Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
In a message dated 5/24/01 6:53:47 PM, LTricard writes: >WHEREAS sprinters/hurdlers are the only athletes in all of track and field >prevented from competing before their event essentially begins Huh? Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
Assuming you weren't being facetious, I see several problems with this approach: 1. Unless the jumpers somehow declare an estimated upper limit to their upcoming jump and the placement of bars is adjusted accordingly for each jumper, some of the bars would be placed much higher than many of the less talented athletes could jump, resulting in the jumper essentially crashing headlong into a plane of bars on pegs. Even though the wall of bars is not very solid, seems to me the prospect of this might cramp the jumping style of many jumpers and inhibit their performances. 2. The falling upper bars could knock off lower bars that were cleared, thus erroneously lowering the mark. 3. Since their knees are bent at that point, some jumpers' heels appear to extend under the bar a bit at the point where their hips are passing over the bar. This could result in the jumper kicking off a lower bar while legitimately clearing a higher bar. Again, no good. Kurt Bray > I find it strange that no one so far has suggested what >would obviously be the most efficient method of conducting >the high jump. It would, however, require the modification >of the present upright and bar setup. > > The uprights would have supports for the bar located >at two-inch intervals over a range of heights. Bars would >be placed on these supports simultaneously. One might >have as many as 20 bars at a time. > > The athlete approaches the bars and jumps as high as >he (or she) can. The bar considered to be cleared is the >one which is not knocked off, nor are any lower knocked >off. Thus one jumper could clear 7' while another would >clear only 5' 5" without doing any resetting. A jumper >would get a total of three attempts. Since he (or she) >would be jumping at many heights simultaneously, there >would be no reduction in the number of jumps from what >is currently used. > > Dave Carey > > (who else?) > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
I find it strange that no one so far has suggested what would obviously be the most efficient method of conducting the high jump. It would, however, require the modification of the present upright and bar setup. The uprights would have supports for the bar located at two-inch intervals over a range of heights. Bars would be placed on these supports simultaneously. One might have as many as 20 bars at a time. The athlete approaches the bars and jumps as high as he (or she) can. The bar considered to be cleared is the one which is not knocked off, nor are any lower knocked off. Thus one jumper could clear 7' while another would clear only 5' 5" without doing any resetting. A jumper would get a total of three attempts. Since he (or she) would be jumping at many heights simultaneously, there would be no reduction in the number of jumps from what is currently used. Dave Carey (who else?)
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
One possible response that I don't think has been advanced yet would be for athletes in the events affected to boycott the meet. That should considerably reduce the time to contest the event, as well as letting the IAAF know what the athletes and coaches think of the experiment. Cheers, Roger
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
Rather than giving vertical jumpers two misses per height, I'd experiment with just giving them three OVERALL misses. That should discourage jumping at low heights rather than encouraging it. Athletes would save their attempts for the better heights. But I would like a few different ideas experimented with in non-championship competition before anything is decided. As I've said before, I also don't like reducing the other field events from 6 attempts to four attempts as has been proposed. Instead, I'd make a deeper cut after the third round than to the current eight finalists. Earlier jumps would still carry over, but optimally, I'd cut the field to four after the third round, to three after the fourth round, and to two after the fifth round. That makes only nine jumps in the final three rounds instead of twenty-four and you could actually highlight them between track events. The fourth round would decide the three medalists, the fifth round decide the bronze medal, and the sixth round decide the gold and silver. Ed Koch --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 24, 2001 12:36:43 AM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon Andy, what you say is true, but I do not see the parallel to these track changes. Baseball games have been shortened by a matter of minutes, very insignificant minutes. The general structure of the game is never changed. In none of the other sports do they change rules that redefine the nature of the competition. You still have to hit the ball, and score, you still have 3 strikes no matter what the strike zone is. You still must put the ball in the end zone, and you still get 6 points for your efforts. 4 downs to make 10 yards. These new changes to the field events literally change the nature of competition. You would force safe jumps just so the vaulters would stay in the competition. Oh well we will see. Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
As I said, Britain has only one GP II meeting and that is after the Council meeting in Edmonton. True, they were strong words from Alan Pascoe but, as far as I can see, the IAAF weren't asking them to try the rule changes anyway. Fast Track, the organisers of Britain's major meetings, apparently had the option of trying them at its Glasgow international meeting and chose not to, but that's about it. I think "rebel" is too strong a word. From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 3:25 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon > Britain puts block on single false-start experiment > > Duncan Mackay > Thursday May 10, 2001 > The Guardian > > Britain has joined the world's top sprinters in rebelling against the > International Amateur Athletic > Federation's plan to make one false start, instead of two, incur > disqualification. It has refused to allow the > experimental rule to be used at its leading meetings. > Alan Pascoe, the chairman of Fast Track, the sports marketing agents, said > yesterday that UK Athletics > specifically asked that the change be not implemented at this season's five > televised events in Britain. > "If ultimately the IAAF council developed these rule changes into IAAF law > then it is possible UK Athletics > may be forced to implement those changes for later in the season," Pascoe > said. "But I can state > categorically that, as things stand, they will not be introduced into the > UK." > The IAAF, the sport's world governing body, announced in March that it would > experiment in second-tier > international meetings and a permanent change to the rule could be introduced > at a meeting on the eve of > the world championships in Edmonton in August. > The change is designed to stamp out the multiple false starts which blight so > many top meetings. > The experiment has drawn an angry reaction from the top sprinters, and Ato > Boldon, Trinidad's former > world 200m champion, has started a petition against the plan. Among those who > have signed are Maurice > Greene, the Olympic 100m champion and world record holder. > "The event could be changed irrevocably and the existing world 100m and 200m > records could be set in > stone if this is allowed to happen," said Greene, who will be running in the > British grand prix meeting at > Crystal Palace on July 22. > Boldon said: "From what we are hearing, midway through 2001 we will be > looking at one false start being it > [disqualification], and it could be in for the world championships. > "We have a petition going round at the moment, which everyone in our group > signed two weeks ago, and > every athlete I know has signed it. The concern is that meets are running > over schedule because we have too > many false starts. But the public is going to demand that they reverse this > because, the first time Maurice > Greene or Ato Boldon are thrown out, people will say they didn't get their > money's worth. There will be > false starts and no one will be running inside 10 seconds because we have to > be so careful." > Pascoe added: "If you lose a big star because of this it seems a retrograde > step that doesn't really help the > sport in the long term." > > > > > > , > >
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
Britain puts block on single false-start experiment Duncan Mackay Thursday May 10, 2001 The Guardian Britain has joined the world's top sprinters in rebelling against the International Amateur Athletic Federation's plan to make one false start, instead of two, incur disqualification. It has refused to allow the experimental rule to be used at its leading meetings. Alan Pascoe, the chairman of Fast Track, the sports marketing agents, said yesterday that UK Athletics specifically asked that the change be not implemented at this season's five televised events in Britain. "If ultimately the IAAF council developed these rule changes into IAAF law then it is possible UK Athletics may be forced to implement those changes for later in the season," Pascoe said. "But I can state categorically that, as things stand, they will not be introduced into the UK." The IAAF, the sport's world governing body, announced in March that it would experiment in second-tier international meetings and a permanent change to the rule could be introduced at a meeting on the eve of the world championships in Edmonton in August. The change is designed to stamp out the multiple false starts which blight so many top meetings. The experiment has drawn an angry reaction from the top sprinters, and Ato Boldon, Trinidad's former world 200m champion, has started a petition against the plan. Among those who have signed are Maurice Greene, the Olympic 100m champion and world record holder. "The event could be changed irrevocably and the existing world 100m and 200m records could be set in stone if this is allowed to happen," said Greene, who will be running in the British grand prix meeting at Crystal Palace on July 22. Boldon said: "From what we are hearing, midway through 2001 we will be looking at one false start being it [disqualification], and it could be in for the world championships. "We have a petition going round at the moment, which everyone in our group signed two weeks ago, and every athlete I know has signed it. The concern is that meets are running over schedule because we have too many false starts. But the public is going to demand that they reverse this because, the first time Maurice Greene or Ato Boldon are thrown out, people will say they didn't get their money's worth. There will be false starts and no one will be running inside 10 seconds because we have to be so careful." Pascoe added: "If you lose a big star because of this it seems a retrograde step that doesn't really help the sport in the long term." ,
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
The Gateshead meeting is actually after Edmonton - something I had overlooked when I mentioned it to you the other day. That puts it outside the initial trial period. Georgio Reineri - the IAAF's spokesman - did seem to believe, though, that it was up to each event whether or not it participated in the trial. Original Message - From: "Paul Banta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "track list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:28 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon > The IAAF did not just single out the pole vault, hammer or discus, it is > just that those are the only field events we are having at this year's > adidas Oregon Track Classic. All the throws and jumps would be changed. > > Also, the experiment is not just here, it's all the GP II meets (although > I've heard that Gateshead has gotten out of it). The first time they tried > the new rules was at the GP II meet in South Africa in March. > > Paul Banta > adidas Oregon Track Classic > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:18 AM > Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon > > > > I am glad to see it is just a trial basis. However, I suspect this is the > > first step to something more. For one, the "experiment" is taking place > in > > the U.S. Secondly, I can't help but express how short-sighted the > > decision-making appears to me: Fans who make the effort to travel to a > meet, > > sit in the stands in all kinds of weather, etc. are not fair weather fans. > I > > suspect that the decision to buy or not to buy a ticket to the meet is not > > based on the "length" of the pole vault competition. Television's (live) > one > > hour "recap" is not a factor, anyway, as live events tend to show all > track > > and very little field. Next day tape delay is not a factor. So as a fan, > if > > I'm sitting in the stands and the 5000 is complete and there are still > some > > vaulters and jumpers left on the field, who cares? If I'm a true jump > fan, I > > stay and watch. If not, I get up and leave. Either way, I've paid for my > > ticket. Finally, I find it somewhat humorous that the ONE event that the > > U.S. DOMINATES is one picked for experimentation. Did I hear someone say > > "HELLO?" So I'm still struggling with this and still asking: WHY? > > > >
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
The IAAF did not just single out the pole vault, hammer or discus, it is just that those are the only field events we are having at this year's adidas Oregon Track Classic. All the throws and jumps would be changed. Also, the experiment is not just here, it's all the GP II meets (although I've heard that Gateshead has gotten out of it). The first time they tried the new rules was at the GP II meet in South Africa in March. Paul Banta adidas Oregon Track Classic - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:18 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon > I am glad to see it is just a trial basis. However, I suspect this is the > first step to something more. For one, the "experiment" is taking place in > the U.S. Secondly, I can't help but express how short-sighted the > decision-making appears to me: Fans who make the effort to travel to a meet, > sit in the stands in all kinds of weather, etc. are not fair weather fans. I > suspect that the decision to buy or not to buy a ticket to the meet is not > based on the "length" of the pole vault competition. Television's (live) one > hour "recap" is not a factor, anyway, as live events tend to show all track > and very little field. Next day tape delay is not a factor. So as a fan, if > I'm sitting in the stands and the 5000 is complete and there are still some > vaulters and jumpers left on the field, who cares? If I'm a true jump fan, I > stay and watch. If not, I get up and leave. Either way, I've paid for my > ticket. Finally, I find it somewhat humorous that the ONE event that the > U.S. DOMINATES is one picked for experimentation. Did I hear someone say > "HELLO?" So I'm still struggling with this and still asking: WHY? >
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
This isn't what the IAAF is trying. Under the experimental rules, it's 2x2 which would be faster for a large meet. I'm not saying it would be fair. Paul Banta adidas Oregon Track Classic - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:48 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon > thinking about the 4 jumps/throws vs 3 & 3. > > After more than 3 weeks of no rain, the skies finallylet loose here Monday, > and since then CT has resembled Seattle in terms of weather, forcing 2 > postponements of local HS track championships, finally painting organizers > into a corner where the boys & girls meet had to be combined on Thursday. > > One of the ideas considered to speed the meet up was to reduce the > jumps/throws to 4 instead of 3 & 3. It was ultimately rejected since there > wasn't any significant time savings: > > Here's the math; > > 18 competitors > > @4=72 attempts > @3=54 + 7 finalists@3 more = 21 Grand total 75 Net savings: 3 attempts > > 24 competitors > @4=96 attempts > @3=72 + 7 finalists@3 more = 21 Grand total 93 Net savings: 3 attempts > > the only potential time saver is that you wouldn't have to determine the 7 > finalists and then get them to come back for their last 3 attempts, plus > warmups, but w/ good officials that should take 15 minutes max. > > Basically, you are depriving the best athletes of 2 extra attempts in order > to give everyone else one extra - not a great trade off, IMO. > > The 2 miss PV/HJ seems even worse. > > But I AM totally in favor of the NFS rule for sprints. > > Jim Gerweck > Running Times >
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
thinking about the 4 jumps/throws vs 3 & 3. After more than 3 weeks of no rain, the skies finallylet loose here Monday, and since then CT has resembled Seattle in terms of weather, forcing 2 postponements of local HS track championships, finally painting organizers into a corner where the boys & girls meet had to be combined on Thursday. One of the ideas considered to speed the meet up was to reduce the jumps/throws to 4 instead of 3 & 3. It was ultimately rejected since there wasn't any significant time savings: Here's the math; 18 competitors @4=72 attempts @3=54 + 7 finalists@3 more = 21 Grand total 75 Net savings: 3 attempts 24 competitors @4=96 attempts @3=72 + 7 finalists@3 more = 21 Grand total 93 Net savings: 3 attempts the only potential time saver is that you wouldn't have to determine the 7 finalists and then get them to come back for their last 3 attempts, plus warmups, but w/ good officials that should take 15 minutes max. Basically, you are depriving the best athletes of 2 extra attempts in order to give everyone else one extra - not a great trade off, IMO. The 2 miss PV/HJ seems even worse. But I AM totally in favor of the NFS rule for sprints. Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
I am glad to see it is just a trial basis. However, I suspect this is the first step to something more. For one, the "experiment" is taking place in the U.S. Secondly, I can't help but express how short-sighted the decision-making appears to me: Fans who make the effort to travel to a meet, sit in the stands in all kinds of weather, etc. are not fair weather fans. I suspect that the decision to buy or not to buy a ticket to the meet is not based on the "length" of the pole vault competition. Television's (live) one hour "recap" is not a factor, anyway, as live events tend to show all track and very little field. Next day tape delay is not a factor. So as a fan, if I'm sitting in the stands and the 5000 is complete and there are still some vaulters and jumpers left on the field, who cares? If I'm a true jump fan, I stay and watch. If not, I get up and leave. Either way, I've paid for my ticket. Finally, I find it somewhat humorous that the ONE event that the U.S. DOMINATES is one picked for experimentation. Did I hear someone say "HELLO?" So I'm still struggling with this and still asking: WHY?
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
>yeah...as someone said, you pay $60. for a concert and you want to see the >star perform LESS!!! This seems to assume that the ideal situation would be to sit and watch the star perform *forever*. But of course the reality is that either a concert or a pole vault competition that goes for hours and hours can get to be a drag. I suspect that the idea behind the new rules is to make it so the fans get to see who won the competition before they give up and go home. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
yeah...as someone said, you pay $60. for a concert and you want to see the star perform LESS!!!
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
Andy, what you say is true, but I do not see the parallel to these track changes. Baseball games have been shortened by a matter of minutes, very insignificant minutes. The general structure of the game is never changed. In none of the other sports do they change rules that redefine the nature of the competition. You still have to hit the ball, and score, you still have 3 strikes no matter what the strike zone is. You still must put the ball in the end zone, and you still get 6 points for your efforts. 4 downs to make 10 yards. These new changes to the field events literally change the nature of competition. You would force safe jumps just so the vaulters would stay in the competition. Oh well we will see. Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
RE: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
[[ <> This is progress? Imagine for a moment that baseball rules are changed: Batters come to the plate with one strike against them (two strikes and they're out). They're "choking-up" on the bat, sacrificing the big hit, and, as D points out, the record-breaking, crowd-roaring, civilization-advancing performance is hindered. ]] Baseball rules did change this season -- in an effort to shorten the length of games, they expanded the strike zone considerably. Game times have indeed shortened from statistics I've heard, and I haven't heard anyone say the game has become less interesting or tainted. The popular team sports (basketball, football, baseball) change the rules fairly often to achieve purposes like higher scores, player safety, or better TV ratings. That doesn't mean these track & field rule changes are going to be good, but I think you can't say in advance that they will be a bad thing. There will be pros and cons, and the final balance of those is hard to predict. I suppose that's why they are applying the rules on a trial basis, which seems a responsible way to try to evaluate the effects of the changes. -- Andy
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
Why not try a compromise? Two jumps at each height until there are 4 or 6 competitors in the event, then go to the three attempts each. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is sad to know, again. I will not begin on the false start rule, but I am dismayed by the lack of foresight in the field events. The rules sacrifice performance for speed, and that is against the solution. With 2 jumps you force vaulters to clear safe heights, and limit opportunities at record performances. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
> This is progress? Imagine for a moment that baseball rules are changed: Batters come to the plate with one strike against them (two strikes and they're out). They're "choking-up" on the bat, sacrificing the big hit, and, as D points out, the record-breaking, crowd-roaring, civilization-advancing performance is hindered. Keep up the good work.
Re: t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
That is sad to know, again. I will not begin on the false start rule, but I am dismayed by the lack of foresight in the field events. The rules sacrifice performance for speed, and that is against the solution. With 2 jumps you force vaulters to clear safe heights, and limit opportunities at record performances. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
t-and-f: New rules to challenge athletes at adidas Oregon
New Rules to Challenge Athletes at adidas Oregon Track Classic PORTLAND - Experimental rules aimed at speeding up the field events and decreasing false starts will be tried at North America's only IAAF Grand Prix II meet, the adidas Oregon Track Classic. The adidas Oregon Track Classic will be held on Sunday, June 3 at Mount Hood Community College in Gresham, Oregon. Pole vaulters will have two jumps at each height instead of the traditional three attempts. Discus and hammer throwers at the meet will have four throws instead of the usual six. Sprinters will be disqualified on their first false start as is done in U.S. colleges and high schools. The IAAF, track and field's international governing body, is trying out the new rules at its Grand Prix II level meets during the 2001 season. "These new rules, especially in the pole vault, will change the athletes’ strategies," meet director Paul Banta said. "It will be interesting to see how the vaulters adapt to the added pressure of having one less attempt at each height." Paul Bantaadidas Oregon Track Classic503-620-4052www.oregontrackclassic.com
Re: t-and-f: new rules
In a message dated 3/22/01 10:12:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither, of course. But, you wouldn't understand what actually should be going on in the mind of the superior starter. By all means, he should be anticipating that a gun is about to be fired. He should be preparing every fiber in his body to react to that audible stimulus. And, knowing that it's coming within a matter of seconds, he should be prepared to execute both the mental and physical reactions that will get him underway. But, no, he shouldn't GUESS when it's going to be fired, because a) that's cheating, and b) when he gets thrown out of the race because he's a blatant cheat, you're going to say, "maybe a camera clicked." You can't have it both ways. Sir, You are absolutely right, I don't have a CLUE what goes on in the mind of a superior starter, or a world class athlete to boot. Thank you for showing me my error. LOL! THE PRINCE
Re: t-and-f: new rules
In a message dated 03/21/2001 7:08:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither, of course. But, you wouldn't understand what actually should be going on in the mind of the superior starter. By all means, he should be anticipating that a gun is about to be fired. He should be preparing every fiber in his body to react to that audible stimulus. And, knowing that it's coming within a matter of seconds, he should be prepared to execute both the mental and physical reactions that will get him underway. But, no, he shouldn't GUESS when it's going to be fired, because a) that's cheating, and b) when he gets thrown out of the race because he's a blatant cheat, you're going to say, "maybe a camera clicked." You can't have it both ways. Don while you felt the need to cast dispersions, you are the one that came off as the ass! It is clear that you, like many others, have resorted to knee jerk reactions, and preconceived notions of what is being said. In the above paragraph you define the very element of anticipation. The very thing that everyone is criticizing JD for. Now let me get this straight, you are telling one of the world's premier starters about starting? Do any of you see the ridiculous nature of what you argue? Do you see the nonsense that your opinion becomes when faced with the real product? People this forum is great because we have real track folks in here, not fans that hold their remote hoping to catch the telecast. It is disheartening when the great minds that dwell here argue with the people who do this for a living. And you are calling them liars, cheats, idiots, and stupid. Next time you write something of this nature look real close at the reflection in your monitor because that is who you are writing about. Darrell Faith is a road seldom traveled
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Brian, As you are so interested in people's spelling why not look at your own. You said: > Check into the spellcheck thing, it really works (it > can wipe out some of > that pesky "ignorace"). I'm not a great speller but there are at least two errors in that small sentence. Sean --- "Mcewen, Brian T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon, > > I have no opinion on changing the false-start rule. > I think it is fine the > way it is. One of the hardest things I ever had to > watch on TV, was them > throwing out Christie in 1996. The other was > screaming at the the TV in > 1984, "Get up! GEETTT UUUPP! GET UP!" at Mary > Decker in 1984. > > I don't want the rule changed ... And if you look > through the couple > messages ... nothing was said about starts, false, > too fast , DQ's or > otherwise. > > I told you that without fans, you have no money. > That is all. I also > suggested you look into turning the spellcheck on. > It might help you in > your search for work after track is over for you. > > And, BTW, if my "smarts arrived before me" THEN > my intell-i-gence would > prec-e-d-e me. > > Check into the spellcheck thing, it really works (it > can wipe out some of > that pesky "ignorace"). > > ... and they tell me that the chicks dig smart guys. > > > CCL about that start rule, > Brian McEwen > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 11:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules > > > > Brian, > Your intellegence preceeds you. Here is > something you don't know. > Every athlete that is contracted knows and respect > every fan that sits in > the > stadium. Where your ignorance shows is, you really > believe that the false > start rule should be changed to suit YOU the fan. I > can not argue that > people buy; therefore, I get paid, but don't even > remotely think that my > sport will die or I will not get paid if YOU/ BRIAN > stop buying Nike. There > > are 4 billion people in the world, approximately 200 > million people in the > US, and about 3 million track and field fans. I > think track will survive if > > YOU/BRIAN stop attending the meets. You said in > your post, IF all the fans > stop supporting track, I replied, WE would do > something else. YOU said IF, > > So, I reserved to respond to your hypothetical > statement with the same tone > of ignorace. As for spell check, it really doesn't > matter how accurate my > spelling is because this is a message board, and I > really believe that the > point is more important than the spelling. Stick to > the issues, which is > false starts not spelling! PERIOD!!! > > THE PRINCE > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: New rules
You might think this is a misconception, but I don't. To say that all the sprinters have an equal chance to cheat by anticipation does not make it fair, anymore than a discus thrower who uses a lighter implement smuggled into his bag would be considered within the rules just because any of the throwers in the competition could do that. The practical difference is that testing for a lighter implement is easy, because it is an object which can be weighed. As we see, testing for an anticipated start is much more complex, but that doesn't mean we should just go ostrich and ignore it. David Dallman On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Brian brings up a common misconception in this debate. Let's all be clear, > EVERYONE, and I mean ALL, are trying to react as fast as possible. That > includes anticipating the starter. The advantaged is gained by the person > who did it the best, which is what competition and racing is all about! The > premise of cheating is based upon the conclusion that someone is gaining an > unfair advantage. When in fact no one is gaining an UNFAIR advantage because > they all are attempting to do the same thing. > > DGS > Faith is a road seldom traveled >
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Netters Brian wrote: > It was a JOKE, Conway. Since I am apparently the only evil-incarnate on the > list I was making a little joke. Having been known at one time or another as "THE RACEWALKER FROM HELL" I can assure you all that Brian is not evil incarnate. (No I am not making that up that is what I was called in college and many, I am sure can believe that.) Mike
Re: t-and-f: new rules
I wrote: "I sprinted for four years for CCNY" L. Tricard, another intellectual giant, responded, sarcastically: "wow...real high tech sprinting...it's like saying, i sprinted for hunter." Of course, if we search deep enough, you have a point here, right?? In February of 1967, I was the Metropolitan Intercollegiate 60-yard dash champion. The conference included the finest track and field powers in the NY metropolitan area at the time: Manhattan, St. John's, Fordham, Iona, FDU, etc. The prior year, outdoors, I have film of me racing against Sam Perry of Fordham, who recently passed away. Perry was the co-world-record-holder of the 60-yard dash mark, at 5.9, with Bob Hayes. I smoked Sam out of the blocks and was still leading at about the 40-yard mark, when, inevitably, he went by me. In case the point was too complex for you, I was talking about starting technique. I didn't realize one's ability to start, or his knowledge of starting technique, was a function of what school he went to. I knew it was pointless to enter this fray. The amount of petty, sarcastic crap we have to put up with is a shame. Don Schlesinger
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 3/21/2001 9:33:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I don't hear that from them and when did you do your study??? i don't remember reading the results
Re: t-and-f: new rules
I've tried so hard to stay out of this thread, even though, months ago, I was the major participant in a similar endless debate. But, as the claptrap mounts, and the incredibly illogical statements proliferate, I have to throw in my two (or three!) cents. One muddled thinker writes: "This argument is both false and hypocritical. Learning how to anticipate the gun is the mark of a cagey competitor, not a cheater." Sheer, utter rubbish. You'd then be the first one to whine, bitch, and moan when the starter made sure to vary drastically every start of the meet from, say, anywhere from a one- to a three-second hold. As your "cagey competitor" anticipated 1.5 seconds, bolted out of the blocks, and got caught by a gun that was destined to go off at 2.5 seconds, you'd scream bloody murder that it was the starter's fault that your "crafty" guy was made to look like a horse's ass. Another Cartesian scholar intones: "LOL, Please sir tell me, if anticipating is cheating, what should he be doing? Should he wait because he knows the gun will fire and then go when he hears it, or guess when he will hear it?" Neither, of course. But, you wouldn't understand what actually should be going on in the mind of the superior starter. By all means, he should be anticipating that a gun is about to be fired. He should be preparing every fiber in his body to react to that audible stimulus. And, knowing that it's coming within a matter of seconds, he should be prepared to execute both the mental and physical reactions that will get him underway. But, no, he shouldn't GUESS when it's going to be fired, because a) that's cheating, and b) when he gets thrown out of the race because he's a blatant cheat, you're going to say, "maybe a camera clicked." You can't have it both ways. This will never be proved, short of asking sprinters who just broke to submit to polygraphs, and I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, but I'd say that 90% of all breaks represent athletes who guessed incorrectly when the gun would be fired. Their intent (which we can't know) was dishonest. You don't agree? Prove that I'm wrong! In the mid 1960s, I sprinted for four years for CCNY. I started in hundreds of dashes. I was beaten out of the blocks ONCE in my career. I NEVER once false started -- ever. But then, some people understand that the technique of starting includes reaction time as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for executing an excellent start. Those who don't want to devote themselves to achieving this excellence do the next best thing to make up for their deficiency -- they cheat. And then, they whine like infants when the starter catches them and throws them out. Don Schlesinger
Re: t-and-f: new rules
In a message dated 3/21/2001 10:08:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I sprinted for four years for CCNY wow...real high tech sprinting...it's like saying, i sprinted for hunter.
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 3/21/01 6:33:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe that great sprinters will shine all the more brightly with a no false start rule. Will some great sprinter be eliminated by a false start at some major meet? Probably so. But it will be a rare event. The great sprinter will master competing under the no false start rule, because that is what champions do - they maximize themselves under the conditions given If I may, without getting bashed in the process. The problem is not adapting. I am sure every world class athlete can adapt. The problem, the argument, the debate, etc., is, the reason we they are changing the rules. The main reason they are changing the rules is to accommodate TV. THE PRINCE
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Having watched the best collegians operate with the no false start rule, I have to say that, at least for me, their skills and abilities are even more impressive under that compunction. Knowing that if someone goes early, that person will be eliminated, creates great drama. I know that these athletes are having to assume near perfect stillness and then with lightning reflexes unleash maximum velocity at the sound of the gun. The mental control demonstrated is impressive. For me, the sprint beomes more compelling. I believe that great sprinters will shine all the more brightly with a no false start rule. Will some great sprinter be eliminated by a false start at some major meet? Probably so. But it will be a rare event. The great sprinter will master competing under the no false start rule, because that is what champions do - they maximize themselves under the conditions given. If the collegians were reporting that such a rule makes competing very difficult, I would be against such a rule for open athletes. But I don't hear that from them. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian brings up a common misconception in this debate. Let's all be clear, EVERYONE, and I mean ALL, are trying to react as fast as possible. That includes anticipating the starter. The advantaged is gained by the person who did it the best, which is what competition and racing is all about! The premise of cheating is based upon the conclusion that someone is gaining an unfair advantage. When in fact no one is gaining an UNFAIR advantage because they all are attempting to do the same thing. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
RE: t-and-f: New rules
I can't win, so I am changing my name to: CCLANFS R. McEwen. Pronounced: Clan-fiss Ahr Mac-yew-ehn. Stands for: Couldn't Care Less About No False Start Rule. It was a JOKE, Conway. Since I am apparently the only evil-incarnate on the list I was making a little joke. If the Rule really is going into effect, shouldn't the ones among us who oppose it put effort into stopping it? Instead of debating how fast we could react to the gun, or a youth hockey test, or how corrupt judges are or some such stuff ... put your feelings in writing and tell someone who is making the decision. Write your senator or congressman or something, man. Really it was just a joke about sprinting. I will say though, that the sprints are won by sprinting, not starting. The Greek guy 200m winner (Kenteris? Kederis?) proved that. Sure, if you are both 9.90 guys on your average day at your peak, you need a great start to be the one to run 9.88 and beat the other 9.90 guys. Nothing too crazy about that. But, you can get a great start most of the time by reacting. I even said I don't like NFS. Conway, start to give me a break. -Original Message-From: Conway Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 6:08 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules Brian wrote: > >A lesson followed for the young mantis: > >Miyagi: MOST IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER DANIEL-SAN: Race only about who win, and >how fast time. Not about start. > >Daniel: Yeah... but if I really studied the starter and could anti... > >Miyagi: Uht, UHHT! Only practice REACTING to starter. Most important >thing. > >Daniel: But, Mr. Miyagi, if I cleanly anticipate the gun, I could get .05 >to .08 on the fiel... > >Miyagi: UHT, UHHT! Race begin when gun go off ... not before. Grasshopper >win race by REACTING to GUN, accelerate better than others, reach highest >top speed, and hold speed longest. > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, the guys in the All-Valley Edmonton Tournament >are tough. Practicing to learn the rhythm of a starter to get out before >everyone else could maybe get me through to the finals for the second tim... > >Miyagi: UHHHT, UHHHTT! Rocket start only get Daniel-san through first five >meters of race ... 95 meters of race left in exhibition! Maybe Daniel-san >concentrate on making up perceived disadvantage to better starters by >working on all 100 meters of exhibition. Not just FIRST five! Too much room >for DQ, if Daniel-san put all eggs in "anticipation" basket. Daniel-san >work to get great start, nine out of ten times, NOT GREATEST-EVER start one >out of ten times ... this alway make winner over many, many year exhibition. > > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, how am I going to beat the guys who are ACTUALLY >faster than me? > >Miyagi: Daniel-san , NOT GOING TO BEAT FASTER RACERS! Fastest runner most >time win exhibition, and get name on tournament cup most times over life ... > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi ... > >Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san ... try Miyagi way first and see what happen. > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi .. > >Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san! Miyagi's way work too well too argue point all >day. Should be spending time TRAIN! Miyagi way how Grasshopper Lewis >become Master Lewis. Grasshopper Lewis face Rocket-starting Mantis Warrior >from Northern Carribean Monastery. Sometime place 2nd. Still Grasshopper >Lewis keep eye on prize .. alway look EYES! Master Lewis triumph over >almost all Masters in many exhibition. Not worry about racing before gun go >off... worry about who first across finish line, NOT who first across >starting line. > > >Daniel: Mr. Miyagi, do you think they will institute the NFS rule before >the All-Valley Edmonton tournament? > >Miyagi: No. Too much at stake in Exhibition for fan. Only eight runner on >track, Edmonton Exhibition need all grasshopper at tournament to be success. >All Exhibition need all eight runner to be success. Without Master Greene >in Exhibition, evil monks at IAAF feel wrath of powerful HSI Monastery. > >No. Always two fall start allowed for grasshopper. Even one who can REACT >GUN in .1001 second. > >Now, back to important bisniss of Tournament. Training. Always training. > Cute story ... But even in the martial arts each grasshopper learns that he has to find the "system" that works best for him/her !!! What works for grashopper Lewis is not necessarily th
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Speaking about anticipating the gun, Darrel said: >The >premise of cheating is based upon the conclusion that someone is gaining an >unfair advantage. When in fact no one is gaining an UNFAIR advantage >because >they all are attempting to do the same thing. No, the premise of cheating is based upon somebody doing something that is prohibited by the rules, whether they all do it or not. By your reasoning, if all the runners in a race are on dope, and thus none of them has an unfair advantage based on the dope, that means doping is not cheating -- a notion I'm sure you'll disagree with. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Not trying to pick on you Brian ... Just trying to get you to understand that the start is more important than you seem to think it is ... Not that it is THE race ... But for some it is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the race ... Just as for some the finish is the most important part ... A: True 'nuff, my friend. To relate it to distance running, for some the penultimate lap is not important at all ... Because they know that they have the speed to contend over the final lap ... However for others it is important that they make their move 600 meters or even 800 meters out in order to have a chance against the big kickers ... Is no different in the sprints - which are under an even greater time crunch if you will ... The shorter sprinter that doesn't have the luxury of being able to open his stride and relax the same as a taller sprinter, is at the mercy of reaction, start, and trying to get ahead and hold off the fast finisher just as the distance runner who makes his move with 600 meters is trying to do ... A: This is all true ... but anticipating the gun IS NOTHING LIKE what is happening in the last 25% of a 3000m or the last 8% of a 1m. Anticipating ISN'T even varying your speed or effort. It doesn't even happen during the race. The tactics of changing-pace in a distance race happen just then ... IN THE RACE. I doubt you would say that extra early 200 meters for the distance runner is not a major part of HIS race would you ??? No because in many cases it is what determines the winner from the loser ... The same for the start of the 100 (and in some cases the 200) ... In races decided often by hundreths of a second you have ot try to shave them off where you can .. For some it is at the finish of the race ... For others the middle .. And for still others it is at the start ... A: The whole race determines the winner from the loser. Just as in the 100m. Concentrate on your whole race. The TOTAL package. IT DOES NOT mean you will win. But, being great at anticipating the gun should not be a MAJOR part of your success. Good-starting should be ONE of the parts of your success. That is why sprinters work on all phases during training ... To try to get better at them all ... And as far as "reacting" goes, you have ot be "anticipating" that something is going to occur in order to react to it optimally ... If you just sit there "waiting" to hear something you will get left every time ... You must be anticipating the occurance ... That makes for a very fine line ... Which is why I am totally against NFS .. A: Being "ready" for the gun to go off ... and anticipating it well enough that you can start very close to what the FS blocks allow are TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. I just DON'T see why anyone needs to publicly argue in support of anticipating the gun. I will never be in a 100m race at the level it will matter ... but I do wish they would allow ONE false start per athlete ... just for the guy that has something weird happen. That can happen to anyone. -Brian Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 03/21/2001 4:07:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the Rule really is going into effect, shouldn't the ones among us who oppose it put effort into stopping it? Instead of debating how fast we could react to the gun, or a youth hockey test, or how corrupt judges are or some such stuff ... put your feelings in writing and tell someone who is making the decision. This goes to show the bandwagoning that exist here. Brian and others go back and search the archives to the original post that began this hellish conversation. It was an attempt to get the opinions of folks, so a certain individual could write to those that it concerns. Pay attention next time you get in grown folks business Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Brian brings up a common misconception in this debate. Let's all be clear, EVERYONE, and I mean ALL, are trying to react as fast as possible. That includes anticipating the starter. The advantaged is gained by the person who did it the best, which is what competition and racing is all about! The premise of cheating is based upon the conclusion that someone is gaining an unfair advantage. When in fact no one is gaining an UNFAIR advantage because they all are attempting to do the same thing. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Brian wrote: >I can't win, so I am changing my name to: CCLANFS R. McEwen. >Pronounced: Clan-fiss Ahr Mac-yew-ehn. > >Stands for: Couldn't Care Less About No False Start Rule. > >It was a JOKE, Conway. Since I am apparently the only evil-incarnate on the >list I was making a little joke. > >If the Rule really is going into effect, shouldn't the ones among us who >oppose it put effort into stopping it? Instead of debating how fast we >could react to the gun, or a youth hockey test, or how corrupt judges are or >some such stuff ... put your feelings in writing and tell someone who is >making the decision. > >Write your senator or congressman or something, man. Really it was just a >joke about sprinting. I will say though, that the sprints are won by >sprinting, not starting. The Greek guy 200m winner (Kenteris? Kederis?) >proved that. > >Sure, if you are both 9.90 guys on your average day at your peak, you need a >great start to be the one to run 9.88 and beat the other 9.90 guys. Nothing >too crazy about that. But, you can get a great start most of the time by >reacting. > >I even said I don't like NFS. Conway, start to give me a break. > Not trying to pick on you Brian ... Just trying to get you to understand that the start is more important than you seem to think it is ... Not that it is THE race ... But for some it is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the race ... Just as for some the finish is the most important part ... To relate it to distance running, for some the penultimate lap is not important at all ... Because they know that they have the speed to contend over the final lap ... However for others it is important that they make their move 600 meters or even 800 meters out in order to have a chance against the big kickers ... Is no different in the sprints - which are under an even greater time crunch if you will ... The shorter sprinter that doesn't have the luxury of being able to open his stride and relax the same as a taller sprinter, is at the mercy of reaction, start, and trying to get ahead and hold off the fast finisher just as the distance runner who makes his move with 600 meters is trying to do ... I doubt you would say that extra early 200 meters for the distance runner is not a major part of HIS race would you ??? No because in many cases it is what determines the winner from the loser ... The same for the start of the 100 (and in some cases the 200) ... In races decided often by hundreths of a second you have ot try to shave them off where you can .. For some it is at the finish of the race ... For others the middle .. And for still others it is at the start ... That is why sprinters work on all phases during training ... To try to get better at them all ... And as far as "reacting" goes, you have ot be "anticipating" that something is going to occur in order to react to it optimally ... If you just sit there "waiting" to hear something you will get left every time ... You must be anticipating the occurance ... That makes for a very fine line ... Which is why I am totally against NFS .. Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Brian wrote: > >A lesson followed for the young mantis: > >Miyagi: MOST IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER DANIEL-SAN: Race only about who win, and >how fast time. Not about start. > >Daniel: Yeah... but if I really studied the starter and could anti... > >Miyagi: Uht, UHHT! Only practice REACTING to starter. Most important >thing. > >Daniel: But, Mr. Miyagi, if I cleanly anticipate the gun, I could get .05 >to .08 on the fiel... > >Miyagi: UHT, UHHT! Race begin when gun go off ... not before. Grasshopper >win race by REACTING to GUN, accelerate better than others, reach highest >top speed, and hold speed longest. > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, the guys in the All-Valley Edmonton Tournament >are tough. Practicing to learn the rhythm of a starter to get out before >everyone else could maybe get me through to the finals for the second tim... > >Miyagi: UHHHT, UHHHTT! Rocket start only get Daniel-san through first five >meters of race ... 95 meters of race left in exhibition! Maybe Daniel-san >concentrate on making up perceived disadvantage to better starters by >working on all 100 meters of exhibition. Not just FIRST five! Too much room >for DQ, if Daniel-san put all eggs in "anticipation" basket. Daniel-san >work to get great start, nine out of ten times, NOT GREATEST-EVER start one >out of ten times ... this alway make winner over many, many year exhibition. > > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, how am I going to beat the guys who are ACTUALLY >faster than me? > >Miyagi: Daniel-san , NOT GOING TO BEAT FASTER RACERS! Fastest runner most >time win exhibition, and get name on tournament cup most times over life ... > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi ... > >Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san ... try Miyagi way first and see what happen. > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi .. > >Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san! Miyagi's way work too well too argue point all >day. Should be spending time TRAIN! Miyagi way how Grasshopper Lewis >become Master Lewis. Grasshopper Lewis face Rocket-starting Mantis Warrior >from Northern Carribean Monastery. Sometime place 2nd. Still Grasshopper >Lewis keep eye on prize .. alway look EYES! Master Lewis triumph over >almost all Masters in many exhibition. Not worry about racing before gun go >off... worry about who first across finish line, NOT who first across >starting line. > > >Daniel: Mr. Miyagi, do you think they will institute the NFS rule before >the All-Valley Edmonton tournament? > >Miyagi: No. Too much at stake in Exhibition for fan. Only eight runner on >track, Edmonton Exhibition need all grasshopper at tournament to be success. >All Exhibition need all eight runner to be success. Without Master Greene >in Exhibition, evil monks at IAAF feel wrath of powerful HSI Monastery. > >No. Always two fall start allowed for grasshopper. Even one who can REACT >GUN in .1001 second. > >Now, back to important bisniss of Tournament. Training. Always training. > Cute story ... But even in the martial arts each grasshopper learns that he has to find the "system" that works best for him/her !!! What works for grashopper Lewis is not necessarily the same system that works best for grasshopper Cason or grasshopper Drummond ... This example worked well for grasshopper Lewis because he had long limbs and overall Speed = Rate (leg turnonver) X Distance (stride length) .. In reality grasshopper Lewis was never built/intended to be a fast starter so Miyagi worked on grasshopper Lewis' best attributes .. Once grasshopper Christie learned to better his start to combine with his strength HE became master over grasshopper Lewis ... Each one must work to his/her own strengths ... And for some the start is most important ... All cannot rely on same method, system or training becasue all are not the same ... Ask Michael Johnson ... If a very stiff Miyagi, as he has been portrayed, had been in charge of teaching MJ he would have had tolea! ve the sport before he got going because he was NEVER going ot fit into ANY classic sprinters mold ... And yet HE became totally dominant over grasshopper Lewis in the event that Lewis always swore he would break the world record in - the 200 meters ... And how did he do that ??? By mastering the start (first half) of the race Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: New rules
It was written on Monastery window when Daniel arrived: <<< Supposedly, sprinters who study the starter and learn to anticipate his rhythm have an unfair advantage over rivals who haven't mastered the art of anticipation. Presumably, then, sprinters that anticipate the gun are forgetting the real purpose of the race: it is not just to see who can get to the finish fastest, but instead who can *run* the fastest. (...) There are thousands of mental and physical techniques to master in a sprint race. >>> A lesson followed for the young mantis: Miyagi: MOST IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER DANIEL-SAN: Race only about who win, and how fast time. Not about start. Daniel: Yeah... but if I really studied the starter and could anti... Miyagi: Uht, UHHT! Only practice REACTING to starter. Most important thing. Daniel: But, Mr. Miyagi, if I cleanly anticipate the gun, I could get .05 to .08 on the fiel... Miyagi: UHT, UHHT! Race begin when gun go off ... not before. Grasshopper win race by REACTING to GUN, accelerate better than others, reach highest top speed, and hold speed longest. Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, the guys in the All-Valley Edmonton Tournament are tough. Practicing to learn the rhythm of a starter to get out before everyone else could maybe get me through to the finals for the second tim... Miyagi: UHHHT, UHHHTT! Rocket start only get Daniel-san through first five meters of race ... 95 meters of race left in exhibition! Maybe Daniel-san concentrate on making up perceived disadvantage to better starters by working on all 100 meters of exhibition. Not just FIRST five! Too much room for DQ, if Daniel-san put all eggs in "anticipation" basket. Daniel-san work to get great start, nine out of ten times, NOT GREATEST-EVER start one out of ten times ... this alway make winner over many, many year exhibition. Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, how am I going to beat the guys who are ACTUALLY faster than me? Miyagi: Daniel-san , NOT GOING TO BEAT FASTER RACERS! Fastest runner most time win exhibition, and get name on tournament cup most times over life ... Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi ... Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san ... try Miyagi way first and see what happen. Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi .. Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san! Miyagi's way work too well too argue point all day. Should be spending time TRAIN! Miyagi way how Grasshopper Lewis become Master Lewis. Grasshopper Lewis face Rocket-starting Mantis Warrior from Northern Carribean Monastery. Sometime place 2nd. Still Grasshopper Lewis keep eye on prize .. alway look EYES! Master Lewis triumph over almost all Masters in many exhibition. Not worry about racing before gun go off... worry about who first across finish line, NOT who first across starting line. Daniel: Mr. Miyagi, do you think they will institute the NFS rule before the All-Valley Edmonton tournament? Miyagi: No. Too much at stake in Exhibition for fan. Only eight runner on track, Edmonton Exhibition need all grasshopper at tournament to be success. All Exhibition need all eight runner to be success. Without Master Greene in Exhibition, evil monks at IAAF feel wrath of powerful HSI Monastery. No. Always two fall start allowed for grasshopper. Even one who can REACT GUN in .1001 second. Now, back to important bisniss of Tournament. Training. Always training. -Original Message- From: Adam G Beaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: X-Men (was: Reaction Time) Justin Clouder wrote: "So, far from being the ultimate reactor, [Armin Hary] was the ultimate anticipator. Or cheat, as I prefer to refer to sprinters who think that anticipating the gun is OK." All this discussion about reaction times has just convinced me more than ever that the legal limit on reaction time should be 0.000. If you go before the gun, you have false started; if you go even 0.001 after, you have not false started. The objection to this very literal interpretation of a false start is, of course, that it is cheating to anticipate the gun. Supposedly, sprinters who study the starter and learn to anticipate his rhythm have an unfair advantage over rivals who haven't mastered the art of anticipation. Presumably, then, sprinters that anticipate the gun are forgetting the real purpose of the race: it is not just to see who can get to the finish fastest, but instead who can *run* the fastest. Anticipating the gun is counter-productive to honest athletic competition. This argument is both false and hypocritical. Learning how to anticipate the gun is the mark of a cagey competitor, not a cheater. There are thousands of mental and physical techniques to master in a sprint race. We would fault a sprinter if his start technique involved standing bolt upright at the gun before running; we would also criticize him for foolishly splitting 20.0/27.0 in a 400 rather than 22.0/23.0. In fact, we would even
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Jon, I have no opinion on changing the false-start rule. I think it is fine the way it is. One of the hardest things I ever had to watch on TV, was them throwing out Christie in 1996. The other was screaming at the the TV in 1984, "Get up! GEETTT UUUPP! GET UP!" at Mary Decker in 1984. I don't want the rule changed ... And if you look through the couple messages ... nothing was said about starts, false, too fast , DQ's or otherwise. I told you that without fans, you have no money. That is all. I also suggested you look into turning the spellcheck on. It might help you in your search for work after track is over for you. And, BTW, if my "smarts arrived before me" THEN my intell-i-gence would prec-e-d-e me. Check into the spellcheck thing, it really works (it can wipe out some of that pesky "ignorace"). ... and they tell me that the chicks dig smart guys. CCL about that start rule, Brian McEwen -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 11:14 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules Brian, Your intellegence preceeds you. Here is something you don't know. Every athlete that is contracted knows and respect every fan that sits in the stadium. Where your ignorance shows is, you really believe that the false start rule should be changed to suit YOU the fan. I can not argue that people buy; therefore, I get paid, but don't even remotely think that my sport will die or I will not get paid if YOU/ BRIAN stop buying Nike. There are 4 billion people in the world, approximately 200 million people in the US, and about 3 million track and field fans. I think track will survive if YOU/BRIAN stop attending the meets. You said in your post, IF all the fans stop supporting track, I replied, WE would do something else. YOU said IF, So, I reserved to respond to your hypothetical statement with the same tone of ignorace. As for spell check, it really doesn't matter how accurate my spelling is because this is a message board, and I really believe that the point is more important than the spelling. Stick to the issues, which is false starts not spelling! PERIOD!!! THE PRINCE
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Brian, Maybe you should use the spellcheck thing your self. Sean --- "Mcewen, Brian T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No part of my massage was sarcastic. I was really > serious about the > spellcheck thing. It works. It will make you > appear much smarter. > > You said: > <<< > Get serious, our "big shoe deals, appearance fees, > and endorsements > contracts are based on performance, > not fan participation. The fans buy Nike, Gatorade > because of Michael > Jordon, I can't say I have seen Mo in any of those > commercials, and track > isn't on TV that often, thus why FANS complain, so > Maurice would still get > his money. > >>> > > In addition to it not being coherent, there is no > part of this idea that > is correct. Sure, your contract does not say that > you will get $ if you > can draw 15,000 fans to Nationals. But, you have a > contract AT ALL just > because of the marketability of track and its > athletes. > > I.E. Its marketability TO THE FANS AND FOLLOWERS. > > No FANS = no money for athletes. > > Show me that I am wrong about this, instead of just > writing the word > 'period' with a lot of exclamation points. > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 7:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules > > > No! YOU HAVE NO CLUE!! THERE WILL NEVER BE A > DAY WHEN FANS DON'T SHOW > UP TO A TRACK MEET!!! PERIOD!! > You are not the only one who can be sarcastic. > I have every clue what > > is going on in my sport, I am just not a slave to it > as you are trying to > make me. Without sponsors we would definately take > a financial hit, but if > you look at it from the true level which track and > field is on, WE'RE NOT > MAKING MONEY NOW, at least not our worth. As for the > fans, let's define the > word. FANATIC! You come in all forms. We can't get > you to come out to > track > meets now, let alone pay. So if we are depending on > you to show up so we > can > get paid, no wonder most track athletes are broke > LOL! >Like I said, the good thing about todays > track and field athlete, > most of us have other options; Therefore, if you the > fans decide not to > support, I am sure many athletes in track can make > their bed elsewhere. DID > > YOU GET THAT!! > Stick with the issues. If there is no one in > the race because of the > > new false starts rule, what do the fans get? I'll > tell you, NOTHING!! < > shaking my head lauging> > THE PRINCE!! > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Dear Brian, You said, in quite a nasty way, - "And who is Michael Jordon? Is he France's answer to America's Michael Jor-DAN? Don't say typos happen ... the "A" to the "O" is a lot of real estate. Best way to boost your perceived IQ: CHOOSE : Tools/Options/Spelling/ Check the "Always check spelling before sending" BOX. A number of points, 1. I never heard of Michael Jor-DAN. There is a great basketball player called Michael Jordan though.:)The "-DAN" to the "dan" is a lot of real estate. 2.Your perceived IQ would appear to be even worse than the guy who either made a typo or just spelled Jordan incorrectly, because I spell checked your email and the following spellings appear incorrect. Jor-DAN Mcewen Mo EURO-PEAN Mag 3. Your grammar also leaves a lot to be desired (as does mine. But its a bit rich of you to complain about someone elses spelling if your own spelling and grammar is so poor. Whats that saying about stones and glass houses? Lay off criticising (yes thats the correct spelling)typos or spelling errors. It does nothing to help your argument. Sean --- "Mcewen, Brian T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Clown prince opined: > >> > Get serious, our "big shoe deals, appearance fees, > and endorsements > contracts are based on performance, > not fan participation. The fans buy Nike, Gatorade > because of Michael > Jordon, I can't say I have seen Mo in any of those > commercials, and track > isn't on TV that often, thus why FANS complain, so > Maurice would still get > his money. > > >>> > > This seals it for me ... proof that some of the > people most involved in > track at the highest levels (the athletes) don't > have an IDEA ONE what is > really happening in the business of track. > > Your (as in YOU: Jon Drummond) contracts have > clauses with "performance > bonuses" in them if you are fortunate ... or really > GOOD. But, if there are > NO FANS ... then there are no fans to buy TAFNews, > no ad space purchased in > the mag, no buyers of $120 track spikes, and no > tickets/food and hotel space > sold at meets ...and no money for your corporate > sponsor to PAY THAT > PERFORMANCE BONUS. > > Without, as you say, "fan participation". ... NO > ... you are NOT GOING TO > BE PAID anymore ... The reason that someone like > Maurice makes as much as he > does is because of EURO-PEAN FANS. Lose them (like > you are steadily losing > the Americans) and you would __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 03/20/2001 12:15:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And THAT is why other sports, at least at the professional end, are willing to constantly consider ways of reinventing and repackaging themselves. Very well stated. And all that says you do not destroy the basics of the sport, you work at enhancing them. My point is that NFS does not enhance the sport, it borders on detracting from the sport. Contrary to what has been presented in the numerous post, the false start is not a questionable occurrence. The beep goes off in the starters ear, the runner is charged with a false start. Whether it was detectable by the human eye or not. It is completely electronic. What is being proposed is like outlawing the dunk in the NBA. No, it would not stop scoring, but it definitely detracts from the game. The NCAA tried it once, and it quickly corrected itself. For the sprinter to enhance the sport he must first and foremost run fast. You start tinkering with that, and you are working against yourself. We can rework, and reinvent, but not at the expense of the sport. There is a fine line. NFS is over the top. You watch this coming season, the GP II meets are destined to remain that because the times will not be there. Too many will sit in the blocks making sure there is no question. A side effect will be the abstinence of the stars that occasionally come to these meets. If we are discussing marketing, I am not seeing the research on behalf of the IAAF. Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Brian, Your intellegence preceeds you. Here is something you don't know. Every athlete that is contracted knows and respect every fan that sits in the stadium. Where your ignorance shows is, you really believe that the false start rule should be changed to suit YOU the fan. I can not argue that people buy; therefore, I get paid, but don't even remotely think that my sport will die or I will not get paid if YOU/ BRIAN stop buying Nike. There are 4 billion people in the world, approximately 200 million people in the US, and about 3 million track and field fans. I think track will survive if YOU/BRIAN stop attending the meets. You said in your post, IF all the fans stop supporting track, I replied, WE would do something else. YOU said IF, So, I reserved to respond to your hypothetical statement with the same tone of ignorace. As for spell check, it really doesn't matter how accurate my spelling is because this is a message board, and I really believe that the point is more important than the spelling. Stick to the issues, which is false starts not spelling! PERIOD!!! THE PRINCE
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 3/19/01 2:45:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << As I said before, what about starting stalls as used in horse racing. >> Such stalls were used many years ago at an indoor meet in NY (I've seen the footage!). Maybe someone like Ed Grant can provide the details. Walt Murphy
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 3/20/2001 8:43:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I.E. Its marketability TO THE FANS AND FOLLOWERS those fans are there with or without you...they are the high school kids who buy the shoes, etcand the collegiansand they'll always be there...
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 3/19/01 1:33:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Also, someone in the broadcast field explain to me why tape delayed broadcast contain false starts, if they are so detrimental to the timing? >> Darrell, As one who works on virtually every meet that appears on national TV, I can assure you that false starts don't exist in tape-delayed shows unless someone like a Mark Crear is dq'd. Walt Murphy
RE: t-and-f: New rules
No part of my massage was sarcastic. I was really serious about the spellcheck thing. It works. It will make you appear much smarter. You said: <<< Get serious, our "big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsements contracts are based on performance, not fan participation. The fans buy Nike, Gatorade because of Michael Jordon, I can't say I have seen Mo in any of those commercials, and track isn't on TV that often, thus why FANS complain, so Maurice would still get his money. >>> In addition to it not being coherent, there is no part of this idea that is correct. Sure, your contract does not say that you will get $ if you can draw 15,000 fans to Nationals. But, you have a contract AT ALL just because of the marketability of track and its athletes. I.E. Its marketability TO THE FANS AND FOLLOWERS. No FANS = no money for athletes. Show me that I am wrong about this, instead of just writing the word 'period' with a lot of exclamation points. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 7:55 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules No! YOU HAVE NO CLUE!! THERE WILL NEVER BE A DAY WHEN FANS DON'T SHOW UP TO A TRACK MEET!!! PERIOD!! You are not the only one who can be sarcastic. I have every clue what is going on in my sport, I am just not a slave to it as you are trying to make me. Without sponsors we would definately take a financial hit, but if you look at it from the true level which track and field is on, WE'RE NOT MAKING MONEY NOW, at least not our worth. As for the fans, let's define the word. FANATIC! You come in all forms. We can't get you to come out to track meets now, let alone pay. So if we are depending on you to show up so we can get paid, no wonder most track athletes are broke LOL! Like I said, the good thing about todays track and field athlete, most of us have other options; Therefore, if you the fans decide not to support, I am sure many athletes in track can make their bed elsewhere. DID YOU GET THAT!! Stick with the issues. If there is no one in the race because of the new false starts rule, what do the fans get? I'll tell you, NOTHING!! < shaking my head lauging> THE PRINCE!!
Re: t-and-f: New rules
No! YOU HAVE NO CLUE!! THERE WILL NEVER BE A DAY WHEN FANS DON'T SHOW UP TO A TRACK MEET!!! PERIOD!! You are not the only one who can be sarcastic. I have every clue what is going on in my sport, I am just not a slave to it as you are trying to make me. Without sponsors we would definately take a financial hit, but if you look at it from the true level which track and field is on, WE'RE NOT MAKING MONEY NOW, at least not our worth. As for the fans, let's define the word. FANATIC! You come in all forms. We can't get you to come out to track meets now, let alone pay. So if we are depending on you to show up so we can get paid, no wonder most track athletes are broke LOL! Like I said, the good thing about todays track and field athlete, most of us have other options; Therefore, if you the fans decide not to support, I am sure many athletes in track can make their bed elsewhere. DID YOU GET THAT!! Stick with the issues. If there is no one in the race because of the new false starts rule, what do the fans get? I'll tell you, NOTHING!! < shaking my head lauging> THE PRINCE!!
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Another logical gem:
<<<<<
MO gets compensated based on his high level of performance ... Period ...
Conway Hill
>>>>>
You mean like the world's best swimmers do?
Peter VanDenHoegenboom (Sp?) is one fast mo-fo in the water, but I doubt he
can afford a nice house in SoCal off of just his race winnings. Maybe he
does ad shoots or clothing promo. But he is NOT paid a ton of money just
because he can swim faster than anybody else ("performance ... Period ...")
Come on man, try to see what is being said, instead of what you want to hear
so you can defend it.
-Original Message-
From: Conway Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules
Kurt wrote:
>
>Get serious. We are not talking about some sort of government subsidy
>here.
> We are talking about profit-driven companies run by unsentimental
>businessmen. If track has zero paying fans you can be sure that shoe and
>other companies would spend zero dollars on the sport.
>
>Consider the economics of a sport that actually has essentially zero fans,
>let's say Modern Pentathlon or something like that. Do you seriously think
>that the top stars in Modern Pentathlon currently get all the same deals
>and
>dollars that Maurice does?
>
>If there were no paying track fans, you can be certain that Maurice and all
>the others connected with the sport beyond the college level would be
>forced
>to get day jobs.
>
Do you think the several thousand hard core track fans that religiously
attend meets are supporting the payments to the athletes through their (our)
purchases of tickets to domestic competitions ??? If so I have some swamp
land here in California I would love to sell you ... Meet organizers in
Europe gain enough revenue from their turnstiles to support the fees they
pay their athletes .. But there is not a meet in America that is supporting
payments to athletes through the turnstiles .. (and neither do the Europeans
in total) ... Just like in other pro sports like basketball and footbal,
stars get paid big bucks because they have name recognition and people want
to wear what they wear ... And that was the point the Prince was trying to
make ... MO gets the big bucks becasue he is the WR holder and has won 2 WCs
(3 counting the 200)and an Olympic gold) ... Not becasue you or I bought a
single ticket to any competition or sat our butts in the stands .. MO gets
compensated based on his high level of performance ... Period ...
Conway Hill
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: New rules
The Clown prince opined: >>>>>> Get serious, our "big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsements contracts are based on performance, not fan participation. The fans buy Nike, Gatorade because of Michael Jordon, I can't say I have seen Mo in any of those commercials, and track isn't on TV that often, thus why FANS complain, so Maurice would still get his money. >>>>>>> This seals it for me ... proof that some of the people most involved in track at the highest levels (the athletes) don't have an IDEA ONE what is really happening in the business of track. Your (as in YOU: Jon Drummond) contracts have clauses with "performance bonuses" in them if you are fortunate ... or really GOOD. But, if there are NO FANS ... then there are no fans to buy TAFNews, no ad space purchased in the mag, no buyers of $120 track spikes, and no tickets/food and hotel space sold at meets ...and no money for your corporate sponsor to PAY THAT PERFORMANCE BONUS. Without, as you say, "fan participation". ... NO ... you are NOT GOING TO BE PAID anymore ... The reason that someone like Maurice makes as much as he does is because of EURO-PEAN FANS. Lose them (like you are steadily losing the Americans) and you wouldn't have money for bus fare home. No FANS = no tickets at Euro meets No FANS = no advertising $$ at the meets No FANS = no advertising $$ during the telecast of the meet No FANS = no shoe and kit exposure to MILLIONS of fans watching throughout the world. No FANS = no promotional tie-ins with other Multi-million dollar products Money makes the track world go 'round ... not Gatorade ... but GATORADE DOLLARS. And who is Michael Jordon? Is he France's answer to America's Michael Jor-DAN? Don't say typos happen ... the "A" to the "O" is a lot of real estate. Best way to boost your perceived IQ: CHOOSE : Tools/Options/Spelling/ Check the "Always check spelling before sending" BOX. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules How convienient to call track a "pro sport" when the changes are against the athlete, but when changes are for the athlete we are called "amatuers and should do it for the love of the sport." >Why not? Why not change the rules to benefit the fans? The reason this particular rule shouldn't be changed to benefit the fans is because the fans sit directly behind and on the side of the starting line. They take pictures, talk, open food wrappers etc. during the start of many races, thus causing distractions. Sprinters/hurdlers are trained to react to the first sound they hear. There are many fans out there who intentionally make noise at the starting line just to see if they can cause a false start. While you may think this is untrue, just listen to the sudden noises when the athletes come to set. >If all the track fans in the world somehow disappeared next Monday, all of >Maurice Greene's big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsement contracts >would be gone by Thursday. LOL I agree with one point, fans are somehow disapearing, but it's not due to false starts, secondly, Maurice Greene would just play football if all of the fans stopped watching track LOL. Get serious, our "big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsements contracts are based on performance, not fan participation. The fans buy Nike, Gatorade because of Michael Jordon, I can't say I have seen Mo in any of those commercials, and track isn't on TV that often, thus why FANS complain, so Maurice would still get his money. >And in any event, it's not the pleasing fans, per se, that I'm interested >in - it's improving the sport. And improving the sport is what the proposed >false start rule seeks to do - that's why I favor it. > If your interest is in pleasing the sport, then you should be against this rule. The two false start rule was put in place for a reason. It is to make for a fair race rather than a fixed one. While everyone thinks the athletes are the ones who cheat, here is a thought in the pan, DO STARTERS AND JUDGES CHEAT? H!!
Re: t-and-f: New rules
>Get serious, our "big shoe deals, appearance fees, and >endorsements contracts are based on performance, >not fan participation. That's ridiculous. Corporate CEO's, and by extension their marketing departments (who decide who to pay how much), are concerned with bottom line (earnings) and answering to stockholders through the Board of Directors, who want to know what is being done to enhance shareholder value. In other words, is the stock price trending upward or downward? Therefore, as head of Marketing, I could care less (well, not as much you'd think, unless I also happen to be a basketball fan or track fan) whether Michael scores 75 points, or whether MG sprints a 9.62. Those data blips are just one of many, many factors taken into account. I only want to see the corrolation of how the combination of performance and persona relates to sales. (i.e. persona like boxer Oscar de la Hoya that scores high with the public can offset performance, and low persona scores like the 4x100 relay stuff can also offset performance (in a negative way). But it all boils down to corrolation to revenues for the corporation. People like Amy Acuff, Merlene Ottey and Anna Kournikova (tennis) might be able to command more in endorsement deals than the #1 ranked person in their event/sport, because they bring more to the table. But they probably have to be in the top-ten rankings to get a foot in the door to begin with. Yes, there are performance incentives for records (like WR's) in many contracts, but I'll bet you that Merlene or Amy could command more for a WR than many other people in the top ten, when it comes to negotiating terms into a contract. It's not one-size-fits all. At the elite end of track and field, ticket purchase and merchandise purchase drives everything. No ticket sales equals meet cancellation and loss of any earning power at all for the athletes. Performances- and "packaging" of those performances- only serve to enhance ticket sales and merchandise sales. Anything that DETRACTS from ticket sales and merchandise sales is an encumbrance. If you want to be a professional, you have to recognize that you get paid for enhancing what the 'engine' is producing, you don't get paid for detracting. You want a slice of the pie, you have to help provide value-added ingredients to get the pie baked. And THAT is why other sports, at least at the professional end, are willing to constantly consider ways of reinventing and repackaging themselves. RT
Re: t-and-f: New rules
>... Just like in other pro sports like basketball and footbal, stars get >paid big bucks because they have name recognition and people want to wear >what they wear ... Exactly. And how is it that track stars have name recognition? Because people actually follow the sport, that's why. >And that was the point the Prince was trying to make ... MO gets the big >bucks becasue he is the WR holder and has won 2 WCs (3 counting the 200)and >an Olympic gold) ... Not becasue you or I bought a single ticket to any >competition or sat our butts in the stands .. MO gets compensated based on >his high level of performance ... Period ... Yeah, and the Modern Pentathlon guys perform at a high level too. They have Olympic gold medallists and WR holders in their sport too, but since they lack they key ingredient of paying fans, there is no money forthcoming from sjoe companies or anyone else. And I said in my original post that it is more than track meet tickets that the fans buy. It's the sport drinks, the power bars, the shoes, the clothes, etc. Track ties in with the huge fitness/jogging crowd for much of its merchandise marketing power. If those people didn't care about track stars and pay to be like them, we'd be in Modern Pentathlon-Land. So anything we can do to keep all those people interested in track, such as put on fan-friendly track meets, will be to the economic benefit of the sport. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Kurt wrote: > >Get serious. We are not talking about some sort of government subsidy >here. > We are talking about profit-driven companies run by unsentimental >businessmen. If track has zero paying fans you can be sure that shoe and >other companies would spend zero dollars on the sport. > >Consider the economics of a sport that actually has essentially zero fans, >let's say Modern Pentathlon or something like that. Do you seriously think >that the top stars in Modern Pentathlon currently get all the same deals >and >dollars that Maurice does? > >If there were no paying track fans, you can be certain that Maurice and all >the others connected with the sport beyond the college level would be >forced >to get day jobs. > Do you think the several thousand hard core track fans that religiously attend meets are supporting the payments to the athletes through their (our) purchases of tickets to domestic competitions ??? If so I have some swamp land here in California I would love to sell you ... Meet organizers in Europe gain enough revenue from their turnstiles to support the fees they pay their athletes .. But there is not a meet in America that is supporting payments to athletes through the turnstiles .. (and neither do the Europeans in total) ... Just like in other pro sports like basketball and footbal, stars get paid big bucks because they have name recognition and people want to wear what they wear ... And that was the point the Prince was trying to make ... MO gets the big bucks becasue he is the WR holder and has won 2 WCs (3 counting the 200)and an Olympic gold) ... Not becasue you or I bought a single ticket to any competition or sat our butts in the stands .. MO gets compensated based on his high level of performance ... Period ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
> on 20/3/01 5:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > A misconception. They did not sit because they were NCAA trained. Most of > eh people in major finals are NCAA trained, no matter what country they are > from. Darrell The final under discussion is the 60m from Lisbon. So how many of the seven athletes below who participated have taken part in NCAA championships? Harden Tim USA Montgomery Tim USA Lewis-Francis Mark GBR Mayola Freddy CUB Shirvington Matthew AUS Göbel Tim GER Theodorídis Yeóryios GRE My guess is two, three at most. Am I wrong? Randall Northam
Re: t-and-f: New rules
The Prince writes: >LOL I agree with one point, fans are somehow disapearing, but it's >not due to false starts, secondly, Maurice Greene would just play football >if >all of the fans stopped watching track LOL. I agree. If there were no track fans Maurice would definitely have to switch to a sport such as football where there are fans. >Get serious, our "big shoe >deals, appearance fees, and endorsements contracts are based on >performance, >not fan participation. The fans buy Nike, Gatorade because of Michael >Jordon, I can't say I have seen Mo in any of those commercials, and track >isn't on TV that often, thus why FANS complain, so Maurice would still get >his money. Get serious. We are not talking about some sort of government subsidy here. We are talking about profit-driven companies run by unsentimental businessmen. If track has zero paying fans you can be sure that shoe and other companies would spend zero dollars on the sport. Consider the economics of a sport that actually has essentially zero fans, let's say Modern Pentathlon or something like that. Do you seriously think that the top stars in Modern Pentathlon currently get all the same deals and dollars that Maurice does? If there were no paying track fans, you can be certain that Maurice and all the others connected with the sport beyond the college level would be forced to get day jobs. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: New rules
>Why not? Why not change the rules to benefit the fans? People seem to >forget that in pro track it is the ticket-buying, Nike-wearing, >Gatorade-drinking, Powerbar-eating, TV-watching FANS that, either directly >or indirectly, fund the entire enterprise. > >If all the track fans in the world somehow disappeared next Monday, all of >Maurice Greene's big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsement contracts >would be gone by Thursday. He could still train just as hard and run world >record sprint times if he wanted to, but without fans he'd simply be doing >it in obscurity and poverty. > >And in any event, it's not the pleasing fans, per se, that I'm interested >in - it's improving the sport. And improving the sport is what the proposed >false start rule seeks to do - that's why I favor it. > You say that its all about the fans and I agree but I can also say that I have NEVER heard a casual fan, or a sprint oriented fan complain about a false start. The only time that I have heard a die hard fan complain is when there were about 4 of more in one given race and that's not common. If your doing this for the fans, then you better find a way to keep in the sprinters. I your trying to gain a new fan, they come to watch Marion run but she's thrown out because of a FS. You might not see that fan again. Just as you said about the fans leaving and Mo losing his endorsements, You keep eliminating your sprinters and watch the attendance fall, sponsors pull out (what little we have). etc. If a meet is not about star power (for the FANS) than I wonder why the IAAF instituted the wild card rule at the WC in the first place? The FS can be modified but "one and your gone" is not the answer. DMC "Don't approach a goat from the front, a horse from the back, or a fool from any side."
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:10:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Most of teh people in major finals are NCAA trained, no matter what country they are from.>> certainly wasn't the situation in Lisbon,w hich was the case in point with Harden and Montgomery. It's conceivable (even if not likely) that among Lewis-Francis, Mayola, Shirvington, Goebel, Theordoridis and Aliu none have ever even set foot on American soil! gh
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Conway writes: >And as of yet no one has shown where changing >the false start rule will benefit the athlete .. And the only benefit being >tossed about for the fan is a cut down in time ... And when that is >mentioned it is said as if there is soo much time being lost at track >meets due to false starts ... Can anyone give me a realistic time savings >to >a meet based on excessive false starts .. A real (has been messured) >quantitative value ??? One that would neccesitate that SOMETHING BE DONE so >that we don't keep dragging these meets on like this . Funny you should ask. Because you don't have to look any farther than last week's Indoor World Champs in Lisbon to find an example of how false starts can make a mess of a meet. List memeber Bob Hersh was at the meet Lisbon of course, and he sent me this account yesterday. I post it to the entire list with his permission: Message text written by "Kurt Bray" >Right, and I think you will agree that an overly-long meet running behind >schedule and riddled with false starts is a low quality product. < You should have been in Lisbon. The false starts were deadly. The meet ran as much as a half hour behind at one point and there was nothing we could do about it. Interestingly enough, in the men's 60, in the final alone there were three false starts charged to I think four different runners (one of whom was DQ'ed) before they got a clean one. Harden and Montgomery, the two NCAA-trained sprinters, sat patiently in their blocks, were not charged with any false starts, and while everyone else was playing these games, they just did what they were supposed to do. They might have won the gold and silver anyway, but I had the impression that their abstention from the beat-the-gun-if-you-can business gave them a mental edge when it mattered. Bob H _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
How convienient to call track a "pro sport" when the changes are against the athlete, but when changes are for the athlete we are called "amatuers and should do it for the love of the sport." >Why not? Why not change the rules to benefit the fans? The reason this particular rule shouldn't be changed to benefit the fans is because the fans sit directly behind and on the side of the starting line. They take pictures, talk, open food wrappers etc. during the start of many races, thus causing distractions. Sprinters/hurdlers are trained to react to the first sound they hear. There are many fans out there who intentionally make noise at the starting line just to see if they can cause a false start. While you may think this is untrue, just listen to the sudden noises when the athletes come to set. >If all the track fans in the world somehow disappeared next Monday, all of >Maurice Greene's big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsement contracts >would be gone by Thursday. LOL I agree with one point, fans are somehow disapearing, but it's not due to false starts, secondly, Maurice Greene would just play football if all of the fans stopped watching track LOL. Get serious, our "big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsements contracts are based on performance, not fan participation. The fans buy Nike, Gatorade because of Michael Jordon, I can't say I have seen Mo in any of those commercials, and track isn't on TV that often, thus why FANS complain, so Maurice would still get his money. >And in any event, it's not the pleasing fans, per se, that I'm interested >in - it's improving the sport. And improving the sport is what the proposed >false start rule seeks to do - that's why I favor it. > If your interest is in pleasing the sport, then you should be against this rule. The two false start rule was put in place for a reason. It is to make for a fair race rather than a fixed one. While everyone thinks the athletes are the ones who cheat, here is a thought in the pan, DO STARTERS AND JUDGES CHEAT? H!!
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 03/20/2001 7:35:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Harden and Montgomery, the two NCAA-trained sprinters, sat patiently in their blocks, were not charged with any false starts, and while everyone else was playing these games, they just did what they were supposed to do. They might have won the gold and silver anyway, but I had the impression that their abstention from the beat-the-gun-if-you-can business gave them a mental edge when it mattered. A misconception. They did not sit because they were NCAA trained. Most of eh people in major finals are NCAA trained, no matter what country they are from. The difference is confidence. It is not a game they are playing, it is survival. If you are in the blocks with the best the world has to offer, you are going to be nervous, and you are going to try and get out. It is a sprinters mentality. You will not change that at the elite level. This is not college, and we are talking about amateur athletics. These are the best, and they are separated by thousandths, not tenths. They earn money at this. When you were in college and your report was due, you secretly had a choice. If you did not turn it in, you could make up for it on a test, or on another report. When you got a job, that option is gone. You get the report done or risk losing your job. A different set of rules now apply. A different level of pressure. Same thing for those sprinters you see out there. HS or collegiate jumps out of a race, what is the cost to him? Essentially nothing, a little pride. A professional jumps out, money, medals, money, championships, the once in a life time chance to run in an Olympic final. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: New rules
GH wrote: ><< Harden and Montgomery, the two NCAA-trained sprinters, sat patiently in >their blocks, were not charged with any false starts, and while everyone >else was playing these games, they just did what they were supposed to do. >They might have won the gold and silver anyway, but I had the impression >that their abstention from the beat-the-gun-if-you-can business gave them a >mental edge when it mattered.>> > >Harden confirmed this in the post-race interview aired as part of the ESPN >telecast. To paraphrase, he said, "I don't know what those guys were >thinking. You can't beat the blocks. It worked out to my advantage." > I would agree that Harden and Montgomery were better prepared for the false start situation .. The question is was it the NCAA rule itself or the subsequent training that prepared them ?? And the answer is the training ... Which is just an indication that the athletes need to be better trained in the art of starting, not change the rules to penalize them for the mistake ... The key here is coaching not rule making ... Now I am sure that you will argue that it was the change in rules that was the impetus for the change in coaching and in this case that may have been true .. But in so doing the change in coaching has shown the benefit (yes I will agree that a benefit has been shown in this case)that others can either incorporate and utilize to their benefit or choose to ignore .. A further changing of the rules at the elite level will provide no further inducement UNLESS several athletes are lost to major finals because of false starts ... I can tell you that if there ever was an inducement to do so it would have been Christie's DQ in the Olympic final .. The biggest race of them all .. But it hasn't changed anything ... Why ?? Because contrary to popular belief most false starts are the result of things such as nerves ... Heightened sensitivity to noises whereby sprinters often react to ANY noise that they hear ... Movement along the line as an athlete will see a flinch or other movement of a fellow athlete and react to it ... Obviously the clicking cmamera noises of the media whom we so want to attend our meets ... Block slippage ... And a mirad of other little things that happen to sprinters who wait to perform their 10 to 20 seconds of activity ... So tell me why you want to punish someone for an accident ??? Or how you separate accidental false start from "I'm trying to gain an advantage" false start ?? See in almost every other event you get the chance to make up for your mistakes .. Distance races there is always another lap (unless it is the bell lap) ... Field events you get to try again and again ... YOu can take another attempt ... Have another run up ... But you want to take the athletes who spend the LEAST amount of time on the stage and tell them YOU HAVE TO BE PERFECT ... First time ... Every time .. If not you don't even get to compete ... OK so let't take the high jumpers and pole vaulters and tell them pick your height .. Any height .. And take one attempt .. Period .. Hope you make it .. Its your one shot .. OR the throwers and jumpers to take just one .. And that is what you will be measured on ... Or olets make all distance races devil take the hindmost ... You have a bad lap and you're out buddy ... Because essentially that is what ya'll want to do to sprinters ... No mistakes allowed .. You blow it get off the track and try again another day ... Now I've seen a lot of posting talking about cheating and fairness ... You tell me where the fairness is in that .. At least with the rule the way it is if you blow it once you get a break, but do it twice and shame on you ... And still we don't allow them to compete .. Heck in the distances even if someone gets caught up and falls before they get around the first turn good the race can be called back so they can try again and have a good start ... And if you're talking about the fans when was the last time a meet was hyped to get the fans to attend using a cadre of distance runners ??? But even the casual fan can spit out the names of Maurice Greene, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Marion Jones, FloJo .. Heck even Ben JOhnson bless his soul ... And your big money makers on the circuit at who ??? Sprinters ... Why ?? Because around the WORLD they are the show ... Like it or not ... So you need to look for ways to get em to your meet ... And then try to keep em on the track when you get them there .. Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Conway writes: >And as of yet no one has shown where changing >the false start rule will benefit the athlete .. And the only benefit being >tossed about for the fan is a cut down in time ... And when that is >mentioned it is said as if there is soo much time being lost at track >meets due to false starts ... Can anyone give me a realistic time savings >to >a meet based on excessive false starts .. A real (has been messured) >quantitative value ??? One that would neccesitate that SOMETHING BE DONE so >that we don't keep dragging these meets on like this . Funny you should ask. Because you don't have to look any farther than last week's Indoor World Champs in Lisbon to find an example of how false starts can make a mess of a meet. List memeber Bob Hersh was at the meet Lisbon of course, and he sent me this account yesterday. I post it to the entire list with his permission: Message text written by "Kurt Bray" >Right, and I think you will agree that an overly-long meet running behind >schedule and riddled with false starts is a low quality product. < You should have been in Lisbon. The false starts were deadly. The meet ran as much as a half hour behind at one point and there was nothing we could do about it. Interestingly enough, in the men's 60, in the final alone there were three false starts charged to I think four different runners (one of whom was DQ'ed) before they got a clean one. Harden and Montgomery, the two NCAA-trained sprinters, sat patiently in their blocks, were not charged with any false starts, and while everyone else was playing these games, they just did what they were supposed to do. They might have won the gold and silver anyway, but I had the impression that their abstention from the beat-the-gun-if-you-can business gave them a mental edge when it mattered. Bob H _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:35:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted Bob Hersh: << Harden and Montgomery, the two NCAA-trained sprinters, sat patiently in their blocks, were not charged with any false starts, and while everyone else was playing these games, they just did what they were supposed to do. They might have won the gold and silver anyway, but I had the impression that their abstention from the beat-the-gun-if-you-can business gave them a mental edge when it mattered.>> Harden confirmed this in the post-race interview aired as part of the ESPN telecast. To paraphrase, he said, "I don't know what those guys were thinking. You can't beat the blocks. It worked out to my advantage." gh
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Conway writes: >And as of yet no one has shown where changing >the false start rule will benefit the athlete .. And the only benefit being >tossed about for the fan is a cut down in time ... And when that is >mentioned it is said as if there is soo much time being lost at track >meets due to false starts ... Can anyone give me a realistic time savings >to >a meet based on excessive false starts .. A real (has been messured) >quantitative value ??? One that would neccesitate that SOMETHING BE DONE so >that we don't keep dragging these meets on like this . Funny you should ask. Because you don't have to look any farther than last week's Indoor World Champs in Lisbon to find an example of how false starts can make a mess of a meet. List memeber Bob Hersh was at the meet Lisbon of course, and he sent me this account yesterday. I post it to the entire list with his permission: Message text written by "Kurt Bray" >Right, and I think you will agree that an overly-long meet running behind >schedule and riddled with false starts is a low quality product. < You should have been in Lisbon. The false starts were deadly. The meet ran as much as a half hour behind at one point and there was nothing we could do about it. Interestingly enough, in the men's 60, in the final alone there were three false starts charged to I think four different runners (one of whom was DQ'ed) before they got a clean one. Harden and Montgomery, the two NCAA-trained sprinters, sat patiently in their blocks, were not charged with any false starts, and while everyone else was playing these games, they just did what they were supposed to do. They might have won the gold and silver anyway, but I had the impression that their abstention from the beat-the-gun-if-you-can business gave them a mental edge when it mattered. Bob H _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 3/20/01 8:36:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Can anyone give me a realistic time savings to >a meet based on excessive false starts It's not the loss of time, but rather attention and interest. After about the third false starts the feeling begins to permeate the stands of, "who cares who wins, just get the damn race started." One point I do agree w/ Darrell on: why show false starts on tape delay broadcast? Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Kurt wrote: >Why not? Why not change the rules to benefit the fans? People seem to >forget that in pro track it is the ticket-buying, Nike-wearing, >Gatorade-drinking, Powerbar-eating, TV-watching FANS that, either directly >or indirectly, fund the entire enterprise. > >If all the track fans in the world somehow disappeared next Monday, all of >Maurice Greene's big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsement contracts >would be gone by Thursday. He could still train just as hard and run world >record sprint times if he wanted to, but without fans he'd simply be doing >it in obscurity and poverty. > >And in any event, it's not the pleasing fans, per se, that I'm interested >in - it's improving the sport. And improving the sport is what the proposed >false start rule seeks to do - that's why I favor it. > I am all for pleasing the fans where possible ... And for improving the sport .. But I do not think that the place to start to make changes for the sake of pleasing the fan is on the track/field tinkering with the events themselves ... There are all sorts of ways to makes structural changes within the meet itself to accomodate the fans ... There are two populations that we are talking about here .. The fans AND the competitors ... We could do all sorts of things to the athletes to make it better for the fans .. We could make lighter shot puts .. Springier runways ... All sorts of artificial things for the sake of the fans .. Doesn't benefit the athletes or the competition however .. And as of yet no one has shown where changing the false start rule will benefit the athlete .. And the only benefit being tossed about for the fan is a cut down in time ... And when that is mentioned it is said as if there is soo much time being lost at track meets due to false starts ... Can anyone give me a realistic time savings to a meet based on excessive false starts .. A real (has been messured) quantitative value ??? One that would neccesitate that SOMETHING BE DONE so that we don't keep dragging these meets on like this ... Not some "well false starts make track meets run too long so lets change the false start rule" ... Then you could show a true benefit to somebody ... But this knee jerk we don't llike sprinters to anticipate the gun and they make meets run too long is more of a preference and basically from non sprint oriented individuals .. Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Netters Ed wrote > PS: I cannot agree that all false starts are "unsportsmanlike > conduct." Certainly there have been runners, past and present, who > have used them in a suspicious manner, but there are ceratinly times > when nervousness (yes, even in experienced runners) can be rhe > cause. We must remember that, unlike almost every other sport I can > think of, ours is the only one which has just one penalty: capital > punishment. Say Ed didn'tyou slam walking for these very reason just a while back or am I mistaken on the that?
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 03/19/2001 11:26:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At least if they're the touchy things that were in evidence in Seville. Now THAT could lead to some gruesome DQs. You bring back a terrible memory, Garry. Everyone remember the debacle that was Goteberg '95? It was the first time they used the sensor blocks, and false starts were being called on athletes that moved their feet in the blocks. It was horrible, and had nothing to do with the athletes trying to anticipate. To this day, I do not know what Tony Jarrett did to garner his second false start. But you are right Garry, it could lead to a whole lot of controversy over the RT, and sensors. Too much on the line these days. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
t-and-f: New rules
Netters: Two comments on the suggested rule changes 1) In regards to new structure for field events, the best thing would be to leave the present standards in place, but with a new proviso that the games committee may make any changes it wishes for a particular meet. 2) With regard to the "no falase start" rules, two things: a) It should apply only to three part starts--i.e., those in which IAAF rules already insist that all runners go "to their marks." False starts are quite obviously of little or no advantage in longer races. That should be the way the HS and college rules read, but don't, unfortunately.(There have actually been false start d/qs in HS cross-country races.) b) And let us remember TS Eliot's warning "And this at last is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for for wrong reason." The change may or may not be the "right thing." but doing it in the hopeless chase after better TV ratings (in the USA) is certainly the wrong reason. Ed Grant PS: I cannot agree that all false starts are "unsportsmanlike conduct." Certainly there have been runners, past and present, who have used them in a suspicious manner, but there are ceratinly times when nervousness (yes, even in experienced runners) can be rhe cause. We must remember that, unlike almost every other sport I can think of, ours is the only one which has just one penalty: capital punishment.
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Conway says: >Thank you for the defense .. That was exactly my intent ... Those benefits >as named are all secondary ... I am referring to the benefit to the >athletes directly ... I am not sure that we should get into the game of >changing the rules to benefit the fans<<< Why not? Why not change the rules to benefit the fans? People seem to forget that in pro track it is the ticket-buying, Nike-wearing, Gatorade-drinking, Powerbar-eating, TV-watching FANS that, either directly or indirectly, fund the entire enterprise. If all the track fans in the world somehow disappeared next Monday, all of Maurice Greene's big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsement contracts would be gone by Thursday. He could still train just as hard and run world record sprint times if he wanted to, but without fans he'd simply be doing it in obscurity and poverty. And in any event, it's not the pleasing fans, per se, that I'm interested in - it's improving the sport. And improving the sport is what the proposed false start rule seeks to do - that's why I favor it. Pleasing the fans and making meets more TV-friendly are very likely good ideas. People bewail the state of the sport, but as soon as someone tries to do something to fix it, traditionalists and purists are all aghast: "We've always allowed false starts at big meets. If we ban them now things will be...well, DIFFERENT!" Well, maybe a little different is what we need. >Yeah right ... IN seriousness ... The fans will come to see a quality >product .. The rules should be made so that the athletes can compete >maximally thereby providing a quality product<<< Right, and I think you will agree that an overly-long meet running behind schedule and riddled with false starts is a low quality product. Stamping out false starts will not cure all of tracks ills, but it is a step in the right direction. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Conway opined: <<<<<<Case in point, There have been few additions to the all time high school sprint lists since the one false start rule ... The lists are dominated by athletes from the 80's (with a few lingering 70's names) ... And collegiate sprint times have fairly mired as well save for the occasional super star that emerges >>>>>>> The same situation exists with ALL HIGH SCHOOL EVENTS ... and ALL College EVENTS. only one or two people have cracked the all-time HS top-ten in and 2-Mile ... and that has nothing to do with the starting procedures. -Original Message-From: Conway Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; t-and-f_1Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules Steve wrote: I recall when first colleges and then high schools changed over to the one false start rule. Coaches saw this as some sort of apocolypse and thought it would totally ruin the sprints and hurdles. Needless to say, it didn't happen that way at all. Athletes, fans, and coaches all take it for granted by this time that one false start means disqualification and it isn't even a topic of discussion any more. >>>>> Maybe there was an apocolypse and no one noticed ... Case in point, There have been few additions to the all time high school sprint lists since the one false start rule ... The lists are dominated by athletes from the 80's (with a few lingering 70's names) ... And collegiate sprint times have failry mired as well save for the occasional super star that emerges ... So yes everyone has gotten used to "sitting there", but does that mean it has made the sport any better ... Everyone seems hung up on "making the meet run faster" ... Just what are we talking about here ... maybe 2 or three fewer false starts per meet ??? How much time is that ??? Maybe 10 minutes ... Then if you are going to try to come up with some rules to speed up the meet you better come up with a whole lot more than just the one Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Dave wrote: I can't let this slippery bit of logic get by without stickingup for Conway. He means that he can't think of a single DIRECTbenefit to the athletes. Everything Bray mentions is a secondaryor derived benefit. I think the original intent of Conway'sstatement was quite clear.>>> Thank you for the defense .. That was exactly my intent ... Those benefits as named are all secondary ... I am refering to the benefit to the athletes directly ... I am not sure that we should get into the game of changing the rules to benefit the fans ... That type of logic has turned professional basketball into a slow, predictable game adn professional football into Parity City ... If you want to chagne the rules to benefit the fans then lets start witha clean slate of world records (said tongue in cheek) ... Then you would have total excitement as record breaking would be rampant bringing millions of new fans through the turn stiles ... Yeah right ... IN seriousness ... The fans will come to see a quality product .. The rules should be made so that the athletes can compete maximally thereby providing a quality product .. Try to regulate the time of the running of the meet itself through rules aimed at the athletes has not worked in sports like baseball and football nor will it make a better product for track and field ... AS I have said umpteen times on this list you want to put fannies in the seats make sure your top performers are on the track/field ... People will come and they will stay and watch even if you do have half a dozen false starts ... I didn't see anyone leaving the stadium in Atlanta because of a few false starts ... And while some athletes reacted negatively to it I seem to remember medals being awarded for times of 9.84 (wr), 9.89, and 9.90 the fastest medal finish in history Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Phil wrote: Conway listed the ways athletes can "cheat":>Why ?? Because an athlete is trying to get an advantage over those he/sheis competing >against ??They do that in training. > It is also done during competitions ... Why do you think distance runners who are clearly superior sit back and lay on someone's shoulder waiting to pounce ... Or the superoir pole vaulter passing strategically during the competition ... It's not all done in training ... There are things that are done during the course of competition ... >Is it unsportsmanlike for a basketball player to commit a legal, hard foulto gain an >air of intimidation in the lane ??It's not legal - it's a foul. Duuh. The opposition gets an advantage fromyour committing it.And it is unsportsmanlike - hard enough, and it draws a technical. It'sbasically chicken-s**t behavior that the athlete gets away with by maskingit as an unintentional foul. > Duh, I know its a foul I called it as such in MY post ... And I said legal NOT hard enough to draw a technical ... ANd while the opposition get the free throw they are also mentally looking for such other occurances to happen so there is benefit to the athlete committing the foul ... THAT's why its done ... DUH And if its chicken shit then the entire league is chicken shit since its done by every team during the course of every game ... But then purhaps you are not understanding the intracacies of sports and just would like to see them played in the purest form possible ... Everything by the book, rule by rule, no improvisiation, no deviation ... Which means there never would have been a Michael Jordan ... Nor Michael Johnson ... And definitely no Edwin Moses >Or for a linebacker in football to lay an incredibly hard hit on a runningback the >first time he breaks through the line ??That's not cheating. That's what football is about. And trying to gain a minuscule edge is what sprinting is all about !>What is wrong with a sprinter trying to gain every fraction of a second hecan in a >race ??Gain a fraction of a second by responding - good.Gain a fraction of a second by anticipating - cheating. > So tell me, was Armin Hary a cheater ??? How about Valeri Borzov ... Or maybe Mel Pender ... Was at a camp with Pender when I was younger and was told to pay attention to the starter ... Listen to his cadence .. Try to learn it .. Learn to anticipate it ... And this is something that thousands of sprinters are taught to do ... So are they all learning to be cheaters ??? Are all those coaches terrible terrible people who are raising a race of cheating sprinters to leash upon an unsuspecting public >How about something more like fear and "this is my only hope" !Well - they could always lay "an incredibly hard hit" on Mo or Carl or MJas the other one is getting into their blocks. That would certainly givethem an edge!Oh yeah - it would be cheating. And cheating is unsportsmanlike. Now THAT was smart ... Comparing apples to oranges ... I thought we were trying to have an intelligent conversation here >Unsportsmanlike would be if they could break early and NOT be called back...That's exactly what an athlete is trying to do by anticipation. And youknow what - they can still try it - just the penalty for a mistake becomeshigher!> NO what the sprinter IS doing is trying to be as accurate to the millisecond as he / she can at the start of the race ... There is risk, but there is also potential reward ... Just like there is with the pole vaulter who passes during the competition ... What I can't understand is why everyone is so afraid for a sprinter to get an advantage ... Should all pole vaulters have to attempt every height then ??? Should Carl Lewis have been made to take all of his long jumps in Los Angeles since it was his choice to be in the competition ??? Should ElG NOT be allowed to draft off others during a race ??? Shoudl rabbits be completely outlawed ... Should all rabbited races that have ressulted in WRs be erased from the books But ya'll are worried about a false start ... Which GETS CALLED BACK IF IT IS ILLEGAL ! Therefore the sprinter isn't allowed to CHEAT anyway SO what's the problem Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Conway listed the ways athletes can "cheat": >Why ?? Because an athlete is trying to get an advantage over those he/she is competing >against ?? They do that in training. >Is it unsportsmanlike for a basketball player to commit a legal, hard foul to gain an >air of intimidation in the lane ?? It's not legal - it's a foul. Duuh. The opposition gets an advantage from your committing it. And it is unsportsmanlike - hard enough, and it draws a technical. It's basically chicken-s**t behavior that the athlete gets away with by masking it as an unintentional foul. >Or for a linebacker in football to lay an incredibly hard hit on a running back the >first time he breaks through the line ?? That's not cheating. That's what football is about. >What is wrong with a sprinter trying to gain every fraction of a second he can in a >race ?? Gain a fraction of a second by responding - good. Gain a fraction of a second by anticipating - cheating. >How about something more like fear and "this is my only hope" ! Well - they could always lay "an incredibly hard hit" on Mo or Carl or MJ as the other one is getting into their blocks. That would certainly give them an edge! Oh yeah - it would be cheating. And cheating is unsportsmanlike. >Unsportsmanlike would be if they could break early and NOT be called back ... That's exactly what an athlete is trying to do by anticipation. And you know what - they can still try it - just the penalty for a mistake becomes higher! *** *** *** *** Randall Northram posed: >As I said before, what about starting stalls as used in horse racing. Actually, technology could easily be devised to have starting blocks that only "lock" into place with the electronic signal from the starters gun. Break early, and the blocks just slide back with no resistance. Sure - it might cause a few injuries. But then again, so can hard intentional fouls in the lane in basketball. Phil
Re: t-and-f: New rules
GH wrote: i think it can be argued that most false starting IS unsportsmanlike conduct.>> Why ?? Because an athlete is trying to get an advantage over those he/she is competing against ?? Isn't that athletes do in sports ?? Try ot gain an advantage ?? BE it mental, physical, psychological or otherwise ??? ABout the only place you can do that in the short sprint is at the start of the race (psychologically anyway) ... So you want to take kthat away from the athlete to benefit whom ?? The fans ?? Is it unsportsmanlike for a basketball player to commit a legal, hard foul to gain an air of intimidation in the lane ?? Or for a linebacker in football to lay an incredibly hard hit on a running back the first time he breaks through the line ?? What is wrong with a sprinter trying to gain every fraction of a second he can in a race ?? Especially when faced with a Carl Lewis or Mo Greene or MJ lined up near by ??? You would consider that unsportsmanlike conduct ?? How about something more like fear and "this is my only hope" ! Unsportsmanlike would be if they could break early and NOT be called back ... That is why it is considered a false start .. Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Dave writes: > I can't let this slippery bit of logic get by without sticking >up for Conway. He means that he can't think of a single DIRECT >benefit to the athletes. Everything Bray mentions is a secondary >or derived benefit. I think the original intent of Conway's >statement was quite clear. Direct or indirect benefit, what's the difference? Either way it helps the athletes. If say Congress was considering some new regulation that made the industry in which I'm employed more profitable and more prosperous, you can bet I'd be in favor of it. To say that a new rule that pleases the fans and enhances the TV coverage of the sport will be of no benefit to the athletes is simply incorrect. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
- Original Message - From: "Justin Clouder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 5:43 PM Subject: RE: t-and-f: New rules > Of course, with a one strike rule the starter will have to be aware of > difficulties - for example big champs crowds tend to be noisier. Isn't crowd noise to blame for a fair percentage of the false starts anyway? If so, wouldn't it be worth trying to address that problem first. Like making sure announcers do their bit, which at the very least means asking the crowd to be quiet for the start - more than did those at some of the larger meetings I've attended.
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Message text written by Ed & Dana Parrot > In no other major American sport will an athlete be kicked out in the beginning of the competition for anything other than unsportsmanlike conduct.< How about college track? The NCAA has been doing it that way for more than two decades.
Re: t-and-f: New rules
This proposed rule change will have ZERO, non, nada positive effect on the popularity of the sport and may be to the detriment if anyone is paying attention. There is a difference between a rule of conduct and a rule of sport. A rule of conduct such as striking an official or opposing athlete or arguing too vehemently with an official should result in dq of an athlete in any sport. The breaking of a rule in a sport should not result in a dq. I understand the frustration of fans watching sprints with numerous false starts. In other sports there are always rule violations which affect the game. You don’t see an Offensive Tackle kicked out of an NFL game for committing a holding violation on a play which resulted in a touchdown for his team. How about throwing a pitcher out of a baseball game for numerous walks or too many 3 and 2 counts? How about the Hack-a-Shaq defense in the NBA? All of these situations slow down their respective sports and no one complains about them, for the most part. I find the sport is heading backwards. The two jump rule is even stupider. Both rules seemed to be an attempt to get the athletes off the track or field. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Steve S.
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Steve wrote: I recall when first colleges and then high schools changed over to the one false start rule. Coaches saw this as some sort of apocolypse and thought it would totally ruin the sprints and hurdles. Needless to say, it didn't happen that way at all. Athletes, fans, and coaches all take it for granted by this time that one false start means disqualification and it isn't even a topic of discussion any more. > Maybe there was an apocolypse and no one noticed ... Case in point, There have been few additions to the all time high school sprint lists since the one false start rule ... The lists are dominated by athletes from the 80's (with a few lingering 70's names) ... And collegiate sprint times have failry mired as well save for the occasional super star that emerges ... So yes everyone has gotten used to "sitting there", but does that mean it has made the sport any better ... Everyone seems hung up on "making the meet run faster" ... Just what are we talking about here ... maybe 2 or three fewer false starts per meet ??? How much time is that ??? Maybe 10 minutes ... Then if you are going to try to come up with some rules to speed up the meet you better come up with a whole lot more than just the one Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
on 19/3/01 4:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > i think it can be argued that most false starting IS unsportsmanlike conduct. > > gh > As I said before, what about starting stalls as used in horse racing. Clearly the athletes cannot be trusted not to anticipate the gun, this way if they went before the stalls opened they would get a headache. Or, as I also said before, some razor wire stretched across the track which was elevated when the gun went would sort out the cheats. Randall Northam
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Walt wrote: I've seen many a starter at high school and college meets use theirdiscretion to call up the runners if it appears that one or more is about tocommit a false start, especially in longer events where the start isn't ascritical to the outcome of the race. This is done at the elite level as well and is what should be the norm as opposed to what is occasionally done For example Tom Moore who has started the MOdesto RElays forever in addition to miriad other competitions is one of the best starters in the world in my humble opnion ... Tom is very consistent and instructs all athletes the same whetehr they are high school, college, or elite ... Tom allows no "tomfoolery" (pun intended) at the start of his races .. Any movement brings athletes up with a warning ... And his races tend ot go off as false start free as you can get ... Doesn't mean the athletes don't ever try to anticipate his gun ... Nor that they don't ocasionally get caught ... But you DON'T get the blatant trying to beat the gun that is what casues the probelms with "too many false starts" at competitions ... Better training of starters in this mold would mean you don't need the type of rule that is being suggested ... Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
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
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Bob- the original statement was "In no other MAJOR AMERICAN sport..." College Track hardly qualifies. Guy Oekerman (Oregon State Track & Field class of '88: so major they turned the lights out) - Guy Oekerman Research Director KWBP-TV (WB32) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 503.644.3232 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of bobhersh Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:10 AM To: Ed & Dana Parrot Cc: bobhersh; 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules Message text written by Ed & Dana Parrot > In no other major American sport will an athlete be kicked out in the beginning of the competition for anything other than unsportsmanlike conduct.< How about college track? The NCAA has been doing it that way for more than two decades.
Re: t-and-f: New rules
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Or you could institute the "Carl Lewis" rule for invitational meets, where >> people are paying to see stars compete.. Wayne Armbrust replied: >This type of "solution" is the worst of all possible worlds in that it >introduces a situation where there are one set of rules for one group of >athletes and another set for another group. As Walt said - for invitationals, where folks are paying top dollars to see certain stars run/jump/throw, and not championships where folks are paying/attending to see people win championships. To evaluate this proposal, you have to appreciate that difference. >This is not how the sport is >supposed to be, it is supposed to be fair and equitable for all. Subjective >interpretation of the rules will not make track popular. No - and the NBA certainly didn't enhance it's marketability by letting Michael Jordan palm the ball around the court. Worst thing is, the NBA still let Jordan get away with it during the playoffs! >"Carl Lewis" type rules will only cost us the support of hard core fans. I doubt it. The rules might hurt up-and-comers in non-championship meets - but if the "stars" relied too much on the deference of friendly starters/promoters, it would eventually hurt them in Championship meets when they were unable to adjust. With that in mind, I don't see a rash of stars cheating (any more than today) because of this advantage. I'd just see a means of helping people get what they paid to come see. For championships finals, I think that the no-false-start would be great. It would suck to see a great runner miss a medal because of a falsie, but we'll get more real-time coverage of events when producers know they won't have to keep the camera turned on non-stop for 10 minutes for a 10-second race. Phil
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 03/19/2001 9:01:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: False starting is cheating or an attempt to cheat, plain and simple. Plain and simple? Give me a break. There are so many factors that can lead to a false start, other than guessing wrong. Let's see; there is leaning to far forward in the blocks, literally falling out of the blocks; there is hearing a camera click, a person yell, a balloon pop; there is the starter forgetting that 3 comes after 2; there is the runner flinching next to you; um, there is plain and simple nervousness of the race. But to you all this is cheating, plain and simple, right? I will spare everyone the anticipation v guessing argument, and the RT thread. False starting is not a benign event. And running the 100 m is not exclusive of starting fast, fast starting is inclusive. I have never seen so many people argue against the very nature of the thing they love the most. Maybe, when you come to respect the complexity of the sprints it will make better sense to you. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Justin I see the argument but it does not fly for me. From what I hear and read, the false starts matter ONLY to the hard-core fan. The casual fan accepts it as part of the game. Especially in the States, where we are bombarded with endless TV timeouts. In the NBA there are time outs that are strictly TV calls, neither team calls it, the TV station does. If you ask a person about the Olympic Games or a race they saw, they are not going to recall, care, or notice the 1 or 2 false starts. They will remember who won and lost. I understand the need for TV conformity, and that is an interesting dilemma. I think there are better solutions to the problem. 1 free one to the field, or 2, and after that you start dq'ing people. But I return back to my original question, where does false starting hurt the sport? Also, someone in the broadcast field explain to me why tape delayed broadcast contain false starts, if they are so detrimental to the timing? Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Yes, Bob, and that is a team oriented competition. Also. 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. Faith is a road seldom traveled
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Hi All Darrell, when you say this: > And I would like someone to tell me where false starts hurt a track meet? > you risk losing credibility. I have never watched track meet on TV or live which did not feature the let down which is false starts - build up the tension, excitement, watching closely, set, bang!...oh no, false start. This is a nightmare for meet organisers, fans and TV alike. It disrupts the schedule, dissipates the tension, undermines the performance of the athletes and taxes the patience of even hard core fans. Example, I was watching World Indoor coverage on BBC, looking forward to the 4x400m semis. But I missed them because the meeting was running over thanks to a flurry of false starts in an earlier sprint race. TV schedules are inflexible, yet every live TV showing of a meet gets disrupted by false starts, meaning a waste of precious broadcasting time for the sport and specifically for events which get bumped from the broadcast altogether as a result. Of course, with a one strike rule the starter will have to be aware of difficulties - for example big champs crowds tend to be noisier. However, I am sure there will still be 'faulty' starts so examples of athletes being tossed out other than for their own stupidity will be rare or non existent. I've been a fanatical sprints fan since I was 8 years old and all that time I've wondered why athletes are given a free false start (I also don't see why tennis players get two serves, but I digress). It may be that the brutal one-shot NCAA riule is too harsh but there are other ideas. Whetever the solution, there is much to be said against the current rule of two strikes. Justin ** Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited. Registered in England. Registered Number 1935786. Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE. Telephone 020 7616 3500. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] **
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Yeah, and ask yourself. Is the effect of Kobe, Shaq, MJ, Magic, Bird fouling out detrimental to the allure of the game? No. It is a team sport. People have their favorite players, but they will continue to root for the team to win. And in the NBA, and similar sports, the star played in that game. The fans got to see them perform. This is track and field. In the 100 m there is a 15 minute window you get to see the star. There is 10 second window you get to see the star perform. If you are lucky enough to be at a meet with rounds, you get to see them twice for 20 seconds. It is not the same thing. You eliminate Marion from the race on one false start, she is gone! You are left nothing. We are trying to gain fans not lose them. And I would like someone to tell me where false starts hurt a track meet? People who want to complain will remember the 3 false starts from Atlanta, and Linford. But the rest of us remember the wr. Yeah, remember that. That meet turned out pretty good, as I remember it! DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled
Re: t-and-f: New rules
I recall when first colleges and then high schools changed over to the one false start rule. Coaches saw this as some sort of apocolypse and thought it would totally ruin the sprints and hurdles. Needless to say, it didn't happen that way at all. Athletes, fans, and coaches all take it for granted by this time that one false start means disqualification and it isn't even a topic of discussion any more. Yes, it would be a major change at the IAAF/International level, at first. But if the rule change is made, I'm quite certain in a matter of a year or so, everybody will have adjusted to it. If the high school and college meets are any indication, they will actually like it. And meets will run better for all concerned -- athletes, fans, television, etc. Races will be more fair as anticipating the starter or trying to get an advantage through the starter will be eliminated. I don't believe it will hurt the sport at all in the long run. In a humorous aside, Manhattan College's track team lost one athlete to a false start in the first year of the rule. No, it didn't happen in the sprints or hurdles. The Jaspers lost a miler (!) to a false start in an indoor meet at Army against Army and University of Pennsylvania. Steve
Re: t-and-f: New rules
I can't let this slippery bit of logic get by without sticking up for Conway. He means that he can't think of a single DIRECT benefit to the athletes. Everything Bray mentions is a secondary or derived benefit. I think the original intent of Conway's statement was quite clear. Dave Carey On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Kurt Bray wrote: > > Conway also said that he couldn't think of a single benefit of the no false > start rule to the athletes. I can. Getting rid of false starts will make > the meet more fan-friendly and much more TV-friendly, both of which are good > for the athletes. False starts are absolute poison to live TV coverage. > Fewer false starts means better TV coverage and happier fans in the stands. > More TV coverage means more popularity for the sport, which means more > sponsors, which means more money, which means more fun. And athletes want > to have fun, right? >
Re: t-and-f: New rules
False starting is cheating or an attempt to cheat, plain and simple. There is no reason to move before the gun sounds. Any movement before or at the same time as the gun sounds is anticipation to the gun by someone trying to gain an advantage, not reacting to the sound as is mandated by the rules. If athletes want to start faster, they should train themselves to react and not anticipate. It is clear that more and more, sprinters and hurdlers are taking advantage of the false start rule which is bad for the fans, TV, and the other athletes who are trying to start properly and are distracted by the increasing number of false starts. CT --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2001 4:14:08 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules In a message dated Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:40:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << It may be right that the false start rule being better for the fans, but I guess perhaps we'll see. In no other major American sport will an athlete be kicked out in the beginning of the competition for anything other than unsportsmanlike conduct.>> i think it can be argued that most false starting IS unsportsmanlike conduct. gh
Re: t-and-f: New rules
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Or you could institute the "Carl Lewis" rule for invitational meets, where > people are paying to see stars compete.. I believe it was at the Olympic > Invitational at the Meadowlands many moons ago that it looked like Carl would > be dq'd for two false starts. Instead of having the fans riot, the starter > (or the meet director) ruled that the clicking of a camera had caused a > distraction and ruled no false start would be charged. > > I've seen many a starter at high school and college meets use their > discretion to call up the runners if it appears that one or more is about to > commit a false start, especially in longer events where the start isn't as > critical to the outcome of the race. > > Walt Murphy Didn't Rocket Ishmael (sp?) get a pass at the Penn Relays 100 a few years ago, in '95 or so? The starter wanted to toss him but Tim Baker insisted that he be allowed to run. He finished last or near last anyway. This type of "solution" is the worst of all possible worlds in that it introduces a situation where there are one set of rules for one group of athletes and another set for another group. This is not how the sport is supposed to be, it is supposed to be fair and equitable for all. Subjective interpretation of the rules will not make track popular. The best thing we have going for us is our tradition of objectivity and the pureness of the sport. "Carl Lewis" type rules will only cost us the support of hard core fans. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated 3/19/01 10:40:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << It may be right that the false start rule being better for the fans, but I guess perhaps we'll see. In no other major American sport will an athlete be kicked out in the beginning of the competition for anything other than unsportsmanlike conduct. Perhaps the answer is to give the athletes a false start in the trials and semis and not one in the finals, at elite competitions. And perhaps it should be done on a trial basis first, before passing it as a rule. >> Or you could institute the "Carl Lewis" rule for invitational meets, where people are paying to see stars compete.. I believe it was at the Olympic Invitational at the Meadowlands many moons ago that it looked like Carl would be dq'd for two false starts. Instead of having the fans riot, the starter (or the meet director) ruled that the clicking of a camera had caused a distraction and ruled no false start would be charged. I've seen many a starter at high school and college meets use their discretion to call up the runners if it appears that one or more is about to commit a false start, especially in longer events where the start isn't as critical to the outcome of the race. Walt Murphy
Re: t-and-f: New rules
In a message dated Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:40:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << It may be right that the false start rule being better for the fans, but I guess perhaps we'll see. In no other major American sport will an athlete be kicked out in the beginning of the competition for anything other than unsportsmanlike conduct.>> i think it can be argued that most false starting IS unsportsmanlike conduct. gh
Re: t-and-f: New rules
If you look at high school basketball, with games the same length as the NBA, they at one point went with 4 fouls (many years ago?). I think the NBA went to six fouls for three reasons: 1. Longer games compared to college - the point Kurt Bray made 2. Fewer stars fouling out 3. The public liked a more physical game, so they accomodated It may be right that the false start rule being better for the fans, but I guess perhaps we'll see. In no other major American sport will an athlete be kicked out in the beginning of the competition for anything other than unsportsmanlike conduct. Perhaps the answer is to give the athletes a false start in the trials and semis and not one in the finals, at elite competitions. And perhaps it should be done on a trial basis first, before passing it as a rule. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: New rules
>The National Basketball Association pro games in the U.S. are actually foyr >quarters of 12 minutes each, so the proportion is exact, 1.2-1 on minutes >and >1.2 on fouls as well, compared to the college game. I stand corrected. But the point remains that pro players are not given an "extra" foul for the purpose of keeping the stars in the game. It was due to the games being longer. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
The National Basketball Association pro games in the U.S. are actually foyr quarters of 12 minutes each, so the proportion is exact, 1.2-1 on minutes and 1.2 on fouls as well, compared to the college game. Steve
