Today I heard that a swimming pool "back east" had been recently measured and found to be too short. Further, the rumor continues, any records set in that facility are alleged to be dis-allowed. True? False? Who knows the real skinny on this ?
Bert
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by Betsy
I have a question and I feel sure that someone has done or will do the calculations to answer it.
The whole controvery about pool length, of course, centers around fairness. BUT, which situation below gives the swimmer the larger advantage?
(1) Swimming 100 meters in a pool that measures 24.99 meters, timed electronically.
(2) Swimming 100 meters in a pool that measures 25.00 meters, timed by hand held watches.
Betsy
I doubt that it's possible to do calculations comparing the two situations, since #2 could be either an advantage or a disadvantage. It would depend on a number of factors, like the timers' reaction times in starting and stopping the watches, their angle of sight, etc. For example, at a recent meet, I was hand timed in one event three seconds slower than the official electronic time (it was a 50 Free, believe it or not!); needless to say, the electronic time was the correct one :D . But hand times can just as easily be too fast.
But either #1 nor #2 would result in an accurate time. My understanding (I could be wrong on this) is that a record wouldn't be recognized in either scenario.
Originally posted by Betsy
I have a question and I feel sure that someone has done or will do the calculations to answer it.
The whole controvery about pool length, of course, centers around fairness. BUT, which situation below gives the swimmer the larger advantage?
(1) Swimming 100 meters in a pool that measures 24.99 meters, timed electronically.
(2) Swimming 100 meters in a pool that measures 25.00 meters, timed by hand held watches.
Betsy
I doubt that it's possible to do calculations comparing the two situations, since #2 could be either an advantage or a disadvantage. It would depend on a number of factors, like the timers' reaction times in starting and stopping the watches, their angle of sight, etc. For example, at a recent meet, I was hand timed in one event three seconds slower than the official electronic time (it was a 50 Free, believe it or not!); needless to say, the electronic time was the correct one :D . But hand times can just as easily be too fast.
But either #1 nor #2 would result in an accurate time. My understanding (I could be wrong on this) is that a record wouldn't be recognized in either scenario.
