Does your school allow hand timed 100 meter records?
04/26/2018 5:37:58 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1468
Recently saw that my hometown high school, Shippensburg, gave a student the record for 100 meters based on a hand timed meet at home. I was a bit surprised by this since often the timers don't even know to start the timer on the "smoke" and not on the sound of the gun. I was wondering how other schools handle that. I can see maybe longer races being OK for school records, since they start and end at the same place.
Recently saw that my hometown high school, Shippensburg, gave a student the record for 100 meters based on a hand timed meet at home. I was a bit surprised by this since often the timers don't even know to start the timer on the "smoke" and not on the sound of the gun.

I was wondering how other schools handle that. I can see maybe longer races being OK for school records, since they start and end at the same place.
04/27/2018 5:33:27 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 326
In this day and age, I would NEVER give a school record with a hand time. You're that fast? Prove it FAT. I had a kid go 10.4 (!?) in a dual meet and 11.23 FAT the same week.
In this day and age, I would NEVER give a school record with a hand time. You're that fast? Prove it FAT. I had a kid go 10.4 (!?) in a dual meet and 11.23 FAT the same week.
04/27/2018 11:42:27 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1468
@Donbet The record handed out was 10.8...but the runner ran 11.58 at Shippensburg. Very similar to your situation you mentioned.....
@Donbet The record handed out was 10.8...but the runner ran 11.58 at Shippensburg. Very similar to your situation you mentioned.....
05/01/2018 12:22:07 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 423
The high school where my son attended and I assist with scoring tent duties has a very complete set of records going at least 10-deep of all retired and current track & field disciplines. (The book also lists soph and frosh marks a number deep as an inspiration to younger athletes-a wonderfully complete compilation). The older marks are listed adding .24 to the hand timed marks before they are slotted into the lists and record book, but there probably hasn't been any of those in 20 years. Since the same coach has done any hand timing at meets since the late 1970s the hand is at least consistent on the older marks. Since the school has had a FAT system for home meets the past 10 years there's even less reason to even consider a hand timed mark since all the invitationals around D7 have been FAT for a good long time now.
The high school where my son attended and I assist with scoring tent duties has a very complete set of records going at least 10-deep of all retired and current track & field disciplines. (The book also lists soph and frosh marks a number deep as an inspiration to younger athletes-a wonderfully complete compilation). The older marks are listed adding .24 to the hand timed marks before they are slotted into the lists and record book, but there probably hasn't been any of those in 20 years. Since the same coach has done any hand timing at meets since the late 1970s the hand is at least consistent on the older marks. Since the school has had a FAT system for home meets the past 10 years there's even less reason to even consider a hand timed mark since all the invitationals around D7 have been FAT for a good long time now.
05/03/2018 11:31:01 AM
User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 18
Heard that the WPIAL will no longer take hand times for the sprints for qualifying to their championship meets after last weekend. Considering that many schools use teachers or community members to punch watches, and they stand right on top of the finish line, and are only doing this 4-5 times a year, it's not uncommon to find major errors in those times. The human mind is incapable of accurately judging distance of something coming towards them, so a sprinter in the 100m, has too much velocity crossing the line and the timer has to anticipate the finish and then punch the watch. No, hand times should not be rounded up and have .24 to them to get a school record if there's a FAT time present.
Heard that the WPIAL will no longer take hand times for the sprints for qualifying to their championship meets after last weekend. Considering that many schools use teachers or community members to punch watches, and they stand right on top of the finish line, and are only doing this 4-5 times a year, it's not uncommon to find major errors in those times. The human mind is incapable of accurately judging distance of something coming towards them, so a sprinter in the 100m, has too much velocity crossing the line and the timer has to anticipate the finish and then punch the watch.

No, hand times should not be rounded up and have .24 to them to get a school record if there's a FAT time present.
05/03/2018 3:13:41 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 423
@treyj not what I said. These were only for competitive lists spanning 45 years of records. No school records are hand timed anymore.
@treyj not what I said. These were only for competitive lists spanning 45 years of records. No school records are hand timed anymore.
05/03/2018 3:15:56 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 423
@treyj and it's also my impression that since the wpial stopped those sectional/regional meets to qualify for districts (which were all FAT)all times submitted for consideration to be slotted into the heats at district finals May 17 had to be FAT, just like last year.
@treyj and it's also my impression that since the wpial stopped those sectional/regional meets to qualify for districts (which were all FAT)all times submitted for consideration to be slotted into the heats at district finals May 17 had to be FAT, just like last year.
05/03/2018 4:15:59 PM
User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 18
@sverige55 And no hand times should be rounded up and converted to "FAT" times. It's the same with the imperial distances vs. metric ones. Those imperial distances are different events from the metric ones. Times from the imperial ones should not be ranked with the metric ones. Keep two lists, with the imperial ones retired. And if there is ever a one or two mile race run and a time is faster than the school record 1600m or 3200m time, that should go on the imperial records. Trying to compare the two is like trying to compare apples to zebras.
@sverige55 And no hand times should be rounded up and converted to "FAT" times. It's the same with the imperial distances vs. metric ones. Those imperial distances are different events from the metric ones. Times from the imperial ones should not be ranked with the metric ones. Keep two lists, with the imperial ones retired. And if there is ever a one or two mile race run and a time is faster than the school record 1600m or 3200m time, that should go on the imperial records. Trying to compare the two is like trying to compare apples to zebras.
05/03/2018 4:23:32 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 423
The last time I saw the listings of our HS records the imperial yard records had been retired to their own lists in the back of the guide.
The last time I saw the listings of our HS records the imperial yard records had been retired to their own lists in the back of the guide.
05/04/2018 11:33:28 AM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1468
@sverige55 I know lots of those races won't be run again, but they should keep the mile as a current record because there are a lot of opportunities to run miles in big meets now.
@sverige55
I know lots of those races won't be run again, but they should keep the mile as a current record because there are a lot of opportunities to run miles in big meets now.
05/07/2018 7:56:18 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1468
I see that the top times in the Lancaster newspaper for the 100 are all under 11 seconds. How many of those guys will run under 11 seconds with electonic timing in the League championships this weekend? One maybe? Two?
I see that the top times in the Lancaster newspaper for the 100 are all under 11 seconds. How many of those guys will run under 11 seconds with electonic timing in the League championships this weekend? One maybe? Two?
05/16/2018 5:35:35 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1468
In the LL league, there were no runners in the prelims or finals who broke 11 seconds. So there are a lot of bogus times in the "honor roll."
In the LL league, there were no runners in the prelims or finals who broke 11 seconds. So there are a lot of bogus times in the "honor roll."
05/18/2018 5:00:48 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 326
All times in the rankings are legit FAT. HOWEVER, without a wind gauge (NWI) present, like at FAT dual meets, there are tailwinds which go unaccounted for. Doesn't mean the times are bogus. My kids went 10.99 and 11.03 like that, and then the 11.2s and 11.3s INTO the wind at a different venue. Some weekwnds, you could tell which meets had a tailwind on the homestretch by looking at the dash times. Almost all the sub-11s would come from the same meets.
All times in the rankings are legit FAT. HOWEVER, without a wind gauge (NWI) present, like at FAT dual meets, there are tailwinds which go unaccounted for. Doesn't mean the times are bogus. My kids went 10.99 and 11.03 like that, and then the 11.2s and 11.3s INTO the wind at a different venue. Some weekwnds, you could tell which meets had a tailwind on the homestretch by looking at the dash times. Almost all the sub-11s would come from the same meets.
05/20/2018 11:44:40 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1468
This topic started about the Shippensburg record, and that person has not come anywhere near that, including D3 this past weekend.
This topic started about the Shippensburg record, and that person has not come anywhere near that, including D3 this past weekend.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.