Terang Results

120m Under 14 Mixed
1  Harry McDonough  7
2  Leo Mcmeel  18
3  Matilda Buchanan  10
14.61

120m Men's Gift
1  Michael Hanna  2.50
2  Corey Baker  9.00
3  Jackson Bennett  4.50
12.55

120m Women's Gift
1  Nicole Berridge  6.25
2  Jessica Thornton  2.00
3  Bella Pasquali  6.50
13.99

12m Masters
1  Shane Quinn  12.00
2  Zander Mcdougall  19.00
3  Daniel Martin  11.50
13.30

300m Masters
1  Zander Mcdougall  41
2  Greg Denner  62
3  Luke Buchanan  24
36.59

400m Women's
1  Ida Laherty  26
2  Laura Mcdougall  51
3  Chloe Kinnersly  31
54.02

400m Men's
1  Jesse Patterson  33
2  Aaron Leferink  24
3  Endale Mekonnen  20
48.02

800m Open
1  Anna Kasapis  132
2  Alex Jones  62
3  Liam Hanrahan  54
1.54.49

1600m Open
1  Dominic Bruno  140
2  John Thomson  295
3  Richard Wade  250
4.10.51

400m Intersport Restricted
1  Fraser Stott  31
2  Archer Jones  48
3  Patrick Meade  40
50.24

70m Open
1  Olivia Matzer  9.50
2  Nathan Riali  2.00
3  Brad Hunt  4.00
7.60

120m Under 18 Mixed
1  Ollie Featherston  12.00
2  Lachlan Kinnersly  20.50
3  Ida Laherty  14.25
12.89

Thanks JH.

Did Olivia Matzer get pulled from 10.50 after running 7.45 at Warrnambool?

Din Djarin wrote:Thanks JH.

Did Olivia Matzer get pulled from 10.50 after running 7.45 at Warrnambool?

Back to 9.50 I believe

donatello wrote:

Din Djarin wrote:Thanks JH.

Did Olivia Matzer get pulled from 10.50 after running 7.45 at Warrnambool?

Back to 9.50 I believe

I struggle to understand the method of her Terang mark. So she breaks ceiling by a metre… come back 1 metre… oh wait!! She didn’t get penalised for the win at Warrnambool. Not sure how that one slipped through to the keeper. A couple of easy wins for her, a bit of a shame for the established athletes that run every week.

Also, very good win by Hanna. Good to see most the field having a red hot crack early in the year.

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

Hanna has improved and won well off a reduced handicap.

Matzer ran 1.5m inside ceiling and with min penalty included, really should have run from 8.50m at Terang.

Dwight Schrute wrote:

donatello wrote:

Din Djarin wrote:Thanks JH.

Did Olivia Matzer get pulled from 10.50 after running 7.45 at Warrnambool?

Back to 9.50 I believe

I struggle to understand the method of her Terang mark. So she breaks ceiling by a metre… come back 1 metre… oh wait!! She didn’t get penalised for the win at Warrnambool. Not sure how that one slipped through to the keeper. A couple of easy wins for her, a bit of a shame for the established athletes that run every week.

Also, very good win by Hanna. Good to see most the field having a red hot crack early in the year.

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

She's run 11.6 and 24.0, from 10.5m 70m ? No wonder she running  7.4s. Taylah  Cruttenden started on 8.5 and moved out to 9m, running 7.4s. She should have been allocated 8.5 and then moved out slowly. 10.5m was a gift.  Nana Owusu won Waverly in 7.5s , after given 10m, with 23.2 200pb 11.44 +2.2 100m. Nana Owusu has not run a 70m since.

It is shame to regulars who support the league. Especially since everyone been moved back to start time.

Might be worth mentioning that Michael Hanna ran 12.2 at Ballarat last year off 3.75m. Despite 2.5m being a tough mark, he only came back 1.25m…
His fastest rpm should’ve pulled him back to 1.25m

Norm the Form wrote:Might be worth mentioning that Michael Hanna ran 12.2 at Ballarat last year off 3.75m. Despite 2.5m being a tough mark, he only came back 1.25m…
His fastest rpm should’ve pulled him back to 1.25m  

The protected species will be all over this already to ensure “their” gift winner doesn’t allow Hana to have his bonus.

Except that start marks are not calculated off only 1 run Norm. Is there any chance of someone commenting on here after actually reading the rules. It’s not hard.

And you can’t talk HC. You flapped off with the same garbage.

The rules say that an OGA athlete can use just one fastest rpm to calculate their mark. Even if you take his 2 rpms Tim, the calculations indicate he would still be on 1 metre too much.
Unfortunately because he is an OGA there was no reason why he couldn’t be on 2.5m. However, it is quite unfair to put a guy that far under start time especially since he has already won Kilcoy this year AND he is probably eligible to take another 0.75m for Stawell this season.

If he has been handicapped as an established athlete (which he can be as he has won before in the VAL) you take his 2 year best and 5 year best and the start mark equals 2.5m.

If he has been assessed as OGA as you’ve said then he can be on 2.5m no issues.

Either way 2.5m seems pretty bloody accurate to me.

You can argue they should’ve done start marks and released them before the season and then applied Kilcoy penalty, fine. But they didn’t. So start mark only has to be calculated off the 2 RPM’s and it works out to be just over 2.5m.

Incorrect - his two best RPMs put him on 1.5m, his 1 best RPM puts him on 1.25m.
2.5m is completely discretionary

You do not take the 2 rpm’s from the same meet if you’ve done that. Seriously Norm. The best runs in his sample are 0.1050 at Ballarat and 0.1071 from Stawell. This leaves his mark as 2.5m. I don’t know how many more languages you want me to spell it out in.

There is no rule to say the two best ratings are to be from two different meetings. This is a completely incorrect assumption.
Hanna is OGA so his handicap can now be derived from his one best performance.

The 2 ratings are taken from 2 different meetings.

And ok if you want to play the OGA game he can technically be given any mark which is not below ceiling time. Making 2.5m perfectly fine once again.

Seriously I have no association with Michael at all. But if anyone is sooking about his 2.5m mark, I think they should probably focus on themselves or their own athletes instead

Not complaining about his mark, but the two ratings can and do come from the same meet . Harry Kerr is going to be calculated on his two best Stawell runs I’d assume.

If they use 2xStawell runs for Harry Kerr he will be starting on 2.5m.

If they use separate meets it’ll be 3.75m

So let’s see

timrosen35 wrote:Except that start marks are not calculated off only 1 run Norm. Is there any chance of someone commenting on here after actually reading the rules. It’s not hard.

And you can’t talk HC. You flapped off with the same garbage.

Well it’s no drama for you mate.
You only 30m when the gun goes off Sunday.
Just because you “know” the rules doesn’t mean they are applied to everyone.
If you don’t like the fact that I’m calling out the bullshit that there is protected species in this game and a lot of conflict of interest, then you’re in a delusional world.

Not even sure that’s in English but yeah nice reply.

You literally post saying you hate when people complain about marks that don’t suit their agenda. Then you came on and complained about a whole list of peoples marks. Now you’re sooking that others complain. Make up your mind Vic

timrosen35 wrote:Not even sure that’s in English but yeah nice reply.

You literally post saying you hate when people complain about marks that don’t suit their agenda. Then you came on and complained about a whole list of peoples marks. Now you’re sooking that others complain. Make up your mind Vic

Hi Tim,

Sorry HC is not me. Second time in a week, a profile has been accused to be me. Pretty obvious its Hanna senior, I saw him on Tuesday , at a local track some comments are verbatim as he would say. If not few others I would think of.

Not sure why I would be going in to bat for the Hanna's. He's mark is pretty accurate, I think there point is Michael is too close to the best amateurs come SG. But I would have my money on Michael to beat them on grass uphill.

See you on the weekend.

I received a message telling me it was you.

And it wouldn’t be Robert as I was the one sticking up for Michael.

timrosen35 wrote:I received a message telling me it was you.

And it wouldn’t be Robert as I was the one sticking up for Michael.

Well, whoever messaged you is lying or has an axe to grind. Either way they are wrong. At the moment their hiding behind their anonymity, which is cowardly. I have fair idea who that is. This kind of stuff is water off a ducks back. I couldn’t really give a bleep. I got no skin in the game with Michael’s mark. Just got on here to say, its not me.

Norm the Form wrote:The rules say that an OGA athlete can use just one fastest rpm to calculate their mark. Even if you take his 2 rpms Tim, the calculations indicate he would still be on 1 metre too much.
Unfortunately because he is an OGA there was no reason why he couldn’t be on 2.5m. However, it is quite unfair to put a guy that far under start time especially since he has already won Kilcoy this year AND he is probably eligible to take another 0.75m for Stawell this season.

He's classified as OGA. Its available VAL results. Notional start mark 1.5m, rounding up from 1.43. The actual start mark 2.5, so given +1m discretionary lift.