Here is how I would settle the Allyson Felix, Jeneba Tarmoh 100 meter Photo Finish.
Back in 2004, I proposed a rule on how to settle a tie-breaker on the Track.
That is, the athlete with the fastest Semi-Final time is declared the winner.
Let me explain.
In the high jump and pole vault, you use the count back rule of missed attempts to break a tie. If it is still a tie, then a jump-off is required. Vivid memories of the 1972 Olympic women’s high jump come to mind.
In the long and triple jump, in the event of a tie, the 2nd best jump is used to determine the tie-breaker. Believe it or not, this happened to ME several decades ago, but it was to determine a 2nd and 3rd position in a low key meet. But these events happen!
Athens 2004 Shot Put, revisited
And then there was Athens 2004, and I am referring to the Shot Put event.
USA’s Adam Nelson opened the shot put with 21.16m (69-5¼) in round one, which would be his best throw, and only legal throw, as he followed with five consecutive fouls! Ukraine’s Yuriy Bilonoh had 21.15m (69-4¾) after round 1. You knew it was going to be a great competition.
In the final round Nelson had a “controversial” foul of about 21.30m… no one knows for sure, but he definitely would have won the event.
But Bilonoh threw 21.16m (69-5¼) in the final round to tie with Nelson, but his next best mark was better than Nelson’s, who had no next best mark!
Thus Yuriy Bilonoh was declared the winner.
The morale of the story for the throws and horizontal jumps: Always have a second legal performance.
Who Wins? Allyson Felix, or Jeneba Tarmoh?
Well, shockingly, Jeneba Tarmoh would be the winner if my rules were in place before the meet (11.10 vs 11.23). In fact, she was the fastest loser of the 3 semi-finals. Obviously Allyson Felix eased up winning her semi-final, but nobody told Adam Nelson to make sure he had 2 legal throws either.
Stuff happens all the time. Deal with it, and move on.
But know thy rules. Because knowledge is power.
HOw about they put the timeline on thier torso and not thier head.
The timeline used is based on the officail thinking that is one of the athletes torso. Since it isnt according to him ten move to teh next time line. In the photo you can clearly see felxi torso is well behind the timeline used, so she couldn’t have ran 11.07.
actually, you makes a good point, as the 1932 Olympic men’s 100m was declared a dead heat in 10.3 between USA’s Ralph Metcalfe and Eddie Tolan. Tolan was declared the winner because he crossed the line first, as shown on the photo finish because Tolan arched his back, and you could see the line.
Hi Jimson,
Intriguing idea! However, the issue with it is that some sprinters deliberately run a slower race to “save” themselves for the upcoming final.
Example: Usain Bolt and Yohan Blake are dead heat in the Olympic 100m final, but because Usain had Justin Gatlin in his semi-final and had to run pretty hard to secure his spot in the final and Blake “only” had 10.1 sprinters in his respective semi, Blake could afford to run a slower race.
On “countback” Usain would win. But would that really be justified, especially as some sprinters want to save themselves because they are doing more than one event?
I don’t agree with the run off though. Surely there must be another alternative.
but if the rules were in place BEFORE the meet, then you know you have to run well in the heats. Remember, PLACING guarantees advancement, but TIME guarantees better lane selection. TIME would also be used for tie-breakers.
It’s understandable that a young woman, who’s worked extremely hard to fulfill her dream, who attains her dream, only to be told it was a mistake, would have a very hard time emotionally recovering from the shock. It’s easy to say, that from a sports career perspective, doing the run off and maybe gaining the spot on the 100m team, would have been in her best interests. But I think her emotional state made it difficult to ponder this.
I think Allyson will regret her decision not to cede her spot to Jeneba. Her experience in pressure moments would have given her a huge advantage in the run off. She’s a 200m superstar, she’s on the team, Jeneba is a close friend, Jeneba was declared the winner by a world class photo judge, and now Jeneba’s dream is shattered. Not only would it have been classy to cede Jeneba the spot, it would have reaped huge dividends in the public (and sponsors’) eyes. Instead she will be regarded as less than gracious, or worse.
Yes, go to semis (and first round where applicable). However, in races less than 400 meters, would it be more fair to first break the tie by better semi place, and then if the same place, then to go better semi time. Of course, it does not matter it both were in the same semi. If you break the tie by time, then there is luck involved if winds vary across heats. If you break the tie by semi place, there is still luck involved in terms of whether you are in a strong or weak heat.
Similarly, when you have 3 “semifinals,” (or should that be called “trifinals”?), in races of distances under 400 meters, the two that advance on time should be selected only from the three 3rd-place finishers to mitigate the advantage of a favorable wind. In other words, you cannot have two advance on time from the same semi heat.
@aed939, thanks for sharing. Let’s just say it was a very unusual circumstance last year. Of course, having a high profile NIKE athlete helped stir the pot.