This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Makes you wonder how they came up with .1 as reaction time? by NDoggie78
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