100 meters time adusted down from 10.44 to 10.43
05/29/2017 11:09:46 AM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1501
I never heard of officials adjusting a time down so that a record can be broken. I thought this was electronic timing? Somebody explain how that works.
I never heard of officials adjusting a time down so that a record can be broken. I thought this was electronic timing? Somebody explain how that works.
05/30/2017 4:09:01 PM
User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 166
@JimDillner It is not uncommon for FAT times to be adjusted up or down for the Final results. So in this case seeing a certain FAT time on the Finish Line board does not guarantee that as the final time and this was an adjustment of only .01.
@JimDillner
It is not uncommon for FAT times to be adjusted up or down for the Final results. So in this case seeing a certain FAT time on the Finish Line board does not guarantee that as the final time and this was an adjustment of only .01.
05/30/2017 7:13:19 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1501
@mschwartzusatf Which made the difference between tying and breaking a record.
@mschwartzusatf
Which made the difference between tying and breaking a record.
05/30/2017 9:05:01 PM
Coach
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2
The year of 1985 didn't use FAT. So that record was hand time. Add .24 seconds to 10.44 and that record was 10.68, which makes the new state record of 10.43 remarkable, since it really is .25 seconds faster than the previous record.
The year of 1985 didn't use FAT. So that record was hand time. Add .24 seconds to 10.44 and that record was 10.68, which makes the new state record of 10.43 remarkable, since it really is .25 seconds faster than the previous record.
05/30/2017 10:28:21 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 48
@Chronicles1611 Are you sure the 10.44 from 1985 was not already adjusted?
@Chronicles1611 Are you sure the 10.44 from 1985 was not already adjusted?
05/31/2017 5:33:41 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 331
http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/results/spring/track-field/1985_TF_Results.pdf Sure looks to me like FAT!
http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/results/spring/track-field/1985_TF_Results.pdf

Sure looks to me like FAT!
05/31/2017 7:48:59 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
@Donbet Thanks for this stat sheet, Don! Definitely FAT! What's interesting is 30 years ago how many of these schools are gone or renamed or merged with someone else...Burrell's 10.44 was definitely FAT. Plus @jimdillner in this past state meet PCN broadcast almost every time on the finish line board is changed once the results are looked at by the timing crew.
@Donbet Thanks for this stat sheet, Don! Definitely FAT! What's interesting is 30 years ago how many of these schools are gone or renamed or merged with someone else...Burrell's 10.44 was definitely FAT. Plus @jimdillner in this past state meet PCN broadcast almost every time on the finish line board is changed once the results are looked at by the timing crew.
05/31/2017 1:06:09 PM
User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 166
@sverige55 Agreed, once they read the picture/video tape on the monitor.
@sverige55

Agreed, once they read the picture/video tape on the monitor.
05/31/2017 1:09:25 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
@Chronicles1611 Check @donbet file--these results were clearly FATs so the conclusion you make is not correct.
@Chronicles1611 Check @donbet file--these results were clearly FATs so the conclusion you make is not correct.
05/31/2017 1:59:59 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 78
@Chronicles1611 i think its important to note that even if you were correct in your assessment that this record was not FAT your process for adding the .24 is not the agreed upon method. You ALWAYS round up the 100th THEN add the .24. So the 10.44 would round up to a 10.5 and then the .24 therefore making it 10.74. But this time IS FAT so its a moot point anyway.
@Chronicles1611
i think its important to note that even if you were correct in your assessment that this record was not FAT your process for adding the .24 is not the agreed upon method. You ALWAYS round up the 100th THEN add the .24. So the 10.44 would round up to a 10.5 and then the .24 therefore making it 10.74. But this time IS FAT so its a moot point anyway.
05/31/2017 4:26:57 PM
Coach
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2
I see the results up to 1/100 from PIAA results you sent. I have used electronic devices that have manual start that also record times up to 1/100 but are not automatic start from signal of gun. So, I'll trust you that you say it was real FAT. How long has the PIAA used real FAT with automatic start from signal of gun?
I see the results up to 1/100 from PIAA results you sent. I have used electronic devices that have manual start that also record times up to 1/100 but are not automatic start from signal of gun. So, I'll trust you that you say it was real FAT. How long has the PIAA used real FAT with automatic start from signal of gun?
06/01/2017 7:28:30 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
@Chronicles1611 sounds like a question for one of our more experienced forum members who were around in the late 1970s-early 1980s at the PA state meet. A quick search yielded me no reference results online searching. (btw nice handle--Chronicles 16:11!)
@Chronicles1611 sounds like a question for one of our more experienced forum members who were around in the late 1970s-early 1980s at the PA state meet. A quick search yielded me no reference results online searching. (btw nice handle--Chronicles 16:11!)
06/02/2017 5:49:12 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1501
@Dock1 In the math I learned, you round 5 or greater up, 4 or less down. By what you are saying, they would round anything but a zero up? So 10.11 would become 10.2. That seems wrong.
@Dock1 In the math I learned, you round 5 or greater up, 4 or less down. By what you are saying, they would round anything but a zero up? So 10.11 would become 10.2. That seems wrong.
06/02/2017 6:48:32 PM
User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 166
@JimDillner The method you describe for rounding HT has not been used for many,many years! Anything above a zero is rounded up. 10.12 becomes 10.2 10.99 becomes 11.0
@JimDillner
The method you describe for rounding HT has not been used for many,many years! Anything above a zero is rounded up. 10.12 becomes 10.2 10.99 becomes 11.0
06/07/2017 12:13:02 AM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1501
[quote=Dock1]@Chronicles1611 i think its important to note that even if you were correct in your assessment that this record was not FAT your process for adding the .24 is not the agreed upon method. You ALWAYS round up the 100th THEN add the .24. So the 10.44 would round up to a 10.5 and then the .24 therefore making it 10.74. But this time IS FAT so its a moot point anyway.[/quote] @Dock1 This makes no sense. The 0.24 is the "adjustment." So, since you are adding that, there is no reason to do any rounding whatsoever. That's adding to the penalty on anybody who runs a number that's not zero hundredths!
Dock1 wrote:
@Chronicles1611
i think its important to note that even if you were correct in your assessment that this record was not FAT your process for adding the .24 is not the agreed upon method. You ALWAYS round up the 100th THEN add the .24. So the 10.44 would round up to a 10.5 and then the .24 therefore making it 10.74. But this time IS FAT so its a moot point anyway.


@Dock1

This makes no sense. The 0.24 is the "adjustment." So, since you are adding that, there is no reason to do any rounding whatsoever. That's adding to the penalty on anybody who runs a number that's not zero hundredths!
06/08/2017 10:18:00 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 78
@JimDillner All hand times are rounded to the 10th. 11.11 rounds to an 11.2 and 11.19 rounds to an 11.2. This is the accepted method. When converting to the FAT equivalent you add the .24 to what ever the time rounds up to. I get your point but I didn't make up these rules.
@JimDillner
All hand times are rounded to the 10th. 11.11 rounds to an 11.2 and 11.19 rounds to an 11.2. This is the accepted method. When converting to the FAT equivalent you add the .24 to what ever the time rounds up to. I get your point but I didn't make up these rules.
06/10/2017 11:38:11 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1501
[quote=Dock1]@JimDillner All hand times are rounded to the 10th. 11.11 rounds to an 11.2 and 11.19 rounds to an 11.2. This is the accepted method. When converting to the FAT equivalent you add the .24 to what ever the time rounds up to. I get your point but I didn't make up these rules.[/quote] @Dock1 Again, maybe that was the rule, but someone didn't think it through. The added 0.24 is the compensation. Nothing else is needed. That was a goof.
Dock1 wrote:
@JimDillner
All hand times are rounded to the 10th. 11.11 rounds to an 11.2 and 11.19 rounds to an 11.2. This is the accepted method. When converting to the FAT equivalent you add the .24 to what ever the time rounds up to. I get your point but I didn't make up these rules.


@Dock1

Again, maybe that was the rule, but someone didn't think it through. The added 0.24 is the compensation. Nothing else is needed. That was a goof.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.