Runner’s Oshkosh critique: ‘USATF violated its own rule’
Robert Nesbit Jr., an Army officer wounded in Iraq, eventually recovered and competed in M45
middle distances a month ago at Oshkosh, running for Club Northwest. When he got home, he dissected
the meet as if it were a military exercise. He did an
After Action Review of Wisconsin masters nationals. See it here.
Among other things, he argues that ninth-place qualifiers should have been allowed into the finals, since the track has nine lanes. But only eight advanced. âThese are my opinions only,â Robert writes, âand given where I placed
in my events you may be inclined to dismiss them. You could perhaps
call this the view from the âmiddle of the pack.â â
Further, Robert wrote:
I have addressed this email and AAR to the masters chair as I assume
that is who this should go to. I have ccâd the following, the Chair of
the Pacific NW association and NW Region, since I am from the
Washington area. I have ccâd the Active Athleteâs rep to the masters
committee. I have ccâd my coach, I have ccâd the leader of the club I
run for. . . . Bottom line is I love track. Like most guys my age, I
didnât run too much in my late 20s and 30s due to career and life
commitments.Long story short, I started training again a few years ago and started
to compete again in 2008. In my âday jobâ I am an active duty Army
Officer with 23 years of service.Now that and $4.00 will buy you a cup
of coffee at Starbucks. The âso whatâ is that in that time I have been
associated with multiple events (and note) track meets are
projects of some magnitude. So I understand just how difficult it is to
be âin the hot seatâ when in charge of an event.I also understand how
frustrating it can be when people come up at the last minute with âgood
ideasâ of how to make things better. Any good organization should sit
down after an event is over and look at what went right and what went
wrong and determine if there is anything that may need to be changed in
the future.My intent with my AAR is not to be a âgood idea fairy,â or
to imply that things were wrong. But I have participated in the last
two Outdoor National Championships and after this last one sat down and
put my thoughts on paper on how to improve the meet. I realize that I
am not one of the âstarsâ of masters track, and I also know that in any
organization that the tendency is that no one wants to hear from the
ânew guy.âI also know from my time in the military that occasionally
some of the best ideas come from the young privates and specialists.
While I donât know that I have the best ideas my hope is that you will
read the attached three-page Word document and that it will spur your
ideas of how to make the national championship meet better for all
participants in the future.Since we are all victims of our past
experience I used a format for the AAR that we use in the military â
Issue, Discussion, Recommendation. That particular format is, for me at
least, easy to follow.
If you have questions or comments about the AAR I can be reached at
this email address, but as I type this I am in the process of moving my
family from Fort Lewis, Washington to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in order
to attend a school that the Army is sending me to. . . .I did do some research on the 9-lane issue.
Attached to this issue is a cut/paste from the 2009 USATF rule book that
I put on a word doc. The link to the rule book is:
http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2009/2009USATFRules.pdfI was
surprised to learn that the national meet was in violation of its own
rule. Bottom line is if the track has 9 lanes the rules say 9
competitors should go to the finals. So at the risk of sounding
judgmental, in the 100, 200Â and 400, as well as the 800 in the age
groups that did not roll to a final (I think that was only the M50 age
group) the runners who finished 9th in the prelims did not get the
opportunity contest a national championship final.Now, you could make
the case that if you are the ninth-best in the prelims you are not likely
to win. But by the rules you should get the opportunity. I had assumed
during the meet that the rules must have prohibited taking nine to the
final. Just goes to show you what you learn by doing a little research.
Robert also answered a quickie Q&A I sent before Lahti worlds. He replied promptly, but I dragged my feet. I was too busy (having fun, winning my miracle medal in the relay, etc.) to post this earlier. My apologies to Robert.
Hereâs the interview:
Masterstrack.com: Have you been to Iraq of
Afghanistan? How many tours?Robert Nesbit: Yes. Without going too much into my
military history, I enlisted in 1986, and was in Desert Storm in 1991
as an NCO. Bosnia in 1995-96. In 1997, the Army I sent me to Officer
Candidate School, and in both 2006 and 2007 I was in Iraq as an
officer. I have not been to Afghanistan.Currently, I am here at Fort
Leavenworth (Kansas) to attend Command and General Staff College.What are you all-time and masters PRs?
All-time PRs: 880 yards 2:00.4,
Mile 4:37.0, 5K (road) 16:56. As a master: 800 in 2:17.66, 1500 in 4:52.44
(I have not raced a mile on the track since going back to the sport),
5K (road) 19:34.How many masters nationals have you attended?
Only
two, both outdoors. Spokane last year, where I finished 10th (and last)
in the M40 800m and Oshkosh this summer where I was 9th in the M45 800m
(running 10 seconds faster this year than last year I am proud to say)
and 13th in the M45 1500m.A bit more of my story: I ran track and XC in both HS and a year of
college before getting frustrated and walking away from the sport at
19. Looking back at it, that is something I wish I had not done,
because I really donât know how good I could or could not have been.But, it may be a blessing in disguise because it gives me hope that
maybe there is still a fast guy inside me. As I went through life, and
my career the Army generally kept me in good shape, going through the
various schools that you go through as a Combat Arms Soldier and
Officer and working out. But at the same time it was nowhere near the
specific fitness needed to be competitive as a runner doing masters
track.I had followed masters track for years through the Internet, (I
first learned of your website in 2002 while I was stationed in Korea)
and was awed and inspired by reading about runners like Tony Young,
Kevin Paulk, Dave Clingan, Nolan Shaheed and others. I wanted to be
like those guys, but it was overwhelming to try and do the training on
your own, as well as losing some pounds to race well.In October of
2006 during my unitâs tour in Iraq I was blown up and that was actually
what inspired me to want to compete again. I was wounded, but compared
to how bad it could have been I was lucky, I still had all my fingers
and toes.But it made me realize just how blessed I was to be able to
run at all. The job I had was a Cavalry Troop Commander, so didnât
really have much free time, but I did have about 1 to 2 hours a day
where I was not on a mission âoutside the wireâ or sleeping or working,
and rather than read or surf the Internet I went to the gym.Each day I
spent 45 minutes to an hour running on the treadmill. My goal at the time
was to go to Orono, Maine, and compete. That didnât happen due to our
tour being extended from 12 months to 15 months, but, I was able to
compete in Spokane and Oshkosh as well as some other very well run
meets.When I look at where I was, running-wise, over the past few
years and where I am now, I am grateful for having the opportunities to
compete at the masters level during both 2008 and 2009. I am hopeful
that I will be able to compete in 2010 and would love to be in
Sacramento next year. We will see.
19 Responses
I agree 100% with Nobert.
I doubt that few if any masters athletes carry a copy of the USAT&F Competition Rules to a meet. [You can download them here: http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2009/2009USATFRules.pdf%5D
But a firm knowledge (and copy) of the rules could save the day. For example, let’s say that you had the ninth fastest qualifying time in a sprint event (but not a nine-lane track). And, as is not unusual, someone scratches in the final leaving seven runners. Can you, with the ninth fastest time, run in the finals? Under the regular open rules, Rule 166.7, the answer is no: “When an individual or relay team, having qualified for a subsequent round, withdraws for any reason, no additional individual or relay team shall be advanced to fill the vacated position.”
However, there is an exception for masters: Rule 332.2(b): “When an individual or relay team, having qualified for a subsequent round,
withdraws for any reason, the fastest non-qualifier may be advanced to fill
the vacated position. When an individual or team is disqualified, Rule 166.7 applies.”
So anyone who just misses qualifying by time for a track event should hang around with a copy of Rule 332.2(b) and be prepared to jump into an empty lane. Note, however, the operative word is “may” be advanced.
My question is how far will the officials go when a finalist “withdraws for any reason”? For example, at the 1998 WAVA-Buffalo meet I had the seventh fastest 400m Hurdle time, but did not advance to the finals due to a very slow heat that advanced the top two in that heat. At the finals, one of the other US competitors was warming up in his blocks when a WAVA official decided to cross the track right in front of him. The competitor had to veer out of the way which caused a calf cramp and forced him to withdraw from the finals right before the start of the race! Assuming that the USAT&F masters rule would have been in effect, what are the chances that I could have been advanced right before the start of the race?
Perspiring minds want to know.
For other weird masters T&F rules see:
http://www.geocities.com/ortmanmarchand/fsd.html
Minor correction to above: WAVA-Buffalo was in 1995. I knew that.
I had looked up this rule before the meet so I could know ahead of time how the M50 800s would be run. There was the possibility of 2 or 3 heats in M50. The rules address advancement procedures for 6, 8 AND 9 lane tracks.
They did NOT follow the rules for a 9 lane track.
I asked about this at the tent and the officials just shrugged and said only 8 would advance.
I don’t think any one really knows why this was done. It’s a real shame that lane could not be filled. It would probably have been the highlight of someone’s year just to say they were in the Final.
What a shame this athlete could not compete and advance according to the rules. Could have an objection be filed and answered before his final was contested?
Thanks for the rules.
Being new at this can anyone tell me why Rule 169 (Steeplechase) was not followed in women’s steeple.
“4. Each competitor shall go over or through the water. An athlete shall be disqualified
if he/she:
(a) does not jump any hurdle;
(b) steps to one side or the other of the hurdles; or
(c) trails the leg or foot below the horizontal plane of the top of any hurdle at
the instant of clearance.
Provided this Rule is observed, an athlete may go over each hurdle in any
manner..”
I think (c) would include crawling over it or placeing your belly on it as this would have the trail leg or foot below said plane. The way some women went over the barriers made the women’s steeple actually more dangerous than it needed to be. Can someone please educate me on this one.
(c) is intended to prevent people from trailing the leg below and to the side of the hurdle, thereby not exactly clearing the hurdle with both legs. I’m more interested in (a). Crawling over the hurdle is not exactly jumping it. In regular hurdle races, pushing the hurdle over with your hand disqualifies you.
And don’t forget running the 100m under protest after being disqualified for false starting, a non-protestable ruling.
These are barriers not hurdles so they do not tip if hit. Hands on is allowed, also on the water jumps. Older athletes men and women usually have hands on both to clear. The regular longer hurdles are lower than barriers in the steeple for over 60 age groups so it would seem more dangerous to not use hands and try to hurdle the barriers/water jump. It is great to see athletes of any age doing the steeple. Reminds me of European xc races than are like the steeple, you clear any way you can, water, hay bales, stone walls etc and run like crazy in between.
to be safe..rule of thumb: finish in the top 8
In response to John Simpson, no, you are NOT safe to make a National masters sprint finals if you are in the top 8 in qualifying.
Unlike our European Vetern brethern and sistern who don’t allow US masters to participate in their championships, we allow foreign competition:
Masters Rule 332.2(g): “At National Track and Field Championships, the athletes advanced to the
final in every event shall consist of at least 2/3rds who are USA affiliated as
determined by WMA. If adjustments are needed to meet this requirement, then the reduction in guest finalists shall be determined by performance with no consideration to place. Those USA affiliated athletes that were
advanced to the finals by place shall retain their position and the additional USA affiliated athletes that will be added to the final shall be
selected by performance with no consideration to place. The number of finalists shall not be increased to include additional non-USA affiliated athlete finalists.”
If I’ve got my math right, this means that you need to be in the top 6 qualifying or you could be bumped from the finals by two foreign competitors. Personally, I would like to see a reciperical rule allowing only foreign competitors whose associations allow US competitors into their national championships.
For more see NMN Column from November 2000:
http://www.geocities.com/ortmanmarchand/fs9.html
Actually the M50-59 Steeplechase, as well as M70+ Steeplechase barriers are higher than the hurdles for the Long Hurdle events for those same age divisions. And why is that?
That does result in many men developing a hands on the barrier vaulting technique, which is allowed.
I believe several European masters championships allow foreign guests, the British (BMAF) for instance and that would include US masters athletes. Correct me if I am wrong. And if I am right maybe some other European readers could specify whether or not US masters may compete at their championships? In fact a list of countries that allow foreign guests to their championships would be very useful.
I don’t have my rule book handy, but I believe in this and many other things the rules allow the Games Committee a lot of latitude when it comes to how many advance to the finals. Just because there is a 9 lane track they don’t have to advance 9 to the finals. It’s a Games Committee decision.
To David E. Ortman an Anthony Treacher.
Swiss masters championships are international. All can compete. But if you win you will not be Swiss Champion but the first swiss athlete will be it. And he can only get a medal when he achieves the standard of medal. But the foreign athletes on the steps will get special prizes (this year it was Swiss chocolate :-)).
An also you can compete in Austria and like in Switzerland, if you win, you donât will be Austrian Champion, but you will also receive a special price (Austrian chocolate?;-)).
I like chocolate and some of my friends.. Renee..like it too. Maybe we can try for a chocolate tour
Could/Should/Would that translate to non-Americans winning at our Nationals receiving corresponding treats such as Dagoba, Ghiradelli, Guittard, Hersheys, Schaffren Berger, Sees Candies, Vermont Nut Free, etc.?
Fr your list: Canada awards a duplicate medal to foreign athletes so as not to displace their athletes. They announce both athletes at their awards ceremony.
Rule 332.2(g) is in place to prevent Foreign entrants from displacing too many US athletes at the National Championships, it does not give meet management the opposite option . . . to displace US athletes in order to accommodate inferior non-US entrants. If “at least” is misused, perhaps we need to change the language.
And following the rulebook Rule 162.5, David Hampton was exactly correct in asking how an athlete was allowed to run a race “under protest” after being Disqualified for a non-protestable offense (False Starting)? Rule 146.4 does not apply here. To my knowledge, there was no false start control apparatus in use. If it was, was that the grounds for the protest? If not, then there is nothing to protest–Its not valid. Starters at a National Championship should intimately know these rules–even on my lower level, we have to attend three seminars a year to drill this into our heads. Rather than just mentioning this in a blog comment, I’d like some follow-up. What official is accountable to allow such bending of the rules and under what grounds? We really should follow up on any failure of rules to be followed properly lest we allow it to happen again in the future, even as a precedence.
We have been through many years of discussions regarding the issuance of ribbons for 4-6 places. We had to put it into the rulebook, so some LOCs would not be allowed to scrimp on such an important element. We had to stand our ground when they tried to substitute the word “may” which would have meant “don’t need to.”
Awards Ceremonies should get equal stature of importance. Do we need to make a rule about that too, or can we depend on the National Games Committee to make it important to each LOC. Obviously it is easier to have a couple of college kids just pass out medals from the bag. This level of formality is appropriate for the stature of the meet, that is ultimately what our product IS. And I’m sorry that my being offended by early registration deadlines keeps circling back, but if we are so concerned about pre-planning and keeping a meet on schedule that we make our participants unnecessarily jump through those hoops, can’t we also expect a schedule for WHEN those awards ceremonies will take place? This way, the athletes will know when to show up at the podium (rather than waiting around until one other person is found), stepping away from another event you are participating in can be coordinated, and outgoing plane tickets can be planned. And with a little thought they can schedule these events to happen when there are people in the stadium–give our top six athletes their moment in the sun before the few people who might appreciate their accomplishments. OK, for some athletes it will be “you snooze, you lose” and then they can be relegated to getting their medal out of a baggie or in the mail, but this certainly can be done much better.
In short (why am I never short?), we have to stand up for what is right, what is important and expect our advance contracts with the LOCs and Games Committee supervisors to take care of these things.
I concur with Andy Hecker that “we have to stand up for what is right, what is important.” In the case of the Oshkosh meet, Jerry Bookin-Weiner is correct — this is (was) a Games Committee decision and that is what the Games Committee decided — take 8 to the finals even though there were 9 lanes.
One question that immediately comes to mind: Could a 3 x 5 card have been handed to all competitors in events of 800 meters and shorter to tell them there would be only 8 taken to the finals? If athletes come to the meet expecting 9 to go, it seems only right to inform them that for this meet the answer will be 8, not 9. Another way would be to tell the announcer to announce periodically that finals would have 8, not 9.
More generally, we need to focus on what is best (right) for our athletes. Is, for example, having trials in the 800 really a good thing, especially when most of them roll over to finals? This year, for example, 80% of them rolled. Should the awards ceremony get short shrift (I don’t think so)? Should there be more food and drink for sale?
What else can we do to make the experience better for our athletes so that more will show up in Sacramento (2010) and Berea (2011) for outdoors and Boston (2010) for indoors?
Leave a Reply