That’s not correct, and is important because hundredths matter in the shortest races.
The speed of sound is 343 m/s at 20 degrees C. If the furthest runner is 10m away from the pistol and the closest 1m away, then the furthest runner hears the signal 0.03 seconds later.
Read the thread.
I assume starting gates have not been introduced because they are cumbersome and it would be difficult for athletes to train with them. Also, while a horse-race-style starting gate may work for the 100m, it would not work as well for the 200m and 400m, where each racer starts at a different point on the track (and for 400m you would have the problem of moving the gate out of the way in the 40 seconds it would take the runners to lap the track). I imagine starting gates would also be more costly than blocks, even as advanced as blocks now are.
I guess the reason a countdown of lights/beeps has not been used is because it does not improve the situation. If the lights/beeps are in a regular pattern, runners will simply try to time their getaway to precisely coincide with the final light/beep. But clearly you are going to have to disqualify anyone who leaves their blocks before the correct time. So all you have done is moved the problem back in time by a tenth of a second or so.
Finally, the reason it is desirable to penalise someone who (correctly) anticipates the gun is because this is a contest of skill and strength, not who can guess the best. Without that, someone who has qualified for the 100m final but realistically could never expect to beat the best could simply anticipate the gun and get a tenth of a second headstart. This could be enough to win gold, but they will not have won it by skill. If they anticipate too early, they would be DQ’d (in this scenario, you are DQ’d if you jump before the gun, but you are not if you happen to move 0.0001s after the gun) but nothing is lost as they weren’t in a position to win anyway.
I’m not an expert on track by any means, but for those who are questioning the starting system, I hope this helps.
As to the actual OP, I don’t think the current rule is too harsh. Top-level sport is harsh by its very nature, and should be - it is how you separate the great from the very, very good. Any rule that reduces false starts is to be welcomed, as there is nothing worse for the runners (and spectators) than a succession of false starts because everybody gets a go at anticipating correctly. The previous rule (“the field” gets one life) I agree was stupid.
Which is why at high level meets, the speaker system is used. For high school and non-championship college meets, the delay is acceptable as the athletes are still low on the learning curve for the event and the talent spread is much wider. Plus the cost of the system is something most high schools cannot afford.
:smack::smack::smack:
Mea culpa.
At the world championships last year, Usain Bolt got DQed in the 100 for a false start. The world did not end.
I like the current rule because I got so sick of the gamesmanship of the sprinters. The hurdlers were worse. With one free false start, there was almost a certain false start in the men’s 110 hurdles. Then they were essentially playing by the current rule, just with a five minute delay to reset the hurdles and get everyone back in the blocks.
My ideal track and field system would not involve multiple runners on the same track at all. Just have each competitor run one at a time and track the time between leaving the starting block and crossing the finish line – no starter’s pistol necessary.
Of course, that’d probably be boring as hell to watch.
In the absence of that, I’ve always felt that watching repeated false starts was pretty silly.
It would take all day just to run a single event. The gun or other signaling device would still be needed as that’s how the timing system is started. And you’d still have the problem of false starts.
They don’t run as fast on their own as they do with other runners beside them.
I don’t think that’s quite what hogarth meant. Since there are sensors already in the starting blocks now, to detect false starts; you could use them to start the timer instead of the gun. The runner gets into the blocks, starts whenever he feels like it, and the timer stops when he crosses the line; fastest time wins.
I don’t expect that to ever happen, but I wonder how it would change the starting technique. Runners lean forward at the finish to cross the line slightly sooner. If the timer was started by removing pressure from the blocks, they’d want to do that as late as possible. I wonder if they might gain a few hundredths by rocking back and forth and getting their weight as far forward as possible before moving their feet.
Its terrible and done only for TV’s sake. I think each individual should get 2 false starts, none charged to the field. So with 8 racers, we would potentially have to have 9 false starts before anyone gets disqualified.
I don’t like the rule where runners can’t guess when the starting gun is supposed to sound. Apparently the electronic Olympic starting blocks can capture even tiny twitches and muscle movements. I think as long as you don’t get off the starting block before the gun, you should be allowed to twitch all you want
Your suggestion was the status quo for a long time, prior to a few years ago. One problem with it is that races take longer to complete under this system, potentially much longer, and this is particularly so for hurdles where some hurdles will almost certainly have to be re-set. Aside from creating scheduling difficulties, repeated false starts mess up the athletes’ preparation.
The “twitching” thing makes sense because without it, it’s too easy to twitch and “fool” your “neighbour” into making a false start of their own. Hence you need to penalise the twitcher instead. If you can’t control yourself to go on the gun, tough.
High school is one and out. No TV.
The whole reason for the changes were the numerous false starts when everyone got one freebie.
I like it!
The hurdles thing affect everyone equally, so I’m not really seeing a serious negative side. On the other hand, doing things only for TV craps on the sport as a whole, so I’m against it much more than racers themselves false starting. As for TV times, they’ll just have to adjust
I’m fine with that
Though she’s not going to the Olympics, I wouldn’t mind a rash of false starts if it meant being able to watch Michelle Jenneke warm up and stretch after every one.
Exactly. But I freely admit it would be boring to watch.
Could be true. But note there are other racing sports that go one at a time (e.g. luge, canoe slalom).
You just said it was terrible!
Those still have starting reactions built in, though, right? Start-at-will with sensor-activated timing actually removes an element.
Yes, they could have false starts. I was addressing a separate issue (e.g. people don’t run as fast if they’re running by themselves).