The crucial fact about chip timing for XC (Winning Time or ChampionChip) is that the resolution of the chip is about a tenth of a second. At the recent NCAA DIII Championships, with a little over 200 finishers in each race, 12 finishers were recorded by the chip system out of order in one race and 14 in the other, as determined by FinishLynx examination of their positions at the finish line. In most of these cases the difference in finish time between the runners whose finishes had to be reversed was 0-0.2 seconds. In some cases the difference was greater, which I attribute to one of the chips not being recorded at the primary mat (even in road races the runners cross two sets of mats); they were instead picked up at the backup mats (about 3 m past the primary).
I examined the pictures to see what would happen if the rule were changed so that a finish would be recorded when any part of the runner's body (including the foot) reaches the finish line. In one race seven of the 12 reversals would still have been necessary; in the other all but one of the 14 reversals would still have been made. There has been some discussion of changing the definition of finishing a race to accommodate what people think is the capability of a chip system. It wouldn't do any good. You'd still need visual verification of the order of finish. > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:49:20 EST > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: chip timing at European Cross-Country Chamionships > > > In a message dated 12/31/01 4:39:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> A runner could have his torso cross first but have the transponder on his >> back >> leg and lose several places. > > I think S.O.P. in transponder timed Xc races is to have the competitors where > a chip on EACH shoe, to lessen (though admittedly not eliminate) such > occurences. > > Jim Gerweck > Running Times >
