Bolt blew it (Read 2037 times)


Imminent Catastrophe

    Jeff, you wrote a fundamental skill, then in the next sentence the fundamental skill. There's a big difference.

    "Able to function despite imminent catastrophe"

     "To obtain the air that angels breathe you must come to Tahoe"--Mark Twain

    "The most common question from potential entrants is 'I do not know if I can do this' to which I usually answer, 'that's the whole point'.--Paul Charteris, Tarawera Ultramarathon RD.

     

    √ Tahoe Rim Trail 100M 20/21 July 2013

    Boston Marathon 21 April 2014

    Tahoe Rim Trail 100M 19/20 July 2014


    Ostrich runner

      The crux of it seemed to me that while a more fair system could be used now, using such a system might make comparing results of previous years difficult. That shame exists every time a sport develops some new technology or rule and avoiding it is worthwhile, especially in sports that produce ostensibly objective results, unless the good it produces outweighs that.

       

      In my mind, a system that would allow fewer false starts and allow us to see athletes cover distance in the most controlled manner is good. It reminds me a bit of goal line tech that soccer federations are always having to consider...the beauty of the sport is in its simplicity. I'm hesitant to require the use of expensive gadgets for official results where cheaper, simpler, and time tested methods exist.  

      http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum

        Jeff, you wrote a fundamental skill, then in the next sentence the fundamental skill. There's a big difference.

         

        Okay, that's true. I know no one is arguing that the fundamental skill is reacting to a gun. But they are asserting that it is a fundamental skill. Maybe it's true that it is a fundamental skill. i know I would practice it, if I were a 100m runner.

         

        My proposal would eliminate "reacting to the gun" as a fundamental skill and replace it with the equally arbitrary "timing the gun" as a fundamental skill. This replacement would vastly reduce false starts.

         

        How's that.

          The crux of it seemed to me that while a more fair system could be used now, using such a system might make comparing results of previous years difficult. That shame exists every time a sport develops some new technology or rule and avoiding it is worthwhile, especially in sports that produce ostensibly objective results, unless the good it produces outweighs that.

           

          In my mind, a system that would allow fewer false starts and allow us to see athletes cover distance in the most controlled manner is good. It reminds me a bit of goal line tech that soccer federations are always having to consider...the beauty of the sport is in its simplicity. I'm hesitant to require the use of expensive gadgets for official results where cheaper, simpler, and time tested methods exist.  

           

          This makes good sense to me. We should always be cautious about changing sport--though in some ways precedent for changing starts was set when they created the automatic DQ rule and put sensors on the blocks very recently. High-tech stuff is already there (see the science of sport link) which is set up to PREVENT the previous and historically more long lasting tactic of risking a false start by trying to time the gun. 

           

          But I think you just articulated very well why people are hesitant to change.


          Feeling the growl again

            It's kind of funny to me the attention this is getting (and I don't mean this thread), it's not like this is the first time a top sprinter has DQ'd himself.  I think that speaks a lot more to Bolt's unusual draw more than anything to do with fairness.  Can't say the singular attention is undeserved give what he's been able to accomplish with a "mature" record.

             

            I have no issues with the current system personally....practice and make sure you don't false start and you're good.  I never did like the "charge the first false start to the field" rule, and letting everyone have a freebie just got silly (and led to a real hokey start when it finally happened).

             

            Regarding technology, records, fairness and comparability.....just be glad you don't follow swimming....with the rise and fall of that special suit it may be a long, long time before we see those records being approached again. 

            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

             

            R2E


            "run" "to" "eat"

              put them behind gates like the horses, when the gate opens, GO!

               

              problem solved.

               

              you're welcome.

              i find the sunshine beckons me to open up the gate and dream and dream ~~robbie williams

                put them behind gates like the horses, when the gate opens, GO!

                 

                problem solved.

                 

                you're welcome.

                 

                Photo of that posted on p. 4 of this thread.  You're slow out of the gate, R2E!

                Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                  Okay, that's true. I know no one is arguing that the fundamental skill is reacting to a gun. But they are asserting that it is a fundamental skill. Maybe it's true that it is a fundamental skill. i know I would practice it, if I were a 100m runner.

                   

                  My proposal would eliminate "reacting to the gun" as a fundamental skill and replace it with the equally arbitrary "timing the gun" as a fundamental skill. This replacement would vastly reduce false starts.

                   

                  How's that.

                   

                  Is the "reacting to the gun" the thing that is causing false starts?   Also, I don't see that incentive-izing timing the gun (and thereby adding additional opportunity to go early)  reduces false starts.  I see that as doing the opposite.

                  R2E


                  "run" "to" "eat"

                    Photo of that posted on p. 4 of this thread.  You're slow out of the gate, R2E!

                     

                     

                    perhaps i am coming from behind because i am, in fact, lapping you.

                     

                    open your mind.

                    i find the sunshine beckons me to open up the gate and dream and dream ~~robbie williams

                      Is the "reacting to the gun" the thing that is causing false starts?   Also, I don't see that incentive-izing timing the gun (and thereby adding additional opportunity to go early)  reduces false starts.  I see that as doing the opposite.

                       

                      Can someone else explain this? Please and thanks.

                      R2E


                      "run" "to" "eat"

                        hey, jeffer -- did you want an explanation of the question so that you could digest it, or did you want someone else to explain something to devin on your behalf? please clarify. thanks much.

                        i find the sunshine beckons me to open up the gate and dream and dream ~~robbie williams


                        Feeling the growl again

                          Can someone else explain this? Please and thanks.

                           

                          Well, the last part I can.  Under the current system, any attempt to try and even start reacting before the gun is penalized via the .2ms or whatever reaction cutoff.  If you remove that and incentivize people to ALWAYS try and start before the gun, so that their feet hit the pressure plate as close to the gun as possible, you are almost definitely going to see an increase in false starts.  You are telling the whole field that to be competitive, they will need to try and time their start so that they are really beginning the process before the official start.  When people are trying to time it down to thousandths of a second, false starts are going to happen more.

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                            Can someone else explain this? Please and thanks.

                             

                            When starting in general, your purpose is to be moving as soon as you can. When reacting to the gun, you just wait until you hear the sound to go. When timing the gun, you're less inclined to explicitly listen for the last sound to go, and instead are using the previous couple to determine when the last one will be. Reacting should be a cause and effect, whereas timing isn't so much. 

                             

                            (Is that more clear?  My last post made sense in my head.)

                              Is the "reacting to the gun" the thing that is causing false starts?   Also, I don't see that incentive-izing timing the gun (and thereby adding additional opportunity to go early)  reduces false starts.  I see that as doing the opposite.

                               

                              No, reacting to the gun is not what's causing false starts and no I don't see "timing the gun" as reducing false starts either.  Probably it would create even more incentive for the guys that are just outside medal contention to gamble and see if they can get a jump without false starting, if the gun was exactly standard and they could get really good at timing it.  For a guy who's the 6th fastest guy in the field it might be worth a 50/50 risk of a false start to try and get a jump and get as close to the 100ms limit as possible without going over and so it might actually increase false starts.

                               

                              I don't think what's needed is eliminating reacting to the gun and I feel like that option, which as far as I know is not remotely on the table at all within the IAAF, has gotten way too much play in this thread.

                               

                              I think what some athletes have suggested is they should eliminate the long hold.  Right now it's totally at the discretion of the starter to fire the gun when all the athletes are in their final set position, so there is the potential for the athletes to have to hold a long time--and by long, 1.5 or 2 seconds can can seem like an eternity to a bunch of amped up sprinters ready to charge out of the blocks.  Some of the athletes, including Tyson Gay of the US, have suggested they standardize the time between "set" and the gun somewhat by making the gun fire automatically some amount of time after "set."  One way this could be done would be to have the timer pull the trigger right as he says "set" and have the gun fire automatically after some number of milliseconds.  To my mind this would not change the system to "timing the gun" per se because there would still be the human being pulling the trigger while or right after saying "set" so that could theoretically provide just enough variation in the exact number of milliseconds between set and gun to make it something you couldn't quite anticipate, but it would prevent having 2 second holds.

                               

                              All of this is a bit beside the subject of Usain Bolt's disqualification from the 100m final at WC's since I don't think anyone has said that the hold time in that start was excessive (but maybe they have and I missed it.)

                               

                              In my mind if you read the start procedures to the letter of the law, the move by Blake should have been interpreted as a movement in the set position but one that was not "commencing the start" and should have resulted in a non-start but not a false start to either Bolt or Blake.  In reality, though, the movement was so slight that, while it may very well have affected Bolt who was right next to him on the side of the leg that twitched, it's not reasonable to expect the starter or recallers to have noticed it and so the disqualification is understandable.

                               

                              Ultimately it is up to Bolt to react only to the gun and he didn't do that.  I don't think anyone can debate that.  But when the reigning world champion and world record holder is disqualified via a zero-tolerance false start rule and there was possibly some movement by another competitor before he jumped, it's reasonable to have a discussion about whether the start procedure in place could be improved upon.  Don't expect anything to change by London, though, and any changes that happen will be minor (as they should be.)

                               

                              It should be noted that the zero tolerance rule has worked as advertised: there are fewer false starts than there used to be.

                              Runners run.

                                hey, jeffer -- did you want an explanation of the question so that you could digest it, or did you want someone else to explain something to devin on your behalf? please clarify. thanks much.

                                 

                                Yeah devin's question was clear. My explaining muscle is just wore out. Mikey did a good job of explaining the reasons to reduce irregularities in the start count, which would allow the sprinters to "time" the start better and reduce (but not eliminate) false starts.