That "average sports fan" the sport is supposedly trying to attract must love the one-false-start rule. Sort of like having Labron James foul out with one foul.
unclezadok wrote:That "average sports fan" the sport is supposedly trying to attract must love the one-false-start rule. Sort of like having Labron James foul out with one foul.
In football, they do not get a do-over the first time when a lineman moves... or a defensive player jumps the neutral zone, and if occurs on those occasions where you just made a field goal or touchdown (offense) or the team held on third down (or fourth!) but now get a first down, it is also a big deal.
One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).
If Cherry wins this, the week after winning the USATF indoor 60, then we have a tough trivia question: last to win USA indoors and NCAA indoors in the same event in the same year?
Mighty Favog wrote:One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).
Hmmm... this is actually a really interesting concept to ponder.
For example, I wonder if, if this rule were to somehow actually be put into place (and as you've already said, it obviously won't), but just hypothetically, if it were, I wonder if they would also set up an invisible "virtual" finish line 1m, and 2m, and 3m etc back from the finish line, so they could freezeframe evaluate what the "100m" time of the offenders would've basically been if they hadn't false started. Like, as far as the official results, of who gets to go up on the medal stand etc, it's who crosses the real actual finish line first, so if you ran the fastest actual 100m, but started a meter back cuz of a false start and thus only finished 4th against the actual finish line, then you only get awarded 4th place on your official placement results, but they still put in parentheses after your full-run time what your 100m split time was, just for stat-nerd's sake like: John Doe, Paris 100m Final: Official time (with 1m penalty in place): 10.03 (DQ'd 100m split time: 9.94). Or something like that.
Mighty Favog wrote:One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).
...
add .05- .1 to the offending runner's time might be a way to handle this. That is comparable to a 5yard penalty in football.
Mighty Favog wrote:One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).....
Will never happen for two reasons: first, prime motivation for going to the rule is to speed up the flow of meets. Having to reset blocks would be actually worse than allowing multiple breaks.
Second, if you think starters sometimes miss fliers now, when everybody is in a line, wait until people are staggered and the frame of reference is gone.
Mighty Favog wrote:One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).....
Will never happen for two reasons: first, prime motivation for going to the rule is to speed up the flow of meets. Having to reset blocks would be actually worse than allowing multiple breaks.
Second, if you think starters sometimes miss fliers now, when everybody is in a line, wait until people are staggered and the frame of reference is gone.
No thanks.
If the aim is to speed the meet up they should never call them back to the line. Just run the race and then DQ after the fact. Of course this would lead to situations in which the first guy across the line is not the actual winner but the meet would move along.
Mighty Favog wrote:One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).....
Will never happen for two reasons: first, prime motivation for going to the rule is to speed up the flow of meets. Having to reset blocks would be actually worse than allowing multiple breaks.
Second, if you think starters sometimes miss fliers now, when everybody is in a line, wait until people are staggered and the frame of reference is gone.
No thanks.
If the aim is to speed the meet up they should never call them back to the line. Just run the race and then DQ after the fact. Of course this would lead to situations in which the first guy across the line is not the actual winner but the meet would move along.
No, you cannot run the race that way because the jump by a runner affects the other runners. You could have a teammate jump like that to mess up your competition.
Really happy for Cherry. He's always seemed to handle himself with humility and class, and has been plagued by injuries throughout his collegiate career. To be given one more season of indoor eligibility that he didn't think he had, and then for him to make the most of it like this, is great...
Mighty Favog wrote:One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).....
Will never happen for two reasons: first, prime motivation for going to the rule is to speed up the flow of meets. Having to reset blocks would be actually worse than allowing multiple breaks.
Second, if you think starters sometimes miss fliers now, when everybody is in a line, wait until people are staggered and the frame of reference is gone.
No thanks.
If the aim is to speed the meet up they should never call them back to the line. Just run the race and then DQ after the fact. Of course this would lead to situations in which the first guy across the line is not the actual winner but the meet would move along.
No, you cannot run the race that way because the jump by a runner affects the other runners. You could have a teammate jump like that to mess up your competition.
Would bring a new stratergy to the affairs and keep the meet moving along. A plus on both sides.
Apparently Miss. State is now competing as a team in indoor track. Just a few years ago, I don't think they did. It was a confusing situation in which they would have guys running at the SECs but not at NCAAs. I think. But they did not score team points at the league meet.
Dutra5 wrote:[If the aim is to speed the meet up they should never call them back to the line. Just run the race and then DQ after the fact. Of course this would lead to situations in which the first guy across the line is not the actual winner but the meet would move along.
Bad idea.. think about it...the object is fairness to the athletes, not to speed up the meet.
BillVol wrote:Apparently Miss. State is now competing as a team in indoor track. Just a few years ago, I don't think they did. It was a confusing situation in which they would have guys running at the SECs but not at NCAAs. I think. But they did not score team points at the league meet.
Men or Women? I cant seem to find any men competing at SEC's for the past couple years. Women have been at it for some time now
Btw, anyone know how short the shortest person was to ever run below 10.00 so far in the 100m dash? Serious question. What about shortest person to ever run below 9.90 in the 100m dash?
Whenever I watch these ultra-short up and comer sprint stars, I can't help but wonder if they have sort of a "ceiling" that limits them considerably more than those of moderate or above avg height by comparison. As in like, no matter how much training or what they ever did, there is some time that is multiple tenths of a second higher than it would be for a 6 foot+ person of what the fastest time they could ever physically run no matter what is.
On the women's side, Lauryn Williams always made me wonder about this, with her short stubby little legs and the running style it seemed to force her to use. It seemed like, on one hand at the high school/collegiate level, it's almost sort of a GOOD thing to be short-and-quick like her, as if what it took away from max top end speed potential it more than made up for in first-half-of-the-race pinball-launch acceleration. As in, maybe she could come close to 11 flat much more consistently and easily than a taller woman, by comparison, BUT, on the downside never really go any significant amount below that 11 second barrier, due to just being too short, to where it limited her top speed potential on the second half of the race.
Guys like D'Angelo Cherry kinda make me wonder the same thing. If anything, they seem to have a legitimate edge over their taller equivalently talented counterparts in the first 30 meters or so, just rocketing out of the blocks, but then, it's like their absolute max attainable mph speed limit that they simply cannot surpass cuz of their legs being too short seems like it is lower than that of their taller counterparts, so, while their taller counterparts have the potential to just keep going faster and faster all the way to 9.6 land or who knows what, if they play their cards right and happen to have the talent to do so, these ultra-short sprinters it seems like are limited to having a more CONSISTENT results output, but albeit with a less extreme ceiling on what they are ever theoretically capable of doing no matter what, as a result of legs simply not being able to spin faster than a certain rate. Like a mouse on a mousewheel, those little legs can only turn over so rapidly before they turn into a blur and hit their all-out ceiling that just can't be surpassed for them or something.
I dunno maybe it just LOOKS that way but isn't ACTUALLY that way. But I could never shake this feeling when watching these little ultra-short sprinters.
BillVol wrote:Apparently Miss. State is now competing as a team in indoor track. Just a few years ago, I don't think they did. It was a confusing situation in which they would have guys running at the SECs but not at NCAAs. I think. But they did not score team points at the league meet.
Men or Women? I cant seem to find any men competing at SEC's for the past couple years. Women have been at it for some time now
Maybe it's at the SECs where they don't compete as a team. Just men.
BillVol wrote:Apparently Miss. State is now competing as a team in indoor track. Just a few years ago, I don't think they did. It was a confusing situation in which they would have guys running at the SECs but not at NCAAs. I think. But they did not score team points at the league meet.
Men or Women? I cant seem to find any men competing at SEC's for the past couple years. Women have been at it for some time now
Maybe it's at the SECs where they don't compete as a team. Just men.
As I understand it, Mississippi State doesn't officially have a men's team indoors. It's not one of their "sponsored" sports. So for a few years there, they ran at USATF each year and that was it.
But a couple of years back the NCAA decided to stop punishing individual athletes and--like Oregon State football players who now run despite there being no program--they can now run in the Nationals anyway.
gh wrote:But a couple of years back the NCAA decided to stop punishing individual athletes and--like Oregon State football players who now run despite there being no program--they can now run in the Nationals anyway.
At least the first two of those Oregon State guys jumped rather than ran (although you could argue that they ran to make their jumps). Ironically, the first two had to jump-off against each other the first year to see which one would make NCAAs, as they were tied for the last slot.
Mighty Favog wrote:One variation on the false start rule used in the 19th century was a distance penalty. I think a 1-meter penalty for a false start would be very interesting (but will never happen).
If Cherry wins this, the week after winning the USATF indoor 60, then we have a tough trivia question: last to win USA indoors and NCAA indoors in the same event in the same year?
as noted earlier by gm, Kevin Hicks in the 800.
But courtesy of T&FN stat dude Jim Rorick, here's all the previous dash doublers
1995 - Tim Harden (Kentucky)
1985 & 1986 - Lee McRae (Pitt)
1980 - Curtis Dickey (Texas A&M)
1975 - Hasely Crawford' (Eastern Michigan)
(Technically, Cherry is only one to have done it at 60m; Harden & McRae were 55m, Dickey & Crawford 60y)
nicest person ever wrote:Btw, anyone know how short the shortest person was to ever run below 10.00 so far in the 100m dash? Serious question. What about shortest person to ever run below 9.90 in the 100m dash?
Whenever I watch these ultra-short up and comer sprint stars, I can't help but wonder if they have sort of a "ceiling" that limits them considerably more than those of moderate or above avg height by comparison. As in like, no matter how much training or what they ever did, there is some time that is multiple tenths of a second higher than it would be for a 6 foot+ person of what the fastest time they could ever physically run no matter what is.
On the women's side, Lauryn Williams always made me wonder about this, with her short stubby little legs and the running style it seemed to force her to use. It seemed like, on one hand at the high school/collegiate level, it's almost sort of a GOOD thing to be short-and-quick like her, as if what it took away from max top end speed potential it more than made up for in first-half-of-the-race pinball-launch acceleration. As in, maybe she could come close to 11 flat much more consistently and easily than a taller woman, by comparison, BUT, on the downside never really go any significant amount below that 11 second barrier, due to just being too short, to where it limited her top speed potential on the second half of the race.
Guys like D'Angelo Cherry kinda make me wonder the same thing. If anything, they seem to have a legitimate edge over their taller equivalently talented counterparts in the first 30 meters or so, just rocketing out of the blocks, but then, it's like their absolute max attainable mph speed limit that they simply cannot surpass cuz of their legs being too short seems like it is lower than that of their taller counterparts, so, while their taller counterparts have the potential to just keep going faster and faster all the way to 9.6 land or who knows what, if they play their cards right and happen to have the talent to do so, these ultra-short sprinters it seems like are limited to having a more CONSISTENT results output, but albeit with a less extreme ceiling on what they are ever theoretically capable of doing no matter what, as a result of legs simply not being able to spin faster than a certain rate. Like a mouse on a mousewheel, those little legs can only turn over so rapidly before they turn into a blur and hit their all-out ceiling that just can't be surpassed for them or something.
I dunno maybe it just LOOKS that way but isn't ACTUALLY that way. But I could never shake this feeling when watching these little ultra-short sprinters.
Olusoji Fasuba who holds the NIgerian and the African record at 9.85(Doha, 2006 behind Gatlin) is listed at 5'5" He never approached 9.85 again in his career. He was really a 10.0/ 10.1 runner
