The Losers

I may be missing the point but I'll ask anyway. How short would a pool have to be before everyone would agree that it was too short?

Believe it or not, I thought I was done. Any pool shorter than regulation (at the resolution and accuracy of the (specified) measuring device) is too short. How many times do I have to say it? Such a pool should not be approved for competition. There are, and will soon be better ones, procedures laid out to insure that all pools used for top-ten type competition are the proper length. The question is what to do with the results of a meet after it has been approved to host a competitive meet and after the competition is finished. I say that if the existing at the time procedures were followed the results should stand. Some of you have already followed the logic: If the pool were really 24 meters long, the results should still stand. That *would* be too bad, and really unfair to people who swam in other meets. But as others have said on the other side, bad things happen, get on with it. The error was in the procedures that allowed the pool to get approved, but it *was* approved.

..........

"I argue, and continue to argue, that all rules and regulations were followed." if they were followed, the course would have been at least 25.00 meters long. If you look at 103.13 "An official time shall be achieved in a USMS sanctioned competition or recognized even in accordance with all applicable rules." It is unfortunate but not all the rules were complied with, the pool length was short. "The question is what to do with the results of a meet after it has been approved to host a competitive meet and after the competition is finished." When a sanction is granted and this especially applies to pools with bulkheads, it is assumed that the pool will be at least the nominal length of the course. One grants a sanction expecting the pool to be the length of the course. How else could you grant a sanction to a pool that has a bulkhead. If this was not the case, when would the sanction be granted? The morning of the competition? Last month I was talking to one of the senior Pacific Swimming officials, he said that at a USS National Championship the lane lines were pulled so tight that they caused the bulkhead to bow in the middle. When they measured the middle lanes at the end of the first day of competition, the lane was found to be short. He said there were a couple of times that were faster than the national record. The times were not considered for national records. michael

Originally posted by Philip Arcuni Finally, I am curious as to the enforcement differences between a length discrepancy from the required length, and a discrepancy with other requirements for a competition pool, such as height of flags or the location of the lane crosses. Dan, the rest of you, and I have succeeded in demonstrating that three of the top four SCM meets west of the Mississippi were in non-regulation pools (NW zone (pool length), Pacific Championship (flag height), and SW zone (lane crosses)). (Representing well over 1/4 of all USMS membership) Why not throw all those times out? Article 107 of the rule book deals with facilities standards. The requirements are pretty detailed, even including the proper lighting for an indoor meet (in case you're interested, it's supposed to be 100 foot-candles!). But all standards are not treated the same. The people who wrote the rule book (and I was not one of them) recognized that there are some things beyond the meet director's control, and so these standards are not as rigidly enforced as others. So there are three levels of "mandatory." There's --"mandatory requirement for all competition" (article 107.1.1). Then there's --"predicated upon facility availability, LMSCs may waive strict compliance with these requirements when sanctioning local competition" (article 107.1.2). Finally there's --"mandatory requirement for national championship meets and international competition" (article 107.1.3). The standard for lane crosses (article 107.4) is designated . If I found out after the meet I am in charge of that the lane crosses at Lancaster Aquatic Center at the University of Kentucky are 2.1 meters from the wall instead of 2.0 meters (as specified in article 107.4.1), then I would try to do better next year, but I would still turn times from the meet in for records and Top Ten. But pool length is designated . If I found out after the meet that the pool is only 24.99 yards long, then I was not in compliance with article 107.2.1C, and therefore would probably not turn the times in. I would do the same thing as the Oregon meet director did, and bring it to the attention of my LMSC, and let the LMSC decide. All of the requirements for backstroke flags (article 107.13) are designated . No exceptions to the rules. So the level of enforcement SHOULD be the same as for pool length. Following the same logic as used in the decision to reject the times from the NW Zone meet, times from the meet at which the flags were not at the proper height should not have been submitted, because all of the relevant rules were not followed. Now here's my usual caveat that I'm not interpreting the rules, or saying whether I think those who have interpreted have done so properly. I'm just answering Phil's question about what the rule book says about the level of enforcement. The only thing I will admit to agreeing wholeheartedly with is Wayne's statement that being a meet director is HARD! Meg Smath Editor, USMS Rule Book

Welcome back, Wayne. :) Do you have any references, or anecdotes, for how FINA has solved a similar problem? I'm not talking about records, but qualifying times. I have tried to find the FINA requirements for length, but couldn't. I recall 25.00 (-.00 +.02) meters. That would imply to me a resolution of .01 meter (1 cm), which would mean the pool could be 5 mm short, and still be regulation. Anybody know of anything different? (This is a separate subject, I know the NW pool was off by more, apparently.)

I don't know where Phil Arcuni got the idea that you could derive some extra wiggle room out of very explicit dimensional data. And at least twice offered. If the dimensions are stated as: 25.00 metres -.00 +.02 metre, there is NO possibility of there EVER being a situation that would allow for a pool length even 1 Millimetre short (even though the resolution goes to centimetres). Let's look at this like business would. USMS wants me to make them a whole bunch of pools on my pool making machine, and I give them a teriffic deal if they buy lots of them. They tell me to make them 25.00 metres long, +.02 -.00 metre. OK, I try to make them the nominal length, 25.01 metres, Because I know I will not be paid for any pools delivered that are less than 25.00 metres long, and manufacturing processes dictate that you do not try to lose money by making things on the very edge of the tolerance given. I would look very foolish trying to sell a pool to my customer based on the resolution formerly offered, and that is why the pools are to be NO LESS THAN 25.00 metres. Ever.

From FINA web site at www.fina.org/facilityrules_2.html FR 2.1 Length FR 2.1.1 50.0 metres. When touch panels of Automatic Officiating Equipment are used on the starting end, or additionally on the turning end, the pool must be of such length that ensures the required distance of 50.0 metres between the two panels. FR 2.1.2 25.0 metres. When touch panels of Automatic Officiating Equipment are used on the starting end, or additionally on the turning end, the pool must be of such length that ensures the required distance of 25.0 metres between the two panels. FR 2.2 Dimensional Tolerances FR 2.2.1 Against the nominal length of 50.0 metres, a tolerance of plus 0.03 metre in each lane minus 0.00 metre on both end walls at all points from 0.3 metre above to 0.8 metre below the surface of the water is allowed. These measurements should be certified by a surveyor or other qualified official, appointed or approved by the Member in the country in which the pool is situated. Tolerances cannot be exceeded when touch panels are installed. FR 2.2.2 Against the nominal length of 25.0 metres, a tolerance of plus 0.03 metre in each lane minus 0.00 metre on both end walls at all points from 0.3 metre above to 0.8 metre below the surface of the water is allowed. These measurements should be certified by a surveyor or other qualified official, appointed or approved by the Member in the country, in which the pool is situated. Tolerances cannot be exceeded when touch panels are installed. FR 2.9 Backstroke Turn Indicators - Flagged ropes suspended across the pool, minimum 1.8 metres and maximum 2.5 metres above the water surface, from fixed standards placed 5.0 metres from each end wall. Distinctive marks must be placed on both sides of the pool, and where possible on each lane rope, 15.0 metres from each end wall. USMS rules 107.12.2 A, B, C are rather dumb in my breaststroker opinion. A states 5 meters from the end of the pool and like the Fina rule, 1.8 to 2.5 meters above the water. B is dumb in that it requires backstrokers to use a different turn sighting post for yards and meters. It states 15 feet (4.75 meters) from the wall and 7 feet (2.13 meters) above the water. It would be common sense to adopt the FINA rule for all backstroke races including short course yards. So it seems that the flag height at Pacific was probably not in violation of the rules. And Southwest Zone meet did not require T's at the pool botton. So there really is not a lot of problems with the rules, we just need to apply the top 10 times for all courses to the rule requirements. Not being able to swim on my back, how about a rule chance for eliminating backstroke? Wayne McCauleywww.breaststroke.info/SWIM.GIF

Wayne, As another breastroker, I'd like to say that I've had no problem with the 5 yards vs 5 meters on the backstroke flags. In SCY I turn over much faster and so the strokes are the same. I don't swim SCM very much anymore, but when I did in HS I don't remember having a problem. As far as this controversy goes, I'd say the whole thing is a tragedy but it gives us the opportunity to fix the rules up to avoid any ambiguity in the future. I personally wouldn't want my times to count if the course were short, but I'd be very bummed out since I only peak once a year or even every few years. That one meet would be my only shot at top ten. And another meet is not occurring nearby one week later! Swim fast, Greg

Thanks Wayne. I still understand a 1 cm resolution, or +/- 5 mm for each number, including the minimum length. If it were 25.000 meters, I would assume a resolution of 1 mm. ? the Pacific Championship flags were less than 1.8 meters, so why do you think they were legal? 1.8 meters is about as tall as I am, so I remember it well - as I recall, they were about waist high at the supports. It *is* a problem. Fortunately for everyone in the meet (and me, if I don't want to be found floating under pool covers after my next workout) I did not measure and can't prove it. (whew, I'm out of that corner :D ) As nicely summarized by Meg, the lane crosses are M*, a requirement that can be waived, depending on the facility. Was it? Meg, is there a written procedure for waiving the requirements? Is it possible to waive the requirements *after* the meet? Would our insurers like that possibility? (These are safety regulations, as much as anything.) I think a strict post-meet adherence to the rules will cause a lot of problems, and Dan and I have shown how. This makes the already hard job of the meet director even harder - one mistake and the entire zone is after you! And you want volunteers to do this?