A follow-up on the "Allen incident"

Last month I published an article discussing the elimination of D. Allen for a false start which was a mere millisecond below the arbitrary (and unrealistic) threshold of 0.1 s fixed by World Athletics in 1989. As I explained there, this cut-off was based on studies performed in the 60s and was not revised despite more recent studies (sponsored by World Athletics!) which showed that auditory reactions can be faster than 100 ms and concluded that the cut-off time for false starts should be lowered to 80 or 85 ms.

P.J. Vazel, a french coach, the analyses of whose I appreciate a lot, published a list of the performances of the first 20 participants in the men's 100 m for the World Championships from 1995 to 2022. 

In the graphic below I am showing his results for the 1st, 10th and 20th competitor. The overall behaviour is the same, roughly independent of the position of the runner. In the 90s the starts were faster because the new rules with the 0.1 s cut-off had just started to be applied and the athletes were still taking risks. Vazel himself is pointing out that in 1995 there were three below-0.1s starts that were not recalled. The athletes became more cautious as the application of the 0.1 s rule became stricter but gradually the started improving their reaction time and we are now closing in the fateful 100 ms threshold.

So, are we in for a slew of Allen-style disqualifications? I am afraid that that's were we are heading now. And so, one can ask what is WA doing. Well, in November 2022 the WA Council approved an amendment to the Start Procedure guidelines. The idea is that the referee can now allow the athlete to run under protest. Here is the exact text (SIS stands for "Start Information System")

First, let me point out that the starting guidelines on the WA site have not been amended so as to include the decision of the Council. But what is even worse, there is no way one can find the Manuals&Guidelines page starting form the WA home page. The only way to reach that page is to ask Google, which provides this link. I find this preposterous. Is it so difficult for WA to have a well structured site that one can navigate without getting lost? (And, of course, do not count on the search function of the site: I have never managed to find anything using it).

So, let us forget the WA site problems and try to parse the amendment. The only thing that it says is that the athlete is not disqualified right away but may be allowed to run, provided the reaction time is close to the allowed limit. The key word here is "close". This is, unfortunately, a highly subjective notion. What is "close" for one starter will not be close enough for some other. And then there is the question of the "further study of the technological evidence". What does that mean? Will the athlete be disqualified (after his race) if it is found that the SIS is functioning properly? As usual, WA does not dare take the bull by the horns and we are stuck with half measures. To my eyes there is only one solution. Lower the cut-off time to a point where a false start will become indisputable. But one can only dream.