First, I agree with RT's interpretation of the way the rule is worded as regards not being allowed to jump if someone goes before you. I do not think this is necessarily a good idea, because in theory an entire Olympic final would have to be DQ'd if someone bolted and everyone else reacted. But. . .I do agree that this is what the rule says. How is the NCAA rule worded on this?
On a different piece, the wording of this rule once again displays an issue that never ceases to amaze me - the poor wording of some of these rules, both IAAF and USATF. Here's the rule as printed on the site: "Any competitor making a false start shall be warned. Only one false start per race shall be allowed without the disqualification of the athlete (S) making the false start. Any athlete making further false starts in the race shall be disqualified from the race." Now, I know what the INTENT of this rule is, and I will even allow that despite its contradiction, most people would conclude that the rule means that the field gets one false start and any one else jumping is gone. But as I said, it is contradictory. It says first that any athlete making a false start shall be warned. Period. It doesn't say, "warned when it is the first false start charged in the race." It says "shall be warned". The rule then goes on to essentially contradict that by saying that any athlete who false starts after the first false start in the race is disqualified. The rule as currently worded would require that the athlete be both warned and disqualified for a false start other than the first false start in the race. Not only is that pointless, but the wording currently raises at least a small question about the intent of the rule for those who don't already know what the intent was. Again, I know what the intent is. But the rule is poorly worded. Remove the first sentence - "Any competitor making a false start shall be warned" and it would be fixed. Now that the field only gets one false start, there is absolutely no purpose served by any sort of warning, and the wording just confuses things. Now, lest people think that I am simply slinging darts at the rulemakers without backing it up with action, let me note that over the past several years, I have proposed several rules and L&L clarifications at the USATF convention. In most cases, I did so in an attempt to clear up the same type of wording problem (or worse) than the one we see here. The vast majority of my proposals have been rejected by the Rules or L&L committee, so I think it's safe to say that in general the rules people are happy with the wording we have. Therefore, I have no problem saying I believe they are wrong in many cases. This may or may not be true of the IAAF rules - I have not had any experience with their rules process. - Ed Parrot ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 7:16 PM Subject: t-and-f: Drummond DQ > Having now seen the way the rule is worded, > it's hard to see how you could interpret it > any way OTHER THAN 'athletes can no longer > allow themselves to be "pulled" out of the > blocks by a false-starting runner next to > them. They will be DQ'd ALONG WITH the > runner next to them'. > > Did U.S. team staff provide an incorrect > interpretation to American sprinters, or > are American sprinters so used to operating > under "American false start rules" that they > refuse to believe what the new rule says? > > It sounds pretty clear to me. > > And it is also becoming more and more clear > why if most sprinters in the world are > following this rule, and being careful to > not be 'drawn out of the blocks' by a competitor, > we have seen drastically slower times on the > GP circuit this year. > > I personally have no problem with that, as long > we can live with existing records staying on the > books for a long time. > > RT >
