| From | Message |
Trey Stone
2/04/2002
13:32:49
|
 Subject: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
What was the reasoning behind
using gun time as the scoring time
when chip times were available? The
awards went five deep and the sixth
place finisher (in the Women's 30-34
age group) had a faster finishing
time (chip time) by well over a minute
over the person listed in fifth place.
Doesn't make much sense to
implement technology and then
disregard the results. Plus someone
who didn't deserve an award walked
away with one.
|
RTN Editor
2/04/2002
14:07:57
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
The reasoning: the runners prefer to have awards based on gun time, as shown by several surveys of runners.
The logic: so they can tell who they're racing against during the competition. For instance, let's say you and I are racing a 5K with 3000 other people. You line up near the front and cross the starting line as soon as the gun fires. I line up a few rows back (maybe I had to make a last minute pit stop at the porta-potties or something) and it takes me 10 seconds to reach the starting line.
Both of us run our races and I cross the finish line 9 seconds behind you. You never saw me during the race, since I was always behind you. If you had known I was there, maybe you could have "found something extra" and nipped me at the line. But we'll never know, since you had no idea I was there.
The rules: USA Track and Field, the national governing body for road racing in the U.S., has set forth rules stating that only gun times are acceptable for record purposes. And we're not only talking about the world-class runners, but this also means the myriad of age-group and single-age marks that are set every weekend. So you would be asking a lot of an event to produce two sets of results: one for the awards (chip times) and another for record purposes (gun times). And then what happens when someone sets a national record (gun time), but doesn't win their age group (chip time)?
The specific instance that you refer to (i.e. someone finishing a minute or more ahead of someone else) is a fairly rare occurence.
However, there are a handful of races that do offer awards based on chip times. This weekend's Conoco 10K Rodeo Run is one of those events -- I suggest that you sign up!
Lance Phegley
|
richard
2/04/2002
17:59:18
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
Everything makes sense - you just have to know the rules and act accordingly. Unfortunately it also encourages everyone who think they may have a chance to win any of the awards (and other people too) to start at the front of the pack, and not line up according to their running pace as is encouraged in many races. Maybe as time progresses people will become more comfortable with new technology; this sentiment of course applies everywhere, not just running.
|
Trey Stone
2/04/2002
18:00:20
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
I think it comes down to a matter of
perspective. When the chip was first
implemented, one of the reasons it
was hyped was because it would
supposedly decrease the amount of
congestion at the starting line.
Anyone who has run competitively
knows what it is like to line up in the
proper spot based on their projected
performance, only to have to fight
their way past walkers or less
experienced participants when the
gun sounds. If races were scored by
chip time this would not be an issue.
I actually looked up the rules before I
asked this question, and am aware
that gun time prevails. I only posed
the question since the chip was in
place, and obviously provides more
accurate results in terms of the order
of finishers. It didn't seem like a lot to
ask since both times were recorded
and published. I understand that
occurences like this are rare, but it
still happened, and doesn't change
the results. As for someone setting a
national record (gun time) but not
winning their age group (chip time),
maybe the problem is with the rule
itself. If chip time is more accurate,
perhaps it should be the determining
factor when it is present.
Thanks for your response; it's
obvious there are two sides to this
coin. And I signed up for Conoco last
weekend.
|
Michael Waldau
2/08/2002
08:54:20
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
MYTH #1: "The Rules are the Rules", and the rules must always be obeyed ....
FACT: we managed to change the rules about women participating in marathons; we should be able to CHANGE the gun time rule (dating back to ... 1914?).
MYTH #2: Runners want to know (make that: have a RIGHT to know) where their age-group competitors are, so they can adjust their race accordingly in a tight race for the "podium".
FACT: a lot of age-group runners don't know all their competitors, or don't really care since they race against the clock ("themselves") only anyway.
PLUS, how about most triathlons with wave starts? You may know about your AGE-GROUP competitors, but if you are in the running for any OVERALL awards, a racer in an age-group above you or below you may beat you by one second - but you won't know about it until results are posted.
MYTH #3: chip times will reduce starting line congestion.
FACT: not as long as we stick to archaic rules, drawn up when nobody could even fathom the concept of computer-timed races.
MIGHT THIS BE THE TIME FOR A COMMON-SENSE COMPROMISE (rather than further polarizing the running community): how about sticking to the GUN-TIME RULE for overall awards ONLY, and take advantage of new technologies and use CHIP TIME for all other age-group award?
Michael W. / Houston
|
Michele Reynolds
2/08/2002
09:39:51
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
I too don't understand why we have "chips" if we don't use them for the results. I like the compromise from Michael Houston, "how about sticking to the GUN-TIME RULE for overall awards ONLY, and take advantage of new technologies and use CHIP TIME for all other age-group award?" This seems fair to me in that the elite runners line up at the starting line and race against each other while the age groupers can rely on their chip times for results.
|
Robert
2/08/2002
10:17:55
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm not sure why we have chips if we don't use them for Age Group Results. If they are meaningless in terms of awards, why have them at all. I agree with respondents that contend we should use Gun Time for Overall and Masters Winners/awards, but chip time for all age groupers.
|
nboka
2/11/2002
18:34:22
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
Did you know that chip time is not as reliable as gun time?
|
MJR
2/14/2002
11:11:46
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
Another compromise might be use chip time, but start runners in 1-3 waves that are 20-30 seconds apart. Anyone who doesn't want to start in the "main wave" has to submit a recent race time with their application. Their numbers could have a special mark to allow them in cordoned off areas for waves 1 or 2 at the start line. Your competition would be starting the race with you and we could take advantage of the technology. I'm sure this w/b a little more work for race directors, but as Houston continues to grow and running becomes more popular, this will continue to be a problem.
I'm not a particularly fast runner, but I have been stunned at all the walkers and slower runners that start the race at the front. I don't mind in a small race, but in larger races my times have suffered for the first mile or two as you simply cannot get around all the slower people.
|
MJR
2/14/2002
11:13:18
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
Another compromise might be use chip time, but start runners in 1-3 waves that are 20-30 seconds apart. Anyone who doesn't want to start in the "main wave" has to submit a recent race time with their application. Their numbers could have a special mark to allow them in cordoned off areas for waves 1 or 2 at the start line. Your competition would be starting the race with you and we could take advantage of the technology. I'm sure this w/b a little more work for race directors, but as Houston continues to grow and running becomes more popular, this will continue to be a problem.
I'm not a particularly fast runner, but I have been stunned at all the walkers and slower runners that start the race at the front. I don't mind in a small race, but in larger races my times have suffered for the first mile or two as you simply cannot get around all the slower people.
|
runr
2/14/2002
19:43:53
| RE: El Paso Half - Gun Time vs. Chip Time
IP: Logged
Message:
congrats to runner #6. 1:34 (chip) is a great time. shame on you for starting 2 minutes back into the pack. know the rules. if you start that far back, you have to accept that you're giving up 2 minutes to anyone who wants to start closer to the front. 1:34 is probably top 25 overall (women). less that 25 women finished the marathon under 3:10, so in theory, you should have been one of the first 50 or so women across the starting line (since women had their own start). look at the chip difference of the other competitors around your finish. 10-30 seconds. that's where you should start. you know better next time ...
|
