Once again I must thank Brian Roe for keeping us informed as to what is happening or in the pipe line in the IAAF in respect to rule interpretations and possible rule changes.

Thanks Brian, we do appreciate the effort and time you put into keeping those in Oceania up to date with relevant information.

REPORT FROM IAAF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBER

The IAAF Technical Committee held its 2010 meeting on 20-21 March in Monaco. The following report is provided on matters that may be of the most interest to Oceania Federations and to technical officials and committees in our Area.

Fortunately on this occasion, being just some six months after the Berlin Congress, no urgent rule changes were considered necessary. However, as always, there were some requests for clarification and some discussions on rule changes that may be needed in the future.

1. Technical Rule Possible and Foreshadowed Rule Changes

Rule 110 – it was proposed that the majority of the text in this rule can be deleted and in lieu a reference made to the relevant event regulations of the applicable governing body.

Rule 125.8 – a paper is to be prepared in relation to the proposals raised last year by the Road Running Commission, including how the OOS referee can effectively issue warnings.

Rule 141 – for what it may be worth (given it is clear most national masters associations will most probably do whatever they like in any case) there was “heated” discussion on the new rule on masters age groups. There is obviously some degree of dissatisfaction about this rule change in some countries and it is likely that there will be new proposals for the 2011 congress.

Rule 144.2/145.2 – a paper is to be prepared indicating in each of the currently unclear cases whether the “penalty” should be technical or disciplinary.

Rule 162 – a proposal to further re-organise this rule to better locate some provisions within the rule was tabled.

Rule 162.5 – consideration should be given to changing the colours/shapes of yellow and red cards shown for false start so as to eliminate possible confusion with yellow and red disciplinary cards.

Rules 185.1(f) and 185.2 – a study to be made as to whether “by foot” should be included in these rules and also whether both these rules (rather than one) are in fact required.

Rule 240.2 Note (ii) - That the following sentence be added to the note:

The maximum distance of such sections shall be XXX metres.

It is recommended that advice be sought from the Road Running Commission as to the relevant distance to be inserted.

Rule 260.18(c) – should be amended so as to not prevent the recognition of records in straight running events because of a problem with the radius of the circular track. Further a study should be made to determine limitations of radius for record purposes in circular events on outdoor and indoor tracks.

2. Technical Rule Interpretations

The Technical Committee approved the following rule interpretations:

Rule 125.2 – authority in relation to disciplinary matters before the first call room and after the departure from the field of play (i.e. in the mixed zone and beyond, at medal ceremonies) rests with the Technical Delegates rather than any of the referees.

Rule 144.2 – it was agreed that in most cases as to what is permitted and unpermitted, only unpermitted items would be listed in the rules. However where there is regular uncertainty, certain permitted items could be listed either in an interpretation or in the rule. To this end it was agreed that heart monitors are permitted.

Rule 146.3 – so as to make clear the meaning of bona fide, it was agreed to propose to replace the second sentence with the following:

Such person or team may only protest if they are competing in the same round of the event to which the protest (or subsequent appeal) relates (or are competing in a competition on which a team points score is being conducted.)

Until the rule change is proposed this sentence should be interpreted as above.

Rule 146.4(b) – the obvious (in my view, at least) was clarified by the agreement that the words “by him” be inserted after “achieved”.

Rules 146.4(b)(ii) and Rule 187.17(b) – changes are required to correct the French translation.

Introduction to Section III – it was noted that this introduction is inadequate in that it leaves Rules 230, 240 and 250 deficient in relation to start provisions and responsibility for transponder timing.

It was agreed that rule changes along the lines of the following would be proposed and that in the meantime they should be regarded as valid interpretations:

(a) by adding the following paragraph to Rules 230.7, 240.6 and 250.7:

On the command “On your marks”, the starter shall ensure that no athlete has his foot (or any part of his body) touching the start line or the ground in front of it, and shall then fire the gun.

Note: there is currently no definition of start and finish lines in Rules 230 (except via reference to Rules 240.3) or 250. This should also be remedied.

(b) add Rule 165.25 as follows:

The Chief Transponder Judge shall be responsible for the functioning of the System. Before the start of the competition, he will meet the technical staff involved and familiarise himself with the equipment. He shall supervise the testing of the equipment and ensure that the passing of the transponder over the finish line will record the athlete’s finish time. In conjunction with the Referee he shall ensure that provision is made for the application, when necessary, of Rule 165.24(f).

Note: it would then be necessary to recognise this position in Rules 120 and 128.

Rule 162.5 – it was agreed that part of the 2009 wording should be re-introduced as an editorial change to indicate that green cards should be shown for a broader range of situations other than extraneous reasons.

Rule 162.6 (“commencement of the start’) – it was noted that this wording was causing some confusion in a range of countries. However rather than change the rule, it was agreed that attempts should be made to overcome these problems through education and elaboration of the starters’ guidelines on the website.

In essence, a mere movement of the shoulders is not to be regarded as an athlete “commencing” his start and thereby potentially leading to a false start. Such instances should be dealt with either by standing the field up or in serious cases, invoking the disciplinary provisions.

Rule 162.9 – it was confirmed that the words “the start was not a fair one” do not refer solely to cases of false starts. It was confirmed that, for example, these words also refer to such instances of blocks slipping, a foreign object striking one or more athletes during the start etc. Thus the invocation of this rule does not always have to result in the issuing of a false start.

Rule 163.2 – the Committee noted that the decision of the Track Referee to advance an athlete who did not complete his semi final to the final of the men’s 800m in Berlin was not correct and should not be regarded as an appropriate precedent for future decisions.

Rule 163.3 – agreed that the last sentence of this rule should be read as meaning the following until a re-print of the rule book allows an editorial change,:

“Except as stated in Rule 163.4, an athlete who has violated this Rule shall be disqualified. In determining whether or not there has been a violation of this Rule, the Referee may decide on the basis of a report of an Umpire or Judge or otherwise.”

Rule 166.4(b) – agreed that a new note be proposed and that the rule should be read as meaning the following until a re-print of the rule book:

Note (iv): In any 800 metres race, including a final, where for any reason there are more athletes competing than lanes available, the Technical Delegate(s) shall determine in which lanes more than one athlete will be drawn.

Rule 168.7 – agreed that the requirement to jump each hurdles should not be read as requiring the athlete to jump each hurdle in his own lane – provided always the intention of Rules 163.3 and 163.4 is followed.

Rule 170.14 – the decision of the Jury of Appeal in Berlin was noted and it was agreed that it was not necessary to change the wording of the Rule to give effect or clarification to that decision. The effect of this is that should the outgoing runner touch the baton prior to the baton being within the start of the changeover box, his team should be disqualified.

Rule 170.16 – it was not considered necessary to change or remove any of all of the words in this Rule.

Rule 180.5 – agreed that some wording in the Rule needs to be changed to be consistent in language with the other wordings changed last year in relation to ties.

Rule 180.17 – agreed that a violation of this Rule should be dealt with as a “disciplinary” rather than a “technical” breach but that a red card could immediately be issued in the case of a serious breach.

Rule 181.8(d) – it was confirmed that the intention of this rule change as passed by the Berlin Congress does allow a jump-off to be called off by the mutual decision of all remaining athletes involved therein.

Its application in this regard is however to be monitored closely over the period until the next congress.

Rule 181.9(e) – the word “clears” should read “attempts” to give effect to intention of the 2009 rule change. Rule to be changed editorially at earliest available opportunity.

Rules 184 and 185 – as an editorial change these rules are to be re-organised so that generic matters such as the description of the take-off board and landing area be moved to Rule 184.

 Rule 186 – the following interpretations were clarified for the triple jump:

·         it is not a failure (for that reason alone) if an athlete touches the white lines or the ground outside between the take-off board and the landing area;

·         it is not a failure (for that reason alone) if the athlete lands in the pit in the step phase;

·         it is a failure if the landing of the jump is not within the landing area (ie if it is on the runway).

Rule 187.4(b) – it was agreed that it was not necessary to propose a change to specifically require the glove to have compartments for each finger, as the rules already imply this. However it is to be interpreted that this is required.

Rules 230.8(c) and 204.7(b) - agreed that there were no particular limitations on the type of “hands on” medical examination that can be undertaken

Rule 260.6 – editorial. This should read “Regulations” rather than “Procedural Guidelines”.

Rule 260.29 (d) – wording or this rule should be changed as an editorial so that it reads the same as in  260.28(e).

3.2 VDM/EDM operating protocol – standard form of conformity – the Committee approved the use of VDM as the official primary measurement in long and triple jumps as from the 2010 World Indoor Championships. A standard form to be used when both EDM and VDM is used was approved.

3.3 Paper on Combined Events – the Committee studied a series of proposals from Hans van Kuijen. It was agreed not to support the proposals for the creation of a Combined Events Delegate (as all proposed matters are and should be adequately and appropriately covered by either or both the technical delegate or the combined events referee.)  It was agreed to support the proposal (already being pursued by the IAAF Competitions Department) where the information is available, for event bests and statistics to relate to those in combined events rather than across all events. All other proposals are recommended to be the subject of further study.

3.4 Bibs in horizontal jumps – a proposal to exempt horizontal jumpers from wearing a number on the back of the vest was not supported.

3.5 Designation of DNF/DNS – with the exception of Combined Events (for which Rule 200.11 should be strictly applied), the general guideline should be that any athlete who passes the final call room but who does not start or finish the subsequent event, should be designated “DNF”.

4. Stadia Matters

A range of matters were discussed and some changes/additions to the IAAF Track and Field Facilities Manual will be proposed. Discussions of broader interest included the use of synthetic grass infields for long throws and the possible study of the need for additional requirements for flexible sprung surfaces when used either indoor or outdoor.

The requirement for a wider landing area for visually impaired athletes in long/triple jumps was discussed. It was agreed that it should be encouraged where new facilities are developed at which it is envisaged that such athletes will compete, that at least one pit should be built with the increased width.

5. Technology Matters

The final draft of the Calibration Handbook was tabled and approved. It will be placed on the IAAF website. This will be a valuable tool for technical and equipment managers. It was noted that Khan Sharp (AUS) has joined the Scientific Measurement Group which provides advice to the IAAF Technical Committee.

It was agreed that for the zero control test it is recommended that the minimum number of lines per second should be 1000.

6. Equipment and Implement Matters

A proposal to agree to have only one counterweight for all hurdle heights was not supported. However it was agreed to study further whether the number of different counterweight positions required could be reduced.

A proposal for an alternate “curtain” type safety gate for hammer events was approved for testing.

A proposal for a safety collar around the pole vault box was considered to be contrary to Rule 183.8

7. Education Matters

7.1 International Starting Guidelines – the latest version is available on the IAAF website. This will be amended to deal with two additional matters – the interpretation of Rule 162.6 above and the intention of the rules changes in relation to events longer than 400 metres, ie that they are not to be applied over-strictly.

7.2 International Photo Finish Judge Guidelines – these were tabled and approved. The IAAF Competitions Department is currently editing them and the document will soon be available on the IAAF website.

7.3 TOECS Level II – it was confirmed that passing the TOECS Level II course will now result primarily as qualification for the IAAF Level II Officiating Diploma. From this list of qualified officials, Area Associations will work with the IAAF to identify in each four year period those who will additionally serve as Area Technical Officials - the number of which in each Area should reflect the number required for events to be conducted in the Area during the period.

7.4 “The Referee” Update – it was agreed that the complete revision of The Referee would be deferred until a later date. In the meantime an immediate update covering 2009 rule changes and available interpretations should be completed by 31 March 2010 for printing as soon as possible thereafter.

Please contact me by email if you have any questions – brian.roe@earthling.net

Brian Roe (AUS)

Member – IAAF Technical Committee

28 February 2010