Duke Johnson driven by promises to mother

[sebastian91]

Well you are half way there.

Read the study, ******.

"The majority of the time difference between the FAT and Hand timed 40 yard comes from the inherent human delay of starting the timer after the athlete initiates the run. In other words, the athlete will have started the run before the coach can depress the start button."

Quit cherry picking segments from the document. Here is a quote from the conclusion of that "study"

"The 1.75 +- 0.075 second variance should be considered if hand timing is being used for ranking athletes."

I know this is probably hard for you to comprehend but the "+-" part means that hand times can be either faster or slower.

And I know that this might be REALLY hard for YOU to comprehend, but the 0.075 part is a lot less than the 1.75 part (which is probably supposed to be 0.175, like it is everywhere else, but again the point remains the same).

0.175 +/- 0.075 means that the amount of the hand-timing error can vary from 0.1 to 0.25 seconds. I was being generous giving you the average (0.175).

Go to bed...the short bus will be picking you up for school in a few hours.

Sorry kid. That is not what the study said.

Your logic in this porst indicates that hand timing would NEVER result in a time that is faster than the actual run.

The study says quite plainly otherwise.

Um, no, it doesn't. Look at Figure 3, kid.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Read the study, ******.

"The majority of the time difference between the FAT and Hand timed 40 yard comes from the inherent human delay of starting the timer after the athlete initiates the run. In other words, the athlete will have started the run before the coach can depress the start button."

Quit cherry picking segments from the document. Here is a quote from the conclusion of that "study"

"The 1.75 +- 0.075 second variance should be considered if hand timing is being used for ranking athletes."

I know this is probably hard for you to comprehend but the "+-" part means that hand times can be either faster or slower.

And I know that this might be REALLY hard for YOU to comprehend, but the 0.075 part is a lot less than the 1.75 part (which is probably supposed to be 0.175, like it is everywhere else, but again the point remains the same).

0.175 +/- 0.075 means that the amount of the hand-timing error can vary from 0.1 to 0.25 seconds. I was being generous giving you the average (0.175).

Go to bed...the short bus will be picking you up for school in a few hours.

Sorry kid. That is not what the study said.

Your logic in this porst indicates that hand timing would NEVER result in a time that is faster than the actual run.

The study says quite plainly otherwise.

Um, no, it doesn't. Look at Figure 3, kid.

It doesn't even surprise me that you missed or intentionally left out this tidbit concerning your beloved "Figure 3"

AND I QUOTE:

"(and only accounting for human error at the start not the finish line),"

 

[sebastian91]

It doesn't even surprise me that you missed or intentionally left out this tidbit concerning your beloved "Figure 3"

AND I QUOTE:

"(and only accounting for human error at the start not the finish line),"

You can't be this stupid. I quoted that above, you highlighted it in a feeble attempt to discredit it, and I then quoted the study again, which stated the reason why the majority of the hand-timing error occurs at the start line. Besides, what does that have to do with your claim that the study "says quite plainly otherwise"? Why don't you quote something to back that statement up?

Any idiot with half a brain can see that the study "quite plainly" shows that hand-timing results in a "faster" 40 time by, on average, 0.175 seconds, with an error of +/- 0.075 seconds (range 0.1-0.25 seconds). You are getting obliterated here, kid.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

It doesn't even surprise me that you missed or intentionally left out this tidbit concerning your beloved "Figure 3"

AND I QUOTE:

"(and only accounting for human error at the start not the finish line),"

You can't be this stupid. I quoted that above, you highlighted it in a feeble attempt to discredit it, and I then quoted the study again, which stated the reason why the majority of the hand-timing error occurs at the start line. Besides, what does that have to do with your claim that the study "says quite plainly otherwise"? Why don't you quote something to back that statement up?

Any idiot with half a brain can see that the study "quite plainly" shows that hand-timing results in a "faster" 40 time by, on average, 0.175 seconds, with an error of +/- 0.075 seconds (range 0.1-0.25 seconds). You are getting obliterated here, kid.

The study plainly says they only used hand timing results in errors at the start of the run. The study also plainly says that they didn't factor in human error at the finish line. So are you arguing that we can use the human error factor for the starting of the stopwatch but we can't factor in human error at the stopping of the stopwatch?

 

[sebastian91]

It doesn't even surprise me that you missed or intentionally left out this tidbit concerning your beloved "Figure 3"

AND I QUOTE:

"(and only accounting for human error at the start not the finish line),"

You can't be this stupid. I quoted that above, you highlighted it in a feeble attempt to discredit it, and I then quoted the study again, which stated the reason why the majority of the hand-timing error occurs at the start line. Besides, what does that have to do with your claim that the study "says quite plainly otherwise"? Why don't you quote something to back that statement up?

Any idiot with half a brain can see that the study "quite plainly" shows that hand-timing results in a "faster" 40 time by, on average, 0.175 seconds, with an error of +/- 0.075 seconds (range 0.1-0.25 seconds). You are getting obliterated here, kid.

The study plainly says they only used hand timing results in errors at the start of the run. The study also plainly says that they didn't factor in human error at the finish line. So are you arguing that we can use the human error factor for the starting of the stopwatch but we can't factor in human error at the stopping of the stopwatch?

You do realize that factoring in human error at the finish line would actually hurt your argument....right?

Oh, never mind.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

It doesn't even surprise me that you missed or intentionally left out this tidbit concerning your beloved "Figure 3"

AND I QUOTE:

"(and only accounting for human error at the start not the finish line),"

You can't be this stupid. I quoted that above, you highlighted it in a feeble attempt to discredit it, and I then quoted the study again, which stated the reason why the majority of the hand-timing error occurs at the start line. Besides, what does that have to do with your claim that the study "says quite plainly otherwise"? Why don't you quote something to back that statement up?

Any idiot with half a brain can see that the study "quite plainly" shows that hand-timing results in a "faster" 40 time by, on average, 0.175 seconds, with an error of +/- 0.075 seconds (range 0.1-0.25 seconds). You are getting obliterated here, kid.

The study plainly says they only used hand timing results in errors at the start of the run. The study also plainly says that they didn't factor in human error at the finish line. So are you arguing that we can use the human error factor for the starting of the stopwatch but we can't factor in human error at the stopping of the stopwatch?

You do realize that factoring in human error at the finish line would actually hurt your argument....right?

Oh, never mind.

Once again you are assuming that at the finish line the human would always error in the same direction.

 

[MIATL513]

It doesn't even surprise me that you missed or intentionally left out this tidbit concerning your beloved "Figure 3"

AND I QUOTE:

"(and only accounting for human error at the start not the finish line),"

You can't be this stupid. I quoted that above, you highlighted it in a feeble attempt to discredit it, and I then quoted the study again, which stated the reason why the majority of the hand-timing error occurs at the start line. Besides, what does that have to do with your claim that the study "says quite plainly otherwise"? Why don't you quote something to back that statement up?

Any idiot with half a brain can see that the study "quite plainly" shows that hand-timing results in a "faster" 40 time by, on average, 0.175 seconds, with an error of +/- 0.075 seconds (range 0.1-0.25 seconds). You are getting obliterated here, kid.

The study plainly says they only used hand timing results in errors at the start of the run. The study also plainly says that they didn't factor in human error at the finish line. So are you arguing that we can use the human error factor for the starting of the stopwatch but we can't factor in human error at the stopping of the stopwatch?

You do realize that factoring in human error at the finish line would actually hurt your argument....right?

Oh, never mind.

Once again you are assuming that at the finish line the human would always error in the same direction.

Visit your local high school track meets. Volunteer to be a timer.

Prove it to yourself.

Hand times are almost always faster than FAT, unless the hand-timer is extremely slow on stopping the clock at the finish. and that is a rarity.

Every meet, our kids have faster hand times than the laser gives them.

You really have no clue on this topic ... But feel free to keep arguing this loser position you have taken ...

 

[sebastian91]

Sigh. One last time for the short bus....

"The majority of the time difference between the FAT and Hand timed 40 yard comes from the inherent human delay of starting the timer after the athlete initiate the run."

majority n. - the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total.

Read this very s-l-o-w-l-y, so you don't miss anything.

That means that there is additional error in the same direction as the majority (which is, hand times are 'faster'). The study authors chose to quantify the majority of the error. If they looked at the rest of it, it would not go in the direction you're hoping for. Didn't do so well in your Stats classes I take it? (who am I kidding....as if you actually took a stats course...).

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Right. Majority. Not all. Hence the variance. If it's not absolute then it's not absolute.

 

[sebastian91]

Right. Majority. Not all. Hence the variance. If it's not absolute then it's not absolute.

My god you are dumb.