I have always been unconformable with the way the long and triple jump are measured. What we are looking for is the longest possible jump. However instead of measuring the real length of the jump what we measure is the closest distance of the trace in the sand pit from the fixed foul line. The athlete may jump as far behind the foul line as he wishes: this is a pure loss for him since this length of the jump does not count. I find this quite unfair. Somehow it does pervert the notion of the longest jump.
The fact that jumps are measured from the foul line pushes the athletes to adjust their run-up so as to come as close as possible to the line on their last step. Hundreds of hours are spent in training in order to adjust the run-up. Hundreds of hours which could have been spent in a more productive way. Thousands of jumps are invalidated because the athletes, in their effort to come as close as possible, overstep the foul line. Does all this make sense? Some people argue that having the required precision is an integral part of the long (and the triple) jump. Pure bullshit. This is just an indication of the extreme conservatism that reigns in our sport, where we should continue doing something because we have always been doing it.
What should be done? The solution does already exist. In all major competitions there is a video capture which allows to measure the distance from the tip of the athlete's foot to the foul line. Added to the length of the measured jump we can get the real length of the jump. However the take-off board is still too short from my point of view. What would be convenient is a board of a length of at least 60 cm, perhaps even 80 cm. Then the athlete would only have to adjust his run-up so as to arrive on the board on his last step. Not too difficult a task if the board has a length of 80 cm! The take-off point could be captured along any point of the board. If the athlete misses the board, then 80 cm are added to the length measured from the foul line. And if the athlete oversteps the foul line, well, then the judge will have the occasion to raise the dreaded red flag and indicate a foul.
As I pointed out the technology is there. In fact the concept has been tested. I have written about this in my article on "Long jump experimentation". In a competition in Malmö, held in 2015, I. Spanovic won the long jump with an "official" 6.83 m and a real jump length of 6.99 m. The difference is quite appreciable, 16 cm in this case. Closer to us, I remember that in the women's long jump final, the winner, M. Mihambo, had a first jump measured at 6.52 m taking off a good 40 cm from the foul line. Given that she fouled her second one, she was in a precarious position, since her measured performance did not suffice in order to give her access to the final three jumps. Fortunately for her, she jumped a huge 7.30 m on her third try, clinching the gold medal.
Some persons could object to my proposal, saying that it necessitates sophisticated technology which can only be available for major competitions. Although I could argue that video tech is nowadays dirt cheap, I prefer to point out that low-tech solutions do exist. While writing my article on the Paralympics I had to gather material about all the disciplines. Thus I came to watch videos on how horizontal jumps are organised for visually impaired athletes. For them the take-off board has a length of 1 m and it is covered with chalk dust which allows to materialise the imprint of the take-off step. This is a solution that could be easily implemented, provided that take-off boards of 80 (or 60) cm are installed everywhere. Sprinkling chalk dust and swiping off the foot-print does not require anything special, and the total jump length can be easily measured with a tape.
Were these changes to be implemented, that would liberate the athletes from the constraint of the accuracy of the take-off. They would concentrate totally on attaining their optimal speed. That and the fact that the official length of the jump would be the real length, would boost the performances. A world record for men's long jump over 9 m would cease to be a dream, while women's triple jump could flirt with a 16 m record.
The fact that jumps are measured from the foul line pushes the athletes to adjust their run-up so as to come as close as possible to the line on their last step. Hundreds of hours are spent in training in order to adjust the run-up. Hundreds of hours which could have been spent in a more productive way. Thousands of jumps are invalidated because the athletes, in their effort to come as close as possible, overstep the foul line. Does all this make sense? Some people argue that having the required precision is an integral part of the long (and the triple) jump. Pure bullshit. This is just an indication of the extreme conservatism that reigns in our sport, where we should continue doing something because we have always been doing it.
J. Owens, the first man over 8 m in long jump
What should be done? The solution does already exist. In all major competitions there is a video capture which allows to measure the distance from the tip of the athlete's foot to the foul line. Added to the length of the measured jump we can get the real length of the jump. However the take-off board is still too short from my point of view. What would be convenient is a board of a length of at least 60 cm, perhaps even 80 cm. Then the athlete would only have to adjust his run-up so as to arrive on the board on his last step. Not too difficult a task if the board has a length of 80 cm! The take-off point could be captured along any point of the board. If the athlete misses the board, then 80 cm are added to the length measured from the foul line. And if the athlete oversteps the foul line, well, then the judge will have the occasion to raise the dreaded red flag and indicate a foul.
As I pointed out the technology is there. In fact the concept has been tested. I have written about this in my article on "Long jump experimentation". In a competition in Malmö, held in 2015, I. Spanovic won the long jump with an "official" 6.83 m and a real jump length of 6.99 m. The difference is quite appreciable, 16 cm in this case. Closer to us, I remember that in the women's long jump final, the winner, M. Mihambo, had a first jump measured at 6.52 m taking off a good 40 cm from the foul line. Given that she fouled her second one, she was in a precarious position, since her measured performance did not suffice in order to give her access to the final three jumps. Fortunately for her, she jumped a huge 7.30 m on her third try, clinching the gold medal.
V. Bardauskiene, the first woman over 7 m in long jump
Some persons could object to my proposal, saying that it necessitates sophisticated technology which can only be available for major competitions. Although I could argue that video tech is nowadays dirt cheap, I prefer to point out that low-tech solutions do exist. While writing my article on the Paralympics I had to gather material about all the disciplines. Thus I came to watch videos on how horizontal jumps are organised for visually impaired athletes. For them the take-off board has a length of 1 m and it is covered with chalk dust which allows to materialise the imprint of the take-off step. This is a solution that could be easily implemented, provided that take-off boards of 80 (or 60) cm are installed everywhere. Sprinkling chalk dust and swiping off the foot-print does not require anything special, and the total jump length can be easily measured with a tape.
Long jump for visually impaired athletes
Were these changes to be implemented, that would liberate the athletes from the constraint of the accuracy of the take-off. They would concentrate totally on attaining their optimal speed. That and the fact that the official length of the jump would be the real length, would boost the performances. A world record for men's long jump over 9 m would cease to be a dream, while women's triple jump could flirt with a 16 m record.
No comments:
Post a Comment