Actually a fully electronic 10.34 would be considered faster than a hand timed 10.2

Author: Rocket91 (2546 Posts - Original UHND Member)
Posted at 4:36 pm on May 8, 2012

As would a 10.36 by ga3 and a 10.39 by josh. As you noted in a previous post, no one knows if that's a 10.20 or a 10.29. Either way, you need to add .24 to any hand time to a race up to 200 meters to account for human error. If they were seeding the 4 athletes with their given times, the hand time would be seeded last, since it is the least reliable.

Replies to: "Actually a fully electronic 10.34 would be considered faster than a hand timed 10.2"

UHND Forum Quick Links