Sportsmanship vs showmanship
I think this is a funny gif as it represents the impression many in the track and field world have of our officials: curmudgeonly, picky, awkward. It’s true that there are many officials that rub people the wrong way. There are also many who do a great job keeping the meets going and making sure the athletes have the best opportunity to perform. But it’s always the bad apples who stick out.
It seems to me most of us consider them a necessary evil, and we deal with it the best we can. But when we’re having a conversation about how to better market our sport, the place of officials needs to be discussed. If you recall, most would-be track fans are looking for some excitement, some personality, some way to connect with the athletes on the track. It’s rare that we get a Steve Prefontaine or even a Gabe Jennings (remember him?) who does more than just race: he makes the fans jump out of their seats.
Unfortunately, when a fire does start to burn, track and field officials are there to throw a wet blanket on it. Take the CIS championships this weekend: the Western Mustang men’s 4x800m team won the event, on an emphatic kick from anchorman Scott Leitch. Let’s back up a bit and go through the history here. The race was a battle between Western (and Leitch) and Guelph and their top half-miler, Anthony Romaniw. Romaniw is someone who fans might pay to see race. His coach, the normally reserved Dave Scott-Thomas, described “Romo” as “an artist on the track.” He also referred to the runner’s in-competition antics in this tweet:
Others have less charitably referred to Romaniw as a “hot dog” likely due to his tendency to give the crowd a little show at the end of races. Whether you agree with it or not, Romo’s races are appointment viewing. At the OUA championships, he routinely jogged down the finishing straight, looking around for his competition, with plenty of room to spare. In the 4×800, Guelph won a decisive victory, with Western coming 3rd. Romaniw also won the 1000m and 600m, easily, ahead of Leitch (and everyone else) in both cases. In the CIS 1000m, Romaniw eased off and let his teammate Steve Holmes win, presumably because Holmes will be graduating this spring, and his buddy wanted him to go out on top. For a change of pace, in the 600m, Romaniw sat in the pack until the final 150m, then exploded around 5 guys, chased down Leitch in the stretch, and won. The guy is fast, interesting, and exciting to watch.
So back to the CIS championships 4×800, and Leitch, who with a blistering last lap, looked like he had finally gotten the better of his Gryphon rival. Romaniw, again, shut it down in the final straightaway, with room to spare between himself and 3rd place. It looked like he had gone too early, taking the lead in the final lap, being challenged unnecessarily by a lapped runner from York. So all things considered, it looked like a good rivalry match-up, something that potential fans could anticipate, perhaps going into the summer: the “cocky” Romaniw and the headband-wearing Leitch. Cool.
But, shortly after the race, the results were updated to indicate that Western had been DQed under rule 125.5, which is essentially track’s “unsportsmanlike conduct” rule. Turns out Leitch had “spiked” the baton as a celebratory gesture and some officials didn’t like it, so they laid down the law. As with Romaniw’s alledged “hot dogging” you can decide for yourself if you like that sort of thing or not, I suppose. But if we are going to say, on the one hand, that we want more personality in the sport, more excitement, and more drama, then we can’t have officials who essentially outlaw any such thing.
Given Romaniw’s seeming affinity for grand gestures, I’d like to see him give his 4x800m gold medal (of course Guelph moved up to the top of the podium) to Leitch. There’s precedent for this: Reid Coolsaet did the same in the Canada Games in 2001, after Daniel Blouin finished 3rd, but was disqualified for mooning the crowd after his race. The CIS 4×800 had all the elements people want in a track race: it was an exciting, close race, with some great personalities involved. Western won that round of what is sure to be a great on-going battle. It seems a shame that the final result doesn’t reflect the true outcome. All because of an official.
Mar 10, 2013 @ 21:53:02
Well said John. I thought you were going to use a lot of this post to rip on Romaniw alone, but I think you did a decent job explaining what he intends to do while also describing how it sometimes comes across. The 1K finish rubbed some people the wrong way, but I seriously doubt it was a case of “I’m superior, watch me hand this to Steve” and rather “hey, you’re graduating, don’t have a CIS title, I just transferred in from the States, you deserve this” (and so I agree with how you presented it in your post).
Mar 11, 2013 @ 01:03:11
As in the other comment, well said. As a member of Western’s 4×8 team (now a happy retiree), I would just like to add my two cents.
In light of these shenanigans, I think it is important to review what role the IAAF 125.5 rule plays. Typically, rules exist to ensure that all athletes are given a fair chance at competition. By breaking a rule, an individual is essentially giving themselves an advantage or impeding competitors. It is unclear to me how 125.5 furthers the agenda of fair play, although I see it potentially applying in a case where a competitor engages in “distracting” actions during a competition. Additionally, it may be helpful in maintaining a respectful and positive atmosphere, but these are highly subjective matters and, I would argue, not crucial to the sport. As it stands, officials can almost apply this ruling arbitrarily. This is certainly an area where the rule fails. It will never be consistent and repeatable. Would we have been disqualified with the same race at OUAs? Likely not – especially considering Guelph’s avoidance of a 125.5 ruling even with Romaniw’s douche-baggery (though I would not argue for such a ruling). Officiating isn’t a science, but if it was, this rule would be the equivalent of intelligent design.
There is one more point I would like to make in regards to this ruling. As, in our case, no races were impeded and no harm was done (except to the ego of some . . .), what is the real impact of the ruling? If there is a purpose to the rule, then its application should ultimately be beneficial to the sport. At some point, the official should have at least considered what effect this arbitrary ruling would have. Well there is one that consequence that has barely been touched on: three athletes ran honest races and were disqualified through no action of their own. One of them in their final year of CIS competition.
TL;DR Fuck that official.
Peace,
Army
Mar 11, 2013 @ 13:31:47
It is amazing how many people are apparently not aware of the checks and balances. There is the whole appeal to the jury process that can address an issue with any one incorrect call.
But more importantly, where should the line be drawn when it comes to celebratory baton spiking?
Only the winners allowed to do it?
Only if the baton doesn’t come close to impacting any other athlete or official?
What about letting all athletes spike the baton at the finish?
Should it only matter if the spiked baton happens to hit someone or, more importantly, get stepped on by a fast finishing athlete (causing them to break their ankle)?
One would think that with all this supposed expertise in the application of the rules by people on the internet that there would be a huge number of young and keen new officials willing to make their contribution.
Mar 11, 2013 @ 13:44:49
What exactly is the problem with celebratory baton spiking? Why is that in the rules? The safety application seems questionable to me. i’ve never seen anyone hurt from a flying baton. it could happen, but so could lots of other things. There is a provision in the rule for a warning. Why didn’t the official use that, if they were concerned about it becoming a problem?
Having been part of an appeals process a couple of times (as a jury member, not an appealant–so guess what, I am making a contribution), I can tell you that without evidence to review, there’s not much chance of something being overturned. So unless there was video of the incident, even if the jury members felt an official over-stepped, in a case like this where it’s a subjective ruling to begin with, you can’t just change things because you disagree with the call. That’s not how it works.
An important issue here would appear to be consistency: if this is going to be a call, it should always be a call. That’s not the case. Sometimes it gets called and sometimes it doesn’t. Was there a safety issue here? I’m not sure of the circumstances. My main argument in this post is that if we want to generate excitement and drama, having prissy officials make calls like this doesn’t help. If we want to remain a niche sport that most people don’t care about, then it’s fine.
Just because someone has been a track and field official for X number of years does not make them an expert in the rules. There’s plenty of evidence for that. To be honest, meets we’ve hosted would have benefited from fewer officials. We do plan to train our own, though, which seems to have worked to prevent officials having a negative impact on the athlete experience, in some other places.
Mar 11, 2013 @ 16:17:34
I wasn’t there either so can’t speak for why no warning was given, but as for video evidence, Western can file whatever they’ve got of that (including the meet feed and whatever other videos people were making in the vicinity) when they appealed to the Jury. That’s the whole point of the Jury process – to give sober second thought with as much available evidence as possible.
And yes, the Jury can just overrule the call on the field if they genuinely don’t agree with it. That’s how it works (just make sure you can justify your disagreement in writing).
If you have no problem with celebratory spiking in principle, at what point would you have a problem with it?
Can all finishing athletes spike the baton in celebration (even if they didn’t win)?
What if there is another finisher right behind them who comes very close to stepping on that baton?
(If you were the coach of that other athlete, would you not be a bit pissed off that your athlete could have been seriously injured by stepping on a baton that should not have been rolling on the ground right at the finish? What would you have done had your athlete actually stepped on the baton?)
Can one spike the baton so long as it doesn’t bounce more than 1 foot? How does one guarantee that won’t happen? How is the spiker to know whether or not someone immediately following him is in danger of being affected by the spiked baton? Or is that the sort of excitement and drama that the sport needs? Is there really no other practical or exciting way for a victor to celebrate than spiking the baton? Raising your hands in triumph? Jumping into the arms of your teammates?
Mar 11, 2013 @ 16:29:34
Well, there is nothing in rule 125.5 that says you can’t spike the baton, so I think that’s the main thing to look at. The rule says: “He shall have authority to warn or exclude from competition, any athlete guilty of acting in an unsporting or improper manner.” It doesn’t mention safety and it doesn’t mention baton spiking specifically.
As far as my response to it, had I been involved as an athlete or a coach, I would chalk it up to the emotion of the moment. If I sprained my ankle on a thrown baton I would be mad at myself for not winning or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don’t know what else to tell you. As far as whether I would be pissed because someone “could” have been injured… Do they call high sticking in hockey if your stick doesn’t hit the other player? The player could have been injured, but wasn’t.
Another question: can the 2nd place team feel good about winning, now? Does the final result actually reflect their achievement/performance? I mean, sure, you take it, but you know you got beat. So shouldn’t the rules reflect the reality of the result?
Mar 11, 2013 @ 18:01:42
I get your opinion and as you explain, 125.5 is open to interpretation.
Should Western have been DQ’d (or at least should the Jury have upheld that DQ)?
Probably not, but it certainly is very difficult to say they absolutely, without question, should not have been DQ’d.
I think you’d be a rare coach if your anchor runner injured themselves on a spiked baton at the end of the 4×8, thereby taking them out of the running for the 4×4 and you didn’t raise some kind of fuss.
No one who wins something due to someone else’s misfortune is going to feel as good about it as they would if they won free and clear. But should that remove the onus on the first finisher from behaving in a fair manner?
Repeating yet again, if the referee genuinely made a bogus call, then why did Western not properly prove this in their appeal to the Jury?
What incentive is there for the Jury to give themselves the reputation of being officials on a power trip?
Mar 11, 2013 @ 22:50:27
I should add one more note: I do not agree with any rules that impact the final outcome of the race if the action which resulted in the DQ has occurred after the offending party has finished, with the exception to doping infractions. Can you imagine if they DQ’d the Jamaicans in the Olympics for a (hypothetical) baton spike after setting the 4×100 world record ? What about the Americans following the 4×400? National federations would go nuts.
Fine the offending party, sternly warn them, or you could even at a championship meet of this type dock points. But the win itself should not be forfeited. For precedent, look at NFL: you can be penalized following a touchdown for unsportsmanlike conduct, but that does not take away the touchdown, which has nothing to do with what came after.
Mar 12, 2013 @ 13:56:26
Interesting, I had this very conversation with someone yesterday.
Mar 12, 2013 @ 17:58:18
Why is the onus on Romaniw to give his gold medal to Western? I agree that they should not have been disqualified, but Romaniw owes nothing to Western. It was the officials’ decision to disqualify them, not Guelph’s, and therefore this is an issue to be resolved between Western and the officials.
Mar 12, 2013 @ 18:52:16
I don’t think there’s an obligation on Guelph to do anything like that. It was just a suggestion. Blouin’s Canada Games medal was between him (and his ass) and the officials. Reid didn’t have to give it to him, but he did. Was a classy move. But I don’t think (I don’t think anyone else does either) that Guelph SHOULD do it. Just, they could, and it would be cool if they did.