When I saw the news he DQed I figured he jumped the gun and tough shit that's the rules - having no idea he missed the reaction time limit.

The idea you can DQ leaving AFTER the gun goes off is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard in T&F.

When I ran sprints you worried about the gun and timing it correctly - but with hurdles you always seemed to worry about getting your steps perfect to get over that first hurdle - the thought of jumping the gun never came into mind ever.

What was your best time in the HH...in HS and college?

In college they get higher and at 5'9'' that didn't help. I still ran them but was "better" at the 400 hurdles, as most elite hurdlers seemed to focus on one event and chose the 110s bc the 400 was just a much harder race for them. I ran the 400 hurdles in highschool whereas most states ran 300 at that point so for me it wasn't an adjustment - race actually got easier over time.

I ran the 120HH and the 180LH in high school. (ran 14.8 and 19.6 - both school records). In college I ran a 14.6 and in the 400IH a 54.2.
I actually ran the HS highs in college and ran a 14.1...and still got beat by a guy that ran a 13.8 LOL

I also ran the HH, but back when you used to get 2 false starts (on the second one you'd be disqualified) and a lot of people used to try to beat the gun on the first one.

I ran the 100m as well and people tried to jump that gun all of the time - it was definitely a problem.

The 110HH I only remember one double false start b/c it was a 3-way meet and both A runners from the other schools jumped, but since it was a tie the starter let them both back in. But since we were facing both schools individually it boned me, as both should have been tossed in their head-to-head vs me.

Back in the 70s, you got one false start without being disqualified. So everyone tried to 'steal' the start. On the second one you were disqualified.
Later on, meets were taking too long so they decided to only have the one false start and you were kicked out.

especially in the 100m.

replay when I got home and it still made no sense.

My wife, daughter and I are coming Friday night, both sessions Saturday and Sunday night.

Our fourth now has a work conflict, so we have a spare for each session.

(Edit: email added)

Looks awesome.

Curious about the watching experience for the different events such as the throws and jumps.

The Big screens are inredible so you can see replays and live action anywhere from most seats. They seem to show the same shots as the Peacock feed which has British announcers, not the US NBC feeds. They also show local cameras like for Duck games. They also have luxury boxes and TVs all over the place like all top notch stadiums.

Most seats are plush except the aluminum bleacher bench seats at the turns. Lot's of Oregon track heroes being highlighted starting with Bowerman and even reference in the very nice bathrooms showing bib tags in the tiles. THe concessions are called Ashton's Eatin's and English Gardens which are takeoffs two of the most famous Oregon OLympians.

Well worth Phil's $200M, considering how much he has.

Hope to get there someday for an event.

It's hard to fault the judges who were enforcing the rule. But the rule is pretty lousy.

In the semis, Allen's start time was (IIRC) 0.101. The finals it was 0.099 and a DQ. It's hard to imagine that he reacted properly in the semis, and anticipated the gun in the finals, when they were 0.002 different.

The IAAF actually commissioned a study several years ago that pegged the fastest reactions times at 0.08. So why they are clinging to 0.1 is beyond me.

Between that, the DQ of the two women in the 100m semis, and the cameraman on the track impeding runners during the steeplechase, World Athletics isn't really doing the sport any favors.

they are going to back and revisit the rules to see if changes are needed.

When I watched the close-up replay, I couldn't tell the difference between Allen and the runner in the next lane.

It would seem .001 would be within acceptable +/- error limits

It seems like such a negligible amount of time that a DQ seems unfair.

Anyhow, the US is doing well. 16 medals (6 Golds) as of today with the next closest country with 6 (Ethiopia). There are still quite a few events left and I am rooting for the US to continue with their winning ways.

Really looking forward to the men's and women's 200 M Semi's and Finals, which are tonight and Thursday.

The US should dominate the men's side, possibly even sweep (4 US entries) as they did in the 100 M.

The women's 200 meter should be interesting with a strong Jamaican contingent against some very good Americans (Steiner, Prandini and Clark)

And as athletes get faster and faster, wouldn't you think that a boy's reaction time would get faster as well?

I'd also question the accuracy of a 1 hundredth of a second reading (Allen reaction time was .099). It seems there should be some leeway given for that close to allowed limit - and I would say that no matter what country was represented.

Then there is the intent of the rule - using computers to catch those "jumping the gun" trying to time the start. Watching the start in super slow motion, Allen didn't get any discernible better start than any of the other competitors

So I question:
The limit used (0.1 second)
The fallibility of the equipment
The intent of the rule