1. Let us say, for sake of argument, that a pool is .0001 microns short. The pool would be invalid for official USMS competition, correct? I mean you could still have meets there, but the times wouldn't "count" in any kind of official way except, potentially, for FINA. Now, the pool's owners can remediate the pool, a la Stanford University several years ago, at no small expense, and make the pool USMS-ready. But honestly, who is going to spend many thousands, if not many tens of thousands, if not many hundreds of thousands of dollars shaving a pool wall down by .0001 microns? Nobody in their right mind. Hence, this pool will forever be ineligible for USMS competitions.
2. What I am having trouble understanding is how these particularly picayune letters got laid down in the first place. In some areas of the country, where there are no shortage of state-of-the-art swimming centers, it's no big whup. But there are lots of back eddies (the nation of Canada evidently being one of them) where you are lucky to get a 5 lane 25 yard pool with functional diving blocks. By making the requirements so incredibly detailed, transcending even the requirements of the international governing body of the sport of swimming, is USMS helping or hindering its mission?
1. FINA wouldn't accept the pool either, if we are talking about a wall-to-wall measurement. Neither would USA-S (at least, for things where measurements are required: national records, I believe). Most pools like to make money and if they couldn't rent out to host meets, they might find it economically worthwhile to make sure the pool is the proper length
(Aside from all that...as a measurement scientist/analytical chemist I find your example of a pool that is 1 Angstrom too short -- smaller than most atoms -- to be a little over the top.)
2. A valid point. I asked Walt Reid at one point why USMS requirements were stricter than FINA's; his response was that a majority voted for it to be so. To be sure, there is a sizeable "it's only masters" contingent around for whom the (b)anality of rules interpretation is too much. But there are obviously also a good many people who take it all quite seriously and would be very upset if we took a more lackadaisical approach to rules.
I am always a little struck by the irony of the "it's only masters" person who castigates for being too nitpicky for excluding his/her time from recognition, "not that it really matters much." To be clear, I *do* think it is a big deal when people have times struck from TT because I know that many take it quite seriously and use it for motivation. That's why I devote time to trying to make the process better. But a part of me is just always going to be little amused by the "you take it too seriously" argument coming from people who take it very seriously indeed.
1. Let us say, for sake of argument, that a pool is .0001 microns short. The pool would be invalid for official USMS competition, correct? I mean you could still have meets there, but the times wouldn't "count" in any kind of official way except, potentially, for FINA. Now, the pool's owners can remediate the pool, a la Stanford University several years ago, at no small expense, and make the pool USMS-ready. But honestly, who is going to spend many thousands, if not many tens of thousands, if not many hundreds of thousands of dollars shaving a pool wall down by .0001 microns? Nobody in their right mind. Hence, this pool will forever be ineligible for USMS competitions.
2. What I am having trouble understanding is how these particularly picayune letters got laid down in the first place. In some areas of the country, where there are no shortage of state-of-the-art swimming centers, it's no big whup. But there are lots of back eddies (the nation of Canada evidently being one of them) where you are lucky to get a 5 lane 25 yard pool with functional diving blocks. By making the requirements so incredibly detailed, transcending even the requirements of the international governing body of the sport of swimming, is USMS helping or hindering its mission?
1. FINA wouldn't accept the pool either, if we are talking about a wall-to-wall measurement. Neither would USA-S (at least, for things where measurements are required: national records, I believe). Most pools like to make money and if they couldn't rent out to host meets, they might find it economically worthwhile to make sure the pool is the proper length
(Aside from all that...as a measurement scientist/analytical chemist I find your example of a pool that is 1 Angstrom too short -- smaller than most atoms -- to be a little over the top.)
2. A valid point. I asked Walt Reid at one point why USMS requirements were stricter than FINA's; his response was that a majority voted for it to be so. To be sure, there is a sizeable "it's only masters" contingent around for whom the (b)anality of rules interpretation is too much. But there are obviously also a good many people who take it all quite seriously and would be very upset if we took a more lackadaisical approach to rules.
I am always a little struck by the irony of the "it's only masters" person who castigates for being too nitpicky for excluding his/her time from recognition, "not that it really matters much." To be clear, I *do* think it is a big deal when people have times struck from TT because I know that many take it quite seriously and use it for motivation. That's why I devote time to trying to make the process better. But a part of me is just always going to be little amused by the "you take it too seriously" argument coming from people who take it very seriously indeed.
