-
-
To be honest with everyone right now credit bookies are destroying the US scene so many college kids and youngsters so hooked and in debtComment -
in this context, "all competitors" means everyone is that matchbet (or group bet), and only refers to that specific bet.
But yeah, the "leave the start line" wording seems to be the issue here, and difficult to argue against that. Normally it should be a clear winner, and I can't remember any other bookie (in other sports) ever grading a DSQ like a DNS.
I don't think the rule is intentionally aimed at sth like this, btw. In cycling there isn't even a start line, so it doesn't make much sense at all.Comment -
If they had an ounce of class {which they don't} they would pay the bet.Comment -
It's like joker match at u.s open when he got dq, some books paid out result and some books refunded even though they had same rules, up to the bookComment -
Why are they posting 20 cent lines on both Yankee games today and not the other games?Comment -
Now let's see if you ignore this question like JJgold did.
If he had bet the woman who false started, would you be saying those rules say his bet should be voided too?
Please ignore the fools. Bookmaker have always been very fair minded to deal with. And 1000x times classier (and smarter) than you or JJgold are Dick.
They will do the right thing for Teddy and explain why if they still don't want to change grading..Comment -
A false start is someone that actually does attempt to run the race
She was there and on the blocks
Pay the manComment -
I think you are kidding yourself. or dont realize that same nongs carrying on like it clear would be arguing it should clearly be the opposite of what they say now in this situation.
I happen to think you are wrong. But are also happy to wait and hear the BM justification before claiming certainty.
Regarding your semantic arguments about her having to have started to be able to false start stuff..
I think that there was one race for the medals and this competitor did not compete in it.
And if wanted to make an argument the way you are would fire back with, "so you are claiming that there were two final races?".
neither of those is a valid argument imho..Comment -
For all intensive porpoises, once the runners get in the blocks they are running the race.
Pay the man his 3 peppers.Comment -
The rules do not say "attempt to run race"
They say cross the starting line.
This runner never crossed the starting line after the starting signal.
If the OP had bet on her and was here complaining his bet should be void and not lost based on these rules, I would not be discussing opinions, I would be saying it is 100% clear this should be a void. I'm just being nice and trying to be open minded for him even sending him to BM really..Comment -
These matchups are about who finishes higher in the competition, not whoever finishes higher in the final. I have had matchups with both athletes not qualifying for the final. Then the matchup is decided by whoever is fastest in the semi final-stage, as they are listed in the official result. When only one of two qualifies for the final that athlete is considered to have won the matchup, doesn't matter if one of two did not take part in the final (as long as both took part in the competition).Comment -
I'm torn here, to be honest. I do think they should address DQ's from false starts in the rules.
That said, if you look at the OP's link, and the results of the races, you'll see that the DQ'd racers actually did not run in the race in which times were recorded. They didn't get out of the blocks with everyone else on not finish, they technically, in those heats, once fully run, Did Not Start.
Again, I'm torn here, but can see the reasoning of the book.
The rule shouldn't just be obvious, as it is, for a withdrawal, but there should be verbage addressing DQ's from false starts. Specifically, they should be acknowledging that a DQ from a Fase Start is the same as a Did Not Start.
What if they run the race and DQ a runner at the end, for something obviously other than a False Start? In this case the both runners did "leave the start line" for the race that was ran.
It is very, very easy to argue that both runners in the OP's situation DID NOT leave the starting line of the race that was actually run. The race that was almost run, but called off due to a False Start, wasn't actually run.
A DQ from a False Start is the same as if the DQ'd runner had declared COVID the day before the races and withdrew, never showing.
The DQ'd runner did not start the race that was ran.
This is a fact.
It should be clarified in the rules.
Personally, I feel a DQ is a loss and the head to head should stand.
But that is not what the rules say, as written.Comment -
Did both runners cross the start line, after the start signal was made, in any race after you bet?
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"?.Comment -
I feel the the rules should definitely be written to clarify the difference between a DNS from a withdrawal and a DNS from a False Start DQ (with the Flase Start DQ not actually being a DNS.)
But as of now, as written, it is very easy to argue that the DQ'd runner never started the race.Comment -
I called the owner of Bookmaker I ripped him to threadsComment -
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.Comment -
She was disqualified specifically because she left the start line early. Again I ask: how could she leave the start line early without leaving the start line? Is this a riddle?
I'm not sure what they intended, Perhaps it's as they say. But by the literal way it's written, she left the start line and so she should be action. Originally I thought it was ambiguous, but now I don't even think that. At least it's not a patent ambiguity. Perhaps it's a latent ambiguity. I've written articles about ambiguity.Comment -
The start line was there for this race. She crossed it. Again, you are adding conditions (after the race officially started) that were not written.
I just don't see how she could be disqualified for this race for leaving the start line early and then say on the other hand that she didn't leave the start line. I just can't reconcile that.
I ask you this: did she line up in the women's 100 meter race and cross the start line? She quite literally did just that, did she not?
If the start line that she crossed had not been for the womens 100 meter, she would not have been disqualified in the womens 100 meter, right?Last edited by d2bets; 07-21-22, 02:01 PM.Comment -
Every runner in the race probably walked across that start line before the race started.
I am sure you would not be thinking that counted as having cross the start line and all bets should stand based on that walking around before the starter actually started the race.
If it was before the gun, the race had not started, so she cannot possibly officially cross the start line..Comment -
Now you're just being bullheaded.
So you want to say she started a race, before the race was held.
And I am making up rules to say a race needs to actually start for a runner to be called a starter....
Roll with that if it makes you feel better and correct D2. We are just going in circles now..Comment -
To the OP, you got a refund end of story.Comment -
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.
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?
.Comment
