False Start Rule

downthemiddle

The new false start rule caused chaos yesterday in Tullamore for the National Junior Womans' 100m. There was a false start. When the officials checked the equipment lanes 1,2 and 3 were found to have gone before the gun. Because the officials couldn't decide who triggered the false start all three were disqualified.

thirtyfoot

downthemiddle wrote: »

The new false start rule caused chaos yesterday in Tullamore for the National Junior Womans' 100m. There was a false start. When the officials checked the equipment lanes 1,2 and 3 were found to have gone before the gun. Because the officials couldn't decide who triggered the false start all three were disqualified.

I thought it isn't a case of who triggered but if you are quicker than 0.1 secs on reaction, you are gone and more than one can go? If an athlete moves before 0.1 seconds they have cheated and try to pre-empt the gun as the nervous system can't react that fast.

Like the new false start rule, makes sense.

downthemiddle

Tingle wrote: »

I thought it isn't a case of who triggered but if you are quicker than 0.1 secs on reaction, you are gone and more than one can go? If an athlete moves before 0.1 seconds they have cheated and try to pre-empt the gun as the nervous system can't react that fast.

Like the new false start rule, makes sense.

Apparently if it is clear who triggered then they go. However if it is unclear then all athletes quicker than 0.1 go. In this case the three athletes to go were in adjoining lanes which would suggest someone triggered the false start.

thirtyfoot

downthemiddle wrote: »

Apparently if it is clear who triggered then they go. However if it is unclear then all athletes quicker than 0.1 go. In this case the three athletes to go were in adjoining lanes which would suggest someone triggered the false start.

Yes, thats true. In that sense I think its a vague enough rule as you have to dsitnguish who went first, how close are the reaction times. I would think they would have to be 'a go before the gun' call for only one person to be DQd because if other reacted to someone going after the gun and still were less than 0.1 then they too pre-empted the gun.

theflash800

I think the point that he is complaining about is that although 3 people went before the gun. if the person beside you moves... so do you. its a natural reaction. so if one person went before the .1 sec marker... then they should be DQ'd. however in the case above we clearly have multiple people before the .1 second limit... but unfortunately we can't tell if the others false started of their own accord.... or if it was the natural reaction of "the person beside me moved, so i better move too..."

I think it'll be too hard to decide who should have been DQ'd. I think the yellow card rule was a better one... at least everyone got a warning. although it slowed down the races... (a lot of restarts...) at least it made the race fairer for those with a genuine mistaken false start....

Guy:Incognito

Tingle wrote: »

I thought it isn't a case of who triggered but if you are quicker than 0.1 secs on reaction, you are gone and more than one can go? If an athlete moves before 0.1 seconds they have cheated and try to pre-empt the gun as the nervous system can't react that fast.
.

Whats the reasoning behind not letting people pre empt the gun? Should it not be their choice to risk disqualification if they go before it?

thirtyfoot

theflash800 wrote: »

I think the point that he is complaining about is that although 3 people went before the gun. if the person beside you moves... so do you. its a natural reaction. so if one person went before the .1 sec marker... then they should be DQ'd. however in the case above we clearly have multiple people before the .1 second limit... but unfortunately we can't tell if the others false started of their own accord.... or if it was the natural reaction of "the person beside me moved, so i better move too..."

I think it'll be too hard to decide who should have been DQ'd. I think the yellow card rule was a better one... at least everyone got a warning. although it slowed down the races... (a lot of restarts...) at least it made the race fairer for those with a genuine mistaken false start....

We would need to know the reaction times in the case above, I presume you don't the reactions. Who triggered is academic if there is no large difference in their reaction times. Let's say the fastest reaction is .05, grand they should be DQd. Let's say the next athlete went at .08, then they were not triggered by the first athlete as you can't react that fast. So you can know who broke of their own accord. The only time a false start should be ignored is when someone else went before the gun and the 2nd persons reaction was greater than 0.1 of the first person.

theflash800

Tingle wrote: »

We would need to know the reaction times in the case above, I presume you don't the reactions. Who triggered is academic if there is no large difference in their reaction times. Let's say the fastest reaction is .05, grand they should be DQd. Let's say the next athlete went at .08, then they were not triggered by the first athlete as you can't react that fast. So you can know who broke of their own accord. The only time a false start should be ignored is when someone else went before the gun and the 2nd persons reaction was greater than 0.1 of the first person.

oh yeh thats a good point. didnt even think of that. but if thats the case... then one false start (between the gun and .1 secs) could never trigger another false start (also before .1) because the person reacting to the person beside then still couldnt react in less than .1 seconds... and there can't be a difference of at least .1 between the athletes, and still be under the "legal" limit of .1...

well then all of the athletes should have been DQ'd... assuming they were all below the .1sec mark...