This thread is in response to Jim Thorton's thread about his AA time being disallowed.I think that if a swimmer swims in a USMS sanctioned meet and that the time gets to the "official" Top Ten list that it should count.Otherwise one could go back and check the length of ,say the Amarillo pool from the first Masters Nationals and if it was 1 cm short disallow the swims.There must be a statute of limitations and I think it should be when the official TT times are posted.
swimmieAvsFan, I think we agree on principal on most issues. Hopefully, there will be some beneficial change in the rules as a result of this dialogue. By a valid time I mean that USMS can reasonably rely on that time as accurate w/i a margin of reasonable error. In other words, the time, 61 seconds, was reasonably accurate and the course, 100LCM, was also reasonably accurate. Although the pool may have been @ 2 inches short (which NBAC denies), that would not have made a significant difference in this case, due to the fact that the time was the fastest of the year by over a second. By "valid" I mean accurate enough to be relied upon. It was in fact the fastest time, which in my opinion is the most important consideration.
Okay, so what if the course really was the 7 inches short that the professional measurement says some lanes were? Would that still be "reasonably accurate" enough to keep declaring that Jim's swim was valid? What if the lane had been 10 inches short? 20 inches short? Where does it end in your world?
Basically, if the pool is short, it's short, and it doesn't matter by how much. Times have been thrown out for the pool being 0.25 inches short, which is much closer to "reasonably accurate" than 7 inches, or even 2 inches. And it doesn't matter that he was a second faster than the next fastest swim- Jim's swim was in a pool that wasn't long enough by the way our rules read. End of story, time doesn't count.
P.S.- I also fixed my screen name up there, since SwimFan is a different user...
swimmieAvsFan, I think we agree on principal on most issues. Hopefully, there will be some beneficial change in the rules as a result of this dialogue. By a valid time I mean that USMS can reasonably rely on that time as accurate w/i a margin of reasonable error. In other words, the time, 61 seconds, was reasonably accurate and the course, 100LCM, was also reasonably accurate. Although the pool may have been @ 2 inches short (which NBAC denies), that would not have made a significant difference in this case, due to the fact that the time was the fastest of the year by over a second. By "valid" I mean accurate enough to be relied upon. It was in fact the fastest time, which in my opinion is the most important consideration.
Okay, so what if the course really was the 7 inches short that the professional measurement says some lanes were? Would that still be "reasonably accurate" enough to keep declaring that Jim's swim was valid? What if the lane had been 10 inches short? 20 inches short? Where does it end in your world?
Basically, if the pool is short, it's short, and it doesn't matter by how much. Times have been thrown out for the pool being 0.25 inches short, which is much closer to "reasonably accurate" than 7 inches, or even 2 inches. And it doesn't matter that he was a second faster than the next fastest swim- Jim's swim was in a pool that wasn't long enough by the way our rules read. End of story, time doesn't count.
P.S.- I also fixed my screen name up there, since SwimFan is a different user...
