4 x 400 fiasco at Penn: Blame the official for not setting them up correctlY

the us was ahead at 200, and that's when the positions get locked in. the us and bahamian runners were idiots to not look up and see where their outgoing runners were....

Something similar happened last year at Worlds in the women's 4x4 and the US wound up on the wrong end of that one as well.

In that case, the US third leg was running on the shoulder of the Russian third leg as they were about to come off the turn. The Russian put in a burst to get her shoulder in front of the US runner and drifted from the rail so that she was running on the lane 1/2 lane line.

Now what does the US runner do? She wants to pass the Russian and lane 1 is open, but that lane is reserved for the Russian outgoing runner. If she stays on the outside shoulder of the Russian she is going to be pushed well wide, running extra distance.

The US runner went for lane 1 and, just like today, the two runners approached the handoff running abreast in the wrong positions to make their handoff to the outgoing runners.

At the last moment, the US runner came almost to a stop to go behind the Russian so she could get outside to make her handoff. It gave the Russians enough of an advantage to hold on for the win on the anchor.

Many people asked what would have happened if the US runner had just kept going and the two incoming runners made handoffs at the same time, interfering with each other. The consensus was that the US runner would have been DQd.

Today it was the US that had entitlement to the inside position with the two incoming runners approaching the handoff in the wrong lanes. But circumstances still didn't go in the US's favor.

One of the most impressive tactical moves I've ever seen in T/F, by the Russian third leg: gets in front past the 200, then lets the American in on the inside, setting up the flub for the USA:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erfvCpkzPzg

I'll agree to commend the Russian runner for taking advantage of rules as they are.

However, the main purpose of the rule at issue is to prevent conflicts and collisions at the handoff. The tactic chosen by the Russian runner created the real possibility of such a result and I would tweak the application of the rule to discourage the tactic.

I think the rules where followed. In the USA the 4X400 is run a lot in both HS and the NCAA, you think that we would know the rules better.

Verberg (the US third leg) got the stick a bit back from Bahamas.

At the 200 mark he caught up and tried to pass but never made it around and Bahamas came out the turn in the lead and on the inside.

At this point the US anchor should have slid to the outside to line up with Verberg. But he didn't.

Verberg closed hard and caught up at the exchange point.

It looked like they crossed hands. Bahamas got the pass off and the US dropped it and ha to pick it up.

Race over.

The officials should have had time to position them.

Regardless, both anchors had time to switch places as the US was never on the inside.

Just looked at that relay someone posted.

Mitchell turned his head too soon and didn't look the baton into his hand.

He actually did gab the Bahama's stick and then the Bahama anchor took it out of his hand.

Then the US baton hit the track after he tries again.

Totally the fault of the US anchor.

The Bahamas team didn't really do a legal exchange but it wasn't their fault.

Star wrote:

Verberg (the US third leg) got the stick a bit back from Bahamas.

At the 200 mark he caught up and tried to pass but never made it around and Bahamas came out the turn in the lead and on the inside.

At this point the US anchor should have slid to the outside to line up with Verberg. But he didn't.

Verberg closed hard and caught up at the exchange point.

It looked like they crossed hands. Bahamas got the pass off and the US dropped it and ha to pick it up.

Race over.

The officials should have had time to position them.

Regardless, both anchors had time to switch places as the US was never on the inside.

You're missing the whole point. The US anchor could not have slid over on his own. The officials fix the positions of the outgoing runners. Nor could the officials have repositioned the runners. The rules prevent that after the 200m mark.

The rules have a good intention but can create difficult decisions for incoming runners. Nobody wants to be the one to break momentum.

US runner never had the lead at 200 mark. US anchor should have been in 2nd position. US should be dq'ed.

You may be right, but all day at Penn the officials were moving people around at the exchange with even 100m to go. They were side by side, the runners at the exchange should have been moved

coachkritter wrote:

US runner never had the lead at 200 mark. US anchor should have been in 2nd position. US should be dq'ed.

The officials position the outgoing runners. You can't DQ someone for doing what he is told.

Was There wrote:

You may be right, but all day at Penn the officials were moving people around at the exchange with even 100m to go. They were side by side, the runners at the exchange should have been moved

I can't speak to what was being done in the school races.

Per IAAF rules, which USATF follows as far as I know, the officials position the outgoing runners as of 200m and cannot change that positioning once made.

This was thoroughly discussed because of what happened in the women's 4x4 at Worlds.

Here's how you solve the problem... Use the ENTIRE exchange zone. Nobody ever uses more than the first 25% of the zone. If you are in the wrong spot, just leave early and get the stick 15 meters down the track out of harms way.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

Here's how you solve the problem... Use the ENTIRE exchange zone. Nobody ever uses more than the first 25% of the zone. If you are in the wrong spot, just leave early and get the stick 15 meters down the track out of harms way.

Doesn't solve the problem. This is a 4x4 where fractions of a second are the difference between winning and losing. You're not just trying to get the baton for the 1600m leg of a DMR.

The problem is two incoming runners of equal strength who each needs to maintain momentum to maximize competitive advantage and needs to make a handoff across the front of the runner next to him.

This crossover issue isn't solved by having one of the outgoing runners leave early. One of the incoming runners has to back off or there will be conflict. Neither wants to be the one to do so and the rules don't make clear who should.

Video:

http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&mgroup_event_id=633&year=2014&do=videos&video_id=113021

Looks to me like Verberg wasn't quite past Brown at 200, in which case the officials lined up the anchors wrong.

Great anchor leg by Ajee Wilson:

http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&mgroup_event_id=633&year=2014&do=videos&video_id=113025

That was ridiculous...these are professionals and they should know that you can switch positions themselves. It's not the officials fault, it's all on the athletes. Better yet, Bahamas did it better keeping his eye on the baton the entire transition, whereas the US took his eyes off of it. Never in my life have I seen that, he should never run for the USA again.

WWWHAT wrote:

That was ridiculous...these are professionals and they should know that you can switch positions themselves. It's not the officials fault, it's all on the athletes. Better yet, Bahamas did it better keeping his eye on the baton the entire transition, whereas the US took his eyes off of it. Never in my life have I seen that, he should never run for the USA again.

One more time: no, the outgoing runners can't change position on their own. This is per IAAF rules and as followed by USATF.

Ibex wrote:

Video:

http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&mgroup_event_id=633&year=2014&do=videos&video_id=113021

Looks to me like Verberg wasn't quite past Brown at 200, in which case the officials lined up the anchors wrong.

May well be true but, either way, the issue is there to arise in the future.