Charles Darwin University

CDU eSpace
Institutional Repository

CDU Staff and Student only

Detection of Illegal Race Walking: A Tool to Assist Coaching and Judging

Lee, James B., Mellifont, Rebecca B., Burkett, Brendan J. and James, Daniel A. (2013). Detection of Illegal Race Walking: A Tool to Assist Coaching and Judging. Sensors,13(12):16065-16074.

Document type: Journal Article
Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your CDU eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
Download this reading Lee_40501.pdf Published version application/pdf 210.85KB 68
Reading the attached file works best in Firefox, Chrome and IE 9 or later.

IRMA ID 82794376xPUB181
Title Detection of Illegal Race Walking: A Tool to Assist Coaching and Judging
Author Lee, James B.
Mellifont, Rebecca B.
Burkett, Brendan J.
James, Daniel A.
Journal Name Sensors
Publication Date 2013
Volume Number 13
Issue Number 12
ISSN 1424-8220   (check CDU catalogue open catalogue search in new window)
Scopus ID 2-s2.0-84888378537
Start Page 16065
End Page 16074
Total Pages 10
Place of Publication Switzerland
Publisher MDPIAG
HERDC Category C1 - Journal Article (DIISR)
Abstract Current judging of race walking in international competitions relies on subjective human observation to detect illegal gait, which naturally has inherent problems. Incorrect judging decisions may devastate an athlete and possibly discredit the international governing body. The aim of this study was to determine whether an inertial sensor could improve accuracy, monitor every step the athlete makes in training and/or competition. Seven nationally competitive race walkers performed a series of legal, illegal and self-selected pace races. During testing, athletes wore a single inertial sensor (100 Hz) placed at S1 of the vertebra and were simultaneously filmed using a high-speed camera (125 Hz). Of the 80 steps analyzed the high-speed camera identified 57 as illegal, the inertial sensor misidentified four of these measures (all four missed illegal steps had 0.008 s of loss of ground contact) which is considerably less than the best possible human observation of 0.06 s. Inertial sensor comparison to the camera found the typical error of estimate was 0.02 s (95% confidence limits 0.01–0.02), with a bias of 0.02 (±0.01). An inertial sensor can thus objectively improve the accuracy in detecting illegal steps (loss of ground contact) and, along with the ability to monitor every step of the athlete, could be a valuable tool to assist judges during race walk events.
Keywords Athletics
Inertial sensor
DOI   (check subscription with CDU E-Gateway service for CDU Staff and Students  check subscription with CDU E-Gateway in new window)
Open access True
Additional Notes This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Description for Link Link to CC Attribution 3.0 License

© copyright

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in CDU eSpace. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact

Version Filter Type
Access Statistics: 75 Abstract Views, 68 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 07 Aug 2014, 17:10:04 CST