Greg Rutherford's GB LJ record

RoyMcC

What do AR-ists make of it?

https://twitter.com/LongJumpChris/status/461190380487446528

BeepBeep67

@ 3 secs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw8yJ6tJXrA

Looks controversial but USATF claiming it's legal

Skid X

Tomlinson has a history of complaining about Rutherford

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/23693346

Tomlinson tweeted about his "anger" as Rutherford finished 14th in qualifying.
Neither athlete reached the qualifying standard for the championships but Rutherford was picked.
"I'm still British number one and still jumped further multiple times than him this year," Rutherford said.

He comes across as very bitter. The jump looks questionable, but Chris Tomlinson should channel his energies into his own performances.

rom

Should have gone to specsavers.

Even with the error of parallax he is in touch.

RoyMcC

But that's what the plasticine is there for. If there was no mark then it was legal.

pconn062

According to the rules currently in place, if he did not leave a mark on the plasticine then the jump is legal, simple as. That's not to say that new technology does not need to be introduced but as it currently stands it is a new GB record.

rom

RoyMcC wrote: »

But that's what the plasticine is there for. If there was no mark then it was legal.

Know nothing about long jump. Can he step on the yellow part ?

morceli

Must have been very hard plasticine , going on the pic I'd be shocked if there wasn't a spike mark in it.

morceli

rom wrote: »

Know nothing about long jump. Can he step on the yellow part ?

Yes and no , you can't mark the plasticine

Sacksian

I'm sure Chris Tomlinson knows what makes a legal jump better than most!!

I believe his complaint is that there was NO plasticine, which is apparently in contravention of IAAF competition rules.

ecoli

I can understand Tomlinson's point and I think it's valid however his interview regarding the matter comes across very poorly which leads me to believe the motives are begrudgery as Skid X referred to earlier

ChickenTikka

RoyMcC wrote: »

What do AR-ists make of it?

https://twitter.com/LongJumpChris/status/461190380487446528

The image at that link looks like a break alright. While the USATF says that everything was done properly, two observations:-

- the guy raking the pit hasn't exactly left it in a nice level state before the jump

- the official reading the tape and recording the jump doesn't spend very long at it .... in a National juvenile event in Ireland, if a long jump record is broken for a juvenile age group, it takes the officials about 5 minutes to measure and remeasure it.

RoyMcC

ChickenTikka wrote: »

- the official reading the tape and recording the jump doesn't spend very long at it .... in a National juvenile event in Ireland, if a long jump record is broken for a juvenile age group, it takes the officials about 5 minutes to measure and remeasure it.

How true. I've seen meets held up for many minutes while someone looks for the Referee to come and double check everything. (You'd expect the officials to have a list of relevant records beforehand.) In this instance there appeared to be no double check, either at the board or the landing point.

I'm also surprised that a tape measure was being used in an international event, not one of those electronic thingies.

It actually is quite possible NOT to leave a spike mark when slightly overstepping - there isn't a spike at the toe.

It looks like plasticine there but if it's just a yellow board then it's mad and reduces the status of the event to something like a school match.

I don't think IAAF will ratify it.

morceli

RoyMcC wrote: »

It actually is quite possible NOT to leave a spike mark when slightly overstepping - there isn't a spike at the toe.

Yep I know was just making the point that about 3 or 4 cm of his foot seems to be over the board, so not far off having a spike.
But nothing like a bit of love loss to big up the long jump in the UK.

RayCun

it looks like setting a 5k road record at a parkrun (by which I mean no offence to parkrun)

Chivito550

This spices things up nicely ahead of Glasgow!

MacSwifty

UKA athletics are now to review this in Mid May

Skid X

Greg Rutherford's 8.51 has been ratified by British Athletics. They found the video evidence to be "inconclusive."


http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/media/news/2014-news-page/may-2014/27-05-2014-record-ratified/

British Athletics has today confirmed that Greg Rutherford’s (coach: Jonas Tawiah-Dodoo) British record jump of 8.51m has been ratified. The competition, which took place in Chula Vista, USA on Friday 25 April saw Rutherford eclipse the previous best British mark by 16cm.

A statement has been released from the Technical Advisory Group on the ratification of Greg Rutherford’s jump:

This being a UK Record application, under current arrangements, it is a matter to be considered by the Technical Advisory Group. Having considered all the available evidence the Technical Advisory Group recommends that the record be ratified.

In reaching this decision, the Group which included 4 x IAAF level officials, considered:

· The field scorecard for the event, signed by a licensed USA Track and Field official

· The wind speed card for the event

· The performance satisfied USA Track and Field Rules

· The programme/entry list for the event

Contact was also made with the Meeting Director, who responded satisfactorily to a number of questions.

In considering a UK Record application, we would not normally consider video evidence. In usual circumstances, we require a record application form and the appropriate support documentation.

However, given the controversy generated via social media surrounding this performance, the Group looked very carefully at the available video and photographic evidence and considered two points:-

1. It was not an official video.

2. It was not taken directly in line with the take-off board.

Note the video was assessed by the Technical Advisory Group. The key phrase to note is “If such evidence, including any available video evidence, is inconclusive the decision of the Referee .... shall be upheld.” (Rule 146.8) In our considered opinion, the video evidence is inconclusive.

RoyMcC

That's a big call. At a guess I'm thinking they played safe so as (1) not to set a precedent where every new record is liable to challenge and (2) not to upset the Americans.

For me the event clearly contravened IAAF Rule 184 (3) by not having a plasticine indicator. Even our local club can manage to arrange that for its events.

3. The take-off shall be marked by a board sunk level with the runway

and the surface of the landing area. The edge of the board which is

nearer to the landing area shall be the take-off line. Immediately

beyond the take-off line there shall be placed a plasticine indicator

board for the assistance of the Judges.

I guess all Tomlinson can do now is go further.

28064212

RoyMcC wrote: »

That's a big call. At a guess I'm thinking they played safe so as (1) not to set a precedent where every new record is liable to challenge and (2) not to upset the Americans.

For me the event clearly contravened IAAF Rule 184 (3) by not having a plasticine indicator. Even our local club can manage to arrange that for its events.

It's an IAAF rule, but not a USATF rule, and the requirements for a British record only state that it needs to conform to USATF rules. If it had been a world-record jump, it wouldn't have been ratified for that (but would still have been ratified as a British-record)

RoyMcC

That's mad Ted. It's a UKA requirement as well as IAAF. So it means that a national record can be set as long as it meets local requirements, even though those might be lower

I reckon CT has been hard done by, but it looks like a fait accompli.

longjump67

RoyMcC wrote: »

How true. I've seen meets held up for many minutes while someone looks for the Referee to come and double check everything. (You'd expect the officials to have a list of relevant records beforehand.)

I'm also surprised that a tape measure was being used in an international event, not one of those electronic thingies.

As an official who operates one of those electronic thingies or EDM (Electronic Distance Measurement) device as it is officially know. I can tell you that normal procedure at Nationals the EDM has to be calibrated taking 3 measurements by a steel tape against the EDM measure before and after each competition, after that the EDM becomes the official measurement for records and a steel tape is not needed.

The reason it my take 5 - 10 mins at and event where there is no EDM present is that the Field referee has to re-measure the jump/throw to ratify it as a record, as there is only 1 field referee who maybe at another part of the track checking on another event it takes time.

At the nationals underage/senior that I have officiated at all records are noted beforehand by officials.

Hope this helps. As for Rutherford's jump it a hard one to call without being present, it looks like a break but as many have stated if no visible mark is present it is a legal jump. Wither all procedures were followed I couldn't say, it will be interesting to see if the IAAF ratify it.

RoyMcC

I think that's pretty much the case against ratifying this jump LJ. No plasticine, a white flag, one measure, a cheer and it counts as a WR. In your experience as an official would the same set of circumstances have led to the ratification of (say) a provincial record in Ireland?

longjump67

well as I've said unless I was officiating at the event it's almost impossible to surmise if it should stand or not.

I have had cases in the past were athletes were giving a legal jump when to most spectators it seemed to be a foul jump. I remember about 3 years ago at the national senior champs when Kelly Proper was lying in 2nd place and on her final attempt she had a very questionable jump,personally was not present at the event as I was officiating at the hammer.
The athlete who was leading I knew very well she was convinced that it was a foul as did most of the people spectating around the event, including a lot of coaches.

later that day a photo was circulated of the final jump which was not of the best quality but again it was to my eyes inconclusive.

Would this happen at a regional champs I suppose it could as in most cases there will be those convinced it was a foul as there will be as many convinced it was legal.