MT. SAC 2012 (Hitchon 70.47 NR)

[trickstat]

The current women's World Record:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwnptta1Y7I



Although not as marked as Mt. Sac, the gate to the thrower's left (the relevant one for a right-handed thrower) clearly does not cross into the sector to catch the severely 'hooked' throw.

[aeolus]

i have just spent a while analyzing the Youtube video of Mark carefully, (i must comment that i like the slow motion for technical analysis purposes) and it may be only me that noticed this:

if you look carefully, it appears that from a standard hammer circle, and in the presence of accredited USATF officials, he releases the implement in such a way that it lands at 74.37m?

[BigGut]

surely the purpose of the rule is purely safety and no advantage is actually obtained by the gate not being in position. I say this because a) the IAAF rules do not say it is compulsory, given Geoffs post being correct and b). It sounds as if any throw that would hit the cage would land outside of the sector.

From what I have read it sounds very much like some people are trying to find reasons not to recognise legitimate performances by Uk athletes. Not the person who spotted the cage initially, but everyone who continues to decry tem after Geoffs post, which seems to me to explain perfectly why the cage may not be in the position you would normally expect.

[Geoff]

While it is accepted our hammer throwers threw the distances stated it does raise a few issues about our insistence in this country to adhere to the highest specifications even in training facilities. Does anyone know of a hammer training facility in this country where there isn't a gate on the cage? More importantly, does anyone know of a non-stadia hammer facility where a gate is not used for competition purposes even though spectators are behind the cage?

Another issue is the ridiculous UKA qualifying rule which only allows certain competitions in this country but ANY competition overseas. I've asked this before but how can UKA justify not allowing a performance in say a Northern Premier League meeting, which is licensed at a licensed facility with licensed officials. Someone has already said an athlete could throw a ratified British record but it wouldn't be allowed as a UKA 'A' standard! I'm sure if someone is dependent on one of these domestic marks for qualifying they would appeal to UKA and I think the whole sport should support them.

[BigGut]

Furlong,

The IAAF rule guidance clearly states that guidance can be sought front he IAAF or national bodies. Do you know whether Mt Sac had received guidance to say that if spectators were all behind the cage then the flaps need not be deployed. Of course you don't you are just making an assumption idiocy on behalf of the event organisers in orde to decry performances and attack the fact UKA sent some athletes ou there.

Please feel free to get in touch with the IAAF or USATF and find out whether the gates need to be deployed in this specific circumstance. Until then as far as I can see the marks are perfectly legal and rather than trying desperately to find a reason to discount them we should be congratulating two athletes on excellent performances.

Geoff,

I agree theree is a debate to be had about foreign competition counting, but we've had it before. However unless this event has actually broken a rule, which it seems from your post from the IAAF it hasn't, then it is really pretty irrelevant to this thread. You know that I stand behind the limitation of qualifying events, although I would like to see regional league and county events includ on the qualifying list so long as officials are qualified to the required standars, as without it a thrower could "compete" every night at their club and only have to land one throw out of thousands and qualify for a champs. However as I say I do to think that the cage use at Mt Sac has any bearing on this discussion.

can anybody confirm for me how much sector beyond 50m. Is lost by having the gate in the position specified. Because from the description it sounds like absolutely none of it would be ut it is hard to build the picture simply from words.

[BigGut]

Furlong,

I don't get what advantage having an extra wide mouth gives if it doesn't make any more of the sector available. If having the extra wide mouth merely stops throws that are going to land outside of the sector then there is clearly no advantage gained.

In Geoffs quote it says that guidance can be obtained from the IAAF. Mabe Mt Sca had this guidance and it said you dont need to shut the flaps.

[BigGut]

Furlong,

This is what I have been asking, what benefit is there in terms of the wioder mouth. Are you saying that as a result of the cage being there then legal throws, as in within the sector, that would otherwise have hit the cage but now don't?

Is there a diagram somewhere that shows this?

If there is then what needs to happen is that UK thros comps need to be held outside of the stadiums and take advantage of this.

[benn]

Sophie new Nr and A 71:61

[marcusfond171]

Hi, I am big fan of sports as you know in sports fights are normal things. I would like to know if you have encounter ever a real fight in games like football, baseball, etc.
-----------------------
Athlete Fight Videos