Comments on: Is it time to change false-start rules?

By: tmhamel

tmhamel — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:20:13 +0000

I agree with tmarket's solution: Allow each competitor one false start but move their starting block back 1% – I would add that false starts should also have the cumulative effect of adding the penalty for each false start in each subsequent heat, e.g. –
– A runner suffers a false start in his/her first heat, moves back 1% but still manages to qualifiy for the next heat.
- In the next heat they start at the original starting line but if they false start their penalty is to move back 2%.
- If they qualify for next heat and false start again their penalty is 3%.

Two false starts in one race disqualifies the runner.

By: jerry

jerry — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:44:32 +0000

It shoulsd also pertain to swimming....

By: Manheim

Manheim — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:39:02 +0000

Isn't the sport supposed to be measuring who can run the fastest?
I can see why they have to do something about false starts for the sake of fairness, but in close cases this could be easily fixed by just video-taping it and reimagining based on if the runner had started running at the same time in order to see if he still would've won. It's an easy fix.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:23:56 +0000

They should remove the "human voice" in the start process. Runners are thrown off by the style of the starter. It should be changed to electronic pulses.

By: Richard Owen

Richard Owen — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:05:10 +0000

The false start rule penalizes sprinters unfairly. If you overstep in long jump, or javelin etc. you lose that jump or throw; but when you make a false start in a sprint, its all over. Since sprints last only 10 or 20 seconds, it seems reasonable to allow a one false (per athlete?) starts before disqualifying them ... after all, the event will still be a lot shorter than say the 1500 m or the long jump.

By: Rambo

Rambo — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:06:31 +0000

It's funny how people who have never competed in their life (except to see who can eat the greasiest chips while watching tv) are always the first to be commenting about how the rules should NOT be changed. This was a high profile event that people pay big money to see, only to be robbed of that just because a stupid rule. As a former sprinter, when you compete the adrenaline takes over and every nerve in your body is on edge no matter how many times you have done it before. I'm surprise more people do not false start. Rule MUST GO!!!!!

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:47:10 +0000

I know I am in the minority. The IAAF rule where first false start is charged to the field and the second offender is ejected gave one an advantage because they could take a chance by anticipating the start. If they left the blocks before 0.10 seconds after the sound of the starter’s pistol, they had another chance. I think it is less fair to have first false start charged to the field.

The rule where everyone would be allowed one false start could drag the meet. The delays would impact other runners. They warm up and prepare for their event based on the schedule. A multitude of false starts has messed me up. I ran the 880/800 … the start was delayed 38 minutes because of all the false starts.

A false start is not the only way to be DQed ... plus there other lapses in memory, an injury and other events that can impact the outcome of years of training.

The IAAF should keep the one and out rule, like the NCAA and (USA) high school.

By the way, I have only seen someone with such a big jump one other time … and he did it on purpose. He also was the fastest person on the track (and the state) … 10.2 vice 10.6.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:27:27 +0000

I just researched the false start rule change made in 2010. Yes, it's true. One false start and you are disqualified. Does this change how I feel about Usain being disqualified? Well.... No. I did Track and Field for 10 years from 1996 – 2006 and false starts are always heartbreaking but part of the 100m dash. We all know that Usain can run fast (Very Fast) and he PROBABLY would have won the race, but when all is said and done all that matters is that you win within the parameters of the rules and Usain knows that you cannot flinch in the starting blocks. He was disqualified fair and square. Get over it. I also personally don't think he would have broken the world record again. Then again, he still has the 200m and he still have London 2012. It's not the end of the world.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:25:02 +0000

If these athletes are training for years then the start is one place they have focused on. look at any sport involving speed – if you false start in drag racing – you're gone, false start in F1 you're penalized. in many sports round the world there are rules and regulations – just because the big names get penalized doesn't mean they should change the rules. The athletes should get it right. If you allow a false start then you are penalizing the other athletes who are focused and ready to run properly. Blame the athlete for getting it wrong and not the rules – And remember he supported the rule change. But yes it would have been good to see him run.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:08:27 +0000

If I remember correctly the false start rule everyone is talking about began before 2010. The first false in the 100m is charged to the field. The next athlete to false start is automaticall disqualified. Has this rulechanged? If not, I think it is silly to think about changing the rule because of Usain. Clearly those who what the rules changed don't pay attention to track and field and are just Usain Bolt followers and don't know a thing about Track and Field. The rule was around before he became famous in 2008 and it will remain around. Usain knows the rules. React to the gun, don't anticipate it.