The limit of human auditory reaction time is not 100 ms. a study among normal participants that showed reaction times under 100 ms, within only one standard deviation of the mean reaction time. This is literally the first paper that comes up when you look up "human auditory reaction times". The 100 ms reaction time was chosen by World Athletics arbitrarily and without any sort of rigorous investigation into reaction times.
You should have actually read the second link that you posted :
"The 100 ms limit is based on research from the 1990s in which the total response time of eight male Finnish sprinters was investigated [2]. The average response time between the start signal and reaching a value of 110% of the force exerted on the starting blocks in the ‘ready’ position was 121 ms with a standard deviation (typical variation) of 14 ms for the front leg and 119 ms with a standard deviation of 11 ms for the rear leg"
So it wasn't just arbitrarily chosen, like you claim. It might be wrong, but that's not the same thing as being arbitrarily chosen.
That's not the only study. A more recent study (2007) suggests 85ms.
The simple auditory reaction time is one of the fastest reaction times and is thought to be rarely less than 100 ms. The current false start criterion in a sprint used by the International Association of Athletics Federations...
The simple auditory reaction time is one of the fastest reaction times and is thought to be rarely less than 100 ms. The current false start criterion in a sprint used by the International Association of Athletics Federations is based on this assumed auditory reaction time of 100 ms. However, there is evidence, both anecdotal and from reflex research, that simple auditory reaction times of less than 100 ms can be achieved. Reaction time in nine athletes performing sprint starts in four conditions was measured using starting blocks instrumented with piezoelectric force transducers in each footplate that were synchronized with the starting signal. Only three conditions were used to calculate reaction times. The pre-motor and pseudo-motor time for two athletes were also measured across 13 muscles using surface electromyography (EMG) synchronized with the rest of the system. Five of the athletes had mean reaction times of less than 100 ms in at least one condition and 20% of all starts in the first two conditions had a reaction time of less than 100 ms. The results demonstrate that the neuromuscular-physiological component of simple auditory reaction times can be under 85 ms and that EMG latencies can be under 60 ms.
The sprint start in athletics is strictly controlled to ensure the fairness of competition. World athletics (WA)-certified start information systems (SIS) record athletes' response times in competition to ensure that no athle...
2021: There's a lot to critique about how different start systems using different tech to get reaction times get different results. How is it valid to use one fixed limit when the same reaction on two different start systems get different results? That being the case, they really need to do studies on each starting system and give them different thresholds for "too fast" or set a limit that works for even the fastest recording starting system.
The sprint start in athletics is strictly controlled to ensure the fairness of competition. World athletics (WA)-certified start information systems (SIS) record athletes' response times in competition to ensure that no athletes gain an unfair advantage by responding in < 100 ms after the start signal. This critical review examines the legitimacy of the 100 ms rule, the factors that affect response times and the technologies and rules that support the regulation of the start in competition. The review shows that several SIS use different technologies to deliver the start signal and record response time (RT). The lack of scientific evidence about the definition of the 100 ms false start threshold by the WA is criticized in the literature and the 100 ms rule is challenged. SIS technologies, expertise and sex appear to affect the RT detected in competition. A lack of standardization in event detection has led to validity and reliability problems in RT determination. The onset of the foot response on the blocks is currently used to assess RT in athletics via block-mounted sensors; however, research shows that the onset of arm force reaction is the first detectable biomechanical event in the start. Further research and development should consider whether the onset of arm force can be used to improve the false start detection in competition. Further research is also needed to develop a precise understanding of the event sequence and motor control of the start to improve the SIS technology and rigorously determine the minimum limit of RT in the sprint start.
Seems like they are proving it in races 🤣. It just seems to punitive for me.
Who is "they" exactly?
Do you have any idea how rare it is for someone to get DQ'd for a reaction time between .09 - .099 ? It's a VERY small number. A handful per year out of hundreds of thousands of starts.
It doesn't prove anything.
Do you know how rare it is for someone to run 100 meters under 9.7 seconds? A handful of times out of hundreds of thousands of starts. None of the 8 Finnish sprinters ran that fast. Should we conclude that running under 9.7 seconds is impossible?
You are partially correct. The testing that was done to determine the fastest a human could react came up with a number around .11
It was rounded down to .10 just in case.
What testing? How was the instrument calibrated? What was it calibrated with? Do we know the impact of usage on the pressure plates? How many false counts does the instrument produce? All the above are shrouded in mystery. If someone can point me to the instrument being used, I can dig up the datasheet and figure out the metrology.
Yes. Few here will understand what you mean by “metrology”.
The logic and data windowing are also critical. Not everyone starts the same, and patterns of force production differ.
I had, and still have, an incredibly fast start, and fast RT. I know I his because in another life I was tested exhaustively for other purposes in the military. Not only were there physical devices to react upon muscularly, I also had electrodes all over my skull (ekg) and often skeletal muscles—forearm, leg, etc). The stimuli were various—light, sound, touch (both light brushes and pricks).
One of the purposes of testing was to see why I had such a quick RT. They knew about my RT because since I had very high scores in early-stage pilot training, I (along with a few others) was selected as a subject whose results would be used to calibrate a then-new flight simulator. They noticed RT and other things, and decided to investigate further.
The funny thing was that I went from the absolute top of the heap to a near medical disqualification. In doing all the advanced neurological testing on me, they came up with no good explanation for my particular abilities except…possible epilepsy.
More testing ensued, with strobes, etc, and I was eventually cleared. It turns out that I have some sort of high level of residual neural activity in the voluntary system, but that I can shut it off, or down to normal levels, if I consciously try to do so.
So maybe I revv high and can drop the clutch or something, who knows.
Now 56, I have had no problems throughout life…BUT my wife has told me that sometimes she notices a small tremor in my right hand when I’m using utensils, because the motion is amplified by the length of the utensil in hand.
So there you have it. Maybe good for some things, but might lead to problems later in life, who knows. What I do know is that I feel a constant “buzzing” inside, which is kind of analogous to a caffeine buzz, and feels to me like when an excited dog is shaking. I can still shut it off if I think about it, but it’s mostly there. And I can still beat anyone out of the blocks.
Of course after 5m it’s a different story😂.
That military data will probably never be released, and in fact I don’t have it myself—but from what I know about the WA rules and system, it is absolute sandbox…which although not surprising, is still disappointing.
I find it pretty interesting that a forum known for accusing athletes of doping or using magic shoes to gain advantage are willing to give sprinters benefit of a doubt that they aren’t trying to game the start signal. It wasn’t always like this, this is a result of sprinters trying to gain advantage where they can. Even after this arbitrary reaction time was invented athletes were allowed a warning before a DQ, but sprinters abused that and would purposely false start to throw off their competitors especially known fast starters.
Something to ponder, why do fast starting sprinters like SAFP, Coleman, Holloway etc rarely false start but sprinters with average starts false start more? Could it be the average starters are actually trying to improve their start by trying to react quicker and sometimes they overshoot it? If it’s a case of the rule punishing sprinters that are gifted with a quick start, then why do fast starters rarely false start?
The reaction time is arbitrary, yes but it’s a an average of a study done and so far the amount of times sprinters false start at a meet is actually very low to suggest the reaction time is unrealistic. This is WA doing what they have to, to make it a level playing field for everybody, it’s not perfect but I am okay with it. We don’t get to complain because our favorite sprinters get caught, the rule has been there for a while and it’s doing what’s supposed to do for now.
You're right, it's not perfect, but unlike you, I'm not good with it--not as long as an easy-to-implement better alternative exists.
In fact, the very old system of just a visual call, with a good, experienced starter and other observers, was actually great.
This splitting hairs mechanized bs bothers me. Sports is a human activity, not a scientific endeavor. I can't stand it when they go to 1/1000ths to break a tie. Ridiculous. If you can't see it, it doesn't matter to the humanity of the event.
Yeah people make mistakes. That's why you have more than one pair of eyes. Only when they really can't decide and understand that they need help, should they do things like go to video replay, shot-spotting, etc if required--but in track, there is no problem with a tie. What is the big deal?
Similarly, the FS timing. Ooooohhhh, someone got 0.02 of an advantage. Sorry, but if you didn't see it, it didn't matter.
Of course I say all this stuff, and something like the top 6 basic 100m guys this year are all within something like 0.04 of each other. Conceivably, that could happen in a race situation, and you might need a way to filter the results. MAYBE.
Believe it or not, I would also be OK with a 3-way tie for a win, if that's what it came to.
Whatever. It is obvious that under the current rule there are very few false starts, so maybe it works best for the greatest number of athletes, and a few get burned now and then.
Do you have any idea how rare it is for someone to get DQ'd for a reaction time between .09 - .099 ? It's a VERY small number. A handful per year out of hundreds of thousands of starts.
It doesn't prove anything.
Do you know how rare it is for someone to run 100 meters under 9.7 seconds? A handful of times out of hundreds of thousands of starts. None of the 8 Finnish sprinters ran that fast. Should we conclude that running under 9.7 seconds is impossible?
You completely missed the point.
Most false starts have reaction times MUCH faster than .10, not just a few thousands of a second faster. So the vast majority of people who false start aren't reacting to the gun faster then other people can, they are reacting before the gun is fired.
So the question is what about the people whose reaction times are between .09 - .099 ? Are they reacting to the gun faster than everyone else? Or have they started to react before the gun was fired?
There are so few reaction times per year between .09 - .099, and no one in history has ever consistently been able to react that fast, that it's much more likely that those people are reacting before the gun.
However, just to avoid controversy, the best solution is to keep the allowed reaction time at it's current .10, but have a small window between .09 - .099 where the runners are called back, but it's not considered to be a false start.
That way no one gets a flyer, but also if someone just so happens to have the best start of their life and legitimately reacts a few thousands of a seconds faster than .10 in a particular race, then they won't be disqualified.
I find it pretty interesting that a forum known for accusing athletes of doping or using magic shoes to gain advantage are willing to give sprinters benefit of a doubt that they aren’t trying to game the start signal. It wasn’t always like this, this is a result of sprinters trying to gain advantage where they can. Even after this arbitrary reaction time was invented athletes were allowed a warning before a DQ, but sprinters abused that and would purposely false start to throw off their competitors especially known fast starters.
Something to ponder, why do fast starting sprinters like SAFP, Coleman, Holloway etc rarely false start but sprinters with average starts false start more? Could it be the average starters are actually trying to improve their start by trying to react quicker and sometimes they overshoot it? If it’s a case of the rule punishing sprinters that are gifted with a quick start, then why do fast starters rarely false start?
The reaction time is arbitrary, yes but it’s a an average of a study done and so far the amount of times sprinters false start at a meet is actually very low to suggest the reaction time is unrealistic. This is WA doing what they have to, to make it a level playing field for everybody, it’s not perfect but I am okay with it. We don’t get to complain because our favorite sprinters get caught, the rule has been there for a while and it’s doing what’s supposed to do for now.
I can’t believe I had to get to the last page to read this comment. It’s just a bunch of causal fans who saw Devon Allen DQed for a false start that are whining.
The reaction time is fine, the sprinters that mostly false start in meets are those that aren’t favored to win the race and there’s a reason for that. Devon Allen ran the heats very badly and you could see he had bulked up and was heavier than when he ran the 12.84 his football body wasn’t right for the hurdles. He barely made it to the final, he got tensed, panicked and false started.
Devon Allen should have kept is 12.84 form and finished the season with T&F, he would have been a world champ and possibly the WR holder, football training during a T&F season was a bad decision. He should have taken 2023 off to try with football and be ready for Paris if it didn’t work out.
Imo, the reaction time is not an issue for me, most elite sprinters rarely false start anyways.
You're right, it's not perfect, but unlike you, I'm not good with it--not as long as an easy-to-implement better alternative exists.
Well rules are never perfect, that’s why they keep getting updated. The reaction time works for what it was intended. Sprinters generally manage to react within the time allowed. I don’t see a lot of sprinters false starting.
You're right, it's not perfect, but unlike you, I'm not good with it--not as long as an easy-to-implement better alternative exists.
Well rules are never perfect, that’s why they keep getting updated. The reaction time works for what it was intended. Sprinters generally manage to react within the time allowed. I don’t see a lot of sprinters false starting.
Yes this is true.
But this other poster's solution seems more reasonable than the current rule: "However, just to avoid controversy, the best solution is to keep the allowed reaction time at it's current .10, but have a small window between .09 - .099 where the runners are called back, but it's not considered to be a false start."
I could live with that. Everything is a judgment call, even "photo finishes", where someone marks the furthest forward point of the torso--unlike in skiing or speed skating, where it is the first part of the body/connected gear that trips the timer.
I'd explain it to you, but you clearly aren't smart enough to understand statistical analysis. Go take an advanced stats course, and come back when you are smarter.
PdD in Statistics here
8 is not only not statistically significant, it is statistically unconscionable to base hard and fast rules on said sample size.
Seems like they are proving it in races 🤣. It just seems to punitive for me.
Who is "they" exactly?
Do you have any idea how rare it is for someone to get DQ'd for a reaction time between .09 - .099 ? It's a VERY small number. A handful per year out of hundreds of thousands of starts.
This is an incredibly stupid rule. Assuming one could reliably do it, why SHOULDN'T you be allowed to time the gun on your start?
Then what is the point of a gun if you can simply guess when it goes off? The race is supposed to start when you react to the gun, not anticipate it.
No, the race goes off when the gun goes off, not when you react to it. By your statement above, that would mean the race starts after the gun goes off and you leave the blocks.
Just want to point out despite the downvotes, no one has provided a good explanation on why you shouldn't be allowed to time the gun.
Well rules are never perfect, that’s why they keep getting updated. The reaction time works for what it was intended. Sprinters generally manage to react within the time allowed. I don’t see a lot of sprinters false starting.
Yes this is true.
But this other poster's solution seems more reasonable than the current rule: "However, just to avoid controversy, the best solution is to keep the allowed reaction time at it's current .10, but have a small window between .09 - .099 where the runners are called back, but it's not considered to be a false start."
I could live with that. Everything is a judgment call, even "photo finishes", where someone marks the furthest forward point of the torso--unlike in skiing or speed skating, where it is the first part of the body/connected gear that trips the timer.
Ideally yes, but it’s no different from the old rule of a blanket warning after the first false start but it was severely abused. Runners will purposely false start to throw off other sprinters.
Then what is the point of a gun if you can simply guess when it goes off? The race is supposed to start when you react to the gun, not anticipate it.
No, the race goes off when the gun goes off, not when you react to it. By your statement above, that would mean the race starts after the gun goes off and you leave the blocks.
Just want to point out despite the downvotes, no one has provided a good explanation on why you shouldn't be allowed to time the gun.
We are talking about a short sprint here, that’s won in less than 10 seconds so every millisecond of advantage you can get counts . If sprinters are allowed to react earlier which leads to a faster takeoff how is that fair?
I'd explain it to you, but you clearly aren't smart enough to understand statistical analysis. Go take an advanced stats course, and come back when you are smarter.
PdD in Statistics here
8 is not only not statistically significant, it is statistically unconscionable to base hard and fast rules on said sample size.
You obviously didn't realize the specific topic that we were talking about. You may have a PhD in Statistics, but you either have poor reading comprehension, or you skipped a lot of posts in this thread and then made an assumption, which you shouldn't do.
We were talking about the reaction times at the World Championships in Eugene in 2022, not the study with the 8 Finnish people.
But this other poster's solution seems more reasonable than the current rule: "However, just to avoid controversy, the best solution is to keep the allowed reaction time at it's current .10, but have a small window between .09 - .099 where therunners are called back, but it's not considered to be a false start."
Ideally yes, but it’s no different from the old rule of a blanket warning after the first false start but it was severely abused. Runners will purposely false start to throw off other sprinters.
No, they won't. There is no sprinter on the planet who can purposely false start within the .09 - .099 window.
Well rules are never perfect, that’s why they keep getting updated. The reaction time works for what it was intended. Sprinters generally manage to react within the time allowed. I don’t see a lot of sprinters false starting.
Yes this is true.
But this other poster's solution seems more reasonable than the current rule: "However, just to avoid controversy, the best solution is to keep the allowed reaction time at it's current .10, but have a small window between .09 - .099 where the runners are called back, but it's not considered to be a false start."
I could live with that. Everything is a judgment call, even "photo finishes", where someone marks the furthest forward point of the torso--unlike in skiing or speed skating, where it is the first part of the body/connected gear that trips the timer.
They should just make the limit 0.09 or 0.085. There's no point calling back a 0.09 to 0.099 if it's not considered a false start.
Or we could just stick with the rules as they are and not worry about the very few people who get snagged. It's like complaining about the strike zone in baseball.
I would say not in any way similar. One guy trains all year, flies to paris and goes home without racing due to this weird rule. Strike zone? Affects everyone the same constantly with multiple opportunities to overcome.
Well rules are never perfect, that’s why they keep getting updated. The reaction time works for what it was intended. Sprinters generally manage to react within the time allowed. I don’t see a lot of sprinters false starting.
Yes this is true.
But this other poster's solution seems more reasonable than the current rule: "However, just to avoid controversy, the best solution is to keep the allowed reaction time at it's current .10, but have a small window between .09 - .099 where the runners are called back, but it's not considered to be a false start."
I could live with that. Everything is a judgment call, even "photo finishes", where someone marks the furthest forward point of the torso--unlike in skiing or speed skating, where it is the first part of the body/connected gear that trips the timer.
Best idea Ive heard! Its so short nobody can game the system as a slow starter. Im not wild (as someone mentioned) about the guess work/science of how fast humans can respond and then assuming the software is really that accurate. Rarely have I been to a meet where something didnt go wrong. Lets go back to field false starts based on a window that cant be gamed on purpose.
Then what is the point of a gun if you can simply guess when it goes off? The race is supposed to start when you react to the gun, not anticipate it.
No, the race goes off when the gun goes off, not when you react to it. By your statement above, that would mean the race starts after the gun goes off and you leave the blocks.
Just want to point out despite the downvotes, no one has provided a good explanation on why you shouldn't be allowed to time the gun.
You misunderstand. Technically, yes, the race starts when the gun goes off but for the runners it can only start when they react to the gun. They cannot anticipate it, which might be if they leave the blocks at the same time the gun is fired. That is a clear false start under the rules. A runner cannot take a gamble and guess when the gun would be fired. To allow that would mean that the runners don't all start at the same time and those that guess right would gain a clear advantage. The gun is a signal to the runners that the race has started; they have to react to that signal; it isn't an event that merely coincides with when a runner chooses to start their race.
