First, I agree with RT's interpretation of the way the rule is worded as
regards not being allowed to jump if someone goes before you. I do not
think this is necessarily a good idea, because in theory an entire Olympic
final would have to be DQ'd if someone bolted and everyone else reacted.
But. . .I do agree that this is what the rule says. How is the NCAA rule
worded on this?
On a different piece, the wording of this rule once again displays an issue
that never ceases to amaze me - the poor wording of some of these rules,
both IAAF and USATF. Here's the rule as printed on the site:
Any competitor making a false start shall be warned. Only one false start
per race shall be allowed without the disqualification of the athlete (S)
making the false start. Any athlete making further false starts in the race
shall be disqualified from the race.
Now, I know what the INTENT of this rule is, and I will even allow that
despite its contradiction, most people would conclude that the rule means
that the field gets one false start and any one else jumping is gone. But
as I said, it is contradictory. It says first that any athlete making a
false start shall be warned. Period. It doesn't say, warned when it is
the first false start charged in the race. It says shall be warned. The
rule then goes on to essentially contradict that by saying that any athlete
who false starts after the first false start in the race is disqualified.
The rule as currently worded would require that the athlete be both warned
and disqualified for a false start other than the first false start in the
race. Not only is that pointless, but the wording currently raises at least
a small question about the intent of the rule for those who don't already
know what the intent was.
Again, I know what the intent is. But the rule is poorly worded. Remove
the first sentence - Any competitor making a false start shall be warned
and it would be fixed. Now that the field only gets one false start, there
is absolutely no purpose served by any sort of warning, and the wording just
confuses things.
Now, lest people think that I am simply slinging darts at the rulemakers
without backing it up with action, let me note that over the past several
years, I have proposed several rules and LL clarifications at the USATF
convention. In most cases, I did so in an attempt to clear up the same type
of wording problem (or worse) than the one we see here. The vast majority
of my proposals have been rejected by the Rules or LL committee, so I think
it's safe to say that in general the rules people are happy with the wording
we have. Therefore, I have no problem saying I believe they are wrong in
many cases. This may or may not be true of the IAAF rules - I have not had
any experience with their rules process.
- Ed Parrot
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: t-and-f: Drummond DQ
Having now seen the way the rule is worded,
it's hard to see how you could interpret it
any way OTHER THAN 'athletes can no longer
allow themselves to be pulled out of the
blocks by a false-starting runner next to
them. They will be DQ'd ALONG WITH the
runner next to them'.
Did U.S. team staff provide an incorrect
interpretation to American sprinters, or
are American sprinters so used to operating
under American false start rules that they
refuse to believe what the new rule says?
It sounds pretty clear to me.
And it is also becoming more and more clear
why if most sprinters in the world are
following this rule, and being careful to
not be 'drawn out of the blocks' by a competitor,
we have seen drastically slower times on the
GP circuit this year.
I personally have no problem with that, as long
we can live with existing records staying on the
books for a long time.
RT
