Karlene, those are good questions; you will have to talk to the Meet Director to get your answers. My knowledge of this situation is limited but I will share what I know.
I was copied on an email from Walt Reid (National Records Administrator) who was processing record applications from that meet; he used the plural so apparently there was more than one. I do not know which swims they were nor which sessions.
The measurements, done with a laser, were short in every lane by 0.25 inches. What's more, the measurements were done with a single touchpad in while the meet was (according to Walt) run with two touchpads, meaning that an additional correction factor of 0.25 inches would need to be applied. In other words, the competition course was actually 0.5 inches short.
Mary Beth Windrath (who processes top ten submissions) was also copied. I can only speculate that she pulled the swims from the meet based on those measurements; I was not privvy to any further communication she had with the meet director or the LMSC top ten recorder.
The rules specify that bulkhead placement should be verified before the meet for exactly this reason: to give the meet host time to adjust the bulkhead placement to get a legal competition course. I don't know if they measured and, if they did, why the competition was still short. I also don't know why the times were submitted initially for TT consideration, even though the pool was short; normally pool measurements only go to the TTR, who keeps them on file. But for record applications, the measurements are part of the application so the times were "caught."
Hopefully this helps you, if you want to try that meet again in the future.
This is the first time that I have heard that the pool was a half inch short. Since a bulkhead was involved, I suppose that means that the pool on the other side of the bulkhead was a half inch too long and those records should count. If that is the case (the pool being too short), why would FINA accept the swims and why would USMS even consider ratification? These are the minutes of the USMS Board meeting which considered and denied ratification of the Canadian Masters results: www.usms.org/.../records-2012-2-26-1.pdf
I don't recall reading in the minutes that the pool was short and I can guarantee that none of my races felt short.
Chris, are you sure that you don't have the Canadian Nationals situation confused with the situation at one of the other meets that was not ratified for Top 10 submisssion?:canada: By the way, if the pool was short, why did three of the seven members vote to accept the times for Top 10?
Karlene, those are good questions; you will have to talk to the Meet Director to get your answers. My knowledge of this situation is limited but I will share what I know.
I was copied on an email from Walt Reid (National Records Administrator) who was processing record applications from that meet; he used the plural so apparently there was more than one. I do not know which swims they were nor which sessions.
The measurements, done with a laser, were short in every lane by 0.25 inches. What's more, the measurements were done with a single touchpad in while the meet was (according to Walt) run with two touchpads, meaning that an additional correction factor of 0.25 inches would need to be applied. In other words, the competition course was actually 0.5 inches short.
Mary Beth Windrath (who processes top ten submissions) was also copied. I can only speculate that she pulled the swims from the meet based on those measurements; I was not privvy to any further communication she had with the meet director or the LMSC top ten recorder.
The rules specify that bulkhead placement should be verified before the meet for exactly this reason: to give the meet host time to adjust the bulkhead placement to get a legal competition course. I don't know if they measured and, if they did, why the competition was still short. I also don't know why the times were submitted initially for TT consideration, even though the pool was short; normally pool measurements only go to the TTR, who keeps them on file. But for record applications, the measurements are part of the application so the times were "caught."
Hopefully this helps you, if you want to try that meet again in the future.
This is the first time that I have heard that the pool was a half inch short. Since a bulkhead was involved, I suppose that means that the pool on the other side of the bulkhead was a half inch too long and those records should count. If that is the case (the pool being too short), why would FINA accept the swims and why would USMS even consider ratification? These are the minutes of the USMS Board meeting which considered and denied ratification of the Canadian Masters results: www.usms.org/.../records-2012-2-26-1.pdf
I don't recall reading in the minutes that the pool was short and I can guarantee that none of my races felt short.
Chris, are you sure that you don't have the Canadian Nationals situation confused with the situation at one of the other meets that was not ratified for Top 10 submisssion?:canada: By the way, if the pool was short, why did three of the seven members vote to accept the times for Top 10?
