Instead of DQing for a False Start

There is nothing more challenging for an official than having to DQ a swimmer for a false start: either a dual confirmation done after the heat has been started or for the lone swimmer who goes in all by themselves. It is a shame that starting early and only gaining, at most, .5 seconds results in the entire race being nullified. I would hate to be the 400 IMer or the 1650 swimmer if that were to happen. So, instead of nullifying the entire swim, consider a time penalty assessed for a False Start. In either situation that I mentioned in the first paragraph, the swimmer incurs a 5 seconds penalty when the False Start is dual confirmed. The swimmer gets the benefit of the race, albeit with a time penalty. This could be managed quite easier with a software change in Meet Manager or whatever meet software is being used. Paul Paul, I have read all of your posts on proposed rule changes, and they all make good sense to me. I would vote in favor of all of them, if I had a say! :applaud:

Thanks for the support, Ellaine. I hate to see the rules written to negate the entire effort. Although it probably can't possibly happen, I would like to see something along the lines of Diving or Skating or Synchro where, instead of DQs, there are time penalties for some of the infractions instead of absolute DQs. For example, a butterfly doing a flutter kick gets a 5 sec penalty. Or if their arms do not recovery at the same time - 5 secs. Or, breaststroke when the head does not break the surface before the insweep of the second pull (off the turn) - 5 sec. One hand touch on fly or breaststroke - 5 secs. Or, for backstroke, don't DQ for a glide into the turn. They have already "penalized" themselves by gliding. AND, we allow gliding into the turn on every other stroke, why not backstroke? No athlete likes to go slow and the penalty will be a better motivation than a DQ. Paul

Very interesting concepts. 5 secs. in a 50 is a lot. Maybe more for distance? About that fly rule concerning not recovering above the water at the same time rule - a call from one official is all it takes to DQ a 200 flyer in the older age brackets is kind of silly! IMHO

My main question is, if the person so "penalized" still "wins" the race ahead of folks who stay legal, is that okay? And are these rule changes universal, or only in non-championship settings?

It is a shame that starting early and only gaining, at most, .5 seconds results in the entire race being nullified. Just playing Devil's advocate...but in the the longer distance races you mention...if a swimmer false starts in one of those longer races then it's on them. Like you indicate...why jeopardize that long of a race to gain just .5 second? But...so in a 200 for example...what is your suggestion for signaling to the swimmers that there was a false start? To tell them "There was a false start but keep swimming." And then "Woops. Officials indicated the wrong lane for the false start" I mean if you saw a signal from officials (perhaps incorrect signal) that you false started and are being penalized 5 seconds in the 100 freestyle...would you continue swimming? Five seconds in a 100 puts you in last place. Why continue? And then to find out it's in error??? In a 50 no one may even look up to see an indication that there was a false start, nor which lane it was. So...in certain distance/strokes...it really could throw the race out of whack if it was lane 6 (i.e. perhaps the last place swimmer) that false started, but no one knows for sure. I think the most equitable way is to to restart with the offender DQ'd. Dan

Happy New year Everyone! My thoughts regarding the latest posts: Redbird Alum - thanks for the post. Think of this in the same way triathletes are penalized for drafting or in open water swims or in golf or hockey or basketball. What if a player was ejected for a single foul or a golfer was removed from a 4 day tournament if their ball goes out of bounds. Yes, the rule would become universal at all levels. Dan - thanks for the post and playing devil's advocate. There are two situations to consider and I did not differentiate the two. One is when a swimmer leaves the blocks before the start signal. In this case, the Starter/Deck Ref have the discretion to DQ or not. To my way of thinking, that swimmer would be given the option to compete with the 5 sec penalty or could withdraw from the race counting towards their event limit. Their decision should be announced to all swimmers in the heat just like is done if a swimmer is going for a fast intermediate split in a race (a 50 time in a 1650). The second situation is when the start signal has been given and the swimmers are in the water. Under this situation, the swimmers do not know if there was a DQ and should not stop because they assume they'll be DQ'd. False starts must be confirmed by the deck officials and they might not agree. Thoughts? Paul

Personally I like the rules the way they are now: all or nothing. A DQ is a DQ and it negates the entire swim.

I don't really swim in meets. But I'm wondering...does FINA/USA Swimming/USMS use "reaction time" for their false starts? In track and field, the blocks have sensors on them that calculate the runner's reaction time after the gun. There is a standard (i.e. fastest human possible) reaction time allowed. If the runner's reaction time after the gun is too fast then they are false started (DQ). Dan

Knelson - Just to play devil's advocate on a different playing field. If a DQ is a DQ and negates the swim, would you agree that taking your car taken away for your first speeding ticket is fair? Same idea to me. I am not saying there should not be a penalty for doing something wrong, I am just saying the current penalty (complete negation of the swim) did NOT fit the "crime." Especially if the "crime" does not result in a better time or a better place in the race. Paul

Knelson - Just to play devil's advocate on a different playing field. If a DQ is a DQ and negates the swim, would you agree that taking your car taken away for your first speeding ticket is fair? Same idea to me. I am not saying there should not be a penalty for doing something wrong, I am just saying the current penalty (complete negation of the swim) did NOT fit the "crime." Especially if the "crime" does not result in a better time or a better place in the race. Paul I think this is a completely apples to oranges argument. In sports the rules need to be black and white. Fairness is dictated by whether the rules are applied equitably. I don't think a football team should score three points for getting stopped at the goal line just short of a touchdown or a basketball team getting one point for a field goal attempt that rattles around the rim.