Iaaf can ill afford to see Bolt FS but IOC isn't so stupid
Iaaf can ill afford to see Bolt FS but IOC isn't so stupid
haha, they'll probably change them before the 200 final.
The IAAF people are smart. This is all a ploy to generate interest in track and field. Nothing will get attention like a headline " Bolt false starts and DQed." They know Bolt can't be forever lowering the WR, and they had to come up with another way to make him stay in the headlines.
Right, I mean having Bolt NOT run the 100, that generates a lot of interest
Yanqui wrote:
Right, I mean having Bolt NOT run the 100, that generates a lot of interest
Watch SportsCenter and see if the think it's interseting.
Oh we most certainly shall. I guess Bolden was right all along. Now let's see what Dwight Stones has to say.
oohlala wrote:
Iaaf can ill afford to see Bolt FS but IOC isn't so stupid
I could not agree more...Do you really think London our the IOC is going to f**k with potential revenue b'cuz of some rule that serves no purpose? I expect to see a false start in the women's 100m final as well...they need to change this shit now!
It was really a bull$hit rule anyway that robs the fans.
oohlala wrote:
Iaaf can ill afford to see Bolt FS but IOC isn't so stupid
But those people who don't understand the rule change process aren't stupid?
IOC follows IAAF track rules (you can look this up).
IAAF changes their rules only at their congress, which is held every two years at World's.
Rule changes don't suddenly materialize out of nowhere. They are proposed by member federations well in advance of the congress so people can have the chance to study and review the implications of the rule change.
The current false start rule didn't just appear out of the blue. After the escapades of Christie and Drummond, the IAAF was heading in this direction.
They took the first step of the short-lived rule of one to the field. This obviously was not a good rule as many athletes were deliberately false starting to mess with the rest of the field.
Their big meets are not about the athlete but presentation, particularly TV. They want the 100m to go when the 100m is scheduled, not five or ten minutes later.
By forcing the athletes to actually follow the rules of the race, they are helping to ensure that their (IAAF's) goal is achieved.
if only the point of a track meet was to remain on schedule...
oh wait, it's about fair competition to see who is the best.
A lot of holes punched in the board rooms of sponsors companies as we speak. Rules change already in the works.
xrunnerz wrote:
if only the point of a track meet was to remain on schedule...
oh wait, it's about fair competition to see who is the best.
...at guessing the gun and if they're wrong several times who cares?
Stupid stupid rule- stupid in high school stupid in pros.
Only the sport of athletics can have a rule that hurts the sport.
The current false start rule didn't just appear out of the blue. After the escapades of Christie and Drummond, the IAAF was heading in this direction.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4202165#ixzz1WKZDxSMG
Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday
OK, clarify please:
When Drummond and Christie false started weren't two allowed?
They acted like jerks and held up the meet and made track look silly with their escapades.
Soooooo, changing the rule to NO FALSE STARTS is gonna stop that? I think not. That new running under protest thing is silly and stupid, as is anyone who thinks no false starts at any level is a good rule.
AAF changes their rules only at their congress, which is held every two years at World's.
Rule changes don't suddenly materialize out of nowhere. They are proposed by member federations well in advance of the congress so people can have the chance to study and review the implications of the rule change.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4202165#ixzz1WKaO6iTA
Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday
Screw that nonsense- they f**cked up- change it NOW and move on. No one with a complete, functioning brain would disagree.
Solution: starting gates or some other simple, reliable device - magnets, fast-acting foot gates, etc. - to mechanically restrict a false start and also a blinding mechanism - chutes, mirrors, etc. See horse racing. Problem solved. If they can't physically false start and can't see each other doing it, then there would be no need to fire the gun twice for any reason.
galt wrote:
Solution: starting gates or some other simple, reliable device - magnets, fast-acting foot gates, etc. - to mechanically restrict a false start and also a blinding mechanism - chutes, mirrors, etc. See horse racing. Problem solved. If they can't physically false start and can't see each other doing it, then there would be no need to fire the gun twice for any reason.
You can't paralyze their muscles. Even if you make them wear spikes with steel plates for a magnetic locking block, or put a gate up like in horse racing, that won't stop their nervous system from firing before they actually hear the gun. You'd just have them fall down in the blocks or run into the fence and have to reset the field anyway.
And we don't want to do as swimming, where the false start is called after the race is completed. They have to do it because of the realities of getting people out of a pool and in place again for a start.
go...now! wrote:
Yanqui wrote:Right, I mean having Bolt NOT run the 100, that generates a lot of interest
Watch SportsCenter and see if the think it's interseting.
One of the few times swimming managed to get mass market attention outside of the Olympics proper was when Ian Thorpe went ass over teakettle on the blocks for the 400 free at Australian Trials. Strict false start in that sport, seemed to cost him a change to defend an Olympic crown in an event he'd dominated as much as Bolt had dominated the 100/200.
Granted, Thorpe's fall off the blocks was awkward enough to actually be kind of funny and got some of the press for that, but that whole 'they still have to run the race' bit and the hint of unpredictability can actually help generate buzz.
Now the media actually has a nice redemption story they get to build with Bolt for London, and redemption stories actually play better than one guy or team just kind of continuing the long constant dominance.
runn wrote:
OK, clarify please:
When Drummond and Christie false started weren't two allowed?
They acted like jerks and held up the meet and made track look silly with their escapades.
Soooooo, changing the rule to NO FALSE STARTS is gonna stop that? I think not. That new running under protest thing is silly and stupid, as is anyone who thinks no false starts at any level is a good rule.
Yes, the old-old rule (each athlete getting two false starts) was in effect. The problem from the IAAF's perspective is that they potentially could have eight false starts and still have all eight athletes while now pissing off TV and running 25 minutes behind schedule.
With the current no false start rule, athletes have no incentive to try and guess, jump the gun or catch a flyer. That means they will greatly reduce the number of false starts in a meet and that is what the IAAF wants.
The poster who said it is about the competition does not understand the way the IAAF sees things. It is about presentation. Athletes (and competition) are a distant consideration. I'm not defending that as being right, just that is the way the IAAF is right now.
The 'running under protest thing' is something you and others should read about in the rule book. It says the referee MAY allow an athlete to run under protest. Athletes do not have an inherent right to be able to do so. If it is clear and obvious to the starter and recallers, then there is no chance a jury would overturn their decision so no point in letting the athlete run.
The rule further says you can't run under protest if the electronic blocks say you false started (unless you can convince the ref that they aren't working - but then they are calibrated and validated at the start of each session, so good luck with that).
The NCAA has had the no false start rule for years before the IAAF brought in theirs. How have so many world class sprinters managed to come through the NCAA ranks with such a supposedly terrible and unfair rule?
runn wrote:
Screw that nonsense- they f**cked up- change it NOW and move on. No one with a complete, functioning brain would disagree.
Because having no formal documented process for changing your rules and just allowing a random collection of administrators power to arbitrarily change a significant rule on the spur of the moment in response to an emotionally charged event would not be "nonsense"? No one with a complete, functioning brain would think that.