The Olympic champion's effort added 16 centimetres to the mark he jointly held with Tomlinson, but the latter sought clarification following video footage and photographs appeared on social media seeming to show Rutherford's foot was over the line.

But the British Athletics Technical Advisory Group has now satisfied itself with information gained from the organisers of the meeting, which was ratified by the US Track and Field Association, and dismissed the video evidence as "inconclusive."

"This being a UK Record application, under current arrangements, it is a matter to be considered by the Technical Advisory Group. Having considered all the available evidence the Technical Advisory Group recommends that the record be ratified," British Athletics said in a statement.

"In reaching this decision, the Group which included 4 x IAAF level officials, considered:

·         The field scorecard for the event, signed by a licensed USA Track and Field official

·         The wind speed card for the event

·         The performance satisfied USA Track and Field Rules

·         The programme/entry list for the event

"Contact was also made with the Meeting Director, who responded satisfactorily to a number of questions.

"In considering a UK Record application, we would not normally consider video evidence.   In usual circumstances, we require a record application form and the appropriate support documentation.

"However, given the controversy generated via social media surrounding this performance, the Group looked very carefully at the available video and photographic evidence and considered two points:-

1.    It was not an official video.

2.    It was not taken directly in line with the take-off board.

"Note the video was assessed by the Technical Advisory Group. The key phrase to note is 'If such evidence, including any available video evidence, is inconclusive the decision of the Referee .... shall be upheld.' (Rule 146.8) In our considered opinion, the video evidence is inconclusive."

Chris Tomlinson, former national long jump record holder, questioned the legality of Greg Rutherford's national record following video evidence and photos circulated on social media ©Getty Images

The governing body for the sport in the US always insisted marks at the Chula Vista meeting in San Diego were "verified and legal".

Following the competition, grainy images from a video on YouTube, and freeze-frame footage, appeared to show the 27-year-old's toe was over the board.

But the freeze-frame picture only showed the bottom part of a leg on the board, and there was no certainty that it is a picture of the record jump.

"I don't want to sit and make it look like it's an attack on Greg," said Tomlinson.

"But let's look at the evidence.

"There's video evidence that's circulating around that clearly states that it's not a marginal foul it's a large foul jump.

"We are British Athletics and we have to almost set an example.

"We've got to be above all this.

"And if we are going to set national records these records have to be proper, national records set legitimately that people are happy with and that people can accept."

Rutherford himself said: "All the i's were dotted and t's crossed.

"Ultimately, I wouldn't do it if it was not an official competition because the risk of jumping well and it not being official would absolutely gut me."

A UK Athletics spokeswoman told Athletics Weekly: "With any new British record, British Athletics receives paperwork from the event the athlete competed in and this goes before the British Athletics Technical Advisory Group, who then ratify the record based on a number of sanctions being completed."

The Technical Advisory Group comprises around 10 people, including international technical delegates who have major international championship experience.

Contact the writer of this story at [email protected]


Related stories
May 2014: UK Athletics to rule on legality of Rutherford's controversial British long jump record
April 2014: USATF insist Rutherford's British long jump record valid despite complaint from rival