In a message dated Mon, 19 Mar 2001 1:40:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< what hurts more? False starts, or the disqualification of the star
over one false start? We are talking appeal here, remember. Is the fan more
likely to endure the false start or the elimination of the star attraction?
I think the former is far more tolerable, and less damaging. >>
Darrell, you seem to be resigned to the fact that such a rule is going to provoke a
rash of high-level disqualifications. My take is that history (as evidneced by the
NCAA and prep experiences) has proven you wrong. It's not as if we're asking the
sprinters to solve Fermat's Penultimate Equation here. We're putting a simple rule in
place and they need only start after the hear the gun, just like the rules have always
said. We're not inventing something new and revolutionary. The average American
sprinter has already had 4-5 years of NFS situations, and I suspect the number of
falsies he ever got charged with is very minimal.
Having said that, I must admit i have a certain amount of trepidation in seeing an NFS
rule applied at the top-end level where there are false-start blocks in place. At
least if they're the touchy things that were in evidence in Seville. Now THAT could
lead to some gruesome DQs.
At least on an introductory level I might be able to accept a concept whereby the
single-falsie rule only applies in meets which don't have false-start technology.
gh
