There outta be a law? Pitch some to USATF for annual meeting
Jimmy Stuart of the USATF Officials Universe writes: “2010 is a Rule Change Year for USATF. If you would like to submit a rule change, now is the time to do so. The format and instructions for submitting a rule change are outlined in Article 21-E of the USATF Bylaws and are included below for your convenience. As is mentioned below, when submitting a rule change your proposal must have the recommendation of someone other than yourself that’s listed in Article 21.” So if you think masters deserve four tries at each height in the high jump or three false starts per sprinter, now’s the time to chime in. Seriously, what here needs changing for masters?
I’ll answer that: sensible rules for ratifying masters track records.
Nuff said.
More from Jimmy:
George Kleeman, Officials Committee Vice-Chair for Rules is willing to review and endorse submissions from certified officials. If you wish to have George review and endorse your change, you must email it to him (in the correct format) by August 22nd. His email address is george_kleeman@comcast.net.
Submission Information- Competition Rules
The following sections of Article 21 dictate the deadline for submissions, as well as the approval necessary for submitting a proposal. Proposals must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the Annual Meeting, making this year’s deadline August 25.
Article 21-E
Submitters: Amendments may be submitted only by a member of USATF.
Approval of submissions: All proposed amendments must first be recommended for approval at the time of submission by someone other than the submitter who shall be either a USATF National Officer, the chair of any sport, development, or operating committee, any member of the Law & Legislation Committee (for Bylaws and operating Regulations) or Rules Committee (for Rules of Competition), the president of any Association, or any officer or the executive director of a national member organization authorized by Article 5-C. Such approval must be in writing, dated, and placed on the proposal when submitted. These listed approval parties may submit proposed amendments directly without such an approval.
Format: Submissions should include the entire rule or paragraph under consideration. Deleted language should be indicated by a ((double parentheses)) and added language by an underline. In addition, the submitter should include a rationale to support the amendment.
Submissions must be made by August 25 via e-mail to the Rules Chair, John Blackburn, with a copy to the committee Secretary, Bob Podkaminer.
USATF Officials Website – www.usatfofficials.com
For questions about the newsletter or if you have an item you would like mentioned in the newsletter please email Jimmy Stuart, Communications Subcommittee Chair, at stu28bu@gmail.com.
This is the official newsletter of the USATF National Officials Committee (NOC) is published via email on the last day of each month. It is for informational purposes only and is open to any USATF Certified Official. The subscription is free. Please remind your fellow officials to subscribe now at http://www.usatf.org/groups/officials/newsletters/.
11 Responses
Ken: I will offer a modest change just to show how far we are from an optimal situation:
“All running or racewalking marks achieved at the indoor masters nationals, the open indoor nationals, or the world open or masters indoor championships shall be deemed U.S. masters records if they surpass the listed marks.”
Example of the change in the records that would occur:
The listed M35 American indoor mark for the 3000 is 8:42.00 by Chad Newton. In 2009, Charlie Kern ran 8:37.94 at the national indoor masters, but the mark was not accepted. Bernard Lagat ran 7:37.97 at the 2010 world indoors, I believe. Thus, Bernard Lagat would replace Chad Newton as the M35 American indoor record holder (should replace Charlie Kern, of course).
No application would be needed for running or racewalking marks set in the 4 meets I have cited. There would be an appeals process, however, for people to challenge records they believed to be in error.
Timed finals at Nats
Peter hit the nail right on the head.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO RUN FOR ANY CLUB YOU LIKE NO MATTER WHARE YOU LIVE LICK THE OLD DAYS WITH AAU AND LIKE TO YOU MORE USATF SANCTIONED MEETS LIKE PENN RELAYS MORE RUNNING EVENTS FOR MASTERS AND MORE MASTERS MEET LIKE CALI HAS.
HOPE SOME OF THE IDIAS MAKE IT TO A CHANGE LOVE THGIS SPORT CHANGE IS GOOD
You can run for any club that you want to run for. There are many athletes who live in areas that don’t have masters clubs. Or other that would like to run with others from clubs not in there area. There is no rule that says you can’t.
I HAVE RAN FOR SHORE AC IN NJ FOR YEARS I live in wisconsin I have to run unattached and run with them in relay meets only because thats the statis that is given when you give your usatf card you cant list your club number unless you get ok from njusatf lot of red tape ,if you knopw something I dont robert T let me know THANKS ROBERT
Proposal to amend USATF Master Rule 332.2(b)
Background:
Well, it’s happened again at the US NATIONAL masters T&F championships. Someone spends money to get to Sacramento only to place 9th in the preliminaries of the M55 800m and gets bumped out of the finals because of a foreign athlete in lane 1-8. Then someone doesn’t show up leaving a lane open, but does #9 (really #8US, but now #7) get to run??? Noooo.
M55 800m
Finals
1 Gallegos, Steve M55 Unattached 2:12.01 2:09.43
2 Duncanson, Rob M55 Km3d Athletic Club 2:20.28 2:11.83
3 Scott, Robert M55 Unattached 2:17.51 2:14.65
4 Plaster, Tony M58 Shore Athletic Club 2:15.83 2:14.77
5 Van Ness, Hugh M55 Tamalpa Runn 2:19.43 2:17.58
6 *Munro, Ross M57 Canada 2:20.67 2:19.71
7 Scott, Basil M55 Unattached 2:21.29 2:22.76
Preliminaries
4 Chantry, Stephen M55 Colonial Roa 2:19.91
9 Stonkus, Arny M55 Club Northwest 2:22.60
10 Bordoni, Jim M57 West Valley 2:22.67
11 Shapiro, Gary M59 Unattached 2:25.45
12 Tjogas, Paul M57 Spartans Run 2:27.80
13 Berman, David M58 Unattached 2:29.26
14 Harper, Turran M58 Unattached 2:30.05
15 Brusher, William M58 Strawberry C 3:01.68
Only six ran in the M55 200m finals (Apparently Bill Collins sustained an injury at the previous night’s award ceremony!):
Finals
1 Peyton, Oscar M57 Maryland Mas 25.00 23.91 -1.6
2 Jones, Thomas M56 Maryland Mas 26.11 25.08 -1.6
3 Torie, Phillip M55 Unattached 26.08 25.20 -1.6
4 Riddle, Richard M58 Houston Elite 25.63 25.45 -1.6
5 Pizza, Greg M56 Houston Elite 26.75 26.40 -1.6
6 Washington, Hulan M58 Golden West 26.40 26.94 -1.6
Preliminaries
2 Collins, Bill M59 Houston Elite 25.28
7 Duhe, Reginald M55 Unattached 26.56
9 Wasson, Charles M55 Unattached 26.79
10 Snodgrass, Ernie M57 Big River Ru 26.84
11 Swindlehurst, Gregg M55 Carolinas Tr 27.55
12 Kloch, Stephen M58 So Cal Track Club 28.03
13 Searles, Anthony M56 Unattached 28.59
14 Stone, Kenneth M56 SC Striders 28.75
15 Beutler, Billl M57 Unattached 30.29
USATF Masters Rule 332.2(b) provides:
(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.
I have made inquiry to the National Chair of the Games Committee and received the following reply:
“The issue on 332.2. The key word is may and in the case of advancement because an athlete does not withdraw and does not show up we are not responsible to find an athlete to fill that lane or will not . The option would be to keep an athlete over for a day or maybe two to act as an alternate in case someone drops out at the last minute which is usually the case. That is not fair either as the athlete can go home after not making the finals instead of waiting a day or possibly two for a slot that in most cases will never open up. It is the Games Committees option and we have chosen to not fill an empty lane as is done in all USATF Championships. Unless it is done under 166.7 The way it is done now is fair to ALL the competitors. Yes I agree in your case it does seem unfair but that is not the norm. If we knew that a lane was open a day prior to a final that would require a rule change to accomplish and might be a solution that someone might bring up at the convention.”
James Flanik
Chair Games Committee
O.K., the problem with Rule 332.2(b) is that all the discretion “may be advanced” is on the Meet officials and they made clear to athletes at Sacramento that they would rather have empty lanes in a final, than to advance someone up from the semis.
Therefore, is there support for a proposed rule change as follows?:
“Rule 332.2(b) When an individual or relay team, having qualified for a subsequent round, withdraws for any reason, the fastest non-qualifier [add-WHO NOTIFIES MEET OFFICIALS OF HIS/HER AVAILABILITY TO COMPETE WILL [delete-may] be advanced to fill the vacated position. When an individual or team is disqualified, Rule 166.7 applies.”
This would put the responsibility on the 9th place athlete to inform the Meet Officials that they are available to run in a final. It is not meant to require Meet Officials to run around and try and locate an Athlete.
Wouldn’t you rather see eight lanes running in a National final?
Good, Dave. Anything we can do that will fill the lanes in our finals while NOT requiring the Games Committee to do a search of the premises is an excellent idea. We run a lot of short fields in the sprint finals — I should know.
Once again David Ortman is on top of things. Each time a fudge word is placed in a rule, may being that fudge word, the only thing that can be guaranteed is that it will not happen.
Nowhere does it say that the athlete needs to be located. If someone who got bumped off the bubble really wants to run, they will show up at the check in and see if there is a lane available. The horrible thing we keep having is an administrator, seeing the open lane, still finds a way to say “No.” I guess that is where I philosophically differ from them. I look for every opportunity to say yes, to have the competition on the track, to have that lane filled, to have the athletes go home happy.
Andrew and David:
I did some research on M45 and M50, two very popular groups (they have a lot of sprinters), and looked at the 200 dash only. In the last 4 years (Orono, Spokane, Oshkosh, and Sacramento) the average size of the finals for those groups was 6.9 sprinters. Only one final had 8 sprinters, and that was Oshkosh in M45.
Perhaps these numbers can be improved in Berea (2011) and Lisle (2012). With so many good sprinters around, it would be nice to have finals of 8.
Leave a Reply