Hi,
I just read Doug Strong's awesome story from LC Nationals. He had mentioned a previous DQ in the meet for something he thought was very questionable. That reminds me...
Does anyone else think the latest backstroke rule is a little silly? I'm talking about the one where one glides into the wall "too long" on their stomach for the turn. To me, as I mentioned, it just seems silly. (1) I believe the rule says that you must have continuous forward motion into the turn. If you are gliding in, which by the way is not faster, then you are moving forward. I've yet to see one stop completely! And (2) there is definitely no advantage to gliding in for that "moment too long" that is the decision of the official.
I have a feeling that this rule will go by the way of some other rules and be gone in the next few years.
Just some thoughts, and a question :)
Karen
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
I mentioned the "continuous turning motion" because that is exactly what I was told by the official who DQ'd me in the 200 back at Nationals in 199something. I just missed getting first and did my life best by 7 seconds. I was stoked.
I got out and the official (my friend now, but certainly not then, Michael Moore) told me that I glided into my first turn only. I asked him several times for an exact clarification and he couldn't give it to me.
He should have said "continuous turning action" instead of "continuous turning motion", but I don't think the distinction is all that important. The important thing is that he needed to say more than that. What exactly did you do wrong? Did you do an arm pull that wasn't continuous? Did you do an arm pull that wasn't part of your continuous turning action? Did you do a kick that wasn't part of your continuous turning action?
It's worth remembering that you have the right, under rule 102.16.4, to issue a protest concerning interpretation of the rules provided you do it in writing within 10 days to the USMS Rules Committee chair. And if you do, it is likely to come down to something similar to the Aaron Piersol situation at the Olympics: The USMS Rules Committee chair is obviously not going to question whether the referee saw what he claimed to have seen, but he is going examine whether the basis for the DQ, as described by the referee, was valid according to the rules. What happened in Piersol's case was that what the referee had written didn't justify the DQ under the rules.
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
I mentioned the "continuous turning motion" because that is exactly what I was told by the official who DQ'd me in the 200 back at Nationals in 199something. I just missed getting first and did my life best by 7 seconds. I was stoked.
I got out and the official (my friend now, but certainly not then, Michael Moore) told me that I glided into my first turn only. I asked him several times for an exact clarification and he couldn't give it to me.
He should have said "continuous turning action" instead of "continuous turning motion", but I don't think the distinction is all that important. The important thing is that he needed to say more than that. What exactly did you do wrong? Did you do an arm pull that wasn't continuous? Did you do an arm pull that wasn't part of your continuous turning action? Did you do a kick that wasn't part of your continuous turning action?
It's worth remembering that you have the right, under rule 102.16.4, to issue a protest concerning interpretation of the rules provided you do it in writing within 10 days to the USMS Rules Committee chair. And if you do, it is likely to come down to something similar to the Aaron Piersol situation at the Olympics: The USMS Rules Committee chair is obviously not going to question whether the referee saw what he claimed to have seen, but he is going examine whether the basis for the DQ, as described by the referee, was valid according to the rules. What happened in Piersol's case was that what the referee had written didn't justify the DQ under the rules.
