A Must Read: Video Proof That Yohan Blake - Not Usain Bolt - False Started

While I appreciate the Michael J Fox impersonation - you still need to take it up a couple octaves - the flinch is not worthy of a false start call. Also, as to the quote "Bolt did nothing wrong." Of course he did, he jumped. Even if you were right about Blake, that would only mean they both should have been dq'd. If you need super slow mo repeated five times to verify the flinch, a starter should not call it. No way Bolt reacted to it. Bolt jumped. he's a great athlete and a great sportsman but he jumped. The job of a starter is not to randomly dq people. It is to prevent anyone from gaining an advantage. Blake in no way would have had an advantage if the first start had ended up fair. I really hope this is a joke and for the sake of the brojos reputation Weldon is not really trying to drum up support for this crackpot theory. Hello Mcfly!

Sprint Geezer wrote:

No. Blake didn't false-start according to the rules.

Bolt definitely DID false-start according to the rules.

An excellent example of why the current false-start rule should be scrapped.

I think Rojo has this worded really wrong.

He's not arguing that Blake false started, but rather that he flinched.

He should have titled it Proof that Yohan Blake Flinched as I think it's confusing people.

The rule is that if an athlete flinches after the gun is up then the field is called up.

Also there have been many precedents in the past where an athlete responds to someone else's movements and has not been charged with anything.

Did Blake's flinch cause Bolt to false-start?

I can't say for sure, but after watching the HD video Blake's flinch does look a lot clearer.

Also many times the athletes are not only responding to the gun but to the movement of the others around them. That's why when one false starts usually several others immediately follow suit as well.

Not sure what should happen now that the 100m final is already way over but it does add an interesting aspect to the whole thing.

Everyone who was grilling Bolt for not being serious enough, maybe he's so into it that he's ready to react to even the slightest movement from his opponents.

Very interesting development for sure.

I just don't get it, who cares? Rojo was almost having a seizure describing it.

I found the false start to be hillarious. Bolt has been a big clown and it finally caught up to him. He false started. You respond to the gun, not someone else.

Even moreso, what is the big deal. Bolt would have won by a lot. So either he wins by a lot or he is dq'd. This was a much better outcome as him winning was assumed by all. Now people are talking track a bit more than the 5 seconds they normally would.

If Bolt went because Blake flinched, he would have expressed his opinion to the official. He thought right away it was all him and that he was gone. Also, Bolt would have had to have been looking backwards anyways to see Blake's leg flinch as Blake's upper body really didn't move.

Not very clear, first of all.

Secondly, things happen in real time, once. Not slow motion, looked at over and over.

The starter's naked eye would never be able to catch any twitching happening here.

There are pressure-sensing electronic blocks.

Blake did not set them off. Bolt did.

It's the starter's discretion to judge if there was a distraction and he can allow the whole field to go again if this was something other than simply jumping the gun.

But Bolt immediately took off his shirt, shook his head and accepted it as his false start.

This is Bolt's DQ. Very clear.

I would say Blake didn't false start, because the judges didn't say so, but, because Bolt could say he was influenced by Blake's movement prior to the gun, Bolt could've had an argument.

Bolt needs to employ rojo as a booth reviewer, like in the NFL - if there's any chance of challenging the call, the reviewer can tell Bolt's coach.

If Bolt sees this, he should show up from now on wearing Glacier Glasses (sunglasses with side-shields). Could "start" a new trend....

i agree with the previous poster--bolt seemed to know right away he was the guilty party.

gotta admit, i don't really understand the new rules.

All excellent points, diddy.

Of course, there is the possibility that Bolt false-started independently, but he isn't really a false-starter.

Having been in the 100m blocks, anything--and I mean ANYTHING--can set you off. Like I have said, the race starts well before the gun sounds. You are already on automatic response in the set position, and going out in response to a flinch is NOT your fault--that is why a flinch that doesn't register a tone isn't counted as a start for anybody.

This is the type of situation that caused free false-starts to be allowed in the first place--to fill a potentially unjust gap in the rules. Blake flinches, no tone, flinch not noticed by the officials, Bolt starts through no fault of his, yet is terminally penalized, which is unfair. Even if he independently false-started, error should favor the benefit of the athlete.

As we saw in New York earlier this year, the current rule does not guarantee that a whole bunch of false-starts will not occur, and thus it may not represent a viable solution to the perceived "problem".

Anyway, the resulting situation is terrific for T&F.

Rojo,

This is genius. I like your proposal. If the money can be ponied up let's get it on!!!!

Nice work!

Being a distance runner I kind of forgot that they have those high tech blocks which can tell if you flinch.

So i guess whether or not Blake's movement affected Bolt is moot because Blake's foot didn't move but rather his calf, which subsequently didn't set off the blocks.

Anyway, I hope Bolt is now so fueled that he goes and runs one hell of a 200.

I had to check the calendar, but it isn't April 1st. Why didn't the runner on the other side of Blake respond to the "flinch"? I think the flinch was wayyyyyy too subtle to have had an impact. For whatever reason, Bolt decided to bolt out of the blocks way too early. Deal with it, rojo, and stop trying to make excuses for him. Or did Puma make you do this due to their sponsorship of the contest?

Turdy guy wrote:

This was a much better outcome as him winning was assumed by all. Now people are talking track a bit more than the 5 seconds they normally would.

True.

CNN.com has headline links to SI.com and one of the big headlines is "Bolt's DQ may spark rule change"

If Bolt won, there would be no track headline.

Nice effort but I respectfully disagree.

Bolt did not see his minute leg movement (not a flinch), no way. HIs side vision could not pick that up on his best day and you should know that Rojo. He's listening, not looking. His best sense at that moment is sound, not vision.

Sorry sir, but you are really making a mountain out of a mole hill. Bolt false started and was not aided in doing so. Bolt's anticipation got him the DQ, not anyone else.

David

Haile Selassie wrote:

Why didn't the runner on the other side of Blake respond to the "flinch"?

Not saying the flinch is why Bolt FS'ed, but this is too silly. It was his left leg, which is the side Bolt was on.

For the record, for those not just scanning rule books but who actually have starting experience.

"In addition, not all movements in the “set” position are to be regarded as “commencing the

start” and thereby potentially leading to a false start. Such instances should be dealt with either

by standing the field up or in serious cases, invoking the disciplinary provisions."

This from the IAAF technical manual for starters.

The absolute worst that should have happened was a stand up, but once again, no starter would have been expected to catch the flinch with a naked eye and no way, no how Boly reacted to Blake.

c'mon wrote:

If Bolt went because Blake flinched, he would have expressed his opinion to the official. He thought right away it was all him and that he was gone. Also, Bolt would have had to have been looking backwards anyways to see Blake's leg flinch as Blake's upper body really didn't move.

Have you bothered to watch the 2nd video or the video we have on the homepage right now? I doubt it.

It's clear as day.

Bolt didn't complain as it's subconscious. Even he didn't realize it. No one did until this angle came out.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Bolt still started before the gun.

Many of you don't seem to understand the rules. Let's say I'm in lane 2 and I false start. If the guy in lane 3 also follows and also false starts after me, only land 2 is DQd according to the rules.

Here is the language from the rulebook:

Note: In practice, when one or more athletes make a false start,others are inclined to follow and, strictly speaking, any athlete who does so has also made a false start. The Starter should warn or disqualify only such athlete or athletes who, in his opinion, were responsible for the false start. This may result in more than one athlete being warned or disqualified. If the false start is not due to any athlete, no warnings shall be given and a green card shall be shown to all the athletes.

The person 'responsible for th false start' was Blake - not Bolt.

Full rule book here:

This really is obvious. It's not always subconscious, though. I was in a similar situation back in high school, jumped the gun, and got thrown out.

With electronic starting blocks, however, this is unacceptable. This should have been picked up, and Blake should have been gone (in addition to Bolt - unless only one person can be thrown out).