This I'll agree with, but no one is making that assumption.
Missouri was the second seed in the West and they are gone. St Louis is up Sunday. Rick Majerus is their coach. They were first or second in the A-10. They might be tough.
As I said I feel sorry for the disallowed swims.I am glad that I am not the one deciding how to rule.I do want to give a cautionary tale about bulkheads.I already mentioned my disallowed 100 SCM BR.It was at the ASU pool which had hosted Nats the year before so they were an experienced group. The pool was measured before the meet and was in compliance.The pool was measured after the first day and the bulkhead had slipped slightly so that 3 lanes were now 1 cm short.Here is a question for a real dilemma,SCY Nats is frequently held in a bulkhead pool,what if the bulkhead shifts at Nats?
It does appear that Leslie (not the committee) made an informal inquiry to them and basically was told not to worry.
I am wondering a tiny bit if you are actually reading the posts. In response to being told the pool would not be measured every day, I said: "In light of this, how can times count for USMS?" I was told not to worry about FINA. And I wasn't; I was worried about USMS.
And, again, there was no exemption for Stanford. There were no bulkheads.
Should have come to the Albatross SCM meet yesterday! You can be assured that Jeff Roddin's meets will always comply with all USMS rules. :bow:
Should have come to the Albatross SCM meet yesterday! You can be assured that Jeff Roddin will always make sure his meet complies with all USMS rules.
He has to be prepared when The Fortress is in town! There's always paperwork to fill out after she swims!! :bow:
Poor ponies.
One of the moderators can close the thread if it gets bad for some reason. As originator I could also but even though much of the same ground is being re-hashed, it is still useful for me to hear some of the objections. I can use that information when I write the rationale supporting a rule change.
Most of rodent's objections are directed to the rule itself, and the R&T Committee is in substantial agreement on that score: by a 6-1 vote the committee felt that we should submit a rule change so that, in the future, times from international meets that count for FINA purposes should also count for USMS purposes, even if our measurement standards aren't being met in the meet. We'll see if our rule proposal passes.
Most of rodent's objections are directed to the rule itself, and the R&T Committee is in substantial agreement on that score: by a 6-1 vote the committee felt that we should submit a rule change so that, in the future, times from international meets that count for FINA purposes should also count for USMS purposes, even if our measurement standards aren't being met in the meet. We'll see if our rule proposal passes.
Though I'm not a "frequent flyer" of international meets, I would love to see this proposal go through. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
the R&T Committee is in substantial agreement on that score: by a 6-1 vote the committee felt that we should submit a rule change so that, in the future, times from international meets that count for FINA purposes should also count for USMS purposes, even if our measurement standards aren't being met in the meet. We'll see if our rule proposal passes.
:applaud:
Poor ponies.
For just $0.00 per month you can give this poor pony a home on your desktop!
I am wondering a tiny bit if you are actually reading the posts. In response to being told the pool would not be measured every day, I said: "In light of this, how can times count for USMS?" I was told not to worry about FINA. And I wasn't; I was worried about USMS.
And, again, there was no exemption for Stanford. There were no bulkheads.
Should have come to the Albatross SCM meet yesterday! You can be assured that Jeff Roddin's meets will always comply with all USMS rules. :bow:
I do read the posts. I don't agree with your interpetation of what you wrote in the discussion forums of your conversation with the Canadians. But I am sure you did not write everything they told you and just summarized the conversation.
I have made inquiries with the Canadians who said they will get back to me, but Montreal is running the Canadian Olympic Trials, so they are busy right now.
I hope I did not offend your sensibilities with my comments. If I wrote something that you feel could be reasonably seen to be offensive, please point it out to me and I will refrain from future comments of that nature. The same goes for Jim. If I made either of you upset by unreasonable comments, I apologize. I know how serious both of you are about Masters Swimming.
That aside, you do understand my concerns with the current policy going foward? We should accept credible times swum in international meets where those times are swum in conformance with their standards and are reliable as was done in the past. We should not get into the busness of measuring foreign pools. If 5 different untrained people measure a pool they will come up with 5 different results. Any measuring device is only as accurate as the person using it. It must be calibrated frequently and can become innaccurate if dropped or if subjected to intereference. Those are just facts. You may dispute them but they are not offensive.
Just be patient the Canadians will get back to me and I will let you know what they say. :canada:
