This is the sad story of how Carl Lewis lost a superb world record due to the incompetence of the judges.
The faithful readers of my blog have certainly noticed that I do not like Carl Lewis. However you have to give it to him: he has been a great jumper with a superb technique. It was really a pleasure to watch him jump and there has been a moment when he was capable to do incredible things. To be sure, he was already as obnoxious as we came to realise later but this does not diminish in the least his value as jumper.
Before telling the story let us see what do the rules say concerning fouls in horizontal jumps.
Rule 185 of the current (2018-2019) WA (ex-IAAF) book of rules states that
An athlete fails if:
he while taking off, touches the ground (including any part of the plasticine board) beyond the take-off line with any part of his body, whether running up without jumping or in the act of jumping.
And let us add the proviso of Rule 146 b
In a Field Event, if an athlete makes an immediate oral protest against having a trial judged as a failure, the Referee of the event may, if he is in any doubt, order that the trial be measured and the result recorded, in order to preserve the rights of all concerned.
But when considering whether to order the measurement of a trial which is the subject of an immediate oral protest the Referee should:
(a) not do so in cases where there was a clear breach of the Rules, for example in the long jump a clear mark made in the plasticine by the athlete in question;
(b) always do so (and immediately so as to not delay the competition) in cases where there is any doubt.
The good operation of this Rule means that the Judge with the spike or prism should always mark the point of landing even when they see a red flag. Apart from the possibility that the athlete may make an immediate oral protest, it is also possible that the Judge with the flags may have incorrectly or accidentally raised the wrong one.
Unfortunately I do not have the 1982 rules of the USA Track and Field federation. The ones in my possession, the 2019 ones, are the exact copy of the WA rules, as far as Rule 185 is concerned, while for Rule 146 the formulation is slightly different (but the gist is the same). Rule 146,7 states that
If an immediate oral protest is made, in order to protect the rights of all concerned:
Regarding a decision of a Field Judge that a jump is foul or is invalid, the jump should be measured, if possible.
However I traced down the current NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) TF rules and there I found this
Section 7, article 3
It shall be a foul jump if:
The takeoff foot (shoe) extends beyond the foul line.
So, now, let us go back to July 1982 and the USOC (United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee) Sports Festival Competition in Indianapolis. Carl Lewis, just 21 years old, is in great shape. The previous year, not quite 20 years old, he had jumped a world leading 8.62 m in Sacramento (and a wind-aided 8.73 m in the same competition). In May 1982 he jumped 8.61 m in Westwood. When he comes to Indianapolis he is at the peak of his form. He starts the competition with two straight fouls, of which the first is already beyond 9 m. And then he is off to participate in the 4x100 m relay. He is back and fouls once more. And again he is off in order to participate in the medal ceremony of the relay. Since there are fewer than eight athletes he can take all six jumps. He adjusts his run-up and in the fourth jump (some say that he missed the fourth and this is his fifth) he lands well beyond 9 m. Everybody is cheering but then the judge raises a red flag. Lewis protests and asks to see the mark on the plasticine. There is no mark but the judge replies that he saw Lewis foot extend beyond the foul line by a good quarter inch. This is preposterous! While the USATF rules are clear the judge is apparently accustomed to the NCAA rules which allow the judge to decide on a foul even in the absence of any mark. But wait, the worse is yet to come. While Lewis is discussing with the judge, an over-eager assistant erases the mark on the sand pit. So, even if the judge had relented, it would have been impossible to measure the jump under protest. Lewis is simply robbed of a fantastic word record. He has one (or two) last jumps and he manages a world leading 8.76 m, with a perfectly legal wind of 1 m/s, but Beamon's record is intact.
How far did he jump in his non-measured jump? J. Grimes who finished 2nd in the competition, estimated the jump at probably 30 feet and two inches (9.19 m). Most witnesses agree on 30+ feet (9.14 m). So, it is safe to surmise that the jump was definitely one above 9 m.
Lewis returned to Indianapolis in the following years. He jumped 8.79 m in 1983, 8.75 m in 1987 and 8.76 m in 1988. Only in Tokyo, during the 1991 World Championships did he jump further than the Indianapolis marks with a wind-legal 8.87 m (and a slightly wind-aided 8.91 m). He would never jump beyond 9 m.
Was he really able to do so? I am convinced that he was and that he did so in Indianapolis. Why didn't he come closer to this mark in the following years? I believe that this is due to the fact that he kept always more than one iron in the fire. He was running 100 and 200 m and participating in the 4x100 m US team as late as 1993. When he decided to focus on the long jump for the 1996 Olympics, trying to equal Oerter's feat of four consecutive olympic golds, he was already past his prime. (He managed to win in Atlanta, with a so-so 8.50 m but that was his swan-song).
In my post on King Carl I voiced, in an unambiguous way, my poor opinion on him. I stand by these writings and would not change them by a iota. Still, as I said, you have to give it to him: Carl Lewis was the most graceful long jumper and he is the first human to jump beyond 9 metres.
PS. I had finished the article and was waiting a few days in order to publish it when I came across a mention of a rule change for horizontal jumps to be introduced from November 2020. According to this the plasticine will not be used anymore in order to judge whether a jump is valid or not but the judge will appreciate whether the foot of the athlete went over the foul line.
Where the people who proposed this completely brainless?
They are replacing an objective datum (trace or no trace on the plasticine) with a purely subjective one. So, if the judge so wishes he/she can alter the outcome of a competition just by disqualifying selectively. And more jumpers will be robbed of their record just like poor C. Lewis. (I never imangined that I was going to write this last sentence).
The faithful readers of my blog have certainly noticed that I do not like Carl Lewis. However you have to give it to him: he has been a great jumper with a superb technique. It was really a pleasure to watch him jump and there has been a moment when he was capable to do incredible things. To be sure, he was already as obnoxious as we came to realise later but this does not diminish in the least his value as jumper.
Before telling the story let us see what do the rules say concerning fouls in horizontal jumps.
Rule 185 of the current (2018-2019) WA (ex-IAAF) book of rules states that
An athlete fails if:
he while taking off, touches the ground (including any part of the plasticine board) beyond the take-off line with any part of his body, whether running up without jumping or in the act of jumping.
And let us add the proviso of Rule 146 b
In a Field Event, if an athlete makes an immediate oral protest against having a trial judged as a failure, the Referee of the event may, if he is in any doubt, order that the trial be measured and the result recorded, in order to preserve the rights of all concerned.
But when considering whether to order the measurement of a trial which is the subject of an immediate oral protest the Referee should:
(a) not do so in cases where there was a clear breach of the Rules, for example in the long jump a clear mark made in the plasticine by the athlete in question;
(b) always do so (and immediately so as to not delay the competition) in cases where there is any doubt.
The good operation of this Rule means that the Judge with the spike or prism should always mark the point of landing even when they see a red flag. Apart from the possibility that the athlete may make an immediate oral protest, it is also possible that the Judge with the flags may have incorrectly or accidentally raised the wrong one.
Unfortunately I do not have the 1982 rules of the USA Track and Field federation. The ones in my possession, the 2019 ones, are the exact copy of the WA rules, as far as Rule 185 is concerned, while for Rule 146 the formulation is slightly different (but the gist is the same). Rule 146,7 states that
If an immediate oral protest is made, in order to protect the rights of all concerned:
Regarding a decision of a Field Judge that a jump is foul or is invalid, the jump should be measured, if possible.
However I traced down the current NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) TF rules and there I found this
Section 7, article 3
It shall be a foul jump if:
The takeoff foot (shoe) extends beyond the foul line.
The fateful 9+ m jump of C. Lewis
So, now, let us go back to July 1982 and the USOC (United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee) Sports Festival Competition in Indianapolis. Carl Lewis, just 21 years old, is in great shape. The previous year, not quite 20 years old, he had jumped a world leading 8.62 m in Sacramento (and a wind-aided 8.73 m in the same competition). In May 1982 he jumped 8.61 m in Westwood. When he comes to Indianapolis he is at the peak of his form. He starts the competition with two straight fouls, of which the first is already beyond 9 m. And then he is off to participate in the 4x100 m relay. He is back and fouls once more. And again he is off in order to participate in the medal ceremony of the relay. Since there are fewer than eight athletes he can take all six jumps. He adjusts his run-up and in the fourth jump (some say that he missed the fourth and this is his fifth) he lands well beyond 9 m. Everybody is cheering but then the judge raises a red flag. Lewis protests and asks to see the mark on the plasticine. There is no mark but the judge replies that he saw Lewis foot extend beyond the foul line by a good quarter inch. This is preposterous! While the USATF rules are clear the judge is apparently accustomed to the NCAA rules which allow the judge to decide on a foul even in the absence of any mark. But wait, the worse is yet to come. While Lewis is discussing with the judge, an over-eager assistant erases the mark on the sand pit. So, even if the judge had relented, it would have been impossible to measure the jump under protest. Lewis is simply robbed of a fantastic word record. He has one (or two) last jumps and he manages a world leading 8.76 m, with a perfectly legal wind of 1 m/s, but Beamon's record is intact.
How far did he jump in his non-measured jump? J. Grimes who finished 2nd in the competition, estimated the jump at probably 30 feet and two inches (9.19 m). Most witnesses agree on 30+ feet (9.14 m). So, it is safe to surmise that the jump was definitely one above 9 m.
Lewis returned to Indianapolis in the following years. He jumped 8.79 m in 1983, 8.75 m in 1987 and 8.76 m in 1988. Only in Tokyo, during the 1991 World Championships did he jump further than the Indianapolis marks with a wind-legal 8.87 m (and a slightly wind-aided 8.91 m). He would never jump beyond 9 m.
Was he really able to do so? I am convinced that he was and that he did so in Indianapolis. Why didn't he come closer to this mark in the following years? I believe that this is due to the fact that he kept always more than one iron in the fire. He was running 100 and 200 m and participating in the 4x100 m US team as late as 1993. When he decided to focus on the long jump for the 1996 Olympics, trying to equal Oerter's feat of four consecutive olympic golds, he was already past his prime. (He managed to win in Atlanta, with a so-so 8.50 m but that was his swan-song).
Carl Lewis' perfect technique
PS. I had finished the article and was waiting a few days in order to publish it when I came across a mention of a rule change for horizontal jumps to be introduced from November 2020. According to this the plasticine will not be used anymore in order to judge whether a jump is valid or not but the judge will appreciate whether the foot of the athlete went over the foul line.
Where the people who proposed this completely brainless?
They are replacing an objective datum (trace or no trace on the plasticine) with a purely subjective one. So, if the judge so wishes he/she can alter the outcome of a competition just by disqualifying selectively. And more jumpers will be robbed of their record just like poor C. Lewis. (I never imangined that I was going to write this last sentence).
No comments:
Post a Comment