Reminds you of something?
Why dont they leave it the way it was before these STUPID rule changes…
This is going to adversely effect the intensity athletes attack the start.
It’ll affect record setting performances for sure.
That is utter and complete BULLSHIT.
I personally think they are trying to ruin the sport…
ps- What was the big problem with the old system anyways? The good old Two false start rule?
Next they’re going to give out suspensions for false starts. :rolleyes:
Its called Television! Everything needs to run to schedule so they can sell you more Pepsi!
That’s currently what they do in NCAA. I think its better than the CURRENT IAAF rule. Keeps the game-players honest…
Yes. No false starts is better than one FS on the field- though the old rule was FAR superior
good point and that’s what i meant by asking “reminds you of something?”
i think tc0710 is also right about the tv issue, but in any case and answering to chris30, i’ve started believing that they want to “slow down” the sport anyway…
I wonder now whether the men’s 100m record is here to stay? Flojo’s is for sure anyway.
Charlie where is there room to move in the men’s 100?
i dont think its that bad. its certainly better than punishing the whole field.
I don’t think it’s bad either. At the elite level, where everything is wired, you must have a legal start anyway. Nobody gains an advantage by anticipating or being more aggressive when the pressure-sensitive devices are used.
The no-false-start approach has been used successfully for years at the high school level in some states. Kids adapted to it. It really cut down on the game-playing and schedule delays, which can be as detrimental to performance as being more patient in the blocks.
I’ve also seen it used successfully at the masters level for a number of years, though they have gone away from it the past couple of years to be in line with USATF rules.
I’ve competed in meets with no-false-starts and others with two per athlete. It didn’t seem to matter much as far as performance. I’ve been in races with as many as four false starts, and in those cases, I think it may have detracted from performance.
When I was in high school and legal starts were a matter of judgment rather than technology, most competitors tried to anticipate the start rather than react to it. I suspect many of the results were skewed because of it, rewarding someone who guessed right and caught the flyer. Because there was no penalty, there was no reason not to try, but if you succeeded, you were rewarded for cheating well rather than performing well. No false start rules cut way back on that, which created a more level playing field – especially for the poor guessers.
As I said, I don’t think it makes much difference on the elite level because of the technology that ensures a fair start based on assumptions for minimum reaction time.
I also think keeping meets on schedule is not a bad thing. If you’ve ever been to a junior olympic type meet where you have about 50 heats of the sprints, all the potential false starts can really get the schedule off track and make it very tough for following athletes in that event and following events to manage their warmup and race preparation. Things can get behind by hours.
I think no matter what you do with starting rules, there are pros and cons. Not sure which one offers the most upside. It might depend on the level – elite, national, school, etc. – as to which approach is best.