Your top ten experience is strange to me. For what reason could a time be thrown out? The only thing I can imagine is if the pool wasn't measured and everyone conducting a meet should know this requirement.
Keep in mind the "current top times" list can include multiple swims by the same individual, so it isn't unusual to move up from your position on that list.
also re: top ten, if meet results include non-USMS swimmers and those meet results are added to the current top times, when the top ten is published, the non-USMS swimmers are removed.
for example, if a :canada: master would come to a meet south of the border (ie here in the states :) ), they would probably be in the current top times, but wouldn't count in the final top ten times. unless they were registered with USMS. but i don't think you can register with both organizations...
When I competed during high school (early 90's), every male wore substantially identical suits (bikini-style) and used substantially identical gear (goggles, caps). This fact set swimming apart from many other sports, where the equipment used plays an important part in determining outcome. Different tennis rackets, skis, golf clubs, bicycles, shoes, etc. impart advantages to those who can afford them.
When I win a race in my low-dollar jammer, at least I know I won based upon pure ability, rather than a technological advantage. If other swimmers would adopt this attitude, issues like "Wetsuits At Meets" would not exist and we would return to the pure compeition of swimming I used to admire.
OK, do we want to gnash our teeth, cluck and wag fingers, or take care of the problem? Even if wetsuits are not specifically named in the rules, using one to gain unfair advantage is against the rules and violates the spirit of the sport.
Name the meet and/or competitor to a local or national official (of USMS, not a referee), and this will be taken care of. It is one thing to swim as a joke with a cap festooned with crabs and seaweed, it is another altogether to take advantage of nonexistant meet officiating. This thread is three pages longer than necessary.
It's one thing for a performance to contain a disqualifiable infraction. It's another for that performance to be set aside well after the fact.
Many seemingly obvious stroke infractions (e.g., two hand touch, or clear false starts, or clear early take-off violations, or finishing in the same lane you started in, etc.) get overlooked because the stroke & turn judge may be too busy. And when you start getting up into the 5-10 lane neighborhood for supervision, nothing is obvious anymore (or if you're inexperienced like me, little is obvious either!). Many infractions, some of which we know about, are going to slide through the cracks. But the rule book places the responsibility on "the official within whose jurisdiction the infraction has been committed" (102.15.1), or the referee (103.6.2). If neither of them noticed an infraction, it's over, that swimmer has an official time (unless they were otherwise ineligible).
Let's say for example, a swimmer is swimming breaststroke. Knowingly or unknowingly (it doesn't matter), they finish the race with a one hand touch, which is certainly an infraction, and seemingly is noticed by everyone in the facility. But the stroke & turn judge misses it for whatever reason, and the referee, who might make the DQ himself for such an obvious missed call, was busy taking down order-of-finish. And as everyone checks the scoreboard, they realize the swimmer broke the world record for the event.
But one of opposing coaches is irked, and goes to the referee to complain about the dropped call. The referee asks the stroke & turn judge in the jurisdiction if they could clearly see an infraction on the finish, to which they say "no". By our rules, this situation is over. The swimmer, regrettably, picked up the world record with an illegal performance.
Now, we could "take care of this problem" too in the example. We could set aside the time, refuse to count it any tabulations, et cetera. But how do you do this so far after the fact? Memories are already starting to fade. The benefit of the doubt in this situation certainly would not be going to the swimmer involved. Let's say the imaginary swimmer I mention claims that his fingernail of the other hand grazed the touchpad simultaneously, making a two hand touch. But everyone else (save the 2 officials who didn't see it initially) disagrees with him. Given the burden of the evidence, we could set aside his swim. But how can the original swimmer contest this, even though his swim was ruled at the meet as legal? Certainly he could claim that i) he was not DQed by the officials, and ii) (in his case) the no call was a judgment call, of which further review would be barred.
In the original wetsuit incident, we have an observation that a swimmer was wearing a wetsuit and was not DQed at the meet. Can we DQ this swimmer now, well after the meet, in accordance with our rules? I don't think so. Nor should we.
Instead, we need to figure out what we can do better for the next meet. Certainly we need to make sure all of rules are enforced, and that people bring these issues to the referee at the appropriate time. Maybe we should look at our rules to make this issue more clear (although we should be careful not to stray too far from the USA Swimming rulebook, or the officials, many of whom are USA Swimming judges, won't know the fine distinctions). And maybe we need to also need to look at the quantity and quality of judging. These kinds of things will happen (and I certainly know this, both as a swimmer and a stroke judge), but we don't want them to happen twice.
Patrick King
Obviously. However, these were not multiple swims by the same swimmers that were thrown out. These girls vanished totally. The swims took place at nationals. So I doubt that the measurement of the pool was an issue.
They weren't wearing wet suits by any chance, were they? :joker:
OK, do we want to gnash our teeth, cluck and wag fingers, or take care of the problem? Even if wetsuits are not specifically named in the rules, using one to gain unfair advantage is against the rules and violates the spirit of the sport.
Name the meet and/or competitor to a local or national official (of USMS, not a referee), and this will be taken care of. It is one thing to swim as a joke with a cap festooned with crabs and seaweed, it is another altogether to take advantage of nonexistant meet officiating. This thread is three pages longer than necessary.
I'm pretty sure only USMS members are allowed to swim at Nationals.
I don't know if the rules have changed, but I can remember national meets a long time ago which had Canadian and UK swimmers, swimming for their local clubs, so they couldn't have been registered with USMS.
OK, do we want to gnash our teeth, cluck and wag fingers, or take care of the problem? Even if wetsuits are not specifically named in the rules, using one to gain unfair advantage is against the rules and violates the spirit of the sport.
Name the meet and/or competitor to a local or national official (of USMS, not a referee), and this will be taken care of. It is one thing to swim as a joke with a cap festooned with crabs and seaweed, it is another altogether to take advantage of nonexistant meet officiating. This thread is three pages longer than necessary.
Oh I don't know.
Fort, how much did this woman beat you by? By the way you are improving and training, (if it were me), I'd much prefer beating her the next time and then making a comment directly to her about the suit. End of story. I'd gain much more satisfaction that way as opposed to running to the officials.
I can't help but think of myself in practice (or a meet) when I'm sandwiched between a 6'2" male on my left and a gal in my wetsuit on my right. Oh, and one lane down is a 22 yr old fresh from her swimming career at UGA. Sure, they aren't in my "age group," but we all know we're racing eachother.
Frankly, I never know what the heck is going to be next to me in masters. I fully expect Shamu and Jaws to make an appearance in the lane next to me at one of my meets. This attitude has served me well in meets and practice (expect anything.)
This brings up an interesting point. What is really fair? The wetsuit is simply another variable. I'd much rather swim against an older female in a wetsuit as opposed to a 22 year old right off his or her NCAA Div I season. Half my meets I attend are seeded regardless of age and gender and seed times are often inaccurate.
Don't get me started on my thoughts about Top 10.
Anyhoo. Great thread.
I didn't swim the 400 IM. She didn't beat me; I beat her in our couple common events.
Since I didn't see it up close myself -- I'm usually oblivious to competitors right before I swim -- I would not report it. I don't think many people fancy being a squealer either.
Wait -- you can't just leave us hanging. What are you thoughts on top ten?
I just wonder how accurate Top 10 actually is.
I've been on both sides now where my best times were thrown out (due to a simple technicality.) And on the flip side, this past season, I actually moved up a few spots when other swimmers' times were thrown out for lord knows what reason. As much as I'd like to think I was truly 3rd in the nation in some events, I don't feel that elation after seeing a couple of gals' performances/ times vanish. So, I'll be at x place under "Current Top Times" and then at z or c place in Top 10. It's always a surprise. Anyhoo, what is really fair? I just swim. :D I feel for the gals whose times went - poof!
