Well, I hate to clutter the list when it's already so busy, but I'm going to
venture another opinion.
Presumably, the meaning of significant here was limited to a statistical
conclusion that there is a variation among lanes that is unlikely to be due
to chance. Whether that has any practical significance remains up for
debate. I would suspect that the frequency of competitions where this
discrepancy has a tangible impact on the results is probably not negligible
but also not likely to be hugely important, especially when the top seeds
are clustered in the middle of the track for finals.
However, is there a reason why the starter could not stand behind the
runners in the straightaway races at that level? The recall starter could
still stand in front. I'm not a starter so maybe that view is not sufficient
...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu>
Cc: "George Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lane Assignment and Reaction Time (much ado bout
nuthin)
Admittedly, I'm out of my expertise range with this, but if Malmo has the
differences calculated correctly, the three "gunshot" volume levels could
each average an effect close to .01 seconds. Whether that might result in
changes in order of finish might be examined by looking at the finishing
times of finalists in the 2004 Olympics 100m. In the 100m finals, no two
runners finished with the same time (to .01 second), with the top three
registering 9.85, 9.86, 9.87. It seems a difference of .01sec, .007sec,
.017sec might have changed any of these times.
On the other hand, in a semi-final heat, Obikwelu (POR) and Green (USA)
both recorded times of 9.97, but Obikwelu finished second, while Green
finished third; so clearly differences of less than .01 second do affect
order of finish. In the finals, however, the two runners finished in the
same positions, but both ran nearly 1/10 second (not 1/00 second) faster
than in the heats, so any effect of starting-pistol volume pales by
comparison with other factors.
Okay, I'm out of this. But I'll enjoy reading other subscribers'
interpretations of the importance of the study findings.
