PROTRACK

A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password



Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» VAL Website
Yesterday at 12:20 pm by Admin

» 2018 Australian Athletics Championships men & women 100m/200m
Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:43 pm by untouchables

» VRTA Sprinter of the Year Progressive
Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:47 am by JH

» Avondale Heights Results
Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:31 pm by JH

» Stawell Gift Final - where do we stand?
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:50 pm by ToM

» Avondale Heights bonus race 120m
Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:10 pm by auspro

» Doncaster Gift
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:53 pm by Mex

» Bendigo now offering parity for womens 120 & 400
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:47 pm by Mex

» Don Furness
Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:41 pm by Mex

February 2018
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Handicap anomalies

Handicap anomalies

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Handicap anomalies on Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:45 pm

El Chapo Guzman

avatar
There appear to be a few disavantaged athletes competing at both meetings this weekend. They have two opposing handicaps in the the same event either day. If any of these runners are primed for a race then they wouldn't want to win from the lesser mark. Assumedly the handicap review panel checks these things from one meeting to the next but these seemed to have slipped through. Maybe due to the original postponement of Castlemaine?....

St Albans --> Castlemaine handicaps

120m Gift
Hamish Adams 8.50m -> 8.25m
Jason Bailey 9.50m -> 9.25m
Michael Voumard 9.00m –> 9.25m

70m
Pamela Austin 13.00m -> 12.75m
Lawrence Coop 8.75m -> 8.50m
Cam Dunbar 4.75m -> 4.50m
Daniel Flesfadar 8.25m -> 9.50m
Daniel Martin 10.50m -> 10.25m
Thomas Moloney 4.75m -> 4.50m
Dan Semmler 10.00m -> 13.50m?

800m
Nathan Crowley 44m -> 42m

2 Re: Handicap anomalies on Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:57 pm

BadSnowman


I think this is because the Castlemaine handicaps are the same as what they were when the event was originally supposed to be run, so the athletes will run from the same handicaps as they were meant to be running off from a few weeks ago

3 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:02 am

Kangaroota

avatar
The lunatics are taking over the asylum

VAL News

Castlemaine handicaps
posted on January 17, 2018
Posted in: Newsletters

Handicaps for the Castlemaine Gift will be the declared marks for the original scheduled date of January 6. New entries for the rescheduled date will be handicapped in line with the original set of handicaps. Winning athletes will be penalised based on the handicap they competed from.

4 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:05 am

Baltimore Jack


VAL have applied common sense. Treat Castlemaine as if it was run on the day it was meant to, Jan 6. Fair call.
It opens up a can of worms if the VAL changed marks because the meet was postponed to a later date.

5 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:51 am

El Chapo Guzman

avatar
Not common sense.

Entries were reopened after postponement. There are less athletes competing on Sunday than the original meet 15 days prior.
The handicaps were published on Monday the same as St Albans and therefore declared by handicappers and VAL office at the same time.
More issues or ‘can of worms’ if runners like Adams and Bailey who already competed at Rye off their lift marks have to come back to an inferior handicap at Castlemaine.
It would have taken more administrative time and effort to produce the above news after deciding what to do rather than make the 11 handicap changes as expected.
Have to wonder whether the board of directors were unanimous in this decision, or is it a case of tail wagging the dog?

6 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:28 pm

untouchables

avatar
I printed the first issue of handicaps for the womens castlmanie 120m does this help anyone?

Olivia Russo 3.25
Angela Byrt 3.5
Liv Ryan 3.5
Holly Dobbyn 3.75
Grace O'Dwyer 4
Taylah Perry 4.5
Tara Domaschenz 4.75
Ebony Lane 5.25
Talia Martin 6
Madeleine Mason 6
Elise Sapardanis 6
Keely Henderson 6.5
Katie Moore 6.5
ELIZABETH RUACH 6.5
Davina Strauss 6.75
Emily Wallace 7
Adelaide Robertson 7.5
Laura-Jane Hilditch 7.75
Zoe Cunningham 8
Gabriella Boulton 8.5
Charlie Guillou 8.5
Kate Jones 8.5
Rachel O'Brien 8.5
Kelsey Williams 8.5
Kirsty Stevens 9.25
Karlee Bailey 9.5
Anna Pasquali 9.5
Eleni Gilden 9.75
Ruby Holten 10
Holly Nichols 10
Pamela Austin 10.5
Rosamond Gilden 10.75
LAUREN KEATING 10.75
Lucy McCreedy 10.75
Kasey Moore 10.75
Caitlyn Nicholson 11
Lilly Ryan-Brown 12
Danielle Segedinski 12
Stephanie Jinks 12.25
Jody Richards 12.25
Loryn Savoia 12.5
Dani Pike 13.75
Keely Shillito 14
Kim McDonough 15.25
Tiana Shillito 15.5
Alex Tzilantonis 15.5
Megan Mcmahon 15.75
Samantha Partridge 18
Sonya Pollard 19
Elissa Ward 24




7 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:40 pm

Baltimore Jack


El Chapo Guzman wrote:Not common sense.

Entries were reopened after postponement. There are less athletes competing on Sunday than the original meet 15 days prior.
The handicaps were published on Monday the same as St Albans and therefore declared by handicappers and VAL office at the same time.
More issues or ‘can of worms’ if runners like Adams and Bailey who already competed at Rye off their lift marks have to come back to an inferior handicap at Castlemaine.
It would have taken more administrative time and effort to produce the above news after deciding what to do rather than make the 11 handicap changes as expected.
Have to wonder whether the board of directors were unanimous in this decision, or is it a case of tail wagging the dog?

Boo Hoo Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad

It's the same meet with the same marks. It's not the VAL's fault the weather was too hot to run two weeks ago. Be happy they didn't cancel it.
If Adams or Bailey win at Castlemaine, I'm sure they will be happy to accept the cheque and the sash.

8 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:48 pm

Mex

avatar
Moderator
Moderator
I have to agree with The Guzman here. Poor form not to have made changes to the handicaps. This is not the same event, it is not run at the same time and therefore should be re-handicapped in line with where the handicaps currently are situated. If you win you will be pulled from the mark you win off which may be behind what your actual mark is. You are wrong on this one BJ.

9 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:22 pm

Kangaroota

avatar
If I have been lifted for St Albans then I need the handicap after running at Maryborough and Daylesford and not being good enough. I would be filthy I paid the money to compete on a level field and then this gets dished up.

If I break in a final then win which handicap do I get pulled from?

Does then winner of Daylesford, Rye and Frankston get to keep their original Castlemaine handicaps? After all the declared handicaps for 6 Jan will stand.

10 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:45 pm

Baltimore Jack


Now the decision's been made, get on with it.
The winners will go to Wang off the marks they would have had if Castlemaine was on its original date.
So no athlete will be worse off.
Treat Castlemaine like you are in a time machine and you've gone back to the 6th January 2018. Laughing

11 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:58 pm

Mex

avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Baltimore Jack wrote:
Treat Castlemaine like you are in a time machine and you've gone back to the 6th January 2018. Laughing

That was a terrible day for me. The kids kept calling to check that I was alright. Of course I was alright, I have a fridge, cold drinks, air conditioning and a video of the quiet man. Peace and quiet was all I asked for.

The decision has been made, you are right. But that doesn't mean it is the correct decision.

12 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:22 pm

Kangaroota

avatar
Get on with it Very Happy
Next you will tell us the Ballarat handicaps will be declared at the same time as Wang and get screwed again.

13 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:24 pm

Kangaroota

avatar
Please note: The Yarra Valley 2019 handicaps will be run off 2018 handicaps as the 2018 meeting was cancelled. Get on with it. Razz

14 Good for the goose not the gander on Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:47 pm

El Chapo Guzman

avatar
It appears that the VAL are contradicting their own statement with the Women's 120m handicaps. Thanks to untouchables for posting these. The athletes below have received their lift at Castlemaine for this week which ISN'T the same as the 6th Jan handicaps.

Original Castlemaine New Castlemaine
Angela Byrt 3.5 4
Liv Ryan 3.5 4
Holly Dobbyn 3.75 2.25
Taylah Perry 4.5 5
Ebony Lane 5.25 5.75
Katie Moore 6.5 7
Laura-Jane Hilditch7.75 8.25
Kate Jones 8.5 9
Ruby Holten 10 12
Holly Nichols 10 12
Pamela Austin 10.5 10
Lilly Ryan-Brown 12 14
Jody Richards 12.25 13.25
Samantha Partridge 18 18.5

The women won't have to step into the hot tub time machine but the Open runners will.



15 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:23 pm

Kangaroota

avatar
400m handicaps have moved as well. Looks like it is just the open sprints and distance.

16 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:31 pm

Slowcoach


VAL post updated, just the 70m open and Gift

17 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:19 pm

Admin

avatar
Admin
Admin
Kangaroota wrote:Please note: The Yarra Valley 2019 handicaps will be run off 2018 handicaps as the 2018 meeting was cancelled. Get on with it. Razz

I haven't researched it much because this situation hadn't occurred before, but I'm pretty confident in saying, you cannot run off marks that don't exist.  

http://protrack.easyforumlive.com

18 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:09 pm

fox


More poor reasoning, marks should have been adjusted as entries were extended. The winners at Castlemaine will incur a additional penalty as marks generally moved out 0.25. Given the close back up, it would more sense to target St Albans.

19 Re: Handicap anomalies on Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:23 pm

untouchables

avatar
El Chapo Guzman wrote:It appears that the VAL are contradicting their own statement with the Women's 120m handicaps. Thanks to untouchables for posting these. The athletes below have received their lift at Castlemaine for this week which ISN'T the same as the 6th Jan handicaps.

Original Castlemaine New Castlemaine
Angela Byrt 3.5        4
Liv Ryan 3.5        4
Holly Dobbyn 3.75 2.25
Taylah Perry 4.5 5
Ebony Lane 5.25        5.75
Katie Moore 6.5        7
Laura-Jane Hilditch7.75 8.25
Kate Jones 8.5        9
Ruby Holten 10        12
Holly Nichols 10 12
Pamela Austin 10.5 10
Lilly Ryan-Brown 12 14
Jody Richards 12.25 13.25
Samantha Partridge 18   18.5

The women won't have to step into the hot tub time machine but the Open runners will.

In fairness the handicapers are pretty good guys and i am sure they will adjust the handicap if needed and honestly 25cm does not make a lot of difference i nearly forgot just make them all 70m races thats a better idea  Basketball


20 Re: Handicap anomalies on Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:01 am

Nothing at all

avatar
ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
25cm makes a huge difference! how many Stawell Gifts have been decided by 25cm or less?

21 Re: Handicap anomalies on Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:11 am

DDog


As soon meeting date is changed it becomes a new meeting except of course if it was next day. There are too many hassles like lifts and rehandicaps to leave it the same two meetings later. My guess is that handicappers couldn't be bothered to sort out complete fresh handicaps.

22 Re: Handicap anomalies on Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:15 pm

Hubbaup


If Gus Carty Cowling had 25cm more I would have  been $800 better off.

23 Re: Handicap anomalies on Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:35 pm

Slowcoach


I love pro running, but there is one thing holding it back. A lack of communication and transparency. It can't be that hard to explain why certain decisions are made. When nothing is said, people tend to think something is being hidden. You then get a lot of negative comments, which Is not good for the sport.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum