Olympian Reacts to Devon Allen’s 110m Hurdles False Start
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- I couldn’t believe what I saw. Embarrassing day for the sport of Track and Field.
If you want to know how I trained for the entire 2012 Olympic Season (the year I made the Olympic Final) download the Nick Symmonds Fit App. I published my 2012 Training Log there! www.nicksymmon...
Find the freshest clothes at www.barbellapp...
USE CODE "BISON" at checkout for 10% off of your order!
I will be giving away a free pair of shoes every Tuesday for the rest of 2022. Follow me on Instagram for a chance to win! / nicksymmonds
Download the Nick Symmonds Fit App today and let's get to work! www.nicksymmon...
Check out www.RunningWar... for sweet deals on amazing shoes!
Get my 8 Week POWERLIFTING Program here: www.nicksymmon...
Immune Boost Daily is available here: www.immuneboos...
Use code SYMMONDS at checkout for 50% off!
If you want to try Run Gum head over to RunGum.com and use code NICK20 for 20% off!
Shoot me a DM on Instagram!! / nicksymmonds
Main channel is here: / nicksymmonds800
Autographed products here: www.nicksymmon...
Bison hoodies here: www.bonfire.co...
Check out the store: www.nicksymmon...
WINTERGREEN Run Gum is now available NATIONWIDE at Walmart! Go online and see if your local Walmart has it in store!
FREE RUN GUM: www.rungum.com...
Autographed products are here!! www.nicksymmon...
If you want to enter to win a pair of shoes follow me here: / nicksymmonds
If you are looking for my main channel (viral videos!) click here: / nicksymmonds800
For your chance to win...⠀
All you have to do to enter is follow me @nicksymmonds, and @runningwarehouse.
-⠀
Giveaway opens every Tuesday at 12:01 AM and closes the following Monday at 11:59 PM. Winner will be contacted via a DM from @nicksymmonds on Instagram. The winner must respond within 24 hours.
-
Full Rules:
Prize provided by Running Warehouse. Retail value of the prize between approximately $150 (value may vary).
To participate an entrant must follow the guidelines found on giveaway post. All qualified entries will be deemed valid entries. The winner will be selected at random. No purchase is necessary to enter this contest.
The selected winner(s) will have (insert time for winner to respond) to respond before alternate winner(s) will be selected. The alternate winner(s) will be notified in the same manner and will have the same amount of time to respond.
Entrants must be 18 years of age or older to win and located within the United States for delivery. Only one entry per person. Void where prohibited.
The contest is open to everyone with the exception of employees of Sports Warehouse, Inc., and Running Warehouse, LLC, their families, agents, and representatives.
All taxes relative to the prize package are the sole responsibility of the winner. No prize substitutions, assignments or transfers. No cash equivalents.
Returns & Exchanges: Returns for size changes are subject to availability and must be within two weeks of receiving product. No returns for refund are allowed. No returns for color exchanges. Giveaway shoes cannot be exchanged for an alternative model.
By participating, you grant permission to Running Warehouse to share and use your name and any content submitted within your entry. Entrants are providing information to Sports Warehouse, Inc. and Running Warehouse, LLC.
By participating, all entrants acknowledge and agree that they have entered the contest of their own free will, that the full rules and details of the contest have been made available to them in writing and they therefore understand and agree that neither Sports Warehouse, Inc./Running Warehouse, LLC, nor their agents, affiliates, sponsors, representatives or employees have any liability with respect to any damages out of acceptance and use of a prize. By entering this promotion, participants agree to be bound by these rules.
Disclaimers: This giveaway is not sponsored, endorsed or administered by or associated with RUclips or Instagram. Please only respond to the official Running Warehouse email and know that we will never request credit card or payment info.
Running Warehouse:
Women’s Running shoes
www.runningwar...
Men’s Running shoes
www.runningwar...
Heartful congrats to the winners, but tough break for Devon and the sport as a whole. Let me know your thoughts on this controversial event below.
Oh of course!
I think a new study should be conducted to set a new standard for reaction time
Just let the runners run…not everything needs technology.
Honestly, they need to change the rules. Or they had faulty timers. 3 people in 1 night...
If the study shows that the fastest possible start is 0.084 seconds then the limit should be 0.084 seconds and not round to 0.1. The times are very precise and valuable and making the limit higher is an unnecessary disadvantage to the athletes
There was also a woman disqualified for being just over .09 - that rule has to be changed from 0.10 down to .09 because neither the woman or Devon did anything wrong
I think it should be 0.08
It shouldn’t be a rule at all. The race starts when the gun fires. If you start running after the race starts it should be fine. A single elimination DQ is enough penalty…nobody will try to time the gun. And if they do? Good on them…all part of the game.
@@jwhittington78 Somewhere you need to put a limit though, because it could be unfair at some point. But in that case simply remove the reaction time completely, start the timer of each athletes when he reacts.
There were 2 women actually, one was .95 and the other .97 or .98 I believe. Either way pretty stupid
@@jwhittington78 Exactly.
Same thing happened to 100m sprinter from Bahamas in the final earlier. The reaction time was 0.093sec. Time to review and change this out-dated rule before more athletes get deprived of showing their talents on such a stage.
two women, 0.095 and 0.093
*The Bahamas
Very interesting study was done and the reaction times for all athletes at the meet were off the charts and way ahead of anything that has been recorded at previous Olympic and World Championships. Most reactions times were 0.04-0.07 faster than previous championships. Whoever the morons were that calibrated their systems owes some athletes some money. On top of that just an idiotic rules as well, but unfortunately our sport is famous for that.
@@civilwarwasaninsidejob7405 It's not the time calibration, it's the pressure calibration.
I think the False starts are too strict, Hope to make it out to a Nick symmonds event next year! I had surgery so I've been scared to run again but hopefully one day!
They aren’t even that strict every athlete knows that you have to sit in the blocks and just wait for the gun to go off, regardless of what the rules are it is a really dumb rule but I still think that if they lower the reaction speed down to 0.09 it’ll won’t affect anything anyways
But 0.001 is way to sensitive, just as nick said that is an elite athlete reaction time
@@schooie3787 yeah but they’re elite athletes, and some elite athletes just naturally have a better reaction time than the 0.1
Instead of disqualifying someone they could literally give them warnings, up to 3 and if they get the 3rd there out. Usually sprinters run in more than one event, I’ve always thought it’s so harsh to disqualify someone at the spot, they could at least get a warning first. I like it how the galas do it better, usually they don’t disqualify someone when this happen.
That was NOT a false start by Allen, but instead a GREAT reaction time. He reacts AFTER the gun. I’m going to say we disqualify the officials and especially the rules committee whose “great idea” resulted in the highest level of unsportsmanlike conduct ever imagined. And it happened in the Finals of the Worlds - at the highest level.
i watched the slomo on NBC's channel and i swear the polish dude twitched first.
@@oldfrend twitching is not leaving the blocks.
The rule is (overall kinda dumb to me though...
You can't disqualify the officials. As difficult as it was to watch, they were just doing their jobs. It's the rules that have to change, and, IMO, the equipment _must_ be regularly tested so that there is never a question of it not working properly. If these were "new" blocks that Noah Lyles hasn't seen, then why haven't they been used in other, less important meets to properly test them, rather than in the world championships?
You're being dramatic. General sentiment is rule doesn't seem fair. Ok, definitely a lot of validity to that opinion. The issue was officials had their hands tied. There is no recourse or appeal when reaction time exceeds established threshold. Even if somehow officials decided to deviate from established protocol to 'false start', the act of giving Allen a second chance would have created another, maybe bigger, issue. Runners and other people invested in track would question fairness and integrity of sport. It be a reasonable assumption that Allen was receiving preferential treat. Yes, the method used to calculate reaction time needs to be scrutinized again. The new data gathered could elicit a rule change that's more adequate and fair.
@@JappaKneads I was a speed skater and twitching is considered a false start. There are no blocks in that sport tho, so the rule is to be motionless until the gun goes off. I’ve read a lot of comments but I think the .080 limit will reduce this kind of foolishness to almost nothing. A reaction time like that is like 6 or 7 sigma of the “normal” person… which is like a fraction of 1/2%… super low probability. It really should be 0. The blocks measure negatives meaning you moved befor the gun so then DQ someone then and not for being an awesome athlete!
Two problems, and admittedly I was a sprinter in college and may have a biased view, but one false start and your gone is a bad rule, as is the reaction time rule. Also, if there is any doubt in the correct reaction time number, the margin of error should lean in favor of NOT disqualifying an athlete.
If it wasn't one strike and you're out, people would false start to rattle the field.
They should allow reaction time of 90 milliseconds instead
@@elizabethhenning778 🤣🤣
@@PushPastMyLimits Humans have scientifically been proven to be able to react in 84 milliseconds. 90 milliseconds does not make sense. It should be 80-84.
Honestly the 0.1 limit needs to be lowered to be way down to prevent false positives like these beyond a doubt. For example if no one can react faster than 0.06, then make the limit 0.03. This is basically punishing you for being too good, beyond reasonable intuition. Either that or don't make a limit to begin with and just punish people for taking the risk by automatic DQ before the gun
It was sad to see so many athletes be unable to race yesterday :(
Nick, remember all the problems they had with these starting blocks during the NCAA1 championships. There were many cases of false starts that were called back as no false start.
Hey Nick please keep doing these track and field recaps they're very entertaining
He had a start of +0.102 in the semi, just saying!
Yeah basically he has a special reaction capacity. The rule robbed him a medal.
Well said! Correct in every detail. I've been running track for 40 years and coaching all ages for 35 years and I have a Ph.D. in statistics. The supposedly scientific/statistical justification for the 100 millisecond rule is absolute garbage!!! I don't think they should use that type of rule at all, but if they do you are right that lowering it to 80 milliseconds would make sense.
And if an athlete gets disqualified for having a reaction time 0.79 we will have the same discussion all over again….
@@dimitrisfarmakis7572Current studies shows that fastest human reaction time is 80 miliseconds
as someone who just started watching track about 1.5 years ago. I didnt even know this was a thing. I was absolutely disgusted to hear about this rule and I WAS even more disgusted that I found out why and their research that conducted them to come to this conclusion. Its bad for the sport. They did to do more testings with Olympic athletes. Their random testing of this is ridiculous.
Clearly.., the idea is to discourage Athletes from gaining an edge by “Anticipating” the Start, instead of waiting for the Gun to sound. Otherwise.., you'd continue to have numerous False Starts by Athletes anticipating the firing of the Gun. No doubt.., I understand their reasoning for the Rule; however, it is still overkill and extremely unnecessary. As long as an Athlete does NOT jump the gun.., regardless of whether they were fortunate enough to anticipate the Start or not, the race should proceed. Besides, the Automatic Disqualification is more than incentive enough to prevent most athletes from taking the chance.
Just fire the gun at random. There seems to be kind of a rhythm after they give the "set" call. Sometimes a little faster, sometimes a little slower. Keep the DQ for false start, and let the chips fall where they may.
That’s what I’ve always said. Yes, I think it would lead to more DQs from “midfield” guys, but it’s a huge risk/reward thing with the auto DQs. If Devon actually did anticipate there (which I don’t believe he did) then kudos to him, he got the start he probably needed to win that race
@@ryanhahn3651, logically, you can Anticipate the Start of a Race unquestionably FASTER than you could ever humanly react to the sound of the Gun; however, if you get caught??? ;-)
What is jumping the gun? Moving before the gun goes off. This insane rule is punishment for moving too soon AFTER the gun goes off. If someone has that predictive skill, it is part of the physical prowess package and this rule be damned.
Great analysis Nick! Such a great shame and a messy technology robbing Devon of his well deserved glory!
No one deserves anything, it has to be earned and that includes a good start. He false started, case closed. It’s science, can’t argue with a factual event
Nick and all, one thing that needs to be added into this conversation is this. World Athletics in their infinite wisdom do not have a standard technology platform for measuring false starts at all of their events. The systems are different at most meets, meaning the variance in the technology used is not calibrated, nor standardised. What is used in Oregon, is not what will be used at the Commonwealth Games or European Champs. This is another Track and Field disaster from World Athletics as athletes are having their careers ruined because of this single fact alone.
The .10 rule is ridiculous. The study is from sixty years ago that they based this rule on. Jesse Owens wouldn't win because people have gotten faster. They need to change the time.
He would win if he ran today, they ran on dirt tracks during his time. He would be much faster on today's track surfaces, training, and shoes. Athletes today would be much slower running on a dirt track
@@lilcourtny08 do you realize how absurd the idea of giving a person .4 seconds is in a 10 second race? He would’ve been faster but he wouldn’t have won
@@henryhobert5761 lol, he would be fast as many track athletes today. I'm not giving him anything at all. Do little research before commenting, Jesse on ran on a inferior track surface and they didn't use starting blocks. He would easily gain .4 of second easily by running on today's track surface and using staring blocks.
@@lilcourtny08 you don’t seem to realize how much .4 is, you shouldn’t disrespect todays athletes with a petty uneducated comment like I said 4% is A LOT to just give a person because of some inferior conditions, they’d help but not THAT much
Simple rule change would be .05-0.1s reaction time = call back to blocks, not DQ
Can you imagine having to come back to the blocks multiple times though? As an athlete that would suck horribly and waste my energy/mess up my mindset.
@@teentypist2345 But you can't really reliably do it that quick multiple times
Or just move down the time to .05 for a DQ
you must be a new fan. the rule used to be it took two false starts to DQ, but then they had situations where there'd be 8 false starts as runners tried to use their free one to time the gun. it was ridiculous.
@@oldfrend I agree, it used to be ridiculous. But now with a single false start causing a DQ people won't risk it. There is no reason not to drop the reaction time down to .07. That way there is no way something like this happens again
Yes, Time for Change! I also can't believe no one talked about the Polish runner flinching before the gun actually sounded. Devon Allen gently brought that iup, but he should have protested that as well, since that (according to him) was a possible motivator for him to react too quickly. Watch the different camera angles before the gun, and you will see the Polish athlete twitch in the blocks during the "Set" position. This should have been the DQ, not Devon Allen.
This assessment is sort of off. Grant Holloway was slightly ahead of Devon in the start and Grant Holloway goes over the first three hurdles REALLY fast. That is where he gets the lead. It isn't purely based on how quick he gets out of the blocks. It is at the backhalf that others tend to catch up of Grant. Remember Cunningham beat Devon at the trials. And we could see that Cunningham was catching up to Grant at the end. There is absolutely a world where Devon get's third and not first place. Or Devon is out for a photo finish with Cunningham. So I wouldn't say that it is clear that Devon would have won. But I am positive with Jamaican out that barring a horrible mistake, it was going to be a US sweep.
The limit should be 0.85
Awesome post Nick! Way to get in some research to back the feeling of so many people on this issue.
Imagine tripping in a start in 100 meters at Olympic race! OUCH!
happened in the 200m heats, because the blocks slipped. Dude basically fell on his face. They called it back and re-started it as they should have
Omg ouch!
When nick reacts to a race this fast, yk there's a issue🤣🤣
As a non-runner, it's hard to take your sport seriously when I see stuff like this
Well it’s more serious than most sports but there are a few things like this rule.
Every sport has stuff like this
@@sammiescoots6331 ever heard of Formula 1?
Why are you using an issue that is almost exclusive to sprints to cast judgment on the whole sport? Wouldn't it make more sense to just not take sprinting seriously?
I feel so bad for Allen, love you Allen and Nick!❤️💖❤️💖 Heart broken for Allen!❤️💖
I just wanted to say your videos inspire me to get out of bed and run track because I was going through very hard time in 2020 but when I watched your videos I started running and exercising and I have improved my self-esteem and my confidence around others
I love the content nick. keep up the great work.
Great critical analysis from a talented athlete- keep it coming, Nick! Congrats to all the medalists. My heart goes out to Allen. What honor and civility he showed in the face of an unfair decision.
With a sample size of 8, you need to use a T Distribution, where [Mean - 3 SD, inf] are needed for 99% inclusion. Even though the distribution is not bell-shaped; 121 ms mean and 14 ms SD pretty clearly indicates 100 ms is not a practical minimum, especially with single-start DQs.
I watched the video back in .25x play speed and watched the start 4 or 5 times. The athlete in lane 6 was actually the very first to have his hand moving from forward momentum leaving the blocks while Devan Allen was still planted on his hand. Wrong guy was ejected
The hand doesn't matter the feet do. The timing is in the blocks. I saw the replay as well and you couldn't see any movement from anyone. He obviously began his push off one thousandth of a second early and he was so slow it actually didn't make much difference.
@@spiritualphilosophy9402 According to a broken scientific method that an Olympian breaks down saying it's wrong... sure
I did the same. Actually didn’t look at 6, but 2 seemed to move a fraction earlier.
I was under the impression that trying to apply a normal curve and standard deviations to that small a group was not statistically valid anyway.
Yep. Your right. Included in this is the error of the equipment. Surely there is +\- .001 allowance in their somewhere?? n= 8 in a study is BARE minimum. In this case it’s not so much the number of athletes but the quality of athletes. In any case either a new study needs to be done or get rid of the reaction time altogether. At a minimum there should be a warning for reaction times below .100 but at it’s core it’s just punishing excellence. How do you tell someone with a quick reaction time to slow it down. It is what it is…
Why hasn't World Athletics lowered the reaction time rule to 80 or 84ms if they already have data from another study that proves it's possible since 2009???? I don't understand the hold-up
Did he just say devin Alan was gonna win? What a joke 😭 more like bronze. As you can see alan dipped under 12 once and has no signs of doing it again. He’s way too slow out the blocks
So the rule doesn't even allow 2 standard deviations from the mean based on the study it came from?! That's obviously going to falsely catch people out...
Garbage rule. Change it to .08 or even .05. You're right, 0.084 is possible and nobody at this level is trying to anticipate the gun.
In other sports, such as swimming, they don't have this rule, and they don't seem to have any issues. Is ANY time requirement on this really necessary?
The officials are telling Allen that he's too good at what he does, so he has to be disqualified. But don't hold your breath until this injustice is rectified. The wheels of progress in the track & field hierarchy move at glacial speed. Look at how long it took to dethrone Avery Brundage and all his sycophants from amateur athletics. They were very happy to operate by Victorian-era policies and destroy the careers of star athletes who took $50. more than their rules allowed, even though they were forced to live in near-poverty to continue competing. Thank you Nick, for this excellent breakdown of the facts in this issue. That eight ordinary sprinters from thirty years ago would set the standard for allowed reaction times today would be laughable if the consequences weren't so devastating for athletes who deserve much better.
They need to get rid of that rule! How dare they take my guy out like that!! 🥺
I’m a medical student and love to hear the cited studies.
Who are the idiots allowing terrible rules like this? And why isn't it fixed? Show yourself!
Imagine being the best in the world and getting disqualified based on decades-old poorly done research.
The 0.1 limit is just arbitrary, as it feels more convenient than like 0.097.
This is a great breakdown, thanks for educating us Nick
Keep it coming, Nick!!!
Based on the research study you presented, shouldn’t they be using a time that’s +2-3 standard deviations above the average considering these are professional athletes? Assuming they’d be in the ~90th percentile?
Exactly what I was saying… world class is Six Sigma right?!
Noah Lyles did an interview and spoke about the blocks being differently on NBC Sports. He mentioned that the lip on the blocks is shaped differently and that he's seen 5 false starts in int'l events this year by professionals but that these blocks are more accurate and will be causing a lot of issues for folks not ready for them. All that to say, it looks like he had a great start and that's a huge bummer for Devon. I was really looking forward to that race.
Allen def would have been a contender but you are riding him hard
and sleeping on Holloway hard. 12.81 PB, 2nd fastest of all time, he almost broke the WR last year
perhaps Allen had a muscle twitch in his foot which triggered the sensor. You can’t start running without lifting a finger. So let the fingers do the talking. They could have a tiny sensor they put a finger down on, which lights an LED. Then on replay, you can hear the gunshot and check when the LED turns off.
Allen simply got screwed. In my youth it was my own reation time that gave me a hurdle advantage because I was really quick, but only moderately fast. In college football I had two touchdown runs called back because the refs said nobody could start that fast from the snap. They were wrong, but there was, just as with Allen, no recourse. I feel sooooo bad for Allen because he had a great chance to be world champion.
Bad science is bad for the runners, bad for the fans, and bad for the sport.
Hey Nick great video. Were you a duck too? I have just graduated high school and wanted to know about the universities currently best for track and field.
I've said time and again, there will eventually be a rash of DQs that are post-gun and barely under .1s in the same high-profile meet.
It's finally happened and the rules will be hyper-clarified to ensure that the track officials are the one's that are making the assessment, like they're ALREADY supposed to.
Yep, that's right. Because the equipment and timing algorithms are not standardized, the .1s lead time for false starting is supposed to just trigger a review, which can be overruled by the track officials upon looking at the tape. You heard that right. The starter is SUPPOSED to make a judgment call on whether the false start was DQ-able. The fact that the starter simply pointed to the .099 result and then DQ'd Allen is not how this is supposed to work.
You can expect this to be changed/mandated almost overnight once the Worlds are over.
Right. The officiator should have let him run in protest. That is my opinion. At that point, Devon knows that he is going to have to argue his case to the higher ups, BUT throwing him out for this small difference seems stupid and misguided. Devon got a GREAT start this time. Who is to say he would have the same start again or even place with a second run and you can avoid the mess? When it is something this close, just let them run and judge later.
It’s a stupid rule. Should be lowered to 0.08 seconds.
Devon Allen was disqualified for having .001 seconds too fast of a start, and it takes roughly .0035 seconds for sound to travel across a four foot wide track lane. If Devon was in lane 4 or farther he gets a legal start. Such an arbitrary rule.
There's speakers behind each pair of blocks
Well you're just misinformed lol
This is one of the problems with the sprints. Middle distance and long distance racing is where it's at!
I hope Nick doesn't get DQ'd for his reaction time to the race.
I’ve been waiting for this bison👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Noah Lyles said the blocks are different and have a lip on the bottom. I have to wonder if this is what is causing so many false starts for the sprints.
Also, it's ridiculous that they're basing the response time on an evaluation of "average" runners from the 90s and aren't consistently testing this value.
Wow the fact this is actually a rule is crazy.
What Martinez does is simply incredible, in the big tournaments he always PR’s and beat people with better times, like the Olympic finals and semifinal and final in the 22 world championship
So, Devon was punished for being too good.
Allen also reacted in .101 in the semi-finals.
It makes me so mad that they haven't fixed this rule by now. Devon should never have been put into this career screwing situation in the first place! Fix the damn rule officials!
been awhile since i checked in on NS, glad to see he's still hitting excessive amounts of caffeine
You’re the best!
Still the dumbest fuckin rule in track
That really sucked! Now hearing how they came up with that rule...it sucks even more! I compete at Master's level so none is reacting that fast so no worries. But I would have loved to see Devon bring that win here to training camp with my Eagles!
2 women also got disqualified from the 100m semifinals for reactions 0f 0.095 and 0.093. 3 separate races ruined by a BS rule within one hour. They should get rid of the reaction time rule all together. Move after the gun, you're good to go. Move before the gun, you're out. Simple...no pseudoscientific guessing needed
Seems like they need to change the rules.
Penalizing the best athletes in the world is a total CRIME!!!!!! Who are the morons not correcting this?! Their careers should be penalized, not the athletes! Who are they?
The rule should be changed to .07 s.
We'll never know who would've won. Devon hasn't been consistently dropping 12.80s and the past few races he had wasn't the greatest, relatively speaking. We will never know the order but it most certainly would've been a 1-2-3 sweep.
Now more than ever, that man deserves gold in Paris.
Thats bull shit. My heart goes out to Allen
The rule is fine there are too many cheats who guess the gun and get away with it at the lower levels. This stops it from happening, he most likely anticipated the gun perfectly. This is still a rare thing for world class athletes to go out like this. Yes it does happen but its not that common in terms of elite elite sprinters. You don't change the rule for the exception.
3 sprinters in one day is pretty impressive though. The 3 DQed sprinters all had reactions in the range of 0.09 and it’s been proven that sprinters can react as fast as 0.08.
The judge should havre used common sense with the three athletes and allowed them to run which is what World Athletics clarified the judges can do
If you "guess" the gun but go AFTER the gun, it should be fine. That's the point, the gun goes, then you go.
No lower it to 50 milliseconds. Not building in any room for error is what got them in this situation in the first place.
Track takes 2 steps back every single time some BS like this happens. BS. The sport is never going to grow
Excellent breakdown, Nick! I have to agree. Devon would have won, and time to change the rule.
Thank you Nick!!! Excellent breakdown.
I think they should keep the 0.1s second reaction time limit but set into place a tolerance of .020s if an athlete using a blocked starting position surpasses this 0.100s threshold on consecutive starts then a DQ is issued. In addition if the computer recognizes a sub 0.100s start the second gun will fire and that racer will be issued a warning.
Example: in the semifinals Racer X reacts quicker than the 0.100s allowed reaction time, but within the tolerance of 0.020s (say 0.094s). the second gun fires and racer X is issued their warning. The race is reset. upon the reset racer X does not dip below the 0.100s threshold. -- The finals, Racer X again dips below the 0.100s threshold but again within the tolerance allowed (say 0.088s). the second gun sounds and racer X is given another warning, since the racer was below the reaction limit in two separate races the warning system resets and the racer is issued a warning and is not disqualified. the Finals race restarts. Racer X finishes the race. -- The next meet, Racer X is below the 0.100s reaction limit again this time they reacted at 0.079s Since this is below the tolerance of 0.020s Racer X is disqualified immediately with no warning.
This idea provides a simplistic solution to keep racers with fast reaction times on the track while also eliminating egregious offenders who might be trying to gain an advantage.
I was there. I saw the replay. And I am still shocked!!!! Did they calibrate the starting blocks? Do you remember Drummond? I used to be a sprinter way back when each individual was allowed 2 false starts. Way back then sprints required also intelligence not only muscles. You could use the false start in order to gain a competitive advantage. I have never heard of a rule as stupid as the .1 reaction time rule. WHY WOULD YOU EVEN WANT TO PUNISH SOMEONE WHO TRIES TO FALSO START. They are taking chances of being eliminated. It is a fair risk to take. My suggestion is the following: (i) False starts is when your reaction time is before the gun (i.e. 0. not 0.1 nor 0.00001, nor any fraction of a second after the gun is fired) Once the gun is fired then it is all fair game. (ii) The gun should not be a human it should be a machine and the rhythm/timing has to be timed mechanically and is universal athlete should be able to practice to a standard start (iii) if you false start you are recalled given a red card and allowed to race. You should never be walked out of the stadium. After the race is completed you should be allowed to appeal, without for that disrupting the race. You may have a really good reason why you false started (noise from the crowd your neighbor motion etc.) This is why you get a red card but you still get to race. This is the point of view that respects the current trend of favoring muscles over brain.
My preference would be to bring back the right for every athlete to false start at least once. There is a mental game in false starting. And all athletes have the right to this mental game. Let the athletes use their brain, not only their muscles. It is the only opportunity to have a strategy in an even that is void of any.
Yeah that was bad. Whatever happened to allowing one false start and then DQing a second?
Too many people would false start to mess with their competitors focus
Should be updated every few years as humans evolve and get better at athletics. They start so much younger and have better equipment and knowledge 🤷♂️
Whats wild is that the actual WA rule doesn’t even say he should be disqualified.
“Generally, no false start should be charged if the athlete has not lost contact with the ground or foot plates.”
This was taken directly from the rulebook and there are other indications in the rule that they shouldn’t have called it as a false start. Sounds like the rule encourages more subjectivity than these starters used and instead of addressing it, World Athletics came out with their statement defending it to protect the “integrity” of the sport when in reality, acknowledging that it was wrong would do a lot more for the integrity in the long run🤷🏾♀️
Absolutely disgraceful what happened to Devon, hope this occurrence brings enough attention to the issue so that it gets finally updated, maybe then Coe will have finally done something good for the sport in his tenure.
What an absurd call on both cases!
I'm not digging this rule. There should be a visible false start before the second gun is shot, then video review to confirm who jumped.
I'm sorry, but the timed reaction is BS. If you don't jump before the gun, it isn't a false start. He literally left at the same time as the guy next to him. If someone can time the start, good for them. If they don't they get DQ'd. I know people guessing the gun was a problem when they would allow a false start for each person, but now that isn't a problem. Its time to get rid of the time based reaction.
Hey Nick, it's August 6th 2022 and my Google News search shows no articles about this issue. In fact, today's Google search leads with a Pess blog from May 10, 2018.... CAN YOU PLEASE KEEP US IN THE LOOP as time moves forward, I can't believe there are is nothing on the web that shows people are even thinking about this terrible rule. This is not a trivial issue, like you said, this has ruined peoples running legacy.
Congrats Halloway for the win. Since you're not God you are just assuming....but carry on..
There was clearly a video that showed that his head came up before everyone else.
Why are you not showing that video.
He clearly came up early.
A SAMPLE SIZE OF 8 AVERAGE SPRINTERS!!! This rule is an abomination. Either take reaction time out of the mix (subtract out whenever they start - after the gun of course, maybe even say the must start within a certain period after the gone) or really allow reaction time, the current rule makes it a competition of what exactly?
IAAF determined in a study that the reaction time is somewhere around 0.08s, yet they didnt change it. And we REALLY said 0.099 is not close enough to 0.100? Like why did we pull 0.1s out fo our ass? COuld it not be 0.0934? or 0.0813? no shit the 0.1 is just an estimate.
Dont know hwy the DQd athletes dont run under a protest. Determine the BS later, and we all know who the winner is.
Even the original study shows that the rule is stupid. Assuming reaction times are normally distributed, the probability of reaction under 100ms with a mean of 121 and SD of 14 is 6.7%. So we'd expect a false start 1/15 times. Obviously that's not quite right but it's silly to even use that study to justify the rule.
Also, I don't see why they have to disqualify runners for a "faster than possible" reaction time. It makes more sense to disqualify someone for jumping before the gun, because otherwise we get the situation where people try to predict the gun for a competitive advantage. But providing a grace period in which the runners are called back but no one disqualified would not have that effect.
the world is crazy for disqualifying devon for ONLY BEING TOO FAST BY 0.001s seriously what has happend to the world
8 is NOT - IS FUCKING NOT - a sample size that can produce statistically significant results even if they gathered the data from 8 Olympians. The idiocy on this planet knows no end. Fuck track & field. They get what they deserve.
Nick, great job on this video and the points you made. I made that comment about Allen's reaction time. What if he is someone who just has fast reaction time? So, he is punished for that. Yes, that rule should be adjusted.
I was a 400M and 110 hurdler in college. If you watch the video, you will see that everyone is still except for Holloway who was still rising into the set position when the gun went off. Everyone shifts weight slighty in the blocks a bit before and during the set position. It was clear on the review that he did not anticipate the gun. Abviously, with so many disqualifications, something was wrong with the timing of the starter and the block sensors. We all know who would have one. Oh well, you put too much computer assisted controls in place, you don't get a real Race!
its not just a rule change. ive seen this for years in athletics......the rules makers and officials ..AND the technologies used take precedence over who it is really about..THE ATHLETES>