24 replies to this topic

[wildcoyte]

Hi all I was onedring whats everyones thought on hand timing vs electorinc timing as i herad from a frined of mine that was at one of NSW sydndey southern suburbs at Little 'A' s regonal and they were hand timing? i found that wierd if i had of been there i cerntaly would of used electonic. What would have everyone else done?? just to get comments!!

WC

[Davo]

Hand timing is hard.
Electronic timing is expensive.
Simple as that.

[Jogger]

Quote

Hand timing is hard.
Electronic timing is expensive.

Hand timing is hard to get completely accurate.
Electronic timing is expensive, but easier to get better accuracy.

[HillsAths1]

Hand timing allows for all kinds of external factors to affect the result,(not seeing the puff of smoke, missing the start, old people with slow reflexes, younger people with overly fast reflexes, distractions etc).
Either the electronic timing works or it does not. Electronic timing is more accurate in the best of circumstances, that is why when a hand time is used for qualification purposes, it is always quicker than an electronic time.

[byrono]

yea all 5 of the little athletics regions used hand timing for some reason. at state it will be electronic though

[RunBare]

Having been involved in this debate at a large Little A's club, I believe it is a case of ' but it's always been done that way...' (referring to hand timing)

Many want electronic timing introduced for a wide number of reasons, but it will be a while yet, at least at regional level.

[BOD]

HillsAths1, on Feb 26 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Hand timing allows for all kinds of external factors to affect the result,(not seeing the puff of smoke, missing the start, old people with slow reflexes, younger people with overly fast reflexes, distractions etc).
Either the electronic timing works or it does not. Electronic timing is more accurate in the best of circumstances, that is why when a hand time is used for qualification purposes, it is always quicker than an electronic time.

A succinct summary of the generally agreed deficiencies of hand-timing.

I must admit thoughts such as these cross my mind whenever I see that iconic photograph of Bannister breaking the 4-minute barrier (below).

I grew up as a Pom and Bannister has always been a hero of mine. Nonetheless, I have often wondered whether doubts were ever raised about the the timing of the race.
[I trust the distressed chap with the clipboard was not part of the official timing team.]

 RogerBannister__1_.jpg   45.4K   50 downloads

[Davo]

BOD, are you saying that you think Bannister actually ran faster than 3-59.4 ?

[BOD]

Davo, on Feb 28 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

BOD, are you saying that you think Bannister actually ran faster than 3-59.4 ?

Davo,

The point made by HillsAth1 was that hand-held timing is often felt to provide a quicker time than electronic timing. Thus, if the Iffley Road race had been electronically timed, the time might have been slower. (Of course, this argument could be applied to all track racing of the period.)

Almost 55-years after the race, it would be presumptuous of me to challenge the 3-59.4. However, the photograph has stuck in my mind for years and does seem to show a rather clumsy timing set-up. Similarly, newsreels of the event seem to show maelstrom around the finish line.

I have read a number of accounts of the race and the lead-up and I have never seen the timing challenged. I guess I just have a mild fascination with the photograph, and this is rekindled whenever the discussion of 'electronic' v. 'manual' timing occurs.

[Davo]

Fair enough, BOD, I have no wish to cause a stir and that comment was made by me with a little semi-amused glint in my eye.
But you can only work with what you've got : obviouly in the early 50's they didn't have electronic timing in England.
We'll never know, of course. But let us never forget that Bannister's run was a mighty effort.

[hombre]

BOD, on Feb 28 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

Davo,

The point made by HillsAth1 was that hand-held timing is often felt to provide a quicker time than electronic timing. Thus, if the Iffley Road race had been electronically timed, the time might have been slower. (Of course, this argument could be applied to all track racing of the period.)

Almost 55-years after the race, it would be presumptuous of me to challenge the 3-59.4. However, the photograph has stuck in my mind for years and does seem to show a rather clumsy timing set-up. Similarly, newsreels of the event seem to show maelstrom around the finish line.

I have read a number of accounts of the race and the lead-up and I have never seen the timing challenged. I guess I just have a mild fascination with the photograph, and this is rekindled whenever the discussion of 'electronic' v. 'manual' timing occurs.

I see Athletics Australia have seperate lists for hand time and electronic times for sprints. I think that hand times are not allowed for qualification these days so that is how much faith AA have in hand timing.

If there is this lack of faith in hand times for sprints why isn't there for distance running?

If you look at top lists on the aa website hand times sit beside electronic times in distance but not in the sprints. Shouldn't we get some consistency?

When I look at hand times these days i always, unfortunately, question the validity of them. The one that really stands out is Rendina's 800m record, she ran under two minutes only once with her 1.59.0 hand timed. It's not to say she didn't do it but say I time Lewis's Beijing heat run of 1.59.6(something) electric I get 1.59.3 hand time. Does this mean that if I were to time Lewis' best time of 1.59.21 by hand I get 1.58.9 hand time??

Lewis should have run the record anyway by now but I think we need to differentiate the two - hand times are definitely less accurate and faster.

[Jogger]

Quote

If there is this lack of faith in hand times for sprints why isn't there for distance running?

Beacuse a 1second error in timing affects sprints proprotionally a lot more than distance events ?
eg a 1s error in 100m is 10%, but a 1s error in a 5km is 0.001%

[pheidippides]

I believe the accepted difference between hand and electronic timing over 100 meters is some where between
24 to 27 , one hndredths of a second. Pheidippides.

[hombre]

JoggerKev, on Mar 2 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Beacuse a 1second error in timing affects sprints proprotionally a lot more than distance events ?
eg a 1s error in 100m is 10%, but a 1s error in a 5km is 0.001%

Fair point Kev but the idea of technology advancement (ie: see cricket) is to improve the chances of getting a correct result.

Take that justification and 1 second error in an 800m race that goes 119 seconds is still an error of 0.84%. Not much but it is still a significant advantage that the 800m runner of yesteryear has over the 800m runner of today if top lists and rankings are going to be the final mode of judgement and comparison.

[Colin]

hombre, on Mar 2 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

Take that justification and 1 second error in an 800m race that goes 119 seconds is still an error of 0.84%. Not much but it is still a significant advantage that the 800m runner of yesteryear has over the 800m runner of today if top lists and rankings are going to be the final mode of judgement and comparison.

Its not 1 sec though.

pheidippides, on Mar 2 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

I believe the accepted difference between hand and electronic timing over 100 meters is some where between
24 to 27 , one hndredths of a second. Pheidippides.

Spot on.

Hand timing on the track is rounded up to the next 1/10th of a sec, i.e. 800m in 1:59.22 becomes 1:59.3. For comparisons to electronic timing one adds a further .24 sec to that, i.e. that 1:59.22 800m is equivalent to a 1:59.54 electronic.
You can rest assured that Banister was safely under 4min.

For non-track times, the hand time is rounded up to the next whole second.

ps , I used to be a qualified time keeper (hand timing) at track events back in the eighties.

cheers

Edited by Colin, 02 March 2009 - 01:09 PM.

[hombre]

Colin, on Mar 2 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

Its not 1 sec though.

I realise that colin - just taking it one step further on joggerkevs point

Colin, on Mar 2 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

Spot on.

Hand timing on the track is rounded up to the next 1/10th of a sec, i.e. 800m in 1:59.22 becomes 1:59.3. For comparisons to electronic timing one adds a further .24 sec to that, i.e. that 1:59.22 800m is equivalent to a 1:59.54 electronic.
You can rest assured that Banister was safely under 4min.

For non-track times, the hand time is rounded up to the next whole second.

ps , I used to be a qualified time keeper (hand timing) at track events back in the eighties.

cheers

Understood.

I agree Bannisters time would have been safely under the 4min mark but would have Rendina's 1.59.0 hand time been under Lewis's 1.59.21 electric??

Lewis's 1.59.21 is an electronic time and shouldn't be rounded up anywhere. My take on your understanding is that Rendina's Australian Record of 1.59.0 hand time is then equivalent to 1.59.24 electric - which is slower than Lewis's 1.59.21??

If it is a 0.24 differential in sprints in distance it should be something between 0.12-0.24 as I presume we are adding this nominal figure due to an error at the start - starting the stopwatch, which the error should be the same for any track event, and an error at the finish - stopping the stopwatch, which would be harder to react to in a sprint finish than in a distance finish.

It seems to me that hand times are now regarded as an inaccurate form of time keeping and should be separated from electronic times which are regarded as the accurate form of timekeeping.

[Colin]

hombre, on Mar 5 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

It seems to me that hand times are now regarded as an inaccurate form of time keeping and should be separated from electronic times which are regarded as the accurate form of timekeeping.

Agreed, especially in cases where the difference in records are smaller than the error...as in your example.

The error is an absolute figure though (of course its an average of errors) and is the same for any distance.

cheers

[HillsAths1]

hombre, on Mar 1 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

Fair point Kev but the idea of technology advancement (ie: see cricket) is to improve the chances of getting a correct result.

Take that justification and 1 second error in an 800m race that goes 119 seconds is still an error of 0.84%. Not much but it is still a significant advantage that the 800m runner of yesteryear has over the 800m runner of today if top lists and rankings are going to be the final mode of judgement and comparison.

Where it really matters(in a race) the timing is of secondary significance as it is the race that is important.

Where it becomes more important is where rankings and comparisons etc are made, that the times take on more significance.

However I believe that other factors are more likely of more significance, such as wind, weather, temp, track(grass,tartan).

[Michael James]

RunBare, on Feb 28 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

Having been involved in this debate at a large Little A's club, I believe it is a case of ' but it's always been done that way...' (referring to hand timing)

Many want electronic timing introduced for a wide number of reasons, but it will be a while yet, at least at regional level.

Not quite right - Region 1 used timing gates and had very very few protests regarding placings.
State will use electronic timing this year.
Multi Event is where timed races are essential (as at Region and State placings are more relevant) however little A's are still in the dark ages at this carnival (Multi) and still use geriatric time keepers!!

[yeti]

JoggerKev, on Mar 1 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

, but a 1s error in a 5km is 0.001%

Nitpick: its actuall ~0.13% (assuming a 13min 5k)

Yeti

[southy]

Most Little A's Clubs can not afford e timing. Most still have grass tracks. Some are lucky enough to have timing gates but many can barely afford proper HJ mats, reliable hurdles, & good horizontal jumps run ups.
That's why qualifications from Regionals on to the next level is based on placings not times.

Not all 100m tracks are in fact 100 meters either, and not all 400m tracks are 400 meters. That is why we have a random draw for lanes in the heats even.

E timing is much more accurate but if the track is not a standard 400m tartan (or mondo) track what does it matter? At State & national level they do have e timing, but they have 2 sets of records (one hand timed and the other e timed because up until a few years ago not all states had access to e timing).

[Michael James]

southy, on Mar 11 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

Most Little A's Clubs can not afford e timing. Most still have grass tracks. Some are lucky enough to have timing gates but many can barely afford proper HJ mats, reliable hurdles, & good horizontal jumps run ups.
That's why qualifications from Regionals on to the next level is based on placings not times.

Not all 100m tracks are in fact 100 meters either, and not all 400m tracks are 400 meters. That is why we have a random draw for lanes in the heats even.

E timing is much more accurate but if the track is not a standard 400m tartan (or mondo) track what does it matter? At State & national level they do have e timing, but they have 2 sets of records (one hand timed and the other e timed because up until a few years ago not all states had access to e timing).

It doesn't matter if the kids run 95m or 105m - what they want is the correct placing which some timekeepers will never quite get.

At the multi event timing is crucial to the overall result. Hand timing is very archaic.

Timing gates for Mingara Regional Champs were from Manly - they can be transported.

As far as National Records go - get with the times, it is 2009 not 1970!! I think all Pacific school Games and NSW Schools records are electronic - why not Little A's??

[southy]

It was certainly not my decision to use hand timing. That was all we had at Regionals. I'm just pointing out to you that not all areas have access to e timing and until recently not all state comps even had access.
If you aren't happy with the way things are run - then why not get involved and put more time & effort into your kids LA Club?
AS a former LA Club president , I can say that one of the biggest challenges to the committee is actually getting the parents more involved. Many parents just expect to be able to drop off their kids and come back later to pick them up. They want 'someone else' to do everything for them. It's easy to sit around and complain about the way things are run but much more productive to actually get involved and try to improve things.

Edited by southy, 12 March 2009 - 08:01 AM.

[Davo]

southy, on Mar 11 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

If you aren't happy with the way things are run - then why not get involved ?

one of the biggest challenges to the committee is actually getting the parents more involved. Many parents just expect to be able to drop off their kids and come back later to pick them up. They want 'someone else' to do everything for them. It's easy to sit around and complain about the way things are run but much more productive to actually get involved and try to improve things.

This is not a new phenomenon. We used to say exactly the same thing when I was involved with coaching junior soccer back in the sixties. Your words could have been lifted straight from any one of our committee meetings of that time.
I'm sure the Romans were saying it; and probably stone-age man too.
But aren't we all guilty? Don't we all know how to run the country better than the politicians?

[Michael James]

southy, on Mar 12 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

It was certainly not my decision to use hand timing. That was all we had at Regionals. I'm just pointing out to you that not all areas have access to e timing and until recently not all state comps even had access.
If you aren't happy with the way things are run - then why not get involved and put more time & effort into your kids LA Club?
AS a former LA Club president , I can say that one of the biggest challenges to the committee is actually getting the parents more involved. Many parents just expect to be able to drop off their kids and come back later to pick them up. They want 'someone else' to do everything for them. It's easy to sit around and complain about the way things are run but much more productive to actually get involved and try to improve things.

I would bet my house on it that you are a "Blue Shirt".
A wise man once told me "The world's cemetaries are filled with indispensible people"
Little A's needs to get out of the dinasour era and use current technology. Sorry but if you don't like timed events, timing gates etc go fishing, read a book but don't tell me how it used to be 30 years ago.
Also a lot of little A's clubs are flushed with $$$ - timing gates cost $12 000 of which sports grants pay for 1/2. A Club with 300 athletes only needs $20 per athlete to pay for something that will last for years.