http://usatf.org/about/rules/2012/2012rules.pdfThe most relevant rule for this situation is 166.7:
"When an individual or relay team, having qualified for a subsequent round, withdraws for any reason, no additional individual or relay team shall be advanced to fill the vacated position. When an individual or relay team is disqualified prior to the subsequent round, the qualifiers and seeding shall be redetermined without the disqualified competitor(s) unless the disqualification results in an advancement under Rule 163.4, in which case no other advancement shall occur."
Rule 163.4:
"Any competitor or participant jostling, running across, or obstructing another competitor or participant so as to impede his or her progress shall be liable to disqualification in that event. The Referee shall have the authority to order the race to be reheld, excluding the disqualified competitor or, in the case of a heat, to permit any competitor(s) seriously affected by jostling or obstruction (other than the disqualified competitor) to compete in a subsequent round of the race. Normally, such an athlete should have completed the event with bona fide effort. Regardless of whether there has been a disqualification, the Referee, in exceptional circumstances, shall also have the authority to advance a competitor seriously affected by jostling or obstruction or to order the race to be re-held if it is just and reasonable to do so."
The way I read this (as applied to the Anderson case), Schmidt was advanced to the final because of the Anderson DQ, in accordance with 166.7. *If* a competitor who had been "seriously affected by jostling..." had been advanced (i.e., Mortimer), Schmidt would not have been advanced to the final.
There is nothing in the rule book about the procedure for handling an overturned appeal. The closest applicable rule is the rule cited by Ms. Geer concerning athletes competing under protest (particularly in a field event going from trials to finals), where the DQ'ed athlete is still allowed to compete with the rest of the field while the appeal is being considered.
As one poster above noted, this is simply a case of USATF jumping the gun and needlessly acting on a DQ before all appeals had been exhausted. There was no need to make a quick decision or to make that decision public. Some in this forum have called for Ms. Geer to be the new leader of USATF, but the way communications have been handled over the past two weekends, I have my doubts.