False-start rule a true nightmare

Glenn Tucker, Contributor

Speaking strictly as a spectator, I think athletics in ancient Greece was far more exciting than today. For one thing, athletes performed nude. Then if, God forbid, and athlete false-started, an official would administer a sound whipping to some choice areas of his anatomy.

Things have improved for the athletes since then, and in 1900, the false-start rule stipulated that each athlete in events between the 100s and the 400s was entitled to one false start. In 2003, for no reason that anyone knows of, other than the officials were bored, the rule was changed to state that after any false start, all the athletes would be warned. Any subsequent false start led to immediate disqualification.

Previous disqualification occurred only if the same athlete false started twice. In 2009, outside commercial sources interrupted the boredom of these officials and, using the excuse that false starts could be an attempt to cheat and that it takes up too much time, the rule was changed again. This time, the IAAF announced that from January 2010, a zero-tolerance stance to false starts would be adopted. Athletes false-starting would be immediately disqualified.

I must agree with Tyson Gay that the new false-start rule - which will have a serious impact on Jamaica - would be ruinous to the sport.

It was later revealed that this new rule was attributable to pressure from television interests.

What role did our JAAA officials play in this foolish decision? Did they disagree? If so, what did they do by way of lobbying other officials? If they agreed, what reasons do they have for supporting it?

As it turned out, the rule change had nothing to do with the advancement of the sport. It had to do with television companies and minimising their costs.

The claim that the new rule saves time has no merit, as the remaining athletes still need to be called back to their starting blocks.

Can you imagine what happens to an athlete who has to perform under such conditions, with family, friends, community and country - not to mention girlfriend - counting on you? Should we punish a person who has worked so hard for so long for being nervous?

And the JAAA and ISSA have no problem inflicting this torture on our children. Under these new made-for-TV conditions, athletes so concentrate on not making a mistake that they do make a mistake. The rest are frozen in the blocks. Times are affected.

If the objective is to encourage participation in the sport, disqualifying an athlete from participation for something as minor as a single false start runs counter to that goal. Spectators - who have paid their money - would much prefer to see a field of eight runners, even though there are three or four false starts, than a competition that eliminates two or three of the best runners in the world, resulting in a mediocre race with a mediocre time.

It should not be ignored that one can false-start for a variety of legitimate reasons, chief among them the inconsistency of the starter.

There is a saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, it 'bruck' now. I think it is imperative that the IAAF revert to the most sensible set of rules governing this matter - the 1900 rules.

Glenn Tucker is a former coach of Holmwood Technical High. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and glenntucker2011@gmail.com.