Bolt blew it (Read 2037 times)

    With replay review?

     

    Only after every scoring play.


    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

      Only after every scoring play.

       

      Stop encouraging R2E with the phallic side thread.

      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

      R2E


      "run" "to" "eat"

        gotta go meet with my boss about "goals" for next FY. goals! ppfthth.

         

        you people will need to carry on without me here.

         

        MAKE ME PROUD!

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

        JimR


          gotta go meet with my boss about "goals" for next FY. goals! ppfthth.

           

          you people will need to carry on without me here.

           

          MAKE ME PROUD!

           

          wait...I have to do the exact same thing today.

            I found this whole conversation fascinating.  Never ran track, never did cross country, I am about as hobbyjogger as you get.  Up until this thread I never gave a though to the logistics of timing something where the results of are determined by less than 0.1 seconds.  The concept of pressure sensors and 100ms delays (min reaction time) after the pistol are completely novel to me.

            The whole idea of reaction time being a part of the competitive event seems like a random addition to the competition.  I get why it is included, it is just not really related to one's ability to actually run fast.  The race is in effect saying lets see how fast you can run 100m plus how long it takes you to react to a loud sound.  Superficially (and to my admittedly completely uneducated perception) it is an odd pairing for a competitive event.  Why not compete on running 100 meters and then throwing a discus or running 100 meters and doing some long division.

            Of course it is a necessary evil, as the only way to measure only how fast someone can cover 100 meters is to start the clock when they push off, and then you don't have people racing each other.  The race has to measure speed plus something, currently it is reaction time plus speed.  Jeff makes an argument for anticipation plus speed.  Maybe we could wire electrodes to the major muscles that contract on that initial push off and all the racers get a jolt to set them off when the gun fires.

            Anyway, I think the whole debate is neat because it is debating the nuances of an aspect I didn't even know existed before yesterday.  I never thought about it, but I assumed the person who won the 100 meter was the person who could run 100 meters the fastest and that isn't always the case apparently.

            Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well with my soul.

              I found this whole conversation fascinating.  Never ran track, never did cross country, I am about as hobbyjogger as you get.  Up until this thread I never gave a though to the logistics of timing something where the results of are determined by less than 0.1 seconds.  The concept of pressure sensors and 100ms delays (min reaction time) after the pistol are completely novel to me.

              The whole idea of reaction time being a part of the competitive event seems like a random addition to the competition.  I get why it is included, it is just not really related to one's ability to actually run fast.  The race is in effect saying lets see how fast you can run 100m plus how long it takes you to react to a loud sound.  Superficially (and to my admittedly completely uneducated perception) it is an odd pairing for a competitive event.  Why not compete on running 100 meters and then throwing a discus or running 100 meters and doing some long division.

              Of course it is a necessary evil, as the only way to measure only how fast someone can cover 100 meters is to start the clock when they push off, and then you don't have people racing each other.  The race has to measure speed plus something, currently it is reaction time plus speed.  Jeff makes an argument for anticipation plus speed.  Maybe we could wire electrodes to the major muscles that contract on that initial push off and all the racers get a jolt to set them off when the gun fires.

              Anyway, I think the whole debate is neat because it is debating the nuances of an aspect I didn't even know existed before yesterday.  I never thought about it, but I assumed the person who won the 100 meter was the person who could run 100 meters the fastest and that isn't always the case apparently.

               

              Chip time vs. gun time.  It's the same thing in longer races, it just usually doesn't make as much of a difference. 

              JimR


                Timing is secondary.  Finishing position determines the winner and awards work accordingly.

                  DgR, a bit nervy of you to get this thread back on track, but hey.

                   

                  If you want to really measure how fast someone is over 100m without reaction time playing a part, you should give them some distance to get going, start the clock when they cross the starting line, and stop it when they cross the finish line.  I believe skiing is done that way.  Come to think of it, we're talking chip time vs. gun time.  That encompasses all my racing experiences.

                   

                  Not sure I'm making Waffles proud.

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

                    Oops, Devin beat me to it.  Faster reaction time.

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


                    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                      Oops, Devin beat me to it.  Faster reaction time.

                       

                      Wouldn't it be fairer to measure it from when you started typing?

                      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                        Wouldn't it be fairer to measure it from when you started typing?

                         

                        Absolutely.

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

                        xor


                          Wouldn't it be fairer to measure it from when you started typing?

                           

                          I would blow all of you off the blocks.

                           

                          Edit: except, apparently, Led.  Crap.  In a bucket, and call it a sandwich.

                           

                            If you want to really measure how fast someone is over 100m without reaction time playing a part, you should give them some distance to get going, start the clock when they cross the starting line, and stop it when they cross the finish line.

                             

                            This has all sorts of problems, but my explaining muscle is still fatigued.

                              At least there is strong evidence that Devin did not false start.   

                              In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                              http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                               

                               

                               





                                This has all sorts of problems, but my explaining muscle is still fatigued.

                                 

                                I think they would lean back when crossing the start and forward when crossing the finish.

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