Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sprint Start Regulation in Athletics: A Critical Review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The sprint start in athletics is strictly controlled to ensure the fairness of competition. World athletics (WA)-certified start information systems (SIS) record athletes’ response times in competition to ensure that no athletes gain an unfair advantage by responding in < 100 ms after the start signal. This critical review examines the legitimacy of the 100 ms rule, the factors that affect response times and the technologies and rules that support the regulation of the start in competition. The review shows that several SIS use different technologies to deliver the start signal and record response time (RT). The lack of scientific evidence about the definition of the 100 ms false start threshold by the WA is criticized in the literature and the 100 ms rule is challenged. SIS technologies, expertise and sex appear to affect the RT detected in competition. A lack of standardization in event detection has led to validity and reliability problems in RT determination. The onset of the foot response on the blocks is currently used to assess RT in athletics via block-mounted sensors; however, research shows that the onset of arm force reaction is the first detectable biomechanical event in the start. Further research and development should consider whether the onset of arm force can be used to improve the false start detection in competition. Further research is also needed to develop a precise understanding of the event sequence and motor control of the start to improve the SIS technology and rigorously determine the minimum limit of RT in the sprint start.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harland MJ, Steele JR. Biomechanics of the sprint start. Sports Med. 1995;23:11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  2. World athletics. Book of rules, Section C2.1 [Internet]. https://www.worldathletics.org/about-iaaf/documents/bookof-rules. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.

  3. Gander RE, McClements JD, Sanderson LK, Rostad BA, Josephson KE, Pratt AJ. Sprint start instrumentation. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas. 1994;43:637–43.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lemaire ED, Robertson DGE. Force-time data acquisition system for sprint starting. Can J Sport Sci. 1990;15:149–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Willwacher S, Feldker M-K, Zohren S, Herrmann V, Brüggemann G-P. A novel method for the evaluation and certification of false start apparatus in sprint running. Procedia Eng. 2013;60:124–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mero A, Komi PV, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of sprint running. Sports Med. 1992;13:376–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bezodis NE, Willwacher S, Salo AIT. The biomechanics of the track and field sprint start: a narrative review. Sports Med. 2019;49:1345–64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dapena J. The “loud gun” starting system currently used at the olympic games does not work properly [Internet]. 2005. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee21/6d5acc44d675ea88aa0d7ca2c629324e736f.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.

  9. Julin AL, Dapena J. Sprinters at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta did not hear the starter’s gun through the loudspeakers on the starting blocks. New Stud Athl. 2003;18:23–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Komi PV, Ishikawa M, Jukka S. IAAF sprint start research project: is the 100ms limit still valid. New Stud Athl. 2009;24:37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brown AM, Kenwell ZR, Maraj BK, Collins DF. “ Go” signal intensity influences the sprint start. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:1142–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pain MTG, Hibbs A. Sprint starts and the minimum auditory reaction time. J Sports Sci. 2007;25:79–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brosnan KC, Hayes K, Harrison AJ. Effects of false-start disqualification rules on response-times of elite-standard sprinters. J Sports Sci. 2017;35:929–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lipps DB, Galecki AT, Ashton-Miller JA. On the implications of a sex difference in the reaction times of sprinters at the Beijing Olympics. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e26141.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Collet C. Strategic aspects of reaction time in world-class sprinters. Percept Mot Skills. 1999;88:65–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Edwards WH. Motor learning and control: from theory to practice. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pilianidis T, Kasabalis A, Mantzouranis N, Mavvidis A. Start reaction time and performance at the sprint events in the Olympic Games. Kinesiology. 2012;44:67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pilianidis T, Mantzouranis N. Start reaction time and performance time in women’s sprint at the world championships in athletics. Stud Phys Cult Tour. 2011;18:271–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Smirniotou A, Katsikas C, Paradisis G, Argeitaki P, Zacharogiannis E, Tziortzis S. Strength-power parameters as predictors of sprinting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2008;48:447–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tønnessen E, Haugen T, Shalfawi SA. Reaction time aspects of elite sprinters in athletic world championships. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:885–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hopkins WG. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. [Internet]. 2006. Accessed 1 Mar 2019. https://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2019

  22. Gürses VV, Kamiş O. The relationship between reaction time and 60 m performance in elite athletes. J Educ Train Stud. 2019;6:64–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. St Germain L, Smith V, Maslovat D, Carlsen A. Increased auditory stimulus intensity results in an earlier and faster rise in corticospinal excitability. Brain Res. 2019;1727:146559.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heinz MG, Issa JB, Young ED. Auditory-nerve rate responses are inconsistent with common hypotheses for the neural correlates of loudness recruitment. J Assoc Res Oto. 2005;6:91–105.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kohfeld DL, Santee JL, Wallace ND. Loudness and reaction time: I. Percept Psychophys. 1981;29:535–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Carlsen AN, Chua R, Inglis JT, Sanderson DJ, Franks IM. Can prepared responses be stored subcortically? Exp Brain Res. 2004;159:301–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Otsuka M, Kurihara T, Isaka T. Timing of gun fire influences sprinters’ multiple joint reaction times of whole body in block start. Front Psychol. 2017;8:810.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Haugen TA, Shalfawi S, Tønnessen E. The effect of different starting procedures on sprinters’ reaction time. J Sports Sci. 2013;31:699–705.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. MacDonald CJ, Meck WH. Systems-level integration of interval timing and reaction time. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004;28:747–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zahn TP, Rosenthal D. Simple reaction time as a function of the relative frequency of the preparatory interval. J Exp Psychol. 1966;72:15–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kennefick M, Maslovat D, Carlsen AN. The time course of corticospinal excitability during a simple reaction time task. Antal A, editor. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e113563.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Graham-Smith P, Natera A, Saunders S. Contribution of the arms in the sprint start and their influence on force and velocity characteristics. ISBS Conference Proceedings Archive of the 32nd Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/6027. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.

  33. Otsuka M, Shim JK, Kurihara T, Yoshioka S, Nokata M, Isaka T. Effect of expertise on 3D force application during the starting block phase and subsequent steps in sprint running. J Appl Biomech. 2014;30:390–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Aerenhouts D, Delecluse C, Hagman F, Taeymans J, Debaere S, Van Gheluwe B, et al. Comparison of anthropometric characteristics and sprint start performance between elite adolescent and adult sprint athletes. Eur J Sport Sci. 2012;12:9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Eikenberry A, McAuliffe J, Welsh TN, Zerpa C, McPherson M, Newhouse I. Starting with the “right” foot minimizes sprint start time. Acta Psychol. 2008;127:495–500.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kovacs AJ, Miles GF, Baweja HS. Thinking outside the block: external focus of attention improves reaction times and movement preparation times in collegiate track sprinters. Sports. 2018;6:120.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Salo AI, Colyer SL, Chen P, Davies AM, Morgan MF, Page S. Kinetic determinants of athletics sprint start performance. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive of the 35th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol35/iss1/274/. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.

  38. Čoh M, Jošt B, Škof B, Tomažin K, Dolenec A. Kinematic and kinetic parameters of the sprint start and start acceleration model of top sprinters. Gymnica. 1998;28:33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mero A, Komi PV. Reaction time and electromyographic activity during a sprint start. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1990;61:73–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Bezodis NE, Walton SP, Nagahara R. Understanding the track and field sprint start through a functional analysis of the external force features which contribute to higher levels of block phase performance. J Sports Sci. 2019;37:560–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Babiç V, Delalija A. Reaction time trends in the women’s sprint and hurdle events at the 2004 Olympic Games. New Stud Athl. 2009;24:49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Harrison, AJ, Barr T, Hayes K. A comparison of hand force and starting block-based response times in the sprint start. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive of the 36th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports [Internet]. NMU Commons; 2018. https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol36/iss1/219/. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.

  43. Terczyński R. The influence of sprint block start elements on initial velocity of 100 metre race. Cent Eur J Sport Sci Med. 2014;8:87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fortier S, Basset FA, Mbourou GA, Favérial J, Teasdale N. Starting block performance in sprinters: a statistical method for identifying discriminative parameters of the performance and an analysis of the effect of providing feedback over a 6-week period. J Sports Sci Med. 2005;4:134–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Hodges PW, Bui BH. A comparison of computer-based methods for the determination of onset of muscle contraction using electromyography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996;101:511–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Staude G, Wolf W. Objective motor response onset detection in surface myoelectric signals. Med Eng Phys. 1999;21:449–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Allison GT. Trunk muscle onset detection technique for EMG signals with ECG artefact. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13:209–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tillin N, Jimenez-Reyes P, Pain M, Folland J. Neuromuscular performance of explosive power athletes versus untrained individuals. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:781–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Otsuka M, Potthast W, Willwacher S, Goldmann J-P, Kurihara T, Isaka T. Validity of block start performance without arm forces or by kinematics-only methods. Sports Biomech. 2019;18:229–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bezodis NE, Salo AI, Trewartha G. Choice of sprint start performance measure affects the performance-based ranking within a group of sprinters: which is the most appropriate measure? Sports Biomech. 2010;9:258–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Slawinski J, Dumas R, Cheze L, Ontanon G, Miller C, Mazure-Bonnefoy A. 3D kinematic of bunched, medium and elongated sprint start. Int J Sports Med. 2012;33:555–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Ontanon G, Leveque J-M, Miller C, Riquet A, et al. Segment-interaction in sprint start: analysis of 3D angular velocity and kinetic energy in elite sprinters. J Biomech. 2010;43:1494–502.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Slawinski J, Bonnefoy A, Levêque J-M, Ontanon G, Riquet A, Dumas R, et al. Kinematic and kinetic comparisons of elite and well-trained sprinters during sprint start. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:896–905.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Brazil A, Exell T, Wilson C, Willwacher S, Bezodis IN, Irwin G. Joint kinetic determinants of starting block performance in athletic sprinting. J Sports Sci. 2018;36:1656–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Brazil A, Exell T, Wilson C, Willwacher S, Bezodis I, Irwin G. Lower limb joint kinetics in the starting blocks and first stance in athletic sprinting. J Sports Sci. 2017;35:1629–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Čoh M, Peharec S, Bačić P, Mackala K. Biomechanical differences in the sprint start between faster and slower high-level sprinters. J Hum Kinet. 2017;56:29–38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Willwacher S, Herrmann V, Heinrich K, Funken J, Strutzenberger G, Goldmann J-P, et al. Sprint start kinetics of amputee and non-amputee sprinters. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0166219.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Salo AI, Gayen M, Patterson J, Wilson C. Should athletes use their stronger leg on the front block during the sprint start? ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive of the 34th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports [Internet]. 2016. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/6943. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.

  59. Brazil A, Irwin G, Exell T, Bezodis I, Wilson C, Willwacher S. Magnitude and technical characteristics of external force production in the starting blocks: relationship with performance. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive of the 33rd Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports [Internet]. 2015. https://ojs.ub.unikonstanz.de/cpa/article/view/6442. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.

  60. Colyer SL, Graham-Smith P, Salo AIT. Analysis of sprint start transition phases and their associations with performance. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive of the 37th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports [Internet]. 2019. https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol37/iss1/122/. Accessed 9 Dec 2019.

  61. Macadam P, Cronin JB, Uthoff AM, Johnston M, Knicker AJ. Role of arm mechanics during sprint running: a review of the literature and practical applications. Strength Cond J. 2018;40:14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Otsuka M, Kurihara T, Isaka T. Effect of a wide stance on block start performance in sprint running. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0142230.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Kesoglou I, Smirniotou A. Reaction time and spatiotemporal variables as markers of sprint start performance. Am J Sports Sci. 2019;7:121–6.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Jain A, Bansal R, Kumar A, Singh KD. A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2015;5:124–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Shelton J, Kumar GP. Comparison between auditory and visual simple reaction times. Neurosci Med. 2010;01:30–2.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Paradisis GP. Reaction time and performance in the short sprints. New Stud Athl. 2013;28:95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ditroilo M, Kilding A. Has the new false start rule affected the reaction time of elite sprinters? New Stud Athl. 2004;19:13–9.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Mendoza L, Schöllhorn W. Training of the sprint start technique with biomechanical feedback. J Sports Sci. 1993;11:25–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Borysiuk Z, Waśkiewicz Z, Piechota K, Pakosz P, Konieczny M, Błaszczyszyn M, et al. Coordination aspects of an effective sprint start. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1138.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Gavkare AM, Nanaware NL, Surdi AD. Auditory reaction time, visual reaction time and whole body reaction time in athletes. Ind Med Gaz. 2013;6:214–9.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kaur P, Paul M, Sandhu J. Auditory and visual reaction time in athletes, healthy controls, and patients of type 1 diabetes mellitus: a comparative study. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries. 2006;26:112–5.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kuan YM, Zuhairi NA, Manan FA, Knight VF, Omar R. Visual reaction time and visual anticipation time between athletes and non-athletes. Malays J Public Health Med. 2018;1:135–41.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Akarsu S, Çalişkam E, Dane Ş. Athletes have faster eye-hand visual reaction times and higher scores on visuospatial intelligence than nonathletes. Turk J Med Sci. 2009;39:871–4.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nuri L, Shadmehr A, Ghotbi N, Attarbashi MB. Reaction time and anticipatory skill of athletes in open and closed skill-dominated sport. Eur J Sport Sci. 2013;13:431–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Papic C, Sinclair P, Fornusek C, Sanders R. The effect of auditory stimulus training on swimming start reaction time. Sports Biomech. 2019;18:378–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Don M, Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Masuda A. Gender differences in cochlear response time: an explanation for gender amplitude differences in the unmasked auditory brain-stem response. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;94:2135–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Uth N. Anthropometric comparison of world-class sprinters and normal populations. J Sports Sci Med. 2005;4:608–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Mirshams Shahshahani P, Lipps DB, Galecki AT, Ashton-Miller JA. On the apparent decrease in Olympic sprinter reaction times. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0198633.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Babiç V, Delalija A. Reaction time trends in the sprint and hurdle events at the 2004 Olympic games: differences between male and female athletes. New Stud Athl. 2009;24:59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Pavlovi R, Bonacin D, Bonacin D. Differences in time of start reaction in the sprint disciplines in the finals of the Olympic games (Athens, 2004-London, 2012). Acta Kinesiol. 2014;8:53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Martin DE, Buoncristiani JF. Influence of reaction time on athletic performance. New Stud Athl. 1995;10:67–9.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Der G, Deary IJ. Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey. Psychol Aging. 2006;21:62–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Spierer DK, Petersen RA, Duffy K, Corcoran BM, Rawls-Martin T. Gender influence on response time to sensory stimuli. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:957–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Silverman IW. Sex differences in simple visual reaction time: a historical meta-analysis. Sex Roles. 2006;54:57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Kemp BJ. Reaction time of young and elderly subjects in relation to perceptual deprivation and signal-on versus signal-off conditions. Dev Psychol. 1973;8:268–72.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Erwin RJ, Buchwald JS. Midlatency auditory evoked responses: differential recovery cycle characteristics. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1986;64:417–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Matthieu Milloz was supported by an Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Scholarship (GOIPG/2018/3408).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Matthieu Milloz & Andrew J. Harrison

  2. School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Kevin Hayes

Authors
  1. Matthieu Milloz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew J. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Harrison.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Andrew Harrison and Kevin Hayes have the following patent application pending: ‘A hand plate sensor for sprint start reaction time detection; WOPCT/EP2018/070449’. Matthieu Milloz declares he has no potential conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.

Funding

Matthieu Milloz was supported by an Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Scholarship. No other sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milloz, M., Hayes, K. & Harrison, A.J. Sprint Start Regulation in Athletics: A Critical Review. Sports Med 51, 21–31 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01350-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01350-4

Search

Navigation