And with apologies for getting back to the Top 10 listing…
I extend a very heartfelt thank you to all the local Top 10 volunteers and to our Records and Tabulation Committee for the stellar work they do. And a special thanks to Mary Beth Windrath :angel:for the all the time and effort she puts into our Top Ten. :applaud:
You guys are truly amazing:cheerleader::bow::cheerleader:
Bob, I really don't think that is the issue here. No one is saying that the volunteers don't work hard. Additionally, no one (at least no one in an official capacity) is saying that Montreal was a short pool. The evidence apparently is to the contrary and FINA has accepted the results. The argument is w/ the USMS rule which was I believe was new at the time and has since been repealed, at least in regard to foreign meets. The rule was not applied to the Worlds at Stanford.
Jack, if we are to assume that bulkheads never move there would be no need to ever measure. But bulkheads frequently do move as amply illustrated in the example cited by Skip Thompson. Top flight pool (Auburn Univ.) and top flight competition (NCAA Championships). And the bulkhead moved between measurements prior to the start of competition and after the end of the day's session.
I understand that you're not happy with the decision to omit the results from Top Ten, but USMS has set certain standards that need to be followed. I actually have more concerns with FINA being sloppy with their standards. As an example, at least two world records were set in the South Central Regional Championships in which the pool was deemed to be 1/2" short. 1/2" per length is a really large discrepency and no matter how unfortunate for the swimmer those swims should not be counted as world records.
What makes you think it was moved and not placed back properly?
I don't think that. The rule is the pool must be measured before the competition. It was not thus we have no way of knowing whether the pool met the specs or not.
The rule was not applied to the Worlds at Stanford.
Neither of the pools at Stanford had a bulkhead. One of the pools, in fact, was measured to be too short (if touch pads were installed) and that's why it had to be drained and one side ground down to meet the requirements. So I believe you are wrong. The pools were measured before the competition. Since there were no bulkheads they did not need to be remeasured.
The argument is w/ the USMS rule which was I believe was new at the time and has since been repealed, at least in regard to foreign meets.
The rule has not been repealed. R&T merely made a proposal to change the rule for international meets.
Will it be voted on before Worlds in Italy? Will there be bulkheads there?
In my opinion, if the pool w/ bulkhead is measured every few months and is ok, times swum there are presumptively valid.
I disagree. There are some facilities that switch between long course and short course all the time--perhaps even daily. And who knows how they are placing the bulkhead? Perhaps they just eyeball it to some kind of marking. That's good enough for practice but not good enough for meets.
I don't assume that the bulkheads were NEVER moved. Probably after LC season they were set, measured and remained in one place. I assume they were checked visually before and after the meet. I assume that they were measured pursuant to FINA's standards. Why do you asume they were moved and why do you assume the course was short? FINA believes the pool was not short.
I think in this case the Canadians and FINA are in a better position to make that determination than you, or I, or anyone else who is not privy to the information provided by Montreal to FINA.
The assumption I make is that the pool was 25M since FINA and Canada say so. That assumption is reasonable under the circumstances. To assume w/o proof that the pool was short is not a reasonable assumption.
Bob, I really don't think that is the issue here. No one is saying that the volunteers don't work hard.
…
the USMS rule which was I believe was new at the time and has since been repealed…
John, I understand my comment were not about your issue. They were about the topic of the thread, which is “Preliminary Top 10 Listings Available for SCM 2011”.
And as a point of clarification the USMS Pool Measurement rules are neither new nor repealed. From the USMS 2003 rule book:
105.1.7—Pool Measurement
…
C Where a moveable bulkhead is used, course measurement of the two outside lanes and a middle lane must be confirmed at the conclusion of the session during which the time was achieved
Similar language existed in the 2011 rule book (as well as the 2012 rule book):
105.1.7 Pool Measurement
…
D Where a moveable bulkhead is used and the initial pool length certification for all lanes is on file, course measurement of the two outside lanes and a middle lane must be confirmed at the conclusion of the session during which the time was achieved.
Why do you asume they were moved and why do you assume the course was short?
And one more clarification, I don’t believe there is any assumption that the pool at Canadian Nationals was short. I personally believe (without any evidence either way) that the measurements were spot on. However, the USMS pool measurement rule quoted above deals with when measurements must take place for consideration and not how or the results (those are covered elsewhere).
So, the bottom line is the Canadians were not officially contacted by the Committee and no measurements were requested but it is assumed by the commitee that they don't exist and that they were never done? I would have the contacted Meet Director to make a definitive determination, but that's just me.
I see it this way. Unless there is a problem with the bulkhead you place it properly, measure it, record the measurement and before you move it back, you measure it again. If the bulkhead is the correct distance in both the prior and subsequent measurements, it can logically be assumed that it was the correct length at all times in between the prior and subsequent measurements.
I will try to contact the Canadians. If I find out anything I'll let you know. Thanks for getting back to me.:canada:
