age up dates

awesome! that's exactly what i needed to know... thanks jayhawk! :applaud:

OK, lets open up a can of worms here. Can anyone explain the rationale for the two different ways of determining age/up? My birthday is in July so for SCY I have to wait 10 months after I age up to go to SC Nats in the next age group. Whereas for LCM, I age up a month prior to my BD. And what about those people who have a BD in December? On Jan 1 they age up and they are a year away from their next BD. RATS!!!

Looks like it was the day of the meet in 1997. I don't have a 1997 rule book but I do have the 1998 and 1999 rule books here; it looks like it changed between those years. Here is what each of them say: USMS 1998 RULE BOOK, Page 19: 102.2: The elgibility of a participant for a particular age group will be determined by the age as of the last day of the meet. USMS 1999 RULE BOOK, Page 19: 102.2.1: For short course yards, the eligibility of a participant for a particular age group shall be determined by the age as of the last day of the meet. 102.2.2: For short course meters and long course meters, the eligibility of a participant for a particular age group shall be determined by the age as of December 31 of the year of competition. - -

OK, lets open up a can of worms here. Can anyone explain the rationale for the two different ways of determining age/up? "Can of worms" is an understatement. :) I remember the year we debated this at Convention. In the 15 conventions that I've attended, I don't think I've ever heard such strong opinions on any other topic. As you saw from my previous post, USMS's age-up date used to be the swimmer's birthday for all three courses. The rest of the world (FINA), however, went by the swimmer's age on 12/31 of a given year. The rationale for changing the rule was so we would conform with the rest of the FINA members. I don't remember for sure, but the original proposal may have been to change our age-up date for all three courses. As you have pointed out, there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. Because we (the US) are the only country that swims yards, and keeps yards records, we can pretty much do whatever we want with those rules. I believe that keeping the swimmer's birthday for the SCY age-up date was something of a compromise. Anna Lea

Glenn, I'm kinda with you here... My birthday is the end of August, so I get shafted for LCM. I am always a year younger than my LCM age - in '05, i was 24 and competing against 29 year olds. Even though I'd still not be "the right age," I'd be more in favor of LCM age by the end of the season, since it ends way before the end of the year. However, for record-keeping, i can see how one standard age is beneficial.

I agree with you big time, It's a Slow Show!!!! So, Swimmer Bill and Jayhawk, would there be any possibility of a rule change that changed the rule to "age at last day of the meet" for all three venues be a possibility or does that get in the way of FINA rules?

Jayhawk and Swimmer Bill, What was the discussion at convention on this topic? Is it people with the wrong BD's vs everyone else or what? I honestly don't remember all of the arguments. Shoot, I don't even remember what I had for lunch yesterday. :) After so many conventions, things get sort of muddled. I do distinctly remember a discussion about relay age groups, but I can't remember if it was in conjunction with the age-up issue in 1998 or whether it was a different year. I think what happened was that there was a proposal to change the SCY relay age groups (based on the age of the youngest swimmer on the team, 25+, 35+, 45+, etc.) to the system used for SCM and LCM relays (based on the sum of the four ages, 120-159, 160-199, 200-239, etc.). There was a lot of discussion about how the relay records would change if we went away from the 25+ system. As I'm sure you're aware, you can compose a vastly different relay team that can still swim in a "young" age group. Moving to the 120-159 system would probably force that same team to swim in an older age group. I'm sorry that I don't remember more. Maybe Bill or someone else who was there will chime in. Anna Lea

Jayhawk, I like your example. It makes it all very clear. The way you explain it, I am not sure that that scenario is a bad thing. Is it confusing to have a world record but not a USMS record? Yes. But it already is confusing when I swim a LCM meet in June when my BD is in July and for FINA purposes I am in the next age group. Of course that is only a problem once every five years. Also, in SCY for people whose BD's are say in March, they sometimes have Top Ten times in two age groups at the same time in the same event. That doesn't seem to be a problem for the tabulators. I guess I am wondering if there is any scenario that seemingly makes it fairer for everyone.

Jayhawk and Swimmer Bill, What was the discussion at convention on this topic? Is it people with the wrong BD's vs everyone else or what?

Now that I'm looking at old meeting minutes, I may not have been there for the original discussion that landed us with the Dec. 31st birthdays. The proposal I recall is R10 from 2000: www.usms.org/.../rulesproposals.pdf That proposal called for the age determining date for all three courses to be the same - Dec. 31st. I voted "no", and it looks like a majority felt the same way. :bolt: