Food for thought direction from the document that attempts to address scratches, failure to participate, honest effort & DNS situations.
Full document here:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Explanation%20of%20Scratches%2C%20Did%20Not%20Start%2C%20Failure%20to%20Participate%20and%20Honest%20Effort%20%28Posted%205%3A29%3A13%29%20.pdf
"Participation, defined in Rule 4-2.2b, is mandated in Rule 4-2.2a. In an overly simplified statement, a competitor, if declared,
must start the event. If not, then it could be considered Failure to Participate. The challenge is in determining whether a
DNS satisfies the conditions for violation. The Referee is responsible to make the determination on one major element. That
element is the existence of any condition or circumstance beyond the control of the competitor. When none exists, the
determination is straight forward. A violation of this rule imposes the removal from all remaining participation in the
competition, except for events that are ‘in-progress’. An ‘in-progress’ event is one in which attempts are currently being
executed. A Combined Event is defined as a single event and once the first of its stages has started, the entire Combined Event
is 'in-progress'. ‘In-progress’ does not include an event in which one round has completed and a subsequent round has not
started. There is no requirement that the Referee or Games Committee wait for a complaint or protest before determining the
existence of a violation of Failure to Participate. In many Championships this is the automatic result of a report from the Clerk,
or an observation by a member of the Committee.
A very common circumstance that fits this category and invokes the most controversy is best described as a temporary
medical ailment. Proper documentation and administration of this condition can yield a non-violation ruling and therefore not
mandate automatic removal from subsequent competition. There is no requirement that there be a clerk check-in or that the
competitor be physically present at the event site. The Referee or Games Committee must be presented with evidence
documenting a sufficient medical condition whereas the competitor's participation in that specific event is deemed to be
physically detrimental to the welfare of that athlete. The condition may be of the nature that would make it detrimental in one
specific event/activity and would not be detrimental in another event requiring another skill. Or it may be such that immediate treatment would produce a result that relieves the medical condition. In any case, Rule 3-19 requires a ‘certificate of fitness’
for continued participation to be prepared by the medical advisor approved by the championship committee. The medical
clearance to compete is not an authorization to compete. The Referee must determine and allow further participation only if
the competitor is eligible for further participation based on any other pertinent rules.
A situation that is cited frequently involves a competitor who is physically present at a running event, makes an attempt by
participating in the start and then after a very few steps, withdraws from the event or fails to attempt to be competitive during
the event. This is not by definition a Failure to Participate, therefore not a situation covered in Rule 4-2.2. However, it may be
an Honest Effort situation. Contrary to some belief, Honest Effort does exist, and Honest Effort is not the same as Failure to
Participate. Honest Effort requires a competitor to compete in an honest and sporting manner to the best of their ability within
an event, Rule 4-2.1. Not doing so is a violation and treated as Misconduct or Unsporting conduct. Unsporting conduct, such
as issues of behavior, intentional false starts or non-competitiveness, are all treated in the same manner.
As with Failure to Participate, there is no requirement that the Referee wait for a complaint or protest before determining the
existence of a Misconduct or Unsporting conduct (Honest Effort) violation. Many Championship Committees are proactive
upon witnessing a performance that appears to not be the best competitive ability, and initiate an investigation. However, it is
more common for a report of this violation to come to the Referee in the form of a protest. The responsibility of the Referee is
to determine if just cause exists for the apparent lack of best ability. If declared, a competitor must not only ‘participate’ but
must also ‘compete’, Rule 4-2. The determination may include any evidence relevant to making a decision, such as medical
information or competitor actions. With regard to Unsporting conduct, a basic question to answer is: ‘Was there legitimate
reason for the competitor’s action?’"