Last year at about this time, I had a forum entry about USMS not accepting the times because of a supposed clerical error in the pool certification application. It was pointed out to me that it was a pool measurement error and not a clerical error that caused this. It frustrated me because I had swum 5 LMSC freestyle records and 6 top ten Zone records. I had done this under duress as I had a stent placed in a blocked artery not long after the meet.
Well, since that time, I have swum in two competitions, SCY and LCM. On both of these meets, I asked the individuals if the pool measurement were certified. The SCY was in a stationary bulkhead pool that received certification before the meet and the LCM in a movable bulkhead pool.
Everything went ok in the SCY but when I looked up my times in the Zone and USMS sites, they did not appear. Just this week, I found out it was another pool measurement issue and my, once again LMSC records and top tens have been wiped out.
I know the reasoning behind the exclusion of the times but +/- 1cm would not make a difference in where I or anybody in the meet would finally appear in any top 10 or record.
This is a stiff penalty to pay for people to pay for driving good distances to swim in meets, pay good money and spend all day Saturday and Sunday for what comes to be a glorified practice. If USMS is going to be draconian with its rules, they should, in this day of instant messaging, have a set up whereby the pool measurements could be verified and certified on the morning of the meet if it is being held in a movable bulkhead pool.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Bob Sigerson
_steve_
The pool was measured without pads in place. This is a common procedure because it is can, sometimes, be harder to measurement when pads are on place.
The rules have an allowance factor, clearly stated on the measurement form, for the width of a pad - 1/4". In this case, there were two pads being used for the meet, so a pool measurement without pads in place has to take this in account. A measurement without the 2 pads in place needed to read at least 164' 1". There were several lanes that were not this long.
Pool measurements are really tricky and, too many times, the people doing the measurements don't think through it critically enough which gets them into trouble - after the fact. A short measurement should trigger all kinds of immediate response until the pool is fixed.
_steve_
The pool was measured without pads in place. This is a common procedure because it is can, sometimes, be harder to measurement when pads are on place.
The rules have an allowance factor, clearly stated on the measurement form, for the width of a pad - 1/4". In this case, there were two pads being used for the meet, so a pool measurement without pads in place has to take this in account. A measurement without the 2 pads in place needed to read at least 164' 1". There were several lanes that were not this long.
Pool measurements are really tricky and, too many times, the people doing the measurements don't think through it critically enough which gets them into trouble - after the fact. A short measurement should trigger all kinds of immediate response until the pool is fixed.
