Backstroke rule change?

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:37:08 GMT

Originally posted by mattson Is there an official language in the rule book? If not, I nominate igpay atinlay. Good idea. Of course for Worlds you'd also have to include French, since they won't speak anything else (even if they know the language).

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:01:14 GMT

Karen, the real question is, was your DQ properly written down in the "working language" of USMS? Perhaps you could appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Apparently you can still appeal even after the competition has ended (although 11 years may be a bit extreme).

RE: Backstroke rule change?

mattson — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:11:38 GMT

Originally posted by gull80 Karen, the real question is, was your DQ properly written down in the "working language" of USMS? Is there an official language in the rule book? If not, I nominate igpay atinlay.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:49:49 GMT

Karen, don't kick yourself over something 11 years old. Life has enough to sweat today! And don't snuggle up with a book - your husband may become jealous!

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Karen Duggan — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:09:52 GMT

Well, now, some years later, I'm really ticked! I had no idea I could have appealed that. And I know both my husband and I certainly would have appealed. AAARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHH! It's only taken me 11 years to learn that rule! Perhaps I should snuggle up with the rule book one of these nights...:(

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:52:45 GMT

Originally posted by Bob McAdams What happened in Piersol's case was that what the referee had written didn't justify the DQ under the rules. Actually, what the referee wrote wasn't in the "working language" of FINA--English or French.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:23:38 GMT

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.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Karen Duggan — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:44:48 GMT

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. I thought that was the most absurd thing! My first turn, when I have all the speed and momentum from the start, and being fresh at the beginning of the race... I have never forgotten it to this day. I do take consolation in that Michael also DQ's my husband, who won the 400 IM, by an entire pool length in the same meet. When my husband asked why, Michael told him that on his breaststroke turn one hand was lower than the other on the turn. My husband kept pressing it because (even the video showed it was legal) and Michael's exact words were, "About an inch." Interestingly enough that *** turn rule was changed the next year. Somebody please change the backstoke rule before a murder is committed at Nationals :p

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:18:25 GMT

Originally posted by knelson According to this wording, if you do end up too far from the wall after you pull through to your waist, it should be perfectly legal to scull the rest of the way in to where you need to flip. It would be hard to argue that sculling does not constitute motion of the arm, so as long as there's no pause between the end of the arm pull to the waist and the beginning of the sculling action the rule is met and you shouldn't be DQed. Anyone find any flaw in my reasoning? The problem is that what you are quoting is not the rule. What the rule states is that: "Upon completion of each length, some part of the swimmer must touch the wall. During the turn the shoulders may be turned past the vertical toward the ***, after which a continuous single arm pull or a continuous simultaneous double arm pull may be used to execute 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 a position on the back upon leaving the wall." So the issue is not that the swimmer has to be "doing something to initiate the turn as soon as their arms stop moving". It is that "any kick or arm pull must be part of the continuous turning action." If you scull between the arm pull and the turn, then the arm pull is not part of the continuous turning action. Note that the intent of the rule is that the arm pull done on the *** (if there is one) is being "used to execute the turn." The test for this is whether the turn has begun by the end of the arm pull.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:46:29 GMT

Your sculling scheme would violate the continuous turning action. The rule explicitly allows the arm pull but once the pull is over you must start your flip. I have always thought that the logical rule change to deal with the "did they touch before they got vertical" judgement problem was to allow the touch to occur during a continuous rotation onto the ***. Adding the pull and removing the hand touch did not address the problem. That said, I don't understand the basis of the arguments here, why should turning on your front so early you can't make a legal turn be any different from any of the other mistakes you can make that get you disqualified?

RE: Backstroke rule change?

knelson — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:21:08 GMT

Originally posted by Bob McAdams If you scull between the arm pull and the turn, then the arm pull is not part of the continuous turning action. Only if you consider the sculling to not be part of the arm pull. But I do understand it violates the intent as you stated.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

knelson — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:06:56 GMT

Originally posted by LindsayNB Your sculling scheme would violate the continuous turning action. The rule explicitly allows the arm pull but once the pull is over you must start your flip. I disagree. I see nothing in the rule book that says sculling doesn't count as part of the arm pulls. It might violate the "spirit of the rule," but it seems legal to me. I guess the bottom line, though, is most officials would consider it illegal, so you would still get disqualified.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

knelson — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 03:44:13 GMT

Originally posted by Rob Copeland 3) The swimmer turns past vertical towards the *** and executes a single or simultaneous double armpull to initiate their turn. Once the arm(s) has (have) stopped moving (and you’re sure it has stopped moving), the swimmer must be doing something to initiate their turn. If they’re not doing something to initiate the turn as soon as their arms stop moving, that’s a DQ. They can kick throughout the turn, as long as it’s part of a continuous turning action. They must touch the wall (usually with their feet) and they must be past vertical towards the back when their feet leave the wall. If they miss the wall, they cannot “scull” back to touch the wall as that reverse motion would constitute a “non-continuous turning action.” According to this wording, if you do end up too far from the wall after you pull through to your waist, it should be perfectly legal to scull the rest of the way in to where you need to flip. It would be hard to argue that sculling does not constitute motion of the arm, so as long as there's no pause between the end of the arm pull to the waist and the beginning of the sculling action the rule is met and you shouldn't be DQed. Anyone find any flaw in my reasoning? Someone call Aaron Peirsol and let him know :) EDIT: just to clarify, this doesn't violate the part about sculling back if you miss the turn. I'm talking about sculling prior to the flip.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:25:04 GMT

I'm under the impression from judges I talked with that if both hands are at your side before you tuck your head to start your change of direction (your flip), you are gliding and will get DQ'ed. Yesterday, I tried to do some turns where I'm bringing my hands together as I'm also tucking my head. It seemed almost impossible. Generally, my hands are at my hips right after I turn. Then I tuck my head & flip. When I looked at tapes of Aaron Peirsol from the scm in Indy, it looks like he is gliding. His body, hands, nor head are moving. That seems to me to be illegal? I wonder if maybe he is simply to far from the wall? If you are close to the wall when you roll onto your stomach, you have less space & mayube you aren't going to glide.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:25:25 GMT

Originally posted by craiglll@yahoo.com I'm under the impression from judges I talked with that if both hands are at your side before you tuck your head to start your change of direction (your flip), you are gliding and will get DQ'ed. Yesterday, I tried to do some turns where I'm bringing my hands together as I'm also tucking my head. It seemed almost impossible. Generally, my hands are at my hips right after I turn. Then I tuck my head & flip. I'm not sure I understand what your problem is. When you are swimming backstroke, you are leading first with one arm and then with the other. So when you arrive at the wall, one of your two arms should be leading. At that point, you want to roll onto your ***, sweep your leading arm under your body, and tuck your head. While you could sweep your arm under your body (essentially taking a stroke of freestyle) and then tuck your head and begin your flip, you would not only be risking getting DQed - it would also make little sense, since you would be wasting the angular momentum of the arm sweep. It makes more sense to synchronize the arm sweep and the head tuck so that the two combine to impart the angular momentum that flips you over. Once your arm reaches your hips, you can then turn both hands palm forward and sweep them up over your head, helping to flip you the rest of the way over, and leaving your arms very close to the position they need to be in to snap into your streamline.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:13:25 GMT

Originally posted by SWinkleblech I'm confused. Don't ask me what about, I am just plan confused. Continuos motion? Is that with the hands or the whole body? The rule never uses the term "continuous motion". It does mention "continuous turning action", but only to say that once the body has left the position on the back, any arm pull or kick must be part of the continuous turning action. Sometimes when I do my turn I find that I am to far from the wall and after I finish my stroke I may glide a little before I start my turn. Does this mean I can be DQ?:confused: The safest thing to do if you're too far away is to kick into the wall on your back. Beyond that, what the rules say are: - If you take an arm pull after rolling onto your ***, there can't be a pause between the completion of the arm pull and the start of your turn, since this would mean that the arm pull was not part of your continuous turning action. - If you take an arm pull after rolling onto your ***, there can't be a pause in the middle of the arm pull, since this would mean that your arm pull was not continuous. - After you roll onto your ***, you can't glide and kick before beginning your continuous turning action (which includes the arm pull if there is no pause between the arm pull and the turn), since this would mean that that kick or those kicks weren't part of your continuous turning action.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:51:19 GMT

I'm confused. Don't ask me what about, I am just plan confused. Continuos motion? Is that with the hands or the whole body? I just recently found out I was doing my turn wrong and I have been working on fixing it. Sometimes when I do my turn I find that I am to far from the wall and after I finish my stroke I may glide a little before I start my turn. Does this mean I can be DQ?:confused:

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Karen Duggan — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:53:02 GMT

I can't remember what other thread I posted this in but I said that I thought Aaron Peirsol was a doll (which has nothing to do with anything!) and I cringed watching him at the Olympics. I remember watching his 1st back turn (it must have been the 200) and I thought, "Uh-oh, he's going to get DQ'd". But then I thought, "Naw, it's the Olympics. He won't get DQ'd. I'm being too critical." It seemed to me he glided into the wall that moment too long. Sure enough he was DQ'd and then it was overturned. Just because you're in the Olympics doesn't mean you can't make a mistake. Look at that Japanese breaststroker for Pete's sake. That was a blatant DQ and for some reason wasn't called (not once but a few times!) Anyway, I'm glad to see such an interesting discussion and interpretation of the rule. I too think it is poorly written.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:38 GMT

Manticora may be correct with regards to how the rules should be set up -- to avoid unfair advantage. But that is not what this rule states or the way it is interpreted, and until the rule is changed it should be interpreted the way it is written. That is, if a swimmer does not turn in a continuous manner they should be disqualified. I know many important coaches and referees that are trying to get the rule changed. That said, I have never heard the 'not both arms at the side' interpretation that Craig has, either as an experienced backstroke swimmer or as a stroke and turn judge. I did a few turns yesterday, and my arms are always at my side when I flip - if they were not I would be annoyed at myself, because back there, soon to be *up* there, is where I want my hands to be. Furthermore, I like that final push of the hand, by the thigh, to help the flip, and it usually occurs as my head is heading down. Knock on wood, but I have never been disqualified for a backstroke turn. Yes, if the hands are at the side and one is gliding, that is a problem, but the problem is the glide, not the location of the arms or hands. When Piersol did his turn his arms finished at his side, but when that happened his head, and body, had already started his flipping action. Even if it hadn't already started, if the flipping action started immediately after the hands reached the side, it would be OK, marginal, but OK, as long as there was not a *finite* time (infinitesimal does not count) in which a glide was occurring.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:53:38 GMT

Agree that Peirsol glides longer on his turn than most other swimmers. Even he reportedly admits that turns aren't his strongest suit. But in the end, it's like someone running the 400 meter dash who swerves into an outside lane without interfering with another runner. That runner is not disqualified because he/she has actually given himself/herself farther to run. It that same runner swerves into an inner lane, they ARE disqualified because they've shortened the distance and thus gained an unfair advantage. I believe that the principle in any sport should be that someone is disqualified for putting themselves at an unfair advantage - why DQ someone for placing themselves, whether by error or poor technique, at a DISadvantage? Makes no sense at all, IMHO.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:22:28 GMT

Sometimes reading the rules is like reading physics. I think I understand what I'm read, but I really don't know what is said. My mind goes num when I read the rules for the backstroke turn. And trying to interprupt the rules is mind destroying. The continuous turning movement must limit the time you stay on your stomach and what about having both of your hands at your hips while you are on your stomach. That is what I was told Peisol does. It is very easy to see it. And he doesn't appear to be turning at all, only gliding into the wall.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:29:37 GMT

As difficult as it may be to judge the turn with the way the rule is currently written, it was much more difficult previously. I don't know exactly when the change was instituted, but when I was competing in the 1980s we still had to touch the wall with our hand. This is fine when everyone did the old John Nabor "sit and spin" turn. But, then backstrokers started pushing the limits of the rule and trying to rotate partially to their chest, touch the wall with the hand BEFORE passing the vertical towards the ***, and then proceeding to do a freestyle flip turn and push off on the back. The fastest turners were the ones who were closest to breaking the rule every time. Imagine the difficulty for a turn judge to decide in an instant whether the backstroker had passed the critical "vertical towards the ***" before or after touching the wall with his/her hand. The current rule is much better.

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:09:35 GMT

Based on the amount of discussion of this topic, one thing is certain - the rule is very poorly written!

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:26:33 GMT

Yes, Karen, it is like the the back to breaststroke that you described, except you come out toward the back rather than toward the ***. I also have many bad memories of hitting my head (but still not as bad as the time I hit my head swimming butterfly!) It seems so much easier to judge the wall than it used to be (not that I don't still make mistakes . . .)

RE: Backstroke rule change?

Former Member — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:10:49 GMT

Anyone like to define what "continuous turning action" really means? Seems to me that my turn begins when I start to rotate over my underwater turning arm and ends when my feet hit the wall. As long as I don't stop dead in the water before my feet hit the wall then I'd maintain I had a "continous turning action" regardless of what my arms and legs are doing.