I swam a 1650 at a pool that had a clock on the wall at the starting end of the pool. It was connected to the timing system and was displaying the running time of my event. I could see it every time my first breath off the walls. It DEFINITELY helped me, since I could tell how fast I was going and, as I got closer to the end, that if I went faster, I'd be under 19:00. Its not a counter, per se, but could certainly be construed as an illegally-placed pacing device.
I'm still not taking that as an illegal pace-keeping device. This is part of the facility, not a device that is brought by a particular swimmer.
We have to dig a little further into the rules to explain this though:
107.16 PACE CLOCKS
There shall be at least two large, accurate timing devices or clocks for each warm-up course, preferably located on opposite sides of the course, clearly visible to all swimmers.
Also, USMS 107.17.5 mentions the requirements for the time display board (required only for national championship meets). And while the clock you mentioned is not a part of that specification, I do not read that rule to prohibit additional timing display readouts.
If you go to the USA Swimming Rules & Regulations (2007 rulebook), USA-S 103.17 recommends the pace clocks to be on either side of the course (presumably race course). Certainly those clocks could be viewed by someone in the race course. I don't think anyone's going to advocate that a USA Swimming compliant facility is not going to be acceptable for a Masters meet.
So certainly pace clock placement or scoreboard placement could disparately aid swimmers. But that's the reality of the facility. Let's say a meet is held in a pool where, say lanes 1 and 2 are 4 feet deep the entire way, and lanes 7 and 8 are 8 feet deep the entire way, with 3-6 tapered in depth. That kind of pool setup is legal, although you better believe that you're disadvantaged in lane 1. Some people benefitting more than others does not an infraction make.
What about deaf people and verbal counters? I know I can't hear anything once I get in the water.
Someone who is deaf or hard of hearing could get a rule adjustment via Article 108. Allowing a visual signal of the time for such a swimmer would be in my opinion a reasonable accomodation (although I have to note that I have NO experience with what reasonable accomodations are for disability swimmers!). (I also agree with you that I'd never be able to hear a verbal count--I was leading a 500 once into the "bell" lap; the starter fired the recall pistol for the warning signal, but I never heard it!)
The rules to not specifically outlaw using the counterboard to display splits. The rules permit someone to signal intermittent times to a swimmer. The rules do not explain further and say how they can or cannot make the signal. Therefore, I think if I were to be DQ'd for this, I would have a strong leg on which to get that DQ overruled, and every USMS official I have talked to about this has said it would be acceptable.
I suppose if you took a really strict interpretation and said, "well, it doesn't say I CAN'T do this, so I suppose I can", you could go that way. But 102.10.6 governs what the counters can do. It says that a visual counter may be appointed to count lengths by visual sign or call lengths (102.10.6A), and that "verbal counters ... may use watches and signal intermediate times to the swimmer" (102.10.6B). What kind of "signal" is this? Since this is a signal given by a "verbal counter", it's a verbal signal. Those are two kinds of people the rules talk about counting (the rule is also identical to USA-S 102.5.6).
Now what does this silence about other things mean? I take the silence to mean that since the rule permits certain kinds of counters doing certain things, it implicitly prohibits other kinds of counters doing other things. Otherwise, why would this rule exist?
But as I mentioned earlier, to disqualify someone because of an infraction of this rule is silly. Requesting the counter to abide by 102.10.6 is the best way to handle it.
If only weird lap counting were the most of my concerns when I judge at meets....
Patrick King
I swam a 1650 at a pool that had a clock on the wall at the starting end of the pool. It was connected to the timing system and was displaying the running time of my event. I could see it every time my first breath off the walls. It DEFINITELY helped me, since I could tell how fast I was going and, as I got closer to the end, that if I went faster, I'd be under 19:00. Its not a counter, per se, but could certainly be construed as an illegally-placed pacing device.
I'm still not taking that as an illegal pace-keeping device. This is part of the facility, not a device that is brought by a particular swimmer.
We have to dig a little further into the rules to explain this though:
107.16 PACE CLOCKS
There shall be at least two large, accurate timing devices or clocks for each warm-up course, preferably located on opposite sides of the course, clearly visible to all swimmers.
Also, USMS 107.17.5 mentions the requirements for the time display board (required only for national championship meets). And while the clock you mentioned is not a part of that specification, I do not read that rule to prohibit additional timing display readouts.
If you go to the USA Swimming Rules & Regulations (2007 rulebook), USA-S 103.17 recommends the pace clocks to be on either side of the course (presumably race course). Certainly those clocks could be viewed by someone in the race course. I don't think anyone's going to advocate that a USA Swimming compliant facility is not going to be acceptable for a Masters meet.
So certainly pace clock placement or scoreboard placement could disparately aid swimmers. But that's the reality of the facility. Let's say a meet is held in a pool where, say lanes 1 and 2 are 4 feet deep the entire way, and lanes 7 and 8 are 8 feet deep the entire way, with 3-6 tapered in depth. That kind of pool setup is legal, although you better believe that you're disadvantaged in lane 1. Some people benefitting more than others does not an infraction make.
What about deaf people and verbal counters? I know I can't hear anything once I get in the water.
Someone who is deaf or hard of hearing could get a rule adjustment via Article 108. Allowing a visual signal of the time for such a swimmer would be in my opinion a reasonable accomodation (although I have to note that I have NO experience with what reasonable accomodations are for disability swimmers!). (I also agree with you that I'd never be able to hear a verbal count--I was leading a 500 once into the "bell" lap; the starter fired the recall pistol for the warning signal, but I never heard it!)
The rules to not specifically outlaw using the counterboard to display splits. The rules permit someone to signal intermittent times to a swimmer. The rules do not explain further and say how they can or cannot make the signal. Therefore, I think if I were to be DQ'd for this, I would have a strong leg on which to get that DQ overruled, and every USMS official I have talked to about this has said it would be acceptable.
I suppose if you took a really strict interpretation and said, "well, it doesn't say I CAN'T do this, so I suppose I can", you could go that way. But 102.10.6 governs what the counters can do. It says that a visual counter may be appointed to count lengths by visual sign or call lengths (102.10.6A), and that "verbal counters ... may use watches and signal intermediate times to the swimmer" (102.10.6B). What kind of "signal" is this? Since this is a signal given by a "verbal counter", it's a verbal signal. Those are two kinds of people the rules talk about counting (the rule is also identical to USA-S 102.5.6).
Now what does this silence about other things mean? I take the silence to mean that since the rule permits certain kinds of counters doing certain things, it implicitly prohibits other kinds of counters doing other things. Otherwise, why would this rule exist?
But as I mentioned earlier, to disqualify someone because of an infraction of this rule is silly. Requesting the counter to abide by 102.10.6 is the best way to handle it.
If only weird lap counting were the most of my concerns when I judge at meets....
Patrick King
