Netters,
The IAAF web page has a discussion forum section. The section titled
"IAAF Lounge" contains discussions of the proposed rules changes.
Almost all posts to this section are opposed to the two attempts in the
vertical jumps rule; reaction is mixed to the no false starts rule. The
URL
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:45:07 EST
Are these proposed changes for the speed of the sport?
I do not get it.
Reducing the pegs of the PV serves who? I see very little wrong with the
current state of the PV. What I do see is less
In a message dated 3/14/01 9:12:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The one falsel start rule
hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting ...
No? At least in the East, I don't see any of the BS that goes on at Open
races, with their innumerable false starts. There is maybe ONE
I believe the change in the 4x100 relay zones is not to add
10m to the existing passing zone, but to combine the current acceleration
zone (10m) and passing zone (20m) into one 30m zone. In other
words, there would be a 30m passing zone with no additional acceleration
zone - the outgoing runner
Walt Murphy writes (he's just the messenger):
From the IAAF Council Report:
"Council also heard a report from the IAAF Technical Committee,
which included a number of technical rule change proposals.
These will be presented to the IAAF Congress in August for
consideration. It
Perhaps Bob Hersh would like to comment on these proposed changes. My opinion
is that they are all ill-advised. Is the one false start proposal a knee-jerk
reaction to the rash of false starts at recent major meets? If so, I think it
is an unwise change. It will result in the same situation
From the IAAF Council Report:
Council also heard a report from the IAAF Technical Committee, which
included a number of technical rule change proposals. These will be
presented to the IAAF Congress in August for consideration. One rule change
suggestion is that an athlete in events under 400m
There is a milder alternative -- one which accomplishes
essentially the purpose of the proposed rule change, but is
not so draconian. The athlete could be given only two attempts
at a given height if he (or she) took three attempts at the
previous height.
Are these proposed changes for the speed of the sport?
I do not get it.
Reducing the pegs of the PV serves who? I see very little wrong with the
current state of the PV. What I do see is less clearances in the future. So
what if the bar bounces and stays, that is part of the drama of the event.
, 2001 10:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
From the IAAF Council Report:
Council also heard a report from the IAAF Technical Committee, which
included a number of technical rule change proposals. These will be
presented to the IAAF Congress in August
On another mailing list, it was suggested that a change from three jumps at
a height to two might have little consequence. Its author wrote, " . . . my
take on it would be it has more to do with it being the final do-or-die
attempt than anything to do with The Magic Number 3! If it is more of a
11 matches
Mail list logo
