Another DQ

Well it looks like this rabble has done it again.
Another Dq. this time at the lightly contested SAAL Crystal Brook meet.
Its the 120m mens where Cooper Williams has run red at 2.02, which is basically .03 more than an acceptable improvement.

He is a young guy if I am not right who is always going to improve. But we know you are crucified over here if you improve.

Go back to Dec 1st 2020 and he ran 12.26 in the heat of the Pre Bay 120m mens. The semi times have been removed which suggests he ran a 11.889 with a -5.6 wind reading (semi final 1 had a 2.6 mps wind reading, semi final 2 a -5.6???)
The final he ran 12.341. These times come from him running off 13m.

Cooper was off 11.25 for Crystal Brook, he was off 10m at the Bay.

The problem I have with this DQ is this.

The Bay 70's had most of the field run red but no DQ's, the whole of the womens 70m final ran red and no DQ's, with virtually no explanation as to why.

You get a small country town meet with lower prize money (is this a Cat 1 or 2??) the young guy runs .03 over and he's DQ'd.
The next thing is if you ae going to DQ then make it complete. You cant say you keep the Sash and placing but you dont get the prize money. It must be one thing or another. No DQ or a complete DQ where prize money, sash and placing is removed, all other place getters move up 2nd now get 1st, the sash and prize money. Not distribute the money evenly through the remaining finalists.
I cannot for the life of me fathom the decisions this lot make, its mind boggling, its either pathetically week or pathetically stupid and quite possibly both.

It once again displays the system can provide correct handicapping nor can the handicappers.

Havent heard that one TS , have the league got the guts to do it.

Handicaps for the $3000 120 womens final
10.25
13.75
10.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
Wow what a thrilling 110m race
No wonder the kiddies and kiddies coaches dont want the Val handicapping system.

How the heck can the winner be DQ and the 2 placegetter stays in second spot.
So the winner , by staying in first place takes the win penalty in the chook raffle.
So the league gets to keep the $1500 first place money , therefore the meeting could even run at a profit.
But wait , because the winner loses his $1500 , does the winning coach lose his $100:lol:
Wont happen TS , to many complications

SA Whisperer wrote:How the heck can the winner be DQ and the 2 placegetter stays in second spot.
So the winner , by staying in first place takes the win penalty in the chook raffle.
So the league gets to keep the $1500 first place money , therefore the meeting could even run at a profit.
But wait , because the winner loses his $1500 , does the winning coach lose his $100:lol:
Wont happen TS , to many complications

This Collin has absolutely destroyed the South Australia athletic league.
It’s being operated by a bunch of monkeys an it’s showing.
8 female runners for a straight 70 final??
Even in Vic in the low grade prize pool there is more heats in 70 then the SA 70/120 combined men and women.
What a disgrace.
Thi imploded back after the whole atom Scalnders saga and it exposed how bad it really is

Not sure on the coach losing the dosh, I suspect so but who knows with this lot?
That $1500 is being divided up between the other 5 place getters so they each get an extra $230 and the other 9 runners that didnt make the final get $50 each.

I'm just staggered that they take the prize money but say you keep the 1st place and sash!

Now if that track rating is incorrect and wow they have changed these ratings well after an event before then Cooper will have not run red. These tracking ratings along with the wind reader issues combined with a terrible handicapping system and process, the Chief Stewards inability along with the committee failing to recognise the farcical problematic issues this all generates needs a significant overhaul and change.

Top Sport wrote:Not sure on the coach losing the dosh, I suspect so but who knows with this lot?
That $1500 is being divided up between the other 5 place getters so they each get an extra $230 and the other 9 runners that didnt make the final get $50 each.

I'm just staggered that they take the prize money but say you keep the 1st place and sash!

Now if that track rating is incorrect and wow they have changed these ratings well after an event before then Cooper will have not run red. These tracking ratings along with the wind reader issues combined with a terrible handicapping system and process, the Chief Stewards inability along with the committee failing to recognise the farcical problematic issues this all generates needs a significant overhaul and change.

Surely this can’t happen??
How can you give someone the placing and sash but not reward them with what they deserve.
I watched the video and the athlete that won looked good from the gun to the finish.
He deserves what he won and respect for given his best effort with the handicap given.
Though
I’m interested to see what collision Collin does with 2nd and 3rd running quick.
Given that a vic athlete has turned up run off 10.25 then been pulled .25 for showing up!
2nd and 3rd should be punished upon times

Top Sport wrote:
You get a small country town meet with lower prize money (is this a Cat 1 or 2??) the young guy runs .03 over and he's DQ'd.

Hi T.S.
He has actually run 2.03 OVER
And run .03 over the allowance.
Surely they havent shared the money around.

Lets look at the overall picture.
At the end of the season in 2021 at Loxton the lad ran 12.567 off 10m at 8.753 MPS.
Almost 12 months later at Crystal Brook he has run 12.222 off 11.25 at 8.897 MPS
For a start under the Val handicapping system and the previous saal system the lad would have gone back in the handicaps not forward.He hasnt ran much at all this season so under the old system he may have had 10m at Crystal Brook maybe slightly less.
The second thing is , you must expect improvement in a young lad so in 12 months to go from 8.753 MPS to 8.897 MPS is no suprise if not change Coaches.

E.T.H wrote:[
8 female runners for a straight 70 final??

Hi E.T.H
It was actually worse .......................7

Jesus...
I guess every Premier in Australia is a dictator.
In South Australia you’re lucky enough to have 2.

I think in almost ever case where there has been a DQ the athlete got a lift when under the traditional handicapping process they either would not have got such a significant lift, no lift and/or would have been on a shorter mark based on that normal handicap movement.
Is it any wonder that this happens when they keep making changes without knowing what the repercussions of those changes are.
The 1.25m lift is a significant lift given his ability already seen, they had this info yet still went with the 1.25m lift, its where a .5m would have been more than enough. In which case he would have run a 12.306 WA.
Seems to me that track rating is also wrong, appears it should be rated a fast track?

Also worth noting Sam Blyzno ran at the Bay off 11m 12.932 in the heat, then 13.252 in the semi final.
He then ran at Camden off 11.5 in 12.879 in the heat didnt make the final.
Sam has then run 12.262 at Crystal Brook.
He's moved up 1m but has had a recent significant improvement.

Marcos Arbon has run 13.546 off 10.5 at Burnside in the heat at Crystal Brook he ran 12.746 off the same mark 10.5! This would also appear to be a significant improvement as the season has progressed. His Z-Score is -3.22 for Crystal Brook?

Been up an about today asking around about Williams.
The word I received , correct me if Im wrong is that he has a part time job which has prevented him from training and/or competing as much as he would have liked this season.
And when he has competed has been slightly off his game.
Under the system most preferred the handicapper would have kept his mark on hold knowing full well what his performances are in the past and hes only young.
Under the chook raffle his mark gets wound out, dont blame the lad
Knew the field wouldnt be hot for the Brook so set himself for the race and to support the league.
I would feel dudded.

Top Sport wrote:Not sure on the coach losing the dosh, I suspect so but who knows with this lot?
That $1500 is being divided up between the other 5 place getters so they each get an extra $230 and the other 9 runners that didnt make the final get $50 each.

Hi Top Sport
I may have missed an announcement.
But where is it in the rules that say spread the prizemoney around.
So you are telling me that the $20 for 8th place not paid out in the allcomers was shared among the runners as well.
Never ever been done like that in the past.
Im guess rule 19993zzakfml was implimented last Sat

I think they are just writing their own rules, when, where, who and how they apply them.

The SAAL continue to consistently show how inconsistent they are with rules that obviously don’t work and a system that doesn’t work. Athletes and coaches can’t have confidence in such a shambles that now has perceptions of selective rule use and bias and thus those that are not new to the sport will stay away from the SAAL in the droves.

Gossips rang me last night and told me that Colin the president of the saal didnt put his name to the DQ recommendations it was a couple of other sidekicks.
So from what Gossips was saying , Cooper hasnt been DQ as yet , its recommendations only.

Ahh, so this will no doubt be sorted out by about September?
Its a stupid recommendation whoever thought it.
I wonder if one of those sidekicks is an individual that says one thing only to say days later he never did? Shooting the messenger in the process!

Top Sport wrote:

Absolute joke.
fark me does everyone that wins gets a disqualification in South Australia?
Need to go to S.A now with the fact if you place you get pulled if you win you get DQ.

What would the outcome be if a Vic wins Loxton?

10.6 Unacceptable Improvement
An athlete may face disciplinary sanctions where their standardised performance in any
Category 1, 2 or 3 race conducted by the SAAL constitutes an unacceptable improvement.
This is detailed in the Handicapping and Stewarding Rules (Appendix 3)
In races which are being stewarded, a runner who shows unacceptable improvement will be
required to front a tribunal consisting of 3 tribunal members. The Chief Steward, after
consulting the handicapping panel, will recommend a penalty which can be disqualification, a
ban, a fine, a handicap penalty, a warning or a combination of the above. The runner, along
with their coach and/or a representative, can present their side of the story before the tribunal
decides on a penalty. The tribunal’s decision can then be appealed to the Management
Committee if need be.
So the Chief has no powers at all , that is so funny .
I think the sidekicks have erred in both signing the recommendation, as the rules stipulate The Chief Steward does the recommending, no one else.
Sorry sidekicks , you need to read the rules.
No announcement from the President , funny that.
So with only a couple of meetings left , Im guessing we wont know the result until the season is over

I really dont understand why the President needs to be involved in these decisions. The Chief Steward by all accounts cant handle these situations when they arise which suggests he is not fit for the position. I dont think its a case of he has no powers, from what I understand he doesnt want these specific powers so they placed them elsewhere. He doesnt want the stress on the day so it gets looked at later with many fingers in the pie!

Its like at every aspect of what has happened over the past 3 years is just handled incompetently.

Systemic failures.

So by the look of the rules 0f competition which were put in place by the crew in place , the Chief goes to to the handicapping panel, then makes a recommendation which can then go to a Tribunal and then can lob back at the management committee.WOW
So it could all lob back at the management committee who were probably there on the day and had their two bobs worth.Wow
And did as E.T.H mention a Vic runner lose .25m in mid flight and got pulled .
Reminds me of the WA lad who got pulled a couple of seasons back , while he was in the air ........hasnt been back.

Now, I might be drawing a massive bow.

Stevie has been around the blocks. has cracked the big time and is building to do so again and often sees what the competition is doing.

Prior to Camden did the league issue a Statement from a decision made in 2019? pretty much on the same issue?

Face the facts, Cooper runs for Wasp, ran juniors for Coastal and still has a lot of contacts there.
I dont think the backbone of the management committee will hold up in supporting the recommendations.
They know of the serious ramifications that could take place.
You dont bite the hand that feeds you.
Hey T.S. nice get that list of recommendations , the league must have more leaks than a seive.