Preliminary remark
Recent competitions of last month have again re-presented the overwhelming theme of the different interpretation on many occasions of the technical error between "bent knee" and "loss of contact".
We have analyzed the following national and international competitions in Europe in the last month:
- Podebrady: European race walk Cup
- La Coruna: IAAF race walk Challenge
- Alythus: International Race Walk Permit Meeting
- Florence: Italian Championships U20 and U23
At the races considered that we have analyzed through the following tables, we also wanted to counter the last two London 2012 Olympic Games and Rio de Janeiro in 2016 to offer our readers a more complete analysis tool.
The ultimate goal we had was to try to understand the differences in the operating of an international jury compared to a national one about the technical justification of the error.
Past history in Italy
Those who are walking for years will remember that in the second half of the seventies after Montreal Olympic Games in Italy had been conceived of the idea of accepting a kind of technical gesture that privileged the visibility of the technical error of the "bent knee" compared to the least visible of the "los of contact".
In Italy it had come to the point of approving a national amendment to the International Technical Regulation that took account of this peculiarity.
Some top athletes then immediately adapted their technique to this unlikely interpretation of the Italian standard, but this cost them a number of immediate disqualifications in almost all international races.
The late Pino Dordoni, always very wise and pragmatic, made us reflect on the historical error of putting into practice the different rule even though in domestic competitions only, which could not be accepted at international level. This kind of choice turned from a good fairy to bad witch and immediately came back to Italian athlete when he came across the country.
The Italian rule came after nearly two years of being erased and came back to the two fundamental canons of error: the loss of contact and the bent knee.
The time evolution
Race walking of that period was, however, very different from today's.
An eye of an careful judge was still able to seize a flight, which today is hardly possible to do and now we are arguing to use the "electronic eye" to put all the athletes on the same level but its application is not yet in the starting tapes.
Race walk of our days, however, leads some athletes often to make both mistakes compared to the past, in which at lower speeds and frequencies one could still perceive a clear difference between the two types of technical error.
Nowadays sometime two athletes who in their progression have a gesture with a flying phase and also an impact with the leg advancing to the ground bent, are differently evaluated by the jury, while this should not happen.
The races we considered that we have analyzed through the following tables.
| Race | Starting | Total Red Cards | Red Cards "bent knee" | % on total | Red Cards "no contact" | % on total |
| | | | | | | |
| Rio de Janeiro and
London Olympic Games (§) | 265 | 189 | 37 | 19,6% | 152 | 80,4% |
| | | | | | | |
Podebrady
European Cup (§) | 195 | 103 | 50 | 48,5% | 53 | 51,5% |
| La Coruna IAAF Challenge | 115 | 64 | 23 | 35,9% | 41 | 64,1% |
| Alythus Permit Meeting | 34 | 14 | 7 | 50,0% | 7 | 50,0% |
| | | | | | | |
| Sub-Total | 344 | 181 | 80 | 44,2% | 101 | 55,8% |
| | | | | | | |
| Florence Italian U23-U20 | 74 | 53 | 50 | 94,3% | 3 | 5,7% |
(§) We have extrapolated the 50km race as it is a race in which normally the number of red cards for "bent knee" is greater for its typical race.
Let's go back to the table now including the 50km in the races where it took place
| Race | Starting | Total Red Cards | Red Cards "bent knee" | % on total | Red Cards "no contact" | % on total |
| | | | | | | |
| Rio de Janeiro and
London Olympic Games | 408 | 299 | 97 | 32,4% | 202 | 67,6% |
| | | | | | | |
Podebrady
European Cup | 223 | 127 | 70 | 55,1% | 57 | 44,9% |
| La Coruna IAAF Challenge | 115 | 64 | 23 | 35,9% | 41 | 64,1% |
| Alythus Permit Meeting | 34 | 14 | 7 | 50,0% | 7 | 50,0% |
| | | | | | | |
| Sub-Total | 372 | 205 | 100 | 48,8% | 105 | 51,2% |
| | | | | | | |
| Florence Italian U23-U20 | 74 | 53 | 50 | 94,3% | 3 | 5,7% |
What is the table that we want to examine the disparity between the average in the three European races (and even more in the two Olympic Games) of the last month and that in Italy is evident in the eyes.
It would seem to be back to the Italian standard discussed before, while it is not.
Frankly, we do not believe that the overwhelming majority of Italian athletes walking error is "bent knee" (there will certainly be some), but 94,3% seems to be a bit excessive, and conversely we can not think that only 5,7% have a phase of flight visible to the human eye.
The problem in our opinion is that in one phase of flight followed moreover in landing with bent knee, the human eye understand much more easily, imprinting it in the mind, the second mistake, while this is sometimes only a consequence of the first. It is not easy to decide which of the two is more important, but it is also necessary to try out what we will say below.
The correct indication of the error is a prodromal factor to its correction
That is why it becomes crucial that judgment is not just an analysis of the action and a perception of an incorrect way of walking, but it should be as accurate as possible to report the mistake made.
The many bent knee commonly reported in the races are certainly due to visual perceptions as mentioned earlier, but often leave the bitterness in the mouth about a signal that in doubt falls on the bent knee instead no contact.
An athlete and a coach should be able to obtain the best information at the end of a race. This does not mean that they must be compelled to agree with the judge's interpretation but, of course, it means that they can work, on the one hand to eliminate any problems, and on the other hand, rely on a clear and specific statistical set to understand how it is judged, perceived visually and technically by the athlete.
Here we return, hoping not to raise dust, on the famous summary sheet. The real use and the utility of this tool by coaches and athletes should be just to take advantage of one element, or rather many elements of the races, to analyze the consistency and continuity of judgment by the various Juries, and certainly not to control the judges by fulfilling themselves and justifying themselves with an unrealistic (very often): "so he is agains us"
Conclusion
It then appears evident that sending the message of the bent knee, when the technical error might be the other, would also result in a mix of cards for correcting the error by the coach, complicating even more the difficulties.
It is a matter on which we all have to reflect if we really want the good of the specialty.
To give the right error message would greatly help the athlete improve in the future: we do not believe that it is a point to which we can give up.