the rules committees have addressed it in any official training. Whatever you do, don’t blame the starter for the call here. It’s a tough situation and he made a subjective call in the moment without any replay available.
If you want to learn about the normal starter guidance, see this link:
Being that you wrote something intelligent, and this being LetsRun, you can plan to get down votes (as will I for saying so).
I will admit that, while I would prefer it be a warning and that he would have been allowed to run, when I watched the video I was pretty shocked by how aggressive his step forward was. It was not a loss of balance, and the only conclusion was that he was starting to run (he jumped the gun).
If the motive was to get an advantage over the rest of the field (ie., get to the front right away) by getting a rolling start with the crack of the gun, then it should be a DQ. But only he knows if that was his intent.
There is literally no guidance in the false start rule for how it applies to distance races in any of the rule books. That is part of the problem: it’s so rare that none of the rules committees have addressed it in any official training. Whatever you do, don’t blame the starter for the call here.
if there is no guidance for how it applies, and it's up to the starterto decide when/how to enforce a rule. and so they chose to enforce a rule not specifically crafted for distance race... imo that makes it their fault and a big error of judgement. it's freaking D3 and a 5k?
There is literally no guidance in the false start rule for how it applies to distance races in any of the rule books. That is part of the problem: it’s so rare that none of the rules committees have addressed it in any official training. Whatever you do, don’t blame the starter for the call here.
if there is no guidance for how it applies, and it's up to the starterto decide when/how to enforce a rule. and so they chose to enforce a rule not specifically crafted for distance race... imo that makes it their fault and a big error of judgement. it's freaking D3 and a 5k?
That is NOT what all he said. What he said was that a false start is a DQ. He said the rule was clear.
Excessive appeals to the letter of the law suggests an early stage of moral development according to Kohlberg. This level of development is appropriate for children aged 8-13. By adulthood, one should understand that morality and ethicality transcend written laws. The final stages of moral development are based on social contract and principle of the law. Those who call for unconditional DQ in this case have the moral development of pre-teens. Us adults can see that there is no moral or ethical standing to disqualify this athlete.
Excessive appeals to the letter of the law suggests an early stage of moral development according to Kohlberg. This level of development is appropriate for children aged 8-13. By adulthood, one should understand that morality and ethicality transcend written laws. The final stages of moral development are based on social contract and principle of the law. Those who call for unconditional DQ in this case have the moral development of pre-teens. Us adults can see that there is no moral or ethical standing to disqualify this athlete.
Actually those with the highest IQs can see that most of you are driven by your emotions . So you do not want this athlete disqualified. Change the rule. Otherwise you just appear to be crybabies who cannot stomach reality.
Excessive appeals to the letter of the law suggests an early stage of moral development according to Kohlberg. This level of development is appropriate for children aged 8-13. By adulthood, one should understand that morality and ethicality transcend written laws. The final stages of moral development are based on social contract and principle of the law. Those who call for unconditional DQ in this case have the moral development of pre-teens. Us adults can see that there is no moral or ethical standing to disqualify this athlete.
While I generally agree with you, let's look at this through another lens.
Do we train and employ officials to do the hard job of making decisions based on their morals and ethics? And if so, to what end? Are they welcome to apply their morals to the case of the 5,000-meter favorite who jumps the gun, as evenly as to the qualifier with virtually no shot at placing, and do they also have the luxury of making decisions about jumping the gun in the 100 meters? And if someone jumps the gun twice in the 100 can they invoke ethical reasoning to allow him to stay in the race?
Or do we train and employ officials to do the hard job of ensuring fairness for all, to apply the rules as they are written in all cases? To be consistent, so we know there will be no favoritism?
If this athlete was allowed to run and it changed the outcome of the team standings, literally changing the winning team, would that not have been an unethical application of an individual standard or sense of morals? Wouldn't the second-place team have every right to claim that setting aside the rules on a whim was unethical?
I'll reduce it to this:
When you train and employ officials, do you expect them to uphold the rules or to make personal decisions about which to apply and when, based on their personal moral compass?
Excessive appeals to the letter of the law suggests an early stage of moral development according to Kohlberg. This level of development is appropriate for children aged 8-13. By adulthood, one should understand that morality and ethicality transcend written laws. The final stages of moral development are based on social contract and principle of the law. Those who call for unconditional DQ in this case have the moral development of pre-teens. Us adults can see that there is no moral or ethical standing to disqualify this athlete.
While I generally agree with you, let's look at this through another lens.
Do we train and employ officials to do the hard job of making decisions based on their morals and ethics? And if so, to what end? Are they welcome to apply their morals to the case of the 5,000-meter favorite who jumps the gun, as evenly as to the qualifier with virtually no shot at placing, and do they also have the luxury of making decisions about jumping the gun in the 100 meters? And if someone jumps the gun twice in the 100 can they invoke ethical reasoning to allow him to stay in the race?
Or do we train and employ officials to do the hard job of ensuring fairness for all, to apply the rules as they are written in all cases? To be consistent, so we know there will be no favoritism?
If this athlete was allowed to run and it changed the outcome of the team standings, literally changing the winning team, would that not have been an unethical application of an individual standard or sense of morals? Wouldn't the second-place team have every right to claim that setting aside the rules on a whim was unethical?
I'll reduce it to this:
When you train and employ officials, do you expect them to uphold the rules or to make personal decisions about which to apply and when, based on their personal moral compass?