Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:08:05 GMT

Thanks Rob. :)

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Rob Copeland — Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:40:12 GMT

Mark, Please cite the rule for the +30mm. I cannot find it in the USMS rule book. PaulMArk was referring to USA Swimming not USMS rules 103.3 RACING COURSE DIMENSIONS .1 /M/ Length. A Long Course: 50.00 meters (164 feet and 1/2 inch). B Short Course: 25.00 yards or 25.00 meters (82 feet and 1/4 inch). C Dimensional Tolerance: Against the required length, a tolerance of plus (+) 0.03 meters (1 and 3/16ths of an inch) in a vertical plane extending 0.3 meters (12 inches) above and 0.8

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Mark Usher — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:06:19 GMT

I also believe that the pool does not have to be “exactly” 25 yards or meters. I know there is a +/- factor (what that is I couldn’t say). But I also realize Jim might have just been saying exactly 25 yards for the sake of argument. Not sure that a quarter inch is outside the margin of errors not. FYI, the USA Swimming tolerance for length is -0.000 / +30mm (1-3/16"). (I'm working on my Meet Ref certification and was just going though all this stuff last week). There is a pretty detailed and comprehensive procedure for measurement and certification by a licensed engineer or surveyor. One of the potential problems is that there is no requirement for periodic recertification. Things like changing brands of touch pads or resurfacing can affect the measured length. With regards to movable bulkheads, one of the interesting requirements is that the lane lines be in place and tightened prior to measurement.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 05:02:48 GMT

Mark, Please cite the rule for the +30mm. I cannot find it in the USMS rule book. Paul

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Sat, 20 Apr 2019 08:26:27 GMT

ForceDJ, There is nothing in place to do as you are suggesting. And, maybe for good reason. Hypothetically, assuming the kind of fudge factor you are suggesting (and I have as well), a meet could be sanctioned in a 10 yard hotel pool and the person only does flip turns and push-offs the entire distance. They would do a turn, 1-2 strokes, and a turn for who knows how many laps. The start might be a challenge though. :) Believe it or not, a masters swimmer would figure out to make this happen - to gain an advantage. Masters swimmers are sneaky (aka creative). If there is a loophole, they will find it. I know you are referencing the pools that come up 1 cm short. The problem is where you draw the line between 1 cm short and 15 yards short. Imagine the options? I swim the 200 Free in a SCY, SCM, LCM, or a hotel pool (accurately measured of course), and it does not matter which course it is in. With fudge factors in place, it could apply to SCY, SCM, LCM, or "hotel." We have created a new record category! This is the on-going challenge that Masters faces. :) Gotta admit, I am having fun with this.... Paul

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

ForceDJ — Sat, 20 Apr 2019 08:09:40 GMT

Since we're having a conversation here, I have another question. IF a swimmer swims 'close' to a record time, and just for example, misses a Record by 1/100 of a second...and then the pool is subsequently measured to be long...is there any scenario wherein the the math can be applied to adjust the time...i.e. what their time was at precisely the event distance...and that swimmer given the WR? And if they do that, why wouldn't they be able to adjust the time for when a pool is measure to be short? The minuscule distances don't affect the swimmer's pace. Why not do it? That could be the general answer to events in pools that measure +/- accurate. Dan

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

knelson — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:25:30 GMT

That comes out to 0.230 second (less than one-quarter second) per 1650 (Well, at least at the 100y pace suggested above). Obviously it is "measurable." But handheld/manual timing can error that much. Ridiculous! Someone who is actually paying attention and knows how to use a stopwatch should never have an error of nearly a quarter second on a time. If you can't get within a tenth of a second you just aren't trying. And, yes, I realize the problem in meets is that many of the manual timers truly aren't trying very hard. I swam a long course 400 one time where I finished and knew the time on the readout board was wrong (too fast). Neither of my manual timers got a good watch time and in fact one forgot to start their watch so admitted they just wrote down the time they saw on the board. That sort of defeats the purpose!! I talked to the meet officials and the only solution they could offer me was to let me swim it again later in the meet, so that's what I had to do. If I hadn't said anything I'm sure they just would have assumed the electronic time was accurate.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

jim thornton — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:56:45 GMT

One question to you - define "minutely?" Best, Paul Perhaps I was using it incorrectly, but...I was intending to mean measurements that are "scrupulously, meticulously, painstakingly" undertaken in order to address not just the letter of the law, but the precise kerning of the letter of the law, while off to the side a whoppingly flagrant loophole (hand timing) is hiding in plain sight. I admit that my passion on this subject is being fueled by at least three personal items of pique. 1) I had a No. 1 in the country time (and possibly for FINA tabulations, too) overturned in the 100 LCM freestyle. I swam this in a fully sanctioned meet at none other than Michael Phelps hometown pool in Baltimore. The sanction was granted based on what, in retrospect, was the meet director's promise that the pool was the correct length. But it was later discovered that he never sent in the paperwork, so USMS sent a team out in the dead of winter to measure the pool, which, for all I know, may have been somewhat contracted by winter's chill, and it turned out it was slightly too short. I remember calculating my "advantage" from the inch or so of shortness (remember, in a LCM pool, you swim 2, not 4, "short" lengths; I think the difference was tiny, and even if you added it back to my time, it took me nowhere close to the second place time, which was nearly 1.4 seconds slower.) Anyhow, I wonder how many Michael Phelps age group records from yesteryear should now have asterisks on them? 2) We have been swimming our championships at a Myrtha Pool at the Spire Institute. Every year, we need to do these measurements, over and over again, this despite the fact that the modern bulkheads in use at such state of the art pools are so precise that the measurements never vary! Never! If they ever were to vary, the likelihood is much higher that it would be a flaw in the measuring device, not the pool! The annual repeat before and after each session measurement are just an unnecessarily complicated bureaucratic hoop that, in my mind, serves little purpose than the satisfaction of somebody's OCD itch. Again, I can see the benefit of scratching that itch, but not when a much itchier source of uncertainty (hand-timing) is ignored altogether. It's like having a cardiovascular surgeon first spend a lot of time debriding a patient's hang nail before starting the open heart surgery needed to save his or her life! 3) Finally, and this is a more philosophical source of pique, I admit, but I generally find too much rule-mongering objectionable, especially when said rule-mongering loses track of the bigger picture. I agree with you that the devil is in the details, and I am not advocating total laissez-faire lawlessness in meet administration. But sometimes I get the feeling the reason that the devil is in the details is because devils feel at home hiding in the nooks and crannies of the law, and it is from this vantage point that they derive their power to spite their perceived enemies! mi·nute·ly /mīˈn(y)o͞otlē/ adverb with great attention to detail; meticulously. "systems of politics are examined minutely by academics" synonyms: exhaustively, painstakingly, systematically, meticulously, rigorously, scrupulously, punctiliously, in detail; More

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:53:16 GMT

Hi Jim, I can appreciate your pain and motivation as described in your post - even though I have, luckily, never been on the receiving end of "your times don't count because the pool is too short." Our 2018 association meet had all of the times thrown out because the pool was too short. Nobody looked at the measurements before the meet began. The problem is not with the facilities, like Spire, that know what to do. The problem, that proves the rule, is all of the other meets where the meet directors and meet referees don't understand the importance of making sure the pool is legal - like the situation above. These rules would not be necessary if the meet directors and meet referees understood the rules and the consequences and took the time to make sure everything was good. Although my next comment might be a stretch, I suspect a large part of this problem is because USMS uses alot of USA Swimming Meet referees who know the USA Swimming rules, but not the USMS rules for pool measurements. The second part is the person doing the measurement just, mindlessly, does it - as if just doing the measurement is adequate. In many cases, they submit the report without even asking themselves the question - "Is the pool a legal distance?" The rule mongering comes from who composes the USMS membership - alot of Type A competitive swimmers. I agree that our rules are burdensome and complex and, in my opinion, inconsistent. My wife hates me for pointing it out each time. :) As mentioned in my response to Calvin, I would love to see a fudge factor for "short" pools. It would solve alot of problems. Maybe you do it for Top Ten, but not National or World Records. Of course, that differentiation is a problem as well. :) I hope the debate continues and makes it to the national convention stage. paul ps - Mary Beth hates getting these pool measurements. It causes her so much anguish because she knows swimmers will be unhappy. Trust me - she feels your anguish and more.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Allen Stark — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:35:10 GMT

I don't remember the margin for too long, but I believe the margin for too short is .0000 (basically none.) I personally think USMS policy should be revisited. Entire meet results are thrown out over 1 cm. Jim's calculations are easy to do. Keep "zero tolerance" for WRs and NRs, but use the "fudge factor"(the caculated difference in times, maybe plus.02 sec/per length to be sure) to allow the times to count for TT.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:34:54 GMT

Calvin, As Allen already posted (and just to support what he said), there is NO tolerance for a pool being short. It has to measure at least the minimum length for the particular course in question - no tolerance for being short. This has led to alot of times being thrown out - Top Ten, National, and World records. a part of me agrees with Jim that we ought to have a way to handle these situations. The challenge expands quickly though when you are differentiating to .01 seconds. A variation in the pad placement can lead to that and have nothing to do with a pool being too short. Still, I have told my wife we need a factor to adjust times when "s***" happens and the pool is too short. She replies with what do you do when the pool measure is too long. A slippery slope indeed. The rules that are followed are presented and approved at the HOD at each year's convention. if swimmers don't like the rules, they can submit proposals to change them. paul

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Calvin S — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:17:31 GMT

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Allen Stark — Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:00:27 GMT

Let us consider a swimmer doing the 100 freestyle in a pool that is exactly 25 yards. For purposes of simplifying the math, let us say he or she does a time of exactly 50.00 seconds. At this rate of speed, the swimmer is traveling at 2 yards per second, or 72 inches per second. Let us now consider that the swim takes place in a bulkhead pool that, for whatever reason (poor design, overly tight lane lines, deteriorating pins) is a quarter inch short. The swimmer now benefits from swimming instead of 100 yards, 99 yards and 35 inches. Assuming he or she holds the same rate of speed as before, they will benefit by 1/72 seconds, or .013888 seconds. Instead of a 50.00, their time will be 49.98611112. Leaving aside that any 49 seems a lot faster than any 50 (and any food item priced at $2.99 seems a lot cheaper than one priced at $3.00), the difference in times really is close to negligible. Timing systems can go to the thousandth of a second but such times are not factored in to settle ties because of the inherent inaccuracy when you get to such tiny slivers of time. (I know, I know, even nanoseconds matter--but we aren't talking Fermi Lab here.) Put me down in the camp that considers the USMS measurement requirements ludicrous, especially since "hand timing" is still legal, and it's virtually certain that there is much, much more room for error in hand timing than there is from pools that are an inch or so off absolute kosher length status. Until USMS decides to only count times with electronic timing systems, I say forget about the minutiae of pool measurement differences. Any pool that is minutely under (or over, for that matter) length was no doubt built so long ago that there are likely to be all sorts of design features that slow down performance well beyond what putative benefit swimming an inch short per 100 provides. But stop watches don't round up so 49.986 is 49.98. If you swam in the legal pool at 49.99, you got beat by .01 by someone who swam 50.00.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

ForceDJ — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:34:04 GMT

Put me down in the camp that considers the USMS measurement requirements ludicrous, especially since "hand timing" is still legal, and it's virtually certain that there is much, much more room for error in hand timing than there is from pools that are an inch or so off absolute kosher length status. Wow. I didn't realize that, either. The allowance of hand timing does make the strict adherence to length seem hypocritical. I was considering what Windrath suggested about that fraction of time over the length of a 1650. That comes out to 0.230 second (less than one-quarter second) per 1650 (Well, at least at the 100y pace suggested above). Obviously it is "measurable." But handheld/manual timing can error that much. Ridiculous! Something else I was just thinking about bulkheads, and how the tightness of lane lines causes them to bow, and creates inaccurate measurements in the center lanes. My question is...if that is caused by the bowing of the bulkhead which is placed in the center of the pool...can't it be corrected by tightening the lane lines in the 'other' pool to take the bow out of the bulkhead? Instead of just mooring the bulkhead at the sides of the pool...seems like there should be a mooring, or two, to the bottom of the pool so that it can't bow when lane lines are tightened. Dan

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:52:47 GMT

Hi Jim, I am not necessarily against what you are suggesting, but the devil is in the details. Yes, over a 100 yard race, the shortness might be negligible, but by the time you get to a 1650, what was negligible is now measurable. One question to you - define "minutely?" Best, Paul

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

jim thornton — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:46:29 GMT

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Thu, 18 Apr 2019 05:50:59 GMT

ForceDJ, Pools or courses that do not include moveable bulkheads only need to be measured once (each lane of the course) or after a renovation that includes the tank or gutter systems. Another problem with moveable bulkheads is the "pinning" mechanism. Over time, the holes where the pins fit do wear and get bigger. These pools are built to be as close to the minimum legal length as possible, so even a small amount of wear can be a problem. And, there are other systems that do not include pins - sometimes just the weight of the bulkhead itself resting on the bottom or on the gutters. These are subject to stressors that move the bulkhead thereby affecting the length of the course. Lots and lots of variables which makes the measurements important. And, finally, a masters national or world record can be set almost anywhere and at any time of the year. I set my SCM world record in a little meet in the middle of May - only 2 people in the event. Luckily, the pool did not have a bulkhead and had been measured. BUT, it would be very sad if record swim was done and the pool was too short. because someone decided not to measure. Windrath

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

orca1946 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:15:03 GMT

we had our Illinois state meet at the pool in Munster ,ind. and the bridges were set so as to run 2 25 S C Y pools at the same time. Both pools are measured to maintain the proper distance to allow records to be set.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

ForceDJ — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:33:32 GMT

For a long time I've been wondering why the necessity for so much measuring in pools where the docking stations for the bulkheads are static. But the tightness of the lane lines is something I'd never thought of. Interesting. But really, why is constant measuring required in pools that don't have moveable bulkheads, and touch pads aren't used? Once a static pool like that is measured it seems like that should be the end of measuring. Is there something I'm not seeing? Dan

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Windrath — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 04:40:52 GMT

To all, Calvin is correct that a new measurement must take place every time the bulkhead is moved. Additionally, the pool must be measured before the meet and after each session(s) of the meet. Personally, USA-S local meets should be more stringent, but the likelihood of national records is far less in local meets, so they don't go to the trouble. In Masters, you never know who is going to show up. I see alot of pool measurement forms because my wife approves all national records. Many Meet directors or meet referees just do not understand the rules and assume the pool will be set properly and the paperwork will be completed accurately. They are not. Another example of the swimmers need to ensure the bulkhead pools are legal before the meet. The reason for before and after sessions is because some pools will measure with the lane lines loose and then crank them tight. if the pool was just legal with lane lines loose, some (or all) lanes can become too short after tightening. It is a game some hosts play. This usually (but not always) benefits the middle lanes more than the outside ones. Just a little more to the story.... Paul

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

knelson — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:19:03 GMT

Because the barrier (usually called a bulkhead technically) was already in at one end of the pool when it was 50m. And some pools (Federal Way is an example) have two bulkheads installed. That way the pool can be used as a single 50 meter course, two 25 yard courses, or two 25 meter courses. Maximum versatility!

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Jeff Enge — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:47:22 GMT

Still supposed to measure the pool every time bulkhead is moved. Just to be sure. Yeah, I thought that was the rule for USA-S. Only has to be measured once when bulkhead moves. Funny that USMS is more stringent on that but I guess they are trying to hold to FINA standards because a national or world record could be set almost anywhere - heck, we had some guys at our LMSC champs break all the 75-79 national records a couple weeks back. BTW, good meet this weekend Calvin, I wanted to comment on your blog but something must be weird with my phone and blog comments.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

knelson — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:29:59 GMT

Yeah, lots of pools do SCY across the width of the pool.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Calvin S — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:22:51 GMT

For USMS meets, bulkhead pools have to be measured at both ends and the middle at the start and finish of every session. USA-S has a little different standard I think. I did Sectionals this year and I didn't have to get pool measurements for USMS times because the measurements for Mizzou was already on file. I don't know exactly how the bulkhead placement works, if there's some kind of groove the bulkhead locks in or something that ensures it's at the same place every time. Still supposed to measure the pool every time bulkhead is moved. Just to be sure.

RE: Really silly inquiry regarding the barrier in a 50m pool.

Calvin S — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:57:03 GMT

Any 50m pool that you can split into two 25y pools is done with two bulkheads. There's a little dead space of water in between them they dont let anybody swim in normally. Depends upon which way you split it, Jeff. The Rosen Aquatic Center in Orlando ran 2 8 lane venues, but no bulkhead in the middle, just an extra lane with no stripe on the bottom and double lane-lined on each side. But they ran the lanes the width of the pool. To your point, I agree. I have never seen a 50 meter pool split into two 25 yard courses lengthwise that uses anything other than double bulkheads!