Aside from the affected meet hosts, the real losers of this dilemma are the swimmers from the two affected SCM meets who stand to lose their placing in the USMS Top Ten. In short order, R&T will release the 2001 SCM Top Ten and we’ll discover who was denied placement on the list because their worthy performances were conducted in pools they believed were legitimate for sanctioned competition.
I do not yet know if I will be one of those people, but I expect to be. You might remember the story of my 1500m Freestyle that turned into the 1550m Freestyle (or rather the 1498.7m Freestyle that was the 1548.68m Freestyle) at the NWZ meet. My time was 19:04.76, a 50-second improvement from my previous lifetime best. (The 19:55 swim as well as a 20:05 swim both put me into the SCM Top Ten in those years)
Many folks in the discussion forums have sounded off about how important they view the Top-Ten rankings. I’ll simply say that in my case, if I had been told by the meet director before my 1500m Freestyle that the pool was less than 25m long, I probably would not have swam the event. There was no other swimmer in my age group at the NWZ meet. My “competition” was the other 30-34-year-olds nationwide.
The impending ruling by the EC could very likely demand that I and other swimmers at the affected SCM meets make a sacrifice for the betterment of USMS. Honestly, I do not know what greater good is supposed to result from locking out certain swimmers from the Top Ten. I do not even know if this sacrifice is even necessary.
The EC certainly is considering the relationship between USMS and its swimmers in making its judgment. It is inevitable that some swimmers will be affected negatively by whatever “final” decision the EC renders. My contention through all of this has been that (1) deserving swimmers ought to be appropriately recognized for there outstanding achievements, and (2) that if we must do harm to swimmers and strain the USMS-to-swimmer relationship, we affect the least amount of harm upon the least number of swimmers. I’m glad that we are soon to be bringing this matter to a close, but I do think that this decision does harm to more people than necessary, as well as to the wrong people.
If it turns out that the 10th place 30-34 swimmer went slower than 19:04.76, I will be happy to congratulate him publicly and acknowledge that he earned his position. If there is any kind of positive outcome from all of this that I can guarantee, this is it.
I have to disagree with Philip Arcuni on his post with seven arguments.
The pool in question had tile work done on it, the sanction should not have been given until the pool was re-measured. The pool should be measured before the meet and after the meet. This just shows that even experienced meet hosts can't remember everything. You cannot believe how hard it is to run a meet, even a small one. There is a line in the ASCA Coaches certification pages, "if you have run a national Championship meet, you deserve a place in heaven, you have already been through hell."
None of your analogies apply at all to the situation, the pool was too short. The North West Zone people have been honest and above reproach. Yes a mistake was made, you can conduct all the polls you want. But the pool was too short. They are not removing the meet sanction, they are not accepting the times for consideration.
You are trying to make a black and white rule into a grey area. There is no grey area on pool lengths, it had to be greater than 25.00 meters with touch pads attached.
And with meters meets, we are not alone in the world. If you allow Top 10 times for this meet, what will the rest of the world think of us. The rest of the world has a Top 10 list, our credibility would be damaged if we submitted a meet that was too short. I have swum in Australia, Paris and Scotland. The Masters are very professional, all timers are qualified after years of experience. The pools are measured, the times double checked. If a friend in Scotland swims a faster time than me, I am happy for him and certain he would have beat me in a race, because the rules were followed. What you consider as unfair would be considered cheating to the rest of the world. To your comment on qualifyers for olympic time trials, yes there would be a slam dunk, the swimmers would loose in any court of arbitration, because issues like these have come up before. FINA is black and white. If a time was swum in a pool too short, it simply never happened.
Bert Petersen had the luxury of having another meet, down in Long Beach. That meet started late because the pool length was measured and the bulkhead had to be moved to the correct position. He has moved on, we all should do the same and make sure USMS follows through with modifications to the Rules to preclude this from happening again.
Jim Thornton, the rules require a steel or fiberglass tape measurement, as of now laser-measurements are not official. The LMSC Top ten recorder is supposed to keep a record of all pool measurements in an LMSC. You talk about wriggle room for judgment, in fact FINA does allow for wriggle room, the pool must have been greater than 25.00 meters with touch pads attached, with a slight length extra distance allowed of 0.02 meters.
Wayne McCauley
Originally posted by jroddin
In this case the measurement of 25.00 is taken out to 2 decimal places, or 1cm. Therefore the official measurement needs to be rounded to 2 decimal places. So if the pool is 24.996 meters long (4 mm short) it would satisfy the condition of being 25.00 long as a minimum because 24.996 rounded to two decimal places is in fact 25.00
Rounding up for 5-9 and down for 1-4 is common practice, but it's not what's done for other rounding instances in the rule book. When you're averaging watch times, you simply drop any digits after the hundredth place. So if the same protocol is followed for measuring distance as for time, then 24.996 would still be 24.99. Sorry to rain on your parade, Jeff.
Meg
Thanks Jeff. The concepts of measurement, uncertainty, and how to specify them are beaten into the heads of every engineer. Otherwise, things won't fit together.
I am not trying to find 'wriggle room' but trying to clarify the rules, so we are all on the same page.
I am a little annoyed at the people that consider it a 'black and white' issue; these people are oversimplifying it. I have pointed out how the rules are vague and open to interpretation. I have even pointed out how the specification of a pool length, or even the measurement of a pool length (see another thread) can be uncertain. I have pointed out how the consequences of a decision may not be what was desired. We can disagree about the interpretation of the rules, and even agree to disagree about them (at least I have), but lets not pretend it is simple. The desire to reduce the complexity of an issue so that the answer (whether correct or not) seems obvious is human nature, but intellectually careless.
I *do* think that there is an honest argument for the decision as it came out relating to the top ten. I also think that all people in this discussion were concerned with fairness, following the rules and regulations, and regretted what happened to the people in the NW zone and Virginia meet. No hard feelings here.
My final comment: Man! those top ten times are fast!
Hi Emmett, I don't think laser systems will work through water - the length needs to be accurate 0.8 m below the surface. Also, I think the walls will move if you lower the water level that much.
If we go by the FINA rules as laid out by Wayne, the measurement needs to be carried out by a qualified, competent authority. Are the LMSCs that are trying to insure proper pool length making sure a surveyor does the work? Are they paying for it? Or are they just asking someone to measure the pool length with a steel tape? Michael, what is Pacific doing?
Why would the walls move a measurable amount? At .8 meters below the wall lip the water pressure on the wall is roughly 1.2 lbs per square inch regardless of pool size. I don't see where releasing that pressure is going to move a steel reinforced concrete wall a measurable (with steel tape anyway) amount. I suppose an easy way to find out would be to see whether the difference between the center lane measurement and the end lane measurements change when the water level is dropped. The end lane area of the wall would have to move less than the center lane area ofthe wall due to the end lane wall istied directly to the side wall (which would have to compress to allow movement of the end wall area immediately adjacent to it - and if I recall my Materials Science correctly, concrete doesn't do much stretching or compressing even under extreme loading - which pool water doesn't come close to approaching).
Also, the pool length certification form indicaes that the length must be measured "at water level" - nothing about lowering the water to or measuring at .8 meters below the edge of the wall.
And I don't see mention in the USMS rule book about surveyors or any specially trained person doing the measuring - just "a responsible person".
Here's an umbrella Jeff...
Meg, unless the "drop the digits" protocol is explicity called for by the code (I don't beleive it is) the conventions applicable to the real world would apply. The real world rounds to the nearest significant digit in every measurement context I'm aware of.
Phillip,
Building the pools is black and white. It has to be larger than 25.02 meters because it must accomodate the touch pads. I am sure the specs must read something like 25.02 to 25.05 to follow the FINA "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. " this must include the touch pads. The touch pads are all about the same thickness, but there needs to be a fraction of leeway there too.
FINA says "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." So with FINA if a surveyor uses a laser it would be OK, but USMS states
steel or fiberglass tape measurement.
So lets go on to what we need for rule changes:
1) A change to allow a surveyor or other qualified official to measure a pool with steel or fiberglass tape or laser. This for most pools is a one time measurement, unless changes to the pool are made, or if there is a moveable bulkhead.
2) Have all pool lengths recorded in a database. Right now it is the Top 10 recorder in each LMSC that is responsible. Include yards, and all meters pools so Top 10 results are covered, not just World Records. USMS keeps a data base for meters pools, we need to include yards.
3) Make sure the meet certification forms let the meet host know the pool measurement is a requirement, esp. if the pool has changed or has a moveable bulkhead.
4) Adopt FINA tolerances for pool lengths and change the pool length certification form on Appendix B to state pool length tolerances, right now it states "no tolerances have been established."
Lets make some good rules changes this year.
Wayne McCauley
I am glad those of us who love open water swimming don't have to worry about being .01 to .02 meters off in the measuring of our courses* -I've seen some courses that have varied by 20 plus meters from year to year! Everyone swims the same course -and you can usually hear several swimmers remark after the event about how "it was really short this year" or "we had to swim an extra 30 meters this year!" Then we go have pizza and beer.
*with the exceptiion of cable swims where records are kept, and survey required, from year to year
