More Craziness at World Indoors -US world leader - who had #2 time qualifier - is kicked out of 60m final

Sprinting Discussion Sprints

Page 1 of 2

1 2

6 years ago 03/02/2018 1:28pm EST

This is a joke.

In the women's 60 semis, the top 2 in each heat plus the next two on time were guaranteed to go to the final. The first heat was incredibly fast as the US's Javianne Oliver, who came in as the world leader at 7.01, only was fourth in her heat in 7.10.

But no 3rd placer in any other heat came close to that. 2nd place in heat #2 was 7.15 and it was 7.17 in heat #3. So Oliver is in the final right?

Not so fast.

The issue is the officials couldn't figure out who finished 2nd in heat #2. So they called it a tie and it's now being stated that they will both be in the final over Oliver.

No. That's not what should happen.

By rule, only the 2nd person is guaranteed to go. Since they can't figure out who is 2nd, they should have a race off. Either that or draw a line next to lane 8 and put 9 women out thee - or do a 2 section final. I just am convinced of one thing - Oliver has to be in the final. She met the criteria - she was the 2nd fastest non auto qualifier.

Heat 1

POS BIB ATHLETE MARK DETAIL REACTION TIME

1 645 Murielle AHOURÉ CIV 7.01 Q WL 0.144

2 757 Elaine THOMPSON JAM 7.07 Q SB 0.175

3 786 Dafne SCHIPPERS NED 7.09 SB 0.148

4 880 Javianne OLIVER USA 7.10 0.149

5 701 Asha PHILIP GBR 7.13 0.135

6 847 Kelly-Ann BAPTISTE TTO 7.21 SB 0.118

7 643 Xiaojing LIANG CHN 7.30 0.140

8 832 Ajla DEL PONTE SUI 7.40 0.171

Heat 2

POS BIB ATHLETE MARK ms* DETAIL REACTION TIME

1 646 Marie-Josée TA LOU CIV 7.08 Q 0.171

2 745 Remona BURCHELL JAM 7.15 .145 Q 0.162

2 846 Michelle-Lee AHYE TTO 7.15 .145 Q SB 0.150

4 712 Tatjana PINTO GER 7.18 0.144

5 812 Ewa SWOBODA POL 7.25 0.181

6 631 Crystal EMMANUEL CAN 7.27 0.168

7 863 Destiny CARTER USA 7.28 0.148

8 664 Klára SEIDLOVÁ CZE 7.35 0.242

Heat 3

POS BIB ATHLETE MARK DETAIL REACTION TIME

1 833 Mujinga KAMBUNDJI SUI 7.10 Q 0.141

2 685 Carolle ZAHI FRA 7.17 Q 0.157

3 824 Carina HORN RSA 7.18 0.158

4 798 Ezinne OKPARAEBO NOR 7.19 0.149

5 804 Anna KIEŁBASIŃSKA POL 7.23 PB 0.140

6 703 Bianca WILLIAMS GBR 7.26 PB 0.223

7 734 Anna BONGIORNI ITA 7.30 0.146

747 Gayon EVANS JAM DNS

LRC note: We changed the title from "Highway robbery. The officials do it again. US world leader - who had #2 time qualifier - is kicked out of 60m final " as after Rojo learned of the rule he agrees it's not highway robbery, but just not a good rule.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 1:36pm EST

re: rojo

6 years ago 03/02/2018 1:37pm EST

re: rojo

Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g.,

the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and

there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing

the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes

qualifying based on time.

thats the rule rojo they did it by the rules dont you bother to check?

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:00pm EST

re: rule 167.4

rule 167.4 wrote:
Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g.,
the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and
there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing
the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes
qualifying based on time.
thats the rule rojo they did it by the rules dont you bother to check?

No I didn't bother to check until you mentioned it. It is the rule and i think maybe it just shouldn't apply in the 60. I could see it in an 800 but in a 60, everyone is going all out so I think teh time qualifier should go over them since she ran way faster.

. I still think they should spray paint a 9th lane out there.

rule book wrote:
3 . If after the application of Rule 167.1, there is a tie for a last qualifying position based on place, if there are lanes or positions available (including lane sharing in 800m races) the tying athletes shall be placed in the next round. If that is not practicable lots shall be drawn to determine which athlete(s) shall be placed in the next round.
4. Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g., the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes qualifying based on time.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:15pm EST

re: rojo

rojo wrote:
rule 167.4 wrote:
Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g.,
the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and
there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing
the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes
qualifying based on time.
thats the rule rojo they did it by the rules dont you bother to check?
No I didn't bother to check until you mentioned it. It is the rule and i think maybe it just shouldn't apply in the 60. I could see it in an 800 but in a 60, everyone is going all out so I think teh time qualifier should go over them since she ran way faster.
. I still think they should spray paint a 9th lane out there.
rule book wrote:
3 . If after the application of Rule 167.1, there is a tie for a last qualifying position based on place, if there are lanes or positions available (including lane sharing in 800m races) the tying athletes shall be placed in the next round. If that is not practicable lots shall be drawn to determine which athlete(s) shall be placed in the next round.
4. Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g., the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes qualifying based on time.

i agree that it is unfair to not qualify but the officials did follow the rules. that was my only point

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:24pm EST

re: rule 167.4

Another clickbait title.

I'm not even entirely sure what "US world leader - who had #2 time qualifier" means.

That said, she did not get kicked out of the final. She was never in to begin with. And the tragedy here is not that the rule prevented this athlete from making the final. The reality is that, if you are #1 or #2 in your event (I don't know and the title says both), and you're 4th in the 1st heat, you didn't show up. This has nothing to do with the officials.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:26pm EST

re: THIS CANNOT STAND!!!

THIS CANNOT STAND!!! wrote:
what?

I know, understanding rojo rants is hard.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:30pm EST

re: Dill Dickleson

Dill Dickleson wrote:
Another clickbait title.

Agreed. Might as well be "I didn't read the rules before claiming the officials didn't follow the rules." Or "Here's something I disagree with that I'm going to pretend is against the rules to justify my anger"

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:30pm EST

re: rojo

Maybe an argument If she were third in her heat

To me, in a 60, you've got to be top 3 to earn a place in the final. There are only 3 medals.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:30pm EST

re: rojo

rojo wrote:
rule 167.4 wrote:
Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g.,
the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and
there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing
the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes
qualifying based on time.
thats the rule rojo they did it by the rules dont you bother to check?
No I didn't bother to check until you mentioned it. It is the rule and i think maybe it just shouldn't apply in the 60. I could see it in an 800 but in a 60, everyone is going all out so I think teh time qualifier should go over them since she ran way faster.
. I still think they should spray paint a 9th lane out there.
rule book wrote:
3 . If after the application of Rule 167.1, there is a tie for a last qualifying position based on place, if there are lanes or positions available (including lane sharing in 800m races) the tying athletes shall be placed in the next round. If that is not practicable lots shall be drawn to determine which athlete(s) shall be placed in the next round.
4. Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g., the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes qualifying based on time.

Certainly in this case (an indoor race entirely in identical lanes), the rule seems silly, and they should maybe go to the swimming style of top overall times are in, regardless of heat. I'd be up for more discrepancy between events in the Q vs q debate, and I totally agree that in the 800 and up, there should be more Q's and fewer q's than there currently are.

But keep in mind that if 1) the race had been outside, where the wind could vary or 2) the race had been a longer one where athletes cut in and the pace can go slow, then we'd want exactly the opposite of what you're arguing for right now. I would much rather this than a situation where one heat gets a good wind and gets all of the time qualifiers as a result.

So I totally agree that the rule is ridiculous in this case, but unless we're willing to be very nuanced in how we go about it, I'd be hesitant to make changes to the rule

6 years ago 03/02/2018 2:46pm EST

re: reformer

Honestly the qualifying system is ridiculous anyway. How much racing is going on in a 60? In order to ensure the best final, they should just have the 8 fastest times into the final. Now you just have some random French women in the final who qualified with a 7.17.

No 4th placer has right to anything wrote:
Maybe an argument If she were third in her heat
To me, in a 60, you've got to be top 3 to earn a place in the final. There are only 3 medals.

There is your answer! If you are 4th in your heat, you have little to argue about. It is not like they took the winner from each heat only and someone caught a flyer. The rules were followed, the athlete ran 1/10th of a second off her best over 60 meters which is a large margin, and did not advance. Tough break but case closed.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 3:21pm EST

re: THIS CANNOT STAND!!!

THIS CANNOT STAND!!! wrote:
what?

LOL

Perfect.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 3:36pm EST

re: rojo

rojo wrote:
This is a joke.
In the women's 60 semis, the top 2 in each heat plus the next two on time were guaranteed to go to the final. The first heat was incredibly fast as the US's Javianne Oliver, who came in as the world leader at 7.01, only was fourth in her heat in 7.10.
But no 3rd placer in any other heat came close to that. 2nd place in heat #2 was 7.15 and it was 7.17 in heat #3. So Oliver is in the final right?
Not so fast.
The issue is the officials couldn't figure out who finished 2nd in heat #2. So they called it a tie and it's now being stated that they will both be in the final over Oliver.
No. That's not what should happen.
By rule, only the 2nd person is guaranteed to go. Since they can't figure out who is 2nd, they should have a race off. Either that or draw a line next to lane 8 and put 9 women out thee - or do a 2 section final. I just am convinced of one thing - Oliver has to be in the final. She met the criteria - she was the 2nd fastest non auto qualifier.
Heat 1
POS BIB ATHLETE MARK DETAIL REACTION TIME
1 645 Murielle AHOURÉ CIV 7.01 Q WL 0.144
2 757 Elaine THOMPSON JAM 7.07 Q SB 0.175
3 786 Dafne SCHIPPERS NED 7.09 SB 0.148
4 880 Javianne OLIVER USA 7.10 0.149
5 701 Asha PHILIP GBR 7.13 0.135
6 847 Kelly-Ann BAPTISTE TTO 7.21 SB 0.118
7 643 Xiaojing LIANG CHN 7.30 0.140
8 832 Ajla DEL PONTE SUI 7.40 0.171
Heat 2
POS BIB ATHLETE MARK ms* DETAIL REACTION TIME
1 646 Marie-Josée TA LOU CIV 7.08 Q 0.171
2 745 Remona BURCHELL JAM 7.15 .145 Q 0.162
2 846 Michelle-Lee AHYE TTO 7.15 .145 Q SB 0.150
4 712 Tatjana PINTO GER 7.18 0.144
5 812 Ewa SWOBODA POL 7.25 0.181
6 631 Crystal EMMANUEL CAN 7.27 0.168
7 863 Destiny CARTER USA 7.28 0.148
8 664 Klára SEIDLOVÁ CZE 7.35 0.242
Heat 3
POS BIB ATHLETE MARK DETAIL REACTION TIME
1 833 Mujinga KAMBUNDJI SUI 7.10 Q 0.141
2 685 Carolle ZAHI FRA 7.17 Q 0.157
3 824 Carina HORN RSA 7.18 0.158
4 798 Ezinne OKPARAEBO NOR 7.19 0.149
5 804 Anna KIEŁBASIŃSKA POL 7.23 PB 0.140
6 703 Bianca WILLIAMS GBR 7.26 PB 0.223
7 734 Anna BONGIORNI ITA 7.30 0.146
747 Gayon EVANS JAM DNS
LRC note: We changed the title from "Highway robbery. The officials do it again. US world leader - who had #2 time qualifier - is kicked out of 60m final " as after Rojo learned of the rule he agrees it's not highway robbery, but just not a good rule.

I hope you are trolling because if you're not, you remain a dope.

The advancers were the proper advancers.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 3:56pm EST

re: rojo

OK, but who really cares about sprints?

These are people who were fast in 6th grade. Natural talent. Fast in the playground. Fast in football. Fast. They hardly train. They sit every chance they get, and when it's just XC the team GPA skyrockets. With the sprinters and jumper...plummets.

99% are out of the sport by 25. Fat by 35.

Get the picture?

6 years ago 03/02/2018 4:29pm EST

re: rojo

finishing 3rd in her heat doomed her to a fast semi, especially with thompson finishing 2nd in hers. no 3rd placer from the heats made the final. oliver was impressive at US champs, but finishing 3rd then 4th in her heats at worlds?

they could have lined up oliver, philip, ahye, and burchell and had them race for the two spots. complicated situation with the tie.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 4:30pm EST

re: rojo

rojo wrote:
rule 167.4 wrote:
Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g.,
the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and
there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing
the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes
qualifying based on time.
thats the rule rojo they did it by the rules dont you bother to check?
No I didn't bother to check until you mentioned it. It is the rule and i think maybe it just shouldn't apply in the 60. I could see it in an 800 but in a 60, everyone is going all out so I think teh time qualifier should go over them since she ran way faster.
. I still think they should spray paint a 9th lane out there.
rule book wrote:
3 . If after the application of Rule 167.1, there is a tie for a last qualifying position based on place, if there are lanes or positions available (including lane sharing in 800m races) the tying athletes shall be placed in the next round. If that is not practicable lots shall be drawn to determine which athlete(s) shall be placed in the next round.
4. Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g., the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes qualifying based on time.

rojo, you sure are chiming in with A LOT of opinions today.

a lot of "i think's" and "should's" being tossed around without any actual facts or objective perspective. you seem kinda anxious and nutso, to be honest.

slow down, boy.

s l o w d o w n

So this Oliver girl owned a highway that somebody stoled and now she can't run on it anymore? No wonder she didn't make the finals.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 5:00pm EST

re: OdanEPNavi

OdanEPNavi wrote:
they could have lined up oliver, philip, ahye, and burchell and had them race for the two spots. complicated situation with the tie.

Sure they could have. That is if they wanted to ignore the rules.

6 years ago 03/02/2018 5:05pm EST

re: rojo

rojo wrote:
rule 167.4 wrote:
Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g.,
the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and
there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing
the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes
qualifying based on time.
thats the rule rojo they did it by the rules dont you bother to check?
No I didn't bother to check until you mentioned it. It is the rule and i think maybe it just shouldn't apply in the 60. I could see it in an 800 but in a 60, everyone is going all out so I think teh time qualifier should go over them since she ran way faster.
. I still think they should spray paint a 9th lane out there.
rule book wrote:
3 . If after the application of Rule 167.1, there is a tie for a last qualifying position based on place, if there are lanes or positions available (including lane sharing in 800m races) the tying athletes shall be placed in the next round. If that is not practicable lots shall be drawn to determine which athlete(s) shall be placed in the next round.
4. Where qualifying for the next round is based on place and time (e.g., the first three in each of two heats plus the next two fastest), and there is a tie for the last qualifying position based on place, placing the tied athletes in the next round shall reduce the number of athletes qualifying based on time.

Classic.

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

More Craziness at World Indoors -US world leader - who had #2 time qualifier - is kicked out of 60m final

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

More Craziness at World Indoors -US world leader - who had #2 time qualifier - is kicked out of 60m final

Follow rojo

Block rojo

Follow rojo

Block rojo

Follow Dill Dickleson

Block Dill Dickleson

Follow moist

Block moist

Follow reformer

Block reformer

Follow gcn109

Block gcn109

Follow wtfunny

Block wtfunny

Follow The Fokus

Block The Fokus

Follow OdanEPNavi

Block OdanEPNavi

Follow ex-runner

Block ex-runner

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.