Reply to "RRTC Approval?"

Dave, agreed. This was one of many actions by USATF officials at this event that I and others questioned at that time. But, it was clear that USATF as represented by the officials on site had little interest in hearing from Montgomery County Road Runners Club volunteers about how to best conduct this event. We at MCRRC looked into using FAT cameras, but none were available for rental for the time of the event. A purchase at that time was out of the question. MCRRC was already going $28,000 into the red at this point due to deficiencies in sponsorships and in the fundraising commitments of USATF. That kind of deficit would have been devastating to some smaller clubs. A lot of volunteers in MCRRC worked many years to raise that kind of money when MCRRC was younger.

As to the use of FAT at this event, after it was over, the timers all agreed it would have been overkill and of no value. The finish density was never so high that the order of finish was ever in question. Had there been a closer finish than in the photo, and if the 5 or 6 judges were to disagree, there were cameras above and on all sides of the action, including a video cam. We never had to use any of the photos or video to confirm any order of finish for any of the events. Our select timers got all but a handful of finishers in every event and results were posted as fast as by any methods possible at that time.

A comment by the lead timer at the conclusion of the event: "We could have timed and scored this with popsicle sticks".

quote:

Originally posted by David Katz:
My views on this will take a loooong time. I hope to have something by the end of the weekend.
Lyman-
fyi
The photo you mentioned is not a very good example. Most high level competitions would use a combination of transponder & FAT (Fully Automatic Timing). It is standard practice to have the tape holders just past the actual finish line by a foot or two) so as not to obstruct the view of the FAT camera(s)