Unless the Time Trial has received a separate sanction (just like USA Swimming).
Yes, that too. And in advance, not retroactively. Though apparently nothing in the rules explicitly precludes retroactive sanction.
It's my understanding that in pools with moveable bulkheads, the course must be measured before and after each day's session. If this is the case, for the meet in question I wonder why any pool length issues from the Saturday session were not caught and corrected prior to the Sunday session? Or are all results for the meet thrown out even if a correction has been made between the Saturday and Sunday sessions?
For swimmers who achieve top ten swims with some regularity, having a swim omitted is more of an annoyance than anything else. Over 20+ years, I've had at least a dozen swims left out of top ten for various reasons. But for the swimmer who has never gotten a top ten time before and may not get another one anytime in the foreseeable future, while not "horrific", it's probably quite upsetting.
Yes, that too. And in advance, not retroactively. Though apparently nothing in the rules explicitly precludes retroactive sanction.
USMS Rule 202.1.1.A
“Applications for sanction shall be made to the LMSC within which the event is to be held,…”
I would suggest that “is to be held” implicitly (if not explicitly) precludes retroactive sanctioning. And I believe that is how prior interpretations have been passed down.
USMS Rule 202.1.1.A
“Applications for sanction shall be made to the LMSC within which the event is to be held,…”
I would suggest that “is to be held” implicitly (if not explicitly) precludes retroactive sanctioning. And I believe that is how prior interpretations have been passed down.
That's not explicit.
It's certainly better reasoning than I heard fairly recently for yanking a retroactive sanction -- "because it was the right thing to do."
It's my understanding that in pools with moveable bulkheads, the course must be measured before and after each day's session. If this is the case, for the meet in question I wonder why any pool length issues from the Saturday session were not caught and corrected prior to the Sunday session? Or are all results for the meet thrown out even if a correction has been made between the Saturday and Sunday sessions?
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.
On a slightly different note, does anyone but me think that USMS ultra rigorous stringency in such matters, where meets like Canadian Masters don't count for us but do count for World Records, is a bit analagous to voter ID laws making the rounds in many states today? I.e., an answer in response to a non-existent problem. Even if a pool was a centimeter short, is that really so horrific? Rules that are too minutiae oriented, it seems to me, just send the message that our ranks are filled with fraudsters just waiting for the first chance to take an unfair advantage.
Was anybody else slightly disturbed that the decision not to count the Canadian meet came down to a 4-3 vote? I wonder if the voters names could be printed here so we can see which ones are inclined to spirit of the law reasonableness and which are more wedded to inviolable letter of the law rectitude?
The current measurement procedures were voted in before I started attending Convention so you'll have to ask others about the reasoning behind it. Apparently there was vigorous debate on the matter; Skip gave links to some of the threads on this forum devoted to it.
It doesn't really matter to me. I respect the fact that it was voted in by the House of Delegates, a pretty large body (I think 200+ people? something like that) that are theoretically there to represent the interests of their LMSCs.
So let's be clear about something: the motion that failed in R&T was NOT a motion to accept the Canadian results. At least, not exactly. I agree that it would be disturbing that a small group of people would be able to override the express will of a larger, presumably more representative group. The motion that was debated was whether to apply for a rules exception. If it had passed, then it would have gone to the Rules Committee, along with whatever justification I wrote up. They would vote to recommend or not, and then, I believe, it would have gone to either the USMS Executive Committee or the USMS Board (I don't know which; Rob probably knows). The latter body has final say, though perhaps a higher bar than a simple majority is needed to override the recommendation of the Rules Committee.
I am a huge believer in transparency but I am a little uncomfortable sharing the names of who voted for and against. I will tell you that I did not vote; as chair, I believe I only get to vote to break ties (and I am supposed to present matters such as this issue as impartially as I can). If someone higher up than me tells me to share the names, I will do so; actually I believe that Roberts Rules does call for a listing of votes done by roll call.
More generally, I object to denigrating USMS officials/volunteers as being "ultra rigorous" and "too minutiae oriented." It is true that TTRs and R&T members tend to be pretty detail-oriented; those are qualities generally praised when it comes to doing most aspects of our jobs but vilified when it doesn't work out so well for you.
I'd love to hear from you which USMS rules are okay to be broken and which are not. Is it okay to use one-handed turns in butterfly? Or maybe sneak in a stroke or two of freestyle, if you are really tired? Maybe if you are older than 65 and only do it once in a race? Is it okay to go past the 15m, as long as it is only a little bit past the mark and you promise not to do it again? Who exactly gets to make these decisions? How would it be fair if the decisions aren't made consistently: if I get called for 15m infractions but my competitors in another meet do not, for example?
Either we have rules and enforce them or we don't. I don't believe that's a false choice because being mushy about it is much less fair and desirable, IMO, than being strict. If you don't like the rule then by all means propose an alternative and argue for it (or have your LMSC reps do so).
Either we have rules and enforce them or we don't.
Absolutely, and at least pool length isn't one that's really open to interpretation. If the pool is measured per the guidelines and it's shorter than the nominal length, then it violates the rule. It's not a judgment call.
I don’t see it as horrific. If the pool is short, you swim your race, get your time, write it in your little log book and move on. Is it really so horrific if you don’t see you name in print on some list?
Like you I was slightly disturbed by the vote. I wonder who the 3 were who voted to intentionally disregard the rules.
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. The mission of USMS is to encourage swimming for fun, health, and to some extent competition, with ancillary blah blah blahs thrown in for good measure. I can understand how adherence to the letter of the law makes sense. 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?
3. Finally, if you can't beat them, join them. I propose that an additional requirement be added to the measurement of bulkhead containing pools in parts of the country (California, Youngstown, Ohio) where seismic events regularly occur, potentially causing subterranean settling that could have profound effects upon the number of angstroms in a pool's length. I don't think it is really fair that these earthquake zones get off with only daily measurements of their pools. I think these measurements should be conducted before and after every heat. Otherwise, who can rule out a little quake that shortens the pool when Swimmer X races, then a second little quake that lengthens the pool back right before Swimmer Y races in the next heat! I am certain this kind of thing happens all the time out there. Moreover, because water in a pool can artificially distend pool length, I furthermore submit that such before-and-after-every-heat measurements should be conducted in drained pools.
A lot of water wasted? Perhaps. Meets extended from days to years or decades? Most likely. But these are small prices to pay to ensure fairness. Not that everyone will find this an inconvenience. Some of our more coddled sprinters, I suspect, will no doubt enjoy the added rest between their swims.
So, how about it? I have asked every meet director within 50 miles of Youngstown, Ohio if he or she will agree to such new regulations in the event they were to hold a USMS meet, and I can tell you that the response was unanimous. Not one said no!
So the ball is in the Southern California court now. Of the other three Guardians of the Holy Writ who voted with you to intentionally stop the disregarding of the rules, let me just say I hope that any Californians (should there be any in this number, I have no idea!) will be consistent in their anality (I mean this in the most positive sense, but if anyone finds the term offensive, feel free to add a "b") and do the right thing lest anarchy overrun the noble sport of old people swimming.
After the 2001 NW Zone meet where the pool was 1 cm short I calculated that at my speed that amounted to about .01 sec/50.Is .01 sec a big deal,ask Covic or Torres.
