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?
If the pool is then yes (with the caveat that you can't measure to that accuracy, so if the pool is infinitesimally too short it will still measure OK), but most meets use automatic timing that involves touch pads. Take the pad out and you gain 1/4 inch right there. Of course then you need three timers per lane, but it makes the pool valid.
9. Just to annoy Geek, I have to note that the Dixie Zone has in the past been suspect when it comes to measuring and timely reporting of both meet results and split requests.
I haven't been to a dixie zone meet in years and years that wasn't up within 2 days, most much sooner. And, that includes some rather tiny ow swims.
As to split requests, those are not recognized as valid in the first place. They are the blue comic sans of meets. YAY! HOORAY!
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
The T-Hills people (of the 2001 NW Zone problem) did just that.If you are going to hold a meet for events to count you must.
If the pool is then yes (with the caveat that you can't measure to that accuracy, so if the pool is infinitesimally too short it will still measure OK), but most meets use automatic timing that involves touch pads. Take the pad out and you gain 1/4 inch right there. Of course then you need three timers per lane, but it makes the pool valid.
So three hand timers, with human reflexes and nerve transmission speeds from the visual and auditory parts of the brain, are considered (when averaged) more reliable for accuracy that a pool that uses electronic timing but is 1/4" longer?
I'd take the hand timers any time! Back in the day, our coaches used to tell us how to splash at the finish to get a better time.
This is what I mean about rules being overly picayune.
Chris, I do agree with you that there has to be some lines that shouldn't be crossed.
And Alan, assuming your calculations are correct, a hundredth of a second (in what, a 50, 100, or longer?) probably is getting close to that point. I suppose I wouldn't argue that pools within a centimeter shouldn't count, though I would be more comfortable making it an inch (most were built with some extra length for this purpose, but at least around here, most were also built before electronic timing, plus there are underground settling effects that can take place.)
I guess my biggest point would be to err on the side of making it easier, not harder, for people to compete and get a pittance of credit for their accomplishments, if they earn it.
I don't see the need for USMS to be stricter than FINA in any circumstances. This, to me, is absurd. If it's good enough for the Olympics, it should be good enough for USMS.
I also do think it would be good for USMS to publish an easy to read checklist of what is required for a competition swim to "count"--not the fancy stuff (split requests or time trials or other esoterica.) Just what a swimmer needs to know if he or she pays money to go to swim a meet in the hopes of making a TT time--but doesn't want to read the entire USMS rule book and parse each codicil.
Do you think Phelps is fluent in the FINA rule book? I mean, I am sure he knows what can get him disqualified in a race. But I would be surprised if he knows all the ins and outs about pool measurement, bulkhead placement, time submissions, etc. Why should we addled old geriatrics be expected to know more about our organization's rules than the world's best swimmers know about theirs?
Why should we addled old geriatrics be expected to know more about our organization's rules than the world's best swimmers know about theirs?
Some of us dig that stuff.
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.
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.
I may have been misunderstood here!
I take my times extremely seriously! As an identical twin, my whole life has been dedicated to trying to prove that I am slightly more than a half a person, and accumulating TT times is one (perhaps pitiable) attempt to do this!
But I also think the USMS rules can often be a) unnecessarily rigorous, and b) favor regions of the country where it's easy to attend meets without having to travel and spend a lot of money.
To my knowledge, none of my own TT-worthy swims have been thrown out because of pool measurement problems. They have been thrown out because our LSMC didn't opt to recognize the same championship meet that it had recognized the year before; and because I made the mistake, at a LCM meet in Cleveland, of swimming two freestyle events in the Open category, this after being assured by the meet director it would count for TT consideration.
Anyhow, I suppose this smacks of "can dish it, can't take it" thinking, but I do believe it's possible to take masters competition seriously while simultaneously thinking the rules are overly onerous.
Allen's one-hundredth of a second difference calculation in a pool 1 cm too short is hard to refute. But I would argue that there are plenty of pools in my region that may measure correctly but are so shallow that you hit the bottom during SDK pushoffs, and where the lanes are so narrow it's hard to swim fly without knuckle grazing, where the lanes lines are loose and bolted to the wall so far underwater that they don't even stop turbulence from the flags on it, and a host of other less than perfect conditions that make this perfectly "legal" venue far from comparable to the deep water natadorium pleasure domes that other regions of the country enjoy.
Jimmy Carter put it best. Life's not fair. I still think rules more stringent than FINA's say more about the personality type of committee men than it does about fairness in the sport.
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?
