exactly the same time?

hurdlergirl wrote:if 2 runners run exactly the same time in a hand timed race.Do/should one of them be declared the winner or should they share first place?

a) Do you consider "run exactly the same time" as being different from "run the same time?"

b) If there are no rules...(must not be since you are asking)

I've seen it decided by:

a) coin flip for the sake of the medal (the points were split evenly).

b) call it a tie (by rules of the meet).

d) judges' decision (if the meet was big enough to get a majority opinion).

If there are two times in different heats that are identicle, the runner from the faster heat takes the place. If its FAT timing as most big meets and even some duels are these days, then they get down to thousands of a second, so chances are they'll figure out the winner. I've twice seen an apparent tie where officials just pick a winner though.

in such cases first place is always awarded to the runner with the most even sized calves. sorry

Times do not matter. The timer who is designated to time first place declares the winner. If he/she said that lane #3 won the race, then lane #3 won the race, even if lane #5 has a faster time.

Handheld times are very inaccurate. If adjusted properly, all handheld times are to be rounded up. So both an 11.12 and a 11.19 would receive 11.2

Only FAT timing should be given in hundredths.

blah blah blah wrote:

If there are two times in different heats that are identicle, the runner from the faster heat takes the place. If its FAT timing as most big meets and even some duels are these days, then they get down to thousands of a second, so chances are they'll figure out the winner. I've twice seen an apparent tie where officials just pick a winner though.

Uh, it the two times are identicle (similar to "identical") which one are you calling faster?

She asked about hand-timed events and you bring in FAT events...

If they are in different heats, I'm not sure. Maybe a run off is in order.

The different heats issue is interesting.

But if they are in the same heat, I'm confident in that is a judges/referee/head timers decision, either by going to the video or by what s/he saw.

They tie.

If there are four runners in the race, the order would go like this:

1st - Billy 9.5

2nd (tie) - George 9.7

2nd (tie) - Bob 9.7

4th - Simon 9.9

There should never be a tie in a running event. In an ideal situation, you have both finish line judges and timers. The judges pick the places and the timers simply time.

In most high school meets (which is what I assume she is referring to since most colleges have FAT), timers have to double as judges. On timer is designated to time first place, another for second place, etc. THEY DO NOT TIME LANES, but many idiot HS track coaches do this anyway. Whoever is designated to time first place will pick who wins; the timer designated to time second place picks who takes second, etc. If there is a close race, it is possible that both the first place timer will declare lane #3 the winner AND the second place timer will say lane #3 was second. Whoever is designated to time the higher place always has precedence - lane #3 will be first place.

All of the decisions regarding place are made without consulting the stopwatches. In a close race the winner may run 11.48 and second place may run 11.41 - both are awarded 11.5 but the place remains the same.

hurdlergirl wrote:

if 2 runners run exactly the same time in a hand timed race.Do/should one of them be declared the winner or should they share first place?

Read the question carefully:

#1, in a hand timed race, as previously mentioned, you round up to the next tenth if not coincident with. So 10.01 and 10.10, as an extreme, are "exactly the same time." That could be a yard or more. The winner is the winner, time is a secondary subject.

What is confusing in the question is the phrase " exactly the same time." Two watches, hand timed, that say 10.00 and 10.10 are the same as two watches saying 10.03 and 10.03 or 10.07 and 10.07. Before digital watches there were none of these hundredths to confuse anyone with their "false accuracy."

So to answer the question, OF COURSE one of them is declared the winner unless the judges truly believe they finished the race in an exact visual tie.

minor edit in penultimate paragraph: should say 10.01 and 10.19 are the same.

Yeah, I guess I went off on a tangent with the FAT, but with the heats, heats in distance events are generally run slowest to fastest. After seeing the official pick a winner (we usually only had one official at dual meets) in the 3200 once, I asked my coach what if they were sprinters and they were in different heats. He asked the official later in the meet and he said that the one in the faster heat would win.

so basically what you are saying if one person is clocked at 26.29 and the other at 26.29 they just look at the 2 runners and judge it through how they crossed the line.

Surely if the wer clocked at exactly the same time then neither was the winner?

hurdlergirl wrote:

...Surely if the wer clocked at exactly the same time then neither was the winner?

But they were only CLOCKED at the same time. The margin of error due to many factors in hand timing means that the hand time doesn't necessarily mean as much as seeing one cross before the other. Hand times are inaccurate enough that one could be timed at, say, 26.00, and the other at 26.29, but clearly the 26.29 crossed the line before the 26.00.

Bottom line is that it's who finishes first, not who has the faster time. Why do you think times from heats aren't looked at?

Ultramiler wrote:

Bottom line is that it's who finishes first, not who has the faster time. Why do you think times from heats aren't looked at?

What do you mean times from heats aren't looked at? When advancing to the finals it's usually the top 1 or 2 in each heat, then the rest are based on time. Of course they look times from heats.

timing mechanism wrote:

Times do not matter. The timer who is designated to time first place declares the winner. If he/she said that lane #3 won the race, then lane #3 won the race, even if lane #5 has a faster time.

What? So it's possible that in the official results the 2nd place finisher will have a faster time than the 1st place finisher? That's what you just said.

what??? wrote:

What? So it's possible that in the official results the 2nd place finisher will have a faster time than the 1st place finisher? That's what you just said.

For one thing, when handheld times are adjusted, this potential problem is taken care of in almost all cases.

1st place: 11.46 = 11.5

2nd place: 11.41 = 11.5

A problem can result if:

1st place: 11.43 = 11.5

2nd place: 11.38 = 11.4

Usually, just give the 2nd place runner an 11.5 to avoid problems. This is why you don't tell the athletes their times immeidately - get together with the other timers, figure out the official results, then give the runners their times at once.

In the case of a second-place runner having a faster hand-timed time than the runner who obviously won, the two are required to wrestle in the long jump pit while the jump competition is going on. It gets ugly, but rules is rules. If we started making exceptions, there would be anarchy.

blah blah blah wrote:

After seeing the official pick a winner (we usually only had one official at dual meets) in the 3200 once, I asked my coach what if they were sprinters and they were in different heats. He asked the official later in the meet and he said that the one in the faster heat would win.

The different heats situation is intriguing. The NFHS Rules Book does not address it and I can't seem to find anything on the USATF Officials website. I'll look through some other materials I have and see what I can find. I'm not saying you are wrong - you're probably right. But I've just never seen anything in print that directly addresses this situation. If I find anything I'll post it.

timing mechanism wrote:

blah blah blah wrote:

After seeing the official pick a winner (we usually only had one official at dual meets) in the 3200 once, I asked my coach what if they were sprinters and they were in different heats. He asked the official later in the meet and he said that the one in the faster heat would win.

The different heats situation is intriguing. The NFHS Rules Book does not address it and I can't seem to find anything on the USATF Officials website. I'll look through some other materials I have and see what I can find. I'm not saying you are wrong - you're probably right. But I've just never seen anything in print that directly addresses this situation. If I find anything I'll post it.

You are using innacurate terminology above. What you are discussing is different SECTIONS, not Heats. Heats lead to QF's, SF's, or a final. Sections are separate Finals, which are then merged by time.