I, along with 58 others, swam the Southern LCM championship on 7/29-30/2017. We did so in the University of New Orleans Pool in New Orleans, LA just as we have for years with the exception of the Hurricane Katrina year and several subsequent years.
My problem is that, when I checked my times of the USMS website, the times were in red with an explanation that they could not be used as official for records because the pool's measurement was not certified as it had a moveable bulkhead. I emailed Southern and asked why the certification had not been sent in and they replied that it had been sent but it had an error and USMS would not let it be corrected. This bummed me out as I had 4 top 10 swims and 5 Southern record swims for my age group.
This seems to be an awful price to pay for the innocent, dues and event paying participant who has no control pool certification. All we know is that the bulkhead is at the far end of the pool, 50 meters, where it always has been for LCM meets in the past. There is nothing obvious that we can detect or correct to make the pool certifiable and there is no way to make sure the form is sent in correctly.
There must be some way USMS can rectify this situation without invalidating the times of the swimmers who invested time and money in the meet.
This bummed me out as I had 4 top 10 swims and 5 Southern record swims for my age group.
Unless your LMSC by-laws or policies indicate that your records must meet the same measurement requirements, it is possible you could get them approved as LMSC records. USMS does not require each LMSC to maintain records or how they should do so. I would encourage you to ask your Top Ten Recorder or someone on the Board to consider such a request.
Bob, I understand your frustration in having top 10 swims invalidated. I've probably lost over 20 TT times over the past 25 years due to RD not submitting results and inaccurate pool lengths. I was also at the meet in question, spending two nights in hotels, meals, travel, etc. My goal was to get a NQT in the mile to use for SC Nationals in Indy. My 1500 meter time was 35 seconds faster than the NQT straight up and over a minute faster when converted from LCM to SCY. My question to USMS is: Am I going to have to go to another out of town meet, with the attendant expenses, when my invalidated time is easily faster than the NQT? Per Paul's earlier post, 1/4 inch per length comes out to about 8 inches over 1500 meters. Obviously it won't take me over a minute to cover those 8 inches. And no, I can't enter this event without a NQT per the meet information.
No, Karlene, you're good! NQT's are on the honor system! Congratulations! Check out this thread:
forums.usms.org/showthread.php
No, per the 2018 SC Nationals webpage, "Distance Events (1000/1650) Swimmers may enter either the 1000 freestyle or the 1650 freestyle, but not both. Swimmers entering the 1650 freestyle must meet the NQT."
Hi Doug,
I had Mary Beth read through thread. She is not opposed to something like this although the post by "ljlete" from an old thread shows that errors can occur when bulkheads are involved. She encouraged you to write up a rule proposal to address what you are suggesting. I am glad that Bob S. posted this as it does demonstrate the challenges when bulkheads are involved.
BTW - to all reading this. Mary Beth does not make up the rules regarding pool measurements. They are the domain of the Rules Committee and her job as SWIMS Coordinator is to follow the rules. There are times when she wants to "play" God and allow swims, but I encourage not to do that. :)
Paul
Hi Karlene,
Sounds like you would blow the NQT away. The only situation that would cause you to be in trouble is if you entered and swam and did not meet the NQT. Your swim might not count in that case.
Unfortunately, the question you asked has already been answered. The USMS Rules Committee determined that times from that meet cannot count. Technically, yes, you have to do the swim again. BUT, refer to my comment in the first paragraph. :)
Paul
The bulkhead at my home pool has exactly this sort of pin, and four corresponding holes on either side of the deck at 25y and 50m. Plus the bulkhead itself must weigh half a ton at least, so it is virtually impossible for the distance to be off. Nevertheless, as Top Ten recorder for my LMSC, I dutifully measure the pool several times a year. My shaky laser measurements are more likely to produce a bad result than the bulkhead itself. There must be lots of pools like this, or with other means of assuring the correct placement. I respectfully suggest--and Paul, please pass this on to Mary Beth and the appropriate authorities--that each LMSC be allowed to identify pools/bulkheads that are similarly foolproof, and that times swum in these pools be automatically included in Top Ten without bulkhead measurement. Only in the case of a national or world record should a measurement be required.
In particular, this would alleviate the uncomfortable situation where a Masters swimmer has to request that the Meet Director measure a pool in a USA Swimming meet, where the measurement requirements are not as stringent as Masters.
Very interesting Doug - the pins seem to be precisely the kind of thing which should avoid constant checking and rechecking when it comes to certifying a pool with a moveable bulkhead.
This post from the older thread goes to show that the askew placement can prove to be a very common problem...
For reasons that should be obvious, I need to not comment about most of what goes on here because one never know when one would be asked to intervene or interpret but I felt a story here was useful.
For a number of years now, I have been officiating at the USA-S Sectional meet that one and now both of my daughters have been competing. A couple of years ago, I was pulling duty as the turn judge at the turn end during the 1000 Free on the first night of the meet. The meet was being conducted in a 50 meter pool with two bulkheads set at 25 yards. I sat down on the corner of the pool and looked down to watch the turns and quickly noticed that the bulkhead was far from being straight. In fact the bow in the center of the pool was on the order of 4-5 inches! (In the 1000 that amounts to over 13 feet difference.) At the time I was not one of the assigned crew, so I got the attention of one of them and explained what I saw. Now at least half of the event had already been contested. No one did anything and I didn't push it that night.
The next morning, I went up to the Meet Referee and simply said "You have a problem". After he said "I do?", I brought him over and showed him the bulkhead. We then scrambled to do what we could. The first thing that happened was the double lane lines were reduced to single lane line that were only as tight as they needed to be. That took care of about half of the buldge. Prelims were run in that configuration. Between prelims and finals, the maintenance crew came in with two come-alongs, broke open the back of the bulkhead and pulled the two bulkheads together in order to straighten the competitive one. The meet then proceeded with what was close to a regulation course. Things like this happen and to this day, I wonder how many NCAA cuts were made in the center lanes of that pool.
No, per the 2018 SC Nationals webpage, "Distance Events (1000/1650) Swimmers may enter either the 1000 freestyle or the 1650 freestyle, but not both. Swimmers entering the 1650 freestyle must meet the NQT."
See Paul Windrath's post. You'll be fine! :cheerleader:
These move-able bulkheads should ideally be retro-fitted with some sort of pin - to be locked into the deck surface in the exact location, each and every time the length is being changed over to new course dimensions.
Not only would this guarantee a certified pool measurement, but it would alleviate the concern that the bulkhead would have shifted after several hours of being pushed against during competition.
Some bulkheads indeed seem to have some "flex" in the center, especially in the ten lane pools. Surely there must be a way to prevent any give over time. The center lane lines should be triple checked for a vary taut connection to ensure that the middle lanes aren't off by an inch or so.
All this to say - it's very unfortunate to see this happen to the OP. Meet directors should be more pro-active about the seriousness of having a legitimate competition pool.
...this thread from many years ago shed some light on the issues. It's interesting to consider that even a few inches of play could result in a thirteen foot difference over a 1,000 meters. forums.usms.org/showthread.php
That much flex, it seems to me. to be a construction design fault. We need to make manufactures hold to specified amount of flex .
Maybe additional anchor points along the length of the movable wall portion.
