RULE CHANGE - SHOT PUT

 

PROPOSAL FOR THE IAAF CONGRESS 2007 in Osaka, Japan:

 

 

                                               DANISH ATHLETIC FEDERATION

 

IAAF TECHNICAL RULES

 

PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN BOLD AND UNDERLINED

 

Rule 187

Add new 12 (c)

In the shot put, the landing sector must have a hardness so that the shot, after making an imprint at the first impact, continues forward so that the imprint is not being deformed by the shot moving backwards.

 

20 (a)

from the nearest mark made on first impact by the fall of the shot -------

 

Comments:

It has been experienced, and clearly established, that when a landing sector on grass is too soft, the shot may roll or jump backwards, deforming or obscuring the imprint made on the first impact, thereby making it impossible to establish the correct point of measurement.

 

January 2007

Georg Facius

 

 

 

The principle in the proposal has been accepted by the Technical Committee and the IAAF Council to be included in “The Track and Field Facilities Manual”, where it is the intention that the following text will be added under 2.4:

"The landing sector for each throwing event shall consist of suitable material with an even surface soft enough to ensure that the place of the initial fall of the implement can be clearly established by the judges. Under no circumstance may the implement bounce backwards, thus creating a risk that the measuring point is obliterated".
 

 

 

 
However this has caused me to make the following comments:

 
  
Date: 04-06-2007 18:28:25
Subject: Amendments of IAAF Competition Rules
 
 
Dear Colleagues,
 
Having now received the final material with the proposed amendments for the Osaka Congress, it is necessary for me to comment on the Technical Committee proposal, related to the proposal from DEN concerning Rule 187.12:
 
The TC suggests to replace the proposed change in the Handbook with the following addition to 2.4 in the Track and Field Facilities Manual:
 
"The landing sector for each throwing event shall consist of suitable material with an even surface soft enough to ensure that the place of the initial fall of the implement can be clearly established by the judges. Under no circumstance may the implement bounce backwards, thus creating a risk that the measuring point is obliterated".
 
It is obvious that an appropriate text should be included in the manual about this topic, but I must urge very strongly that an adequate text is included also in the Handbook. The landing sector for the shot put, when on grass, is not a permanent athletic facility, but almost always part of a football field, which, depending among other things on wheather conditions, will appear in a variety of conditions, and it is imperative that organisers and officials can find the necessary information in the Handbook when preparing or checking a shot put landing area, because, as it has become all to apparent, the immediate day-to-day condition of the landing sector is extremely important.
 
Organisers and officials do not carry around with them the "Track and Field Facilities Manual".
 
May I add that the text proposed for the Manual is also not coherent with the present text in the Handbook, where it is stated in 187.10 that "the landing sector shall consist of cinders or grass or other suitable material on which the implement makes an imprint", and I do think that, in any case, the same wordings and designations should be used consistently.
 
Whether it shall be the text from the TC or from DEN, or something else, is not crucial, but obviously the text in the Manual and the Handbook should be coherent.
 
As for the proposal to add "on first impact" to 187.20(a), it was seen very clearly at the men´s shot put final at the ECH in Gothenburg that, as stated in the protest from DEN:
 

"We could not help getting the impression that the officials taking care of the positioning of the measurement instrument, were doing this as if this was about long jump. When the shot rolled or jumped backwards, they measured from the point which was nearest the ring when the shot finally came to a stand still".

 

 - and not only that. I attach a mail from one of the members of the jury who dealt with the protest, which reads in English:

 

"---However, I also understand the judges. They must measure (from) the last mark. Otherwise there would have been even more chaos".

 

So, not only the judges, but also the members of the Jury of Appeal, had got this all wrong!!

 

However strange this may seem, if all you do is reading the text in Rule 187.20(a):

"---shall be made from the nearest mark made by the fall of the shot",

it may not be crystal clear what is actually meant - and what constitutes actually a "fall"? It certainly was painfully obvious that it was not crystal clear to the people involved in Gothenburg, so why not make it crystal clear - that is what the Rules should be all about.

 

In this relation it is also interesting to note that in the now proposed text from the TC for the Manual is used the term: "The initial fall of the implement" - same thing, but different wording. However "initial fall" indicates that there may be other types of "fall", so I will still place my money on "first impact".

 

My compilation of photos and videos from the shot put final, to illustrate the abovementioned, can be studied at this link: www.123hjemmeside.dk/facius

 

-----------

 

When studying these issues, I have stumbled upon other discrepancies related to the world of shot put. In 2.4.4.4 in the Manual is stated that the stop board shall be 1.22m +/- 0.01m long on the inside, whereas in that same Manual it is displayed in Fig 2.4.4.2 that the length shall be 1.14 - 1.16m, and in the Handbook, in Rule 188.3, it is stated that it shall have a "cord" (a strange word in this connection, I think) of 1.21m +/-0.01m. It all becomes even more confusing with the fact, that it is unfortunately not marked in the present Handbook that a change has been made in Rule 188.3, which therefore is unknown to many, and among those who have somehow spotted it, many are uncertain as to whether "the old" stop board may no longer be used.

 

As for the width of the board it is stated in Rule 188.3 that "The board shall measure 11.2cm to 30cm wide", while in the Manual is stated, in 2.4.4.3: "The width is 0.112m +/-0.002" - also not coherent with Fig 2.4.4.2, and in 6.3.1 in the Manual is stated: "The board shall be at least 0.112m wide" - period, which obviously is not coherent with any of the above, and, on top of that, in 6.3.1 there is nothing about the length of the board - really confusing.

 

I am sure that you will agree with me, that wording and designations, and of course facts, should be the same all over, where relevant, be it in the Handbook or in the Manual.

 

I would be grateful for your feedback concerning the above.

 

Kind regards,

Georg Facius

 

 

 

 
DANISH ATHLETIC FEDERATION
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Georg Facius
Chairman