Take the study used to substantiate the 0.1 sec, replicate it with world class athletes, and subtract 10%. Whatever the result, I say use that.
If you remove Eugene 2022, where the starting blocks were calibrated incorrectly, and you looked at the top 10% fastest reacting sprinters in the previous 10 global championships, and you averaged the reaction times of the top 10%, you would end up with an average reaction time of around .115 .
Subtract 10%, and bingo - you are back to right around .10 . So nothing would change.
You can't just remove Eugene 2022. They never admitted the blocks were calibrated incorrectly. It could just be that different start systems made by different companies get different average and spread of reaction times, as a study as noted (see post #41 in this thread for link). To be fair, you have to assume that those blocks are used all the time. You have to use the worse-case scenario.
It's a stupid rule and even stupider people writing the rules. There is zero logic in it as the 0.0000000001 poster elaborated on. the arrogance of the rule makers is obsene.
This post was edited 18 seconds after it was posted.
Unfortunately, the standards expected of sports science are far lower than most other scientific field - you'll see conclusions drawn from single-digit sized testing pools.
Further, they often use completely inappropriate test subjects - conclusions about power development applied to male sprinters based on a study of teenage female soccer teams.
While I agree you have to apply the rule as it stands while it's in force, there is every reason to call for the 0.1s limit to be challenged.
Even if you disagree with it, you still get 3 chances. There is no nuclear outcome like in track.
It's an example sure but a poor one at that.
Unlike in baseball, you are simultaneously in one event, or inning, at a time. Competing as an individual against specialists in your event. The event is not meant to withstand 3 false starts by a people 9 different competitors. Imagine how long an event could be? The rules used to be more forgiving 10+ years ago. Improve the tech before you fiddle with the rules. Let runners run under protest. Hell, even implement "challenging" and "running under protest" if the latter isn't the case.
Oh one more point regarding the bold text - Reaction times, by definition, are a measurement of how fast sprinters leave the blocks, drawing attention to the fact sprinters DON'T "all start at the same time,"as you define it. Your whole post is null because what your assumption on sprinting starts is a.) not physically possible b.) would negate a critical part of the event if it were possible.
You are captivated by your own "cleverness". Not. Your fatuous comment that runners don't all start at the same time merely says they have different reaction speeds. But they are reaction speeds and are not permitted to be anticipatory responses. That is why the rule is that if they have left the blocks before a specified time they cannot physically have reacted; they anticipated - jumped - the gun. But of course once they have reacted to the gun the race is simply then decided by how they cross the line. It's quite simple, except for those dazzled by their own little mind games.
This whole debate stinkin' debate is around that "anticipatory responses" should be permitted as long they haven't started leaving the blocks before the gun is fired. Your whole point basically boils to basically saying "they shouldn't change the rule because that's the rule," which is stupid. My "clever" point is "reaction speeds" shouldn't be a factor in determining false starts and that it pointed out a hole into your reasoning.
You are captivated by your own "cleverness". Not. Your fatuous comment that runners don't all start at the same time merely says they have different reaction speeds. But they are reaction speeds and are not permitted to be anticipatory responses. That is why the rule is that if they have left the blocks before a specified time they cannot physically have reacted; they anticipated - jumped - the gun. But of course once they have reacted to the gun the race is simply then decided by how they cross the line. It's quite simple, except for those dazzled by their own little mind games.
This whole debate stinkin' debate is around that "anticipatory responses" should be permitted as long they haven't started leaving the blocks before the gun is fired. Your whole point basically boils to basically saying "they shouldn't change the rule because that's the rule," which is stupid. My "clever" point is "reaction speeds" shouldn't be a factor in determining false starts and that it pointed out a hole into your reasoning.
What a load of drivel. The gun is a signal to the runners. They can only leave their blocks in response to that signal. That response cannot be physiologically faster than 0.10 or they haven't responded to the gun but have, as they say, "jumped" it. That isn't permitted because a fair race requires everyone competes under the same conditions, which means reacting to the signal, not anticipating it, which would give an advantage that is deemed unfair.
On the point of reaction speeds, as I said above, a start that is quicker than what any human being is naturally capable of shows the runner wasn't reacting to the signal of the gun but jumped it.
The point you cannot get your head around is that the gun is a signal to the runners to begin the race - like a flag - and they can only leave the blocks in response to that signal and not in anticipation of it, because that would give an advantage that those reacting to the gun cannot have. The reaction time rule simply shows when a runner hasn't in fact reacted to the gun but anticipated it. That it has long been so simply shows you haven't a clue about any of this.
This whole debate stinkin' debate is around that "anticipatory responses" should be permitted as long they haven't started leaving the blocks before the gun is fired. Your whole point basically boils to basically saying "they shouldn't change the rule because that's the rule," which is stupid. My "clever" point is "reaction speeds" shouldn't be a factor in determining false starts and that it pointed out a hole into your reasoning.
What a load of drivel. The gun is a signal to the runners.They can only leave their blocks in response to that signal. That response cannot be physiologically faster than 0.10 or they haven't responded to the gun but have, as they say, "jumped" it. That isn't permitted because a fair race requires everyone competes under the same conditions, which means reacting to the signal, not anticipating it, which would give an advantage that is deemed unfair.
On the point of reaction speeds, as I said above, a start that is quicker than what any human being is naturally capable of shows the runner wasn't reacting to the signal of the gun but jumped it.
The point you cannot get your head around is that the gun is a signal to the runners to begin the race - like a flag - and they can only leave the blocks in response to that signal and not in anticipation of it, because that would give an advantage that those reacting to the gun cannot have. The reaction time rule simply shows when a runner hasn't in fact reacted to the gun but anticipated it. That it has long been so simply shows you haven't a clue about any of this.
If "response to the gun" is truly the rule as written, then it's stupid and should be changed, which is 100% in line with what I've been arguing the whole time. "Reacting to the gun" shouldn't matter as long as you haven't started the process of leaving the blocks before the gun goes off once you are set. You haven't explained why it should matter other than "unfair advantage" (which is BS since other sprinters can anticipate the gun) and "it should be a rule because it's the rule."
What a load of drivel. The gun is a signal to the runners.They can only leave their blocks in response to that signal. That response cannot be physiologically faster than 0.10 or they haven't responded to the gun but have, as they say, "jumped" it. That isn't permitted because a fair race requires everyone competes under the same conditions, which means reacting to the signal, not anticipating it, which would give an advantage that is deemed unfair.
On the point of reaction speeds, as I said above, a start that is quicker than what any human being is naturally capable of shows the runner wasn't reacting to the signal of the gun but jumped it.
The point you cannot get your head around is that the gun is a signal to the runners to begin the race - like a flag - and they can only leave the blocks in response to that signal and not in anticipation of it, because that would give an advantage that those reacting to the gun cannot have. The reaction time rule simply shows when a runner hasn't in fact reacted to the gun but anticipated it. That it has long been so simply shows you haven't a clue about any of this.
If "response to the gun" is truly the rule as written, then it's stupid and should be changed, which is 100% in line with what I've been arguing the whole time. "Reacting to the gun" shouldn't matter as long as you haven't started the process of leaving the blocks before the gun goes off once you are set. You haven't explained why it should matter other than "unfair advantage" (which is BS since other sprinters can anticipate the gun) and "it should be a rule because it's the rule."
What is the point of having a signal to start a race unless it requires that competitors only respond to the signal? A reaction time below that which is humanly possible shows they haven't responded to the signal - they couldn't have - but they are trying to appear that they are (because they don't try to do it before the gun goes off). They are attempting to cheat, because they know their competitors will be responding to the signal, which is how it is supposed to work. But you're ok with that. Part of your ethical makeup, I guess.
If "response to the gun" is truly the rule as written, then it's stupid and should be changed, which is 100% in line with what I've been arguing the whole time. "Reacting to the gun" shouldn't matter as long as you haven't started the process of leaving the blocks before the gun goes off once you are set. You haven't explained why it should matter other than "unfair advantage" (which is BS since other sprinters can anticipate the gun) and "it should be a rule because it's the rule."
What is the point of having a signal to start a race unless it requires that competitors only respond to the signal? A reaction time below that which is humanly possible shows they haven't responded to the signal - they couldn't have - but they are trying to appear that they are (because they don't try to do it before the gun goes off). They are attempting to cheat, because they know their competitors will be responding to the signal, which is how it is supposed to work. But you're ok with that. Part of your ethical makeup, I guess.
Are you serious? It's basic - to indicate to the competitors the race has started. THATS IT. Making the rule that you "have to react to the gun" overcomplicates things and shouldn't matter. "Human reaction times" should be irrelevant here as long as someone hasn't started the process of leaving the blocks until after the gun has gone off. The rule should be if you're still in your blocks and haven't moved when the gun goes off, you are good to go. And we have the technology to do this, so the "reaction time" nonsense is unnecessary.
What is the point of having a signal to start a race unless it requires that competitors only respond to the signal? A reaction time below that which is humanly possible shows they haven't responded to the signal - they couldn't have - but they are trying to appear that they are (because they don't try to do it before the gun goes off). They are attempting to cheat, because they know their competitors will be responding to the signal, which is how it is supposed to work. But you're ok with that. Part of your ethical makeup, I guess.
Are you serious? It's basic - to indicate to the competitors the race has started. THATS IT. Making the rule that you "have to react to the gun" overcomplicates things and shouldn't matter. "Human reaction times" should be irrelevant here as long as someone hasn't started the process of leaving the blocks until after the gun has gone off. The rule should be if you're still in your blocks and haven't moved when the gun goes off, you are good to go. And we have the technology to do this, so the "reaction time" nonsense is unnecessary.
You simply don't get it. You say the gun is a signal to the runners that the race is started. Well it is only a signal if they respond to it, and that means there will be an inevitable delay in their response - even though that delay is in micro-seconds. If they react faster than 0.10sec they haven't responded to the gun, they have tried to anticipate it. They do that to get an advantage on the athletes who respond to the gun as a signal. Your argument that runners should be allowed to anticipate when the gun goes off negates its purpose as a signal.