Timing clock in Moscow? Any chance the onfield clock is off - did it impact the 800?

somebody with a fast computer: hand time the race from multiple sources, then post here

no. stop the excuses. ETHOPIA FTW ROJO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with one another. But watching the BBC broadcasts in other races it has seemed that the stadium clock and the clock the broadcasters have used are out of sync. The broadcasters have had to correct themselves a lot.

Listen to Nick in his flotrack video, he said he was looking at the clock before he actually crossed the line. He said he saw 1:15 on the clock so it made sense to him that he split 1:16.

Go to the 4:45 mark

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/251036-IAAF-World-Championships-Moscow-2013-Interviews-Races/video/719336-Nick-Symmonds-finally-gets-his-global-medal-in-800-at-Moscow-World-Champs-2013

At 37.7 on the screen clock, the on-field clock says 37, and hits 38 when the broadcast says 37.8. And 1:31 when the screen clock says 1:30.8.

Then the on-field clock says 49.7 when they crossed 400. So it's about .6 seconds behind, and the on-field clock about 0.4 seconds.

But the on-screen clock has been obviously off all week, so they should have been prepared for that. Besides, the world's best 800 runner should know the difference between 49.9 and 50.3 with a blindfold on. If Symmonds suddenly appears on your shoulder, chances are you didn't just run sub-50.

I think Solomon got nervous and lost focus because of Aman.

R. Mare wrote:

Listen to Nick in his flotrack video, he said he was looking at the clock before he actually crossed the line. He said he saw 1:15 on the clock so it made sense to him that he split 1:16.

This.

And if Solomon thought he went out in 22, that explains why he went out in 23.mid and then slowed down to 27.

One would think one would freak if they read 22 for the first 200, that's 44 second first lap pace!!

"Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with one another."

A great insight, Ryan.

"At 37.7 on the screen clock, the on-field clock says 37, and hits 38 when the broadcast says 37.8. And 1:31 when the screen clock says 1:30.8.

Then the on-field clock says 49.7 when they crossed 400. So it's about .6 seconds behind, and the on-field clock about 0.4 seconds."

So, it seems that not only are the screen and field clocks not in synch, one is slow and the other is fast, so that the gap changes. This type of elastic timing should not be tolerated. Great post and a great point, Bad.

Hahaha, good point.

I just hand timed it on my Garmin at 1:42.78.

No wonder I'm not a coach.

Actually I made an observation.

KenE wrote:

"Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with one another."

A great insight, Ryan.

Bad Wigins meant:

Then the on-screen clock says 49.7 when they crossed 400. So it's about .6 seconds behind, and the on-field clock about 0.4 seconds.

ryan foreman wrote:

Actually I made an observation.

KenE wrote:

"Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with one another."

A great insight, Ryan.

Bravo, Ryan. Great job clearing things up.

I don't know how much this helps but intermediate times are done with chip timing, not FAT, which is less accurate.

Well then this Chip guy should stick to his day job and WTF is a Russkie doing with a name like Chip anyway, he should be a Sergei, Aleksei, Michail or a Ilya. I am glad to hear he is not fat a lot of those Commies get fat lieing around state sponsored spas drinking vodka and eating fish eggs, blintzes and other fattening stuff.