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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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