Electronic Time Conversion (Split from Clifford thread)

[scooter1369]

I like how you use differences in distances to suggest that the human error should be greater for the longer sprint. Thanks, that made me LOL.

1. Re: The "official" .24 conversion. That is the conversion rate for elite level timers timing track athletes.

2. The error should not change based upon the distance of the run. Still one start and one stop. Well, adjusted for the speed of light based upon where the timer is standing from the start/finish with respect to the sprinter. Let's say that is negligible.

My experience is that a high school coach's hand timed 40 yard dash is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds "faster" than a "SPARQ"-timed 40.

 

[lagunasurf]

Like I said, I didn't think your "opinion" would change. I gave you facts, realities. Is the information I supplied incorrect? The time difference represented in the distance between runners A and B has nothing to do with timing method at all. The distance difference between runner A and B represented by .1 in a 100 meter run is 1 yard. Is it 1 yard in a 40 yard dash? No, it's not. It's half a step. It has nothing to do with who or what is timing the athletes, ie. " human error". It's pretty simple. And by the way it's not human hand timing "error" that has determined the .24 accepted difference between a hand timed 100/200 and a FAT/ACCUTRAC time. But the REACTION TIME OF THE RUNNER out of the blocks that is the reason for the .24. Times are slower because the timer is tripped at exactly the same time as the gun goes off. It takes the average athlete .24 to react to the gun. Thus the accepted official .24 conversion between a hand time and a fully automated in a 100 or 200 meter run.

You also choose to ignore the timing method differences. We are talking about THREE different methods here. Fully Automated timing found in track meets. SPARQ (human start, laser finish) which is the "automated" timing method used in timing football players in the 40 which you are using here. And the simple hand times often used in both settings.

Reality? The general difference between SPARQ and an expereinced (most HS coaches) is ONE TENTH or LESS. Yes, less.

I'll give you ONE real life example. Last summer @ USC's camp a particular athlete ran the 40 twice. The timing methods used were BOTH, SPARQ and the USC coaches hand timing at the same time. Suprisingly, both runs produced identical times using both methods. The SPARQ method showed 4.41. The coaches hand timing method showed 4.33 both times. A difference of LESS than one tenth both times. I realize this is only one example and one example does not a study make but..................

Your contention that ANY runner chalking up a 4.5 SPARQ that would convert to a 4.3 much less a 4.2 Well, it's just plain stupid. I've given you proven, tried, reasonable and accepted "conversions" fact and real life instances. You've given us "your experience".

In truth, my resume' doesn't even matter here. The statements and evidence stand on their own. Ok, now that's 2 posts in the last 30 minutes where I've provided you with professional advice/consult. That will be $100.

 

[craigblitz]

Your rates are too low BTW....LOL

And very suprised of the bow mother ****er comment

 

[Deety]

It's okay, craigblitz... humor is permitted.

My stopwatch says laguna came in .5 ahead... but let's call it .8 for good measure... only 'cause I'm a rookie.

 

[lagunasurf]

Craig

It's humor. Thus the, "just kidding". Plus I have a dirty mouth. More humor.............well actually, I do have a dirty mouth But I did use asterisks!

On the fee, I was giving him the Buckeye Planet discount. Just because he's not too bright...........................doesn't mean he's not still a Child of The Buckeye Nation. He's just lost. I took that into consideration.

 

[craigblitz]

Hahaha I guess my sarcasm font didn't show up either....lol

 

[lagunasurf]

craig

I thought about that But you can never be sure. Some people ARE sensitive about that kind of stuff .
And I for one would never want to offend anyone.

 

[bkochmc]

1. Re: The "official" .24 conversion. That is the conversion rate for elite level timers timing track athletes.

As a track and field official I feel qualified to add my two cents...

1) There is no "elite level" timers I am aware of. ALL levels of competition (IAAF, USATF, NCAA, high school) use .24 as official conversion to FAT no matter who is timing. Conversions are only used for record purposes and the only time a hand time will be accepted over a FAT is if the time is if the performance is clearly better than the accepted FAT record and the performance can be validated by another hand time of the same time.

2) I do not know much about SPARQ but evidently it is hand started and laser stopped. In terms of conversion, half of the .24 mentioned above is used in starting the watch, the other half in "guessing" when to stop it... human reactions on both sides of the performance. So in a system like SPARQ I would define the conversion rate to be in the .10-.12 range.


EDIT: Grammar...

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

My experience is that a high school coach's hand timed 40 yard dash is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds "faster" than a "SPARQ"-timed 40.

Translation: "I myself have zero actual experience in hand-timing".

 

[lagunasurf]

BK

Thanks for you input.

 

[bkochmc]

Thanks for you input.

No problem. SPARQ sounds like an interesting system... I've seen laser starts (laser beam picks up smoke from the starting gun and starts the clock) and manual finish but not the opposite. I would imagine SPARQ is minorly more efficient than this system as there is usually more error on the finish than the start of a race/performance.

 

[lagunasurf]

bk

Yeah SPARQ has it's issues and inconsistencies as well.
Unless a time is FAT, any timing method has inconsistencies and can be used as a guide only. Most importantly, it's about how a guy PLAYS. THAT is what a coach cares about first and foremost. Believe this boys, slow is slow, fast is fast. A watch may confirm, but not deny.

 

[tedginn05]

I've never heard of SPARQ before, but from common knowledge of the way 40 yard dashes are done, there is a reason why they are manually started.

In track, the race is started by an official. In 40 yard dashes, the time is started by the runner. Once the timer sees the runner's body move, the time starts.

Why they can't rig a system that is both laser started, and laser stopped, I don't know.

 

[bkochmc]

Yeah SPARQ has it's issues and inconsistencies as well.
Unless a time is FAT, any timing method has inconsistencies and can be used as a guide only. Most importantly, it's about how a guy PLAYS. THAT is what a coach cares about first and foremost. Believe this boys, slow is slow, fast is fast. A watch may confirm, but not deny.

That's right... I don't get too involved in the recruiting stuff but I've always seen a 40 time more indicitive of a person's potential athletic ability... way too much emphasis (by fans) put on a 4.3 guy being a lot better than a 4.4 guy.

Why they can't rig a system that is both laser started, and laser stopped, I don't know.

I'm sure they could but the question is would it be worth the money. That acutally would be a great thing for a private business to get involved in... create the system then rent out your services to colleges/pro teams as many of them most likely wouldn't want to buy them. The downfall of this system is not everyone would be able to be timed by this system so it would be a bit more difficult to "compare" athletes... then, to bring this conversation to full circle, that's where conversions would have to take place!

 

[lagunasurf]

SPARQ is actually an acronym created by Nike to market/identify their training products. Nike's sponsorship/involvement of the camps and combines that utilize this timing method has created a situation where the timing method has taken on the brand name. Just like Kleenex has with facial tissue.

As I mentioned there are inconsistencies with the equipment. It's not all that expensive so like many things it's a matter of "you get what you pay for". The ACCUTRAC and FAT equipment used at track meets IS a pretty expensive set-up and is accurate.