EVER since superstar Usain Bolt picked out of the final of the men’s 100m at the World Championships in Daegu, discussions have been rife in athletics land, with the IAAF’s zero-tolerance rule implemented in 2010 being subject to close scrutiny and extreme criticism.

Equally pervasive in Jamaica have been suggestions for an alternative rule regarding the false start, with some being reasonable and others bordering on the downright ridiculous.

In fact, it reached the point where even respected students of the sport are articulating a return to either of the preceding rules in the interest of the sport.

Under the existing regulation, any athlete who false starts, or picks the start, is immediately ejected from the race without being given any reprieve.

Happily, the word governing body, which met to discuss the matter amid the big event in South Korea — in light of the elimination of its poster boy — decided to stick with the latest rule.

This, of course, means that an athlete will continue to be disqualified if he or she jumps the starter’s gun even once.

This move by the IAAF must be lauded not only because there are very few plausible alternatives, but also because its members would undoubtedly have experienced intense pressure following Bolt’s disastrous disqualification last week, the extent of which saw spectators filing out of the Daegu Stadium even before the race was ultimately decided.

It also tells us that the IAAF is convinced that this latest rule signifies the way forward and that it is an organisation with strong individuals who respect its 97-55 majority ruling on the issue by its members and further, will not be bullied into an impulsive change or compromise, even in light of the ‘Bolt factor’.

Uncannily, people tend to have short memories. I, however, recall those frustrating days in the past when spectators, both in the stands as well as in television land, endured interminable anxiety while undisciplined athletes false-started, seemingly at will, especially in ‘big race’, as if to cruelly heighten the tension of the moment and with scant regard for time or the fluctuating emotions of gullible spectators.

A few years ago, each athlete was allowed to have one false start in a race, but would be disqualified if he or she picked the start a second time.

The penultimate amended rule made an allowance for one false start among the entire eight-man field, with the athlete who next transgressed being forthrightly eliminated.

For me, it was thus a huge relief when the IAAF implemented the current rule as I saw it then, as I do now, as a practical means of enforcing discipline within athletes, who already know the rules of the sport and must be made to adhere to it at all cost.

Interestingly, Bolt — who from the outset declared that he had no problem with the rule — heroically accepted his fate in Daegu; never attempted to ascribe blame to the IAAF and further, admitted he had committed a grave blunder as he already knew the rules of the game.

In this regard, it must never be forgotten that athletes train for every aspect of the race, including the start, with a recent picture of Glen Mills, Bolt’s coach, with starter’s pistol in hand at a training session, a poignant testimony to this.

An equally interesting facet of this discourse is the seemingly popular, but faulty analogy that in every other event in track and field — like the jumping and throwing events — athletes are given more than one chance to perform without being disqualified, and that runners should therefore be accorded the same privilege.

Here, it must be hastily pointed out that this is a totally different scenario. For, it should be borne in mind that in the field events an athlete cannot be deemed to be seeking an advantage on the basis of time, such as obtains in the running events.

In other words, whereas runners can ‘steal a march’ on his opponents by getting out of the blocks a bit earlier than is stipulated by the starter, there is no such advantage to be gained by a field event athlete.

In fact, time is only a factor in these events if, say, a thrower or a jumper takes too long to execute an attempt, in which case the official will prompt the offender. In the situation persists, the athlete would be deemed to have relinquished his chance to part-take of that specific round.

In summary, there’s nothing wrong with the existing false start rule as, I daresay, it is by far the most practical in recent memory. On the other hand, it’s for the athletes to discipline themselves to conform to those rules or risk being ignobly disqualified.

Indeed, track and field athletes have for years enjoyed an ‘unfair’ advantage when compared with swimmers, who from time immemorial, have had to be au fait with the reality that once you take your plunge ahead of the starter’s gun, it’s simply the end of the road.