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:
Actually, I think I copied and pasted the response from the meet manager verbatim and put it in quotes in the previous thread. No summarizing.
And my interpretation of the email was dead on. Despite the rhetoric about FINA "compliance," they explicitly told me they wouldn't measure the pool each day, and I knew the times wouldn't count for USMS. Turns out, they didn't. I did my due diligence.
No sensibilities offended at all! I was just puzzled by some of your comments. I completely agree with the R&T Committee proposal and hope international meets count for everyone going forward. Definitely in favor of having more swimmers' times count.
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.
This is a good idea going foward! However, I still want to hear the Canadians side of the story!
We should not get into the busness of measuring foreign pools.
Why does it make a difference if the pool is foreign? Are they any harder to measure for some reason? Everything you say would be equally true of all the measurements done in USMS pools.
While it is true that measurements by surveyors are better than measurements by amateurs, the latter are probably better than no bulkhead measurements at all (which is the default mode for USA-S and FINA meets).
Why does it make a difference if the pool is foreign? Are they any harder to measure for some reason? Everything you say would be equally true of all the measurements done in USMS pools.
While it is true that measurements by surveyors are better than measurements by amateurs, the latter are probably better than no bulkhead measurements at all (which is the default mode for USA-S and FINA meets).
The difference is that those swimming jurisdictions do not have the same rules USMS has and as a general rule, a time swum and accepted in a foreign jurisdiction should be accepted everywhere. So, from that standpoint we should not have to measure the pool, since the time is presumptively valid having been swum under the rules applicable in the jurisdiction where it was swum. We can not require other countries to conform to our rules. Those jurisdictions have developed rules that work best for them. The second problem is that from a standpoint of etiquette it is something I would not want to do and would be careful even in inquiring about it. The third problem goes to all private measurements done by swimmers who benefit from a measurement that shows the pool is correct in length. They have an interest in presenting a measurement validating their time, regardless of the true measurement. A neutral person is always in the best position to be fair and to be credible.
I have a problems with criteria to insure accuracy. If swimmers measure the course how are we going to know if they did it correctly? How will we know if their measuring device was accurate. What do we do if we have 2 swimmers submitting pool measurements one claiming the pool was short and the other submitting a potential WR with a measurement claiming the pool was the right length?
A bad measurement is much worse than no measurement at all. A bad measurement could invalidate times that were swum on a proper course, or validate times on a short course. The discrepancy might not be discovered until after the reults were erroneously accepted or erroneously expunged.
FINA and USAS are not in the business of measuring pools and we should not be in that business either.
BTW, Carolina is up by 8 over Creighton at the half!
I think the "new" policy is a mistake. How will you resolve inconsistent measurements by USMS swimmers? .
What "new" policy. This policy has been in place since 2003, I believe. This is not new. The act of a USMS swimmer going to a non-USMS sanctioned event and having to get an official to measure the pool is not new either. The swimmer doesn't measure the pool, an official (the meet director in my case) does.
The meet you went to happened, it wasn't up to standards for USMS, people were told ahead of time, now get over it.
I forgot to mention that I am not sure how easy it is to use the new laser measuring devices. I know there have been some gliches with the technology for some radio wave tech devices (lasers work w/ light waves which is the visible radio wave spectrum). Basically, the device shoots out a beam of light which is reflected back to the device and the time it takes to get back (the speed of light is a known constant) is calculated to determine the distance. I don't know how easy it is to operate them and I don't know if other light sources can interfere with the reading. I don't know how often and how easy it is to calibrate them.
So for all these reasons, I don't think USMS should get into the pool measurement business.
BTW, UNC is up 15 early in the second half.
I forgot to mention that I am not sure how easy it is to use the new laser measuring devices.
Easy to use, ambient light does not interfere. Measurement is specified at 1 mm, bias at less than 1.5 mm on this model (if you can believe specs). This is better than the USMS requirement of 5 mm resolution.
www.amazon.com/.../B003Q6FGR2
Jeff demo'd this device for me yesterday, pretty slick.
The thing is, the trend is for devices to be getting easier to use and cheaper to purchase; quite a few LMSCs are purchasing one. So the USMS model of expecting more measurements to confirm bulkhead placement is perhaps getting more and more desirable over not measuring at all.
However, accuracy/resolution of the laser DEVICE is not the determining factor in the overall measurement accuracy and precision, at least for non-professionals. (At least, that's my opinion as someone who teaches measurement protocols and theory to struggling undergraduates).
Also IMO, assuming the measurement device is calibrated properly, pool length measurements are going to tend to be biased long whether one uses tape or a laser. Which tends to give the benefit of doubt to the swimmer.
Easy to use, ambient light does not interfere. Measurement is specified at 1 mm, bias at less than 1.5 mm on this model (if you can believe specs). This is better than the USMS requirement of 5 mm resolution.
www.amazon.com/.../B003Q6FGR2
Jeff demo'd this device for me yesterday, pretty slick.
The thing is, the trend is for devices to be getting easier to use and cheaper to purchase; quite a few LMSCs are purchasing one. So the USMS model of expecting more measurements to confirm bulkhead placement is perhaps getting more and more desirable over not measuring at all.
However, accuracy/resolution of the laser DEVICE is not the determining factor in the overall measurement accuracy and precision, at least for non-professionals. (At least, that's my opinion as someone who teaches measurement protocols and theory to struggling undergraduates).
Also IMO, assuming the measurement device is calibrated properly, pool length measurements are going to tend to be biased long whether one uses tape or a laser. Which tends to give the benefit of doubt to the swimmer.
How do you accurately target it, you have to shoot a precise straight line of the shortest distance? Do cell phones interfere or is that last year's news? Do they need recalibrating frequently? Were you able to use it 2 or 3 times getting exactly the same reading w/i the margin of error which you know was accurate from hand measurement? It sounds too good to be true. The basic technology has been there for years but hasn't reliability been an issue?
BTW, Carolina PG broke his wrist and may be done for the tournament.
Someone please close the thread already...
:dedhorse::dedhorse::dedhorse::doh:The simplest way to stop a thread is to stop posting to it. And if that does not work then just stop reading it.
It’s okay for folks to have irreconcilable differing opinions on a topic.
What "new" policy. This policy has been in place since 2003, I believe. This is not new. The act of a USMS swimmer going to a non-USMS sanctioned event and having to get an official to measure the pool is not new either. The swimmer doesn't measure the pool, an official (the meet director in my case) does.
The meet you went to happened, it wasn't up to standards for USMS, people were told ahead of time, now get over it.
Actually it is new in that major International meets were exempted when the meet complied with the hosts rules. This is how every other organization does it. The Worlds and previous Canadan Championships were exempted. The three board members who voted for the exemption in this case were right.
We can't force the rest of the world to run meets our way and we can't have our members measuring pools in international meets. Your passion for accuracy is admirable though misplaced.
