Molly Huddle Interference? Should Huddle have been DQd for flailing her arms out at United Airlines NYC Half?

Nyc half wrote:

Just watched end of NYC Half - it appeared at end that she obstructed the other racer as they sprinted at the end, holding her left arm out wide. I like Molly but that looked suspicious

LRC addition: Our recap of the race is now up on the front page:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/03/molly-huddle-wins-2016-nyc-half-controversial-fashion-6741-cr-stephen-sambu-rolls-6116/

It includes a link to the video of the controversial finish which you is forwarded to the right spot here:

https://youtu.be/x0WiUP-l2Q4?t=36s

No, you lets run fan boys need to get a life really.

I don't think that it is clear that she interfered, because it's plausible that she put her arms out to push the finish tape out of the way so she wouldn't fall. I'm not sure that it preserved her win. The other runner did have the rest of the road available.

That is Interference.

jjjjjj wrote:

I don't think that it is clear that she interfered, because it's plausible that she put her arms out to push the finish tape out of the way so she wouldn't fall. I'm not sure that it preserved her win. The other runner did have the rest of the road available.

There's no question she interfered as her armed barred the opposition from passing her. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

As far as I'm concerned getting in the way is a tactic.

Bekele moves back and forth, looking back frequently to check, to block Farah from passing on the narrow remaining road at the finish of their showdown a few years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icdS6BjnKlA

rojo wrote:

I think the idea of a DQ is the wrong one. Would I take her out of the results entirely? Definitely not. The sport needs to have a way to put her 2nd.

That's a reasonable position -- perhaps something akin to football's five- or fifteen-yard penalty -- but in the absence of that, what would you do? I'm somewhat inclined to vote for the DQ, even though it's not clear to me whether her infraction changed the finishing order.

What coach doesn't tell his charge to get his elbow up. If you don't someone will do it to you.

I'm not talking pushing, running out of lane or up someone's shoe. Just get your arm up!

That's what I see. She is raising her arms up to break the tape not to block the other runner.

look at right after, she's went to the Rashid Ramiza school of acting guilty

HA ! Convicts her self

DQ all day long

When you watch the finish you can also see that the Kenyan held her line and Huddle crossed into her as well. Easy to see because of the double yellow lines marking the road.

So you have the armbar and crossing into her line at the finish.

Intentional and effective.

I think if huddle doesn't let up holds her line and doesn't put her arm out she wins. But she let up at the end and without the interference it would have been very close

Dirty but not enough to DQ to my eyes.

Enough to effect reputation.

Wait on the drug test too.

Will this be addressed anywhere other then this comment section? It appears that is was an intentional foul play at best. Not an example of good sportsmanship for the sport.

She thought the tape was going to appear immediately to her left?

quote]Crush wrote:

That's what I see. She is raising her arms up to break the tape not to block the other runner.[/quote]

doesn't have to be intentional

just instinct ...still a DQ

Can someone please post the wording of the rule regarding interference?

It seems to me if you're behind in a race, biking/auto/running, the burden is on you to figure out how to get around the person in front of you, not run over them. I agree the Kenyan should not have been that close enough to allow Molly's body to block her in any way. I think it's pretty easy for Molly to argue what she did; she happened to put her arms up to keep her balance as she's breaking the tape. That's the standard way to finish. For the Kenyan she needed to expect Molly's arms to go up. There was plenty of road to the left and right where should could have passed, but she put herself in a terrible position.

NS is absolutely correct. In cycling, there is a way to relegate a sprinter for deviating from their line or otherwise riding incorrectly in such a way so that they simply come in a the back of their group. In certain cases, the sprinter is relegated all the way to last place, but there definitely is allowance for simply relegating the offender to the back of their particular group (in this case, a "group" of 2). NYRR, as progressive as they are (think about their stance on no dopers w/ Hx of 6mo or longer sanction), really dropped the ball on this one if there's no relegation or DQ. this is a textbook DQ situation, as the rules are written. Sad if they take no action.That said, when you look at how many blatant dopers David Monti has happily brought in over the years, then later crowed about their transgression after they were caught, well it will be no surprise if nothing is done.

NativeSon wrote:

Let's stop the double standards.

The lady who finished second should have been declared the winner.

As to whether Molly should have been disqualified, that, in my opinion, should be the debate.

I'm surprised no one pointed this out: look how Chepkirui remains parallel to the yellow lines until the last three steps when she is being cut-off / forced left by Huddle. Definite DQ.

Bill the pill wrote:

Can someone please post the wording of the rule regarding interference?

NYRR follows USATF Rules, as it says on their website. That being said Rule 163 is for TRACK events. Not sure how it applies to road events.

The rule says -

Any competitor or participant jostling, running across, or obstructing another competitor or participant so as to impede his or her progress shall be liable to disqualification in that event. The Referee shall have the authority to order the race to be re-held, excluding the disqualified competitor or, in the case of a heat, to permit any competitor(s) seriously affected by jostling or obstruction (other than the disqualified competitor) to compete in a subsequent round of the race. Normally, such an athlete should have completed the event with bona fide effort. Regardless of whether there has been a disqualification, the Referee, in exceptional circumstances, shall also have the authority to advance a competitor seriously affected by jostling or obstruction or to order the race to be re-held if it is just and reasonable to do so.

NOTE: Some factors to be considered when determining a disqualification include safety, equitable competition, severity of the infraction and resulting consequence.

A few things. First she has to obstruct AND Impede. If you look at the video, I don't think Huddle impeded. The woman sped up after the contact. Secondly, according to the NOTE: the factors to take in concerning DQs give the judges some latitude. Taking those into play. Huddle probably would have won regardless. NO DQ. That's it GAME OVER.

Now get a life

Parallel wrote:

I'm surprised no one pointed this out: look how Chepkirui remains parallel to the yellow lines until the last three steps when she is being cut-off / forced left by Huddle. Definite DQ.

Yes. Perfectly holds her line while Huddle arm-bars her.

Gross that NYRR is too cowardly to DQ the home runner.

Imagine Rupp getting arm-barred by a German runner in the Berlin marathon, and the German not getting DQed. (Off course, Rupp and a German would be fighting for 13th place in Berllin.)