Change jump order near end of competition?

[KirkB]

Yes, Divalent, you're right. There is a fly in my ointment.

What I've now realized is that there's something else that we're missing - the competitors and fans don't know exactly who's leading the meet, unless they track every miss of every competitor at every height themselves. I think we can fix this by building it into the improvement that you're trying to find re removing the "passing advantage" of the higher-seeded vaulters.

Here's my new proposal:

When there are 5 or less competitors remaining, the jump order shall be changed to the reverse order of placing in the competition so far. At each new height, the jump order may change. For jump order purposes, a pass is considered equal to a make. Ties are broken by applying IAAF tie-breaking rules 181.8(a) and 181.8(b). If competitors are still tied, they shall attempt the new height in the same order as at the previous height, relative to the competitors that they are tied with.

Here are the applicable IAAF tie-breaking rules:

8. If two or more athletes clear the same final height, the procedure to decide the places will be the following:

(a) The athlete with the lowest number of jumps at the height last cleared shall be awarded the higher place.

(b) If the athletes are equal following the application of Rule 181.8(a), the athlete with the lowest total of failures throughout the competition up to and including the height last cleared, shall be awarded the higher place.

This new proposal has these advantages:

1. At each height, it gives the "passing advantage" to the current leader of the meet, rather than the higher-seeded vaulters; and

2. When there are 5 or less competitors remaining, simple observation of the jump order indicates to everyone (vaulters and fans alike) the current order of places.

So this proposed rule is fairer to everyone. It doesn't add much additional workload to the officials; it improves the aspect of passing strategy (rather than eliminating it altogether); it makes it explicitly clear (at each new height) what place each vaulter is in; and it doesn't require any secret "pass declarations".

Also, contrary to what I mentioned earlier, I think a "helper app" on a smart phone or tablet could help officials to determine the new jump order (i.e. make it more fail-safe), but it need not be a mandatory electronic aid. Officials can still easily compute this manually, and would quickly be corrected by competitors if they made a mistake.

Kirk

[Divalent]

1. At each height, it gives the "passing advantage" to the current leader of the meet, rather than the higher-seeded vaulters; and ...

Well, not really. If you consider a pass as equal to a make, then wouldn't a passer be considered ahead of someone who cleared the last height on their 2nd or 3rd jump, even though if no one clears another bar, the passer would lose to the other?

So this proposed rule is fairer to everyone...

So let me throw this at ya: what if two jumpers are tied up and down the score sheet? Who goes first? Lower seed?

And then there are more complicated scenarios. Like this one: jumper A is ahead because they cleared the last bar on their first attempt, whereas B cleared on their 2nd. But A has many more misses at lower bars, so if it came down a tie breaker after they both clear a higher bar, B would win. But A is given the advantage at this point (and unlike B, has a strong incentive to use it). Should that be so?

Again, I think the fairest solution is to make all decide pass or vault before they see the results of other competitors making their jumps (and make them live with that decision). In that case, jump order is mostly irrelevant (although I would support changing the order, for the benefit of spectators (as you point out) and any residual psychological advantage that might be had). But as "Chukam All" noted above, it should be made fair for everyone as much as possible, and by that criteria, the right to decide whether the pass or not after seeing whether another made or missed their first attempt is (IMO) unfair, particularly since as the rules are now, it is given on the basis of a mark achieved in a different meet (different day, different conditions, etc) as submitted by their coach when they entered the meet (not that I've ever heard of coaches lying about the seed mark of an athlete before; but hey, there may come a time )

[KirkB]

Divalent, you have been spot on in your analysis up until now, but it seems that you may have missed some of what I already stated in my latest proposal.

1. At each height, it gives the "passing advantage" to the current leader of the meet, rather than the higher-seeded vaulters; and ...

Well, not really. If you consider a pass as equal to a make, then wouldn't a passer be considered ahead of someone who cleared the last height on their 2nd or 3rd jump? ...

Any competitor can pass at any height, on any of his 3 attempts. So it's in this context that I state that a pass is equal to a make. The passer declares his pass at the moment when it's his turn (not just on his first attempt; possibly when it's his turn for his 2nd or 3rd attempt).

So yes, someone passing instead of taking their first attempt at a height would be ahead of someone else clearing it on their 2nd or 3rd jump. But someone passing on their 3rd attempt would be tied (for jump order purposes only) with someone clearing on their 3rd.

... if no one clears another bar, the passer would lose to the other

That's the way it works already. My proposed "pass is equal to a make" stipulation is only for purposes of determining jump order at the next height. Obviously, if no one clears another bar, the meet is over, so there's no longer any jump order to be determined. Instead, rules 181.8(a) and (b) would be applied in the usual end-of-meet manner.

what if two jumpers are tied up and down the score sheet? Who goes first? Lower seed?

As I already stated, any vaulters still tied after the tie-breaker rules are applied continue to vault in the same order as they did at the previous height. This may go all the way back to the original jump order (which may be based on seeding from previous meets).

This "pass is equal to a make" stipulation is necessary to prevent an inferior vaulter (clearing bars without passing any of them) from getting the "passing advantage" over a superior vaulter who is simply waiting for the bar to get high enough for him to start vaulting. (This is an extreme case, but it's necessary for less extreme cases as well.)

And then there are more complicated scenarios. Like this one: jumper A is ahead because he cleared the last bar on his first attempt, whereas B cleared on his 2nd. But A has many more misses at lower bars, so if it came down to a tie breaker after they both clear a higher bar, B would win. But A is given the advantage at this point (and unlike B, has a strong incentive to use it). Should that be so?

For clarity, I edited and underlined your words "they" and "their" to "he" and "his".

Yes, on the basis that each time the bar is raised, the IAAF tie-breaking rules are re-applied. In this scenario, my proposed rule did not help B to win - he won by the current IAAF rules.

Divalent, I'm sure that you could find a pathological case where my proposed rule seems unfair. However, just the fact that all competitors know and understand the rules before they start the competition makes it fair to all.

Kirk