British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

indiana wrote:

---

paulisi wrote:

---

As a qualified track official, there is no way i would have put Werro back in the final.
She tripped herself. It was purely a play to ensure the hype for tomorrow's final to keep the crowds and media interest.

No idea why Max Burgin withdrew, he would have won that 800m.( watched on TNT as they cover athletics and have no studio talk or interviews.)

As for Amy Hunt, i did like her, but her ****y attitude this week is really annoying me.

Decent crowd tonight for a change.

---

So you've seen all the evidence the officials there had?! Or at least you've seen something much clearer ( TNT or wherever ) than the BBC post race replays which to my mind didn't rule out a touch on her foot? Genuinely interested

I can just repeat there is no doubt Werro tripped herself but surely if that hand ( which was at the very least in the vicinity ) did indeed touch her foot it woudn't need much at all to upset her rythym and potentially cause what happened.

Of course if the evidence dismisses the account given then that would be an awful decision - to put Werro back in there for the hype. I've already had more than enough of FIFA bending rules this summer for unfair sport.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 13th of August 2026 10:29:52 PM

---

 It's all down to interpretation of the rules and some of the track judges i spoke to agreed with my position.

17. The Race
Obstruction
17.1 If an athlete is jostled or obstructed during an event so as to
impede their progress, then:
17.1.1 if the jostling or obstruction is considered unintentional or is caused otherwise than by an athlete, the
Referee may, if they are of the opinion that an athlete
(or their team) was seriously affected, in accordance
with Rule 18.7 of the Competition Rules or Rule 8.4 of
the Technical Rules, order that the race (for one, some
or all of the athletes) be re-held or allow the affected
athlete (or team) to compete in a subsequent round of
the event;
17.1.2 if another athlete is found by the Referee to be responsible for the jostling or obstruction, such athlete (or
their team) shall be liable to disqualification from that
event. The Referee may, if they are of the opinion that
an athlete (or their team) was seriously affected, in accordance with Rule 18.7 of the Competition Rules or
Rule 8.4 of the Technical Rules, order that the race (for
one, some or all of the athletes) be re-held excluding
any disqualified athlete (or team) or allow any affected
athlete (or team) (other than any disqualified athlete or
team) to compete in a subsequent round of the event.
Note: In cases considered serious enough, Rules 7.1
and 7.3 of the Technical Rules may also be applied.
In both cases of Rules 17.1.1 and 17.1.2 of the Technical Rules, such
athlete (or team) should normally have completed the event with bona fida intent.

JonH wrote:

---

Presumably the other athlete she made fall when Berro herself fell also gets into the final. She was clearly obstructed, more obviously even that Berro.

Watched the video Indy posted and , to me, looks like Berro did have her foot moved by the hand, albeit accidentally, of the other athlete.

---

Yes, the other athlete was advanced too. 

I was a bit annoyed just after the race when the BBC coverage was saying that if it was decided to advance Werro there was no lane issue because there are 9 lanes. I'm like - err, just a momemt, there was a less high profile athlete than Werro who was totally taken out in the aftermath.

It will be slightly awkward for lanes round that first bend in a championship final, with they'll have to have 2 in 1 lane but no doubt they'll cope. It does look to me all round the right outcome.

Would be accidentally as you say, so if it is judged that the hand touched Werro's foot we are into 17.1.1 territory ( thanks for these, paulisi ) and while I clearly don't know the other rules referred to in that, it did look to have a rather serious effect!

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Ridiculous that none of the BBC commentators mentioned that 200 m winner, Owen Ansah, is under investigation for missing a drugs test

His own federation don't support him and won't use him in the relay in case the team get disqualified

What are commentators there for if not to provide some factual background?

I don't need them to tell me who won - the pictures do that

---

 Agreed they should've there, however they did mention it in the 100m buildup... I think anyway! Either way those stories never good for the sport.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Danny1312 wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Ridiculous that none of the BBC commentators mentioned that 200 m winner, Owen Ansah, is under investigation for missing a drugs test

His own federation don't support him and won't use him in the relay in case the team get disqualified

What are commentators there for if not to provide some factual background?

I don't need them to tell me who won - the pictures do that

---

 Agreed they should've there, however they did mention it in the 100m buildup... I think anyway! Either way those stories never good for the sport.

---

 Tx - I didn't watch the 100m - but the 200m was a different day, a different race and, as you say, they should have said - it's relevant, it's not hearsay, it's just factual 

---

 Yes it's something that should be spoken about, what they didn't mention even in the 100m was they his own federation weren't behind him... so wasn't fully explained even then! Got my own thoughts on Werro who imo got lucky to be in the final, but once was fair play to her.

seagull wrote:

---

They did say that about Ansah just after the race finished?

---

 Ahh there you go then! I don't always focus on the chatter after, knew they did on the 100 glad they did on the 200 as well :)