More linky... www.usms.org/.../records-2012-1-15-1.pdf
Start near the bottom of page 2 for the relevant bits. No conclusions, but very relevant discussion.
Pool length measurements: some issues/concerns.
Problems that we’re not aware of will become more obvious because there are more electronic submissions. Below are some issues that come up for future consideration:
FINA World Record requirements are less stringent than USMS Top Ten. Is this appropriate? The rules originated due to pools in the US that were noted to be short and had results submitted from them anyway.
Prelim/Finals measuring repeatedly between sessions. Is this necessary? One committee member suggests using physical markings so you can quickly tell that nothing has moved without having to completely re-measure. Some bulkheads have pins in place and other devices that make movement highly unlikely.
Accuracy and precision of the measuring device vs the measurement procedure: Laser devices may be accurate, but the use of them can be flawed.
Generally speaking are the rules too strict? Hard to codify all the possible situations involved. USA-S meets are brought up as to why we can’t use those times without following USMS measurements. If they are good enough for USA-S, why not USMS?
Why are exact measurements necessary? As long as the facility meets the minimum, isn’t that good enough?
Committee members question as to how the current measurement rules were put into place. Voted on by the HOD? That is believed to be the case.
European pools/meet directors get offended when questioned about measurements, leaving USMS swimmers abroad with a difficult situation when it comes to procuring times accepted by our standards.
I sure hope something comes of this. All very valid points. Especially how you can get a FINA World Record with less "technical stuff" than for a simple annual Top Ten, or even just a meet results submission for the times database.
More linky... www.usms.org/.../records-2012-1-15-1.pdf
Start near the bottom of page 2 for the relevant bits. No conclusions, but very relevant discussion.
Pool length measurements: some issues/concerns.
Problems that we’re not aware of will become more obvious because there are more electronic submissions. Below are some issues that come up for future consideration:
FINA World Record requirements are less stringent than USMS Top Ten. Is this appropriate? The rules originated due to pools in the US that were noted to be short and had results submitted from them anyway.
Prelim/Finals measuring repeatedly between sessions. Is this necessary? One committee member suggests using physical markings so you can quickly tell that nothing has moved without having to completely re-measure. Some bulkheads have pins in place and other devices that make movement highly unlikely.
Accuracy and precision of the measuring device vs the measurement procedure: Laser devices may be accurate, but the use of them can be flawed.
Generally speaking are the rules too strict? Hard to codify all the possible situations involved. USA-S meets are brought up as to why we can’t use those times without following USMS measurements. If they are good enough for USA-S, why not USMS?
Why are exact measurements necessary? As long as the facility meets the minimum, isn’t that good enough?
Committee members question as to how the current measurement rules were put into place. Voted on by the HOD? That is believed to be the case.
European pools/meet directors get offended when questioned about measurements, leaving USMS swimmers abroad with a difficult situation when it comes to procuring times accepted by our standards.
I sure hope something comes of this. All very valid points. Especially how you can get a FINA World Record with less "technical stuff" than for a simple annual Top Ten, or even just a meet results submission for the times database.
