Lausanne DL- M TJ


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby betterthanb4 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:29 am

Order Athlete Nation PB SB

1 DONATO Fabrizio ITA 17.60
2 HOCHULI Alexander SUI 16.37 16.21
3 SILVA Jonathan Henrique BRA 17.39 16.84
4 RAPINIER Yoann FRA 17.17 17.17
5 REVÉ Ernesto CUB
6 TAMGHO Teddy FRA 17.98 17.47
7 TAYLOR Christian USA 17.96 17.66
8 PICHARDO Pedro Pablo CUB 17.69 17.69
betterthanb4
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby jamal00005 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:58 am

The Cuban has a weird technique
jamal00005
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:46 pm

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby gm » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:50 am

Clearly a foul by Pichardo on his final attempt
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby tm71 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:52 am

gm wrote:Clearly a foul by Pichardo on his final attempt


clearly ! don't know why they measured it
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby cladthin » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:08 pm

Not sure how that did not break the plasticine but to his credit as the announcers said and video showed the official did seem to be looking closely at the board.
cladthin
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Right there.

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:02 pm

lonewolf has said on several occasions that a small foul will leave a mark, but a bigger one sometimes does not.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby cladthin » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:09 pm

26mi235 wrote:lonewolf has said on several occasions that a small foul will leave a mark, but a bigger one sometimes does not.


That is interesting. Did he have any guesses as to why that was the case?
cladthin
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Right there.

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:14 am

He can give a better answer but I think that it has to do with the spike plate. However, if the Plasticene is flat it has always seemed a bit surprising to me -- lonewolf is beyond qualified to make this conclusion, however.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby lonewolf » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:51 am

The international rule is: " the foot shall not touch the ground beyond the foul line." The NCAA rule is: "the foot shall not extend beyond the foul plane."

The plasticine, abutted against the takeoff board, rises at a 30 degree angle in direction of runup. The top of the plasticine tray is 7mm higher than the takeoff board.. At one time, the practice was to spread a thin layer of plasticine over the entire surface of the plasticine tray. Now, The plasticine is customarily smoothed into a longitudinal notch the length of the board and only a strip about 2 cm wide is spread on the top level surface of the plasticine tray.

The front spikes of the jumpers shoe is set back some distance from the tip. The jump rotates off the front spikes and the sole of the foot never touches the "ground" (the elevated top level of the plasticne tray) thus, "No mark, no foul".

Happens more often than you would think. At the 1990 Seattle Goodwill Games, Carl Lewis was in his prime. The eight best jumpers in the world competed. The long jump was the prime time televised event. Every jump was shown live on the end zone jumbotron. Despite the stadium announcer's repeated explanation of the rule, the crowd groaned and booed every time they could see an obvious foot foul ruled fair.
Experienced long jumpers love plasticine. If you examine their jump shoes, you will find many have obviously been trained to curl upward at the toe to gain an extra mm or two. They have a chance to get away with a lucky foul. With visual fouls and competent board judge, practically none.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby cladthin » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:35 am

lonewolf wrote:The international rule is: " the foot shall not touch the ground beyond the foul line." The NCAA rule is: "the foot shall not extend beyond the foul plane."

The plasticine, abutted against the takeoff board, rises at a 30 degree angle in direction of runup. The top of the plasticine tray is 7mm higher than the takeoff board.. At one time, the practice was to spread a thin layer of plasticine over the entire surface of the plasticine tray. Now, The plasticine is customarily smoothed into a longitudinal notch the length of the board and only a strip about 2 cm wide is spread on the top level surface of the plasticine tray.

The front spikes of the jumpers shoe is set back some distance from the tip. The jump rotates off the front spikes and the sole of the foot never touches the "ground" (the elevated top level of the plasticne tray) thus, "No mark, no foul".

Happens more often than you would think. At the 1990 Seattle Goodwill Games, Carl Lewis was in his prime. The eight best jumpers in the world competed. The long jump was the prime time televised event. Every jump was shown live on the end zone jumbotron. Despite the stadium announcer's repeated explanation of the rule, the crowd groaned and booed every time they could see an obvious foot foul ruled fair.
Experienced long jumpers love plasticine. If you examine their jump shoes, you will find many have obviously been trained to curl upward at the toe to gain an extra mm or two. They have a chance to get away with a lucky foul. With visual fouls and competent board judge, practically none.


Thanks for the detailed description/explanation. So yesterday's winning TJ for Pichardo, regardless of making a mark in the plasticine or not, should have been called a foul if it was seen in real time? I ask assuming you saw the jump we are referencing and the degree which he appeared to be past the board?
cladthin
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Right there.

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby pakillo » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:42 pm

AWFUL! Use a freakin slow motion to decide! Things like this shouldn't happen! But some 5 years ago in Lausanne (same location) we saw the same in women's TJ, Anna Pyatikh clearly fouled and then white flag appeared, commentators LOLed.
Last edited by pakillo on Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby lonewolf » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:13 pm

cladthin wrote:[. So yesterday's winning TJ for Pichardo, regardless of making a mark in the plasticine or not, should have been called a foul if it was seen in real time? I ask assuming you saw the jump we are referencing and the degree which he appeared to be past the board?

No I did not see the jump. Obviously, in most cases, the board judge cannot determinine visually whether the foot touched ground. That is why the plasticine is there. Presumably, at such a high level meet, the plasticine is properly prepared to detect even the faintest impression. Under current interpretation and application of the rule, No mark. No foul.

This is the opposite of the infamous Lewis " 30 foot"jump at Indy in 1982 where the judge called an obvious visual foul which was belatedly protested because there was allegedly no conclusive mark in the plasticine. At the time, plasticine was considered an "aid" and the practice was to call flagrant visual fouls.
Is there a link to view this jump?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby lonewolf » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:43 pm

tm71 wrote:
gm wrote:Clearly a foul by Pichardo on his final attempt


clearly ! don't know why they measured it

This is an evolving procedure in Horizontal jumps.
For an eternity, the rules clearly stated..it shall be a foul and not measured if (depending on the rule book in effect):
a. The foot touched the ground beyond the foul line
or
a. The foot extends beyond the plane of the foul line.

Three years ago, when the board camera began coming into common use, even thought is was a violation of existing NCAA rules, we were under a mandate to measure any foul that might be protested, save the unrevealed mark but not record until the issue was settled by the referee.
This was an onerous, foolish, impossible task guessing which jumps might be protested. The practice back-tracked a little when it was decided by the rules gurus that the pit marker was to hold the mark until the jumper passed the board. If no immediate protest, the mark is not measured. If protested,measure but do not reveal or record the mark until resolved. I personally have never been reversed and am not aware of any.
A coach or athlete, who are the only people with standing to protest, 20 or 30 yards away, at an angle do not have an optimum view to successfuly challenge the judge on the board. If they are behind the board, fair jumps can look foul and vice versa, if view is from front of boars, foul jumps can look fair.
In practice, protests have become rare. As one camera tecnician said to me, "It is just a $50 protest fee to prove you guys right."
The most recent NCAA rule book deleted the phrase "shall not be measured" but does not address the controversal measuring of foul jumps or describe how the mark shall be treated or implemented. The NCAA rule book says...+...each legal jump shall be measured..."
The USATF rule book, at least as far back as 1983, does not contain the phrase, "shall not be measured". I does say, "..all fair attempts shall be measured immediately..."

In neither case is does it say to measure foul jumps. I have debated this issue with the rules gurus until..... we are both tired of it.. but .. it took me three years to get the exit foul clarified so there is still hope..
Last edited by lonewolf on Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby Pego » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:55 pm

lonewolf wrote:No I did not see the jump.


I did, on the webcast. In real time it looked at least 1 cm foul.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby tm71 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:24 pm

His shoe broke the plane by about an inch. At least that jump didn't decide the contest
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby lonewolf » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:13 pm

Pego wrote:
lonewolf wrote:No I did not see the jump.


I did, on the webcast. In real time it looked at least 1 cm foul.

1 cm is a big visual foul, about the width of the notch, but small enough it almost invaribly leaves an imprint in the plasticine.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Lausanne DL- M TJ

Postby lonewolf » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:16 pm

tm71 wrote:His shoe broke the plane by about an inch. At least that jump didn't decide the contest

An inch sounds reasonable to get away with a non touch foul/fair jump.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 79., gktrack, Tuariki and 12 guests