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
Track Twitter is fuming. by ewillND
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.