I just saw an article about the new FINA swim rules and I'm confused about the one relating to swimming unattached in a SCM or LCM meet. The new rule states that if a swimmer does enter a meet as unattached not only will his or her time not count for FINA top ten or a record, but that everyone in the meet will also have their times be unrecognized. Sounds a bit harsh.
Also, backstrokers can no longer finish underwater. How will that be judged? What if your entire body is submerged on the final lunge except for the toes of one foot completing a final kick?
Clarification from our rule gurus please.
Since you seem more interested in proving your point than understanding the rule, please go right ahead and enter Worlds using Club Unattached.
I believe that FINA has been apprised of our solution to the rule and are satisfied with it.
Well, I suppose that's one way of shutting down a dialogue.... I happen to be 'attached', so the situation does not apply to me. As you stated earlier, "much as we would like to think, USMS is not the center of the world, nor does it dictate rules to FINA". USMS cannot 'apprise' FINA of anything. To the contrary, if I'm reading between your lines correctly, it's really FINA that is allowing USMS to change this rule for a limited FINA purpose. My suggestion and hope is that in the future, when USMS rule language is changed for a narrow purpose, it's crafted it in such a way that mitigates potential confusion... both the broadness of this language and the timing of the change might lead one (logically) to assume it has to do with World entries, not for protecting the elites that might set a world record at a home meet. It would truly be a shame if 'club Unat' swimmers enter Worlds and miss the opportunity to compete on the basis of this overly broad language. You have the power to prevent this. And that is my point.
ok, how about:
in USMS you are only allowed to compete if you are a member of a club. "solution" would bother others much more than me, even if it is a non-sequitur.
My appeal to intellect, i.e. the Socratic method, has failed. My appeal to the forum's humanity has failed. I am left with no choice but to retreat with apologies for suggesting that USMS be clearer about the rules so that those UNAT souls who do not frequent the forums or who do not have relationships with clubs and USMS staff won't be confused by the unstated nuances of the broadly written USMS rules. My intention in pressing the issue was to raise concern and awareness, not the hackles of the forumites.
FYI - Chris, I appreciate the interesting dimension you added to the discussion. Sorry I wasn't as clear as I could have been so thanks for the opportunity to clarify. By "power to prevent" I was referring to the power of USMS to prevent undue confusion among Unat USMS swimmers by creating rules that say what they're intended to say.
Thanks, all.
both the broadness of this language and the timing of the change might lead one (logically) to assume it has to do with World entries
On the document explaining the new rules, the first sentence:
The 2013 USMS House of Delegates adopted the following changes to USMS rules to conform to rule changes adopted by the FINA Congress July 2013.
So not motivated by Worlds specifically. The situation with Worlds is confusing, I agree, though I am not sure that USMS has "the power to prevent it" since FINA sets the rules.
The scope was much broader than Worlds: FINA doesn't like unattached and threatened to stop recognizing ANY swims from ANY swimmer in ANY meet (not just Worlds) that contained UNAT swimmers. When the USMS solution was presented to them, they said it would be okay with them so we adopted it with enough wording to make sure that UNAT couldn't swim in official relays and the like.
If someone wants to be sure FINA will "like" their swims at Worlds, given their antipathy for the concept, my advice to that person is not to enter UNAT regardless of the wording of any USMS rule on the subject. It seems to me that ultimately the main guarantee USMS can offer is that the swim will be valid for USMS purposes.
if you dont like the new rule, please write up a new version and propose it through your lmsc to the rules committee chair (Kathy Casey). or even better, join the rule committee!!!
lucky for you next year is a rules (changes) year and could easily be voted on for approval.
the rules change this year was basically an emergency due to FINAs new rule that if just 1 unattached swimmer was in a meet then ALL swimmers in the meet have their times thrown out.
the new USMS rule (agreed to by FINA) allows USMS swimmers to swim unattached (within USMS) and have all times in a meet count for everyone.
now you understand the single reason i have gotten involved. not only do i not want to get caught by a rule infraction, i dont want anyone else to either!
I agree! I'm new to my LSMC unattached and that rule sux!I guess I don’t understand all the fuss.
From a swimmer’s perspective:
1) If I’m a member of a USMS club and I swim in a USMS sanctioned event
A) my times can be counted for USMS and FINA (for meters) top 10 and records,
B) I can swim on relays for my club,
C) I can score points for my club
2) If I’m unattached and I swim in a USMS sanctioned event
A) my times can be counted for USMS and FINA (for meters) top 10 and records,
B) I don’t get to swim on relays
Isn’t this exactly what happens in USMS sanctioned events today?
the rules change this year was basically an emergency due to FINAs new rule that if just 1 unattached swimmer was in a meet then ALL swimmers in the meet have their times thrown out.
That USMS needed to do this in such a quick fashion gives you some idea how nutty FINA's new rule is.
Is there some plausible rationale for the new (FINA) rule?
Yeah, I doubt anyway is taking issue with USMS's rule change. I think it's pretty ingenious and maybe even a tad diabolical. It's the FINA rule that's bizarre. As far as Worlds entries I think it would be nice if USMS clarified exactly what is required for entries so no USMS registered swimmer's entry is rejected.
That USMS needed to do this in such a quick fashion gives you some idea how nutty FINA's new rule is.
Is there some plausible rationale for the new (FINA) rule?This wasn’t technically an emergency; the USMS proposal was a timely submission to the Legislation Committee, in July. The FINA proposal was published in April and approved at the FINA Congress in July.
USMS needed to adopt (or reject) this change to our rulebook, as well as many others, at our annual meeting; in accordance to USMS rules. The “Unattached “rule happened no quicker or slower than any other proposed change to our rulebook.
I believe a number of posters have given their opinion as to the rationale for the FINA rule, in previous posts. FINA generally just publishes bureau recommendations with their proposed rules changes, so you will need to ask FINA bureau members if you want their rational for recommending the change; the best we can do on this forum is to continue to give you conjecture.
