Good call or bad call? Highly ranked Ohio HS 4x800m team Hudson DQed at districts (state qualifying meet). Video here

Samuel DeChamplain wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

I don't see any contact at all. No DQ.

same here? looks like the typical dive at the end of the race people try... kid in white was already ahead and had it won

The DQ isn't for what happened at the line. The DQ is for impeding the other runner for the 30+ meters before the line. The inside runner is intentionally moving out to make the other runner run farther in attempt to make the pass. The fall is irrelevant to the DQ.

DiscoGary wrote:

I don't see any contact at all. No DQ.

There might have been some contact towards the end, not sure, but that's the point.

You have to stay your line coming out of the home stretch unless you are passing someone. He clearly did not. Even when he got passed by a bit he threw in a surge, got the lead and then kept leaning to the right. He started in lane 1, he had no business finishing in lane 3. Clear DQ.

This rule actually needs to be enforced MORE in track and field.

erdyb wrote:

zoo_manimal wrote:

Because his lane-spanding had nothing to do with 3 and 4, who were, like, two weeks behind. He interfered with one runner...that runner should get the bump and win, but his foul didn't give him an advantage over 3 and 4, so why outright DQ?

That’s not really how racing sports operate. Besides, the DQ should serve as a deterrent to future potential interferers.

^^^^ Good response for you guys who are talking about 3rd and 4th being so far ahead

If you want to make sure the rule doesn't get broken in the future or runners thinking "oh well even if I can't get the win playing dirty, I'll at least get 2nd anyways", you have to throw the DQ.

People are arguing about two different things:

1. Does this runner's conduct justify a DQ according to Ohio high school track rules?

2. Should the rules be written such that this runner's conduct results in a disqualification?

Many people are not able to think past what the rules say. Personally, I think it's crazy that the rules would disqualify someone for this.

Let's get hypothetical. What would you all say if things were reversed? What if the kid in red moved from lane 2 into lane 1 in an attempt to put the squeeze on the runner on the inside? What if they were neck and neck, both in lane 1, and the kid in red kept moving left? Should the kid on the outside get dq?

There really isn't any difference between this and what actually happened. Any kid who "drifts" to try to win is a dirty cheat and should be dq. If I was the coach he'd also be off my relay team.

So is tackling in Ohio football also a DQ? Must play F(l)ag (pole) football instead.

I assume if a soccer player there trips another player they are thrown out of the game. And wrestling is just not an allowed sport at all.

No DQ wrote:

The kid in white takes three steps on the line between 2/3 at the finish, but this was after the kid in red drifted out into lane 3. Neither kid is a genius here, they both should be focused on qualifying, but they are kids being competitive. Let 'em race.

No contact no foul. This is worse than the Salazar/Hasay/Grunewald debacle.

Yes, the kid in red drifted into lane 3 because the kid in white to his inside kept drifting out. Not that hard to understand.

No contact, no foul is a terrible way to think about it. If someone keeps swerving from side to side cutting you off down the home stretch do you not think that impedes the other runner? Impeding does not always imply contact was made, there's a reason why we have rules for "impeding". If the guy in the red doesn't drift out he's going to knock the guy in the white out clipping him in the back and then he risk getting DQ'd (even though it wouldn't be his fault).

A few years ago at our state meet in Ohio, there was a runner who took the runner on the outside clear out to Lane 8. The crowd just went nuts over the obvious DQ. If I recall correctly, it was during the girls 4x400.

If this race was the state finals then MAYBE yes for the disqualification. Based on the info from the OP, The Ohio district meets are set up just like my state…nothing more than the first-round for the state meet. This supposed “foul” had absolutely no bearing on qualifiers or potential qualifiers. If I was the head official, I would have let them go through, however I would have spoken to the "offender"afterwards and said something like “son, you do that again and your ass will be dq’d out of here.”

It appears the official made the right call if running over the path of another runner is written in the rules. But seriously? Running over the path of another runner? What the heck happens in cross country races? What I find ridiculous is that small infraction such as this results in disqualification. Incidental contact in any other sport that could affect the result even more so might not even get a foul call; and if it did, would only carry a small penalty. This zero tolerance in high school track racing is hurting the sport.

Track officials often seem to take pride in keeping T&F the most anal of all sports. Kind of a small-d*ck syndrome.

I've run in several hundred track races over 40+ years, indoor and out, and I'd be hard pressed to see how you make a disqualification out of that, unless a head on video (probably not available) showed something radically different, as sometimes happens in horse-racing.

The runner in red succeeds in passing the runner in white half way down the straight, and he hasn't been impeded, broken stride, or lost momentum at that point. The runner in white then rallies and squeezes by, while the runner in red dives for the line and falls. The runner in red is on the inner edge of lane three as he comes alongside (18:40). At 18:43 hes started to come back in and by 18:45 he's almost all the way back into lane two, with only his right foot on the line between lanes two and three. The runner in white once he'd drifted out coming into the straight has been on the inside of lane two the whole time. At 18:47 the runner in red is back in lane two, his left foot almost to the centre of that lane. By 18:48 he's drifted back out again, and his left foot is on the line between lane two and three. The runner in white, who has kept a straight course is now back nearly alongside.

At 18:48 the runner in red has drifted back in again and a couple of frames later his right foot on the line between lanes two and three. At 18:48 the runner in white looks as if he's been edge towards the inside of lane two, and is actually leaning away somewhat. At 18:50 there is a point where they are virtually touching, the runner in white having come back into the centre of lane two and the runner in red being almost all the way back into lane two. The runner in white then gets back into the centre of lane two, but he's now ahead. At 18:53, the runner in white has drifted out and his left foot is on the line between lane two and three, the runner in red is making despairing dive at the line.

It doesn't appear to be anything more than two tiring runners battling to the line. Once he's made his - permitted - drift into lane two at the start of the straight, the runner in white keeps a straight course for most of the straight, and doesn't make any move to stop the runner in red moving by. Once ahead, the runner in red drifts in and out and does appear to take the runner in white's ground to a small degree. The re-pass by the runner in white is clean, and then he drifts out late, although it doesn't seem that the runner in red would have been able to come back. The fall was a result of the dive to the line.

You can't expect two tired runners to finish as if they are on rails. The runner in red probably altered course more than the runner in white through the last 6 seconds or so. The result wasn't affected, the runner in white won fair and square. None of it look like intentional fouls.

Here is the race from another angle for anyone who is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvttpKuJTk8

LOL. Your account of what is on the video is completely fictitious! The guy in the red jersey never moves to the inside at any point. The runner in the white jersey moves out towards lane 3 to impede the guy in the red jersey. In fact he does this multiple times. He does it coming into the straightaway and then again as he passes the red jersey guy before the finish. The guy in the red does not dive for the finish. He stumbles and falls after he is contacted by the Hudson runner. The contact is not needed for the DQ but it definitely occurred.

DQ these mofos!

http://www.prefontainerun.com/images/pre-lindgren-med.jpg

Probst!! wrote:

LOL. Your account of what is on the video is completely fictitious! The guy in the red jersey never moves to the inside at any point. The runner in the white jersey moves out towards lane 3 to impede the guy in the red jersey. In fact he does this multiple times. He does it coming into the straightaway and then again as he passes the red jersey guy before the finish. The guy in the red does not dive for the finish. He stumbles and falls after he is contacted by the Hudson runner. The contact is not needed for the DQ but it definitely occurred.

Somebody is already deep into a 12-pack, I see.

Believe it or not, I'm the runner that was "impeded on" in the red. The Hudson runner made no contact with me at all during the home stretch and I fell because I just ran out of gas and couldn't finish upright. If I'm not mistaken, they were DQ'd for the drifting that occurred and the fall had nothing to do with it. With that being said, I never felt that during the race he was driving me outside. Obviously us finishing in lanes 2/3 says otherwise but I personally never felt that he forced me to change direction. I'm good friends with the anchor from Hudson so he didn't maliciously try to slow me down, he just accidentally drifted over a lane or two which can happen when you are pressing as hard as we were.

So I don't think they should have been disqualified at all. I tried to talk to the official afterwards but I was just told that I was impeded on and that was that. I don't really know if there is much else that can be done at this point but I really wish they could continue since they've been great competition for us this entire season. And now Hilliard Davidson just got DQ'd at Regionals after running a 7:43. All this kind of takes away from the accomplishments of everyone else because the race at states should be much harder than it is going to be. Not to mention running a 7:43 and getting DQ'd is probably the most heartbreaking thing imaginable.

Guy in red had ownership of lane 2 after the final bend. Guy in white should've stayed in lane 1.

Flagpole wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

I don't see any contact at all. No DQ.

That is not the rule in Ohio.

He clearly positioned himself to try to get in the way of the other runner so that he could win. That is a DQ every day and all day in Ohio.

Hudson has the 6th fastest time coming into the post season, and a couple of the teams ahead of them haven't even run their complete A teams yet. Hudson had no chance to win the state meet...they likely would have been vying for a podium (top 8) finish, and toward the bottom of that top 8.

Justified DQ.

Wrong. Wether you agree or disagree with the DQ, drifting slightly out like that is completely normal, even if you are alone at the front. The Brojos has repeatedly shown their frustration with top athletes doing that.

Regarding to get in the way of the other runner: No, he did not. He did not make the other runner fall or did anything that should be a DQ. If you think this is a DQ you basically think 1-3 runners in every race from 800 and up should be DQ'ed.