|
|
Post by trackfan19 on Mar 10, 2008 22:33:58 GMT -5
In reviewing the meet results page of this website, I continue to see the improper reporting of times from meets. Coaches, meet directors, timers, officials, etc. HAND TIMES ARE NOT REPORTED IN HUNDREDTHS, THEY ARE REPORTED IN TENTHS.
Hand times are listed as 7.1 (one decimal) fully automatic timing is listed as 7.10 (two decimals).
Also I have noticed that numerous officials do not know how to read or record a hand time. If you are timing a race and your stopwatch reads 7.01 for 55m, you have to round it up to the next tenth. The time is recorded as 7.1......the conversion to FAT is to add .24, which equals 7.34
In looking at some girls meet results the past few days, I noticed that a girl was listed as running 7.02 for 55m and then 3 days later at another meet ran 7.49 and 7.50. Who runs almost a 1/2 second slower covering only 55 meters? I then realized that her time in the earlier meet was a hand time and was not listed/recorded properly. I REPEAT HAND TIMES ARE RECORDED IN TENTHS!! Please stop listing hand times in hundredths.
Refer to the Big Gold Book (a Track & Field News publication) on how to time a race, convert times, and how to time a relay split.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbandre on Mar 10, 2008 23:21:40 GMT -5
I like your passion, I had a time with this when I did the Class A Leaderboards. I often had to ask if a meet was FAT or not. There are still idiots who run hand timed meets and advance runners based on hand-times to the hundreths and even worse dole out places specifically to the hundreths. When I was coaching HS, I often got the ok from the head coach to volunteer us for the games committee to ensure people don't get screwed. There is so much bs that occurs these days with hand timing, I'd go out of my way to argue in favor of an opposing team that was get screwed, because some genius coach decides to time lanes and not places, with no pickers or spotters. Needless to say, everyone not on the home team was screwed at least once. The next year at the meet they put up a camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoggin88 on Mar 14, 2008 23:29:32 GMT -5
I can't even tell you how much this bugs me. I got ripped off of a school record because the coaches don't understand hand timing compared to F.A.T. The record is a 21.7 in the 200. I ran a 21.74 FAT, as well as a couple 21.8x's and 21.9x's F.A.T. as well. Even though the school record is a hand-timed 21.7, which converts to 21.94* F.A.T., they act like it is the same as a 21.70. It's just really frustrating.
Also, a good portion of the other school records are listed on the board in hundredths even though they were hand timed records. So for those, you can't even tell whether or not they were run F.A.T., and it just creates a mess. They didn't into consideration the .24 second difference. So to anyone running a meet - say no to hand-timed-hundredths!
|
|
|
|
Post by hoggin88 on Mar 18, 2008 22:14:54 GMT -5
Many have complained about the qualifying standards for short sprints both indoor and outdoor, because of the F.A.T. - MT problem. Honestly it puts 55m and 100m runners at a disadvantage if they run at meets with F.A.T. If all meets were F.A.T., then a 6.54 for the 55m and a 10.84 for the 100m just be too fast - talking about the AA qualifying marks right now.
So what I'm wondering is - why don't they make the qualifying marks a 6.63 in the 55m and 10.93 in the 100m or something to that effect instead of catering them to manual times? This would make so much sense for these races. Then anyone in the 100m running a 10.7 MT doesn't qualify, but any runners running from 10.85 to 10.93 F.A.T. would be included - which they absolutely should be! Maybe this sounds weird but I think it would make qualifying a whole lot fairer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbandre on Mar 18, 2008 22:42:06 GMT -5
Many have complained about the qualifying standards for short sprints both indoor and outdoor, because of the F.A.T. - MT problem. Honestly it puts 55m and 100m runners at a disadvantage if they run at meets with F.A.T. If all meets were F.A.T., then a 6.54 for the 55m and a 10.84 for the 100m just be too fast - talking about the AA qualifying marks right now. So what I'm wondering is - why don't they make the qualifying marks a 6.63 in the 55m and 10.93 in the 100m or something to that effect instead of catering them to manual times? This would make so much sense for these races. Then anyone in the 100m running a 10.7 MT doesn't qualify, but any runners running from 10.85 to 10.93 F.A.T. would be included - which they absolutely should be! Maybe this sounds weird but I think it would make qualifying a whole lot fairer. I concur |
|
|
|
Post by hellrazor on Mar 20, 2008 18:37:16 GMT -5
HT is soo inaccurate!!! in it frustrates me to see someone bragging about a HT then get to a FAT meet then wonders why they are running so slow. HT should not be taken serious!
|
|
|
|
Post by xcbbtrk on Mar 21, 2008 15:10:43 GMT -5
I agree with you all. I want to tell you how it is playing out at the younger levels.
It is our jobs as coaches to educate the athletes in the area of timing. I always explain to my kids (Jr. High) that all of our meets are hand timed. Unfortunately for the younger kids, we are going blindly on all the coaches' word. Sectionals are seeded according to hand times. The sectionals themselves are hand-timed. I recommended we go to FAT for sectionals. Instead, the IESA said if we choose to run a sectional FAT, we have to convert everything to HT. Then, the state meet is all FAT, with backup. Does any of this make any sense?
I hear all of your complaints about this, but until every school has an FAT system, and uses it for every meet, this debate will never end.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon1 on Mar 23, 2008 0:08:50 GMT -5
Trust me we are going to look to change the submission of hand results for the short dashes next year indoor. I don't know exactly where but I'm going to speak with Bob and leaderboard editors.
|
|
