Finish Line in Eugene

There are differences between the words "must" "shall" and "may". Doesn't have to be like that. It's an IAAF certified track.

I don't see the rule stating that any IAAF certified track is exempt from the rule, and I'm sure that any IAAF survey team hasn't developed procedures any more technical than any other survey protocol. Also, there is no "may" or "shall" coupled with that part of the rule.

At 11.07 seconds a 20 cm error is .002214 seconds, or enough to have impacted the result of the race last evening.

Excuse me, a 20 mm error.

This report from LRC for the Diamond League Meet in Rome shows a picture of the finish of the womens 5000 m. If you look closely at the line you'll see that Omega Timing has very thin black strips on the front of the line.

http://www.letsrun.com/2012/rome-recap-0531.php

How wide are the images that are being photographed/recorded? I always assumed the images were less than 2cm wide anyway.

The images are much less wide than that, about the width of a piece of paper. That's not the issue; if the camera is set on the back side of the line, then the race is about 5 cm beyond 100 meters, or about 2". Usually that's insignificant, but not last evening. In laying the 2 cm strip on the front of the line, you reduce that potential issue. The Eugene finish line does not follow that rule. Most finish lines are painted incorrectly, but timing companies will use white tape to cover the excess black and then find the line.

Gotcha. So the width of the black is simply to ensure that he camera is properly aligned. Makes sense. I never knew tht rule, but I've only orked FAT at small high school meets.

Maybe they did cover up part of the black when initially clibrating he cameras(doubtful).

It would be interesting to see if all cameras have identcal times to te 1/1000. I bet they have at least 3 cameras (2 trackside and at least one on the outside).

Getting both the front side camera and back side camera to "see" the same slice of time is almost impossible. I read once that Omega spends DAYS aligning for the Olympics so that there is essentially no discrepancy. It is so difficult that there is another IAAF rule states that only one camera is offical and all others are only to help the timing crew determine place. Flash timing actually have three cameras on the infield, all with the ability to take 3000 frames/sec, but with the line 5 cm wide there is no guatantee that the image is actually "on" the finish line. Splitting hairs, I know ... but we learned last night that splitting hairs is part of the business.

Omega Timing is inferior in nearly every way to Lynx. However, Omega timed the last 3 Pre Classics on that same track. Ask Roger Jennings if that stupid black line thing makes any dang difference to his system.

You are welcome.

Those "stupid black lines" make a difference in all photo finish systems. That's just how they work.

Find a picture from Pre, I bet they had small black lines then also.

i don't know why they don't use ground penetrating radar for t&f and kick out 85% of the old fart officials from the track and field.

Damien Sandow II wrote:

Omega Timing is inferior in nearly every way to Lynx. However, Omega timed the last 3 Pre Classics on that same track. Ask Roger Jennings if that stupid black line thing makes any dang difference to his system.

You are welcome.

I'm not making any type of judgement on which system is better, I was just sharing information concerning how one company dealt with a specific situation. If the "stupid black lines" don't make a difference then explain why IAAF has a rule dealing with how wide they should be?

Although I can't find a picture from Pre-2012 that is definitive, the few that show the finish line would point the whole line appearing white. I would suspect that Omega used white Gaffers tape to cover some of the black square. Regardless, I would have expected the timing company that most consider the #1 group in the country to follow IAAF rules. But a roll of gaffers tape Roger and follow the rule for the remainder of the trials. It may make a difference again.

Damien Sandow II wrote:

Ask Roger Jennings if that stupid black line thing makes any dang difference to his system.

You are welcome.

Ask the guy who couldn't do his job and provide a reading in the first place? Great idea.

By the way, the "stupid black line thing" is completely integral to the entire process you're arguing about.

You are welcome.

It takes time to align cameras to match 100%. Not necessarily days, however I would find it hard to believe that Roger & crew didn't run a few zero tests to make sure all cameras are on point.

What's a zero test? Well basically once set up, you fire a gun on the leading edge of the line to trigger the cameras as well as make sure all cameras are lined to the same point. You will actually see the flash of the gun. This ensures that the cameras are not only aligned to the same spot but also the same time - hence the zero test moniker. Once the gun is fired, all cameras should see the first mark of the flash @ zero.

I have no idea what I'm talking about but, would chip-timing assist in this? Like if the tag was in their bib so it would still record the torso across the line and not the foot? Are they that accurate? Would bib height be too far from the finish line on the track for the chip to register? Of course the finish line reader would have to be embedded in the track...

I think you're misinterpreting this rule in a couple of key ways.

1) Timers have the option of using the full 5cm X 5cm intersection of the finish and the lane lines as a black background to use as lane lines.

New IAAF SUGGESTIONS say that some of the lane intersections should be LESS than 5cm wide (from the perspective of the camera). A 2cm wide intersection point would make proper alignment more accurate.

2) the 2cm BEYOND the finish line IS ACCEPTABLE. It should be 6-7cm from the beginning of the finish line. This technique also helps to line the cameras up.

You're reading the 2cm beyond incorrectly. The lane line interesction with the finish line results in a 5cm box, extend that and you get 7cm (70mm).

None of this means jack diddly about improperly aligned cameras, especially since Flash Results noted that the opposite view was totally worthless as it was blocked.

I find it slightly interesting too, but I'm not sure why anyone would concoct a conspiracy theory. When Felix makes the 200m team with ease, I'm sure she'll drop from the 100m, and just show up to run the relays.

Chips are not accurate enough to determine position. The chips read within a field but can never be counted on to determine order of finish in close finishes.

For instance in such a close finish of 8 athletes on the track for a 100m, Felix could have even been determined the winner based soley on chip reads.

That is why with a Finish Line image - using torso position, we can determine order of finish and time of finish by when the torso crosses the leading edge of the finish line.

While none of this matters 99.99% of the time, it is interesting. If the camera is not perfectly aligned perpendicular to the lanes, then individuals at one edge or the other will have a slight advantage. It seems reasonable to make the black line narrow so the alignment is more precise.

One option (not necessarily appealing)to deal with the inevitable measurement error would be to simply acknowledge it... align two cameras as well as possible 100 times, and record the difference between them each time. The mean of this difference is the measurement error, within which we cannot confidently say who won.

I expect that the OP is correct that the problem of camera alignment commonly creates measurement errors bigger than the image width of 3000 fps cameras.

Thinking aloud, if a world class 100 m runner is going 11 m/s at the finish, then 3000 frames/sec / 11 meters/sec gives 273 frames/meter = 0.0037 meters/frame, so the athletes move 3.7 mm between images. Of course, both Felix and Tarmoh were moving, so the measurement error associated with the image rate of the camera is just the DIFFERENCE in how far two athletes moved in 1/3000th of a second. Even if one of them was moving 5% faster than the other (which would be a huge margin) 3.7 mm * 0.05 = 0.185 mm.

So, the positions of the two runners in two consecutive images might differ by about 0.2 mm.

It's easy to believe that the error between lane 1 and lane 8 due to alignment of the camera with the track is bigger than 0.2 mm.

In the case of Felix and Tarmoh, being in adjacent lanes reduces the effect.

Sounds like a tie to me. Flip a coin, I guess.