A good way to avoid this is to not run on the damn line. I don’t know how runners at this level don’t realize it’s a dumb idea to try and save every inch and put barely any daylight between their feet and the inside line. You have an entire lane to work with — why would you risk the DQ for zero advantage? If I were a coach I’d be telling my kids to run in the middle of the damn lane on the curve, especially in a qualifying heat at the national meet. Ellis took a dumb risk and unfortunately caught a stray with the seemingly unfortunate error by the LB coach, but Ellis put himself in the position unnecessarily running that close. Even in a 200 you shouldn’t be pushing that limit, let alone an 800.
If this stands (which it obviously will since it has been too long to be reversed) what stops someone from filing a protest on trumped up charges of being "cut off" for every heat any time their athlete doesn't advance? Then the officials might discover something they didn't notice and DQ someone who never would have been DQed before. So every single race will be protested now in the hopes that something might be discovered after the fact. I don't like this. (Sorry for the awful sentence construction, I'm day drinking up in here).
Yesh, I am seeing something yall ain't seeing. He is running IN lane one on the corner for multiple steps and effectively making the cut way early. Little fuzzy, I wouldn't make the dq on the video, but it sure looks like he is in 1.
Not sure if that's a typo but he definitely wasn't in 1. He starts in lane 3 not lane 2 and he is barely into lane 2 halfway down the backstretch. I could believe he's on the line but I don't think this angle is definitive.
So what are the rules for reviews. In other sports there are limitations to what is reviewable on challenges. In track is anything noticed during a review, even if it doesn't pertain to the challenge, open for DQ.
How are the challenges written up? If the coach states his runner was impeded and his runner isn't even in the race, how are the umpires not asking him if the challenge was properly written. And if not written properly, then just tossed out, too bad. Not review the race anyway and DQ some unsuspecting sap on a whim.
Very unfortunate for Mr Ellis, however the rules are the rules. Did he do it for an advantage probably but the Long Beach coach getting him DQ is very low. You know Long Beach is never getting an invite to UW ever again.
They have a judge for lane violations.
If that judge let it pass, then this should not stand.
Unless you want to retrospectively analyze every race
I think running inside the lane does grant a DQ IF the officials see it.
this would be like reviewing tape of balls and strikes after the game is over. Or if a touchdown gets called back after the game because the guy was out of bounds.
I think we have all been on the wrong side of a protest and this sucks for the athlete. If you are going to DQ a kid do it during the race
Lane violations are not analogous to balls and strikes. It would be more similar to fair/foul on home run, or perhaps missing touching a base.
happy to see lane/track violations finally being called. So many careless distance runners.
ARTICLE 1.a. Protests relating to singular matters that develop during the conduct of the meet should be made at once and shall not be later than 15 minutes after the results have been announced or posted for the section involving the protest. This applies to each separate event within a Combined Event and to the preliminary and final rounds of a field event if the results are announced and posted separately. All implicated coaches must be notified of a tendered protest or any disqualification. b. Any such protest may be immediate and oral by a competitor or a competitor’s coach in order to protect and preserve evidence used in determining an appropriately filed written protest. Any communication by the athlete that requests the preservation of the evidence shall be deemed a protest. c. The referee shall review the protest or report leading to a disqualification and shall render a decision after determining and considering available evidence. For track and field, concurrence of two referees is required when no jury of appeal is appointed. Evidence specifically excluded is all visual material, except that produced: 1) For public broadcast, public streaming or public video board presentation. 2) By an organization specifically employed for the purpose of providing video review. 3) In conjunction with officiating an event. 4) For official photo-timing. 5) As additional official video designated by the games committee before the meet. d. Results revised because of a protest or disqualification shall be posted and announced. Coaches of competitors affected by any referee’s decision shall be notified.
I think this is the relevant section. If Andy Powell's version of the events is correct, the procedure by which Ellis was disqualified seems a bit questionable regardless of his violation of the rule. I'm not a coach or a lawyer, but it seems like protests need to specify particular violations and can't just be blanket reviews of the entire race (is this what it means by "relating to singular matters"?). Rules are important, but so is procedure, and it's a bit unclear if the process went according to procedure or not.
I listened to the interview. The protest wasn't even about the lane infraction - the cited reason for the protest was something else - i think they complained Ellis cut someone off. But when they reviewed the race, they then noticed the lane violation and DQd for that. The interview is interesting b/c he questions whether a coach with no athlete in the race should even be allowed to protest and whether they can DQ for something not under protest.
So the protest was about one thing, which turned out to be a non-issue, and while looking they discovered something else and DQ'd him for that??? Double my Wowww!!!
Especially since it's kinda hard to tell from the video how egregious the lane violation was. And there is no way they had 5 different other camera angles like they do in hoops.
They have Eagle Eye - Every step of every race is in 4k super slowmo
I really hope somehow this turns out to have been a case of he wrote down the heat down.
If a coach protested a heat his guy wasn't in and had no hope of getting into the final, he should be ashamed. Seriously. Why in the world would you do that? And don't tell me it's to move your guy up from 17th to 16th. Ellis ran the first 200 in last? He gained what - 6 inches of distance?
Like seriously, why would you do that? So he can put on his resume he coached a "2nd team" All-American even though everyone knows he didn't deserve it? Just put down NCAA qualifier, Hnoorable mention all-american.
Probably a bonus in the Long Beach State contract for coaching an All American is my guess. And if runner doesn't have a NIL deal, and has eligibility left, NIL Deal becomes more valuable being an All American. In the era of NIL Deals, this kind of stuff is going to be more common. NCAA is now a bonafide minor league professional track/cross country circuit.
I still don't think the coach was right to do it. People were always going to notice and it undercuts the value he may have been trying to create. But I understand why he did it.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
UW Coach Powell's interview was actually very inaccurate. There were many protest sheets at the protest table and his claims that the wrong rule was cited is incorrect. The original protest was granted for what was written on the protest sheet. By rule of the NCAA handbook, the change must be about what is written by the coach of the institute and the rule that is being challenged. UW protested the protest stating that the wrong rule was cited and if that were correct then UW would have had a successful protest. The original protest was what the officials looked at to make their ruling. The protest was to benefit LB State runner.
UW Coach Powell's interview was actually very inaccurate. There were many protest sheets at the protest table and his claims that the wrong rule was cited is incorrect. The original protest was granted for what was written on the protest sheet. By rule of the NCAA handbook, the change must be about what is written by the coach of the institute and the rule that is being challenged. UW protested the protest stating that the wrong rule was cited and if that were correct then UW would have had a successful protest. The original protest was what the officials looked at to make their ruling. The protest was to benefit LB State runner.
