Electronic Timing May Make Record-Breaking Harder

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29853, 20 June 1962, Page 13

Electronic Timing May Make Record-Breaking Harder

’T'HE use of electronic x timing at the Agfa athletic meeting at Lancaster Park earlier this year was of special interest, as it is believed to be the first time such equipment had been used for athletics in this country. In timing Snell’s record-shattering run at the 800 metre mark this apparatus. although closely corresponding ,to the official manually-operated watches, was a small but significant fraction slower.

Although the regular use of electrical timing for official record purposes still seems to be some distance away in athletics, it appears certain that in this increasingly scientific age electronic or some similar form of timing will eventually displace manually-operated watches. In the light of the experiment at Lancaster Park, and others overseas, the introduction of electronic timing would make the breaking of records more difficult for runners, at least in the transition stage from hand watches to electrical timing. Possibly the first electrical timing device on record was one used in the north of England in the latter part of the ninteenth century, and this was one of the few machines which recorded times nearly always faster than official hand watches. Two electronic timers were used in conjunction with the official hand watches at the 1932 Olympic Games at Los Angeles. Both the electrical timers were set in operation by the starter’s gun, but at the finish one was stopped by the hand while the other worked in conjunction with a motion camera, which photographed the runners at the tape and the dial of a time indicator simultaneously. In most cases, the cameraelectric timer was a few

hundredths of a second slower than the official timing and the hand-electrical timing

Experimental electric timing was used also at the Olympic Games in London in 1948. Again the electronic timing returned times nearly always slower than the manually-operated watches. This discrepancy is accounted for by a number of factors. The efficiency of manual time-keeping depends to a great extent on the powers of observation and consistency of reaction of the

individual—factors which can vary widely during a long meeting.

Theoretically there should be an identical time lag in the time keeper setting his watch in motion at the start of the race and stopping it at the finish. Such is not the case in practice, however, as the angle of vision of the timekeeper results in anticipating the runner’s arrival at the finish, causing times to be a fraction faster than by electrical methods.

The mechanical inefficiency of the normal stop-watch causes some of the criticism that has been levelled at timekeepers when first, second, and third places have been timed in races. Spectators frequently argue that the interval between the runners does not correspond with the announced times.

The stop-watch recording in tenths of a second would show say, either 9.ssec or 9 6 sec for 100 yards, but it will record no time between. Yet in this tenth of a second interval a runner will cover more than a yard. Because of the gearing of the stop-

watch, runners almost a yard apart may be credited with the same time while those only inches apart may be given times a tenth of a second different.

Another cause for variation in hand-operated watches is that few timekeepers have been instructed how to operate their watches in the most efficient manner, the majority gaining their skill by trial and error. While hand oper-

ated watches remain the official means of timing, it seems desirable that some study should be given to learning how to operate them more efficiently. The ideal solution to the timing—and judging—problems, however, seems to be the combining of photo-finish apparatus with the over-all timing of track races, so that competitors are both accurately placed and timed.