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
No, thanks. Until, or if, the system is automated, I think they ought to submit them at the meet. Otherwise you are creating an unrealistic burden for the Top Ten recorders.
I think that depends a lot on the LMSC. Some have meets every 1-2 weeks, while others only have 1-2 per season, and with little likelihood that a split will result in a national record.
I am all for preventing unrealistic burdens on (usually volunteer) TT Recorders. But if that is the main purpose of the rule -- and it appears that it is a big reason, from Kathy's initial post -- then perhaps it isn't appropriate to legislate it nation-wide. We could allow the individual LMSCs decide on the policy appropriate to their situation.
No, thanks. Until, or if, the system is automated, I think they ought to submit them at the meet. Otherwise you are creating an unrealistic burden for the Top Ten recorders.
I think that depends a lot on the LMSC. Some have meets every 1-2 weeks, while others only have 1-2 per season, and with little likelihood that a split will result in a national record.
I am all for preventing unrealistic burdens on (usually volunteer) TT Recorders. But if that is the main purpose of the rule -- and it appears that it is a big reason, from Kathy's initial post -- then perhaps it isn't appropriate to legislate it nation-wide. We could allow the individual LMSCs decide on the policy appropriate to their situation.
