Even if it seems to impede the athlete less than in the mile?
Are the rules the same in the NCAA as in say the USATF championships? Because Paul Chelimo a few years ago looked to do something similar yet more extreme there and it was considered clean.
Chelimo should have been disqualified as well. It was not "clean".
I'll second that it was not clean and should have been a DQ. I just don't understand how there's no consistency in officiating. It's not like other sports where decisions are often made on the fly. There is ample time to review, so why no consistency?
It’s the totality. Swing out plus arm = DQ impeding
Even if it seems to impede the athlete less than in the mile?
Are the rules the same in the NCAA as in say the USATF championships? Because Paul Chelimo a few years ago looked to do something similar yet more extreme there and it was considered clean.
Watch the 5k finish then watch this one. This was more sudden and egregious. Swung to lane three over less than 25 meters. Chelimo was lane three over 100 meters. I still think Chelimo should have been DQd. But this race was way more obvious.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
It’s the totality. Swing out plus arm = DQ impeding
Even if it seems to impede the athlete less than in the mile?
Are the rules the same in the NCAA as in say the USATF championships? Because Paul Chelimo a few years ago looked to do something similar yet more extreme there and it was considered clean.
I agree it should have been a DQ but I’d 100% rather see him keep the win if they aren’t going to do an immediate review and DQ. They even interviewed the guy, then just announced during the 200m that he got DQ’d. so hard to be a track fan sometimes
We really do need a rule that just puts Anderson in 2nd please instead of DQ. He shouldn't lose being 1st team All-American for that. He clearly beat everyone else in the field fair and square besides Bizimana.
But was he DQ'd for the swing out explicitly or the flailing at the tail end? You'd think it would be a DQ under rule 7-5 3.b or 3.c not 3a if it were the swing out.
But was he DQ'd for the swing out explicitly or the flailing at the tail end? You'd think it would be a DQ under rule 7-5 3.b or 3.c not 3a if it were the swing out.
This is where the problem lies: they’re citing a rule that points to DQing him for the flailing, not the veering (which is what it should be for). If you’re going to use 7.5-3a here then it absolutely applied in the men’s mile. The inconsistency is an issue.