I’d like to start a general discussion about the “Separate but equal” rule (104.5.5C) that defines whether multiple courses used at a National championships can be considered “equal”.
Background: We typically run our SC Nationals in two courses. One of the ways in which we save a great deal of time is by having heats of the same event run concurrently in both courses if the courses are considered competitively equivalent. (Otherwise, we have a “women’s” course and a “men’s” course.)
It seems to me that in the recent past, we have considered courses “equal” even though there may have been some differences between them. (e.g. different heights for the starting blocks) The rule, as currently written, doesn’t give any specifications on how insignificant these differences need to be. The rule also allows the Championship Committee to ignore these differences if the meet timeline would run long by having separate-sex courses.
Many forum contributors have recently expressed strong feelings for having tight control and uniformity regarding competitive conditions. So, I’d like to hear what you think about this issue, particularly if you have and/or will attend Nationals.
(Note: I’m not trying to make any stand about the particular case with the upcoming Hawaii meet…I’m just wondering if we need to do something to the existing rule in the future – either by enforcing it differently or tightening it.)
Starting with the items specifically listed in rule 104.5.5C…
BULKHEAD TURNS – If one pool has a bulkhead turn, must the other pool(s) have a bulkhead turn to be considered “equal”?
TYPE OF GUTTER / BLOCKS – Do all the starting blocks in all courses have to be the same height, size, and make/model? If not, how similar can they be?
VISIBILITY OF TIMING DISPLAY – Do the scoreboards have to be the same size/make/model and do they need to be in the same relative position? If not, how similar can they be?
DEPTH OF WATER – Does the depth of the courses have to be symmetrical? (equal uniform depth or depth that is uneven but similar) Does the depth have to be similar at each turn?
…and are these other factors (not listed in the present rule) considered significant enough to render courses “unequal”?…
LANE WIDTH – Is a pool with wider lanes “unequal” to the other?
LANE LINES & FLAGS – Do the lane lines have to be the same size/diameter/number? Do the backstroke flags have to be the same size/number/height above water?
TIMING SYSTEM – Do the timing systems have to be the same model from the same manufacturer and be equally calibrated? Do the touchpads have to be the same model/size?
TEMPERATURE – If the pools are in separate basins, can they be of different temperatures? (Note: pools must be between 78-80F)
OUTDOOR ORIENTATION – If the pools are outdoors, must they be oriented in the same direction and start from the same end? (Or can we do backstroke events only when it's night or overcast?)
OPEN WATER ON SIDES – How much different can the distance/width be between the outermost lanes and the sidewalls for the courses to be “unequal”?
…finally…
THE COST OF TIME – What is an acceptable cost for ensuring that the meet is conducted on “equal playing fields”? If the meet would stretch beyond _____PM, would you relax your definition of “equal” pools in order to have an earlier finish?
Dan,
I respect you, but this post is heading in a truly asinine direction. Do we really need to start finding reasons to disqualify pools from use in USMS certified competitions?
Yes, there are differences in pools, and maybe some of them could make a miniscule difference in time. I appreciate that there are some swimmers who have detailed mental visualization techniques, and may change strategies depending upon pool conditions. (Really, I do, with only minimal eye-rolling...) In deference to the folks who want absolutely equal conditions for competition, I can accept the idea of every heat of a given event being swum in the same pool. (So for example in a zoo like SC Nationals, we would use pool A for the womens' 100 free, and running at the same time in pool B would be the mens' 100 free. It may be the men and women switch pools after each day, or even after each event, and there are real differences in the pool. So what? Every one of your competitors had to deal with those same conditions.) This is similar to the NCAA Basketball tournament, where some teams play on Thur & Sat, and some on Fri & Sun, but all teams play on the same days as their opponents for that week.
At some point we need to reach the Jerry McGuire principal of "Just shut up and play the game." Or, we risk ending up like figure skating. This sport is supposed to be for fun, and fitness, and camaraderie. If someone is obsessing about 1/100th of a second because "that guy's lane is 2 feet deeper than mine," he has already started to lose perspective.
Just my preemptive rant-du-jour.
Matt
Dan, you raise some interesting issues, but I dont think that there is a good way to quantify separate but equal. The only thing that is consistent is that the slowest heat of the oldest age group is in Course A. If competitors put down the right seedtime, then the best swimmers of any age group are in the same heat (yes, I know there are some sandbaggers and that even a swimmer in a heat from the other course can out place swimmers in the fastest heat of the age group).
If you remember in 1999, not one club bid for the 2001 SCY Championships. Santa Clara was asked to bid for the championships. The Championship committee walks a line in trying to get the venues for the National and the best swimming conditions for the swimmers. If the we had everyone compete on one course - conditions would be equal but the time line for the men’s course would drag out maybe another hour and since relays are run at the end of the day, there would be a lot of swimmers waiting for the men’s events to end.
The championship committee is always interesting in improving the national championships. Not everything has to be in the rulebook, so send your ideas to Barry Fasbender, the Championship Committee Chair. Just remember everything has a price.
michael
Dan; I understand your compassionate position regarding equality. However, remember the old Biblical quote, " the road to no Championships at all is paved with good intentions. " In our haste and desire to create playing fields of absolute fairness we can easily legislate ourselves right out of venues. Bert
I agree with most posts on this thread - there is little need to tighten up the requirements for identical courses. The two pools in Hawaii look to be fine and it should be a good and fair meet. Any differences in time resulting from pool differences will almost certainly be insignificant. The issues I brought up in another thread were to get information, both about the pool and about standard practice for two-pool National meets (Santa Clara has been my only National meet to date.) I think the answers were quite satisfactory.
Matt S. - You really shouldn't roll your eyes, even a little. It is important that the visualization take place in the 'environment' of the race - it helps reduce mistakes and helps to insure top performance. Any sport psychologist will agree with that, and it has nothing to do with 'strategy.' You should try it, especially in the sprint events.
But if the rest of you did not get Dan's polite and mild reference, I will restate it strongly and controversially -
there is a hypocritical double standard which allows differences between pools used in the *same* meet, and *same* event, to exist, while at the same time prohibits equally (or less) significant differences between pools used in different meets, different climates, different . . .
Some of the same arguments to not make tighter requirements for national meets were also used to allow the results of the NW meet. Emmett was particularly strong on the loss of competition pools issue.
I'm surprised that no one has asked how similar the length of the two pools are. It won't be me, I have already said that I don't think it is particularly important. (but they could differ by how much and still be 'identical?' :rolleyes: )
Ladies & Gentlemen, y'all have succeeded in Two-Blocking* my brain.
"I understand your compassionate position regarding equality." WHAT?!? I didn't know that I had (or ever expressed) such an opinion.
Ditto to those thinking that I'm trying to "legislate ourselves right out of venues." Where did that idea come from?!?
What really has me two-blocked is that which was eloquently stated my Mr. Arcuni. I'm hearing the same set of people saying two different things. Philip is RIGHT ON for pointing this out.
Y'all can't have it both ways...Don't tell me your "compassionate position" regarding pool length and then say that you don't care if the starting blocks are 12 inches different in height...so what'll it be?
*"Two-Block" is a Navy slang term. The cable that arrests a plane landing on the aircraft carrier is connected at each end by a large block weight designed to resist the momentum of the plane. If the plane comes in too fast, the two blocks can possibly ram into each other and lock together.
You're right Michael. I said it for retorical effect, yes, I am upset with the result, but I have already said that I respect the motives of everyone on this old issue. So, sorry.:(
For the life of my, however, I can't see what is "so basic to a time and distance event that they can't overlook" in this issue, that overcomes common sense, the rules, and compassion, and pays no attention to logical consequences. This is a case of people who miss the forest for the leaf litter on the ground. We all have to run on it, but watch out for the trees.
But it is a dead horse, and I am tired with it. It is clear that I am a minority on this issue. I remain steadfast in my opinion and will explain it again and again to anyone that asks. I'll even bring a rule book to Hawaii with me. Otherwise, I will try to restrain myself, probably only failing when blatent contradictions (so it seems to me) such as this thread's subject surface.
"there is a hypocritical double standard which allows differences between pools used in the *same* meet, and *same* event, to exist, while at the same time prohibits equally (or less) significant differences between pools used in different meets, different climates, different . . . "
Hypocritical? Double standard? Strong words Phil, where are you going with that?
Maybe they are using the same standard. It could be that people want the results to count and will overlook many things, but there are somethings that are so basic to a time and distance event that they are not willing to overlook.
It looks like you are upset with the result hence you use "hypocritical" and "double standard" to tar the people who made the decision.
michael
I assume that a meet run in two courses requires that both courses be "sanctionable".
Frosty seems to want to have us legislate that they either both be equivalent somehow, or run events separately. How about we just require they are run separately.
I am not for defining equivalency of the two courses beyond what already exists for standards for a legal course. We would never agree, and the raising of the bar for nationals venues would be a negative result.
It would seem to get us somewhere useful if we require that all competitors in an event (strictly speaking each sex/age group) compete in the same course. If I were running a Nationals meet where the pools were not generally considered equivalent, I would suggest that, for instance, all men 100 free are in the same course. Making this be a rule seems excessive and/or impossible.
Steve
Frosty, you need a hobby....
After swimming in the Hawaii meet(thank you meet organizers for a great meet), I think there should be some tweaking on the two course concept. I think every age group should have all its competitors on the same course for each event. In other words, for example, the men's 50-54 100 fly would be only odd heats, or only even heats. Still run the meet the same way otherwise, but that way, if there is any course difference, and there was some in Hawaii, the people that are competing against each other directly have as level a playing field as possible. I don't know if it makes any real difference, but it would also be nice to be able to see what your competition is doing before and after your heat in the same event.
Setting aside the stroke judge issue, which is interesting, I still think that the two pools are close enough that as long as the individuals who are competing against eachother in the same age group are swimming in the same pool, that the pools were "equal." I don't think re-ordering the heat order within an event would make any difference to the meet--the 50-54 men would be heats 9,11,13 instead of 10,11,12. Having one pool for men and one for women would change the speed and/or length of the meet, and would create different issues of fairness.
I'm also afraid that limiting the numbers of pools that qualify for nationals would be counterproductive to encouraging regions and teams to bid for the meet. Not every facility has an all deep 50 meter pool like Santa Clara.
