RE: t-and-f: What's next?
This reminds me of something. Here at CERN where I work we have had an annual relay race (running) for teams of 6 around the 4 km site for the past 30 years. About 20 years ago, the head of the Fire Brigade, who had played some part in founding the race, retired and wanted to donate a cup. Being a Frenchman and keen on cycle racing he proposed that the cup be won by the first team to pass the Fire Brigade building. The first leg of the race is 1000 metres, of which the last 400 metres is steep uphill. The Fire Brigade building was situated after 600 metres of the race, that is at the start of the hill! Luckily we were able to convince him that this was not a good idea for running, and the cup is awarded instead to the leading team at the end of the first 1000 metres. I think basically the difference is that in cycling one can still freewheel on at a reasonable speed and recover in the saddle, whereas in an all-out effort in running one has to slow right down for a while, even if this can be fairly short, as we have seen in the report of Lasse Viren's interval 200 metre sessions. Also cyclists in a group gain much more from shielding each other from the wind because of the higher speed involved. In fact, I have read that even the leading cyclist in a group has it easier than if he were alone, because of the aerodynamics of the way in which the wind moves around the elongated line of riders (less turbulence). This is why breaks by individual riders in cycling can be pulled back more easily by the field, whereas in running the leader only tends to come back if he really slows down (as in the latter stages of marathons). David Dallman On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Mcewen, Brian T wrote: > <<<<<<<< > Talk about drama and > suspense ... Everyone in the race would be fighting to maintain position > from start to finish ... Should end those boring tactical races where > everyone is waiting to kick .. There would be excitement on every lap as > individuals would have to jockey before the end of the final lap to avoid > being amongst the last 3 ... Would make the race much more exciting for the > fans, and give TV a race that would keep everyone riveted from start to > finish ... > >>>>>>>> > > This race has nothing to do with running, but in track CYCLING they have an > event called the Points Race. It is not an exhibition, and it IS an event > at the World Track Championships. > > Nobody is pulled from the "hind-most", but on predetermined laps, the racers > compete to be first across that lap's finish line; earning points for their > "finish" on that intermediate lap. Additionally, you can win the Points > Race by lapping the field (and maintaining your 1 lap advantage to the > finish). If the field all finishes on the same lap, the rider with highest > points (the total of intermediate sprint finishes) wins . > > It is also common practice in all cycling races with many laps to offer > "primes" (pronounced: preems). Criterium races can be as long as 1:30-2 > hours, and a lap is rarely longer than a mile. This means 50-60 or more > laps for the senior men. The prime provides the excitement of a field > sprint, except that the riders with serious intent (of winning) usually > abstain. A prime winner is always paid a little, and they sometimes offer > primes for 2nd and third. Occasionally, this motivates a rider to break > away at the start, get a decent lead, and coast through the primes, > collecting a better payday than if he just sat in the bunch. These guys > rarely finish the race though. > > My favorite kind of primes are the mountaintop-finish primes in the Tour De > France, where leading riders earn some money AND a time bonus on the rest of > the field (usually 20 seconds for first, 15 for second...). > > These kind of intermediate sprint finishes/bonuses would NOT fly in distance > running though. > > -Brian McEwen > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Conway Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's next? > > > Bruce wrote: > > > > >If one accepts that the main reason for the change is television, > >that reinforces the notion that the no false start rule will result > >in a greater focus and popularity for the sprints. TV, being a > >visual medium, is acutely sensitive to "the show". The no false > >start rule creates a scenario that is nearly irresistible to watch - > >the speed merchants being held to absolute stillness, on penalty > >of disqualification, racing whe
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Budd wasn't DQ'd because she didn't trip Slaney. Ed THE PRINCE wrote: I can't say I know a whole lot about distance running, but I can say this, Zola Budd didn't get disqualified for tripping Mary Decker. Bumping and shoving is part of the distance runners race. I have been told by distance runners that there are certain places where you can touch/ shove a runner to throw them off balance. Talk about cheating. LOL None-the-less, sprinters have bumped in races, and yes it does affect the runner and the race, but again it's the nature of the beast.
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated 3/23/01 12:29:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not so sure that the non lane event competitors have such protected status as you imply. There is no real recourse for an 800 runner who is stepped on from behind or cut in on coming out of the final curve. It's true that if a 10k runner is tripped in the first 100meters the race is called back -- but he's on his own for the remaining 9,900 meters should someone trip him from behind (Viren at the Olympics) spike him (happens so regularly it's a given) or clips his shoe off (Riley at Olympic trials). Mary Decker skidding along the track at the 84 Olympics might be surpised to hear that everyone but sprinters who false start get second chances. I can't say I know a whole lot about distance running, but I can say this, Zola Budd didn't get disqualified for tripping Mary Decker. Bumping and shoving is part of the distance runners race. I have been told by distance runners that there are certain places where you can touch/ shove a runner to throw them off balance. Talk about cheating. LOL None-the-less, sprinters have bumped in races, and yes it does affect the runner and the race, but again it's the nature of the beast. rule, then we should know that and should respect that.> I guess I've just been talking to myself. I believe that is what I have been saying. There is a preponderacne of Sprinters/Hurdlers who have a problem with the rule! THE PRINCE
Fwd: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated 3/23/2001 2:58:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Join the world of the walks baby! come on3 warnings!...that's 2 more than we get...no comparisonAND YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF YOUR FEET, there is no starter controlling you Netters Louise ( the mean mutha:) wrote: > yeah...but no one except the sprinters/hurdlers are getting BOOTED OUT OF > THE COMPETITION..mean motha Join the world of the walks baby!
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated 3/23/2001 2:58:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Join the world of the walks baby! AND...you have already walked part of your race, if not the whole thing!
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Every event gets another chance to compete, whether it be a foul, or a restart as a result of being pushed down at the beginning of a distance race." I'm not so sure that the non lane event competitors have such protected status as you imply. There is no real recourse for an 800 runner who is stepped on from behind or cut in on coming out of the final curve. It's true that if a 10k runner is tripped in the first 100meters the race is called back -- but he's on his own for the remaining 9,900 meters should someone trip him from behind (Viren at the Olympics) spike him (happens so regularly it's a given) or clips his shoe off (Riley at Olympic trials). Mary Decker skidding along the track at the 84 Olympics might be surpised to hear that everyone but sprinters who false start get second chances. "If you want to make track more exciting and less time consuming and put the fans on the edge of thier seats, why not eliminate the last place finisher per lap in the distance races down to the top 3." As far as TV goes, if an event is seen as boring or too long, such as the distance events, they don't show it or they only show a small part of it. Distance runners and their fans don't like that practice, but TV does not cater to the athletes but to viewers. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "I understand everyones frustration about false starts, but did you know it's frustrating for the athlete as well, but we understand that it's the nature of the beast." Perhaps at the professional level a no false start policy is too severe. The athletes who could speak to this point the best might be those who have competed under the no false start policy in the NCAA but then went on to extensive experience racing in open, high level racing. How would these athletes rate the two methods? If a preponderance of sprinter/hurdlers have disdain for the no false start rule, then we should know that and should respect that.
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Netters Jon Drumond wrote: >Is is just me or is everyone missing the point. While the > sprinters/hurdlers are not the only event that have proposed rule changes, > the sprinter/hurdlers punishment is the most severe. This is the best point Jon has made I think many agree it is severe. For the record Jon what more people were up set about was when you wrote that all sprinters try to guess the starter - or at least that's what the took you to have meant. If intentional false starting by trying to guess I think you would agree is cheating but I think later you clarified you meant anticipation. In any case I think you are right. >To conclude. If you want to make track more exciting and less time > consuming and put the fans on the edge of their seats, why not eliminate the > last place finisher per lap in the distance races down to the top 3. While this was satirically suggested we all know that isn't right either. But what is more important is what Keith wrote. That the time between events needs to be kept short. To be clear I mentioned something about FAT my intent was to show that this should speed up the meet not slow it down and that there is no excuse for the sloppy time table at U.S. Indoors where there is nothing going on for 10-15 minutes at time. This and the lack of legitimate competion (as in teams) is killing track. > How about eliminate the racewalker instead of giving 3 warnings, that way > they won't try to cheat by running. To be sure I know this isn't very serious but as I have pointed out walkers do not try to cheat in a deilibrate manner by running ie, bent knees and loss of contact at the same time
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Netters Louise ( the mean mutha:) wrote: > yeah...but no one except the sprinters/hurdlers are getting BOOTED OUT OF > THE COMPETITION..mean motha Join the world of the walks baby!
RE: t-and-f: What's next?
I got the message below a few minutes ago ... and I didn't reply ... but even though it was sent to me personally I had to post the whole thing (unedited). Any of you "distance freaks" will get a kick out of it. I remember watching a Euro meet last summer where the Women's 4 x 100m was shown for 4.5 minutes of air time. and they didn't even have an American star on the team, but the "American" team won the 4x1 ... so it MUST be shown! The Steeple? Naw ... nobody likes that. The men's 5k? Yeah ... they showed 1:30 of it. Let's see ... a race that takes 45 seconds t complete is shown for 4:30 ... but the steeple is axed ... and an event that takes 13:00 to complete gets 1:30? I would go for your equal time idea too. Everyone would agree that in Sydney, NBC showed an infinitely GREATER amount of JUST THE SPRINT MEDAL CEREMONIES during prime time than they did of the Men's 10k. Anything divided by ZERO = infinity. Actually it is indeterminate ... which was my feeling after reading this out-of-touch garbage about TV coverage. I feel that ALL events should be packaged into the "show" that eventually makes the air. But, that is just NOT feasible. But, JEEZUZ, I saw more TV minutes of Michael Johnson and Maurice scowling at each other and "talking up" the showdown that NEVER WAS than I did ANY DISTANCE RACES in the past year. Rhetorical Q. to the person who wants "equal time": Do you think that the sprints get short shrift on TV? I think my head is going to cave in. I tell you what ... I think that ALL the events should get equal time ALSO. That way I would have seen more than the ZERO minutes I have seen of the Olympic 10k ... men's and women's. Full coverage of the 100 and 200? YES! That would mean full coverage of the 5000 and 1. I got no problem there. Think harder than this ... sprinting is NOT a beleaguered constituency. Here it is: *** In a message dated 3/23/2001 1:22:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Humiliation? That is what you feel when you get pulled from the track for being lapped in a dist. race. You didn't even do anything "wrong", you just weren't "good enough." well...we all know that this is not on the elite level...but...i did not hear any of you distance freaks mention that maybe the longer events (over 400m) they showed on tv, took away from the sprinter's time...how about thatwe want equal time!
RE: t-and-f: What's next?
<<<<<<<< Talk about drama and suspense ... Everyone in the race would be fighting to maintain position from start to finish ... Should end those boring tactical races where everyone is waiting to kick .. There would be excitement on every lap as individuals would have to jockey before the end of the final lap to avoid being amongst the last 3 ... Would make the race much more exciting for the fans, and give TV a race that would keep everyone riveted from start to finish ... >>>>>>>> This race has nothing to do with running, but in track CYCLING they have an event called the Points Race. It is not an exhibition, and it IS an event at the World Track Championships. Nobody is pulled from the "hind-most", but on predetermined laps, the racers compete to be first across that lap's finish line; earning points for their "finish" on that intermediate lap. Additionally, you can win the Points Race by lapping the field (and maintaining your 1 lap advantage to the finish). If the field all finishes on the same lap, the rider with highest points (the total of intermediate sprint finishes) wins . It is also common practice in all cycling races with many laps to offer "primes" (pronounced: preems). Criterium races can be as long as 1:30-2 hours, and a lap is rarely longer than a mile. This means 50-60 or more laps for the senior men. The prime provides the excitement of a field sprint, except that the riders with serious intent (of winning) usually abstain. A prime winner is always paid a little, and they sometimes offer primes for 2nd and third. Occasionally, this motivates a rider to break away at the start, get a decent lead, and coast through the primes, collecting a better payday than if he just sat in the bunch. These guys rarely finish the race though. My favorite kind of primes are the mountaintop-finish primes in the Tour De France, where leading riders earn some money AND a time bonus on the rest of the field (usually 20 seconds for first, 15 for second...). These kind of intermediate sprint finishes/bonuses would NOT fly in distance running though. -Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: Conway Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's next? Bruce wrote: > >If one accepts that the main reason for the change is television, >that reinforces the notion that the no false start rule will result >in a greater focus and popularity for the sprints. TV, being a >visual medium, is acutely sensitive to "the show". The no false >start rule creates a scenario that is nearly irresistible to watch - >the speed merchants being held to absolute stillness, on penalty >of disqualification, racing where victory or defeat is of the slimmest >of margins. That brings the spectator to the edge of his chair. > At the risk of extending this thread further I have to ask the question: does that mean you are willing to sacrifice the sprinters and hurdlers for the sake of a few ratings points ??? Would you then be willing to create other rules for other events that would create more excitement and thrills for the TV audience ??? How about Devil take the Hindmost Distance races ?? Let's try a mile where we start with a field of 12 ... And at the end of each lap we drop off the trailing 3 individuals ... They clearly aren't going to win anyway - and after all we are willing to not let sprinters run in the race at all ... When we get to the final lap we will have our 3 medallists fighting it out mano a mano to see who is going to get which medal !!! Talk about drama and suspense ... Everyone in the race would be fighting to maintain position from start to finish ... Should end those boring tactical races where everyone is waiting to kick .. There would be excitement on every lap as individuals would have to jockey before the end of the final lap to avoid being amongst the last 3 ... Would make the race much more exciting for the fans, and give TV a race that would keep everyone riveted from start to finish ... And who cares if we lose some athletes along the way and they don't get to finish the race ... After all it's not about them is it ?? Its about TV and creating excitement for the fans right ??? We could even do the same for the field events ... 8 Competitors ... 6 rounds ... Individual in last place at the end of each round is out .. During final round only medallists are left to duke it out for the medals ... Now THAT would have people watching the field events ... NO I am not advocating any of these things ... My point is that, YES I think we want to appeal to TV and new fans ... But I don't think that ANY athletes should be sacrificed in the process ... This isn't ancient Rome and the
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Ha ha ha ha ha. If sprints got equal time with distance races on TV, they would get a huge CUT in coverage. Be careful what you ask for. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well...we all know that this is not on the elite level...but..i did not hear any of you distance freaks mention that maybe the longer events (over 400m) they showed on tv, took away from the sprinter's time...how about that...we want equal time
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated 3/23/2001 1:22:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Humiliation? That is what you feel when you get pulled from the track for being lapped in a dist. race. You didn't even do anything "wrong", you just weren't "good enough." well...we all know that this is not on the elite level...but..i did not hear any of you distance freaks mention that maybe the longer events (over 400m) they showed on tv, took away from the sprinter's time...how about that...we want equal time
RE: t-and-f: What's next?
<<<<<< so, before you call sprinters/hurdlers cheaters and want to abolish the current rule...thinkit's not a simple as you make itif they break, they get called back - and now have to approach the start with this punishment added to the above...isn't that enough to pay for a break??? >>>>>> Hyperbole. The recall shots are not fired to "call attention to the error" or anything the sprinter/hurdler has done ... nor to "punish" them, embarrass them, or increase pressure on them. The recall is to prevent the athletes from running any more of an entire 100, 200, 110H or 400 meters than is necessary. The embarrassing time comes when a sprinter has false-started enough times to be DQ'ed. Even then, there is nothing different (or publicly humiliating) about the DQ process that doesn't happen in other events. In sprint swimming races the situation is similar. They start high above the water (also on blocks), and the launch, entry, and technique while underwater is very demanding, similar to a track start. In swimming, they recall the swimmers the same way, with an audible "alarm" kind of warning. But, meet officials have to drop a rope in the water (at the 10-15 meter mark) to snare the swimmers who didn't hear the recall. Nobody feels persecuted or publicly humiliated, though. Humiliation? That is what you feel when you get pulled from the track for being lapped in a dist. race. You didn't even do anything "wrong", you just weren't "good enough." I doubt anybody feels like the DQ'ed sprinter/hurdler just wasn't "good enough" at starting so the officials tossed him. The typical start IS a pressure-packed time-frame that is tough mentally ... but don't all events have very demanding things that can be mastered through practice, training, and experience? -----Original Message-----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 9:40 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's next? the start for the sprinter/hurdler is such a complex piece of the race...it is the only event in track and field which symbiotically is linked with another person, the starter (and how do we hold him accountable - as mentioned earlier, iaaf/usatf rules differ) - these are the only events in track and field where an athlete is prevented from competing (tossed out of the meet) should they break the second timeall eyes are on the start of the dash, when a mistake is made, it is signalled by a multiple series of shots - yes, everyone knows a mistake was made (the long jumper fouls, for example, and no gun shots call attention to the error!! - someone just waves a pretty little red flag and many people don't even see it), the sprinter/hurdler has the greatest pressure on him/her at that set point, to go from absolute stillness to explosive speed in a short distance, is typical to no other event in the program - not to mention the odd weight bearing position that the athlete is in..so, before you call sprinters/hurdlers cheaters and want to abolish the current rule...thinkit's not a simple as you make itif they break, they get called back - and now have to approach the start with this punishment added to the above...isn't that enough to pay for a break??? all other athletes are given 3 tries/warnings to correct their errrors...how many times have you seen an athlete looking up to the coach in the stands for the adjustment of their mark, for example...yes, the coach helps them with their error from the stands prior to the next try!!! i just watched this over and over at the indoor nationals are those athletes cheaters and tossed out i could go on and on..but i hate to be lengthy
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated 3/23/01 6:00:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If one accepts that the main reason for the change is television, that reinforces the notion that the no false start rule will result in a greater focus and popularity for the sprints. TV, being a visual medium, is acutely sensitive to "the show". The no false start rule creates a scenario that is nearly irresistible to watch - the speed merchants being held to absolute stillness, on penalty of disqualification, racing where victory or defeat is of the slimmest of margins. That brings the spectator to the edge of his chair Is is just me or is everyone missing the point. While the sprinters/hurdlers are not the only event that have proposed rule changes, the sprinter/hurdlers punishment is the most severe. Every event gets another chance to compete, whether it be a foul, or a restart as a result of being pushed down at the beginning of a distance race. I understand everyones frustration about false starts, but did you know it's frustrating for the athlete as well, but we understand that it's the nature of the beast. To use the NCAA rule as an argument is, in my opinion, apples and oranges. Do they use the same rules in NCAA basketball, football etc., in the Pros? While some rules are basic, there are many that have been changed to make the pro game better. What would be the difference between NCAA and world class track in the sprints/hurdles? Absolutely nothing. What would the ultimate penalty be, well lets look deep inside. Hypothetically speaking, let's say Maurice false started at the Olympic Trails. TV no longer has the current world record holder and 2 time world champion in the 100m at the Olympic games. You don't think somebody will get a message in their ear piece to immediately find a way to get Mo back in that race? I know, I know, here comes the Jeff Hartwig argument, but Jeff didn't make the team if I recall, because he no heighted, which means he was given every opportunity to make the team. To conclude. If you want to make track more exciting and less time consuming and put the fans on the edge of thier seats, why not eliminate the last place finisher per lap in the distance races down to the top 3. That way the fans don't have to wait for the last lap for the race to unfold. How about eliminate the racewalker instead of giving 3 warnings, that way they won't try to cheat by running. THE PRINCE
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
I've stayed out of the whole NFS debate, although I've read it with great interest (particularly the one's with either scientific or experiential data such as that supplied by Jon Drummond). I think we're splitting the wrong hair here with regard to television. We would gain fans if we JUST SHOWED THE MEET. No, we don't need to show any false starts on tape delay just because it happened to one of the stars-just mentioning it will do because there is always real action to show. Even a foul in the horizontal jumps or the throws is action as is a miss in the hj-at least there was an attempt. The misses at the lower heights don't need to be shown, just the ones that occur near the end of the competition. Explain to the audience why when two jumpers both clear 19-6 in the Pole Vault that one wins. Educate the audience about the events, but don't bore then with tidbits on everyones personal lives. As far as tightening up the schedule at meets for the spectators, it's as simple as A) publicizing the meet in advance and B) running the meet on schedule. Automatic timing doesn't slow down the meet (particularly if it is the Finish Lynx system), it's the Clerk of the Start and the Clerk of the Finish that must work with the starter to keep the action rolling. See those crowds at Penn and Drake Relays? They are there because the action is non stop and it has the atmosphere of an event-not just a track meet. A good starter(s) can minimize false starts much more so than a NFS rule any day of the week. That starter will A) give clear, understandable, and enforceable instructions to the athletes and will B) vary their starting rhythm to cut down on the people trying to guess the cadence. There is nothing wrong with anticipating the gun and honing reaction times, but both the athletes and the starter have a responsibility in the whole transaction since, as Louise wrote, they work in a sychronous relationship. There should be no reason at the major meets for there to be less than adequate staffing in the crucial meet management positions so that there isn't more than 1-2 minutes between events. Keep the action flowing and the crowds will come out. The crowds won't come out unless they know about the event. Keith Whitman Head Cross Country Coach Assistant Track & Field Coach University of Nebraska at Kearney Office (308) 865-8070 Home (308) 338-1115 http://www.unk.edu/athletics/track/ Fax # (308) 865-8187
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:08:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << Excellent points to which I would hope the IAAF pays attention to >> This was talking about our old friend the NFS rule. At this point it needs to be clarified what is meant by "the IAAF." There are certain things that the Council can do on its own, and then there are rule changes that need to be approved by the Congress as a whole. Sometimes the IAAF hierarchy makes it very plain on how it wants a vote to go, sometimes it doesn't really care. And when the delegates are voting their minds... how do i say this without sounding too cruel? Let's just say that a lot of the people from the newer, smaller federations (think a flyspeck in the middle of some ocean) may not even have a starter's pistol in their country, let alone technology like false-start blocks. It's not going to be the most informed electorate around. gh
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated 3/23/2001 12:11:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Check out the rest of the proposed rule-change package: two attempts in the verticals, 4 attempts instead of 6 in the other field events. Nobody's picking on the sprinters and hurdlers in specific. The intent of the rules changes is far-reaching. yeah...but no one except the sprinters/hurdlers are getting BOOTED OUT OF THE COMPETITION..mean motha
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Excellent points to which I would hope the IAAF pays attention to Conway Hill >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's next? >Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:40:16 EST > >the start for the sprinter/hurdler is such a complex piece of the race...it >is the only event in track and field which symbiotically is linked with >another person, the starter (and how do we hold him accountable - as >mentioned earlier, iaaf/usatf rules differ) - these are the only events in >track and field where an athlete is prevented from competing (tossed out of >the meet) should they break the second timeall eyes are on the start of >the dash, when a mistake is made, it is signalled by a multiple series of >shots - yes, everyone knows a mistake was made (the long jumper fouls, for >example, and no gun shots call attention to the error!! - someone just >waves >a pretty little red flag and many people don't even see it), the >sprinter/hurdler has the greatest pressure on him/her at that set point, to >go from absolute stillness to explosive speed in a short distance, is >typical >to no other event in the program - not to mention the odd weight bearing >position that the athlete is in..so, before you call sprinters/hurdlers >cheaters and want to abolish the current rule...thinkit's not a simple >as >you make itif they break, they get called back - and now have to >approach >the start with this punishment added to the above...isn't that enough to >pay >for a break??? all other athletes are given 3 tries/warnings to correct >their >errrors...how many times have you seen an athlete looking up to the coach >in >the stands for the adjustment of their mark, for example...yes, the coach >helps them with their error from the stands prior to the next try!!! i just >watched this over and over at the indoor nationals are those athletes >cheaters and tossed out i could go on and on..but i hate to be >lengthy _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
In a message dated Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:57:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << At the risk of extending this thread further I have to ask the question: does that mean you are willing to sacrifice the sprinters and hurdlers for the sake of a few ratings points ??? Would you then be willing to create other rules for other events that would create more excitement and thrills for the TV audience ???>> Check out the rest of the proposed rule-change package: two attempts in the verticals, 4 attempts instead of 6 in the other field events. Nobody's picking on the sprinters and hurdlers in specific. The intent of the rules changes is far-reaching. gh
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Bruce wrote: > >If one accepts that the main reason for the change is television, >that reinforces the notion that the no false start rule will result >in a greater focus and popularity for the sprints. TV, being a >visual medium, is acutely sensitive to "the show". The no false >start rule creates a scenario that is nearly irresistible to watch - >the speed merchants being held to absolute stillness, on penalty >of disqualification, racing where victory or defeat is of the slimmest >of margins. That brings the spectator to the edge of his chair. > At the risk of extending this thread further I have to ask the question: does that mean you are willing to sacrifice the sprinters and hurdlers for the sake of a few ratings points ??? Would you then be willing to create other rules for other events that would create more excitement and thrills for the TV audience ??? How about Devil take the Hindmost Distance races ?? Let's try a mile where we start with a field of 12 ... And at the end of each lap we drop off the trailing 3 individuals ... They clearly aren't going to win anyway - and after all we are willing to not let sprinters run in the race at all ... When we get to the final lap we will have our 3 medallists fighting it out mano a mano to see who is going to get which medal !!! Talk about drama and suspense ... Everyone in the race would be fighting to maintain position from start to finish ... Should end those boring tactical races where everyone is waiting to kick .. There would be excitement on every lap as individuals would have to jockey before the end of the final lap to avoid being amongst the last 3 ... Would make the race much more exciting for the fans, and give TV a race that would keep everyone riveted from start to finish ... And who cares if we lose some athletes along the way and they don't get to finish the race ... After all it's not about them is it ?? Its about TV and creating excitement for the fans right ??? We could even do the same for the field events ... 8 Competitors ... 6 rounds ... Individual in last place at the end of each round is out .. During final round only medallists are left to duke it out for the medals ... Now THAT would have people watching the field events ... NO I am not advocating any of these things ... My point is that, YES I think we want to appeal to TV and new fans ... But I don't think that ANY athletes should be sacrificed in the process ... This isn't ancient Rome and the athletes are neither gladiators nor peasants to be sacrificed for the sake of the crowd ... The competition itself (given quality competitors) is riveting enough to bring the crowd to its feet ... From the closest of 100m races to the thrilling 10K at Sydney ... To an athlete fouling all but the final attempt in the long jump, yet pulling out the win on that last jump ... We have the excitement ... The 3 ring show ... We just need to look for better ways to present and promote it ... Without damaging the competition or sacrificing the athlete ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
the start for the sprinter/hurdler is such a complex piece of the race...it is the only event in track and field which symbiotically is linked with another person, the starter (and how do we hold him accountable - as mentioned earlier, iaaf/usatf rules differ) - these are the only events in track and field where an athlete is prevented from competing (tossed out of the meet) should they break the second timeall eyes are on the start of the dash, when a mistake is made, it is signalled by a multiple series of shots - yes, everyone knows a mistake was made (the long jumper fouls, for example, and no gun shots call attention to the error!! - someone just waves a pretty little red flag and many people don't even see it), the sprinter/hurdler has the greatest pressure on him/her at that set point, to go from absolute stillness to explosive speed in a short distance, is typical to no other event in the program - not to mention the odd weight bearing position that the athlete is in..so, before you call sprinters/hurdlers cheaters and want to abolish the current rule...thinkit's not a simple as you make itif they break, they get called back - and now have to approach the start with this punishment added to the above...isn't that enough to pay for a break??? all other athletes are given 3 tries/warnings to correct their errrors...how many times have you seen an athlete looking up to the coach in the stands for the adjustment of their mark, for example...yes, the coach helps them with their error from the stands prior to the next try!!! i just watched this over and over at the indoor nationals are those athletes cheaters and tossed out i could go on and on..but i hate to be lengthy
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
If one accepts that the main reason for the change is television, that reinforces the notion that the no false start rule will result in a greater focus and popularity for the sprints. TV, being a visual medium, is acutely sensitive to "the show". The no false start rule creates a scenario that is nearly irresistible to watch - the speed merchants being held to absolute stillness, on penalty of disqualification, racing where victory or defeat is of the slimmest of margins. That brings the spectator to the edge of his chair. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since false starts seem to be the "culprit" for the meets being behind schedule and preventing a so called great TV format. I will leave it at those two things because no one seems to be able to make a legitimate claim as to how false starts are a detriment to a well organized meet. What's going to be the next "excuse" when we ALL eventually learn that false starts have not been and will not be the problem? I can see it now, 1. ohhh the sprinters take too much time getting in the blocks 2. Why do they need to take a victory lap? they only did 9/19 seconds of work 3. Dang! Why do the hurdlers need to warm up over hurdles, they should do that in practice! 4. Mo Greene wastes too much time waving to the fans during his introduction, we better revise the rules before the * whatever event you'd like to put in here but probably wasn't going to make it anyway* gets cut from the telecast. 5. They raised their arm then got to stand up? Are they trying to guess again? Those dang cheaters! yep I can see it now, and I didn't even have to call Ms. Cleo! DMC "Don't approach a goat from the front, a horse from the back, or a fool from any side."
t-and-f: What's next?
Since false starts seem to be the "culprit" for the meets being behind schedule and preventing a so called great TV format. I will leave it at those two things because no one seems to be able to make a legitimate claim as to how false starts are a detriment to a well organized meet. What's going to be the next "excuse" when we ALL eventually learn that false starts have not been and will not be the problem? I can see it now, 1. ohhh the sprinters take too much time getting in the blocks 2. Why do they need to take a victory lap? they only did 9/19 seconds of work 3. Dang! Why do the hurdlers need to warm up over hurdles, they should do that in practice! 4. Mo Greene wastes too much time waving to the fans during his introduction, we better revise the rules before the * whatever event you'd like to put in here but probably wasn't going to make it anyway* gets cut from the telecast. 5. They raised their arm then got to stand up? Are they trying to guess again? Those dang cheaters! yep I can see it now, and I didn't even have to call Ms. Cleo! DMC "Don't approach a goat from the front, a horse from the back, or a fool from any side."
