t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
>From the IAAF Council Report: Council also heard a report from the IAAF Technical Committee, which included a number of technical rule change proposals. These will be presented to the IAAF Congress in August for consideration. One rule change suggestion is that an athlete in events under 400m in length shall be disqualified for making one false start, rather than two. It is also proposed that in vertical jumps, athletes shall exit a competition after two consecutive failures at a height rather than three; that in the Pole Vault, the pole vault pegs be reduced from 75mm to 55mm; and that the take-over zone in relays should be, in total, 30 rather than 20 metres long.
t-and-f: Proposed rule changes--IAAF
On another mailing list, it was suggested that a change from three jumps at a height to two might have little consequence. Its author wrote, " . . . my take on it would be it has more to do with it being the final do-or-die attempt than anything to do with The Magic Number 3! If it is more of a psychological effect then presumably it would have the same effect if they had only two tries." I doubt that it's as simple as a last-chance psychological factor. Reducing the number of attempts probably would have the same effect as would reducing the number of tries in the long jump, and for the same reason. Changing conditions (wind direction and speed, warmup, etc.) from jump to jump make it difficult to be consistently accurate in the runup. In the long jump, that results in taking off behind the board or in fouling. In the vault, it results in not getting into position for maximum height over the bar. The more tries you have at a given height, the better the chances of hitting your take-off mark within a favorable range. If the purpose of the change is to reduce the length of time required for the event, the suggestion must be coming from someone who doesn't remember the bad old days before a time limit for making a try was introduced. I can remember seeing vaulters stand at the end of the runway for more than 15 minutes, waiting for a favorable shift in the wind. As for reducing the length of the standard-pegs from 75mm to 55mm, I can't see that it makes any sense at all: but since when does a change have to make sense, in order to be adopted by the IAAF? Cheers, Roger
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
Walt Murphy writes (he's just the messenger): <> My take: This is a proposal that is guaranteed to cause me as a spectator to lose almost all my interest in the high jump and pole vault, which currently are two of my favorite events. We have in the United States a saying, "The third time's a charm." It's good in counting strikes on baseball batters. I don't know why it doesn't continue to be good in the high jump and pole vault. Dick Fosbury wouldn't have made the 1968 Olympic team with this rule. We wouldn't have had the great clutch third jumps I remember from Stefka Kostadinova (Rome, 1987) or Heike Henkel (Barcelona, 1992), both dramatically televised, with this rule. There presumably are comparable examples from the vault. This reminds me of the suggestion in Runner's World a few years ago that eventuated in my receiving a "I Was Published in Runner's World" T-shirt. Somebody--from the United States, I think--proposed eliminating the 5000 and 1 track races. In RUNNER'S WORLD, of all places!! As if we could do this unilaterally and the Kenyans and Ethiopians and Moroccans wouldn't mind. The proposal, if I recall correctly, came from the track-meets-take-too-long camp. I wrote and said succinctly that it was a great idea, and while we were at it, we should also get rid of second base in baseball and the third quarter in football. So I got the T-shirt. Does NAPVA endorse this proposal? Do the high jumpers and/or their coaches? How many decades of tradition, exactly, would this proposal scrap? In the record books, would we put the asterisks next to the two-jump competitions or put them next to the three-jump competitions? The worst part is, it's only March 13. A comparable Walt Murphy post on April Fool's, I could abide and chuckle over. Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
Perhaps Bob Hersh would like to comment on these proposed changes. My opinion is that they are all ill-advised. Is the one false start proposal a knee-jerk reaction to the rash of false starts at recent major meets? If so, I think it is an unwise change. It will result in the same situation we have in this country where races are started even though there is minor motion before the gun without a break, because the starter is unwilling to charge a false start and disqualify a competitor. The two attempt rule proposal for the vertical jumps is even worse. What reason can there be for ending a tradition that is over 100 years old? If the events take too long, strictly enforce the time limit for attempts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >From the IAAF Council Report: > > Council also heard a report from the IAAF Technical Committee, which > > included a number of technical rule change proposals. These will be > > presented to the IAAF Congress in August for consideration. One rule change > > suggestion is that an athlete in events under 400m in length shall be > > disqualified for making one false start, rather than two. It is also > > proposed that in vertical jumps, athletes shall exit a competition after two > > consecutive failures at a height rather than three; that in the Pole Vault, > > the pole vault pegs be reduced from 75mm to 55mm; and that the take-over > > zone in relays should be, in total, 30 rather than 20 metres long. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
There is a milder alternative -- one which accomplishes essentially the purpose of the proposed rule change, but is not so draconian. The athlete could be given only two attempts at a given height if he (or she) took three attempts at the previous height. Dave Carey On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, CHRIS KUYKENDALL wrote: > Walt Murphy writes (he's just the messenger): > > < > "Council also heard a report from the IAAF Technical Committee, > which included a number of technical rule change proposals. > These will be presented to the IAAF Congress in August for > consideration. It is...proposed that in vertical jumps, athletes > shall exit a competition after two consecutive failures at a height > rather than three">> >
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
Are these proposed changes for the speed of the sport? I do not get it. Reducing the pegs of the PV serves who? I see very little wrong with the current state of the PV. What I do see is less clearances in the future. So what if the bar bounces and stays, that is part of the drama of the event. There is nothing like the bobbing of the crowd with the bar, as it bounces, not knowing whether it will stay or fall. Why minimize that occurrence? The false start rule I see the point, but I honestly think the elimination of the competitors is not a good alternative. Yes, the sprinters need to stop jumping, but no matter how many false starts, once the race is of no one remembers who jumped or how many times. Further, there is no guarantee that this will solve the problem. A perfect example is the US indoor nationals. The starter was holding an extraordinary amount of time, prompting some to get their rule books out. The scary part about it all is that, after a competitor jumped out of the race, the starter had a quick gun on the subsequent start. As long as, a human is starting the race, and humans are running the race we will have false starts. With one false start, you could conceivably have the elimination of the best in the field. In other words the race is taken off the track. D' Faith is a road seldom traveled
RE: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
An extra 10 meters in the relay exchange zone? Let's see how many times a USA national team can still fumble a baton or run out of room without making the handoff with that kinda territory. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF >From the IAAF Council Report: Council also heard a report from the IAAF Technical Committee, which included a number of technical rule change proposals. These will be presented to the IAAF Congress in August for consideration. One rule change suggestion is that an athlete in events under 400m in length shall be disqualified for making one false start, rather than two. It is also proposed that in vertical jumps, athletes shall exit a competition after two consecutive failures at a height rather than three; that in the Pole Vault, the pole vault pegs be reduced from 75mm to 55mm; and that the take-over zone in relays should be, in total, 30 rather than 20 metres long.
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes--IAAF
Roger wrote: >If the purpose of the change is to reduce the length of time required for >the event, the suggestion must be coming from someone who doesn't remember >the bad old days before a time limit for making a try was introduced. I can >remember seeing vaulters stand at the end of the runway for more than 15 >minutes, waiting for a favorable shift in the wind. Actually, I'm guessing that the result of the rule could be totally counter-productive - that as a result of cutting the number of jumps per height, that the event would be extended. Why? Because an athlete will have less confidence "skipping" over heights. If he's only going to get 2 shots, a guy might choose to open at 17' instead of 17'6". After a close clear at 18' 6", he'll probably be more likely to take a shot at 18' 9" instead of skipping up to 19'. My guess is that the total number of attempts won't change, as athletes already have an idea of the optimal/maximum number of tries in a meet that they should attempt, and will just distribute them differently to increase their chances of success. As for the suggestion by someone that a 3-attempt height would need to be followed by a 2-attempt height - this would probably do the same, as any athlete taking 3 attempts at a height would immediately try the next available height to try to record a sub-3-attempt clearance. >As for reducing the length of the standard-pegs from 75mm to 55mm, I can't >see that it makes any sense at all: but since when does a change have to >make sense, in order to be adopted by the IAAF? Sounds like the "Anti-Volz" to me... Phil
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
In a message dated 3/13/01 2:15:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >An extra 10 meters in the relay exchange zone? Oh yeah, the HS (and even college) track budgets are going to have plenty of fat to pay for remarking thousands of tracks (and what will it do to the multi-colored lanes like Sacto State?) Not wanting to start another X-Files thread, but is Wayne Armbrust behind this one in an effort to drum up millions in track repainting business? Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 3/13/01 2:15:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >An extra 10 meters in the relay exchange zone? > > Oh yeah, the HS (and even college) track budgets are going to have plenty of > fat to pay for remarking thousands of tracks (and what will it do to the > multi-colored lanes like Sacto State?) > > Not wanting to start another X-Files thread, but is Wayne Armbrust behind > this one in an effort to drum up millions in track repainting business? > > Jim Gerweck > Running Times Hell no! I'm more against such a change than anyone else. I don't paint tracks, just supply calculations and drawings for those that do. I'd have to modify my program. Too much work! -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
I don't get it either ... Why change the false start rule ??? To copme into conformity withthe NCAA ??? They need to be more concerned with making sure that starters are less reliant on that "beep" in their ear, as eveidenced in last years Olympics and US Olympic Trials .. The one falsel start rule hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting ... And why on earth change the relay zones ??? This would necessitate an entire revision of the relay records/lists as the race would be tremendously altered ... Or at least should be given additional time to build speed through the zone ... Teams would still have to execute passes .. But the record in the men's race would definitely drop below 37.00 ... Does anyone know why these changes have been suggested ??? Conway Hill >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:45:07 EST > >Are these proposed changes for the speed of the sport? >I do not get it. >Reducing the pegs of the PV serves who? I see very little wrong with the >current state of the PV. What I do see is less clearances in the future. >So >what if the bar bounces and stays, that is part of the drama of the event. >There is nothing like the bobbing of the crowd with the bar, as it bounces, >not knowing whether it will stay or fall. Why minimize that occurrence? >The false start rule I see the point, but I honestly think the elimination >of >the competitors is not a good alternative. Yes, the sprinters need to stop >jumping, but no matter how many false starts, once the race is of no one >remembers who jumped or how many times. Further, there is no guarantee >that >this will solve the problem. A perfect example is the US indoor nationals. >The starter was holding an extraordinary amount of time, prompting some to >get their rule books out. The scary part about it all is that, after a >competitor jumped out of the race, the starter had a quick gun on the >subsequent start. As long as, a human is starting the race, and humans are >running the race we will have false starts. With one false start, you >could >conceivably have the elimination of the best in the field. In other words >the race is taken off the track. > >D' >Faith is a road seldom traveled _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
In a message dated 3/14/01 9:12:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >The one falsel start rule >hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting ... > No? At least in the East, I don't see any of the BS that goes on at Open races, with their innumerable false starts. There is maybe ONE false start per meet, if that - the kids get in the blocks and run. They realize the possible benefit of trying to guess the starter's cadence or psyche out their opponents is far outweighed by the penalty. Drastically cutting down on false starts would make the sprints far more palatable to TV producers and viewers, who are now faced with the choice of either watching half a dozen attempts at catching a flyer if it's live, or a lot of editing if it's not. Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
Netters, The IAAF web page has a discussion forum section. The section titled "IAAF Lounge" contains discussions of the proposed rules changes. Almost all posts to this section are opposed to the two attempts in the vertical jumps rule; reaction is mixed to the no false starts rule. The URL for the IAAF Lounge is http://194.185.126.45/ubb/indexframe.html. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF - relay zones
I believe the change in the 4x100 relay zones is not to add 10m to the existing passing zone, but to combine the current acceleration zone (10m) and passing zone (20m) into one 30m zone. In other words, there would be a 30m passing zone with no additional acceleration zone - the outgoing runner starts from inside the passing zone and must receive the baton anywhere in the next 30m, which would eliminate the possibility of passing too early. It's not a big change, since this rarely occurs and is not often seen or called even when it does occur, since the officials tend to concentrate on the far end of the zone. Since there is no advantage to passing early, it's probably not a bad thing to eliminate the penalty. Mike Takaha At 06:04 AM 3/14/2001 -0800, Conway Hill wrote: ... And why on earth change the relay zones ??? This would necessitate an entire revision of the relay records/lists as the race would be tremendously altered ... Or at least should be given additional time to build speed through the zone ... Teams would still have to execute passes .. But the record in the men's race would definitely drop below 37.00 ... Does anyone know why these changes have been suggested ??? Conway Hill
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF - relay zones
Mike wrote: >I believe the change in the 4x100 relay zones is not to add 10m to the >existing passing zone, but to combine the current acceleration zone (10m) >and passing zone (20m) into one 30m zone. In other words, there would be a >30m passing zone with no additional acceleration zone - the outgoing runner >starts from inside the passing zone and must receive the baton anywhere in >the next 30m, which would eliminate the possibility of passing too >early. It's not a big change, since this rarely occurs and is not often >seen or called even when it does occur, since the officials tend to >concentrate on the far end of the zone. Since there is no advantage to >passing early, it's probably not a bad thing to eliminate the penalty. > If that is the case then it would not be a bad change although I still think it would change the event slightly ... Getting the baton earlier in the Zone would allow the outgoing runner the ability to begin acceleration sooner which over 3 exchanges should (in theory) lead to faster times overall ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF - relay zones
> >I believe the change in the 4x100 relay zones is not to add 10m to the > >existing passing zone, but to combine the current acceleration zone (10m) > >and passing zone (20m) into one 30m zone. conway wrote: > If that is the case then it would not be a bad change although I still think > it would change the event slightly ... Getting the baton earlier in the Zone > would allow the outgoing runner the ability to begin acceleration sooner > which over 3 exchanges should (in theory) lead to faster times overall ... I agree that it is probably a change for the better. But they're not allowing acceleration sooner. The only time I've ever seen a handoff occur before the 20m handoff zone is when the outgoing runner has not gotten up to speed, so all this change will do is help a team that normally would have been either DQ'd or would have had a near collision. Runners will still be starting their acceleration at the same point, and I doubt they'll be going faster knowing that they now have the option to handoff "before" the old handoff zone. - Ed Parrot
