Officials News and Views 

By Leon Blanchet 

Since my last newsletter the following rule interpretations have arrived and I would suggest track and field officials indulge in a little winter reading.

I would also like to take a moment to remember Jack Tregurtha the man who gave so much to Race Walking and the passion he put into “Contact” the race walking magazine. In his editorials he was never afraid to have a crack at our structure and those at the top keeping all on their toes. Friend or Foe we owe Jack our gratitude for his loyalty and dedication to athletics from Track & Field to Long Distance Walking. I for one will miss the challenges Jack has provided over the years. We as a sport need many more with his tireless energy and dedication to Athletics.

IAAF RULES INTERPRETATIONS

The IAAF Technical Committee held its first meeting since its election in Osaka in 2007, on 10 March 2008 after the World Indoor Championships in Valencia.

I provide the following report on matters that may be of the most interest to Oceania Federations and to technical officials and committees in our Area.

1. Technical Rule Changes

The Technical Committee in conjunction with the IAAF Council identified the need for some urgent rule changes. These were considered by the Technical Committee at its meeting in March and recommendations were made to Council in April, which made the following immediate changes to the Rules. Changes are indicated in bold.

The Rules are effective from 1 May 2008, ie immediately.

Rule 143.7

Athlete bibs

Every athlete shall be provided with two bibs which, during the competition, shall be worn visibly on the breast and back, except in the High Jump and Pole Vault, where one bib may be worn on the breast or back only. The bib shall correspond usually with the number allocated to the athlete on the start list or in the programme. If track suits are worn during the competition, bibs shall be worn on the track suit in a similar manner. In competitions either the athletes’ names or other suitable identification on the bibs will be allowed instead of numbers on any or all of the bibs.

Explanation: It has become relatively common practice for names to be used on athlete bibs, including at this year’s World Indoor Championships. However until now the Rules did not allow strictly for same. This rule change clarifies this situation.

Rule 144.1

Indication of Intermediate Times

…Otherwise such times must not be communicated to the athletes by persons in the competition area without the prior approval of the appropriate Referee. The competition area, which normally also has a physical barrier, is defined for this purpose as the area where the competition is being staged and which has an access restricted to the competing athletes and to personnel authorised in accordance with the relevant Rules and Regulations..

Explanation: There has been concern about coaches, managers and other persons calling times to athletes from places within or near the track, without the permission of the Referee. This has been particularly the case in major meets in Europe. This change defines the competition area in order to prevent such persons from claiming they were entitled to be there without permission.

Rule 144.2(c)

The following shall not be considered assistance: …

(c) Any kind of personal safeguard (e.g. bandage, tape, belt, support, etc.) for medical purposes. The Referee in conjunction with the Medical Delegate shall have the authority to verify any case should he judge that to be desirable. (See also Rule 187.4.)

Explanation: This change is made to make complete sense of the changes to Rule 187.4. See explanation below.

Rule 146.6

The Jury of Appeal shall consult all relevant persons.  If the Jury of Appeal is in doubt, other available evidence may be considered.

If the Jury of Appeal is in doubt, other available evidence may be considered. If such evidence, including any available video evidence, is not conclusive, the decision of the Referee or the Chief Race Walking Judge shall be upheld.

Explanation: This change follows the “controversy” at the Osaka World Championships where the Jury of Appeal over-ruled the decision of the Chief Walk Judge in the men’s 20km walk. This rule change makes it clear that a decision of the Chief Walk Judge, which relates to directly disqualifying athletes in the last part of certain races, has the same status as if the decision had been made by a Referee

Rule 187.4

Assistance

(a) An athlete shall not use any device of any kind - e.g. the taping of two or more fingers together or using weights attached to the body - which in any way provides assistance when making a trial. If taping is used on the hands and fingers, it may be continuous provided that as a result no two or more fingers are taped together in such a way that the fingers cannot move individually.  The taping should be shown to the Chief Judge before the event starts. 

 (b) An athlete shall not use gloves except in the Hammer Throw. In this case, the gloves shall be smooth on the back and on the front and the tips of the glove fingers, other than the thumb, shall be open.

(c) In order to obtain a better grip, an athlete may use a suitable substance on his hands only. In addition, hammer throwers may use such substances on their gloves, and shot putters may use such substances on their neck.

Note that the previous 187.4 (d) to (g) are consequently deleted along with some of the wording previously contained in 187.4 (a)

Explanation: The Osaka Congress decided that the Technical Committee with the advice of others should review the rules relating to personal safeguards in throwing events. This review was completed at the Technical Committee meeting in March. In essence, following advice received from coaching and medical experts, the recommendation was that many of the previous restrictions on bandages etc were not necessary and that the rules were unnecessarily complicated.

These changes simplify the situation, and remove many unnecessary potential points of conflict between judges and athletes.

Basically the new wording permits most taping provided that it does not result in two or more fingers being taped together. There is no longer any need for judges to determine whether the taping covers a cut or wound.

The “Sedykh” method of continuous taping of the hands of hammer throwers is also permitted, in principle, provided it does not result in two or more fingers in effect becoming, one. In other words the taping can be continuous provided each finger can move freely individually.

Please note that although previous sub clauses (d) to (g) are removed, the use of these protections is still allowed. The reason for the removal of these sub-clauses is to make the wording simpler. These previous protections are now allowed under the wording of both 144.2(c) and 187.4.

Please also note that under Rule 144.2(c), the Referee (and for more complex cases or at larger meetings, in conjunction with the Medical Delegate) has the usual power to make a determination on unusual cases.

In summary, the key question in applying the new wording is, as always, whether what the athlete is proposing provides he or she with unfair assistance.

2. Technical Rule Interpretations

The Technical Committee determined the following rule interpretations:

Rule 146.4/180.5

Where an athlete is allowed to remain in a throws or horizontal jump event after the first three rounds “under protest”, he or she shall always compete before all other competitors in the order (and if more than one of them, before all other athletes and in their respective original draw order). This remains the case after round 5 whether they have improved their performance in rounds 4 and 5.

This will be formally changed in the rules in 2009 but should be interpreted in this manner until then

Rule 147 – validity of performances in mixed competitions

Performances achieved in valid mixed competition will count for all purposes, including the achievement of qualifying performances for international competitions but not for world records.

It is therefore a matter, if they have not already done so, for each federation (and for OAA in the case of area records) to determine whether performances in valid mixed competitions, will be recognised as national records.

Rule 162.4 – placement of starting blocks

Some questions had been raised of the Committee whether there is or should be any restriction on how far back behind the start line, starting blocks could be placed? Apparently in some countries hurdlers had been seeking to place their blocks further back so as to more easily approach the first hurdle in a race.

The Committee determined, given that there is no advantage to the athlete over any other athletes, that the rule should be interpreted so that there is no restriction. Thus provided the starting blocks remain within the athlete’s lane as per normal, they (and, logically, also the athletes fingers when placed on the ground) can be placed as far behind the starting line as the athlete wishes.

Obviously the starter must still be able to see the position of the athletes when in their starting positions on their marks and when set.

Rule 183.11 – tape on vaulting poles

The Committee was provided with photographs of some unusual taping and additions that have been made on the side of the bottom end of vaulting poles. These are apparently made to protect the poles from damage.

The Committee determined that such additions are permitted as they do not provided any unfair advantage to the athlete.

Rule 187.17 (b) – new rule regarding “4m line” in javelin

Two matters were raised regarding this new rule:

(1) following competition experience in Oceania this summer under the new rule, the Committee recommends that the proposed line to be painted across the runway 4 m back from the throwing arc, be changed to a small side marks on either side of the runway, so as to eliminate confusion for the athletes;

(2) it was again emphasised that the purpose of this rule change was solely to speed up measuring of trials and did not create a new reason for calling a failure on the trial. If any athlete throws from behind this 4m point or retreats behind it before the implement lands, it is not for that reason a failure. It would however be a failure of the athlete touched the ground outside the sideline of the runway, either in front of or behind this 4m point, before the implement landed.

“Passing” trials in field events

The Committee has determined that “passing” of a trial may be announced (or a previously announced “pass” changed to a “trial”), at any time up until the athlete’s name is called or displayed on the scoreboard for that trial. This of course does not apply to the second and third attempts at a height in vertical jumps where the first or second trial has been passed.

3. Starts

Much of the Committee’s time at the March meeting was spent examining a number of issues in relation to the start. Many of these do not affect us in Oceania on a regular basis as they relate to the use of automatic false start detection equipment.

However it is reported briefly that the IAAF is reviewing the “validity” of the current parameters used to determine whether any athlete has false started according to such equipment and will try to create some standardisation in the interest of fairness to all.

The IAAF has now also formed a Panel of International Starters, in a similar vein to the panel previously formed for International Photo Finish Judges. The panel members will be appointed to the major international events, and will start the major sprint races at those competitions, in order to ensure some uniformity of starting at major events.

Geoff Martin (AUS) has been appointed to this Panel by the IAAF Council.

The Committee also discussed the problems experienced in the start area at the World Athletics Final in 2007. The human “error” side has already been addressed through the rule change on “disciplinary” false starts passed in Osaka in 2007 (although it was not operative until after the WAF in 2007). On the equipment side, the suppliers have been asked to ensure their equipment is tested regularly to ensure it is in full working order.

4. Other Matters

4.1 Number of judges on the in field - The Committee is to undertake a work designed to limit and specify the number of judges on field during various competitions. Where possible it will also try to designate a limited number of other persons on the in field.

4.2 Road course measurement – the Committee was made aware of the high cost in some parts of the world being incurred for the measuring of road courses. [In some countries course measurers are charging for this work whilst in others they are only paid expenses.] Whilst no decision has yet been taken, the Committee will look at alternate possible methods, particularly for the measurement of shorter road walking courses that are essentially in a straight line.

4.3 Hurdles – the Committee was advised of the intention of the IAAF Coaches Commission to examine an idea to increase the distance between the hurdles in hurdles events held in the straight. The Committee will be involved in any such study which would also look at the heights or hurdles in women’s events.

4.4 Safety – following the incident at the Rome Golden League meet in 2007 when a long jumper was “speared” by a javelin during competition, the Committee emphasised that organisers must carefully examine timetables and the number and positioning of persons on the in field when long throws are held, particularly when jump runways are placed on the infield. Greater emphasis on these issues is to be placed in officials education and competition management courses.

5.5 Combined Events – the Committee is to establish a working group to examine possibilities for conducting the final events of combined events in a manner such as the proposed Gundersen method (where athletes begin the race with a time advantage equivalent to their points lead over the other athletes). This includes the paper prepared by Peter Hamilton (AUS). It will also look at request from some television companies to consider changing the order of events to make combined events “more interesting”.

This report has been forwarded courtesy of Brian Roe (AUS)

Member – IAAF Technical Committee

May 2008