So if Mead is in? Does this mean Farah is out?

I understand letting people back into the finals after falls, but they must draw the line at some point. You see way more trips, collisions, and falls among elite athletes compared to high school or even college. This is because I find them to be too stubborn to accept the fact that they must move over, go around, etc. Why employ tactics and move to a different lane when you can stand your ground, fall, and move onto any final you want. Heck, you can be impeded slightly and get granted a chance to compete for an Olympic spot (engels in 800). Part of racing is dealing with falls and people around you. I get that its out of your control sometimes, but I feel like there shouldn't be people getting into finals with such ease. Falls are part of racing.

rojo wrote:

Splashing w Emma wrote:

No, Mead should have, and has been, reinstated and the officials did the right thing in the end, ipso facto, calling it inadvertent, no harm, no foul, everyone who was going to go through.

.

i 100% agree. Use common sense. Same thing with Kemboi.

Kemboi shouldn't have tried to move up on the inside there. I get it but come on.

You can't have someone re-instated without someone being DQ'd. Did Mead protest to be re-instated AND have Mo DQ'd. Aric Van Halen clearly proved Mo moved inside without sufficient clearance.

Hell will freeze over before you see Mo DQ'd though. Hell, Mo consoled Mead right after because he knew he had done Mead wrong.

I think Seb Coe will do the right thing and DQ Mo after reading this "enlightening" post.

Rojo you are voting for Trump aren't you?

Is it really necessary to play the race card? Seriously?

Rule 163 is not a model of clarity, but I don't think Rule 163 requires an athlete to be disqualified for jostling or obstruction.

Rule 163(2)(b) says that an athlete who is responsible for jostling or obstruction "shall be liable to disqualification." I read "shall be liable to disqualification" as meaning "may be disqualified." In other words, disqualification is discretionary with the Referee.

You can compare the language of 163(2)(b) with the language of 163(3) on lane infringement that was used to disqualify Kemboi. For lane infringement, "if the Referee is satisfied ... that an athlete has infringed this Rule, he shall be disqualified." For jostling, the athlete "shall be liable to disqualification," while for lane infringement, the athlete "shall be disqualified." Presumably, there's a distinction intended where the Referee has discretion not to disqualify an athlete for jostling but must disqualify an athlete for lane infringement (subject to the exceptions for being pushed or stepping out on the straight).

The bottom line is that Mead could be reinstated without the Referee being required to disqualify Farah. Being a stickler for the rules does not require Farah to be disqualified.

socrates wrote:

I understand letting people back into the finals after falls, but they must draw the line at some point. You see way more trips, collisions, and falls among elite athletes compared to high school or even college. This is because I find them to be too stubborn to accept the fact that they must move over, go around, etc. Why employ tactics and move to a different lane when you can stand your ground, fall, and move onto any final you want. Heck, you can be impeded slightly and get granted a chance to compete for an Olympic spot (engels in 800). Part of racing is dealing with falls and people around you. I get that its out of your control sometimes, but I feel like there shouldn't be people getting into finals with such ease. Falls are part of racing.

Engels was fouled and put out of the race, and the guy who fouled him wasn't even DQ'd. Contrary to your post, the rules need to be enforced, and people DQ'd when they interfere with the others. It is right to advance people who've been harmed, and I've not ever seen anyone purposely get fouled to advance.