Sorry about that - I was reading the "joined date" not the "post date"
On 2007-06 -14, at 22:00 , Paul Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:37:49PM -0700, Scott Hudnall wrote:
It seems as if the last post on that thread was in late 2005. The
thread mentioned that it was a RUMOR - and I think it is probably
just that.
What were you reading?
I don't think it's the same link I was and would be surprised if the
propsal was from both 2005 and 2007.
Direct link:
http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?
t=25680&sid=53eba9d2b4939f2c1158f7c2d7a7a33c
"""
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:22 pm
"""
The proposal they mention is:
"""
<<The measurement proposal
Item 20 Replace Rule 6.1.16b through 16.1.16d as follows:
b. Imperial is the preferred system of measurement. Distances will be
recorded to the nearest lesser quarter-inch.
c. Metric will not be displayed or announced at meets.
d. World records, American records and NCAA records will be
recorded in
metric and imperial. However, the imperial measurement must be
displayed
and announced instead of or in addition to metric.
Rationale: Metric has hampered the opportunity to properly communicate
the sport of track and field to the media, spectators, parents and
athletes. America has rejected the metric system. Metric may be a
better, more specific way to measure, but it is not understood by most
Americans. It does not work to indicate both forms of measurements.
Metric is still being shown exclusively at meets on indicator boards,
video boards, announced in papers without imperial interpretation.
This
has alienated the sport from American mainstream. A person trying to
watch, understand or follow this sport should not require an
interpreter
or translation dictionary (Blue, Red, Green Book).>>
"""
Measuring in metric, but converting to imperial for display is
unworkable, unless measurements are taken at multiple points along
the
way, since the winner at 100 yds might not be the first to cross the
finish line at 100 m. Simple conversions only work when constant
velocity is assumed. This collegiate association only needs to study
freshman calculus to understand just how unworkable this
proposal/rumor really is.
The only proposal I see is for 1,500m to 1,609m (1 mile). One of the
posts mentions talking to the NCAA and the proposal being bandied
around
with the likely outcome being that everything will be done in
metric so
it's usable internationally but readings given in US customary just to
make the folks who want to be different happy.
Paul
--
End dual-measurement, let's finish going metric!
http://gometric.us/
http://www.metric.org/
