On a slightly different note, does anyone but me think that USMS ultra rigorous stringency in such matters, where meets like Canadian Masters don't count for us but do count for World Records, is a bit analagous to voter ID laws making the rounds in many states today? I.e., an answer in response to a non-existent problem. Even if a pool was a centimeter short, is that really so horrific? Rules that are too minutiae oriented, it seems to me, just send the message that our ranks are filled with fraudsters just waiting for the first chance to take an unfair advantage.
Was anybody else slightly disturbed that the decision not to count the Canadian meet came down to a 4-3 vote? I wonder if the voters names could be printed here so we can see which ones are inclined to spirit of the law reasonableness and which are more wedded to inviolable letter of the law rectitude?
The current measurement procedures were voted in before I started attending Convention so you'll have to ask others about the reasoning behind it. Apparently there was vigorous debate on the matter; Skip gave links to some of the threads on this forum devoted to it.
It doesn't really matter to me. I respect the fact that it was voted in by the House of Delegates, a pretty large body (I think 200+ people? something like that) that are theoretically there to represent the interests of their LMSCs.
So let's be clear about something: the motion that failed in R&T was NOT a motion to accept the Canadian results. At least, not exactly. I agree that it would be disturbing that a small group of people would be able to override the express will of a larger, presumably more representative group. The motion that was debated was whether to apply for a rules exception. If it had passed, then it would have gone to the Rules Committee, along with whatever justification I wrote up. They would vote to recommend or not, and then, I believe, it would have gone to either the USMS Executive Committee or the USMS Board (I don't know which; Rob probably knows). The latter body has final say, though perhaps a higher bar than a simple majority is needed to override the recommendation of the Rules Committee.
I am a huge believer in transparency but I am a little uncomfortable sharing the names of who voted for and against. I will tell you that I did not vote; as chair, I believe I only get to vote to break ties (and I am supposed to present matters such as this issue as impartially as I can). If someone higher up than me tells me to share the names, I will do so; actually I believe that Roberts Rules does call for a listing of votes done by roll call.
More generally, I object to denigrating USMS officials/volunteers as being "ultra rigorous" and "too minutiae oriented." It is true that TTRs and R&T members tend to be pretty detail-oriented; those are qualities generally praised when it comes to doing most aspects of our jobs but vilified when it doesn't work out so well for you.
I'd love to hear from you which USMS rules are okay to be broken and which are not. Is it okay to use one-handed turns in butterfly? Or maybe sneak in a stroke or two of freestyle, if you are really tired? Maybe if you are older than 65 and only do it once in a race? Is it okay to go past the 15m, as long as it is only a little bit past the mark and you promise not to do it again? Who exactly gets to make these decisions? How would it be fair if the decisions aren't made consistently: if I get called for 15m infractions but my competitors in another meet do not, for example?
Either we have rules and enforce them or we don't. I don't believe that's a false choice because being mushy about it is much less fair and desirable, IMO, than being strict. If you don't like the rule then by all means propose an alternative and argue for it (or have your LMSC reps do so).
On a slightly different note, does anyone but me think that USMS ultra rigorous stringency in such matters, where meets like Canadian Masters don't count for us but do count for World Records, is a bit analagous to voter ID laws making the rounds in many states today? I.e., an answer in response to a non-existent problem. Even if a pool was a centimeter short, is that really so horrific? Rules that are too minutiae oriented, it seems to me, just send the message that our ranks are filled with fraudsters just waiting for the first chance to take an unfair advantage.
Was anybody else slightly disturbed that the decision not to count the Canadian meet came down to a 4-3 vote? I wonder if the voters names could be printed here so we can see which ones are inclined to spirit of the law reasonableness and which are more wedded to inviolable letter of the law rectitude?
The current measurement procedures were voted in before I started attending Convention so you'll have to ask others about the reasoning behind it. Apparently there was vigorous debate on the matter; Skip gave links to some of the threads on this forum devoted to it.
It doesn't really matter to me. I respect the fact that it was voted in by the House of Delegates, a pretty large body (I think 200+ people? something like that) that are theoretically there to represent the interests of their LMSCs.
So let's be clear about something: the motion that failed in R&T was NOT a motion to accept the Canadian results. At least, not exactly. I agree that it would be disturbing that a small group of people would be able to override the express will of a larger, presumably more representative group. The motion that was debated was whether to apply for a rules exception. If it had passed, then it would have gone to the Rules Committee, along with whatever justification I wrote up. They would vote to recommend or not, and then, I believe, it would have gone to either the USMS Executive Committee or the USMS Board (I don't know which; Rob probably knows). The latter body has final say, though perhaps a higher bar than a simple majority is needed to override the recommendation of the Rules Committee.
I am a huge believer in transparency but I am a little uncomfortable sharing the names of who voted for and against. I will tell you that I did not vote; as chair, I believe I only get to vote to break ties (and I am supposed to present matters such as this issue as impartially as I can). If someone higher up than me tells me to share the names, I will do so; actually I believe that Roberts Rules does call for a listing of votes done by roll call.
More generally, I object to denigrating USMS officials/volunteers as being "ultra rigorous" and "too minutiae oriented." It is true that TTRs and R&T members tend to be pretty detail-oriented; those are qualities generally praised when it comes to doing most aspects of our jobs but vilified when it doesn't work out so well for you.
I'd love to hear from you which USMS rules are okay to be broken and which are not. Is it okay to use one-handed turns in butterfly? Or maybe sneak in a stroke or two of freestyle, if you are really tired? Maybe if you are older than 65 and only do it once in a race? Is it okay to go past the 15m, as long as it is only a little bit past the mark and you promise not to do it again? Who exactly gets to make these decisions? How would it be fair if the decisions aren't made consistently: if I get called for 15m infractions but my competitors in another meet do not, for example?
Either we have rules and enforce them or we don't. I don't believe that's a false choice because being mushy about it is much less fair and desirable, IMO, than being strict. If you don't like the rule then by all means propose an alternative and argue for it (or have your LMSC reps do so).
