Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 1:29:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Paul Banta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << I'd leave the rule the way it is now. If the IAAF really believes it has tochange the false start rule, thenit should consider charging the first false start to the field with a athlete disqualification on the second. >> If I'm in a race run under these rules and I have a poor start, I'm going to be blazing down the track the first time the starter says "set." I'm doing to do everythign possible to take away the advantage a good starter has. That's a bad rule that would allow the poor starters to level the playing field, and I don't think that's what's needed. The rule as proposed helps eliminate game-playing. I don't want to jump-start that old thread again about whether or not guessing the gun is "cheating" or not, but I truly believe that the fairest way to run a sprint race is to remove any incentive to jump, and you do that in two ways. You hold the runners longer than they'd like and you throw them out if they violate the gun. QED gh
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated 03/14/2001 1:34:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You hold the runners longer than they'd like and you throw them out if they violate the gun. QED gh This is the best reason to use an electronic starter, that is set to a timer. When the officials begin to think they are bigger than the event itself, we have true problems. The starter should be the least of the athletes worries, but your comments Garry make you a factor. That was the problem in Atl. After Torri's dq the starter had a quick gun. Adds a true element of cheating. The starter could decide who he does and does not like, and work at eliminating them from the race. A bad idea. The starter by rule is to hold the gun until all runners are set, then fire the gun. Not at his discretion, when they are set he is to shoot! Darrell Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 8:52:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << IThe starter by rule is to hold the gun until all runners are set, then fire the gun. Not at his discretion, when they are set he is to shoot! >> Both IAAF and USATF rules grant the starter "complete control" over everything that happens at the line; he has wide-ranging discretionary powers. At the risk of waxing Clintonian, please define "set." If you're saying it's the instant that everybody is in place, then the smart thing to do is sit in the blocks while everybody else rises, then you rise and immediately go because the starter is supposed to fire the gun at that instant. I would say that "set" carries a bit broader definition, and that's when to the starter's satisfaction everyone is *clearly* in a still position. To be sure that all are still requires a hold after the "set" command, and that requires discretion, and the rules wisely give that to the starter. gh
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >The starter by rule is to hold the gun until all runners are set, then fire the gun. Not at his discretion, when they are set he is to shoot!< The dictionary that I found nearest to my computer defines "when" as: a. at or during the time that b. just at the moment that Your comment implies that the second definition is the one that applies to the start rule. In fact, it is the first. Garry Hill has pointed out why the other interpretation could lead to abuse. In fact, it is not the intent of the rule that the starter must fire the gun immediately, once the last runner is set. There is definitely some discretion, and a good starter will vary the tempo from race to race to discourage runners from attempting to guess when he/she will fire the gun. Bob H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
True the definition of set CAN be wide ranging. If that is he criteria a starter is using, "when all are at set position," then I have no problem. But when the criteria is a count of 3, or discretion of the starter, we have problems. There is a difference between the IAAF rule and the USATF rule. To summarize, Louise can tell you better, the USATF says after all are set the starter may fire the gun. The international rule says "when" the runners are set. In the interpretation that is a huge difference. The USA allows for the feeling of the starter, the international rule is based on the actions of the field. I am fearful of deliberate human error, shaping the race. Say what you will, and hold your opinion, but timing the starter, or trying to move as fast as possible is the name of the game. We can rehash the old argument, but it is not changing what has to be done on that track, by those 8 sprinters. When we start talking about the 9th element, something is wrong. It is about those 8 men and women, solely! DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated 3/14/2001 11:55:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is definitely some discretion, and a good starter will vary the tempo from race to race to discourage runners from attempting to guess when he/she will fire the gun. if any of you ever sprinted and experienced to the starting position and the pressure (physical and psychological) during those few seconds on the starting line, you would realize that the athlete is in an extremely precarious situation...on one hand they have to wait for the gun - on the other hand they need to "explode" out of the blockswhile balancing on their fingertips while the starter in the united states is allowed to fire the gun "after" (maybe one month later) everyone is set..for those of you that take pleasure in calling some of your favorite sprinters and hurdlers "cheaters" try a sprint start sometime in a local meet.. sprinters are not cheatersour starters are holding them too long in MOST cases...that is the reason for the iaaf rule, which, with one little word in the start rule "WHEN", makes all of the difference in the world.
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
Darrell wrote:>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > You hold the runners longer than they'd like and you throw them out if they > > violate the gun. QED > > > > gh > > > >This is the best reason to use an electronic starter, that is set to a timer. > When the officials begin to think they are bigger than the event itself, we >have true problems. The starter should be the least of the athletes worries, >but your comments Garry make you a factor. That was the problem in Atl. >After Torri's dq the starter had a quick gun. Adds a true element of >cheating. The starter could decide who he does and does not like, and work >at eliminating them from the race. A bad idea. >The starter by rule is to hold the gun until all runners are set, then fire >the gun. Not at his discretion, when they are set he is to shoot! > Agreed ... If the goal is to level the playing field I think that the starter should become less of a factor .. For example, how many times have you seen sprinters down near the starter in an attempt to learn his cadence ??? Is quite common ... Perhaps a system where the starter presses a button once everyone is set, but a machine randomly starts the race at somewhere between say 2 to 4 sec ... If you want to try to stop the slow starter from gaining an advantage by getting a good start (why this would be an unfair advantage I am not sure) I would think you would also want to prevent anyone from leaving the line early ... Give 1st false start to the field and then eliminate anyone who goes early after that ... Conway Hill Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated 3/15/01 10:10:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > while the starter in the united states is allowed to fire >the gun "after" (maybe one month later) Surely you exaggerate! Days or weeks we've all seen, but a full month? Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated 3/14/01 10:50:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > To be sure that all are still requires a hold after the "set" command, >and that requires discretion, and the rules wisely give that to the starter. Indeed - even if everyone came to the set position simultaneously, it takes an amount of time, however small, to scan the line and make sure everyone is still, before firing the gun. Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
Actually I believe that statement came from Darrell, not from me ... Conway - Original Message - From: Randall Northam Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:36 AM To: Conway Hill Cc: posting Subject: Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules > on 15/3/01 5:15 PM, Conway Hill at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>>> After Torri's dq the starter had a quick gun. Adds a true element of>> cheating. The starter could decide who he does and does not like, and work>> at eliminating them from the race. A bad idea.Maybe they should adopt the idea of greyhound and horse racing. Put theathletes in a little box and they can start only when the door opens.Or better still have some razor wire extended across the start and elevateit when the gun goes. That would elimate false starts. And if it didn't itwould provide that element of blood and guts that it seems track and fieldneeds if it is to be popular in the US.Randall Northam Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
> on 15/3/01 5:15 PM, Conway Hill at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> After Torri's dq the starter had a quick gun. Adds a true element of >> cheating. The starter could decide who he does and does not like, and work >> at eliminating them from the race. A bad idea. Maybe they should adopt the idea of greyhound and horse racing. Put the athletes in a little box and they can start only when the door opens. Or better still have some razor wire extended across the start and elevate it when the gun goes. That would elimate false starts. And if it didn't it would provide that element of blood and guts that it seems track and field needs if it is to be popular in the US. Randall Northam
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
In a message dated Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:10:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << if any of you ever sprinted and experienced to the starting position and the pressure (physical and psychological) during those few seconds on the starting line, you would realize that the athlete is in an extremely precarious situation...on one hand they have to wait for the gun - on the other hand they need to "explode" out of the blockswhile balancing on their fingertips ...>> Yeah, that's why I gave up sprinting; the demands are just too much. I mean, as you say, it really is like trying to do pushups with an elephant on your back while seasick (you, not the elephant) and Canadian terroriists are holding your family hostage. The tension, the pressure, the pain. gh
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
the only canadian terrorist i know is you...and from what chaplin said, you never sprinted!
