Rugby World Cup: The ref debate

It's been a long time between posts - busy work periods, lack of inspiration, lack of news stories (well, that's not entirely true!), but pick the excuse.  Apologies for the long break. I'm back with a viewpoint on rugby - probably not the topic of interest for most of you reading this in the USA, but as our national sport in SA, felt compelled to put it out there!  I'm planning a series on fatigue, probably as a series of short video posts in the coming week, so hopefully that breaks the silence on sports science!  Join us soon!  And for those who followed the Rugby World Cup, congratulations to New Zealand.  Some thoughts on the refereeing below!


Rugby World Cup: New Zealand's drought ends and rugby's referee problem

So 24 years of waiting is over for New Zealand, who beat France 8-7 in a pulsating and perhaps unexpectedly competitive Rugby World Cup Final today.  It may have been the lowest scoring final ever played, but it was suspenseful and adventurous, certainly more than the previous two finals.  France produced a performance worthy of the showpiece match of the tournament, having come into it with two losses and the anticipation of a blowout victory to New Zealand.  Rather, it was France who played the adventurous rugby, and only some ineffectiveness in attack and New Zealand's resolute defending prevented them from winning their first title.  

Instead, New Zealand won their second, but it was significant in that they have been, for the most part, the best team going into each of the six World Cup tournaments, sometimes by a large margin.  Having failed to win the World Cup on five occasions despite being the favorites had earned New Zealand the tag of "chokers", a team that peaked between World Cups but failed to deliver when it mattered.  Two of those famous defeats came at the hands of France (in 1999 and 2007) and so when this French team stood firm and began to control the match following a second half try that brought the score back to 8-7, a blanket of anxiety settled over Eden Park in Auckland.  

Choking vs panic

There were times when New Zealand appeared close to panic in this final - they were flustered, made unforced errors, chose poor tactical options and generally seemed to be hanging on and defending a one-point lead with desire rather than application.  At this point, it seemed to me that had New Zealand NOT won this World Cup, it would have been because of panic, rather than choking (an explanation that is just too convenient to use, and unfairly earned, not only by NZ rugby by also by SA cricket).  Their composure deserted them, though the injury to their flyhalf, which meant that they played most of the final with a fourth choice pivot, certainly influenced their tactical approach.  As did their lead, and they seemed more concerned with defending the one-point advantage than playing proactively, which set the final 30 minutes up as France with the ball, New Zealand without it.

For an explanation of how choking differs from panic, and why a team that loses a match is not necessarily choking, read this piece by Malcolm Gladwell.  I've never really been fond of simply throwing out the excuse of "chokers" every time the more favored team loses - sometimes you are just outplayed or out-thought by a team who are better than you on the day.  The margins in international sport are so small that this can happen fairly easily, and it's too simple to say "New Zealand choked", when in fact, France may have simply been unbeatable on a given day, as was the case in 1999.  For a comparable case in tennis, Federer's loss to Tsonga in Wimbledon earlier this year is the best I can think of - sometimes, however great you are, the other team/player just rises to a level that no one would match, and it's your bad fortune to be there at the time!  

The influence of the referee in rugby

However, the tactical and technical nature of the game is not what I want to focus on in this post - that is something that rugby websites around the world will do enough of (see this example for a match report).  

Instead, I thought I would give some of my thoughts on a topic that follows every rugby match, and that is the debate and criticism of the referee.  The reality is that the referee in a rugby match has become incredibly influential in determining how the game is played.  The result is that rugby has a growing credibility problem, where every match threatens to degenerate into objections about the performance of the referee, rather than assessment of the relative performances of its players.  Whenever the result on the scoreboard can be dismissed as being the result of someone's opinion or bias, there is a problem.  

And this has happened in virtually every close match in the 2011 Rugby World Cup, which will be remembered not solely for the on-field performances, but for weak referee performances, some of which have been questionable, some outright poor.  The most controversial of these probably came in the Quarter-final, where Australia beat South Africa 11-9 in a match that was later alleged to have been "bent" as part of the condemnation on the performance of referee Bryce Lawrence (more on my views of that allegation later)

Rugby presents a unique challenge in that the referee is required to make a specific decision about a contested tackle almost 200 times a match (once every 30 seconds), and this decision is multi-dimensional, instantaneous and open to interpretation.  As a result, these decisions (and there are so many of them) influence the game to the extent that accusation, criticism and allegation are inevitable.   It's part of sport, certainly, but rugby seems more prone to accusations that "the ref helped ABC win" than any other sport.  The problem is that from this point, it's a short journey to allegations of fixing, corruption and cheating, when the problem may be simple incompetence or interpretation of the tackle rules of the sport.  Either way, the credibility of a result is called into question.

This situation exists because so much of the contest in rugby revolves around competing for the ball after a tackle, in the breakdown contest.  The attacking team needs to recycle possession quickly, whereas the defending team are at worst trying to slow it down to re-organize in defence, at best trying to win the ball on the ground.  The result is a huge contest, the outcome of which goes a considerable distance towards determining the match result, but which is itself determined by how the referee interprets how both sets of players test the boundaries of the law (because this is what players will do, understandably - it's like football players trying to play close to the offside line)

A unique situation?

I cannot think of another sport where the interpretation of the rule by an official so clearly influences the way that teams play the match.  In football (soccer), the most contentious decisions are those when a penalty appeal is made, offsides is ruled, or when foul-play is adjudged.   They are fairly clear-cut, and far less frequent than in rugby.  And certainly, they can influence matches in a big way - I'm not downplaying how significant a referee decision can be.  In the NFL, decisions can be similarly significant, but usually involve clear transgressions of rules.  Tennis, there's no influence, particularly now that television replays are used.  And similarly, cricket umpires are often criticized and single decisions can be very influential, but with TV assistance, the incidence of these has certainly come down.  If there is a sport that I'm missing, please let me know.

The rugby situation - too much interpretation

Rugby is different - the most contentious decision in rugby is one that is made on average twice a minute (five times a minute if you use ball in play time rather than total time), and it influences the next minute, rather than being a decision in isolation.  Consider that a typical match has about 170 rucks (or contests for the ball in a tackle) , and you realize that there are probably 100 decisions (because not all are contested the same way) where the referee must interpret, in a split second, a dizzying array of laws, and where each decision has implications for what follows.  

Different referees have a different sequence or approach to the decision, but they must judge, more or less in order: how the tackler interacts with the tackled player, when the tackle actually occurs, that the tackler releases the tackled player, that the tackled player releases the ball, when the ruck is formed, that players arriving to join the ruck remain on their feet, and that they join from the correct position and do not seal the ball off to prevent the contest.  Add in that there are often multiple tacklers, so the referee has to decide who the tackler is, and you appreciate that within half a second, there's a lot to judge.  Then the next problem is that many times, four or five things happen more or less simultaneously, and so it really is a judgment call.

Ultimately, what the decision comes down to is a) assigning roles to the involved players, and b) deciding on the order in which events occur - every tackle has similar events, and the job of the referee is to sort through the order in which they occur,  and if he sees a different order to you or I, then his decision will be accordingly different.  And this is precisely what happens to make these decisions so contentious.

I've been fortunate enough to work with the SA Sevens team for the last three seasons, and at every tournament, the IRB Head of Referees, all the coaches and technical staff of competing teams, and all the referees have a sit-down meeting a few days before the tournament starts.  The meetings involve discussion around how the referees have been instructed to officiate and usually include clips of tackles and rucks from previous tournaments.  Now bear in mind that this is Sevens, where the contest involves fewer players and with less congestion than you'd see in 15s, and then consider that even so, there rarely agreement in these meetings.  The situation in 15-man rugby is of course even more complex (though the tackle contest may be more significant in 7s, but that's for another discussion!)

For each clip, one coach will point to the tackler, another to the tackled player, another to the arriving player, another to the offside line, each one pointing out a different possible transgression PER RUCK!  Mostly, it boils to disagreement about the order in which events happen, and which player should be entitled to do what.  Eventually, even in slow-motion, it takes consensus or a swing vote to sort through the order of decisions that a referee must make.  Even then, it's often a 50-50 call as to whether a player released the tackled player or the ball and so on (if you are reading this without much knowledge of rugby and you're confused at how complex it sounds, well, that's exactly the point!)

A general approach to the decision and its implications

The reality is that rugby, by design, prioritizes the contest for the ball on the ground, and therefore the spotlight falls squarely on the man who must judge whether players are transgressing those laws.  Simple on paper - there is a very distinct set of rules governing the tackle.  But here's the problem - the rules may be clear, but the judgment of them is not.  So much is open to interpretation, and it is interpretation that happens in an instant, while on the run.  The result is that a match can very, very easily look 'influenced' by the referee, who generally speaking, can take one of two extreme approaches to how they cut through this organized chaos to make a decision.  Call it "conservative" vs "liberal" decision-making, but at its simplest, a referee is going to lean one of two ways.

The first approach is to over-police the contest (the conservative).  The result is that the referee will appear to punish legitimate contesting for the ball, and will reward penalties frequently, forcing players to back right off, killing the contest for the ball.  This favors the team in possession.  Alternatively, the referee can under-police the breakdowns (liberal), and allow much more to go unpenalized.  

Importantly, when this happens, the result is that the defending team will usually be favoured, because the referee will fail to prevent them from slowing the ball down, and slowing it down creates a disproportionate advantage.  I believe this is what happened in the South Africa - Australia match, where the rucks were highly contested and too much was allowed on the ground.  The result is that the defending team is advantaged.  But, significantly, the problem in that particular match is that the defending team was mostly Australia.

The stats reveal this - South Africa had 131 rucks, compared to Australia's 44.  That is, for every one opportunity for South Africa to contest and slow down Australian ball, there were three chances for Australia to do so.  So, by allowing too much contesting, the referee effectively gave Australia three times as many chances to push the limits of what was legal (and some would say exceed those limits).

When one team is as dominant as this (in terms of possession), and the more liberal referee is making the extreme "decision" to under-police and allow more, then it will always appear that he is deliberately biased.  The reality is that if the possession was equal, and if both teams have the same number of rucks, then nobody would really notice the referee because BOTH TEAMS would get away with slowing the other team's ball down!  You'd get a very messy match, but the liberal referee would be far more "anonymous" because his leaning affects both sides equally.

Instead, this match was one-sided, and South Africa seemed to be on the receiving end of an unfair performance.  I do think that Lawrence was poor, and I do think that his poor performance affected SA more, but it wasn't deliberate.  And as for match-fixing?  Not based on decisions that didn't go our way, no.  Rather, I think that the referee was poor and didn't do enough to control the rucks, but my point is that this may be because he was either instructed to allow the contest, and "over-applied" the instruction, or he just has a natural inclination to be liberal towards the contest.

In the case of Bryce Lawrence, it would not surprise me if he was told to allow a contest for the ball, because earlier in the tournament (in the Aus v Ireland match), he was criticized for penalizing Australia TOO MUCH at the breakdown.  I strongly suspect that what happened next is that he was asked to be a little slower on the whistle, and he erred on the other extreme, and didn't do enough.  In the end, it appeared that South Africa were hard done by, but as I have said, that's more because whenever one team dominates play, an error like Lawrence's appears to favour the team without the ball (Australia).

Analyzing referees - navigating with a broken compass

It may not surprise you to learn, for example, that many international teams now attempt to analyze referee trends, so that they can attempt to guess whether a given referee is likely to decide one way or the other.  At the most basic level, for example, you can look at whether a particular referee tends to award a penalty to the attacking team or the defending team to get an idea of that referee's "in-built bias".  This partly reveals whether that referee's priority in assessing the breakdown is whether the attacking team player releases the ball (penalty against the attacking team) or whether the tackler releases the player (defending team).  You can then go further to see whether the referee is more or less lenient on the tackler or the tackled player and the arriving supporting players from either team.

The problem with this approach is two-fold.  First, it's subjective.  When analysing clips, you have to judge not only what the referee does decide, but what he does not.  This means you have to make a call yourself, and this brings us back to the point about disputable situations, especially because on TV, you don't see what the referee does.  

The second problem, more significant, is that the referees, in my experience anyway, are too unpredictable to code in this way.  They are influenced by individual players and teams, and they change their approach too often, probably because they are very susceptible to suggestion and to the instructions coming down at them from their superiors. 

For example, we tried this in the Sevens setup,but it was a futile quest, because the referees changed their approach too often.  We worked out that what was happening was that the IRB were evaluating the referees and providing feedback on their performances (which is a good thing, of course), but this feedback was influencing the way that referee approached their next match.  The result was that for each referee, if you plotted a graph showing how they made decisions, it would look like a zig-zag curve of mountain peaks and valleys - one week they leaned one way, the next week they went the other.  And so trying to pre-empt how they would decide was like navigating with a broken compass.  

Yet again, what this showed is the "unstable" nature of the decision-making process.  Again, 170 decisions per match, each one in a fraction of a second at speed, with five or more variables to assess is going to introduce some "interpretation", and the problem is that this can lean one way or another very easily.

Emotion - the inherent bias when working backwards

The other factor in all this is that emotion and passion are such significant influencers of how we interpret this watching on television.  Fans (and even neutral spectators) have an inherent bias (it's what makes them fans!) and the result is that when they assess a referee performance, they exist in a world of black and white - the referee is either right or wrong.  Unfortunately for rugby, the decision is rarely black and white.  It is grey, because of the previously mentioned decisions around judging the order in which events occur, and who does what in the tackle, and so there is always conflict between what fans see and what is actually happening on the ground.

Consider an example from football (soccer):  A player scores a goal but is offside when he received the pass.  The referee/assistant see this, and the goal is correctly disallowed.  On first viewing, a fan who feels that his team has been robbed can make all manner of accusations including match-fixing and bias, but a replay will prove him wrong in most cases.  Similarly, in tennis, the ball is either in or out, and in the Hawkeye era, there's little dispute over those calls.  NFL, there are debatable calls (pass interference, roughing the passer etc), but they're much less frequent and different in nature to the ongoing, continuous rugby tackle calls.  

Rugby, however, has a much more subjective decision happening 170 times a match, and that's why I laboured the point about how "grey" the decision-making process can be earlier in this post.  The end result is that people who watch matches can make the logic mistake of working backwards.  They then interpret their observations to fit their theory, and of course their desired theory is that their team must win!  

It's a lot like bent science, in fact, in that you start out with the finding already "known" (in a fan's mind, there is only one team that can win - they "know" the result before the match!).  Then you have a series of "experiments", also known as the tackle situation, where the outcome of each must be known too.  The entire match is an observed experiment, and unwittingly, people mix emotion with interpretation and they will come up with accusations of bias because their observation will always fit their model.  This is the danger of looking for proof of what you already believe, because you will always succeed at finding it!

Don't trust the passionate perception

I made this mistake myself when working with the Sevens team.  Every single decision was "wrong" as long as it went against our team!  Such is the desire to win, that I stood on the sidelines and could not believe that a penalty should not be awarded to us.  We lose the ball, it could only be because the other team cheated, and the referee missed it!  

Only in the cold light of day, often the next morning, sitting in the hotel lobby, did I have the opportunity to review the match, sometimes to talk to the referee and he would explain what he was seeing as he made the call, and then it became much clearer to me that what was "obvious" to me was in fact "obvious" in exactly the other direction!  I was wrong, pure and simple.  But at the time I could not see that I was looking at it incorrectly.  I learned to have a deep mistrust of my own perceptions in those emotional, stressful situations, and learned instead to wait, hold the opinion and rather decide when removed from the passion and emotion.  It was a valuable lesson.  

Sometimes, of course, the referees did make mistakes - more than once, I still believe we were wrongly judged and that it cost matches.  Sometimes, referees even admitted it, and apologized.  But we have also been the beneficiaries of the decisions, and that's the result of rugby's tackle rule.  It certainly needs to be fixed, but this was a difficult lesson to learn, but an important one.

The reality is that fans need to step away from the emotion, and if they did, they may, in the case of South Africa anyway, recognize a few other reasons why it was New Zealand, and not us, lifting that trophy in Auckland yesterday.

The solution - analysis and a scorecard

As for the solution, my bias as a scientist is to measure and analyse, so that's where I'd look for rugby's problem.   And transparency would help - no one really knows what the IRB does with referees - they are accused of being a "protected species", which may not necessarily be a bad thing, but I do feel that some more open discussion would help.  At the moment, it's all left to the media, and in this day and age, the "media" now includes social networking, and so the public WILL have their say, and they are rarely going to be diplomatic in the absence of information.  Rather control the perception by making some information available  (it's a lot like the Caster Semenya case - the secrecy around her testing and treatment only fueled the flames and allowed people to make up the "truth".  And that version is always worse than the real truth).

And for rugby, the solution to me is that the performance of referees needs to be evaluated more transparently.  A panel of independent officials could analyze matches, producing a report on the match.  This report could analyze every single one of the 200 decisions a referee has to make in a match.  How many of the 200 were incorrect?  20? 30?  And of those 30, how many were clear, conclusive errors, and how many were interpretive calls?  One has to build in this human interpretation element, because it would be wrong to think that one can accurately judge off TV when the referee is 5m away from the decision he is making.

And of those conclusive errors, do they favor one team?  If you find for example that 30 decisions out of 200 are wrong, and 90% of them go against one team, then you have some weight behind accusations of bias or fixing.  But until that kind of evaluation is done, people speculate, and speculation is almost always worse than the truth.

Especially when the passions of die-hard fans are involved.  Just ask any referee...

Ross

Berlin 2011: Inside Makau's 2:03:38 World Record

Inside Makau's world record

Patrick Makau has broken Haile Gebrselassie's 3-year old world record with a sensational run in Berlin, clocking 2:03:38.  You can read my real-time comments and thoughts at the live post I did during the race, but below is a more detailed look at Makau compared to that 2008 record of Geb's also in Berlin.

The graph below compares the 5km splits for Makau's 2:03:38, to those in the previous record of 2:03:59.  It's an ideal comparison because it's the same course and very similar race situations with an organized attempt, pacemakers etc.

The red line shows Gebrselassie's 5km splits, the green line Makau's.  Below each marker is the cumulative time gap between Geb and Makau in seconds.  And at the top are the times for the individual segments, with the 2011 vs 2008 gap for that segment beneath it.

Makau's is a world record that was clearly established from 10km to 35km, whereas Gebrselassie owed his to a very fast final 20km.  He got faster and faster from 25km onwards, whereas Makau put himself in an excellent position by halfway, blew the race wide open with an incredible sixth interval of 14:20 (25 to 30km), and then hung on to the finish.  

The precision of pacing

The first point about looking at pace is to emphasize just how incredibly precise one has to be to run at this level and to beat a world record.  Consider for example that we're celebrating Makau today because he broke the record by a fairly large margin - it was 21 seconds.  Geb had broken it by 29 and 27 seconds in his two records, respectively.

In fact, in the last seven records, the margin of record-breaking has been 23 seconds, 4 seconds, 43 seconds, 29 seconds, 27 seconds and now 21 seconds.  The point is - world records don't get "smashed" anymore.  And 21 seconds over 42 km, you can work out pretty easily is 0.5 seconds per kilometer and thus only 2.5 seconds over each 5km interval.  I think it's safe to say that any runner who goes out and runs 2 sec/km faster than a world record is heading for a major meltdown!

That's amazing precision, and should be borne in mind when considering the splits, because the elite field are on a razor's edge, and so particularly the first half has to be very accurately paced.  Today, the first half was run just under one second per kilometer faster than the previous record, and it was consistently paced up to halfway.  There was talk of it being too fast, but in the end, it was a sustainable pace...just...and so very good to begin with.

Makau's race - building a 'buffer' and hanging on 

The dashed line in the graph above shows the required pace per 5 km segment to match the world record - it's 14:41.5 per 5km.  Today, Makau was faster than this all the way to 20km, building up a 'reserve' so that by 20km, his time of 58:30 put him on course for a 2:03:25.  Also, up to this point, the pace had been very consistent - those "bumps" you see in the first half represent a range of only 1 second per kilometer, and the field was always faster than the required pace.

The comparison to Gebrselassie in 2008 is also interesting.  The opening 10km was basically the same - 29:17 for Makau vs 29:12 for Geb.  Then, from 10km to 20km, Makau began building his buffer - had there been a "virtual Gebrselassie" on the road, Makau would have been pulling further and further away from him.  

A 14:34 and a 14:39 put Makau up by 12 seconds and then 20 seconds at 20km.  He'd have been over 100m ahead of Gebrselassie at halfway.  At this stage, the commentators were talking about it as being "suicidal", which it certainly was not.  It was fast, but the way the race was to unfold (hindsight is wonderful!), this was actually very solid pace setting, because the race was pretty much on course for a mid 2:03:20 from the outset.

Makau's surge

Then things started to open up.  The race fragmented after halfway - a group of 11 was cut very quickly, and soon it was Makau, Geb and about three pacemakers.  I'm not 100% sure what happened at around 27km, but it was here that Makau made what would be the race's decisive surge.  He went to the front, Gebrselassie stepped off the road just after 27km and Makau just kept going.

He hit 25km in 1:13:18, fully 47 seconds ahead of what Gebrselassie had done in 2008.  That segment, covered in 14:20, was easily the fastest of any of the three world records set in Berlin since 2007.  It was a huge surge, and to put into context what Makau was doing, Geb, despite stopping, was 1:10 down at that stage.  That means that Geb was only 23 seconds slower than he'd been on route to his world record, but now found himself trailing by over a minute (and he'd stopped, of course).

The question now was not so much whether Makau could sustain the pace, but rather whether that surge would cost him?  He had built up such a buffer that he could afford to run the final 10km in 29:49, which was much slower than anything they'd been producing up to that point.

Hanging on, holding pace and running alone  

The next 5km were actually the most significant period for the record - having surged at 14:20 pace, it was here that we'd see a substantial drop-off if there was going to be one.  Makau was now all alone, just the clock and the race car for company.  But he held it together enough to run a 14:38 for the segment.  That was actually quicker than Geb over the same interval in 2008, and meant that Makau extended his "lead" over the virtual Gebrselassie to 49 seconds (as seen on the graph).

Now, with only 7km to, only a massive blowout would cost Makau the record, and the question was whether he'd hold that pace, and break the record by over 45 seconds, or whether he'd come back slightly.  But the world record was now pencilled in.

The answer was that he would pay for the early pace, but only a little.  His final 5km segment, from 35 to 40km was easily the slowest of his race, but it was still 14:59.  Compare Makau's line to that of Gebrselassie, who built from halfway to get faster and faster when he broke 2:04 in 2008.  Makau's graph is "going the wrong" way, but not quickly enough to save the record.

The result of Makau's slowing, however, was that suddenly, that gap of 49 seconds to Gebreselassie in 2008 was cut to 19 seconds.  However, there were only 2.2km remaining, and the pace he needed to run to match the record was now 3:04/km, so his "fatigue" was not costing him enough to save the record.  Also, Gebrselassie had slowed significantly in his final 2.2km back in 2008 as well, so Makau just had to hang on and claim the record.

At 37.2km, with 5km to, I timed Makau as needing to run 15:20 for the final 5km, and it was clear that though he was fighting by this point, he wasn't going to implode to that extent!  The 6:23 for the final 2.2km was in fact similar to Gebrselassie in 2008 (6:25) and it gave Makau the record by 21 seconds.

Optimal pacing?

The first half was run in 61:45, the second in 61:53.  That's near enough even pace (you'd be picky to argue over 8 seconds), but the two halves were constructed very differently - look at the green line in the chart to see that.  Of course, the theoretically perfect race is exactly even, no variation, but you never see that.  Makau was definitely more variable than Gebrselassie in 2008, but that's largely because of the 14:20 he put in just after halfway, and the fact that he slowed to a 14:59 at the end.

The most striking difference between Makau 2011 and Gebrselassie 2008 is the shape of the curve over the second half.  You can see this in the graph very clearly - Gebrselassie got faster and faster after halfway, Makau was up-and-down.  Again, this was the result of his 14:20 and the 14:59 that it 'cost' later.  

The first 20km were a talking point during the race - it was considered too fast to sustain, but in the end, it was pretty precise, based on the halves.  All in all, I'd say it was very well paced, from a global perspective.  But a more conservative sixth interval (25km to 30km) might have left Makau with a bit more for the final 10km, and that may have helped him a few seconds faster.

Future of marathon running - 2:02:59 looms

But really, that's all we're talking, a few seconds.  And it's hard to fault Makau for this performance, which is simply exceptional.  It means that we've seen three performances under 2:04 this year alone, though of course two of them came on the Boston course, which was massively wind-aided this year (and won't stand, though not for that reason!)

Makau is now the marathon king, with three wins in five starts.  It's actually extra-ordinary to think of what Kenya in particular have in the marathon.  Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop were the Boston runners who nearly broke 2:03, and then Abel Kirui dominated the World Championship marathon in Daegu with the kind of performance that would suggest that he's capable of something very close to 2:04 as well.  This record, exceptional as it is, may not have too long a shelf-life!

As always, attention will now turn to the limits for marathon running and people will start talking about sub-2 hour clockings.  That's a little premature - if each record lasts say 3 years (because weather and pacing can undermine even the most gifted athlete), and if the times improve by around 20 seconds per record, we'll be commenting on another eleven world records and will be waiting until 2044 for that to happen.  If it happens at all.  That kind of speculation is always fun though.

It certainly seems as though it's a matter of time before 2:03 is challenged, perhaps a decade or so, if the next generation are as exceptional as the current one.  If it happens, we'll be on it!

Ross

Berlin Marathon 2011: Live

Berlin 2011: Magnificent Makau 2:03:38!

Patrick Makau has broken the world marathon record.  He raced to a 2:03:38 on the streets of Berlin, breaking Gebrselassie's world record by 21 seconds.  It was a terrible day for the Ethiopian emperor - he stepped off the road soon after Makau launched a big surge at around 27km, and while he did resume running, he was not a factor and it seems that he bailed some time later.

The questions will begin again - it is Geb's second DNF if two marathons, after New York.  On that occasion, he retired, and questions will now be asked again.  It's a sad way to go if it's true - two DNFs and the loss of his world record.

But today, it was Makau all the way.  Below are the splits (for the men - I lost track of the women's race as the men's world record became more and more apparent), and my comments as the race unfolded.

For a more detailed breakdown of the race, including a comparison between Makau 2011 and Gebrselassie 2008, click here

But briefly, halfway was reached in 61:45, which projects a 2:03:30, and that was more or less the pace from the start.  Makau and Geb were in the group, 11 strong, until around 25km when things began to fragment.  That's when Makau, perhaps sensing a weakness is Geb, pushed the pace, and under the pressure of his surge, Gebrselassie stepped off the road.  He seemed to be clutching his stomach - it was either a stitch, stomach cramp, or maybe asthma.  We'll find out later.

But the pace of the Makau surge was brutal - 14:20 for the 5km segment from 25km to 30km, and that's what took Makau from being in with a shout to having a real shot at it.  He did pay for that surge later in the race, and when we compare the splits later, you'll see that Makau got slower and slower from that point onwards.

But he had enough of a 'buffer' in hand - he was 49 seconds ahead of Gebrselassie's time at the same point in the 2008 record, and 45 seconds ahead of the pace required to break the 2:03:59.  So even though Makau did slow over the final 5km in particular, he had the record in the bag, and went on to break it by 21 seconds.

That's the short version - below is my coverage of the race as it unfolded, and here is the more detailed breakdown for those interested.

And thanks for following our live coverage of the race!

Splits


Men                                                                  Women

5km - 14:36 (2:03:13 pace)                           5km - 16:37 (2:20:14)
10km - 29:17 (2:03:34)                                  10km - 33:16 (2:20:22)
15km - 43:51 (2:03:21)                                   15km - 49:50 (2:20:11)
20km - 58:30 (2:03:25)                                 20km - 1:06:32 (2:20:22)
Half-marathon - 61:43 (2:03:26)                Half-marathon - 1:10:11 (2:20:22)
25km - 1:13:18 (2:03:43)                               25km - 1:23:15 (2:20:31)
30km - 1:27:38 (2:03:15)                                
35km - 1:42:16 (2:03:17)                              
40km - 1:57:15 (3:03:41)                          
Finish - 2:03:38                                                Finish - 2:19:44

Apologies - in all the drama of the men's world record, I missed a few women's splits, and the truth is, Kiplagat was just churning out consistent kilometers.  I'll see if I can update the splits later.

The men's race deserves more analysis, and so I'll have a closer look at that in a follow-up post


Commentary

Comments in reverse order - most recent at the top

Finish

WORLD RECORD!

2:03:38

Makau has done it, he has held on to break the world record by 21 seconds!  That was a hard effort at the end, Makau was fighting over the final 5km but he did it, and did it in style.  Even vaulted the advertising wedges in the finish straight to do it!

More analysis to come, including a comparison of this race with Geb's 2008 record.  Check in shortly!

40km

Makau is hanging on to world record pace - the last 5km was run in 14:59, and Makau only needed to run 15:20 to get this record.  So he is on course for a 2:03:41.  He has slowed slightly - the last interval was easily the slowest of the race!  But he has a buffer of sorts, and the last 2.2km are a race against the clock!

In 2008, Geb reached 40km in 1:57:34.  Makau reached it 19 seconds faster (1:57:15).  But remember, he was 49 seconds ahead at 35km, and so he is "losing ground" to the virtual figure of Gebrselassie on the road!

6 minutes of running is all that stands between him and the WR.  It's going to be a great finish!

37km

Makau is still on course for a big world record.  It's looking more and more like he is not just going to edge it, he is going to smash this record!  He's looking at a sub-2:03:30 time, and this is history in the making!


5km to go, and Makau needs to run it in 15:20, this is a world record on the way!

35km

Makau is on course for the world record!

Makau is out on his own now - it's a tough, tough ask to race the final 10km at world record pace.  You'll recall that Gebrselassie had James Kwambai with him in 2008.  The time at 35km is 1:42:16.  In 2008, Geb covered it in 1:43:05.

So Makau is still ahead, and he is holding onto the pace he needs.  To put it into context: At 30km, Makau was 47 seconds ahead of Gebrselassie's split from 2008 (1:27:38 for Makau vs 1:28:25 for Geb).  Now he is 49 seconds ahead, and so the world record is on!  Makau has run these 5km as fast as Geb did in 2008 (14:38)!  But the section 35km to 40km is where Geb really picked it up 3 years ago!  Does he have enough in reserve to do this?  Fascinating finish in prospect!

32km

With 10km to go, Makau needs to run 29:49 to break 2:04 and the world record.  It's definitely on, the only question is how Makau recovers on the run from that 14:20, and whether those first 20km were just too quick?

30km

It's Makau's race now - he's out in front with two pace-makers for company, probably over a minute clear of Gebrselassie.  The last 5km were run in 14:20, which is incredible - that was the acceleration that pulled Makau clear of Gebrselassie, just before the Ethiopian stepped off track.  That was very, very quick and now the race, and possibly the World Record's, is Makau's to chase.  His projected time at 30km, by the way, is 2:03:15.

The big question is what the surge takes out - Makau now has to consolidate - it may be "only" 12km to go, but the potential for time losses here are enormous.  He needs to run just inside 3 min/km to get that world record.  That is definitely doable, and this could be a great race to the line against the clock!

Gebrselassie is up and running again.  One of the pacemakers has dropped back and is now pulling him again.  He seems to making ground on those runners between himself and Makau.  He is 1:10 down on Makau, and we'll check that again at 35km to see if Geb has really recovered.  Quite extra-ordinary developments with Geb stepping off the road and now seemingly back, running still well under 2:04:30 pace!

27.2km

Gebrselassie has STOPPED!  He was dropped by Makau and he has stepped off the road, clutching his stomach, bending over and cearly in trouble!  Maybe asthma - he seemed to gesture that he was unable to brath.  Either that or a stomach problem.  Cramp/stitch maybe.  He is crouched over.  Now he is back running again, but he's lost big ground.  What a great pity!

Gebrselassie is now running again, and doesn't seem to be going too slowly.  It is very peculiar because he really did look to be in trouble there.  He was either struggling for breath, or had some kind of cramping or stitch pain.  But to reverse that and resume racing a minute later...very interesting.  We'll get you a split of the gap shortly, and keep an eye on it.

25km

The men have now begun to slow - the last 5km were run in 14:48.  It's the first time that a 5km split has been outside of the pace required for a world record (that's 14:41, by the way).  The projected time is now 2:03:43.  However, I can tell you that if they maintain the 14:48 pace for the rest of this race, they will finish in 2:04:12.

The TV coverage keeps flashing a projected finish time of 2:03:05, which is never going to happen.  not sure where that projection comes from.  Makau and Geb playing games shadowing one another!  A taste of things to come?  The last 10km might be very slow if they start racing and playing tactical battles

On the women's side, no change.  Kiplagat ran the last 5km in 16:43.

Halfway

The men's halfway split is 61:43.  Easy maths - it projects a 2:03:26.  The world record is now a definite possibility (it was at the start, of course).  The key will be after 30km, when most of those pace-makers drop out, and we're left with Makau and Gebrselassie.  Then we'll see if the early pace is costly.  If the pace is going to drop, it's going to be 25km to 40km.  Fascinating race developing though - the possibility of Geb vs Makau needing a 29-min final 10km to break the WR is mouth-watering.

Kiplagat has reached halfway in 1:10:11, 19 seconds ahead of Radcliffe.  If both keep going at this pace, they'll run 2:20:22 and 2:21:10 respectively.  That's probably a "par" for Radcliffe, given the build-up and hear she has had.  For Kiplagat, it's a good comeback after failing to finish Boston.

20km

Still no sign of slowing - after hitting 15km 12 seconds faster than the WR split from 2008, they ran a 2:58 and a 2:55.  So not surprisingly, they hit 20km in 58:30 . The 2008 split at 20km was 58:50, so they're 20 seconds ahead of that.  That's a big improvement - it projects a 35 seconds breaking of the world record.  The last 5km, incidentally, were done in 14:39, so they're holding faster than WR pace.  Every split so far has been faster than the WR pace.  It's still an 11-man group.

Kiplagat has continued to roll - 16:42 for the last 5km, so a small slowing in the pace.  She is 17 seconds ahead of Radcliffe, who has now dropped back to around 17 min/5km pace.  Unless there's a dramatic change of fortunes for one (or both), the women's race is developing into a victory for Kiplagat by just over a minute.  She's on for a 2:20:22 still.

15km

The men have actually sped up on the last interval - 14:34 giving them a 43:51 at 15km.  For comparison's sake, when Geb broke the world record in 2008, he hit 15km in 44:03.  They're actually saying that they ran the 15th kilometer in 2:45, which is unbelievably fast.  I'm more inclined to call that an error in the distance markings than a real time!  But it's very fast.  It now projects 2:03:21, so they're setting up an incredible day.  Or a big meltdown over the final 10km!

On the women's side - a big development - Kiplagat is nine seconds ahead at 15km.  Radcliffe has dropped off the pace somewhat.  Kiplagat has run with amazing precision.  The last 5km were 16:34, for a 15km split of 49:50.  Radcliffe came through in 49:59, so that's interesting.  Kiplagat meanwhile, has produced splits of 16:37, 16:39 and 16:34, and she's on course for a 2:20:11.  Will keep an eye on Radcliffe to see if she's going back, or holding that gap.

10km situation

The men have hit 10km in 29:17, so that's 14:41 for the last 5km.  The projected time now is 2:03:34.  There are still 11 men there, five of them pace-makers.  The other four (excluding Geb and Makau) are running many minutes faster than their bests, so that group could get very thin very quickly once the pace-makers start dropping off.

The commentators are saying that it's unusual for Gebrselassie to misjudge the pace.  I remember the Dubai race a few years ago where he went through 10km in a mid-28 time, projecting 2:02.  And I think the same happened the next year.  So it's not entirely unusual.

In the women's race, Radcliffe and Kiplagat have already opened up a sizeable lead over Mikitenko.  Their 10km split was 33:16, a last 5km of 16:39, so they're rolling along at the same pace.  Projects a 2:20:22.

5km reached

The men hit 5km in 14:36.  That's 2:03:13 pace, so fast, but that's normal for the first split.  There are eleven men in the lead group, five of them pace-makers. Gebrselassie and Makau are there.  They've requested 62 minutes to halfway, so if they get that, they'll be on course for a world record, and a race between Makau and Gebrselassie at that pace will be fascinating.  Early days yet.

Nice slow-motion shot of the elite runners feet landing - notice how they're heel-striking?  Gebrselassie in the yellow shoes - used to be a very clear forefoot striker on track.  It's a quick transition to mid-foot though, so the definition of "heel-strike" is disputable.  Flat at best.  But it sure isn't a fore-foot strike...

The women are on course for a 2:20:14 at 5km - 16:37.  The split was Kiplagat's, with Radcliffe listed at the same time.  So far no coverage of that race.

Shots of Geb training in Ethiopia now.  Nice touch for the human side of the race.

Pre-race

They're saying there are 30 pace-makers in the race today.  Not all for the elite men, but for various groups.  Of course, the build-up to this race included discussion of the role of pace-makers given the IAAF's recent decision that they will not recognize women's records set in mixed races, because this allows women to be paced by men.

I appreciate the reason for this, but I can't help feeling that if men are able to be paced to 30 or 35km, then women should receive at least the same benefit.  Of course, women's running lacks the depth of the men's race, and so they can't find six or seven women to get to 30km in the 1:40 required for a 2:20 marathon.  So women are either advantaged (by having men as pace-makers all the way to the finish), or disadvantaged (by having no pace-makers, or pace-makers to only halfway, for example).  There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

But there's no question that the men get a large benefit - when the current record was broken by Gebrselassie, he was surrounded by men for 30km and then had Kwambai for "company" over the final 10km.  It's impossible to quantify the advantage this would provide, but it's fair to assume that it does help for a variety of reasons, both physiological and psychological.

To me, the best solution would be to allow men to do a pace-maker job for women, but only up to 30km.  Enforce something similar to the Ironman triathlons, where there is a "no drafting" rule that prevents athletes from riding in groups.  Why not have a rule that says after 30km, any men who are pace-making for women must drop back by a minimum of 50m?  They can still finish, but may no longer support and set the pace for the women.  Seems like the most reasonable compromise, given that it is a tricky situation, where either of the current situations creates advantages and disadvantages.

Anyway, enough of that, the race is about to start...

IAAF World Champs: 800m women, questions but few answers

Women's 800m: Savinova pips Semenya

The women's 800m event deserves a post all of its own.  I'll post on the rest of the day's action a little later, but the women's 800m gold has just been won, and it wasn't Caster Semenya winning it.  Instead, it was Mariya Savinova of Russia who won in a very quick 1:55.87, edging Semenya in the final 50m.  Semenya ran 1:56.35, easily the fastest time she has done since her Berlin triumph two years ago, when the controversy began, and Janeth Jepkosgei took bronze, reward for her efforts in setting the race up with a very fast first lap.

The race was an intriguing tactical one - Janeth Jepkosgei took the pace out hard (26.61s first 200m), and led through the bell in 55.86s, with Semenya in fifth and Savinova sixth, about 5m behind.  Savinova had clearly decided that she would mark Semenya the whole way, and as Semenya made her move down the backstraight, she followed.  600m was reached in 1:26.07, a 30-second interval for Jepkosgei, probably half a second quicker for Semenya, who was on the shoulder of the leaders and poised to move clear.

Coming off the final bend, Semenya had taken the lead, and it looked like a dead certainty that she would run away from the field.  Given the fast pace up to 600m, a repeat or even an improvement of the 1:55.45 of Berlin looked on the cards.  But Savinova held her, and with 50m to go, began to close the 3m gap that she'd held her at down the back straight.  In the final, 20m, Semenya faded and Savinova come through to win gold.

Caster Semenya - the questions will continue

Semenya again looked very relaxed, casual even, when being passed for gold in the final 20m, and I am sure that there will once again be suspicions that she "lost deliberately".  In the aftermath of her semi-final, where she looked completely dominant, that theme began to reappear, with chat forums resonating with the theory that Semenya had been losing races on purpose this season to keep the attention off her.

I am sure that the questions will continue, and Semenya will again be labeled as either a cheat (if she wins), or a 'fixer' (when she loses, as people suggest, on purpose).  I think both are slightly unfair accusations, and require some clarification and context.  Certainly, she is not a cheat - she may well have had an advantage as a result of whatever intersex condition may have led to increased testosterone levels, but that's not the same as cheating.  So again, I'd caution against "personalizing" the debate, making it about Semenya.  It's not too different from Pistorius case, actually - it's not a question of cheating, but is a question of unfair advantage.  And that's certainly a valid concern, which is why the post-Berlin process happened.

In Semenya's case, and I've written this before, I am fairly certain that in the aftermath of Berlin, she did receive some medical treatment.  There is no other explanation for the length of time that it took to clear her to run.  A legal issue would have taken weeks, maybe a few months, but to miss nearly a year can only be explained if there was medical intervention that required observation.  Also, if you look at the IAAF's latest position stand on intersex conditions, they have clearly learned from the Semenya experience, and it's no co-incidence that the statement includes mention of correcting testosterone to normal female levels.  The IAAF, I think, knew that they had to intervene, and I believe they did, setting a precedent that they then wrote into future policy.

So I'm confident in saying that there was chemical treatment to reduce the testosterone levels.  That would also explain the injury problems, the inconsistencies, and the relatively poorer performances in the last twelve months.  If that is the case, then people can of course still object to Semenya's participation on the grounds that she has "historical" advantage because of the shape of the skeleton etc.  But I believe that most advantages would diminish soon, and certainly will over more time.

My opinion is that if her testosterone levels have been within the normal range for six months, and continue to stay there, then I'd be satisfied that the advantage is no longer of concern for competition.  She would be at the extreme in certain respects, but not threatening to cross the 'line' we draw to make the distinction between male and female competition.  Of course, when she runs 1:56.35, less than a second slower than the Berlin time, people will question the effectiveness of the treatment, and that will be an interesting debate to follow in coming weeks.

Monitoring of an intervention?

The big question, however, is monitoring of those levels.  The irony is that if Semenya has received chemical treatment, then she may be one of the only athletes in the world who is required to use drugs.  And failure to use the drugs (dope) would be the problem.  If Semenya's participation is dependent on lowering the testosterone levels, then ensuring the effectiveness is crucial.

Now I don't know how this has been monitored.  Is it possible that Semenya can stop medication and return to the Berlin situation?  I don't know enough about the process, how long the treatment would last or how effective it might be (will make some enquiries with endocrinologists) and so I'll steer clear of speculating on that detail. But I believe that if the testosterone levels were raised (which is a near certainty), then the right thing was done in reducing them, and I have no objections to Semenya's participation, providing it is monitored regularly.

Semenya's racing strategy

As for the theory that Semenya is running slowly on purpose, I can appreciate why people think that, because certainly, I can't think of many athletes who look as casual as Semenya in any race situation - it is so startling how she seems to "jog" when others are failing.  But I see it differently.  There are far better ways to win a silver medal, lose a race and divert attention of yourself than what Semenya did today.  If she was deliberately trying NOT to win, then it would be far easier to come through late, especially in a race like today's where early pace is fast and the gaps are large.   Would a late charge from sixth to second (possible if you watch the race) not divert attention more than a fade into silver?  But instead, Semenya attacked the race with 250m to go, assumed the lead, ran in front for the world to see, and looked to be going away before losing gold.

That's a sure way to attract attention, not to deflect it, (for proof of this, see the forums which are already buzzing with allegations of "tanking on purpose").  I remain unconvinced about this deliberate loss argument.  I think it more likely that Semenya is just a runner who always looks casual, regardless of race situation or effort.  Back in 2008, at the World Junior Championships in Poland, Semenya finished seventh in her heat and looked the same as she did today - she seems not to have it in her style to lose form and look like she is straining.  It may be the shape of her skeleton, the large upper body and that she seems to 'lope', and I think this is more likely than the theory that she hit the front, opened up a lead in the final 50m of the World Champs, and then decided to lose the race on purpose from there.

The lack of transparency

In all this, the biggest issue has been the lack of transparency and the secrecy.  The initial leak was of course wrong, and Semenya should never have been subjected to public speculation about her biological sex.  But once out, once the world knew there was a problem, it was critical to resolve the situation, or at least reassure people that something had been done to ensure fair competition (even if that meant announcing that there was no advantage to begin with - people wouldn't have believed it, but it would be something).

That was, of course, Semenya's prerogative.  The IAAF could not announce that there was a condition and that it had been treated, because the medical information belongs to the patient.  So I felt from the outset that Semenya needed to disclose something.  Not the full details, not a complete description, but something to assure people that her participation had been cleared and perhaps that she would continue to co-operate with the authorities in the future.  Maybe even release testosterone level results today, in the same way that some cyclists have taken to making public their blood data as part of the biological passport system.

The problem we have now is that everyone knows half the story, and in the absence of facts, they will create the other half!  And, whether the result of being misinformed, ignorant or hostile, the blanks that are filled in will almost always be worse than the reality.  The end result is that Semenya loses either way, and the only way I can see this being overcome is to control the information herself.

But instead of truth, what we have is a shroud of secrecy, mostly from Semenya's management.  Her management team have made some extra-ordinary statements, including one that she was going to win the double in Daegu, even though she was not even entered into the 1500m.  They have asked for millions for sponsorship back here in South Africa.  They also hinted recently that she would be asking for money to give interviews to the media, which is astonishing.

You can't blame Semenya for her mistrust of the media, but the moronic press releases made by her PR and management teams defy belief, and only serve to heighten the focus (and negative attention) on her.  She'll find a great deal of sympathy (as she should) for her character in continuing the sport, for her resolve, which has been incredible.  But she'll also face a great deal of hostility because of how little people know about the science and the process involved.

And she can control the flow of that information, including the public perception, by talking about it.  Again, cycling has set the precedent that cyclists sometimes disclose their blood data, and Semenya could do the same.  She'll never win everyone over, but I think many will accept what has happened as the best possible resolution, provided they know it.  As it stands now, few people will because they simply don't know.

On that note, it was very good to see the smiles and interaction with her fellow competitors after this race.  It's easy to be a good sport when you're winning, but even Savinova seemed more amiable than her previous comments might have suggested.  These are good signs, not proof, but hopefully a sign that among fellow athletes, things are returning to normal.

An insoluble problem?

Ultimately, Semenya's situation asks questions for which there may be no answer.  I compared it earlier to the Pistorius case, but in truth, it's even more complex, because a) there is less scientific evidence available to quantify the Semenya advantage than for Pistorius' advantage and b) there seems to have been some treatment to correct the possible advantage.  If that has happened, and the process has been followed, then what next?  Either it didn't work, or it should be accepted.  Key there is simply disclosing it, and if that were to happen, I'd encourage people to accept the treatment and the IAAF decision.   As it stands, we don't know, so how can anyone be asked be blindly accept it?

If there was no treatment, or if the treatment has not been monitored properly, well, that's a different situation, and goes all the way back to 2009 and the debates we had about eligibility at the time.  And so I'd also love for there to be some kind of disclosure so that people at least know that this has happened (if it has, of course).  And finally, I'd hope that Semenya opens up, maybe that someone saves her from her own management team, and maybe even uses this as an opportunity to inform and educate.  Full transparency, testosterone levels, the truth.

Ross