Richard Kitty DQed for 0.09 Reaction Time lashes out "PATHETIC ... STUPID RULE" vs WA

While Kitty seems unstable, this is a tough rule.

What is the margin of error of the timing system? Calibration system? Testing and verification?

I get it, it's physiologically allegedly impossible to react in under 0.100--but twitching in the blocks often sets off these things, which twitching can be an integral part of the race, and a legitimate form of strategy. To get the best start, you apply some force to the blocks--more than normal from the set position. You don't apply this force right from the set command, because you can't hold it for long...so you get set, then apply it, then react to the gun.

The FS measuring system will register your pre-pressure as a FS. Ridiculous. And that is only one of the potential problems.

Bottom line, the one FS rule is junk. Even a legit early movement could be an involuntary twitch, which could be cause to annul the start, but not to disqualify a competitor.

So much about the rule is BS. I get it, for scheduling, tv, etc.--but I would ditch the rule. I would take it back to the old rule, each athlete gets 1 free FS, and if there are 2 registered with no movement visible on replay, the athlete gets to stay in the race.

So what happened, did he FS in a final or something?

Or we could just stick with the rules as they are and not worry about the very few people who get snagged. It's like complaining about the strike zone in baseball.

The strike zone is an interesting example.

Even if you disagree with it, you still get 3 chances. There is no nuclear outcome like in track.

And what reaction time you should consider as false start?

Put 0.08 or 0.05 and you will have same discussions if someone start in 0.079 or 0.049

I think we can assume the 0.10 reaction time being the fastest humanly possible is arbitrary given it is such a nice round number. Doubtful any actual testing and data analysis came up with this number

I would change the rule.

NEW RULE - .090 - .099 - The race gets called back. No one gets DQ'd.

That way no one gets accused of a flyer, but also no one get DQ'd for a start that could, theoretically, be legit.

And it would prevent a lot of arguing, both by the sprinter on the track, and people on message boards.

Anything faster than .090 is an automatic DQ.

You are partially correct. The testing that was done to determine the fastest a human could react came up with a number around .11

It was rounded down to .10 just in case.

This is a very bad analogy you've made. You get 3 strikes per at bat and atleast 3 at bats a game. Getting called out from one or two missed missed calls also won't lose you thousands of dollars or championship medals lol. At worst you get ejected for the rest of the game and everything carries on as normal the next day. Track athletes have much more to lose from a call like this than baseball players. Think Usain bolt and devon allen. Cmon man

This is an incredibly stupid rule. Assuming one could reliably do it, why SHOULDN'T you be allowed to time the gun on your start?

I agree. The high likelihood of being DQ'd would stop this from being commonplace, but as long as you're not actually before the gun, I don't see what the problem is.

If they want everyone to start .1 second after the gun, why don't they just shoot the gun .1 second later.

Yes and if they really wanted to they could completely randomize the gun electronically. Or just switch up the starters/cadence. Given how many athletes registered between .09-.1 in Eugene it was either the coincidence of all coincidences of their studies are missing a skill that fast starters have.

Neither of your theories is correct.

What happened in Eugene is that the starting block system was calibrated incorrectly, and everyone's reaction time registered .02 seconds faster than reality.

Link?

Statistical analysis by math experts proved that the reaction times in Eugene were literally impossible.

There are several threads in letsrun about it. And the Brojos or Gault wrote an article about it.

As mentioned by others, the reaction times in Eugene were off across the board the entire meet. Compare to literally every other championship to check.

However, Kilty has been DQed for "false starting" 7 times now, all with a 0.09 reaction time. Clearly he's not magically guessing it every time and can just react quickly. A study by WA themselves with a few random Finnish athletes uncovered reactions of 0.08, and then they just did nothing about it for some reason.

As I understand, starting from Paris '24, a false start with a fast but plausible reaction time can be left up to the official's discretion as to whether to DQ or not, and the athlete can run under protest and the situation will be reviewed after. Seems like a mess compared to just making the threshold 0.08, but whatever.

If you can successfully predict and react faster than some claim “humanly possible” then reward the athlete rather than DQing them. It’s a high risk high reward scenario.

I think it should be 0.00

I think it’s stupid, too.

0.01 should be allowed.
Go ahead and guess the gun or be DQed. That’s quite a risk.

I even it should be a standard time between set and the gun.
Anticipation would be rewarded over reaction.
What’s wrong with that?