Looks like it is to gain 20 minutes of rest before doing the 400 IM.
What do you folks think? Fair play or not?
I say anyone attempting the 1650 and 400 IM back to back deserves some slack.
Parents
Former Member
So the goal of the nationals rule seems to be having a "realistic seed time" (the "recorded time in the past two years" part just serves as a flag to identify potential violators). The goal is proper seeding to manage the meet timeline. So it doesn't seem obvious to me that someone doing a split request who puts in a good-faith estimate of the overall time for the swim even qualifies as "sandbagging" by this definition.
It's a bit of a gray area, ethically. Doing the event as a split request (instead of straight up) arguably lengthens the meet -- however slightly -- for everyone. But split requests are certainly allowed under the rules.
(I remember college dual meets where a coach would put a person in the 1000 and 200 free, which were back-to-back and would put in a ringer in the 1000 and instruct him to go easy to provide the 1000/200 swimmer with extra rest time.)
Anyway, back to the 1650/400 IM: if this hypothetical someone had just sucked it up and did the double straight up, this whole question would not have arisen. :bolt:
Even though I'm the one who started the complaint about this, I'll argue that done as a split request with a seed time that accurately reflects how long it will take to finish the swim does not lengthen the meet. As long as such a hypothetical individual does not finish last in his/her heat, it is better for the meet to enter a slower heat than do a split in a faster heat, slowly complete the rest of the swim and delay the following heat.
However, I'll pose anther question: Aren't doing split requests fundamentally unethical and ego centric; doing your own special event that suits your convenience in the beginning of completely different event for everyone else in the heat?:worms:
So the goal of the nationals rule seems to be having a "realistic seed time" (the "recorded time in the past two years" part just serves as a flag to identify potential violators). The goal is proper seeding to manage the meet timeline. So it doesn't seem obvious to me that someone doing a split request who puts in a good-faith estimate of the overall time for the swim even qualifies as "sandbagging" by this definition.
It's a bit of a gray area, ethically. Doing the event as a split request (instead of straight up) arguably lengthens the meet -- however slightly -- for everyone. But split requests are certainly allowed under the rules.
(I remember college dual meets where a coach would put a person in the 1000 and 200 free, which were back-to-back and would put in a ringer in the 1000 and instruct him to go easy to provide the 1000/200 swimmer with extra rest time.)
Anyway, back to the 1650/400 IM: if this hypothetical someone had just sucked it up and did the double straight up, this whole question would not have arisen. :bolt:
Even though I'm the one who started the complaint about this, I'll argue that done as a split request with a seed time that accurately reflects how long it will take to finish the swim does not lengthen the meet. As long as such a hypothetical individual does not finish last in his/her heat, it is better for the meet to enter a slower heat than do a split in a faster heat, slowly complete the rest of the swim and delay the following heat.
However, I'll pose anther question: Aren't doing split requests fundamentally unethical and ego centric; doing your own special event that suits your convenience in the beginning of completely different event for everyone else in the heat?:worms:
