10,000 for women - D Q

atrrunner wrote:

I used to wonder how girls would be dq'ed for shorts and having a slightly off colored uniform. Now I realize track is so filled with anal curmudgeons.

i remember that in the Ohio state meet the returning long jump champ got DQd for boxers that showed below his uniform shorts. no one jumped within a couple feet of him yet he was still DQd. i mean the fashion police maybe should have arrested him but let the man jump.

First, you are talking about a 2 lap race where everyone gets their own lane for a turn vs a 25 lap race with a double waterfall start.

I am sure you never saw half the field cut in early in an 800m race.

I am not wrong about the two examples of recalls that I gave.

Judgement needs to come in to play if the integrity of the event is compromised as it was here.

This situation is not a usual violation. It is an obvious miscommunication/misunderstanding.

Also if someone cuts in early in an 800m race there is discretional judgement to not call a DQ if it is deemed there was not an advatage that would alter the result.

The start was a good non-call, as happens in many sports. It didn't affect the outcome of the race, as demonstrated by the lack of any protest.Most people will remember the last 50 m of this race, not the start. The public does not want to see 6 miles of strategic positioning. They want to see close finishes and the sprints. Speed is exciting.

S. Heater wrote:

you people wonder why our sport is going down the rat hole of public disinterest? QED

the rules say that if someone steps off the track but wasn't advantaged by it, it's ok

the rules don't say that you can cut off distance as long as the omniscient officials think the results would've been the same had you run the correct distance

i wasn't talking about what the rules said, i was talking about how the rules were used in this case and how they generally seem to be intended. clearly cutting in early and getting shoved onto the grass are different, but i was simply stating that the officials didn't feel that either gained an advantage and so the rules ended with similar results in these cases (ie no DQs)

"could of"?! Your grammar matches your logic, f^cktard.

In_Ithaca wrote:

They ran 9,990m... What a crappy situation, I bet defar wishes she could of run 10m shorter...

but in one case, the rules specifically leave it to the officials' judgment to decide whether an advantage was gained. in the other, the rules are finite and don't give the officials the leeway to decide whether or not an advantage was had, but they decided to ignore the rules and just do what they felt like.

similar outcomes? obviously, as no one got dq'd. but completely different situations. in one, no one ran shorter than they were supposed to and the officials followed the rulebook. in the other, half the field ran less than the other half and cut half the field off, and the officials ignored the rulebook and did what they felt like.

Actually... I have seen half the field cut in early in an 800 meter race. NY State High school champs back in 2006, i believe. Flotrack had the video but I couldn't locate it. A complete clusterf$#ck, as the clearly best run runner (Rhode-Davies?) had to fight through an entire pack of runners who had started outside in a waterfall start and cut in after the first turn rather than the second.

And yes, I believe they were all disqualified.

this is an interesting case, as it is truly hard to argue that there was an advantage gained here since the race was so long and the first 5k was so casual. To argue that these runners truly benefited is stretching the truth. And as a former high school coach I LOATHE the stupid uniform/jewelery rules that some officials are so quick to enforce as worthy of DQ's. They are completely ridiculous.

However, in this case, the fact of the matter is that a number of professional runners did not in fact follow the rules, and did not in fact run 10,000 meters. It seems like there was a cone at the break-in point, and from what I am no expert on the IAAF rulebook, but it seems that this is all that is necessary (the whole curve does not need to be marked off). Thus, it is not an official's mistake, like the gigantic f#$ck-up with the steeple at US nationals. The number of competitors who didn't follow the rules is immaterial. I don't see how they can't be disqualified from the race (much like the female steepler a few years back at US nationals, who cut in to take the water jump the first lap when they were supposed to stay outside and was disqualified despite easily winning). Of course they should have been called back, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they DID NOT run 10,000 meters.

It was 2007. A very interesting race. Rhodes-Devey still ended up 3rd behind two guys who ran 10-20m less than him before they were disqualified.

I garmined Masai from my 60 inch Hi-Def plasma on DVR. And, I had her running 10,007 meters.

You did what?

Are you serious about the distance?

Bingo.

The 1500 situation is covered by the rule that says if you were knocked off the track (as he was) and do not gain a material advantage, you aren't sanctioned.

The 10,000m start is a different, unrelated rule. It would help if people debating the application of the rules actually read the rules they are debating.

As the poster above says, the cut in must be marked, but not necessarily the turn. Yes, it would be good to cone the turn and this is likely to be a future rule change, but how many of those athletes had not run a previous track 10,000 that started in alleys?

While I completely understand that the loss of distance some competitors ran probably did not affect the outcome of this particular race, it does raise the subjective question of how one determines what amount will be allowed.

If they'd split 15:00 for the first 5000, would some posters change their mind about how the race was affected? What if their first lap was 65 seconds and first 5000 14:45? At what point would the message board quarter backs decide that a material advantage had been gained that affected the outcome?

I'm sorry but I don't care if you run 100 meters or 10,000 meters when you run shorter than everyone else you gain an advantage. The pace was not extremely pedestrian like they were going 17:00 5k pace. There were really only 5 runners that picked the pace up significantly from the 31:30 pace they were at for 5k. The fact is there are rules in place so that interpretations do not have to be made. Our court system is screwed up because we leave people for interpretation. For instance Donte Stallworth getting 21 days of jail time for killing someone.

This isn't rocket science, people. Masai did not run 10,000 meters, and therefore can not be awarded the gold in the 10,000 meter race. She broke the rules, blatently I might add, and should be disqualifed. Would she have won if she had not broke in early? Yes. Does that matter? No.

According to LetsRun

"Some of the women who started in the outside corral (including Masai) cut in too early, as there were no cones around the turn. No protest was filed, so no one could be disqualified. An IAAF spokesperson said even if a protest had been filed, no one would have been disqualified since it was an official's mistake."

http://www.letsrun.com/2009/womens10k0815.php

dude, you are either a tech genius or one funny troll...

the man on the moon wrote:

I garmined Masai from my 60 inch Hi-Def plasma on DVR. And, I had her running 10,007 meters.

I haven't read this whole thread, but didn't they have a DQ in the men's 200m in the last Olympics. The DQ was over a lane violation. An American ended up with a medal but I think I recall him saying he didn't deserve it. It seems like the amount gained for a lane violation in a 200m is less than the advantage gained in this women's 10,000m.

I saw the same thing....couldn't believe it. Haven't they ever run a 10,000 on the track before?

In_Ithaca wrote:

How did they not call them back? What a mess...

You can't call back the start of a race for a lane violation. Now if someone would have fallen down because they were cut off by one of the runners who cut in early, then the could have called them back.