Spoiler--Men's 200 backstroke

NBC coverage was very good, they had the turn above and below water. I am not an expert on backstroke turns but my knowledge of the rules it looked legal. Shown many times in slow motion. As Bob states, it was easy to see his hand was still moving before and after the turn was being made. His hands made sculling motions throughout the turn.

Does this judge switch to figure skating in the winter? :) That last turn wasn't great by Peirsol, but it sure didn't look like a DQ, either.

Originally posted by valhallan From where the official is standing I imagine it would be very hard to see his hands as they finished through the final pull with a faint sculling motion. His arms and hands at that point were under his body, and the only motion that was evident from a poolside view was the foot fluttering. Even though there was a little hang time before he flipped, the video clearly shows that there was a slight hand jive left in the continuous turning motion. But then again, "judge not, lest ye be judged" might be Aaron's lesson.:) So going on just what the official most likely could have seen, which would just be the kick, then Peirsol shouldn't be DQed. If the judge can't see the hand/arm, then the benefit of the doubt has to go to the swimmer. In order to disqualify you have to see the hand stopped and the kick continuing. Its not enough to say "I saw a kick, but I have no idea what the hand was doing"

Originally posted by susanehr I replayed it myself several times. His arm/hand was still moving. I am a bit confused about the the term "continuous kick." What, are you supposed to take a huge, spread your legs two feet apart, kick going into the turn to make the "continuous kick"? Maybe this silly rule should be changed or more clarification. P.S. I'm not an official either, I've just been backstroking for 25 years and trying to keep up with all the crazy rules the stroke/start/turns have had over the years. There is nothing in the rules about a "continuous kick". What the rules say is that: "During the turn the shoulders may be turned over the vertical to the *** after which a continuous single arm pull or a continuous simultaneous double arm pull may be used to initiate the turn. Once the body has left the position on the back, any kick or arm pull must be part of the continuous turning action. The swimmer must have returned to the position on the back upon leaving the wall. When executing the turn there must be a touch of the wall with some part of the swimmer’s body." So the only requirements concerning kicking is that any kick "must be part of the continuous turning action." In practice, this has been interpreted to mean that any kick that occurs during the continuous turning action is okay. So as long as the arm pull begins immediately after the swimmer has rolled past the vertical toward the *** and as long as it proceeds continuously into the turn, any kicks will be considered "part of the continuous turning action."

This is the fina's rule: SW 6.4 During the turn the shoulders may be turned over the vertical to the *** after which a continuous single arm pull or a continuous simultaneous double arm pull may be used to initiate the turn. Once the body has left the position on the back, any kick or arm pull must be part of the continuous turning action. The swimmer must have returned to the position on the back upon leaving the wall. When executing the turn there must be a touch of the wall with some part of the swimmer’s body. I looked at the competition 4 times. Peirsol had to be squalified.

Now here's a rare bit. According to MSNBC the reason FINA overturned Piersol's DQ was not so much the explanation was not written in English. It was because the judge failed to provide any written explanation at all: www.msnbc.msn.com/.../ I imagine some folks will recall that I have stood up for an unpopular stroke judge's decision recently, but this is beyond the pale. It's the freaking Olympics. You've just DQ'ed the guy who won the finals by a ton; he's set a new Olympic record, and you can't be bothered to actually write down (or see that someone who can communicate in the official language writes down) what you saw?! You've got to be kidding me! Who did you say the stroke judge was? Kafka? But, the bottom line on this one is that, once again, the process worked. The bogus decision was overturned, and the right guy got the win. Matt

Can someone confirm this guy lane judge Denis Cadon of France was also to guy who allowed Kitajima to cheat in the 100 ***. "Marculescu confirmed that lane judge Denis Cadon of France signaled a violation and that chief officer Felix Mikhailov of Russia and referee Woon Sui Kut of Singapore signed off on the blank report. “Normally, they would write what violation was made,” Marculescu said. Peirsol wins gold after DQ overturned Marculescu said Woon, who was in charge on the pool deck, speaks fluent English; the working languages of FINA are English and French. Woon could be banned for not following procedure. “Unfortunately, he signed the report with nothing written on it. It’s really strange,” Marculescu said. “Probably, the FINA bureau will look at him in the coming days.” What sort of skullduggery is going on here? Putting in a blank sheet, come on!!!!!!! I personally have never been DQd for a stroke violation, but I have seen that dreaded DQ sheet come out many times, there is always an explanation.

From where the official is standing I imagine it would be very hard to see his hands as they finished through the final pull with a faint sculling motion. His arms and hands at that point were under his body, and the only motion that was evident from a poolside view was the foot fluttering. Even though there was a little hang time before he flipped, the video clearly shows that there was a slight hand jive left in the continuous turning motion. But then again, "judge not, lest ye be judged" might be Aaron's lesson.:)

Once I received a ticket for a series of moving violations that should have been written for another driver. In short, the cop pulled over the wrong guy (me) and I was able to definitively prove it to the court. But rather than say that the cop made a mistake pulling over the wrong guy, they saved face by dismissing the ticket for some obscure technicality in the way that the cop wrote the ticket. I think the olympic judge simply made a mistake in DQing Piersol. (But I do find interesting the notion of the same guy from the breaststroke event paying him back.) And the "technicality" that overruled the DQ was just a face-saving way to straighten it out.