Submitted by The_Critical_Cynic t3_yfezcn in todayilearned
IIRC that was because a reaction time quicker than 0.1 seconds isn't humanly possible according to world track and field officials, so Allen must have cheated.
However... (also IIRC) that 0.1 seconds standard isn't actually based on science - it's literally just a number some bureaucrat from the World Athletic Championships decided upon because it sounded good.
It has nothing to do with him breaking rules. The logic behind him "false starting" is that he predicted when the start would be (based on nothing) and started one one thousandth of a second before that; infinitesimal odds of that being the case. Elite runners having faster reaction times than .1 seconds has become a common phenomena. This is a case where the rules are provably far behind the times and based on defunct science.
I agree completely with that assessment. It would be harder, in this instance, to start on time than it would to start thousandths of a second earlier. Furthermore, if you were to try to start exactly on time, you would be more likely end up late off the starting line than be on time, which is completely unacceptable when those milliseconds make a literal difference between qualifying or not.
It sounds like an appeals process needs to be implemented, and the standards assessed accordingly.
I listened to a pretty extensive podcast on the issue. It's lead to runners purposefully hesitating in order to not get DQed for false starts. It's screwing over the athletes who are actually just the best at what they do, and everyone involved knows it but won't do anything.
Ok, I get that there has to be some standard here. But when you're dealing with a thousandth of a second, there's a few things that could be at play here that are outside the runners' control that could affect how long it takes the sound to hit the runners' ears (leaving out the body's ability to process that sound, as that's part of the race I guess)
A few off the top of my head:
Wind difference, both speed and direction, between inside and outside lanes. Not even for the obvious reason of helping/hurting some runners differently than others, but for the fact that it will affect the time it takes for the sound of the pistol to reach them.
Humidity difference across lanes.
In a dash where there's no running distance advantage to inside/outside lanes, now you have to deal with distance away from the starting pistol.
I wonder if eliminating the pistol and going strictly to a red/yellow/green light system like drag racing would work. I guess it could, but then these differences all crop up again if you start measuring down to the trillionth of a second...
Based on what I've read and heard about it, I figured something like that was bound to come up. I mentioned to u/JuzoItami that there should be some sort of an appeals process, and the standards addressed accordingly.
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but it would seem easier to have an appeals process, and to have the standards assessed. Like you said, there are so many variables that this hardly seems like something to complain about.
Possible, but a couple of points wouldn't work here:
He was in a middle lane The runners are all looking down at the track before the pistol sounds. They wouldn't be able to see lights unless they were on the track itself.
Considering drag racers often have reaction times down into the .05 second range and below, I'd say the number is arbitrary AF.
I don't get the downvotes here. This comment is hilarious. I don't think anybody got this.
[deleted]
It truly makes me sad that there are people out there who haven't experienced The Big Lebowski.
I think it’s slightly different in the sense that drag racers can estimate the start of the race as its constant. But for track and field the official firing the starter pistol is never constant and therefore can’t be predicted
Regarding distance from starting pistol, in some races you see a speaker behind each athlete, which is intended to eliminate that effect.
It’s also a matter of sound, which radiates outward from its source at variable speed depending on different factors. This seems like something that can’t be reliably measured to that degree of precision. Feels like the kind of problem engineers and bureaucrats invent to justify their jobs.
If they keep records of past events, it should be easy enough to figure out his mean reaction time and standard deviation, and to consider changing the time limit if he can, in fact, react faster than anyone else in history.
Or bring him to the track and have him do 20 starts to prove his case.
Otherwise, he tried to time the gun and got caught (barely). Oh well.
So did he anticipate the gun sound or....
IIRC they randomize the signals at the start of the drag races and no one actually knows when exactly it will flash from yellow to green.
Edit. Wrong. No ones knows the flash to triple amber but the move from that to green is .4
Edit 2. Just to be clear. Im saying I in fact did not recall correctly
You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole.
The standard does not need to include any duration from when the clock starts to when the runner may begin moving. If they can figure out how to time it so that they start moving at the exact same instant that the starter is fired, it should not be considered a false start.
"Sorry I'm too fast for your rules."
The reaction time is also now at the point where distance from the starter's pistol^1 is becoming a factor
^1 technically from the collapsing waveform of the sound envelope. A starter's pistol 'Bang' does not radiate from the gun evenly in a circle, rather in a 3D teardrop shape
Depending upon the angle the starter fires it, it is not impossible that the moving sound wave could hit the eardrum of the second closest runner before the closest
Eighth lane is still screwed though
At championship levels there are speakers behind each set of blocks and the signal is electronic.
It’s always a set time between amber and green, 0.4s for pros. That’s how perfect reaction times are possible - they know when green is coming.
TIL
Thank you
TIL... Depending on the type of racing, all three amber lights will flash simultaneously, followed four-tenths of a second later by the green light (a Pro Tree), or the three bulbs will flash consecutively five-tenths of a second apart, followed five-tenths later by the green light (a Sportsman, or full, Tree)
Still though. Thats incredibly fast. Also I saw the op article originally posted and there is a lot to it. Light travels faster than sound. The brains processing time. The speed of electricity to activate muscles. Some people can truly process faster and some top tier athletes actually have to train themselves to wait the full .1 which is ridiculous.
Is it standardized where the official with the starter pistol stands?
There is a theory I like but wouldn’t call reliably proven that says humans and animals often subconsciously taken in information and even subconsciously analyze it to come to conclusions they aren’t can’t explain the reasoning for. In context this is more about short term things, not abstract ideas. It is relevant in that if the theory is true it would mean some of the runners could be taking in information like the official holding the starting pistol a certain way and even the movement of their finger and be reacting to that making it seem like their reaction to the shot is very short. Though some put forward this theory could even include information you couldn’t even learn to look for, like a tiny reflection a hundred feet away that shows the ref (behind the runner) flexing their finger to pull the trigger.
I like the theory but it is probably BS.
> However... (also IIRC) that 0.1 seconds standard isn't actually based on science - it's literally just a number some bureaucrat from the World Athletic Championships decided upon because it sounded good.
There are a bunch of tests on the limits of human reaction times (mostly how fast you can push a button after a screen flashes). Human limit is around .2 seconds. Human perception is around 0.1 but it take a bit of time for humans to do anything with that.
So .1 seconds is a good point to chose since it gives you enough of a margin of error not to be an issue but not so massive that athletes can rely on anticipating the gun.
> Wind difference, both speed and direction, between inside and outside lanes. Not even for the obvious reason of helping/hurting some runners differently than others, but for the fact that it will affect the time it takes for the sound of the pistol to reach them.
sound is played from speakers behind each athelete.
>I wonder if eliminating the pistol and going strictly to a red/yellow/green light system like drag racing would work. I guess it could, but then these differences all crop up again if you start measuring down to the trillionth of a second...
You can't usefuly do anything at the trillionth of a second level because light can only travel 0.3mm in that time.
>So did he anticipate the gun sound
Yes. Humans ability to physicaly react maxes out around .2 seconds. Maybe exceptional people under ideal conditions can go a bit bellow that but 0.1? No.
The athletes are free to show that can pass a random reaction time test with a better than 0.15 second time. Until then we can ignore such claims.
And it cannot be appealed soon enough.
As I recall the broadcasters mentioned the 0.1 reaction time was based on the average reaction time of collegiate athletes. Of course there’s two problems with that, 1 is that these are professional athletes who are faster than collegiate athletes, and 2 they should not be using the average reaction time but rather than minimum reaction time. We shouldn’t be penalizing the fastest person for being too fast.
So your assumption is that athletes are consistently guessing when the start time is? The science of reaction time doesn't support your BS.
The whole idea seems like circular garbage.
>We all need to start at the same time, so lend her a noise or a light to signal the start.
>Well now we need to react to the start, which means everyone will have a slightly different delay.
>You've got to anticipate the start, so you can start as close to the start as possible.
>Well someone starting exactly at the start could be a sign of cheating, so the real start has to be 0.1s after the start.
And really, how would you even cheat that??? You get a notification 3/10 of a second before and then perfectly react 3/10 of a second later to be exact with the start?
The whole thing is stupid. You have to anticipate, and you have to risk disqualifying yourself for an early start, and 0.099s after the start is still AFTER the start.
Yeah the yellow countdown makes it out a lot easier to anticipate.
In F1 the red lights go out randomly though.
They want you to react to the start and not get a lucky guess. It's a good rule.
That’s some spidey sense shit right there.
So, if you hear the sound and react to fast, you're a cheater?
I watched it, just thought it was lame.
Well, that's just your opinion man.
This is the same standard for speed climbing.
That limit is supposed to be too fast to react to the sound.
It's BS because each lane has its own speaker. So there's no time difference in hearing the signal.
And yet instances have been cited where people are able to react that fast.
Feel free to present your studies and findings to the track and field organizations.
How do you know that these people did actually react?
They're are corrupt as the Gymnastics people.
And yet, he didn't start before he should have. Anticipation is part of sprinting.
st6374 t1_iu36s6d wrote
Well.. He was OVER THE FUCKING TIME!! OVER THE FUCKING TIME! This isn't Nam. This is athletics. There are rules here.