Look here
http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&do=videos&video_id=150405
9:30 mark. She steps off the track. The Leah O'Connor thread says this should be a DQ.
I'm glad she wasn't DQd but can a rules official chime in? There isn't supposed to be discretion if you step out of the lane on a turn.
Not in Lanes Disqualification’s SHALL BE RULED by the Referee when a competitor:
1. Jostles, cuts across or obstructs another competitor so as to impede the other runners progress. Direct contact is not necessary; any action that causes another runner to break stride or lose momentum can lead to D.Q
2. Veers to the right or to the left so as to impede a challenging runner and causes the challenging runner to run a greater distance.
3. Voluntarily leave the track and presumably the race, then returns later to continue the race.
4. Tries to force a way between two leading runners, and makes direct contact so as to impede the progress of either, or
5. Steps on or over the curb with two consecutive steps of the left foot.
NOTE: The Referee, after consulting with the appropriate officials, shall not D.Q. competitors who: 1. Are pushed or forced by another runner to step on or over the curb with no material advantage gained. 2. Step on or over the curb on the straightaway unless an advantage is gained by improving position.
Our sport has become a joke, that's why. USATF picks their favorites, to whom the rules do not apply.
Da Rulez wrote:
Steps on or over the curb with two consecutive steps of the left foot.
must be old rules. Under current USATF comp rules there is nothing about number of steps - either you stay outside the kerb or you don't.
The umpire seems to have been looking the other way.
She must have been sweating it for the rest of the race. A lesser known runner (or uglier) would have been DQ'd.
She will go faster this year, I look for for her to go 9:04-9:09
Trackfan334 wrote:
Our sport has become a joke, that's why. USATF picks their favorites, to whom the rules do not apply.
You're right!
At the USATF meet, there must have been 5 or 10 recall guns over the 4 days but only Ryan Bailey was DQed for a false start. Do they expect us to believe that all the other recalls were electronics glitches? They have decided to not enforce the FS rule.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Da Rulez wrote:Steps on or over the curb with two consecutive steps of the left foot.
must be old rules. Under current USATF comp rules there is nothing about number of steps - either you stay outside the kerb or you don't.
The umpire seems to have been looking the other way.
Under Rule 163.4 and 163.5, Coburn should have been DQ'd.
Houston, I think we have a problem.
frapp wrote:
There isn't supposed to be discretion if you step out of the lane on a turn.
None at all. Only on the straight is there discretion.
malmo wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:The umpire seems to have been looking the other way.
Under Rule 163.4 and 163.5, Coburn should have been DQ'd.
Houston, I think we have a problem.
Yes, the important question is whether or not an official clearly saw this and decided to ignore it.
It is a difficult thing to judge in a race like the 200m with lots of athletes running super fast and more lines to watch at once. For the leader in a distance race on a track with a curb, it should have been much easier to spot.
She's an attractive white girl
Anyone who really thinks she should be DQ'd is crazy. First off there was really little to no advantage gained. She was clearly not trying to gain an advantage. Miss step or not no one was beating Coburn. Why would you want her DQ'd anyway? Do you not want the best representing the USA? I would understand if perhaps it was a close race. It wasn't. And why would the officials DQ a medal hopeful for doing something that did not impact any others in the race and it clearly did not determine the race outcome.
The more likely reason is that no other athlete in the race filed a protest. (Feel free to prove me wrong if you can find where one did.)
Precisely. She actually slowed down dealing with the mishap, so no advantage was gained--the reverse in fact. Do we really need to be looking for more scandals in this beleaguered sport?
Fentrekker wrote:
Precisely. She actually slowed down dealing with the mishap, so no advantage was gained--the reverse in fact. Do we really need to be looking for more scandals in this beleaguered sport?
I can see that we need to keep hammering this one home until the whole running community understands that under USATF rules, you can not take even one step inside the rail on the turn without being pushed.
USATF Rules 2015 Page 63 Rule 163 Section 5
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.
The only parts of this rule that apply to Coburn are in bold. She stepped inside the inner rail on a turn, and if a referee would have have reported it, she should have been disqualified.
The "material advantage" clause only applies to cases (a) (b) and (c) where being pushed, running inside on a straight, or running outside the outside bound don't grant a runner material advantage, then the runner might not get disqualified.
Coburn should have been DQ'd. That's what both the rule book and common sense says should have happened.
The problem we have is that referees are refusing to enforce obvious violations of the rules.
I have been thinking about this. The misuse of the "material advantage" clause to justify breaking the rules is exactly the way the use of various Constitutional clauses like "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" are used to justify abuses of Federal power. You pull some words from one part of the rule book and apply them in a way that nullifies the original intent of the rule to ensure you get the outcome you want.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. I'm part of the old guard of Americans who believe in following rules and all those other antiquated notions. The USATF rule book was written by old white guys right? Why should any of you young guys be constrained by their narrow minded rules. If someone stumbles through the infield flailing their arms around wildly and then claims cutting a few yards off the race didn't give them any advantage, then their feelings and the fans feelings should matter more than crusty old rules.
I am evolving on this issue. Please give me room to grow.
2. Veers to the right or to the left so as to impede a challenging runner and causes the challenging runner to run a greater distance.
Don't see this arbitrarily not called either, do we?
She has a nice butt.
People. Do you not read the front page? We went over this extensively in our race recap:http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/06/emma-coburn-sets-meet-record-in-womens-steeple-as-stephanie-garcia-and-colleen-quigley-pr-and-punch-their-tickets-to-beijing/What Coburn did by rule is supposed to be a DQ.People aren't reading the rule correctly. The rule says if you step over the curb on a turn, you are DQd unless you were pushed or forced inside the curb.The material advantage has nothing to do with Coburn. Basically that language is there for the opposite of what people think. Let's say coming into the water jump, you get jostled a bit and step over the curb. That wouldn't normally result in a DQ as you were forced over the curb, but let's say realziing you were jostled, you just decided to cut through the inside of the track and run straight to the other side of the track, skipping the water jump. Then you'd get the DQ.So the "material advantage" language is in there to make sure people don't use a jostle as an excuse to cut things short purposely.IN terms of being DQd, you dont' need to gain a material advantage to be DQd.
Fentrekker wrote:
Precisely. She actually slowed down dealing with the mishap, so no advantage was gained--the reverse in fact. Do we really need to be looking for more scandals in this beleaguered sport?
I disagree that Coburn didn't gain anything? Yes she did. She ran less ground than she whouldn't have had she not stepped on the rail. This is very similar to what happened to Grant fisher indoors. Yes he slowed down. He and Coburn likely would have run faster had they not stumbled on the rail, but once they hit the rail, they ran faster than they would by stepping ont he infield.
I'm glad Coburn wasn't DQd. To me, it's common sense. When a ball is uncatchable, you pick up the flag for pass interference.
But it does raise a lot of interesting questions. If this was the Olympic Trials and you are 4th, do you protest? Even though she clearly was going to win, how many steps do we get her away with ? 2? 6 ? 8?
Like many things, it's a slippery slope.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. I'm part of the old guard of Americans who believe in following rules and all those other antiquated notions. The USATF rule book was written by old white guys right? Why should any of you young guys be constrained by their narrow minded rules. If someone stumbles through the infield flailing their arms around wildly and then claims cutting a few yards off the race didn't give them any advantage, then their feelings and the fans feelings should matter more than crusty old rules.
I am evolving on this issue. Please give me room to grow.[/quote]
Sir, your assumptions about the age and demographic characteristics of those with whom you are debating undercuts your observations. Personally, I am one of those nerds who will dutifully stop for a red light at 2 am when there is no other car in sight. I simply disagree on this issue. That said, I wouldn't have cried foul if Coburn had been disqualified. But neither do I consider it a travesty that she was not. Your outlandish conclusions about people who disagree with you are rather hyperbolic, and not helpful.
frapp wrote:
Look here
http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&do=videos&video_id=1504059:30 mark. She steps off the track. The Leah O'Connor thread says this should be a DQ.
I'm glad she wasn't DQd but can a rules official chime in? There isn't supposed to be discretion if you step out of the lane on a turn.
She was also wearing a "cool vest" before the race and chewing bubble gum and her competitors weren't. What about that?