Of course it can't happen in swimming, as they actually have a rule stating the swimoff must occur within 45 minutes of the last event for either of the swimmers that day.
Foresight. Imagine that
Why is that rule any better than having a runoff in a different sport with a different affect on the body at a later date?
Of course, you dont necessarily have to do a runoff within 45 minutes, but it was absolutely ridiculous that USATF bowed to Kersee and pushed that decision off until the last day, when they had THREE days between the 100 final, and the start of the 200 heats. USATF needed to say here's what we're going to do - run a runoff either the next day(Sunday), or the during the first meet off day(Monday), and that's how we're going to do it. If you don't want to run, your opponent gets the spot. If you both refuse to run, we'll decide it for you with the coin.
Randy Treadway wrote:The names have to be handed in by July 8th and no matter what both Tarmoh and Felix would be on the 100m roster...one as an alternate. So in reality the runoff could occur anytime through whatever the declaration point is for the event in the Olympics which I think is within 48 hours of the event.
That's even better. So I say again what I said last weekend--- why all the big rush? The 'time needed to get the athletes passports' is totally bogus- a lame excuse. Everybody knows they both have passports and will already be in Europe (and London) anyway.
Of course it can't happen in swimming, as they actually have a rule stating the swimoff must occur within 45 minutes of the last event for either of the swimmers that day.
Foresight. Imagine that
Why is that rule any better than having a runoff in a different sport with a different affect on the body at a later date?
Of course, you dont necessarily have to do a runoff within 45 minutes, but it was absolutely ridiculous that USATF bowed to Kersee and pushed that decision off until the last day, when they had THREE days between the 100 final, and the start of the 200 heats. USATF needed to say here's what we're going to do - run a runoff either the next day(Sunday), or the during the first meet off day(Monday), and that's how we're going to do it. If you don't want to run, your opponent gets the spot. If you both refuse to run, we'll decide it for you with the coin.
Once gain, you're not saying what's so darned important about deciding who gets the team spot before they leave Eugene. Is it just so that YOU can see it from the grandstand? Does that make the U.S. team any stronger? Is it for NBC's ratings? Same answer- does THAT make the U.S. team any stronger? If you're saying 'but it's always been done that way'- then you're too young to know. It's NOT always been done that way.
Randy Treadway wrote:If you're saying 'but it's always been done that way'- then you're too young to know. It's NOT always been done that way.
Well, no, it's never been done ANY way, at least in track. But if practicable, and in this case it certainly was, it should be resolved before either ran another event. Once the 100 runoff was delayed past the 200 the decision was unavoidably affected by the outcome of that race.
There have plenty of cases where relay selections were done by coaches based on how athletes were looking on the practice track at the Olympic Village. That's not even a runoff race (unless they did one in secret).. it's totally subjective. And that doesn't bother me. Maybe they make a rule that the selection team can't include either of the athletes' own coach. But that's a moot point for 2012 in this case- it's either runoff or dumb coin flip. (or bow out by one of the athletes.
Hey, what happens if they BOTH bow out? LOL I guess a coin flip. If they BOTH bow out, just give it to the 5th placer.
Of course it can't happen in swimming, as they actually have a rule stating the swimoff must occur within 45 minutes of the last event for either of the swimmers that day.
Foresight. Imagine that
Why is that rule any better than having a runoff in a different sport with a different affect on the body at a later date?
Of course, you dont necessarily have to do a runoff within 45 minutes, but it was absolutely ridiculous that USATF bowed to Kersee and pushed that decision off until the last day, when they had THREE days between the 100 final, and the start of the 200 heats. USATF needed to say here's what we're going to do - run a runoff either the next day(Sunday), or the during the first meet off day(Monday), and that's how we're going to do it. If you don't want to run, your opponent gets the spot. If you both refuse to run, we'll decide it for you with the coin.
guru wrote:Of course, you dont necessarily have to do a runoff within 45 minutes, but it was absolutely ridiculous that USATF bowed to Kersee and pushed that decision off until the last day, when they had THREE days between the 100 final, and the start of the 200 heats. USATF needed to say here's what we're going to do - run a runoff either the next day(Sunday), or the during the first meet off day(Monday), and that's how we're going to do it. If you don't want to run, your opponent gets the spot. If you both refuse to run, we'll decide it for you with the coin.
Why was it necessary to do that?
Once the 100 runoff(decision) was delayed past the 200 it was unavoidably affected by the outcome of that race, both physically as well as strategically.
They will run off. It will be London as part of the DL meet. This gives it a stage. It gives the meet something else to promote and it being on a Saturday might fit with NBC's TV schedule. It makes the most sense.
guru wrote:Of course, you dont necessarily have to do a runoff within 45 minutes, but it was absolutely ridiculous that USATF bowed to Kersee and pushed that decision off until the last day, when they had THREE days between the 100 final, and the start of the 200 heats. USATF needed to say here's what we're going to do - run a runoff either the next day(Sunday), or the during the first meet off day(Monday), and that's how we're going to do it. If you don't want to run, your opponent gets the spot. If you both refuse to run, we'll decide it for you with the coin.
Why was it necessary to do that?
Once the 100 runoff(decision) was delayed past the 200 it was unavoidably affected by the outcome of that race, both physically as well as strategically.
Why is it important for guru the poster to have the issue solved by today? What is it that makes it a "must"?
Both will be entered. There is no time pressure unless it is artificially set by USATF.
Randy Treadway wrote:Once gain, you're not saying what's so darned important about deciding who gets the team spot before they leave Eugene. Is it just so that YOU can see it from the grandstand? Does that make the U.S. team any stronger? Is it for NBC's ratings? Same answer- does THAT make the U.S. team any stronger? If you're saying 'but it's always been done that way'- then you're too young to know. It's NOT always been done that way.
Obviously the resolution of this would have been much simpler if both athletes weren't also trying to qualify in the 200... In the absence of any concrete information by USATF to explain why it absolutely has to be decided by today (Sunday), I can only wonder if USATF has something to gain financially from NBC by refusing to allow a runoff any later than the final day of the trials. I can't blame Kersee for wanting his athletes to be in peak form/peak concentration for the 200 trials, nor can I blame him if he feels that the conditions during a runoff the day after the 200 final may favor one of his athletes, or that his athletes may risk injury from it, considering that so much is on the line for both ladies. It's only fair that both athletes are at their best for a runoff, and having it just for the sake of having it at any random time despite the condition of the athletes doesn't seem appropriate, nor does it seem to be in the best interest of the US team.
booond wrote:They will run off. It will be London as part of the DL meet. This gives it a stage. It gives the meet something else to promote and it being on a Saturday might fit with NBC's TV schedule. It makes the most sense.
guru wrote:Of course, you dont necessarily have to do a runoff within 45 minutes, but it was absolutely ridiculous that USATF bowed to Kersee and pushed that decision off until the last day, when they had THREE days between the 100 final, and the start of the 200 heats. USATF needed to say here's what we're going to do - run a runoff either the next day(Sunday), or the during the first meet off day(Monday), and that's how we're going to do it. If you don't want to run, your opponent gets the spot. If you both refuse to run, we'll decide it for you with the coin.
Why was it necessary to do that?
Once the 100 runoff(decision) was delayed past the 200 it was unavoidably affected by the outcome of that race, both physically as well as strategically.
And if the run-off were run before the 200, then the 200 would have been affected by the run-off, so what is the point. And by waiting until after the 200, there exists the possibility that the run-off will not even be needed because Felix may be content to skip the 100. Problem solved.
Once the 100 runoff(decision) was delayed past the 200 it was unavoidably affected by the outcome of that race, both physically as well as strategically.
And if the run-off were run before the 200, then the 200 would have been affected by the run-off, so what is the point. And by waiting until after the 200, there exists the possibility that the run-off will not even be needed because Felix may be content to skip the 100. Problem solved.
That's exactly my point - the 200 is affecting the 100, either the actual runoff, or the decision for one of the women to pull out.
With TWO full off days if they ran it last Sunday, the effect on the 200 would be negligible.
Here's a wild thought. Let the two women decide. Give them a REAL deadline (as opposed to the USOC's) and let them pick the time and place. Match race or part of a meet.
guru wrote:If Kersee doesnt want to run, they can always flip the coin, as the rules mandate.
You mean the new rule, the one that was made up after the race itself, the rule that the athlete's did not sign to when they registered to run at trials? That rule?
I went back to the original release of the tie breaking procedure and there appears to be no mention that the issue has to be resolved by today. In fact, within the runoff procedure, there is mention of taking competition, training, travel plans, etc. into consideration. To me that comes across as not thinking the runoff would occur during the OTs.
It would be beyond stupid (not that I think it's a possibility) to run today if the athletes (esp, AF as it would affect her more) have any say. Felix will be be blown up requiring extra days of recovery after that mark, she will feel the effects of fatigue for many days to come-a PR improvement of just .12 but in sub-optimal conditions leading me (I'm sure many as well) to believe that it's worth a lot more in better weather. Her old PR dates back to 2007.
Slowrunner wrote:How about this for Machiavellian:
They refuse to race today and flip a coin.
Kersee and the two athletes decide to break the tie at a race in Europe in the next few weeks.
If the winner of the coin toss loses the race, she drops out of the 100m.
Would be easier for Allyson to drop out as she "wants to concentrate on the 200m."
What could USATF & USOC do?
Indeed. That would throw NBC a spitball the likes of which would be a major embarrassment to their bottom line! Excellent idea!
I still think they should challenge the rush job and force USATF's hand at pushing the runoff to a date between July 4 and July 8, which is the IOC deadline to submit their roster. They still haven't come up with one rock-solid excuse why it needs to be done before the end of the Trials, with the IOC deadline a week away.
cladthin wrote:It would be beyond stupid (not that I think it's a possibility) to run today if the athletes (esp, AF as it would affect her more) have any say. Felix will be be blown up requiring extra days of recovery after that mark, she will feel the effects of fatigue for many days to come-a PR improvement of just .12 but in sub-optimal conditions leading me (I'm sure many as well) to believe that it's worth a lot more in better weather. Her old PR dates back to 2007.
Aye. To suddenly run 21.69, then drop back down to an all-out 100? She has a lot to lose if she gets hurt; and Jeneba has a lot to lose if this turns out to be her first AND LAST opportunity in her life to run an individual event at the Olympics.
Again, I'm for a witch-burning if either one blows up at the insistence of the USATF (on orders from their NBC masters) to settle this thing before they go off the air tonight. Neither solution makes any sense to me; more so, now that it appears both girls (especially Allyson with her big PR) may have emptied their gas tanks. Does NBC want to take a hit in their wallet for dragging perhaps a tired Allyson back out on the track tonight? And what of Jeneba, who will have to explain to her family how her only opportunity ever to run an open Olympic 100 went by the wayside on a coin toss?
CookyMonzta wrote:I still think they should challenge the rush job and force USATF's hand at pushing the runoff to a date between July 4 and July 8, which is the IOC deadline to submit their roster. They still haven't come up with one rock-solid excuse why it needs to be done before the end of the Trials, with the IOC deadline a week away.
The have come up with a reason, and a pretty legit reason, go check the conference with Jill when she first announced the tie breaking procedure.
This is the US Olympic trials. The events and outcomes at this meet are the deciding factors of who goes to London. Not a meet in Europe, not anywhere else in the US. Eugene Oregon from June 21st - July 1st is where every decision about the team is made and finalized about who will be on the team.
CookyMonzta wrote:I still think they should challenge the rush job and force USATF's hand at pushing the runoff to a date between July 4 and July 8, which is the IOC deadline to submit their roster. They still haven't come up with one rock-solid excuse why it needs to be done before the end of the Trials, with the IOC deadline a week away.
The have come up with a reason, and a pretty legit reason, go check the conference with Jill when she first announced the tie breaking procedure.
This is the US Olympic trials. The events and outcomes at this meet are the deciding factors of who goes to London. Not a meet in Europe, not anywhere else in the US. Eugene Oregon from June 21st - July 1st is where every decision about the team is made and finalized about who will be on the team.
They've already decided who goes to London. Both women are on the team. They only have to decide who runs as the third representative in the 100m. That doesn't have to be decided right away.
ATK wrote:This is the US Olympic trials. The events and outcomes at this meet are the deciding factors of who goes to London. Not a meet in Europe, not anywhere else in the US. Eugene Oregon from June 21st - July 1st is where every decision about the team is made and finalized about who will be on the team.
That would be fine if they had a tiebreaker rule in place before the trials.
But after over 100 years of Olympic competition they still failed to establish the rule before the trials started.
Both will be already be listed in the 4 names allowed for the event (3 + 1 alternate), and the 3 who actually compete don't have to be declared until the day of the event. So there is over a whole MONTH available to make this decision. With the USOC/USATF having taken over 100 years to come up with a rule, it is utterly absurd and unjust for them to impose an unnecessarily quick deadline now.
ATK wrote:Eugene Oregon from June 21st - July 1st is where every decision about the team is made and finalized about who will be on the team.
Why? We used to have marks-chasing after the Trials and the Apocalypse did not come. July 1 is an arbitrary deadline, not related to the actual needs of the Olympic Games declarations.
All Im saying is that is the reason it has to be decided during trials, and it makes sense. USATF said that's what they plan to do, so as of now the runner and the alternate will be distinguished by 11.59 tonight.
ATK wrote:All Im saying is that is the reason it has to be decided during trials, and it makes sense. USATF said that's what they plan to do, so as of now the runner and the alternate will be distinguished by 11.59 tonight.
This may be correct however, I haven't seen anything written where it states that the issue has to be resolved by today or, for that matter, even the process of how it will be resolved needs to be resolved by today. Not Jill Geer who is a press correspondent or Stephanie Hightower who is one of a number of member of the committee want it resolved. This would be a lawyers delight if the issue is forced in my opinion.
Maybe it is documented somewhere however that portion has not been released to my knowledge.
ATK wrote:All Im saying is that is the reason it has to be decided during trials, and it makes sense. USATF said that's what they plan to do, so as of now the runner and the alternate will be distinguished by 11.59 tonight.
This may be correct however, I haven't seen anything written where it states that the issue has to be resolved by today or, for that matter, even the process of how it will be resolved needs to be resolved by today. Not Jill Geer who is a press correspondent or Stephanie Hightower who is one of a number of member of the committee want it resolved. This would be a lawyers delight if the issue is forced in my opinion.
Maybe it is documented somewhere however that portion has not been released to my knowledge.
They said their plan was to make the decision before trials ended. I'm not saying that it cant change, and I'm not really in favor of making the decision now or later, I'm just letting you know what they said, and why is a legitimate reason.
ATK wrote:Eugene Oregon from June 21st - July 1st is where every decision about the team is made and finalized about who will be on the team.
Why? We used to have marks-chasing after the Trials and the Apocalypse did not come. July 1 is an arbitrary deadline, not related to the actual needs of the Olympic Games declarations.
Come on, Marlow, get with the Program! The DECISION must be made before 12 midnight or Hayward Field will turn into a pumpkin. The agony! I won't be able to sleep....ZZZZZ
