Does anyone know the rationale behind USMS rule 103.13.1(B)(1)? Specifically, this says that in order for an initial distance split to count as an "official time" (and thus, eligible for records, top-ten, etc.), the swimmer must notify the meet referee in writing before the end of the meet.
Does anyone know why we insist on this level of administrivia? This means that, technically, even as a meet director... if I notice that someone's 1000 split on their 1650 would be a new record... it's not a new record unless I remind the swimmer him/herself to write down on a piece of paper "Please make my split time count", and hand it to the referee. Before they leave the pool at the end of the meet.
In USA Swimming, the paperwork isn't necessary. Your 1000 split counts, without any paperwork, as long as it's valid, you finished the event, etc., etc. But you don't need silly paperwork.
So why do we insist on this paperwork in USMS? This seems like something that is doing us all a massive disservice as I'm sure many many potential records and top ten performances are being missed. If you swim a 1650, and your initial 1000 was a certain time... then your initial 1000 was that time, regardless of any paperwork you submit by the end of the meet.
(This is separate from setting up an expectation that these splits will be automatically submitted. That's a separate issue. My only issue is that if the swimmer does not write something down on a post-it note, that the window of opportunity closes, and there is no way to un-close the window the way the rulebook is written.)
I suppose the solution is to amend the disclaimer/waiver language for our meet entries to include a sentence "I HEREBY REQUEST TO THE REFEREE THAT EVERY INITIAL DISTANCE OF EVERY EVENT THAT I SWIM BE CONSIDERED AS AN OFFICIAL TIME.", and then that part of the rule is satisfied. If the USMS Rules Committee insists, I can photocopy all of our entry forms, and hand them to the Referee before the end of the meet.
-Rick
Again, to be clear... I am not trying to establish that top ten tabulators need to be expected to dig through initial splits by hand looking for all possible new records or top ten swims.
(I do think, though, as a logical next step... is that given this age of computers, we ought to have the automated tools available so that, for example, if a 1000 split on a 1650 is a new record at the LMSC or USMS level, our computer systems ought to be able to notice that without any extra work. I recognize that we may not be there yet, but I think that ought to be a goal. Frankly, most of the younger swimmers expect that the computers are keeping track of all of this, and are surprised that there is still so much human work behind the scenes.)
From a rules perspective, I'm merely interested in making it possible so that, for example, a TT tabulator would be allowed to accept an "unrequested" split time as a TT time. Right now, it is against the rules to do so.
-Rick
Again, to be clear... I am not trying to establish that top ten tabulators need to be expected to dig through initial splits by hand looking for all possible new records or top ten swims.
(I do think, though, as a logical next step... is that given this age of computers, we ought to have the automated tools available so that, for example, if a 1000 split on a 1650 is a new record at the LMSC or USMS level, our computer systems ought to be able to notice that without any extra work. I recognize that we may not be there yet, but I think that ought to be a goal. Frankly, most of the younger swimmers expect that the computers are keeping track of all of this, and are surprised that there is still so much human work behind the scenes.)
From a rules perspective, I'm merely interested in making it possible so that, for example, a TT tabulator would be allowed to accept an "unrequested" split time as a TT time. Right now, it is against the rules to do so.
-Rick
