Live Debate: Should The NCAA Re-Run Races After Blatant DQs, Should There Be DQs in 800s or 3ks?

I don’t know if I have that much to say on this one. I think it’s an impossible situation and would be very unfortunate if it had ended up that way with the points. However, sport doesn't happen in a bubble. Freak accidents and blatant fouls are going to happen and sometimes you just have to roll with the punches. LSU was DQd which was right, and honestly it’s bad luck for Florida.

In a perfect world you’d re-run the race the next day when everyone had equal time to rest and recover and it’d be a brand new and “fair” race. But with TV coverage and team travel schedules, that’s just not realistic in the slightest. And are you really going to not finalize team scores until the next day and leave the fans who paid money to travel and get tickets to this meet waiting to find out which team won?

And re-running the race on the same day isn’t realistic for the reasons Jon mentioned above (plus TV as well). I think you just have to accept the outcome and move on. Bad luck for Florida.

I’ll also add that unless he was hurt (it didn’t look like it from the video, but you can’t really see the full aftermath), Futch should have got back on the track and finished the race. A finish is better than a DNF and he’d have more of a case to make anyway (as far as a hypothetical debate about re-running the race) if his anchor closed well. Not to mention I’m sure his teammates would rather at least 8th place in the country/All-American than “no place”.

I'd include the DIII distance medley pacing situation. During the final mile leg, a lapped runner paced another team from his conference past the National Record holding team-Amherst. The pacing runner was DQ'ed but the paced team was not penalized and was awarded the national championship.

Do you have any video of the distance false starts? They were not replayed.

Florida should have had the opportunity to re-run the race for placing and obtaining All-American status. This occurs after adequate rest. I would allow at least an hour.

bring it on wrote:

I'd include the DIII distance medley pacing situation. During the final mile leg, a lapped runner paced another team from his conference past the National Record holding team-Amherst. The pacing runner was DQ'ed but the paced team was not penalized and was awarded the national championship.

Do you have any video of the distance false starts? They were not replayed.

Florida should have had the opportunity to re-run the race for placing and obtaining All-American status. This occurs after adequate rest. I would allow at least an hour.

The false start videos can be found here (we're going to address it later).

2:08:15 of Day One for men’s 800 DQ. (far right in the barrel)

2:07:10 of Day Two for women’s 3k DQ. (Baylor runner in lane 1; it’s hard to see as they don’t show a replay)

Jonathan Gault wrote:

bring it on wrote:

I'd include the DIII distance medley pacing situation. During the final mile leg, a lapped runner paced another team from his conference past the National Record holding team-Amherst. The pacing runner was DQ'ed but the paced team was not penalized and was awarded the national championship.

Do you have any video of the distance false starts? They were not replayed.

Florida should have had the opportunity to re-run the race for placing and obtaining All-American status. This occurs after adequate rest. I would allow at least an hour.

The false start videos can be found here (we're going to address it later).

2:08:15 of Day One for men’s 800 DQ. (far right in the barrel)

2:07:10 of Day Two for women’s 3k DQ. (Baylor runner in lane 1; it’s hard to see as they don’t show a replay)

800

3000

Ahh. this is a great debate. It brings back memories of the 2003 Outdoor Heps - my first as a Cornell coach. We only need to finish within two spots of Princeton in the 4 x 400 to win the meet. Going into the anchor, Princeton and Cornell were 30 meters clear of everyone else but our anchor leg shoved the Princeton guy to the track and they announced after it was over that they were going to re-run the race but without Cornell in it as we were DQd.

Pandemonium ensued but in the end they didn’t re-run the race. They simply DQd us (Cornell) but Princeton's guy wallowed on the track so long after going down, they only got like 1 point and we still won the meet.

Anyway, I think this is good debate.

I agree with Steve - they shouldn’t have re-run that race under any circumstances as the Florida guy didn’t finish the race. He easily could have finished his leg. So lesson #1 from NCAAs this year and Heps 2003 is - if you get fouled, down whine and wallow about it. Get your ass up and finish the leg.

But what if it was more blatant? What if Oregon is up 8. They have the worst team in the 4 x 400 and they simply tackle a favored Florida team team? What do you do if it’s something like that?

Of let’s say it’s the 2016 Olympic Trials and the Schumacher- Salazar rivalry is even more heated than it is now. Let’s say German Fernandez makes the 5000 Trials. He knows he’s not going to make the Games so in the final, he simply tackles Galen Rupp so Hill and Bumby can go to Brazil.

Under situations like those, you have to re-run the race in my opinion. I don’t give a crap about TV or anything like that.

The question is then when? In a 4 x 400, I’d give everyone 30 minutes. You’d need to re-run both sections so everyone would be equally tired (another reason why I’m adamant everyone finsih the leg barring injury).In a distance race, maybe a few hours.

I just think it’s critical that people think about these things now so we don’t have people going nuts if there is a situation that ‘no one could have anticipated’ when it could have been anticipated like with the tie at the last Trials.

bring it on wrote:

I'd include the DIII distance medley pacing situation. During the final mile leg, a lapped runner paced another team from his conference past the National Record holding team-Amherst. The pacing runner was DQ'ed but the paced team was not penalized and was awarded the national championship..

We as a staff are in agreement. We think it's ridiculous that someone would pace another team in a national championship.

Where we come from (Ivy League), no way in hell would a lapped Dartmouth team help Princeton get a national record.

But you can't really DQ the winning team can you? Was it set up ahead of time? We are assuming not. If not, then how can you DQ the guy who is taking advantage of a lapped runner? What did he do wrong?

How blatant was it? Is their a video of it that we can watch that we don't have to pay to watch? Did the guy slow down on purpose and then speed up to help the guy or were they the same ability?

If we were officiating, we might yell out on the track,' if you guys don't stop running together you are both getting DQd.'

To be honest, we were winning the race, we'd be kind of pissed as we'd be fearful of the DQ.

If Futch got up and Florida finished the race, ideally you would re-run the race, but I agree with Steve that it’s probably not feasible. Another problem is if you re-run the 4x400, you’re setting a precedent. What if someone fouled Eric Jenkins in the 5000 and prevented him from finishing? Do you re-run the 5000 too? When do you re-run it? If you re-run the 5000 on day 2, that hurts Oregon as then Jenkins is tired coming back for the 3000. I don’t think you can re-run any race unless there are extraordinary circumstances. And LSU fouling Florida, while unfortunate for the Gators, is just bad luck, as Steve said.

But, in the situation Robert presented -- where an athlete or his team directly benefits from committing an egregious foul on another runner (aka Oregon on Florida in the 4x400 or Fernandez on Rupp in the 5000) -- I agree that they NEED to re-run the race. Something like that is too important to let slip.

I’d go with an hour of rest vs. 30 minutes for the 4x400 but agree that all three sections need to be re-run.

In a 5000, it depends on how far into the race you are when the foul occurred. If the foul is on the final lap, I would try and wait a day or two before re-running the race. If it’s in the Olympic Trials, that could be a problem because guys could be doubling back to the 1500 (usually the 10k is before the 5k). So maybe re-run the 5000 the day after the final day of the meet. I think a few hours’ recovery is too short if the foul is at the end of the race. If the comes in the middle of the race, however, a couple hours’ race is adequate.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

If Futch got up and Florida finished the race, ideally you would re-run the race, but I agree with Steve that it’s probably not feasible. Another problem is if you re-run the 4x400, you’re setting a precedent.

I see now why they essentially need a rule saying the meet referee can do anything he wants. There are times races should be re-run. However, no way should they re-run this 4x400. Yes the foul from LSU was pretty bad but it was not premeditated and was in the course of racing. Very different I think from German Fernandez tackling Galen Rupp. I had to chuckle just writing that.

Barring extreme circumstances,mainly what I would view a premeditated foul that affects the outcome of the race, the race shouldn’t be re-run. In the Cornell-Princeton 4x400 I think it should be rerun. Both teams were in contention for the team title and Rojo makes it sound like the Cornell guy was not going for position but just intentionally shoved the Princeton guy from behind. Here with the 4x400, LSU and Florida had contact that is part of the race and the LSU guy lost his cool, but I think that falls in the context of racing. An unfortunate situation for Florida, but this is indoor racing and bad stuff can happen when contact is made.

One last thing before we get the false starts? All of this talk about having to potentially re-run both heats of a race has me thinking. Why are there two heats of a final in anything? I have an idea to make the meet much more fan and television friendly.

I am naming this the “Robert Johnson” Rule as I want credit. There should be one final in all events. End of story.

They should do one of two things a) have one final with six runners/teams (give the 7th and 8th finishers to the two fastest people who didn’t make the final) or b) have an 8 person final but 4 people (the slowest 4 qualifiers) have to share a lane.

Sharing a lane in the 200 wouldn’t work well in the 200. But in the 400s, it would be fine, it would be like short track speed skating. Falls are part of the game. But if the coaches don’t like that, then just run six (and score 7 and 8 from the prelims - seems ideal to do it that way). Having two timed finals is stupid. It drags out the meet and isn’t tv friendly. I also think in the 800s, the top 4 qualifiers should get their own lanes. 5and 8, 6 and 7 share a lane.

The one event that would be tough for my rule would be the 4 x 400 as 4 or 6 teams would be left home as their are no prelims at NCAA indoors. I’m fine with that. The sport needs to progress.

Or you could have 12 teams run and they each share a lane. I’d have them share it past the first exchange to avoid a collision.

rojo wrote:

One last thing before we get the false starts? All of this talk about having to potentially re-run both heats of a race has me thinking. Why are there two heats of a final in anything? I have an idea to make the meet much more fan and television friendly.

You are forgetting one thing. NCAA Indoors isn’t on live TV. It’s streamed on the internet with only diehards watching. There is no attempt to make any part of it TV friendly.

But I agree only one section for finals. So if that means only running 6 runners in the final and taking 7 and 8 from the prelims that is how you do it. Head to head sport is what we need not some BS time trials with two sections going against one another.

Shifting topics to the false starts...

There were two controversial false start disqualifications at NCAAs this weekend, one in the men’s 800 and one in the women’s 3000. You can view them both below, though the women’s 3000 video isn’t very helpful.

2:08:15 of Day One for men’s 800 DQ.

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/2317298/size/condensed/

(far right in the barrel)

2:07:10 of Day Two for women’s 3k DQ.

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/2317299/size/condensed/

(Baylor runner in lane 1; it’s hard to see as they don’t show a replay)

I was in the opposite corner of the building for both of these races, so I couldn’t see what happened very well in person. From what I could tell, Maggie Montoya did step over the line (Larry Rawson seems to agree on the broadcast), but after looking at the video of the Jesse Garn DQ several times, I place the blame on the starter, not Garn. An official is only supposed to start the race when all athletes are at the line and not moving. Garn clearly hadn’t stopped moving, yet the starter fired the pistol anyway. In that scenario, the starter is supposed to call “stand up”:

On the command “On your marks,” runners shall, without delay, advance to the starting line and, when all competitors are steady and motionless without their hands touching the ground, the starter shall discharge the pistol. (Rule 5, Section 1, Article 5; p. 55-56

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/TF16.pdf

)

For any reason, either before or after the word “Set,” the starter may cancel a start by directing all runners to stand up. After allowing the runners a brief time for adjustments, a new start shall be made. Starters must conform to the prescribed commands as set forth in the rules. (Rule 5, Section 2, Article 2b.; p. 56)

To me, Garn wasn’t steady and motionless so the pistol should never have been fired. The only reason I can see for a DQ is if the starter thought Garn had assumed the starting position (and perhaps he did, for a fraction of a second) and then started moving again, under which he would have grounds to disqualify him:

If a competitor commences the starting motion after assuming a full and final set position and before the report of the pistol/starting device, it shall be considered a false start unless the starter has canceled the start. (Rule 5, Section 2, Article 1c; p. 56)

What do you guys think? Should Garn have been DQ’ed? And where do we draw the line for false starts resulting in disqualifications? To me, it’s ridiculous that a runner is disqualified for a false start in a 3000. That shouldn’t be happening in any meet.

As for the 800/3k false starts I'll take a crack at this one as I was taking photos about 15 feet from the start of the women’s 3k. Maggie Montoya fell over the line before the gun fired. I wouldn't say she false started. She just lost her balance. There is no reason to DQ her. The rule should be any event above the mile there aren't DQs for false start. No one is trying to false start there to get good position. It just doesn't make a difference how you get out. You could argue the same thing for 800 and the mile. The rule could be there is some discretion ie there is only a false start if the starter views the runner was trying to get an advantage. I'm all for enforcing the rules but rules should be designed to ensure fair competition and these rules need to be changed.

But Robert is the guy who should weigh in on this. In high school his freshman or sophomore year he false started in a 3200. They DQd him and then the coach came over and said, "Let him run. He won't score anyway." So they let him run.

I don’t think either runner should have been DQd. The 3000, come on? Is anyone even debating this? Like you said Weldon, the start is pretty irrelevant to the overall race and no one is trying to get good position or get an extra tenth of a second on the competition. I can’t believe this official DQd her. I seriously question what the hell that official was thinking. If anyone has a good reason why this girl should have been DQd I’m all ears.

Moving on to the 800, there is more room for debate here because getting a good start and position is actually valuable. However, I still think the rules should be re-written so there are no DQs in events without starting blocks (so 800 and up).

Really what is the point of DQing athletes out for false starts? It’s to deter them from trying to anticipate the gun and get an unfair advantage at the start. This is a huge issue in sprinting events where the difference between a gold medal and an “also ran” can be hundredths of a second. In sprinting events there are sensors on the blocks to make sure athletes don’t anticipate the gun. It makes sense in sprinting.

I don’t think this kind of strict DQ rule has a place in the 800. First, there are no blocks and therefore no sensors. It’s up to the eyes of officials, so plenty of room for human error. It’s also a harder thing to come to a complete standstill when taking a starting position not in blocks, especially if there is a long gun. You’re off balance and don’t have blocks to hold yourself in place and you’re also shoulder to shoulder with competitors rather than in your own lane with tons of space. Go back and watch some elite races at the mile distance and up and you’ll see plenty of athletes “shaking in place” at the start as they’re slightly off balance.

It was hard to tell in the video with Garn, but it didn't even look like he took a step over the line. Should an 800 runner be DQd for shaking slightly in their starting position? I don’t believe so.

The start gets less and less relevant as you go up in distance and at a certain point it doesn't matter at all. I don’t think the first 10 steps of a 3000 are much more important than that of a marathon. And yes, starting position becomes more important at the 800 distance, but I still feel DQs for false starts should be restricted to events with blocks.

I don’t think there should be any DQs for false starts in races longer than a mile. Maybe if someone does it five times in a row just to annoy people, otherwise I don’t see why anyone would care that much about their start that they would try to jump the gun. I can maybe see it in an 800 or mile, but I think the better solution for middle-distance races is to issue a warning to the runner on their first offense. If they do it again, they’re DQ’d. I don’t see any reason why someone would false start again after a warning in an 800 or 1500, and situations like the Garn DQ wouldn’t happen.

wejo wrote:

rojo wrote:

One last thing before we get the false starts? All of this talk about having to potentially re-run both heats of a race has me thinking. Why are there two heats of a final in anything? I have an idea to make the meet much more fan and television friendly.

You are forgetting one thing. NCAA Indoors isn’t on live TV. It’s streamed on the internet with only diehards watching. There is no attempt to make any part of it TV friendly.

But I agree only one section for finals. So if that means only running 6 runners in the final and taking 7 and 8 from the prelims that is how you do it. Head to head sport is what we need not some BS time trials with two sections going against one another.

Just tacking on, I agree with what all three of you are saying about re-running a race in a high stakes situation where there is an egregious foul, like your hypothetical Olympic Trials situation.

As far as the "Robert Johnson rule", its clever, but the "B" version definitely isn't doable. You cant have sprinters in the open 400 sharing a lane and in the 4x400 the exchanges would be a mess. It just doesn't work.

I agree that having more than one heat of a final isn't optimal. You see this at conference meets sometimes when the winner comes from the slow heat of the 3000 because they didn't have a qualifying time coming in. So I'm not 100% against the "A" version of the "Robert Johnson rule" where you have 6 in the final and 7th and 8th don't make the cut.

It is indoor and there is limited space and you could argue having 2-heat finals sometimes is just an unfortunate reality. Neither situation is optimal, but for a major championship I'd like it to be a 1-heat final.

DQ'ing an athlete if they don't have their own lane is insane. Maybe it's allowable to DQ an athlete if they have an entire lane to themselves in an 800. These guys are going out in 25 seconds for 200! Getting a hypothetical jump on the field would then make a difference in positioning. However, in this scenario, Garn was trying to balance himself on one foot in a narrow waterfall start in lane 6. Have you ever been on the Arkansas track? I have. It's perhaps the steepest track I have ever been on. I'd like to see the official stand on one foot in lane 6 and not be a bit precarious. Absolutely asinine.

The 3k situation is just absurd. Let the kids play!

Could both runners hypothetically run under protest?

The disadvantaged team should be able to rerun their own race. I've seen it before in HS meets were a hurdler wipes out so bad they take others with them. Official picked a time to set up the hrdles for that runner, and they got a second shot.

If they want it, they can run it solo. The most fair option.

When? Up to the officials, biding by the rules.

Soprano wrote:

Moving on to the 800, there is more room for debate here because getting a good start and position is actually valuable. However, I still think the rules should be re-written so there are no DQs in events without starting blocks (so 800 and up)..

I'm torn on the 800. I think in the 800, the start is kind of important. but if someone falls over the line, no DQ. If they actually start, then you may DQ them.

That brings me back to the Robert Johnson rule. If you only have 6 people in the final, they all get lanes, then people aren't going to false start. Outdoors, few people realize it but the 800 is supposed to always be run in lanes at the start - see page 42:

But a lot of this is on the starter. If you see someone unbalanced, you act you called them up and look the other way.

Adding to this, I think an important distinction between distance events 800 and up and sprinting events is the three command vs two command start. In a sprint you have three commands and when the starters says “on your marks” you have all day to get situated and comfortable in your starting position. In a distance event it is one command and then the gun so you do a short 2-step jog to the line, try to get set/balanced in a second and are ready for a quick start. There isn’t this period of time for you to get comfortable and completely balanced. So shaking in your stance is almost inevitable. If he actually ran out a couple strides from the line that’d be one thing, but he just moved slightly in place.

Whoever the official was who made these DQs (I assume it was the same guy) shouldn’t be allowed to officiate meets at this level. Maybe he technically “followed the rules” but at some point common sense has to rule the day and neither of these DQs seem right to me.