[Optional]

Why was she disqualified in this particular race?

Answer: because she crossed the start line for this race too early.

That's quite literally what happened.

Finally you get it!

She was too early...

[KVB]

You just changed the rules. The rules say nothing about "after a starting signal". It says "leave the start line".

Again, she was disqualified because she left the start line early. If she left the start line early, how could she not have left the start line? Riddle me that.

There is no riddle here, none at all.

Runners frequently walk back-and-forth across the line that the blocks are set at before the race starts. In this context, here’s no such thing as a start line until .1 seconds AFTER the gun fires.

Not after they are ready not after they are set, but after the gun fires. Anything before that is not somebody crossing the starting line, it’s somebody false starting. It doesn’t even have to be before the gun, as we saw last weekend. A runner can be declared false starting if their reaction time is too quick AFTER the gun is fired.

I see no riddle at all.

I don’t even see how it’s one person seeing it one way and another seem another way. A false start is not a start.

[KVB]

Remember, a false start is reacting too soon when getting out of the blocks whether before the gun or within a 1/10th of a second after the gun, it has nothing to do with whether you’ve crossed any line.

[d2bets]

There is no riddle here, none at all.

Runners frequently walk back-and-forth across the line that the blocks are set at before the race starts. In this context, here’s no such thing as a start line until .1 seconds AFTER the gun fires.

Not after they are ready not after they are set, but after the gun fires. Anything before that is not somebody crossing the starting line, it’s somebody false starting. It doesn’t even have to be before the gun, as we saw last weekend. A runner can be declared false starting if their reaction time is too quick AFTER the gun is fired.

I see no riddle at all.

I don’t even see how it’s one person seeing it one way and another seem another way. A false start is not a start.

Again, she was DQ's literally for crossing the start line (early). How can she cross the start line early without crossing the start line? A riddle indeed. Walking around on the track it is not a start line. If it wasn't a start line there would be no penalty for crossing it. She crossed the start line and that's why she was disqualified.

[d2bets]

Remember, a false start is reacting too soon when getting out of the blocks whether before the gun or within a 1/10th of a second after the gun, it has nothing to do with whether you’ve crossed any line.

Ohhh. Then this might be different than I thought. I was told she was disqualified for crossing the start line. But now I understanding that DQ results from reacting too soon. Indeed that does appear to be different.

Words matter.

[teddybreak]

This is very important. It also true.

The DQ'd runner never crossed the starting line of the race that was ran. In fact, that runner never crossed the starting line in any legal fashion.

It is a fact.

Fact is that the first start is part of the event as well as the second (or third, fourth). It isn't a new event when they start again.

Also, why does it matter if she crossed the starting line legal or illegal? It only matters for the result. Illegal start (read: start, as in crossing the start line) only means you're disqualified. Not that you've not taken part in the event.

Anyway, this is all semantics. That rule is obviously only meant for cancelling bets on athletes who actually don;t take part in the event. Not for athletes that are disqualified. Whatever the wording is and whatever you want to make from it.

[teddybreak]

Did both runners cross the start line, after the start signal was made, in any race after you bet?

I really don;t see why that should matter. Both competed in the event and took the start. That's all that matters.

Do you bet NFL?

If this was an NFL prop that required both your players to take the field at some point would you consider a player running 5 yards on the field for his teams opening play before being called back off the field by his coach before any snap was taken as "taking the field"?

I don't bet NFL and hardly know the rules of the sport. But from your description it looks like a player running 5 yards took part of the game?

[KVB]

Ohhh. Then this might be different than I thought. I was told she was disqualified for crossing the start line. But now I understanding that DQ results from reacting too soon. Indeed that does appear to be different.

Words matter.

Exactly, even though you’re basically on the start line when you move, the trigger was micro seconds before, when the block picked up the false start.

For me, with the big picture, I do believe if everyone lined up initially (with no withdrawal beforehand) then it should be game on.

But the rule does not say that as written.

The opposite of a false start is called a “clean” or “fair” start. Perhaps instead of saying all runners should cross the starting line, they should be saying there should be a “fair start” with all relevant competitors for bets to take action.

Or something like that.

[teddybreak]

I added that point to help you understand that she never crossed the start line at all in any official race.

Does not require any rule re-wording.


Did she cross any start line after any race was officially started?

Yes, or no...

Yes, she did. Otherwise she would not have been disqualified and could have taken the start again.

[KVB]

One reason I think they should clarify the rules is that now runners are only given one fall start before being DQ’d.

In the past, they were given two chances. Officials figured some runners were purposely false starting the first time to throw other runners off their game.

Also, the rule about reacting too quickly after the gun, within 1/10 of a second, was meant to discourage runners from anticipating the gun and was developed based on the reaction time of humans. Nowadays with only one chance I doubt anyone at that level is trying to anticipate.

Also, with the lifelong training that there is, officials may have to recognize that a human’s reaction time might be faster than it used to be.

This is similar to the idea that you can’t catch and shoot a basketball with only 3/10 of a second left on the clock.

A little off topic, but this did come up last weekend when a runner got out of the blocks after the gun but was 1/1000 of a second shy of the 1/10 of a second limit...he was DQ’d.

[jjgold]

Bottom line bookmaker must be hurting no other reason they do not give the player something out of this

I downgraded to a C which means stay away

I will be email blasting 5000 players and 55 social media accounts I have.

[teddybreak]

Because you seem to trying to say IAAF can't call off a start a race and replay it I guess Ollie.

Attempt at a start being voided, means it does not count. Official start is all that counts.

Except for they can. They can hand out a yellow card or show a green card. In this case they handed out a red card.

Seriously, try to come up with a cut off time before the gun fires that someone can cross that start line and it be valid for grading purposes?

There is. If you're start is measured to be within 0,100 seconds after the gun it is considered a false start. But that does not matter for grading purposes. It only matters if an athlete takes part in the competition or not. Bookmaker has it weirdly worded, but that's 100% what this rule intends. As said by someone else a cycling race (same rules apply) doesn't even have a starting line, should Bookmaker void all bets on cycling then because of their weird way of wording?

[teddybreak]

One reason I think they should clarify the rules is that now runners are only given one fall start before being DQ’d.

In the past, they were given two chances. Officials figured some runners were purposely false starting the first time to throw other runners off their game.

Also, the rule about reacting too quickly after the gun, within 1/10 of a second, was meant to discourage runners from anticipating the gun and was developed based on the reaction time of humans. Nowadays with only one chance I doubt anyone at that level is trying to anticipate.

Also, with the lifelong training that there is, officials may have to recognize that a human’s reaction time might be faster than it used to be.

This is similar to the idea that you can’t catch and shoot a basketball with only 3/10 of a second left on the clock.

A little off topic, but this did come up last weekend when a runner got out of the blocks after the gun but was 1/1000 of a second shy of the 1/10 of a second limit...he was DQ’d.

Tell me about it. It was Devon Allen (who is going to play in the NFL coincidentally) in the 110 meters hurdles. I had a small bet on him winning the race. His reaction time was 0,099 seconds in the semi final. Allen disqualified, money lost (at bet365). Hard luck.

[KVB]

Tell me about it. It was Devon Allen (who is going to play in the NFL coincidentally) in the 110 meters hurdles. I had a small bet on him winning the race. His reaction time was 0,099 seconds in the semi final. Allen disqualified, money lost (at bet365). Hard luck.

Just brutal...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Devon Allen is disqualified from the men&#39;s 110m hurdles. <br><br>His reaction time was .001 faster than the .1 second threshold meaning he false started. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WorldAthleticsChamps?src=hash&amp;ref_sr c=twsrc%5Etfw">#WorldAthleticsChamps</a> <a href="https://t.co/sIz6Pa1agy">pic.twitter.com/sIz6Pa1agy</a></p>&mdash; NBC Olympics (@NBCOlympics) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCOlympics/status/1548860196881154048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" >July 18, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Optional]

I really don;t see why that should matter. Both competed in the event and took the start. That's all that matters.

It matters because the event did not start until a certain time, she jumped the gun before that time and caused that attempt at a start to be called off.

There was one official race and one official start. She did not cross the start line and the rules say that means void.

Nothing you have said provides any valid logic to make me change my mind. Sorry.


Explain how anyone can say they started before the event started and you may gain some traction with me.

[Optional]

Plus and importantly.

If you were saying my bet should be void because I had the woman who was DQed before the race, I would be 100% behind you and think there was no question about it.

So i think the people who did bet her and had it voided deserve that correct grading and you do not deserve to be paid at their expense.

The rules are quite clear really.

And like I said in my first post I think they are probably worded that way intentionally to cover this exact situation.

Because DQs in sprinting are so common.

[teddybreak]

It matters because the event did not start until a certain time, she jumped the gun before that time and caused that attempt at a start to be called off.

There was one official race and one official start. She did not cross the start line and the rules say that means void.

Nothing you have said provides any valid logic to make me change my mind. Sorry.


Explain how anyone can say they started before the event started and you may gain some traction with me.

The event does not only start after the gun started. Otherwise she would be allowed to take the start anyway, because according to you the event hadn't started at all OR she would have been listed as DNS in the results.

[Optional]

One reason I think they should clarify the rules is that now runners are only given one fall start before being DQ’d.

How would you re-word them to clarify?

Only crossing the line in the official race counts?

That part is implicit in the bet anyway.

[teddybreak]

Plus and importantly.

If you were saying my bet should be void because I had the woman who was DQed before the race, I would be 100% behind you and think there was no question about it.

So i think the people who did bet her and had it voided deserve that correct grading and you do not deserve to be paid at their expense.

The rules are quite clear really.

And like I said in my first post I think they are probably worded that way intentionally to cover this exact situation.

Because DQs in sprinting are so common.

I'm pretty sure their rules are not worded that way intentionally. Because, as said, in cycling (where these rules also apply for) there isn't even a starting line.

But we probably have to agree to disagree. I for one cannot get my mind around it how one can consider this as the right decision by Bookmaker. And you're obviously in the other camp

[teddybreak]

How would you re-word them to clarify?

Only crossing the line in the official race counts?

That part is implicit in the bet anyway.

Just reword it to 'take part in the event/race to have action' That's all that rule is intented for: for voiding bets on athletes who do not take part in an event. In fact, if you look at their outright markets for athletics it specifically states: 'must start for action'.

[Optional]

The event does not only start after the gun started. Otherwise she would be allowed to take the start anyway, because according to you the event hadn't started at all OR she would have been listed as DNS in the results.

I think that is when it starts.

But I genuinely hope BM either sees it your way or wants to offer some sort of goodwill payment to see you happy.

[Optional]

I'm pretty sure their rules are not worded that way intentionally. Because, as said, in cycling (where these rules also apply for) there isn't even a starting line.

But we probably have to agree to disagree. I for one cannot get my mind around it how one can consider this as the right decision by Bookmaker. And you're obviously in the other camp

I'm pretty sure it is all about DQs like this because that is the only logical reason I can see for that exact wording, and it says "Athletics" and Cycling up top.

Also, and I hate to get dragged into the rabbit hole of trying to make for examples as arguments. But has no cyclist ever mounted his bike and had something go wrong that prevented him starting before the gun? Not so sure it could not be invoked for cycling too.

[Natty68]

I'd be on OP's side IF THEY HAD GRADED IT A LOSS. They didn't...they returned his original ante. Very sorry sir, just can't bring myself to do a pile-on in regards to Bookmaker. My experience with them has been too positive for a too long. If you review this in three months and look at it objectively you kinda hafta admit......it does have a bit of an angle-shooting vibe. That being said. I hope you get a resolution that satisfies you.

[Optional]

Just reword it to 'take part in the event/race to have action' That's all that rule is intented for: for voiding bets on athletes who do not take part in an event. In fact, if you look at their outright markets for athletics it specifically states: 'must start for action'.

That seems even more vague and we could still be here debating when the race starts.

Plus it does not clearly void for DQs like cross the line does.

Assuming as I do that DQs are the reason for the rule.



If you think about it in bookmaking logic. If they had to take into account the common problem of athletic DQs in the odds, it would require a larger vig to account for the random nature of them.

Much better to just be fair to both sides and void in a DQ scenario.

[Optional]

I'd be on OP's side IF THEY HAD GRADED IT A LOSS. They didn't...they returned his original ante. Very sorry sir, just can't bring myself to do a pile-on in regards to Bookmaker. My experience with them has been too positive for a too long. If you review this in three months and look at it objectively you kinda hafta admit......it does have a bit of an angle-shooting vibe. That being said. I hope you get a resolution that satisfies you.

To be fair it could never be a loss. Only win or void. So void is like a part loss for him.

[teddybreak]

That seems even more vague and we could still be here debating when the race starts.

Plus it does not clearly void for DQs like cross the line does.

Assuming as I do that DQs are the reason for the rule.



If you think about it in bookmaking logic. If they had to take into account the common problem of athletic DQs in the odds, it would require a larger vig to account for the random nature of them.

Much better to just be fair to both sides and void in a DQ scenario.

How is that more vague? It is as clear as it can be. If you're listed in the results there is action and bets stand. If you are not listed, or listed as non-starter, then bets will be voided. Can't see any problems in that. Disqualifications are part and parcel of the game.

[teddybreak]

I'm pretty sure it is all about DQs like this because that is the only logical reason I can see for that exact wording, and it says "Athletics" and Cycling up top.

Also, and I hate to get dragged into the rabbit hole of trying to make for examples as arguments. But has no cyclist ever mounted his bike and had something go wrong that prevented him starting before the gun? Not so sure it could not be invoked for cycling too.

Only situation I can recall is riders crashing in the neutralized zone (before the race is actually on) and having to retire because of that. Riders are still considered to have taken part in the race and listed as DNF in the results instead of DNS.

My best guess is that it is just badly worded by Bookmaker regarding what they are actually intending with this rule, and not a specific wording to cover a scenario where an athlete false starts. If that's your intention just mention 'no action if an athlete false starts'.

[TommieGunshot]

I'm pretty sure it is all about DQs like this because that is the only logical reason I can see for that exact wording, and it says "Athletics" and Cycling up top.

You really think this rule about matchups is for false start DQs and not for when an athlete withdraws from the event?

[texhooper]

Well fukkin a this is shaping up to be the most anticipated decision in SBR history

[slayer14]

guys cant continue this lifestyle betting at offshore bookmakers when you have legit bookmakers in the usa

[Optional]

You really think this rule about matchups is for false start DQs and not for when an athlete withdraws from the event?

Mostly because the wording seems intentional to rule out any sort of pre start issue after runners are called to the blocks. Which is arguably when the competitor is in the race.

And as I said it makes good sense in bookmaking logic to want to void DQs at the line due to the randomness of it costing more vig than it would without.

Not trying to be a dick and I have been wrong before. But either way I hope they look after you somehow.

[KVB]

How would you re-word them to clarify?

Only crossing the line in the official race counts?

That part is implicit in the bet anyway.

...For me, with the big picture, I do believe if everyone lined up initially (with no withdrawal beforehand) then it should be game on.

But the rule does not say that as written.

The opposite of a false start is called a “clean” or “fair” start. Perhaps instead of saying all runners should cross the starting line, they should be saying there should be a “fair start” with all relevant competitors for bets to take action.

Or something like that.

First, while I think it should be game on once everyone lines up intitally, I agree with you and do recognize that there is an odds issue with that, and that indeed the odds would change if it were that way. I also think, like I brought up, that once there became only one chance to false start, not two, that it made it harder for the books to cap the DQ's.

They are more consequential, and match deciding.

Anyway, as far as re wording, above in Bold.

They could easily use the terminology of the game, like "fair start" to make it clear.

[KVB]

Remember, a false start is reacting too soon when getting out of the blocks whether before the gun or within a 1/10th of a second after the gun, it has nothing to do with whether you’ve crossed any line.

...even though you’re basically on the start line when you move, the trigger was micro seconds before, when the block picked up the false start....

As far as terminology of "crossing the starting line" I think it goes back the simple fact that a runner that made a false start did not, at any point, cross any starting line.

The false start occurs before the runner crossed the line, recorded in the blocks. Once there's a false start, a second gun goes off. For practicality, it foes off after the runners take off.

But think of it as going off immediately, before any race ever actually began (or 1/10 of a second after). Nobody crosses the starting line when there is a False Start...it would be impossible as there is no race happening when there is a false start.

[Optional]

First, while I think it should be game on once everyone lines up intitally, I agree with you and do recognize that there is an odds issue with that, and that indeed the odds would change if it were that way. I also think, like I brought up, that once there became only one chance to false start, not two, that it made it harder for the books to cap the DQ's.

They are more consequential, and match deciding.

Anyway, as far as re wording, above in Bold.

They could easily use the terminology of the game, like "fair start" to make it clear.

I'll point the right person toward this thread and they can see for themselves that is not clear to all bettors.

[Dr. Fager]

For all intensive (?) dolphins, I agree.