> Having said that, I must add this: the first two throws--which we did not see
>on NBC--were victims of what I---and some other officials--considred to be a very
>stupid situationb, i.e., calling a foul when the throw hits the cage. The proper call
>in the discus should be "no throw" since this is an aerodynamic implement which can
>change direction according to wind or even thre way the implement is released.
>
> The cage is something new to the sport. I have officiated a number od discus
>events over the years---mostly in decathlons and pentathlons--and have seen throws
>which took off apperently headed out of the sector cuurve in and land fairly and vice
>versa. I believe ythat 1: the cage is closed much too tightly and 2) nbo matter how
>it is placed, it should not determine whether a throw is foul. The rule should be
>(and is in our HS manual) "A throw which lands outside the sector is a foul," not one
>that, while still in the air soars for a while appears to be outside of it. So
>perhaps, while Nool got a break on the 3rd throw, he was "cheated" by the present
>style of officiating on the first two., We will never know.
Doesn't have anything to do with "style" of officiating- it's right
in the rule book. Very explicit.
The only way somebody can get a "no throw" (and another try) is if
they protest that the cage 'doors' were not set correctly-
i.e. they were moved for a 'leftie' and the officials forgot to
move them back when the next thrower is a right-hander.
Getting the implement through the 'window' of the cage doors is
now part of the event. The inside edge of the cage doors carries
the same rule relevance as the sector lines.
The rule change was part of the price to pay to keep events like
the hammer from being totally dropped as a standard event for
safety reasons.
The only exception, at least for USATF (I'm not sure about IAAF),
is that if the implement hits the cage and still lands inside the
sector, it's a valid throw. (But most athletes will intentionally
foul it anyway, because the deflection usually makes it a very SHORT
throw).
P.S.- if an athlete knows they have a wider-than-usual circumference,
meaning the implement is released further from the center of the
ring than most people (longer arms?), they have every right to
ask the officials to open the door a little wider.
Fail to ask- it's assumed that you accept the conditions, so bury
the implement in the net and it's a foul.
Ask, and the officials refuse- then bury the implement in the net, and
you've got a pretty valid reason for a protest.
RT
