¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry


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

¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby ATK » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:14 pm

The Top two Fl st guys coming in false start. both out of lane 2...
ATK
 
Posts: 3807
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: NCAA m60

Postby Dutra5 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:15 pm

I'm LOVIN' the false start rule. :lol:
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: NCAA m60

Postby ATK » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:23 pm

Dutra5 wrote:I'm LOVIN' the false start rule. :lol:

One and done has been in college forever
ATK
 
Posts: 3807
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: NCAA m60

Postby Dutra5 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:28 pm

ATK wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:I'm LOVIN' the false start rule. :lol:

One and done has been in college forever


Thanks for the bulletin :D
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: NCAA m60

Postby unclezadok » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:32 pm

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
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:54 pm

Re: NCAA m60

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:08 pm

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.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: NCAA m60

Postby Mighty Favog » Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:46 am

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
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: NCAA m60

Postby gm » Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:52 am

Kevin Hicks in 2005 -- 800
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: NCAA m60

Postby nicest person ever » Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:39 am

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. 8-)
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: NCAA m60

Postby Dave » Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:43 am

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.
Dave
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: NCAA m60

Postby KDFINE » Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:09 am

A one meter penalty for a false start is an interesting idea but you would have to forget about it for the hurdles.
KDFINE
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: NCAA m60

Postby gh » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:17 am

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.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: NCAA m60

Postby Dutra5 » Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:06 pm

gh wrote:
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.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: NCAA m60

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:58 pm

Dutra5 wrote:
gh wrote:
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.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: NCAA m60

Postby gh » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:31 am

1 D'Angelo Cherry SR Miss State 6.54 10
2 Marcus Rowland SR Auburn 6.55 8
3 Charles Silmon SR TCU 6.61 6 6.601
4 Harry Adams SR Auburn 6.61 5 6.608
5 Markesh Woodson FR Missouri 6.66 4
6 Bryce Robinson FR Tulsa 6.69 3
7 Tevin Hester FR Clemson 6.70 2
-- Darrell Wesh JR Virginia Tech FS
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby Blues » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:47 am

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...
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: NCAA m60

Postby Dutra5 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:53 am

26mi235 wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:
gh wrote:
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.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1269
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby BillVol » Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:17 pm

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.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: NCAA m60

Postby lonewolf » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:33 pm

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.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby ATK » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:01 pm

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
ATK
 
Posts: 3807
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby nicest person ever » Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:26 am

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.
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby BillVol » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:35 am

ATK wrote:
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
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby gm » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:18 am

Andre Cason was pretty tiny and ran 9.92/9.79w
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby gh » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:51 am

BillVol wrote:
ATK wrote:
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
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:09 am

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.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: NCAA m60

Postby gh » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:23 am

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)
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:06 pm

gm wrote:Andre Cason was pretty tiny and ran 9.92/9.79w

How tall was Cason? Cherry is 5'4
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby bignate88 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:11 pm

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
bignate88
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:07 pm

Fasuba, also an awesome 60m runner.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: ¶NCAA m60: 6.54 for Cherry

Postby nicest person ever » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:30 am

interesting
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: berkeley, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 9 guests