Can we talk about this rule (303.3 I think)? Anyone who was there, whether you voted yea or nay, can you please explain your thinking?
At first blush, I don't like that it passed. But I'd like to know what it really means for the future of OWS in USMS events.
I have mixed feelings about this. It appears to give the RD more control of how s/he wants to run the race and encourage more people to get into OW swimming. But on the other hand, it "dumbs down" the sport and possible leads to people who probably shouldn't be out in open water to feel like they will have a break if they need it. I also don't like that the RD has to announce that it's NOT allowed in the event information. So the default is that it's okay? Hmm...
My take: the longer distance races I've been in allow swimmers to hold onto a boat but not make forward progress. So, I admit I've held a kayak when needed, typically only for feeds, although on one occasion w a foot cramp. Lately, w the idea of getting into more strict swims, I've been working on weaning myself off that kind of assistance. For instance, in a recent swim where there was some flexibility about holding the boat, I mostly treaded water while taking food/drink, although I did hold the boat during an early feed. If the rules require me not to hold on, I want to be prepared. I think this is a learning process, and I want to respect the race director's rules, even as I'm grateful for the chance to venture out past my comfort zone with less strict rules. i think those races gave me a chance to extend my endurance, so as to feel more prepared to take on those w more stringent rules--kind of lie starting out w a wetsuit and gradually reducing one's need. (I personally prefer not wearing a wetsuit if water temp is mid 60s or above--and looking to increase cold tolerance, so i have more choices of swims.)
Might be a good skill to teach in an open water clinic. ... feeding and/or resting without touching the boat.
Also, one thing ppl should know if holding a kayak.... don't grab onto the side, only front or back, otherwise a kayak can tip which helps neither swimmer nor kayaker.
Overall, it's the RD's decision, and although I've benefited from permission to hold a kayak, I also want to grow as a swimmer, improve my open water skills, so I encourage race directors to stick to the no touch rules in place now, USMS or no USMS.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Can we talk about this rule (303.3 I think)? Anyone who was there, whether you voted yea or nay, can you please explain your thinking?I did not vote for or against the proposal (I was serving as Parliamentarian). But I'll take a shot. The approved language as I've copied it is"
303.9 DISQUALIFICATIONS
A disqualification can be made only by the referee, the starter or a judge within whose jurisdiction the infraction has been committed. Swimmers shall be disqualified if they: …
303.9.5 Make forward progress by pulling, pushing, or maintaining contact on physical features and/or craft on or near the course, other than the bottom near the start and finish and at specified locations. Event hosts may choose to prohibit deliberate contact between swimmers and craft and/or physical features if it has been announced in the event information.
As I see it, what the new rule does is it allows an event director to determine of they wish to follow "purist" open water swimming standards or allow "Tri-style" events.
Actually, it is different than holding onto a lane line during a pool event. The action of holding onto that lane line does not place any other swimmer in more danger, or take away safety from the rest of the swimmers in the pool, which maybe be up to 9 swimmers in a 10 lane pool?. Also, as a race director I might have 50 - 100 people or more in the water at one time, a lot different from a pool and swim meet.
If I have zone coverage on an open water event where I have kayaks out on the course, if one or two are used up with people holding on, they are unavailable to help other swimmers. Right now, that swimmer that holds on is usually removed from the course because they are unable to continue. But if it becomes common for people to think they can hold on and continue, how do I plan for rescue? Do I have kayaks out there for people to hold onto and others that are only to help facilitate rescue?
This isn't a good rule for race directors, its good that they allow the RD to used their own discretion, but muddies the waters. RD's get complaints from time to time and now I will have to field questions why I do or don't allow people to rest? It puts more stress on the race directors, many who are already fed up with USMS and go elsewhere for their sanction and insurance. Here in Colorado I was the only race that got a USMS sanction this year. This rule won't help bring anyone back to USMS that left.
This isn't a good rule for race directors, its good that they allow the RD to used their own discretion, but muddies the waters. RD's get complaints from time to time and now I will have to field questions why I do or don't allow people to rest? It puts more stress on the race directors, many who are already fed up with USMS and go elsewhere for their sanction and insurance. Here in Colorado I was the only race that got a USMS sanction this year. This rule won't help bring anyone back to USMS that left.
All of these points are definitely food for thought. At the tri-event I was at yesterday, I witnessed the race director consistently harried by athletes asking why they couldn't park closer to the course, a decision that was made by law enforcement. Even as polite as most of the queries were posited, there were an insane amount of them, and I couldn't help but think that if that part of the lot was blocked (and by law enforcement vehicles) early, there was no point in asking that question until well after the race. It wasn't going to change and asking then only served to harass the race director.
As a swimmer, thank you for putting these events together!
How each person voted is less important than the themes covered: Safety (of swimmer and support personnel), fairness of competition, and encouraging people to try open water.
There were lots of mixed feelings expressed by many, many.... many people at the convention on both sides of the subject - I'm not going to try to encapsulate everyone's point/counterpoint. But safe to say it was very thoroughly debated by committees and delegates.
IMO, this isn't the last rehash of this rule.
I, too, of a mixed mind on this - especially coming off of yesterday's 5K swum concurrently on the same course as multiple distances of triathlons (it's a USAT multi-sport event). In this case, I'm glad that the RD recognizes there are precious few open water swims in our area and so graciously includes some open water swims in all of the triathlon events he puts on. But as I'm on my 5th circuit of a 750m course, and I'm having dodge the sprint triathletes who can't be bothered with swimming the whole 750m and choose instead to walk in chest deep water forcing me to swim around them, I start rolling my eyes and grumbling.
That said, in open water swimming, no two events are alike. While I might look askance at someone holding onto a boat in a smooth water 5K, if allowing someone to do so in a rough water point to point swim expands the field, I might be OK with it. Ultimately, I'm always swimming against myself and the course. Even though I try to place as well as I can, I recognize that my placing is often more determined by strength of the field rather than my own abilities.
I think this sorts me out in favor of the new language, but hoping that RD's opt to be purist more often than not.
As I see it, what the new rule does is it allows an event director to determine of they wish to follow "purist" open water swimming standards or allow "Tri-style" events.
Until now I didn't realize there might be open water races or triathlons that allowed swimmers to touch boats. I thought it was strictly verboten everywhere.
