Odd indeed, but apparently that's exactly what's happened.
This swim, from the Canadian Championships, set a WR (it's already listed in the WR progression on the FINA site), but apparently is not being accepted as a USMS record, or for the TT:
Women 65-69 50 Meter Butterfly Finals
=======================================
Pl Name Age Club Seed Time Final Time
=======================================
1 Uustal, Diann B 65 MESC 34.58 35.06
Instead, Diann's slightly slower 35.17 is listed in the preliminary TT, and will hopefully soon become the new NR. My admittedly second- and third-hand information suggests that pool measurement is indeed the issue.
It's a strange problem to have. As a relative newcomer to masters swimming, it's curious to me why the standards of the national governing body would be more restrictive than those of the international governing body. You'd think it'd be the other way around. What is the value added by the additional restrictions? What problems are we trying to solve? I don't know the history of the issue, so it's a mystery to me.
In 2002 and 2003 there were several instances of pools being measured and finding they were 1-2 cm short.This caused such wailing and gnashing of teeth that USMS got very careful about pool length.(It also led to new rules on this forum as some people were getting so irate they were no longer civil.)
Odd indeed, but apparently that's exactly what's happened.
This swim, from the Canadian Championships, set a WR (it's already listed in the WR progression on the FINA site), but apparently is not being accepted as a USMS record, or for the TT:
Women 65-69 50 Meter Butterfly Finals
=======================================
Pl Name Age Club Seed Time Final Time
=======================================
1 Uustal, Diann B 65 MESC 34.58 35.06
Instead, Diann's slightly slower 35.17 is listed in the preliminary TT, and will hopefully soon become the new NR. My admittedly second- and third-hand information suggests that pool measurement is indeed the issue.
It's a strange problem to have. As a relative newcomer to masters swimming, it's curious to me why the standards of the national governing body would be more restrictive than those of the international governing body. You'd think it'd be the other way around. What is the value added by the additional restrictions? What problems are we trying to solve? I don't know the history of the issue, so it's a mystery to me.
In 2002 and 2003 there were several instances of pools being measured and finding they were 1-2 cm short.This caused such wailing and gnashing of teeth that USMS got very careful about pool length.(It also led to new rules on this forum as some people were getting so irate they were no longer civil.)
