OT: Usain Bolt disqualified...thoughts?

[Blakeon18]

In the 100 meters in the ongoing championships he false-started [once] and that means you are out.
The new rule is just that. The old one said if one runner false starts the whole field is charged with it.
At that point the next runner who false starts gets DQ'ed.

The new rule is harsh but I think it is an improvement to the old one. Others are penalized if one guy jumps the gun....that doesn't seem right. The new one sure does mean all the runners have to be conservative in their start.

BTW: USA stud Allyson Felix was trying a 200/400 double to see how it went in preparation for a possible 200/400 double next summer in London. The 2 is her best race...the 4 she is more a novice.
She got the silver with a sub 50 second run...3/one hundreths behind the leader in the 400. The 200 is coming up in the next few days. Whether this discourages her or is viewed as a promising developmental step is an open question at this point. She'll be running a lot of heats during this championship. The timing of the London races might be a key factor in whether she tries both....will there be sufficient recovery time for her in between her races

 

[EricLA]

it seems to me that one false start should not DQ anyone. a 2nd sure, but not for just one. just my $.02

 

[JS]

As a former sprinter, I'm OK with the one false start rule. It removes the impulse to gamble.

I remember a German sprinter, Armin Hary, who was the best ever at anticipating the gun. Otherwise, he wasn't all that super fast, but it was uncanny how he could gamble and win by starting simultaneously with the gun rather than after hearing it.

As indicated in the linked Wiki article, trying to anticipate the gun, and getting multiple chances at it, was a real game-within-the-sport that led to prolonged bouts of false starts before the starter would let the race proceed, maybe because his own nerves had become too frayed to call it back again.

If everybody waits for the gun under threat of DQ, then that's a fairer race IMO.

 

[ThisJustIn]

There was an interesting article on the reasons/implications behind the change. Not sure that this isn't the best option. Yes, people are in hysterics that he was DQ'd, but it's like when people complain that a basketball "star" fouls out 'cause they want them on the court. Simple answer is: don't foul.

 

[EricLA]

what you and JS said makes sense. if you are allowed 1 false start, then it encourages people to try to anticipate to get a better start. this way people will really have to sit in their stance till the gun goes off. i suppose it's more fair that way...

anyone who's up in arms needs to remember that he did false start.

 

[ctchamps]

New rule is fine. It also takes away the delay caused by everyone having to reset.

I'm just happy I opened this thread and didn't read about doping.

 

[Icebear]

If they are going with this new rule then I think they should do away with the "anticipation lag" they had built into the timer. I always felt that it penalized someone with great internal wiring and a quick response time or at least reduce to next to nothing. If not you may be DQing someone just because of being quick and explosive. If they are cheating by anticipating the gun they will get DQd a few times and quit it.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The new rule is definitely fairer. Before, if you were the first to false start then there was no penalty. But if you were the second to false start then you were DQ'd. That made no sense.

There have been races with the old rule where a competitor would deliberately false start (by a huge amount) to eliminate the unfairness of the rule and essentially put the new rule into effect.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

I am no physiologist, but I think it is possible through extensive testing and
experiment to determine the minimum response time, even for people with
"great wiring", and presumably this has been taken into account in the
built in anticipation lag.

I am all for the new rule, for the all the reasons posted above.

 

[UConn4ever]

He's already shown the world that he is a great runner, failing in one competition wont change that

 

[ed4ourgirls]

What was Bolt thinking? He has the best top end speed of anyone in
the field. He doesn't need the best start in order to win.

Having seen the sport's superstar get DQ'd maybe the other athletes
will get the message that from now on they should wait for the gun.

 

[Icebear]

I am no physiologist, but I think it is possible through extensive testing and
experiment to determine the minimum response time, even for people with
"great wiring", and presumably this has been taken into account in the
built in anticipation lag.

I am all for the new rule, for the all the reasons posted above.

Supposedly it has, but I have seen articles that have called the standard into question as not being the true minimum.

 

[MilfordHusky]

As a former sprinter, I'm OK with the one false start rule. It removes the impulse to gamble.

I remember a German sprinter, Armin Hary, who was the best ever at anticipating the gun. Otherwise, he wasn't all that super fast, but it was uncanny how he could gamble and win by starting simultaneously with the gun rather than after hearing it.

As indicated in the linked Wiki article, trying to anticipate the gun, and getting multiple chances at it, was a real game-within-the-sport that led to prolonged bouts of false starts before the starter would let the race proceed, maybe because his own nerves had become too frayed to call it back again.

If everybody waits for the gun under threat of DQ, then that's a fairer race IMO.

Somehow, I just knew you were fast!

I don't like the new rule as a spectator. It seems harsh. On the other hand, you need to control false starts to some degree. Otherwise, it could become a fiasco, if, for example, everyone was allowed one.

I agree about Bolt. At his size, the start is not his stroing suit. But over 100 meters, he can run just about anyone down. Almost the only way he can lose is via DQ.

 

[MilfordHusky]

If they are going with this new rule then I think they should do away with the "anticipation lag" they had built into the timer. I always felt that it penalized someone with great internal wiring and a quick response time or at least reduce to next to nothing. If not you may be DQing someone just because of being quick and explosive. If they are cheating by anticipating the gun they will get DQd a few times and quit it.

Padre, you've lost weight!