USATF Explanation for Alice Schmidt Being in 1500m Final

Jill would do a fine job as a Gambino consigliere. There is absolutely zero logical foundation to her explanation.

Who is Schmidts sponsor?

If the DQ is ruled by a judge, rather than a protest, you can't advance someone, simply because they were impeded.

If Mortimer had lodged a protest while Anderson was DQed, I'd have to imagine she'd be advanced, but without that I don't think she'd be moved forward.

Just a thought from my standpoint. I'm unaware of the protests surrounding the event.

At this point, I think once you tell someone they're into the final, without a foul to their name, they're in. (so long as the event is contested with a waterfall start, as the 1500m is) Basically, once Schmidt was told she's in, she's in.

You can no longer advance Mortimer because the event that impeded her progress is no longer ruled a foul. Mortimer should have only moved forward if she protested during the phase when results were posted and available for protest.

I know it's convoluted, but that's my understanding of the rules and this situation.

malmo wrote:

Who is Schmidts sponsor?

I don't know if this is a rhetorical question, but the answer (not surprisingly) is Nike.

pogo wrote:

At this point, I think once you tell someone they're into the final, without a foul to their name, they're in. (so long as the event is contested with a waterfall start, as the 1500m is) Basically, once Schmidt was told she's in, she's in.

Nothing was final. There was an appeal in process.

Like in the NFL. They rule an touchdown, there then is an appeal, they look at the appeal. If they take back the touchdown, they don't then say, "ok you can keep the 6 points."

.... and didn't they tell Tarmoh she was third?!?!?!

I respectfully disagree. Once you alert someone that they are advancing, you advance them. The touchdown overruled by replay is an invalid parallel. If there is a penalty after the touchdown, the penalty still counts, even though the play was over-ruled.

I don't think I understand your point of view on this event. Certainly I don't think there was a real foul, I definitely don't think Mortimer could have been advanced, and I don't see an issue with putting one more competitor on a waterfall start with 8 48" lanes.

I suggest you go meet with Podkaminer. Ruled events are considered final until overturned by appeal, you would have to appeal Schmidt's existence in the final, not expect she'd be removed because of an appeal of an appeal.

Actually, she is in the final because she races in pearls.

pogo wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Once you alert someone that they are advancing, you advance them.

How do you apply that to the Women's 100m? Tarmoh was alerted that she was advancing to the Olympic Games in the 100m, and now she might not.

pogo wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Once you alert someone that they are advancing, you advance them. The touchdown overruled by replay is an invalid parallel. If there is a penalty after the touchdown, the penalty still counts, even though the play was over-ruled.

I don't think I understand your point of view on this event. Certainly I don't think there was a real foul, I definitely don't think Mortimer could have been advanced, and I don't see an issue with putting one more competitor on a waterfall start with 8 48" lanes.

I suggest you go meet with Podkaminer. Ruled events are considered final until overturned by appeal, you would have to appeal Schmidt's existence in the final, not expect she'd be removed because of an appeal of an appeal.

Exactly. Once they advanced her, it is likely that her hotel reservations were kept/extended, members of her family and support staff planned to keep their rooms and stick around a few more days.

Advancing her, and then saying "whoops," would not be fair -- and it would effect a lot more people than just herself.

She probably has no chance in the final, so as long as she doesn't trip and take someone down, it won't make any difference.

A MORE IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT A NUMBER OF THESE LADIES NEED TO RUN THE "A" STANDARD -- AND HERE IS HOPING A NUMBER OF THEM GET TOGETHER AND DECIDED TO TAKE IT OUT -- IF THEY DO -- THEN IT IS LIKELY THAT THE RUNNERS WILL BE STRUNG OUT ENOUGH THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A LOT OF CONTACT etc.

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

pogo wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Once you alert someone that they are advancing, you advance them.

How do you apply that to the Women's 100m? Tarmoh was alerted that she was advancing to the Olympic Games in the 100m, and now she might not.

IOC rules superseed USATF rules, not the same game.

In a most fair world, Mortimer would be in the final, but for reasons unknown to me, she isn't. I don't know the series of events leading to the Anderson DQ, I can only piece together things after the fact. I'm 1500 miles away from Eugene, and I only know a few people even watching from the stands, much less any of the competitors.

I think it'd be a really prick move on the USATF's part to remove Schmidt from the final. If she was kicked out, people on here would still be on the USATF's case about it. It's a no win situation.

A Duck wrote:

She probably has no chance in the final,.

Of course she does. This has HUGE implications.

pogo wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Once you alert someone that they are advancing, you advance them. The touchdown overruled by replay is an invalid parallel. If there is a penalty after the touchdown, the penalty still counts, even though the play was over-ruled.

I don't think I understand your point of view on this event. Certainly I don't think there was a real foul, I definitely don't think Mortimer could have been advanced, and I don't see an issue with putting one more competitor on a waterfall start with 8 48" lanes.

I suggest you go meet with Podkaminer. Ruled events are considered final until overturned by appeal, you would have to appeal Schmidt's existence in the final, not expect she'd be removed because of an appeal of an appeal.

You do realize you are thinking entirely too logically and maturely for the drama queens and light thinkers here, si?

pogo wrote:

How do you apply that to the Women's 100m? Tarmoh was alerted that she was advancing to the Olympic Games in the 100m, and now she might not.

IOC rules superseed USATF rules, not the same game.[/quote]

What IOC rule interfers with sending Tarmoh in the Women's 100m?

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

What IOC rule interfers with sending Tarmoh in the Women's 100m?

Are you serious or just trolling?

Racking my brain - is the Schmidt case similar to how Tom Byers made the final back in, what was it, '76?

So basically, USATF did not wait till the protest period was over to alert Schmidt so they have to let her in. Another USATF mistake..

pogo wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

What IOC rule interfers with sending Tarmoh in the Women's 100m?

Are you serious or just trolling?

The IOC could get a lot of publicity if they did this. It would be massive PR for them, priceless PR.

"This has never happened before in the era of modern timing equipment, so in the interest of sport and goodwill we are going to allow both athletes in..."

The story would explode, as it has in the USA, y'know for a track thing, and it would get coverage everywhere and increase interest in that event/the Games.

USATF told Schmidt she was in. I don't think 13 in the final is a problem in terms of number of runners for a 1500m. 13 in the final is also a lesser evil than telling Schmidt she's out after telling her she's in.

Brojos, please don't start manufacturing "news" stories.