Interesting (controversial) situation to discuss

[oKRamxII]

First of all, hi everybody!

I don´t know is this right place for this topic so moderators, you are free to correct me

Could you see this video (Don´t think that i am spambot now ;D) from 0:45 (length is only 1:10) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v99S4lz0Zls

Is this first runner violating IAAF Rule 163 (Most important part is : 2. Any competing athlete who jostles or obstructs another athlete, so as to impede his progress, shall be liable to disqualification from that event.)?

I would like you to see your opinions, thanks in advance!

[mump boy]

Michael East 2004 World Indoors DQ

[LiamRiley]

I can't see any jostling, but the winner definitely did actively attempt to prevent the second athlete passing. It's a blatant case as he is clearly looking at where the runner-up was and responding accordingly to obstruct his path.

[oKRamxII]

Michael East 2004 World Indoors DQ

Too bad there is not any video, because I didn´t remember situation...

[Flumpy]

It was pretty much the same situation as you posted.

[mump boy]

MIcheal East veered so far to the right that Laban Rotich ended up in lane 6 (indoors) and was duly DQ

[trickstat]

For what it's worth this one is for me slightly worse than the Michael East one as the guy in this one does swerve in both directions to block his opponent while East just edged further and further out. It's all academic really as going by people's comments on Youtube in both incidents the culprit was quite rightly DQ'd.

[oKRamxII]

You know, I was there watching competition (Croatian national championship) and when I first saw this I couldn´t believe. Because I´ve never seen something like this (unfair) before.

The 1st runner was disqualified immediately after race but some people (his "side) called this decision controversial and unfair. Other side ("bigger side") I was talking to said to me that decision after race (DQ 1st runner) was the only possibility and only fair decision. I´ve agreed with that.

It is always nice to hear some international opinions (in this case yours), and I am glad that you people responded. Every new post is another one good argument

--

About East, I´ve found more information, too bad that I still can´t find video. It seems not to exist (or be published..).

[Anthony Treacher]

Things happen.

[Anthony Treacher]

Yes, the first runner did break IAAF rule 163 2 Obstruction by blatantly obstructing the second runner. It was correct to disqualify the first runner. It was good that the officials had the guts to do it.

Mirroring our societies, in athletics it is otherwise "modern" to slate over issues and avoid conflicts at all costs. There is a much nonsense about "being positive" and the need for "flexibilty" and "moving on." That leads to laissez faire in interpreting the rules. The integrity of the IAAF rules must be maintained at all times. That applies to infringements by athletics officers as well as athletes.

[LiamRiley]

As a wise man once said: "There was a period of remorse and apology; that period needs to be over."

[Anthony Treacher]

Liam, got you. The wronged athlete should forgive the offender who obstructed him. The wronged athlete should also apologise to the offender and the athletics community for being negative and complaining.

[LiamRiley]

Exactly. More to the point - it's all the other athlete's fault for being behind him in the first place!

[oKRamxII]

Well, he thinks that his last 100m were clean and his disqualification is ridiculous. So, this "circle" cannot be completed

[Anthony Treacher]

Then he must be some sort of psychopath. But he could still have got way with it. There are always athletics officers who are perversely determined not to give an obviously wronged person the satisfaction of winning a complaint. So an athletics official could happily have dismissed the incident with “rules are meant to be broken.” Or snidely “the obstruction made no difference to the result, the athlete in front would have won anyway.”

[LiamRiley]

Well, he thinks that his last 100m were clean and his disqualification is ridiculous. So, this "circle" cannot be completed

He is most likely a blind egotist then. He won't understand a situation where he is not the best. Usually this comes from parents who spoil their children and take their side regardless of the situation.

[oKRamxII]

Well, he thinks that his last 100m were clean and his disqualification is ridiculous. So, this "circle" cannot be completed

He is most likely a blind egotist then. He won't understand a situation where he is not the best. Usually this comes from parents who spoil their children and take their side regardless of the situation.

His father is also his coach so...

[Anthony Treacher]

oKRamXII. What does this guy's coach father say?

[oKRamxII]

oKRamXII. What does this guy's coach father say?

Someone told me that he said "everything is clean, how this can be for disqualification"... Classic.