Timing Issues Addressed

[imaginative]

Surprisingly strong statements made here by people who we know are not as well-informed as the people that they are arguing with.
.

That is a very ambiguous statement

From my POV, both camps can take the credit:

The one knows more about timing and less about technology.

The other less about timing and more about technology.

Both sides have a thing or two to learn from the other (and I concur
with your thanks for the information).

[gm]

And I gladly bow and yield to Cody on both timing AND technology matters.

[gh]

You can create a new set of rules if people can't use them up and down the line.

But that sort of thing happens all the time in T&F. For a long time FAT systems were used only in big competitions, and a lot of other meets used hand timing. The biggest meets use laser measurement for throws and horizontal jumps, while most competitions still use tapes. A select few meets use silent guns, most don't. Ditto automatic false start detection systems. Most technological advances are allowed by the rules long before everyone can afford them, and are then gradually phased in.

The difference is that chip technology will change the timing principle; will no longer be the torso, so you have two different kinds of results, just as if you were running over two heights of hurdles. It's not a huge difference, but when you're talking hundredths, it has to be considered significant.

[CodeFlash]

I am much more interested in using technology to provide information to the fans, such as the lap splits and the differentials between participants. In some of this, the governing body is not only behind the curve, they seem to be actively in the way (cf Eugene).

I agree with this...scoreboards are used too much for video and not enough for stats....but that is above me

At the trials I did splits for GH and they all got published....sadly they didn't make the video board.

As chip technology evolves it no doubt will be used (at certain meets) to feed more information to the fans and announcers, plus I will make my splitting life alot easier , but it just needs to me more cost effective and less work, right now you have to give the athlete the chip as they go on the track, have antennas planted in the track (so that must be done when the track is built, and then retrieve the chip after the event.

As the chips progress and can be applied to the bib, that helps alot of that, but you still have to worry about the antenna to read the chips, and right now there really isnt anything out there that can read accurately enough (even for splits) and not have some sort of antenna that needs to span the track, either in the mondo or above the track...and above the track isn't even an option.

And I gladly bow and yield to Cody on both timing AND technology matters.

Haha, thanks for that one Trust me, I'm on top of all the chip systems out...I google them quite often...

[26mi235]

Surprisingly strong statements made here by people who we know are not as well-informed as the people that they are arguing with.
.

That is a very ambiguous statement

From my POV, both camps can take the credit:

The one knows more about timing and less about technology.

The other less about timing and more about technology.

Both sides have a thing or two to learn from the other (and I concur
with your thanks for the information).

We know that those who know about timing really do. We have no indication that the people that are arguing about technology really know anything about the relevant technologies AND THE FEASIBLE APPLICATION TO TRACK (including issues like feasible vs cost-effective, especially at something less than the OGs, and the reliability of the mechanism). My assessment of those arguing the tech side is that a lot of it is pure speculation, not any specific knowledge of the technologies involved (and note that none of those posters gave any hint as to expertise with the subject). We know that Marlow knows a lot more about books and coaching than about technology.

Some of the timing people know (and talk with) the people at some relevant technology companies (Omega, etc) and probably have a closer link to technology than the so-called 'technologists' in this discussion.

[Marlow]

We know that Marlow knows a lot more about books and coaching than about technology.

Right on. I know very LITTLE about the actual mechanics of current chip technology. What I do know is that the technology improvement curve right now is exceedingly steep. Look at your standard office/home computer. For the last 30 years, "last year's model" has been obsolete every year. Chip technology (yes, I'm using 'chip' in two different senses here) is so rapidly progressing that I am positive (in a layman's sense) that there are already things on the drawing board, that will make today's chips look like an abacus. If there's one constant in our techno-world, it is CHANGE. Improving today's photo-timing is, to me, like NBC, in 1948 trying to talk about radio's future, with TV just around the corner. This is my mantra:

Remove humans from the equation!

[gm]

We know that Marlow knows a lot more about books and coaching than about technology.

Right on. I know very LITTLE about the actual mechanics of current chip technology. What I do know is that the technology improvement curve right now is exceedingly steep. Look at your standard office/home computer. For the last 30 years, "last year's model" has been obsolete every year. Chip technology (yes, I'm using 'chip' in two different senses here) is so rapidly progressing that I am positive (in a layman's sense) that there are already things on the drawing board, that will make today's chips look like an abacus. If there's one constant in our techno-world, it is CHANGE. Improving today's photo-timing is, to me, like NBC, in 1948 trying to talk about radio's future, with TV just around the corner. This is my mantra:

Remove humans from the equation!

I think that has already happened with the posting-bot that took over your chores...

[Marlow]

Anyone got the photo here?

SEC 400H

1 Caleb Cross Arkansas 50.298
2 Carson Blanks Mississippi 50.299

I'd like to believe the technology has advanced enough, but I need some proof. If 0.1 sec represents about 3 feet here (probably less), .001 represents less than half an inch. If that were the leading edge of the chest, I believe it; if it's that scapula thing again . . . um . . .

Where's my imbedded chips timing system??!!

[Daisy]

1 Caleb Cross Arkansas 50.298
2 Carson Blanks Mississippi 50.299

So the requirements for equal first are same time to a thousandth of a second?

From a historical perspective, when did the rules change such that ties were set at 10th of a second, to 100th of a second to 1000th of a second?

[tandfman]

Tenths are still standard for hand timing. Hundredths has been standard for auto timing, which has been required for records and statistics in shorter events since the mid-'70's. The rule requiring that ties be broken, if possible, by going to thousandths goes back at least 10 years, I think.

Bear in mind, that even if the thousandths were not shown, if the two runners were in the same race, you could always break a tie by reading the photo and observing that one runner was ahead of the other.

[Daisy]

Interesting interview with photofinish evaluator Roger Jennings, by Tim Layden, with respect to the dead heat for 3rd place at the w100m Olympic trials between Felix and Tarmoh. (video is really good!)

In horse racing, which I've done, it's easy: You go by the horse's nose. In auto racing, the front of the car. In speedskating, by the skate. In cycling, by the wheel. It's the first thing that crosses the line. In track and field, it's the torso. And there is subjectivity in determining where the torso is. That's what we got into in the women's 100 meters.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/o ... index.html