I swim outside USA (live in Portugal and swim at several events in Europe), have asked the rules when joined USMS. When we join a group either we accept the rules, try to change it with reason or totally accept it.
I choose to accept, have always had a good feedback from USMS when need info about a pool; it is a question of choosing the right pool or the right organization.
My times were accepted , well updated and while asking for pool certification you learn how each country deals with different requests.
So, my advice just ask USMS if a event is sanctioned and what it is necessary to make it official…
Jack, Chris' reply to me was about the South Central Regional Championships in San Antonio, not Canadian Nationals.
SO THE CANADIAN NATIONALS COURSE WAS CORRECT IN LENGTH.
In that case the board/committee should have approved the results for Top 10. The test should be, "Are the results valid?" The measurement requirement should not be burdensome, it should insure accuracy. A laser measuring device is not infallible, the laser must be calibrated and used properly.
The technical deficiency does not change the fact that the times are accurate and the length of the course was measured in a reliable manner approved by FINA.
The Canadian results should be counted. :canada: Unfortunately, I think you are out of luck Karlene! But thanks for the info!
SO THE CANADIAN NATIONALS COURSE WAS CORRECT IN LENGTH.
In that case the board/committee should have approved the results for Top 10. The test should be, "Are the results valid?" The measurement requirement should not be burdensome, it should insure accuracy. A laser measuring device is not infallible, the laser must be calibrated and used properly.
The technical deficiency does not change the fact that the times are accurate and the length of the course was measured in a reliable manner approved by FINA.
The Canadian results should be counted. :canada: Unfortunately, I think you are out of luck Karlene! But thanks for the info!
Isn't the correct answer that we don't know if the pool was precisely correct in length since they didn't measure it?
I was told they measure the pool once a year.
Jim, you could just swim fewer meets and skip those dreaded Y pools. You can always come to the PV meets and stay with me.
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.
I know exactly what you're talking about. We have a pool in our LMSC at Sandpoint, Idaho that fits this description to a T. The gutter system is non-existent too (kindof)...it has those "flapper" inlets that take water in periodically around the pool, and thus all waves created come right back to you off the walls. It even has some sort of plastic molded starting blocks that I'm not sure would hold a person over 250 pounds either. The only good thing about the pool is that it's a fixed distance SCM pool, and measured correctly for TT purposes. A good backup pool, but not fun for the 200 Fly event...feels more like doing an OW 200 Fly. :afraid:
Still no answer concerning the reason for not counting Top 10 times swum at Canadian Natioinals. Can anyone enlighten me?
Isn't the correct answer that we don't know if the pool was precisely correct in length since they didn't measure it?
I was told they measure the pool once a year.
Jim, you could just swim fewer meets and skip those dreaded Y pools. You can always come to the PV meets and stay with me.
If the pool is the same length on January 1, 2012 as it was on January 1, 2011, it can be assumed absent facts to the contrary that the pool was the same length from May 25-29, 2011, the approximate dates of Canadian Nationals. There is no indication that the pool changed in length. That assumes the bulkhead was properly set. That can be checked visually. I hit that bulkhead over 100 times that week it was in the same place every time. The pool can be assumed to maintain the same length at all times between the two mesurements.
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... :)
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 agree it doesn't make much sense, but that's the current rule. I timed at a meet last weekend and checked my hand times versus the readout board. I was almost always a hair over. I'd say my time was usually .05-.10 seconds over the electronic time. A couple times I was right on, but usually I was over.
One thing that could be done is allow pools that are shorter than the nominal length, but require a correction to the times done in these pools. Just as a suggestion, allow 25 yard pools to be as much as one inch short, BUT if they are short add an amount equal to how long it would take to swim the additional distance at the average speed the swimmer swum the race.
Here's an example. Let's say a swimmer swam a 100 yard race in exactly 1:00.00. The pool was measured to be one inch short. For a 25 yard pool that would be four inches total for the four length race. The swimmer's average speed was 4.994 feet/sec (299 and 2/3 feet in 60 seconds) so it would take an extra .067 seconds to make up the additional 4 inches. Add the correction and the official time becomes 1:00.07.
I agree it doesn't make much sense, but that's the current rule. I timed at a meet last weekend and checked my hand times versus the readout board. I was almost always a hair over. I'd say my time was usually .05-.10 seconds over the electronic time. A couple times I was right on, but usually I was over.
One thing that could be done is allow pools that are shorter than the nominal length, but require a correction to the times done in these pools. Just as a suggestion, allow 25 yard pools to be as much as one inch short, BUT if they are short add an amount equal to how long it would take to swim the additional distance at the average speed the swimmer swum the race.
Here's an example. Let's say a swimmer swam a 100 yard race in exactly 1:00.00. The pool was measured to be one inch short. For a 25 yard pool that would be four inches total for the four length race. The swimmer's average speed was 4.994 feet/sec (299 and 2/3 feet in 60 seconds) so it would take an extra .067 seconds to make up the additional 4 inches. Add the correction and the official time becomes 1:00.07.
Except the 1" per 25 will be at slower than average since the start and turn push are at the beginning.This may make a seeminly trivial difference since it is likely less than .01 sec.,but remember this is stopwatch time where 59.9999 is 59.99 and 1:00.0001 is 1:00.00.
I had one of my very best 100 SCM BRs not allowed for TT(or AA or ZR) because the remeasure was 1 cm short.(the bulk head shifted slightly.)I was mad about,heck I'm still mad about it 8 1/2 yr later,but it was the right call.
