Some weeks ago, in preparation for our meeting, I asked Walt Reid (who processes records for USMS and FINA and also compiles the FINA top ten) for clarification on the FINA requirements for measurements. As an FYI, I've reprinted the relevant portion of his email below.
Let’s start with the bulkhead question: In 2005 FINA added a rule that bulkhead pools must be measured for World Records. Since Masters use the same rule book that meant Masters must measure bulkhead pools for World Records. However at the next FINA Masters Committee meeting I discussed this requirement and it was my suggestion that Masters not be required to follow this bulkhead measurement as a requirement for Masters World Records – it was passed and is now considered a Policy. No bulkhead measurement is required for a Master World Record. Notice nothing is said about a “top10” – just about records.
Now what about the pool measurement question: The FINA rule book states FR2.2.1 ….“These measurements should be certified by a surveyor or other qualified official, appointed or approved by the Member in the country in which the pool is situated.” So it does not have to be a surveyor. I have always interrupted that to mean that each member federation is responsible for establishing their own procedures for pool measurement. Not all FINA Members have the same measurement procedures. This is how we (FINA Masters) have operated for the last 20 years. So a pool measurement is required for a FINA Master World Record and the measurement method is up to each member federation. Notice nothing is said about a “top10” – just about records.
Jim Thornton seems to be under the impression that USMS standards are stricter than FINA's for the Olympics. That isn't true. FINA does require measurements of bulkhead pools, just not for masters. Quite honestly, I think that is because in many respects masters swimming is an afterthought for FINA. This is just my own personal opinion and may be very ill-informed; I don't work with/for FINA in any capacity.
Bulkheads are by their very nature impermanent. I think USMS has the right idea to verify their placement. But implementation is not easy. USA-S and some other NGBs (I think Canada is one) require a licensed surveyor for all measurements. That's great, but cost-prohibitive if you want to verify bulkhead placement for every meet. USMS' plan is better in that placement is required at the time of the competition but flawed in that it asks non-professionals to take measurements with exacting standards of accuracy and precision.
My hope is that the laser measurement devices that are coming down in price have adequate accuracy and are "idiot-proof" enough that an non-professional can get reasonable measurements with them.
Speaking of which: Fortress asked about the rule proposal
Will it be voted on before Worlds in Italy? Will there be bulkheads there?
The answer to the first question is "no," though the LCM top ten submission deadline is after Convention. However, unless we specifically asked for the rule to apply retroactively (which might not be granted, even if the rule proposal passed), all new rules go into effect on Jan 1 of the following year.
It is hard to tell but I think (from photos) that one of the two pools at Worlds has a bulkhead. I'm going: I've already booked a flight and hotel. I am contemplating bringing a laser measurement device to check the pool length after each session; I've asked Jeff Roddin to bring his to Albatross so I can see it in action and then make a decision. I've already talked to my LMSC chair who seems inclined to pay for it, pending my report from Albatross. They aren't that expensive -- about the same cost as upgrading Meet Manager -- and Jeff reports that it is portable.
Of course, if the outcome of those measurements is that the pool is short, there might be some angry people after me... :)
Some weeks ago, in preparation for our meeting, I asked Walt Reid (who processes records for USMS and FINA and also compiles the FINA top ten) for clarification on the FINA requirements for measurements. As an FYI, I've reprinted the relevant portion of his email below.
Let’s start with the bulkhead question: In 2005 FINA added a rule that bulkhead pools must be measured for World Records. Since Masters use the same rule book that meant Masters must measure bulkhead pools for World Records. However at the next FINA Masters Committee meeting I discussed this requirement and it was my suggestion that Masters not be required to follow this bulkhead measurement as a requirement for Masters World Records – it was passed and is now considered a Policy. No bulkhead measurement is required for a Master World Record. Notice nothing is said about a “top10” – just about records.
Now what about the pool measurement question: The FINA rule book states FR2.2.1 ….“These measurements should be certified by a surveyor or other qualified official, appointed or approved by the Member in the country in which the pool is situated.” So it does not have to be a surveyor. I have always interrupted that to mean that each member federation is responsible for establishing their own procedures for pool measurement. Not all FINA Members have the same measurement procedures. This is how we (FINA Masters) have operated for the last 20 years. So a pool measurement is required for a FINA Master World Record and the measurement method is up to each member federation. Notice nothing is said about a “top10” – just about records.
Jim Thornton seems to be under the impression that USMS standards are stricter than FINA's for the Olympics. That isn't true. FINA does require measurements of bulkhead pools, just not for masters. Quite honestly, I think that is because in many respects masters swimming is an afterthought for FINA. This is just my own personal opinion and may be very ill-informed; I don't work with/for FINA in any capacity.
Bulkheads are by their very nature impermanent. I think USMS has the right idea to verify their placement. But implementation is not easy. USA-S and some other NGBs (I think Canada is one) require a licensed surveyor for all measurements. That's great, but cost-prohibitive if you want to verify bulkhead placement for every meet. USMS' plan is better in that placement is required at the time of the competition but flawed in that it asks non-professionals to take measurements with exacting standards of accuracy and precision.
My hope is that the laser measurement devices that are coming down in price have adequate accuracy and are "idiot-proof" enough that an non-professional can get reasonable measurements with them.
Speaking of which: Fortress asked about the rule proposal
Will it be voted on before Worlds in Italy? Will there be bulkheads there?
The answer to the first question is "no," though the LCM top ten submission deadline is after Convention. However, unless we specifically asked for the rule to apply retroactively (which might not be granted, even if the rule proposal passed), all new rules go into effect on Jan 1 of the following year.
It is hard to tell but I think (from photos) that one of the two pools at Worlds has a bulkhead. I'm going: I've already booked a flight and hotel. I am contemplating bringing a laser measurement device to check the pool length after each session; I've asked Jeff Roddin to bring his to Albatross so I can see it in action and then make a decision. I've already talked to my LMSC chair who seems inclined to pay for it, pending my report from Albatross. They aren't that expensive -- about the same cost as upgrading Meet Manager -- and Jeff reports that it is portable.
Of course, if the outcome of those measurements is that the pool is short, there might be some angry people after me... :)
