Five Fast Facts: 50 *** is the title of an article in the latest January 2007 USMS Swimmer magazine, page 10. This is under training and technique.
I normally like the USMS Swimmer magazine, but has anyone else but me been truly upset by such garbage!
They wasted 35 words saying that you have to surface before 15 meters!!!!!
Obviously the writer knew NOTHING about breaststroke, NO SUCH RULE exists for breaststroke.
Then they waste more space with " a scissor kick is illegal in competition.
And "the best *** swimmers spend more than half the race underwater is also JUST WRONG. That may be true in the 200 sc yards or meters, but not the 50 ***.
I am sorry to offend anyone, including the writer, but you should have checked your sources, there are many that could have put together MUCH better tips. It would have taken 10 seconds to email a masters breaststroker to confirn the information.:dedhorse:
I invite people like Allen Stark, Jeff Commings, Seth Van Neerden, Roque J Santos, David M Guthrie, Jack Groselle etc. to come up with 5 fast facts and tips for the 50 ***.
......too many bubbles and turbulence to see it through. Kind of weak from a sometimes official's point of view!
As an official, I agree that sometimes the surface glare in combination with turbulance and bubbles makes it hard to see. But polarized sunglasses do help to see through the glare. It's hard to second guess what the official actually did, or did not, see.
Calling a DQ in an Olympic Final is big business that is sure to ignite a firestorm of contrversy. There would be few things more embarassing for an Olympic official than to DQ a swimmer only to have that call overturned later on. Perhaps the official was not quite certain what it was that he/she was seeing and decided to err on the side of self preservation.
That happened to Peirsol though ... maybe the official was mad at his defending of Hansen after the illegal kick though (by Kitajima)... at least that's my theory, but he didn't seem to be too troubled to call Peirsol on it, yes I know it was over turned on a technicality AND some say it should have stood, though I don't see why ... but anyway ...
However this topic is ... :dedhorse: :dedhorse: BIG time ...
I love it just the same though ... :wiggle:
It's hard to be in the mind of the judge in that lane, but, unlike AG or HS swimming, they each have only one lane to look at and evaluate, there should have been no distractions to blame it on. The only explanation I can come up with other then being blind is......too many bubbles and turbulence to see it through. Kind of weak from a sometimes official's point of view!
Calling a DQ in an Olympic Final is big business that is sure to ignite a firestorm of contrversy. There would be few things more embarassing for an Olympic official than to DQ a swimmer only to have that call overturned later on. Perhaps the official was not quite certain what it was that he/she was seeing and decided to err on the side of self preservation.
Calling a DQ in an Olympic Final is big business that is sure to ignite a firestorm of contrversy. There would be few things more embarassing for an Olympic official than to DQ a swimmer only to have that call overturned later on. Perhaps the official was not quite certain what it was that he/she was seeing and decided to err on the side of self preservation.
With this in mind do you think that is why he used the 2x kick? underwater Replay should be used in this instance. Revocation of medals can be done at anytime.
No better/worse than taking "asthma medicine" IMHO.
Yeah, that is what we were taught....If you cannot absolutely say you saw it - it never happened!!!!
Or as the CFO I worked for said (very succinctly I might add),
"Deny and lie."
Ha!
SCY Freestyler - good words of wisdom there.
