The runner who was second in the 100m sent me this video, taken by spectators in the stands, which seems to confirm, as we suspected, that the winner of the 100m got off early on a false start.
USATF rules seem pretty clear that a false start is subject to immediate disqualification. Obviously, we didn’t do that at the meet for various reasons, but with this video evidence, along with Tom’s comment that he thought there was a false start, I think we should DQ the guy.
Does anyone have any concerns about me doing this? I’ll make a decision tomorrow, so let me know soon.
FLRC meets are developmental, and we have not got a mechanism to call back runners; still – I think we have every right to disqualify any individual who breaks the rules. The jump at the start was so obvious that I would have, and tried to, enforce the TAC standard.
I believe that current rules state that the individual event in question(the 100) will be restarted, with the individual DQed for the remainder of the race. Since we try to conduct our events in that manner, I propose that we enforce the rules, and do what is appropriate.
Thanks for confirming that you saw the early start, Tom, since you were the only official who was right there.
Current rules call for immediate disqualification in USATF or World Athletics meets—one and done. (This changed in 2009/2010 in part because it messed with schedules and in part because there was a sense that some people were wasting a potential false start to psych out others who were faster out of the blocks.)
I don’t think I’d enforce that in our meets since, as you say, they’re developmental. We’re training people to do it right. But in this case, because it was the last heat of the event and we couldn’t call them back easily, what’s done is done.
(In theory, the starting pistol lets you fire again right away, but who knows if that really works, or if the runners would know what to do. And it requires an instant decision, which would be hard for any of us to make within a second or two.)
Agreed…he should have a DQ next to his name. He knows that he jumped the gun. Keep the time, but put a DQ next to his time/ name. As others stated, these are developmental meets…no ribbons…no points for places. It will at least acknowledge that the second placed guy was the actual winner. But in an attempt to do justice without ruffling more feathers than necessary, I’d suggest keeping his illegitimate time and just placing a DQ next to his name. A second blow of the gun when the starter sees the false start might also be recommended in the future. USATF and WA has changed the rules on False Starts more than once over the years.
Before 2003
Athletes who false start are allowed another start and are only disqualified after a second false start
2003–2009
The entire field is warned, and the original offender is allowed a second start. If anyone false starts again, they are disqualified, even if they didn’t false start the first time
2010 and later
Only one false start is allowed without disqualification, but any additional false starts result in disqualification
USATF followed the 2003-2009 rule during that time period. I know what is says on the USATF site (“Subject to disqualification” but not “disqualified”). But who knows? I didn’t see one in the sprints (but did in the distance events) at the US Olympic Trials. There was no disqualification in the distance event when there was a false start. So, I don’t have a current frame of reference for what USATF is currently using. Did anyone else see a false start in the sprints?
Anyway…Just my two cents:)
Thanks to everyone for a fantastic meet yesterday. I had many GP asking when the next one is…
Ohhh…to clarify, I would suggest a second blow of the gun only in the last two heats (maybe). Those athletes are likely seasoned enough that they would know what that second blow means. And yes, the starter would need to make that immediate decision to blow the gun a second time. OR, have a second gun that a second starting official uses to only blow at a False Start…because that’s all they are watching for. In real big meets, there will be one of more of these officials and the true starter will not likely be the one who usually picks up on the false start. AND, at REAL, REAL big meets, there are sensors in the blocks sensing the false start. I think that FLRC should invest in 6 or 8 of those…LOL. Looks like only a mere $17K for a set of sensors. But, FLRC is Tax Exempt right? So, you’ll save on the tax
When I write up the results I’ll mention it briefly to explain.
Tellingly, I think this is the first significant false start I can remember in our meets. @Rishel would know more, but I can’t think of another one where the race went off anyway, and certainly not one in a fast heat. Little kids don’t know to anticipate the gun, so they’re actually pretty safe.
So as much as it would be fun to have sensor-enabled blocks or a starter’s assistant who’s looking for a false start to fire a second gun (it’s not like we can easily get blanks for one gun!), I think we’ll muddle along like this in the future. The real solution will be to make any sprinters who false start run the mile.
I am going to put some more effort into a real gun, at least for the across-the-track starts. I hate to buy another one, but if we can’t get .22 blanks, that may be necessary.
The other solution that I just tested very successfully is connecting the electronic starting pistol to the megaphone. It’s a LOT louder than the belt-mounted speaker—so much so that I nearly jumped out of my skin when I first tested it without hearing protection.
There was another case of someone who should have been DQed at a Tuesday night track meet in Barton Hall in about 1983 – same situation, exactly. I can even tell you the guy’s name, for strange reasons.
I don’t think we need to buy extra equipment to guard against this happening again 42 years from now.
I’m really glad to note by its absence in this thread that the club has put the sad memory behind us of when Tom used his second loaded gun to dispatch a runner who he claimed was too slow at the start. The legal fees alone almost wiped us out: To this day we still don’t pay all athletes to run in our races, as we used to, just saying.
Happy footnote: Tom always says that those years behind bars were some of his most productive as a mathematician. To this day, he remains a source of perspiration to the rest of us when we approach his start line.
