"The meet will be conducted under USATF rules. In general, the rules covering open competition will be used. The only exceptions will be the throwing implement and hurdle specifications which will follow Youth Athletics which follows the High School Rules. The following is intended to summarize some of the rule items of note. This summary is not intended to replace the 2015 USATF Competition Rule Book which will govern the competition."
Given this representation, the issue is clearly governed by the USATF Rule Book and USATF Rule 163.5, not by the NFHS rulebook.
The NFHS rules are of background significance in demonstrating that officials should not have been confused by any pertinent difference in this particular case between NFHS rules and the governing USATF rules.
Who ratifies national high school records? USATF, NFHS, or someone else?
Track and Field News, for all practical purposes.
OK. Let's go back to the USATF rules:
2015 USATF Running Competition
Each competitor must keep in the lanes outside the line or curb marking the inside of the track, including the curved part of the diversion from the track for the steeplechase water jump. In races run entirely in lanes, each competitor must keep in the allotted lane from start to finish. In races run partially in lanes, each competitor must keep in the allotted lane from the start to the marked cut-in points. Unless a material advantage has been gained or the athlete is in violation of Rule 163.4, a competitor shall not be
disqualified if he or she:
(a) Is pushed or forced by another competitor to step out of the lane, or
(b) Steps out of the lane on the straightaway, or
(c) Steps or runs outside of the outer lane line on the curve, or on any straight part of the diversion from the track for the steeplechase water jump
Excluding the above exceptions, the Referee shall disqualify a competitor if an Umpire reports that the competitor has stepped out of the lane.
NOTE: Material advantage includes improving position by any means, including exiting from a 'boxed' position in the race by having stepped or run inside the inside edge of the track.
This says that a DQ still occurs for (a) (b) or (c) if any advantage was gained in the process. Neither (a) (b) nor (c) occurred so the material advantage clause has nothing to do with this case.
This case falls to the bolded line near the bottom where it clearly states that any step outside the lane should be a DQ. This is even stricter than NFHS.
Again, the sport is ridiculous if this kind of thing is allowed.
Roberts Rules of Order have nothing to say on this topic.
According to the rules, yes he most certainly should have been DQed. 100%. Without question.
However, I'm glad they didn't because I like Grant and he was going to win and produce a fast time and it was an accident.
This, along with the 5k NAIA and DIII debacles, come on referees.
The rumored rule is 3 steps, but I have seen professionals take up to 5 at the nike invitational just because positioning gets jumbled. For those of you who think there is some magical set in stone rule, there is not. That was an honest mishap that happened to him and he was still able to recover and roll in at 4:03.x. It did not improve his time, he was going much faster before that happened. He wasn't DQ'd because I know officials came to realize that and did not make a fus about it.
Except there is a "magical set in stone rule":
Each competitor must keep in the lanes outside the line or curb marking the inside of the track, including the curved part of
the diversion from the track for the steeplechase
the Referee shall disqualify a competitor if an Umpire reports that the competitor has stepped out of the lane.
What others need to understand is there is no wording in the rule as it applies to this situation that acknowledges any "material advantage" or "honest mishaps" or " x number of steps". It's pretty clear- leave your lane, be DQed, if reported.
What happened here is that an umpire, for a reason known only to him, but assumed by us, did not report it as an infraction.
The only questions are why it wasn't reported and why the protest was not accepted.
You are missing an important part. "If an Umpire reports...." It doesn't matter what you or I or the flotrack video saw.
Also, the 3-or-more steps rule is a real one, and comes from NFHSS:
Some people don't realize that USATF, NCAA, and NFHSS rulebooks differ slightly. Different meets are run by different rulebooks.
Sure, I missed the "If an umpire reports it" part unless you count the three times I brought it up.
Oh, and thanks for citing the wrong rule book. This meet was under USATF rules.
As I states before, that he broke the rule is not in question. What's in question is why the ump never raised his flag.
The umpire should have reported to the referee and he should have been disqualified. Pretty straight forward.
What's all this talk about Geometry? Are we that foolish to dismiss momentum? We live in a world outside of angles, slopes, and arcs. Not only was his momentum impeded by his mistake, there was a different surface to navigate, a step down, a step up, and also a different aspect than the banked (albeit slightly) track. To all of you claiming he did himself a favor by running a shorter distance purely on the claim of Geometry, explain how these other physical factors don't matter.
Also, I had to re-watch the video to see what this supposed short cut looked like. It was definitely an "S" shaped path. Moving to the inside of the track off the top of the last turn (toward left), then out to lane two during the last portion of the last turn (toward right). I'd bet that "S" shape line would measure out to the same distance, if not longer, had he run the turn as intended.
Youse You're Branes Peepel.
I think it is a dangerous precedent if the rules are bent for this kind of situation. The rules quoted are that you stay within the lane, with a few exceptions none of which apply to this situation. How is this any different than a football player that steps out of bounds on a sure touchdown run? A DQ is unfortunate, especially given the circumstances, but any good set of rules sometimes leads to unfortunate situations. That's because, for the most part, a good set of rules allow for uniform enforcement without subjectivity on every single part of the rule.
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
What an incredibly stupid post.
Where do you live that mistakes don't happen?
. . . he did not run nearly the full mile distance,plain and simple, look at the video closely he was off the track for a good 7-8 yards of advancement before he came back on. He may have run 1600M, may have.
How stupid do you get.
If he only ran 1600m as opposed to the full 1609.34, that means that he lost 9.34 meters.
If he only ran 7-8 meters inside the rail, he did not loose anywhere close to 9 meters.
Let's do some simple math. Assume he ran 2 meters inside of the rail for 7-8 meters on a 50m circumference arch (it's close enough to 50).
distance = (pi*2) * (8/50)
distance = ~1.00m
At most, Fischer lost 1 meter. At 4:03 mile pace, 1 meter = 0.15 seconds.
Grant Fischer may have been disqualified in a close race, but give me a break, the kid is the rightful national champ.
We should allow rule breaking as long as it didn't change the results.
You are insane
Watch the video ten times first
Then use your formula
He should have been dq'd, end of story. Poor officiating. Even Fisher thought after the race (see interview video) that he would likely be dq'd, and so he was already trying to move past it. Great run, and he is such an impressive talent, I hope he gets the sub-4 outdoors.
Even better if he does it by himself outdoors, and not in some Pro, rabbited race like Webb's 3.53.
Thank you for the perspective of someone who has never run a step on a track and who has no concept of what almost coming to a dead halt while jumping over random impediments would do to the final time.
HTF do YOU know who here has run on a track and who has not?
I'll put my best performances against yours any time.