‘Minimum’ heights announced for Sacramento — a masters first?
According to this info sheet about Sacramento masters nationals, the opening height for one of my events, the M55 high jump, will be 1.33 meters (4-4 1/4). That happens to be my 2009 season best — achieved at Lahti worlds (where I heeded rhythmic clapping from my rivals and cleared the bar). So unless the entire field agrees to lower this “minimum height,” I’m toast this year. Of course, that’s pathetically easy for most people. But it might doom some jumpers to NH status. Have such opening heights been promulgated at outdoor nationals before? Not in my memory. Even Lahti let me start about 6 inches lower. Also: Here’s a vague schedule of events. Still awaiting specific times.
Other notes from the info sheet:
Finals: Although we will use nine lanes for some of the larger age groups in the initial rounds in the 100 m, 100m Hurdles, the 110 m hurdles and the 200 m , there will be 8 going the finals in track and field events except where we have timed finals or races over 800 m. Since we do have some foreign athletes enter in the Championship this year, there will be a restriction that no more than 2 foreign athletes can displace USATF members. Rule 332.2(g).
Records: Since this is a National Championships, all results will be reviewed and paperwork for a USATF 5 year age group records are not needed. If you are a foreign athlete or want to claim an individual age record you will need to make a request and submit the necessary paper work to the Masters Games Committee at the finish line. There will be a $5 fee for such documentation, payable when the request is made.
Awards: There will be championship medals for the first three USATF members and complementary medals for any foreign athletes who places in the top three overall in each event. They will be available for pickup about 45 minutes after the completion of each event at the Awards Table located in the Alumni Center. Team awards will be announced at the end of the meet and can be picked at the same Awards Table.
39 Responses
Normally they just see who wants to start where and go with the lowest. I’ve seen the vault start at 6′. I’m fine with that. Seems like maybe they are getting ready for WMA.
There’s a lot in the information sheet to digest, and I am sure the athletes will be reading it very carefully.
1. The requirement of 15 minutes (rather than 1 hour) for declaring in the steeplechase, the 5000, and the 10,000 is a departure from previous years and is largely a good thing. The races are all finals, and they are not going to be redrawn no matter who declares and who doesn’t.
2. For the 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, and hurdles, the following language is a bit unclear:
Athletes must declare your intention to run at least one hour before the scheduled start of your heat. If the number of athletes that report are less than are needed to have that round then the race will be held at that time as the semifinal and the schedule semifinal round will be cancelled after the declaration period has closed.
Is everyone clear on that?
And the 15-minute rule would also apply to the 5000 racewalk and, I assume, the 10,000 racewalk on the road. Sorry about that, walkers.
Pages 85 and 86 of the 2010 Competition Rules Book seem to indicate that 9 lanes should be used for a final, if using a 9 lane track. The rule makes an exception only for “extraordinary circumstances”, yet this was not done in Oshkosh and won’t be done in Sac for, let’s say the 800.
Perhaps I am reading this rule wrong, but it appears to be mandatory procedure on a 9 lane track. Yet we will have only 8 in 800 finals ? Somebody know something that I don’t know ?
The opening heights should be higher at a championship. Jumpers should just use their warm up as part of the competition and be ready to go. On the other side, it is very difficult to warm up and then wait an hour before you jump again. Low opening heights is a problem of all ages for top jumpers. My 10 year old son, Sean, opens up at 4’4″ and they sometimes start his competitons at 2’10”.
I believe Sacramento only has 9 lanes from the 200 start line to the finish. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
The “vague schedule” gives us no new information as it’s been on the Sacramento Sports Commission site for months and is identical to what is on USATF. Therefore, we wait for tomorrow to get any (and all) new news.
What happens if you qualify for the final and then have to scratch? due to injury, or you choose to run in another race and drop the 800.
Will another competitor get your lane?
Club Nationals
Sorensen ran well at club nationals this weekend in the 1500.
Laynes won the 100 in 10.51 closing in on 40, might break the 10.49 AR next season and become second fastest masters of all time.
Apparently, they did make allowance for starting lower. . .
” The starting height may be lower(withthe same progression) if all competitors agree. For example: M35 HJ could start at 1.57 if someone requested and all competitors agreed.”
BUT the example given doesn’t seem to fit this statement i.e. 1.64 w/increments of 5cm.
Anyway, it seems the problem is in the writing/language as Peter pointed out.
I think you are correct, Mellow Johnny, but I have never been there. In other words, the track seems to be 9 lanes from the end of the backstretch (200 start to the finish) but 8 lanes the rest of the way (so I have heard).
The big issue is why they would run only 8 in the 100 and 200 finals when the track has 9 lanes. This is particularly relevant in those age groups where you have 2 superstars and then 10 to 12 athletes with a good chance of making the final. Presuming the 2 superstars make the cut, the remaining athletes are competing for 6 lanes rather than 7, and there will be an open lane.
I believe this happened at Oshkosh as well, per my recollection and Chuck S.
Makes sense for Sac if 9 lanes for only 200 to finish. Altho I do remember Oshkosh was 9 all the way around and they only took 8 to the 800 finals.
I think they try and be consistent for laned races meaning that if one race from 100m-800m has 8 finalists, then all of them will.
That doesn’t explain, however, why Oshkosh had only 8 finalists for those events if the track there has 9 lanes the entire way around. Can’t honestly remember if it does or not but from pictures it appears it does.
Oshkosh is 9 lanes all the way around. I remember someone who would have been the 9th qualifier in his age group (in the 100), but even with 9 lanes they would not let him run, preferring to fill only 8 of the lanes. He had traveled a huge distance to come to the meet and was quite unhappy.
In regards to having opening heights, as a high school track coach, I generally agree that for championship meets, you start the HJ and PV at a quality height.
One general rule that is referred to is that “each height should eliminate half the field.” I don’t think it needs to be that drastic but championship meets are not for JV competitors. They are about the best athletes performing at their best and generally that means taking the fewest jumps and sitting around as little as possible.
That being said, there are no qualifying standards for our masters nationals championships. As long as you’re a USATF member and pay your money, you’re in.
This goes to the heart of the question of what is masters track and field all about? I haven’t been involved long enough to formulate my own opinion.
Personally, my times are mediocre for the steeplechase for someone 33, no surprise for someone who has always beed mediocre at running. I’ve seen athletes at masters track and field meets head and shoulders above me and also some head and shoulders below me.
I don’t think I’m ready to say that we need qualifying standards but I know there are some out there that do. Personally, I think that, in general, participation is too low and we want the the sport to grow, not kill it off.
I don’t have a problem with opening heights if they are well publized prior to you having to spend any money, either on entry fees, or housing. Then you can make a choice based on all the pertinent information.
THe problem here is that the heights (and all the other mickey mouse stuff) have not been well publiczed, even yet today. Why is this information only on sacsports.com and not on the USATF Masters Nationals site?
Is that schedule due out today? Still a bit confused about this scenario: Men’s 800, if a competitor qualifies and then decides to scratch to focus on the 1500 and let’s say another runner scratches due to possible injury, would the final just go off with 6 runners in the final of the 800? If the athletes declare that they are not going to run in the final immediately after the semi’s, would the next fastest runners then move up?
If there are nine lanes for 200m and under events at the US Masters National Championships, all nine should be used. Why? Because the US, unlike its Euro counterparts, allows foreign athletes to compete and displace US masters from finals. Yes, foreign masters athletes can not displace all US finalists, but just think if you’ve traveled across the country and posted the 8th fastest US 100m time in the semifinals, only to have to sit in the stands and watch a foreign master run in your lane in the finals because you were the 9th fastest overall.
For more on this, see my November 2000 NMN “False Start” column:
http://ortmanmarchand.com/fs9.html
One way to solve the low opening height problem is to change the rules to allow an official to give a brief warmup period at scheduled intervals if there is a number of different age groups competing together. We just did that at the Western Regional Championships and it worked out great. The low opening height problem only arises when they run many age groups at once.
Schedule is due out today, yes.
I think moving someone else up to fill someone’s spot who scratched is all dependent on when the person scratched. If they did so immediately or soon after the race was concluded, then their spot will likely get filled. If they wait awhile, then probably not.
For the 80/100/110m hurdles, there are heats and finals the same day so it would have to take place immediately after the race I would think. For the 800, with heats Thursday and finals Saturday, I would think you could scratch on Friday perhaps and that spot would still be filled. Obviously, the sooner the better.
The schedule is due out today, but it has not come out. Interesting. Indianapolis, believe it or not, is on Eastern time, and thus the USATF office should close in about 2 hours (I assume the office is open until 5 PM).
I am guessing that a decision has been to postpone the release of the schedule for the same reason I advanced last week for the delay in releasing it until July 12: too much complexity. Interestingly, one of the factors producing the complexity — heat — may not be a big factor.
The projected high for Sacramento on July 21, the day before things get started, is only 92. Perhaps we will catch a break.
In terms of what Matt B. brought up, I think this will be situational. I have seen runners added to finals because of scratches, and sometimes they are not added. Depends on awareness of the officials, the runners themselves, etc., I would guess.
Note: Maybe USATF will surprise everyone and release the schedule at 4:59 PM today; that would still count as a July 12 release. Hard to tell what the national office will do.
Since it’s been indicated to us that the LOC is in charge of putting together the schedule, and they are on Pacific Time, do you think it’s feasible that they will be the ones posting the schedule, PT?
I’m guessing they may have been granted the capability of updating the website themselves.
I envisioned (rightly or wrongly) them sitting in a meeting this morning, hammering out the schedule, then putting it out once that’s concluded. I was thinking late afternoon (Pacific Time).
Mellow Johnny, you had me going there for a second. I have NEVER heard of the LOC making up the schedule. To calm myself, I looked at the earlier post (the one with 70 comments) and saw the following from Bob Burns of the LOC:
“It’s difficult to answer … until the national masters committee develops the final schedule and posts it on the USATF website on July 12.”
Whew, Mellow Johnny, you had me rattled. The appropriate USATF Masters committee is making up the schedule, not the LOC. It looks like it won’t be posted today, but, as noted, perhaps they plan to post it at 4:59 PM (that would still count as today). Or, because they are a committee, perhaps they will post it this evening (as late as 11:59 PM). That would still count as July 12.
Just keeping you on your toes there, PT. My bad. I swore I heard that the LOC was putting together the schedule for this.
Since we’ve seen results from meets (the recent Club Champs for one) posted on weekends, late at night, and both, someone is obviously being given access to update the site at essentially all hours of the day.
They may not see the posting of the schedule as that important to allow people to do that, however (despite how important a few hundred masters track & field athletes think it is :)).
Although the schedule isn’t posted yet, there are some hints. Click the Facility link under Athlete Info and you’ll see that the stadium closes at 7:00 pm on Thu & Fri, 6:oo pm on Sat. That strongly indicates there won’t be a split schedule (notwithstanding the asterisk).
Also, packet pickup ends at 5:00 pm. Another clue that events won’t start in the evening.
Too bad they don’t start the 800′ at 8PM. Most likely by the time the 5ks’ are finsihed and the women to men, oldest to youngest heats are finishing up, it will by the heat of the day.
The time schedule is up!
It sure is, Gary. It’s a little wild, but I guess it is the best they could do (given all the variables). The 10,000 for women will be run as one section, for example, and is supposed to take just 65 minutes !!! Took longer than that in the cooler climate of Oshkosh, that’s for sure.
I believe there are at least 35 women in the 10,000 (don’t know how many foreign women to add to that). Yikes. It can be done, but the lap scorers will have to be so strong on this one — 25 laps, 35+ runners. Hmmm…. Of course, there will be some scratches that will ease this a bit.
Schedule is up…
and they didn’t keep their promise of all races 1500m and longer being in the morning…brutal
1:10pm for the steeple could be ridiculous
Mellow Johnny, there is no way you will run that early in the steeplechase. For example, the steeple for men 70+ has 15 minutes allotted on the schedule. That will be used for checking to see that the barriers are in place, to instruct the runners, to see that the FAT people are ready to roll, put the track judges in place, and shoot the gun. Oh, and I almost forgot, to run the race.
Last year, the slowest time for men 70+ in the steeplechase was 21 minutes. I predict you will run about 1:45 PM, Mellow Johnny.
Great…even hotter. We ran 2 hours later than scheduled at Spokane so if that happens, we’ll be running at 3.
They should have put as at the end of the day Friday. I’ll be blunt that they really screwed this up.
Absurd to ask us to run 7 1/2 laps in the hottest part of the day.
The steeple should have been at 8PM Friday night. That is crazy. Men’s 40 at 1:10PM or so. I’m hoping it is an unusually cool day. Maybe the Nationals should go to a Wed-Sunday schedule and run the 5000’s on a Wednesday. Has the nationals alwasy followed this schedule?
Hoping for the same thing, Matt B. It’s been Thursday-Sunday the last 3 years and it seems like it’s been that way for several years.
PT and others can verify, though, I’m sure.
Mellow Johnny and Matt B: I don’t want to get in trouble with (A) Ken Stone or the readers for posting too much and (B) USATF Masters for saying anything about the schedule, but I will comment because asked. This is an ESS (ES + S) schedule, but I guess that was the best that was reasonable.
ES: Early start. Races start at 7 AM, which is very early for people staying in hotels in Sacramento or its environs. This is earlier than Oshkosh, and believe me it will be tough on me personally.
S: Stacked. The races are stacked. I don’t mean loaded with talent, which they are, but rather loaded with runners. We seem to have more foreigners than ever (mostly unlisted), and we already have 30 in the M50 5000. That will go as one race with a 25-minute allotment, which is what I mean by a stacked field. Penn Relays and other meets where virtually everyone is either (a) on the same lap as the leader or (b) one lap behind seem to be able to handle this.
Whether masters T&F can run 30 athletes at a time remains to be seen, but apparently this was the best schedule that could be developed (and we had the experts working on it).
At Michigan State (1995) there was a 5-day schedule. As far as I know, all other nationals have been 4-day affairs. This is a tight, tight schedule, and there is no room for any misses. We will see, and let us hope for the best (including temperate weather).
I’m way over on my allotment of posts for sure. I realize the national masters committee had a difficult task fitting all this into the schedule. And, if I was in any other race 1500m or longer, I’d be satisfied because my race would, in fact, be in the morning as promised.
Problem is, one race that’s 1500m or longer isn’t in the morning and isn’t at night and happens to be the race in which I’m competing.
Switching the steeple to the end of the day (as Eugene did in 2003) is an EASY fix to get us out of the middle of the day.
Well, then, I will have to ask Mary Harada (as a woman who runs middle distance and distance) whether she is satisfied with having three 10,000-m races for men but just one 10,000 for women (with 35+ runners in that one race).
Excellent point, PT, as usual. Touche. Personally, I’d take the earlier time and the crowds but that’s me. I don’t race well in heat so feel my time would be better and I would enjoy the race more even if I’m fighting the crowd on the track. Run all the 3000m steeplers at 6:30am and I’d be good with it.
Thanks for the explanation Peter. I vote for a 5 day schedule in the future. This Nationals is good evidence for it. It could spread things out a bit and not make it so hectic and frantic. Did that 1995 schedule at Nationals get a good reception?
I agree with Five Throws, this is a rather last minute change. Thank goodness for Ken and his excellent work keeping us in the loop.
Let me go get my National Masters News, Matt. The turnout was very good (1300 per the headline), which was no. 3 all-time at that point. The meet was hurt by the fact that the Worlds were in Buffalo that year. Thus, hundreds of American athletes no doubt said, “I can’t go to both. I will definitely go to the Worlds and skip nationals this year.”
Balancing that, however, was the fact that 269 foreign athletes (most of them in the US to go to Worlds) said, “Well, mate (or whatever they said), I guess I will make it a twofer” (and do both). Thus, there were 1020 from the US and 269 from out of the country at the nationals. Yikes, that adds to 1289; where did the other 11 come from?
National Masters News quoted several observers as saying, “A lot of U.S. athletes were saving their time and money to go to Buffalo.” Thus, a huge number of Americans skipped the meet to attend the Worlds only. Let’s call it a wash in terms of attendance.
But by “reception” you probably mean the response of the athletes more than the turnout per se. Again, I will get my NMN:
The paper quoted the meet director (Randy Williams) as follows:
“The five-day schedule (instead of the normal four) was critical,” Randy Williams said. “It enabled us to get everything in on time.”
The article goes on to say:
“Indeed, the meet was almost always on schedule. There were a few gaps in the competition on Thursday and Friday when scheduled heats were cancelled due to athletes scratching from events they had signed up and paid for.”
Note: According to Jerry Wojcik (of NMN), weight venues at the nationals were substandard. This, of course, was unrelated to the schedule.
Thus, Matt, it sounds like an on-time meet with some bad cards dealt to the throwers (and a good meet for the runners).
The 5-day schedule was never tried again, as far as I know.
Thank you for the research. It sounded like the athletes and the officials liked the schedule- good reception. It should be considered in future.
Leave a Reply