>Jon Drummond did not deserve to be disqualified from the quarter-finals like he was. If you look at the
>replay, you can see that the man (think his name was Apo or somethin) moved before Jon. You can aslo
>see that Jon jiggled his foot before Apo took off. The announcers pointed out that the blocks sense the
>pressure on them so they know when someone took off before the gun. Now if Jon jiggled his foot that
>could have set off the sensor, disqualifying him unfairly.
Huh? Why would it be unfairly if it is not allowed and is a false start (is that the name?) In addition, who actually moves first is kind of pointless since all get disqualified (in this case, both was). Judging from only camera fotage is not enough since, as you note, movements with the foot can take place that is not shown as the body moving.
He started to early and was disqualified. He then refused to accept it and so on and just made a fool of himself. Of course he gets dissapointed, who wouldn't but that is not an excuse, and definately not an excuse for not disqualifying anyone. If it was, there would never be any disqualifications.
>"When you get nervous you twitch so it's not his fault he twitched."
So a false start due to being nervous is OK? It is part of the game, control your nervousness.
>The rules are stupid and should be changed. Give the athletes the benefit of the doubt, or give them more
>than two chances.
That is of course something that can be discussed. The rules recently changed. Before EACH player had two chances. That is, each runner could fals start once. However, that lead to the heats taking for evere with 3, 4 or even more false starts in each heat (in some cases probably runners taking a chance hoping to hit the shot better since they knew they had one more chance). That was the whole reason they changed it. On can argue it is not right or wrong, but since it is the rule, it is stupid comming and blaming it on him being nervous or that he trained his whole life. He should have trained starting more then and trained controlling his nervousness. Obviously the start is of utter importance in 100m so it is important to train it well and be able to not false start, yet get of quickly.
The fact that the public then made major fools of themselves and acted stupidly is of course another story. Thus:
> The rules should be changed, the fans were right to delay the race by booing and yelling.
No, they were acting like idiots, only destryong the competition for the ones remaining that had a harder time concentrating, and affecting all athlets to compete later that night. Since everything went along how the rules work, there was no reason for such a thing.
If you wanted to protest, why didn't you do it in advance, when the rules changed and so on? Or did it only strike you since it happened to be one of your own country?
From other post:
>The judges saw the replay and still disquaified Jon, even though it's clear Apo took off first.
So what, BOTH get disqualified. Why do you think neither of them started later when the race was done?
> Jon could have a lawsuit here too. If he can prove that he didn't take off and that the computer is wrong.
Get real here. He clearly started to early and according to the rules that means disqualifications. Accept it.
>If you win the race there are going to be companies wanting your face on every cereal box, every bag of
>chips, millions of dollars worth of endorsements. On top of killing his dream they take away the chance at
>millions of dollars.
What on earth does that have anything to do with it? So you can't disqualifying someone if it is possible to make lot of money later on? So if I promise to give anyone that wns lot of money, he/she should be treated differently since there is money involved?
>replay, you can see that the man (think his name was Apo or somethin) moved before Jon. You can aslo
>see that Jon jiggled his foot before Apo took off. The announcers pointed out that the blocks sense the
>pressure on them so they know when someone took off before the gun. Now if Jon jiggled his foot that
>could have set off the sensor, disqualifying him unfairly.
Huh? Why would it be unfairly if it is not allowed and is a false start (is that the name?) In addition, who actually moves first is kind of pointless since all get disqualified (in this case, both was). Judging from only camera fotage is not enough since, as you note, movements with the foot can take place that is not shown as the body moving.
He started to early and was disqualified. He then refused to accept it and so on and just made a fool of himself. Of course he gets dissapointed, who wouldn't but that is not an excuse, and definately not an excuse for not disqualifying anyone. If it was, there would never be any disqualifications.
>"When you get nervous you twitch so it's not his fault he twitched."
So a false start due to being nervous is OK? It is part of the game, control your nervousness.
>The rules are stupid and should be changed. Give the athletes the benefit of the doubt, or give them more
>than two chances.
That is of course something that can be discussed. The rules recently changed. Before EACH player had two chances. That is, each runner could fals start once. However, that lead to the heats taking for evere with 3, 4 or even more false starts in each heat (in some cases probably runners taking a chance hoping to hit the shot better since they knew they had one more chance). That was the whole reason they changed it. On can argue it is not right or wrong, but since it is the rule, it is stupid comming and blaming it on him being nervous or that he trained his whole life. He should have trained starting more then and trained controlling his nervousness. Obviously the start is of utter importance in 100m so it is important to train it well and be able to not false start, yet get of quickly.
The fact that the public then made major fools of themselves and acted stupidly is of course another story. Thus:
> The rules should be changed, the fans were right to delay the race by booing and yelling.
No, they were acting like idiots, only destryong the competition for the ones remaining that had a harder time concentrating, and affecting all athlets to compete later that night. Since everything went along how the rules work, there was no reason for such a thing.
If you wanted to protest, why didn't you do it in advance, when the rules changed and so on? Or did it only strike you since it happened to be one of your own country?
From other post:
>The judges saw the replay and still disquaified Jon, even though it's clear Apo took off first.
So what, BOTH get disqualified. Why do you think neither of them started later when the race was done?
> Jon could have a lawsuit here too. If he can prove that he didn't take off and that the computer is wrong.
Get real here. He clearly started to early and according to the rules that means disqualifications. Accept it.
>If you win the race there are going to be companies wanting your face on every cereal box, every bag of
>chips, millions of dollars worth of endorsements. On top of killing his dream they take away the chance at
>millions of dollars.
What on earth does that have anything to do with it? So you can't disqualifying someone if it is possible to make lot of money later on? So if I promise to give anyone that wns lot of money, he/she should be treated differently since there is money involved?
There are three types of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.