Here is another angle on the video:
https://instagram.com/p/4aEIUFmXSQ/
And here are some splits...
Bush’s splits before the fall were 1:16 and some change. The lap she fell was a 1:28. Her subsequent laps were 1:25, 1:28, 1:22.
Kipp also was running 1:16s before the fall. She ran a 1:22 on the lap she fell and then ran 1:19, 1:19, 1:17 after.
I think one of the issues I have is how do you successfully argue that Bush would have qualified without the second fall? The first fall was clearly much worse, Kipp knocking her over was more of a stumble. Did it slow her down further? Absolutely. But she missed the cutoff for finals by about 14 seconds.
Kipp's action did not delay Bush by 14 seconds. Did it make her mentally give up? Like if she hadn't been bumped the second time, she would have mentally recovered from the big fall and run faster?
I don't like granting appeals based on speculation about what an athlete might have done.
Bush fell, entirely her fault. She was then bumped over by Kipp, a lesser incident. She then ran the final laps at much slower than normal pace. Had she not been bumped by Kipp, and ran the same pace, she would not have qualified.
The fall would have happened either way. The amount of time that Kipp bumping her added to her time was nowhere near the difference in her qualifying.
Isn't that one of the things you have to consider in an appeal, whether or not the athlete would have qualified if the incident did not occur? I personally don't feel like you can make a strong case she would have.
Had she not fallen, she absolutely would have qualified. But she fell, and it was her fault. I really think it is a stretch to say that Kipp's actions are what caused her to miss the final.