Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:07:17 +1000
References: <23502690.1264904017335.JavaMail.root@wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <B3109AE1-1427-422F-A6D4-D1A56438DE74@gmail.com> <20100201142217.GB30022@ssx-book.125px.com> <DAF6F897-735D-4101-873E-40949532832E@gmail.com> <03AFB919-7600-4ED7-AA14-B8FFF5E5370C@btinternet.com> <70D8CAA7-5A9F-4D19-A17D-55ED1EE21CB4@gmail.com> <54E73BF2-6653-4C6E-A048-8AF708A2CC4A@embarqmail.com> <36172e5a1002011332t2e9e4d22i9c19227a7d94a87e@mail.gmail.com> <8BD57380-4EAA-4ABF-9A73-458934F88CB2@embarqmail.com> <981B4A3F-4AB7-43BE-BC75-5E841B68E684@gmail.com>

And also may cause a disadvantage to all since they must potentially SLOW
their start to ensure that they don't DQ.
The same situation would apply anyway wherever you set the line. Plus it is
fair to all. Consider also that all current record times have been
(presumably) set with the current timing. Ask any top level sprinter if they
want to have one tenth of a second automatically added to their best time.

Sprinters, showboats, Paah!
Emil Zatopek, Czech runner; winner of four Olympic gold medals:"We are
different, in essence, from other men. If you want to win something, run 100
meters. If you want to experience something, run a marathon."

Cheers
Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


On 2 February 2010 08:00, Steve Barbour <steve.barbour at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Ric Carter wrote:
>
> > yes, speed events are decided by advantage in the details. look at auto
> design in F1
> >
> > still, the sensible foul moment is the firing of the gun, not .1 or .01
> or .001  or .0125 seconds after firing the gun
> >
> > if anticipation fouls are a problem, don't give second chances
> >
> > occum's razor of rules--the easier it is to write and explain, the better
> the rule;^)
>
>
>
> bang, simple...
>
>
> agree,
>
>
> Steve
>  >
> > ric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
> >
> >> Ric I think it has evolved because people will test every possible
> option to
> >> gain a tiny advantage, especially where the difference between winning
> and
> >> second place can be measured in hundredths of a second.
> >> Think about it. EVERYONE wants to anticipate the gun as well as possible
> and
> >> be moving the first possible legal instant after the bang. There has to
> be a
> >> line somewhere. As far as I know, the .10 second is set to be below any
> >> known recorded human response. You can't rewire your electrical impulses
> to
> >> move your body that fast! it is just physically impossible.
> >> Everyone anticipates and its a level playing field. Especially with
> >> sprinters at this level, very likely they all have superb reflexes and
> >> reaction times to go with those explosive fast twitch fibres all wired
> with
> >> adrenalin. ANYTHING for an edge. Ask a certain Canadian sprinter Ted
> knows
> >> well. Another athlete false starting also causes a restart which can
> >> disadvantage everyone too. Similar system happens in swimming of course.
> Now
> >> the 10,000 and the marathon tend to make such things irrelevant!'
> >> Cheers
> >> Geoff (very ex-marathoner)
> >> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2 February 2010 02:57, Ric Carter <ricc at embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> the more i think about this, the more asinine it is.
> >>>
> >>> suppose an athlete (as is likely) has quicker reaction times than
> average
> >>> or thought possible?
> >>>
> >>> It not far from denying Usain Bolt a gold medal because he ran the 100
> >>> meters faster than was possible for a human being.
> >>>
> >>> ric
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Steve Barbour wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Frank Dernie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> IIRC yes, in the Olympic Games there is a time after the gun goes off
> >>> which is considered to be less than human reaction time, so if anybody
> goes
> >>> during this period it is considered a false start.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> !!!
> >>>>
> >>>> amazing, documentaion of this fact/rule available?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Leica Users Group.
> >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
In reply to: Message from wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (Doug Herr) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from tgray at 125px.com (Tim Gray) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] EYE BLINK TIME?)