RE: t-and-f: Timing question
Almost all timing systems are started by sound (or at least the percussion of the gun going off). He may have been using a new wireless start system FinishLynx has (we're using it on the backup system here at LSU). It's just as accurate as the normal wired system (the two systems we're using here (wired and wireless) are both within 2/1000's of a second). Also, having seen how Ed times events, he always uses a primary and a backup system, I'd have to guess his times are fine. If there was a large discrepancy between the two systems he would have caught it pretty fast, he's very experienced. I've seen good hand timers that are consistently very close (couple of 1/100ths either way) of my times. The main difference appears to be the anticipation of the finish (hitting the stop button too early). Roger www.flashresults.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Grant Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:36 PM To: track net Subject: t-and-f: Timing question Netters: I ran into something last night at the Bergen County Meet of Champions which left me with some questions about the current state of automatic-timing. First, some background: I was at the National AAU meet at Randalls Island, NY, where Frank Budd set the then hand-timed WR for 100 yards of 9.2. The race was, as I think I jhave mentioned in a past post, also automatically timed by the Bulova system. The next day, in reporting the ecord, the nespapers also mentioned that the auto-time on the race was 9.36. Curious about this, I contacted the Bulova spokesman who explained that there was a built-in: gap of .16 seconds between auto-timing and the most accurate hand-timing because the auto-timer was let off by the contact of the trigger and the explotion of the gun and flash came that must later. So, in a way, the athletes were cheated of their proper time. Since then, it has become customary for statisticians to convert old hand times to match the auto-times (for performanmce lists) by adding .14 for races starting and finishing in the same place and .24 for those (like the 100s , 200s and HHs) where the start is some distance from the finish. Now, the meet last night was handled by our most reliable timing service, Ed Scullion';s. But when the auto-times were being announced (instantaneously, by the way) from the press boi, coaches at the finish line were confused because they either matched their (the coaches) hand times or were, ina couple of cases, faster. My own hand-timing was also a lot closer to the auto time than usual. Since there was obviously no cable connection between the starter and the system, I inquired how the aut-timer was being triggered and the starter showed me a hearing device which started the timer by the sound of the gun. Now, it would seem to me that this is a more accurate way of auto-timing than in the past since the timer starts simultaneously with the athlete hearing the gun. But it would also, it seems, produced slightly faster aut-times than the older cable connections. But I would like some input on it so I ask these questions: 1) Is this soundstarting system now in general use? 2) Have any of you encountered the same timing anomalies which were present last night, i.e., hand-times to close to the auto, or even slower than it. There were, of course, some past meets which had what was called semi-auto timing, that is the finish line was caught with a camera, but the system was started by hand. That is not the case here--the system, again, is started by the sound of the gun, independent of any human intervention. Ed Grant
RE: t-and-f: Different rules
I went to all the World Cup Speed Short Track events this Fall/Winter (it's kinda like the IAAF Grand Prix). There's a wide range of talent in short track, a few guys at the very top (Koreans, Chinese, Americans, Canadians, and a few Europeans) and then the rest. Bradbury is not very good, he would not have been able to stay with the leaders in the event even if he tried. To equate it to track Ohno, Ahn, Li would be running 2:13-14 1000m while Bradbury's a 2:19-20 guy. In each of the WC events this year he didn't even advance to the semis. http://www.cyberscoreboard.com/profile.php?Athlete=57 Another interesting thing is the power of officials in short track, they make a decision quickly on the ice, can't look at video tape, and the ruling stands. I've worked with both the guys that were on the ice and they're very good officials. It is a very cool sport(ice helps), a lot like what indoor track used to be, before the adoption of 200m super-speedways. Rog -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Dunaway Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:09 PM To: Ed Grant; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Different rules Ed: I rather liked the way the Aussie won. If you'll recall, he won his semi the same way. He skated last all the way in both those races, and it looked obvious to me that he and/or his coach figured that was the best way to get a medal. It's called Stay out of trouble. And in this case it worked perfectly. Why should he have to race again because he skated a smart race that risked being last if they hadn't fallen. But they DO fall quite often, and his risk paid off. You might say he wasn't the best or fastest skater in the race, but if you know that going in, you have to be the smartest. Lots of Track races are won that way. Would you make them rerun the Olympic 800 in Sydney because Longo knocked Bucher into the infield in the last 200m? Schumann, the slowest guy in the race, won because he stayed out of trouble. Pack races on ice on such short tracks are really a pretty stupid format, anyway. It's much like running a 200, 300 or even 400 on the 160-yard Garden track. The bumping is much the same, but because ice and skates are so much more slippery, the consequences look more spectacular. But I have seen runners in Garden races over short distances where the guy who stayed out of trouble won cup races. The kid Ohno had no complaints about what happened, I noticed. He came off quite well in his interview: a good sport, engaging personality. He's been presented as sort of a thug by the TV, so it was nice to see that he apparently isn't. jim dunaway At 12:08 AM 2/17/02 -0800, you wrote: Netters: Of all the other sports in the Olympic calendar, probably nothing is closer to track and field than the new short course speed skating, introduced a few cycles ago to go along with the more orthodox paired time trial system. But, from what I watched in the men's 1K race tonight, the rules are quite different, or at least the way they are interpreted. In the five-man race, only one skater was on his feet when the race ended, an Australian who had trailed the field all the way and slid over the winner when the other four went down. The problem was that the two leaders were taken out by a third skater who tried to pass on the inside off the final turn. As I understand it the man in front has the right of way so there was no doubt this was a foul. And also no doubt that it changed the course of the result as the two leaders had only a few strokes more to go over the line. Had this been a track race, the decision would have been obvious--disqualify the offender (and since this was a flagrant foul possibly sideline him for the rest of the Games as well) and run the race over again. Had the Australian been in front when it happened, he should have been exempt from a re-run and had his gold medal assured, but he was not and thus would have been part of the re-run. Given the fact that skaters recuperate much faster than runners from a race of that length, the whole thing could have been decided within an hour or less. Another interesting rule difference popped up when the women';s 500M final was run. There had been a dead-heat for 2nd in one of the semi-finals, involving a U.S. skater. It turns out that in skating, it is the blade of the skate that determines the winner, lower (or in this case a tie) not the torso. Wonder how this one came up, also wonder what would happen if it was applied in our sport--the lead foot in skating ios always on the ice; the lead foot in running is not, which would make the judgment, even by camera, a bit more difficult.
RE: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit
I rarely chime in on this type of stuff, but as long as it's not taken seriously I don't mind the age-grading conversions. My feeling is as long as it's referred to a Age-graded then what's the harm? It's a funky masters thing that gives them an opportunity (although, admittedly, not a very accurate opportunity) to compare marks. By the way, why was there a controversy with the winds at Penn, as far as I could tell (and we we're running the anemometers) everything was O.K. Roger (not even a sub-master yet) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit In a message dated 5/4/1 5:13:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a 10.1 on the Age-Graded Tables (for sake of theoretical comparison, and not to make David Honea go ballistic). Ken, David Honea is not the only one that goes ballistic when you publish these age-graded comparisons. In my opinion, you do a disservice to masters athletes when you do this, since most serious track fans laugh at the numbers. Let the performances speak for themselves. I would guess that many of the people on this list can appreciate that a 10.96 for a 45-year old man is pretty darned good. I have no doubt that age-graded performances serve as a valuable tool in masters competition...they just don't belong here. Walt Murphy (Wannabe Masters sprinter--but too lazy to do anything about it)
