PDA

View Full Version : 2010 USMS Convention DALLAS TX



ande
September 17th, 2010, 12:02 PM
2010 USMS Convention (https://www.usms.org/admin/conv/2010/)


Convention XXXI Information
Hyatt Regency Dallas at Reunion
Dallas, TX
September 15 - 19, 2010

Who's there?
What's going on?

2010 Pre-Convention Information (https://www.usms.org/content/preconv2010)

Individual Sections of Pre-Convention Packet:

Cover Page
Announcements
Table of Contents
USMS Convention Schedule
Exectutive Committee Reports
National Office Reports * UPDATED 8/30
Committee Reports & Meeting Agendas
Elections:
Candidates for Office
Election Schedule & Procedures * NEW 9/7
Liaison & Special Assignments Reports
Proposed Changes to Long Distance Rules
Proposed Rules Changes
Proposed Legislation Changes
2011 Budget:
Budget Priorities * NEW 9/10
Budget Proposal * NEW 9/10
Attachments:
Rules of the USMS Annual Meeting
Convention Check-In & Certification Procedure
Directory of Convention Attendees * NEW 9/10
Who's Who In USMS * NEW 9/10
2009 Financial Review * UPDATED 9/14
USMS Investment Policy * NEW 9/10
Open Water:
Officials Guidelines (Draft) * NEW 9/10
Safety Guidelines (Draft) * NEW 9/10
Sanction Process (Draft) * NEW 9/10
Meeting Minutes Form for Committees (Word Doc) * NEW 9/15

pdjang
September 17th, 2010, 12:19 PM
Thanks Ande.

It would be nice if USMS would put Rob's address on-line (streaming broadcast) or post highlights on YouTube.

I'm interested in hearing more about 2012 LCM following the Olympic Trials.

qbrain
September 17th, 2010, 12:27 PM
Did you notice there was a lot of drafting in the open water section? :bolt:

tjrpatt
September 18th, 2010, 09:13 PM
the people have spoken, correct?

Chris Stevenson
September 19th, 2010, 07:37 AM
the people have spoken, correct?

I've attached the results of votes on rule proposals that I (subjectively) thought would interest most swimmers the most. There was much more, of course, things like passing the budget, more minor rule changes, administrative stuff, etc.

Of interest to many people would be the approved rotation of (three) schedules for nationals that will begin in 2012; I can't easily reproduce that here, and I also think Championship was directed to make some minor tweaks (I may be misremembering). Championship presented 5 possible schedules and the HOD went thru 2 rounds of voting, where one schedule was voted off the island in each round.

Championship tried a few new/different ideas, like putting the distance events (400/500 free and 400 IM) at the end of the day of some schedules, rather than the beginning, and separating the relays (on the day in which there are two sets of relays). The thinking of the first change was, I believe, that some distance people feel that they are persecuted when they are forced to always swim first thing in the morning. But every distance person I talked to -- I was sitting next to Laurie Hug during this voting -- really really hated the idea of putting them at the end, and the two schedules that were voted out were the ones in which this idea was tried. I am actually wondering whether this feature of the "most hated" schedules dominated all others in the voting.

The idea of separating the two relays was also much hated, and I think it was this that Championship was directed to fix in one of the approved schedules.

I am happy to report, though, that the persecution of butterflier/backstrokers halted, for the most part. However, one of the schedules approved was my own personal "most hated." It has the 200 fly and 200 back on the same day, separated only by the 100 IM...which means that for LCM nationals, they are back-to-back. But there were no other instances of fly/back events being back-to-back. Still a big improvement over the current rotation, at least for me.


Did you notice there was a lot of drafting in the open water section? :bolt:

Don't even get me started...



I'm interested in hearing more about 2012 LCM following the Olympic Trials.

There was a presentation about this. From my admittedly-fuzzy recollection -- we're talking about a 5+ hour meeting, after all -- there are going to be a number of seats for the last 4 days of trials to be made available exclusively for purchase by masters swimmers.

Right after trials, the pool will be available for practice for the US Olympic team; USMS will have maybe a couple hours for warmup/practice on each day. So USMS nationals will start a couple days after trials end.

Ahelee Sue Osborn
September 19th, 2010, 10:26 AM
This year all of the masters sessions were video-taped by Chris Lundie @ Liveswim.net
Hopefully they are posted/used somewhere.

Meeting minutes have been distributed and will be available online soon too.

I just got home late last night - did not stay for the awards party.

Heard Bobby Patten is coach of the year :)
Asphalt Green Club of the Year
Mark Moore, Championship Committee Award

I don't have all the names of the Kerry O'Brien Award so someone who knows all should post them.

...sure others have lots more details to add -

Chris Stevenson
September 19th, 2010, 12:02 PM
I don't have all the names of the Kerry O'Brien Award so someone who knows all should post them.

Info is here:

http://www.usms.org/admin/conv/2010/

Editor
September 19th, 2010, 08:52 PM
The names of the newly elected officers and award honorees can also be seen in the News Room in a press release (http://www.usms.org/news/newsitem.php?n=66). There are also several PRs about Spring and Summer Nationals bid awards for 2012.

jroddin
September 19th, 2010, 09:30 PM
Mark Moore, Championship Committee Award




Just a quick clarification - the name of the award is actually the USMS National Championship Meets Award . It is presented by the Raleigh Area Masters to the person or persons who contributed the most to USMS National Championship meets - it has nothing to do with the Championship Committee. Mark Moore is a very deserving recipient of the award for his work hosting 2005 LC Nationals, serving as the Championship Committee Chair for 4 years and for being liaison for several Nationals.

Jeff

chowmi
September 20th, 2010, 10:04 AM
I wasn't a delegate this year, but did attend the Banquet for the first time. It was great to see Bobby inducted! They also honored the 1980 Olympic Team, and we happened to have a member sitting with us -yes, it was none other than Coach Yell, formerly known as Steve Barnicoat.

ande
September 20th, 2010, 12:59 PM
the text of rob's 2010 address (https://www.usms.org/admin/conv/2010/executiveaddress.pdf)

2010 U.S. Masters Swimming Annual Convention
Rob Butcher, Executive Director
Convention Address
September 16, 2010

Two years ago, USMS was operating as a “virtual” organization.
With the help of several long time staff members, Tracy Grilli, Jim Matysek, Mel Goldstein, and Margaret Bayless, the board of directors, executive committee and committees day to day operated the organization. And then an Executive Director gets hired. It was, and in many ways, continues to be a transition time for all of us.

At the 2008 Convention, a four-year Action Plan was presented and adopted by you, the House of Delegates. The Action Plan at its soul called for and would require a partnership. The partnership would be between the volunteers that govern and the professional staff that would carry out the operations.

This Action Plan provided us road map in continuing to fulfill our mission and meet our objectives. In broad speak, the Action Plan called for a number of items. Some we’ve fully met and some continue to be in progress:

1) Centralization and establishment of a headquarters
2) Invest in the member experience
3) Invest in Infrastructure Development
4) Investing in Coach and Club Education Programs such as Masters Certification
5) Rebranding our identity to be inclusive of fitness swimmers, open water swimmers, triathletes and competitive swimmers
6) And Marketing of our brand by joining the 21st Century digital and social media age with exciting video coverage of events, clubs and volunteers

A four-year budget pro-forma was presented to support our Action Plan. The pro-forma indicated we would tap into our reserves in Year 1 and Year 2 to meet our goals. Well, the good news on our financials is fourfold;

1) Some of the costs have not been as much as expected
2) We’ve had better cumulative membership increases than projected
3) The Finance Committee, board and staff have exercised fiscal discipline
4) And we’ve added to our overall net reserves. Our reserve fund today stands at its highest mark ever of nearly $2 million dollars

Let’s now take a look at a video recap of the past year…. All of you deserve a round of applause for these accomplishments.

So… where then do we see opportunity?


I. Membership has increased nearly 15% the last two years but our non-renewal rate of nearly 36% is both a problem and an opportunity. In 2009, 2010 and 2011 combined, we will turn over our entire membership with 60,000 non-renewing members.

Membership is nearly 75% of USMS revenue and in most cases 99% of LMSC revenue. Membership renewal and membership growth affects all of us. To learn why our members renew and why they do not, this winter we will administer a comprehensive survey.

While there are many hypotheses as to what we can do about membership retention and membership growth, the survey will enlighten us on what the renewing and non-renewing membership thinks and perceives.

We must all be prepared to confront the findings. They may reveal that we need to make changes to our business, changes that could go against some of our traditions and reshape how we govern and operate.

But if membership retention and membership growth is important, than we will need to make these changes so they are in the best interest of our member wishes.


II. We are successfully integrated more technology into key areas of our business such as online membership registration and event results.

Our End-to-End Event Management Task Force has been carefully studying and making recommendations for how we further automate our business such as event sanctioning. The efficiency of operation and information to be gleaned and applied from automation are of significant benefit to USMS.

On sanctions, if we dig just a little deeper, for the most part we own the adult competitive pool space. But sanctioning of open water events is a different story.

Consider the following:
 In 1999, there were roughly 220 domestic open water events
 In 2009, there are roughly 850 domestic open water events, an increase of 300%
 In 2009, an estimated 183,000 individuals will participate in domestic open water events

The average age of the open water swimmer is 36. This is our demographic

You see it everyday at your local programs.

More open water swimmers and triathletes looking for swimming help. And we are the only organization with the coaching and program structure to help them.

While we do sanction an estimated 20 to 30% of the open water events, the larger number of open water events go unsanctioned or get a turnkey sanction from USA Triathlon.

The Open Water Committee has the mission of growing grass roots open water. They recommend creation of a consistent and mainstream application process. This is a position we should support.


III. We all desire and value communication.

It is provided to LMSC leaders and clubs.
But what about workout groups? How many of are there? Where are they? How do we communicate with them? How do we serve them and provide education opportunities?

At the moment, it’s a guessing game.

Let me be clear on this topic, our actions and intention is to provide service to every location that offers a USMS program.

It is incumbent upon us to develop a method of communication and information exchange with workout groups that can benefit the membership.


IV. Our Endowment Fund in its current form has served its purpose. The time has come for us to develop our Foundation.

Members have proven over the last 10-years they will support our charitable efforts when provided a purposeful mission and asked. This year we received our largest ever contribution, $100,000. The board just this weekend supported a redefined mission for our Foundation:

“We will focus our resources on the vital lifesaving and lifetime benefits of swimming.

We provide needed funding to reduce drowning rates in the United States and to lead a nation-wide curative fitness and well-being initiative that is swimming central.

In short, Swimming Saves Lives!”

We will be requesting and seek your support of an allocation of resources to serve this mission.

And finally, one word of caution.

USMS is no longer a sleeping giant.

We are visible to many.

Our actions are watched.

In today’s media and Internet hungry world, even the most innocent of traditions could be questioned.

Our litmus test for safeguards is the protection of our brand.

In closing, thank you to our board of directors. In particular, thank you to:
 Betsy Durrant
 Jeanne Ensign
 Michael Moore
 Meg Smath
 Laura Winslow
 and Jerry Clark

These 6 board members have reached their term limit. We greatly appreciate your service and leadership. We know your hearts are still with USMS and you will find other ways to be involved.

Lastly, thank you to our extraordinary staff. You are a passionate group and you “bring it” everyday. You are committed to our mission. It is an honor and a privilege to serve with you.

Thank you.

ALM
September 20th, 2010, 09:18 PM
This video, YouTube - We are U.S. Masters Swimming, was shown at the aquatic awards banquet on Saturday night.

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 10:40 AM
Any details on why R49 (allow splits for top-10 within 30 days of meet) was withdrawn?

-Rick

Chris Stevenson
September 21st, 2010, 11:56 AM
Any details on why R49 (allow splits for top-10 within 30 days of meet) was withdrawn?

The issue was designating split times as Official Times. Top 10 recorders are not allowed to do it, and the Records and Tabulation Committee decided that it would be too much of a hassle for the meet referee (or admin ref) to do it after the meet was over, particularly if there were a lot of post-meet split requests.

I believe someone also said that the meet results could not be official until all such split requests were received, meaning that meet results wouldn't be official until 30 days after the meet. I don't know the reasoning behind that statement; but by that point in the meeting it was clear that most of the Committee was against the proposal. The vote was unanimous to withdraw the proposal.

Bottom line: it is much easier to determine if a split time is legit at the meet itself.

LindsayNB
September 21st, 2010, 11:58 AM
This video, YouTube - We are U.S. Masters Swimming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiLHyg1Usp8), was shown at the aquatic awards banquet on Saturday night.

Was this video produced specifically for the awards banquet? It seemed to be 96% about competition.

Lump
September 21st, 2010, 12:11 PM
So what was the decision (if any) on the full body tech suits for SCY only?
:worms::worms::worms::worms::worms::worms::worms:: worms::worms:

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 12:11 PM
I believe someone also said that the meet results could not be official until all such split requests were received, meaning that meet results wouldn't be official until 30 days after the meet. I don't know the reasoning behind that statement; but by that point in the meeting it was clear that most of the Committee was against the proposal. The vote was unanimous to withdraw the proposal.

Bottom line: it is much easier to determine if a split time is legit at the meet itself.

This is frustrating, and is such a disservice to swimmers.

The rule proposal that I was looking for was to _ALLOW_ for this to be possible, not _REQUIRE_ that it be possible.

If should be up to ME as a meet director, in conjunction with my Meet Referee, to determine if I am willing to do the work to verify splits after the meet is over.

Well... my guess is that from now on, we will just include blanket text in every meet entry form that says "I hereby request that every one of my splits be considered as an official time". I would encourage all swimmers going to any meet to bury the Meet Director and Meet Referee with official requests for splits during the meet for every swim that they participate in.

As it is... so at the end of the meet, we consider the results official. Guess what... if I discover a major tabulation error in the results 30 days later... I'm going to amend the results and make the correction. Sorry, your time of 9:35.65 in the 1650 freestyle was a technical error, and you do not get the world record just because we didn't notice it before the end of the meet.

-Rick

knelson
September 21st, 2010, 12:30 PM
So what was the decision (if any) on the full body tech suits for SCY only?
:worms::worms::worms::worms::worms::worms::worms:: worms::worms:

Shot down like the Red Baron by Snoopy.

jroddin
September 21st, 2010, 12:38 PM
.. if I discover a major tabulation error in the results 30 days later... I'm going to amend the results and make the correction.

Just make sure you are an official Timing Judge per the rulebook because the Timing Judge official (or Admin Ref) is who authorizes official times. Most Top Ten recorders are not officials. I imagine a loophole is the Meet Director later submits a correction to their official results due to an error (split request form that was lost and then found...). :bolt:

You are obviously upset about this, but I think the point you are missing is the Top Ten Recorders are typically not in a position to certify a swim as an official time and the original Rule proposal tried to give the TTR the ability to do this.

makesense
September 21st, 2010, 12:56 PM
So what was the decision (if any) on the full body tech suits for SCY only?

Not happening

swimshark
September 21st, 2010, 12:59 PM
Tby request that every one of my splits be considered as an official time". I would encourage all swimmers going to any meet to bury the Meet Director and Meet Referee with official requests for splits during the meet for every swim that they participate in.

As it is... so at the end of the meet, we consider the results official. Guess what... if I discover a major tabulation error in the results 30 days later... I'm going to amend the results and make the correction. Sorry, your time of 9:35.65 in the 1650 freestyle was a technical error, and you do not get the world record just because we didn't notice it before the end of the meet.

-Rick

So you want to make it even harder to find people willing to volunteer to be meet directors and officials? At some meets, finding those to do the jobs is hard enough. Adding more work on them just because you aren't happy with a ruling isn't the solution.

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 01:13 PM
Just make sure you are an official Timing Judge per the rulebook because the Timing Judge official (or Admin Ref) is who authorizes official times.

The requirements for the "Timing Judge" are extremely loose. The rulebook basically only says "Under the direction of the referee....". So the Timing Judge is whoever the Referee says is the Timing Judge. (And by my read, the Referee is the only person on deck who needs to be certified by any certification authority. The starters and stroke & turn judges don't need any official certification, officially.)


You are obviously upset about this, but I think the point you are missing is the Top Ten Recorders are typically not in a position to certify a swim as an official time and the original Rule proposal tried to give the TTR the ability to do this.

It's clear that the proposed legislation was flawed. The re-wording of 103.13.1B (definition of Official Time) was flawed in the proposal. I had no interest in making TT recorders responsible for determining official time. They have, and should not have, absolutely no authority to do so. I just want the ability for a Meet Referee/Timing Judge/Meet Director (in appropriate coordination) to be able to make a split time into an official time after the meet is over. Frankly, for non-backstroke events, it's far easier for me to do so after the meet than during the meet. During the meet, I've got 1000 swimmers running around. After the meet, it's just me, and the paperwork. The paperwork doesn't yell and scream.

-Rick

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 01:19 PM
So you want to make it even harder to find people willing to volunteer to be meet directors and officials? At some meets, finding those to do the jobs is hard enough. Adding more work on them just because you aren't happy with a ruling isn't the solution.

The way the rule is written now, it makes it harder on the meet staff to keep the interest of the swimmers first. The way the rule is written, if you're a swimmer, your window of opportunity CLOSES at the end of the meet, period. If you don't put something in writing before you leave the deck, you have ZERO recourse. The only way to keep the interest of the swimmers first is to make sure swimmers are able to keep their options open, and submit paperwork for anything they might possibly want to count in the future.

The way the rule is written, it causes meet staff extra work at the meet because it requires paperwork to take place then. It also causes meet staff extra work because we have to deal with unhappy swimmers afterward who want a time to count, but they have lost their opportunity.

Let's remember... USA Swimming doesn't have these problems with split times.

-Rick

swimshark
September 21st, 2010, 01:46 PM
The way the rule is written now, it makes it harder on the meet staff to keep the interest of the swimmers first. The way the rule is written, if you're a swimmer, your window of opportunity CLOSES at the end of the meet, period. If you don't put something in writing before you leave the deck, you have ZERO recourse. The only way to keep the interest of the swimmers first is to make sure swimmers are able to keep their options open, and submit paperwork for anything they might possibly want to count in the future.

The way the rule is written, it causes meet staff extra work at the meet because it requires paperwork to take place then. It also causes meet staff extra work because we have to deal with unhappy swimmers afterward who want a time to count, but they have lost their opportunity.

Let's remember... USA Swimming doesn't have these problems with split times.

-Rick

It makes sense to me that we have to ask for splits during the meet and not after - certainly not 30 days after. I don't see why this rule needs to be changed.

Chris Stevenson
September 21st, 2010, 02:12 PM
This is frustrating, and is such a disservice to swimmers.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that score. I sort of feel that safeguarding accuracy of times is pretty important too.



The rule proposal that I was looking for was to _ALLOW_ for this to be possible, not _REQUIRE_ that it be possible.

Was there a reason you didn't bring this fact to my attention earlier? The rule proposals have been out for a while, and I could have asked for a motion to amend it to something like this. (I'm not sure if that would have passed.)

Your original request was the impetus behind the proposal that the committee submitted; nobody else was asking for it. The committee thought it pretty reasonable at the time, before we realized the requirements to ensure accuracy made it much less practical.



I would encourage all swimmers going to any meet to bury the Meet Director and Meet Referee with official requests for splits during the meet for every swim that they participate in.

Hmmm, real mature. Sorry the world doesn't turn exactly as you wish it.

Chris Stevenson
September 21st, 2010, 02:20 PM
The way the rule is written now, it makes it harder on the meet staff to keep the interest of the swimmers first. The way the rule is written, if you're a swimmer, your window of opportunity CLOSES at the end of the meet, period. If you don't put something in writing before you leave the deck, you have ZERO recourse. The only way to keep the interest of the swimmers first is to make sure swimmers are able to keep their options open, and submit paperwork for anything they might possibly want to count in the future.

The way the rule is written, it causes meet staff extra work at the meet because it requires paperwork to take place then. It also causes meet staff extra work because we have to deal with unhappy swimmers afterward who want a time to count, but they have lost their opportunity.

Let's remember... USA Swimming doesn't have these problems with split times.

-Rick

We aren't USA-S. They also don't have much problem with pool measurements...mostly because they don't really care if the pool is short unless a record is at stake.

I'll say it again: you were the only person asking for this. I don't see it as a hot-button issue with swimmers nation-wide.

As a swimmer, I really don't find it difficult to request a split before I leave the meet.

I believe you are incorrect that the referee needs to VERIFY the split at the meet, s/he just needs to receive the request to do so.

thewookiee
September 21st, 2010, 02:23 PM
I would encourage all swimmers going to any meet to bury the Meet Director and Meet Referee with official requests for splits during the meet for every swim that they participate in.



-Rick

Knowing a few meet directors, I have seen just how hard they work at the meets. I can't imagine flooding them with any extra paperwork for splits. I know most of my splits wouldn't make Top Ten, so why bother to burden a meet director? Oh, yea, cause someone that didn't get what he wanted at convention is being a brat about the issue? No thanks. Meet directors bust their humps enough already(and yes, I know you are one too.)

Second thought, if happen to be a meet director and I attend the meet, then I will burden you with the extra paperwork

aquageek
September 21st, 2010, 02:41 PM
...then I will burden you with the extra paperwork

You are already a big hairy burden to us all, Cave Donkey.

thewookiee
September 21st, 2010, 03:04 PM
You are already a big hairy burden to us all, Cave Donkey.

Oompa loompa, go learn to swim backstroke without your bubble.

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 03:44 PM
I sort of feel that safeguarding accuracy of times is pretty important too.


Accuracy of times is paramount. I don't believe I've been asking for anything that would jeopardize the accuracy of times.



Was there a reason you didn't bring this fact to my attention earlier? The rule proposals have been out for a while, and I could have asked for a motion to amend it to something like this. (I'm not sure if that would have passed.)


I'll take a direct hit on that one. I don't remember when the convention stuff comes out, but my recollection is it's August sometime. For my day job, I'm in IT in higher education... so we go into 200% work crazy mode for basically all of August and the first part of September. It wasn't until a few days ago I realized "Oh... convention must be coming up...". I've always been interested in attending the convention (both on the USA Swimming and USMS sides), but with my current line of work, I'll never be able to attend due to the calendar.



Hmmm, real mature. Sorry the world doesn't turn exactly as you wish it.

This is what I told people at our own meet, where I was the one dealing with the paperwork. I'd rather deal with more paperwork than with unhappy interactions with swimmers who forgot to submit splits.

-Rick

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 03:48 PM
I'll say it again: you were the only person asking for this.


One thing worth mentioning... based on a number of email responses I got from TT tabulators from various LMSCs, it appears that this rule is routinely ignored by TT tabulators. I'm not a fan of disregarding rules in the rulebook. The rule says I'm not allowed to offer any flexibility as a Meet Director on this point. I believe that many don't care about this rule because they're simply ignoring it.

-Rick

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 03:50 PM
Second thought, if happen to be a meet director and I attend the meet, then I will burden you with the extra paperwork

I would encourage you to. It's the only way to keep your options open.

-Rick

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 03:59 PM
I'm content to just walk away from this. I get it. People don't want this rule changed. That's fine. We'll get people to do more paperwork at the meet. If they complain after, we'll remind them that this issue failed at convention, and they can complain to the Rules Committee.

-Rick

Chris Stevenson
September 21st, 2010, 05:33 PM
If they complain after, we'll remind them that this issue failed at convention, and they can complain to the Rules Committee.

Don't complain to them. The Rules Committee didn't withdraw the proposal, Records and Tabulation did. I'm pretty used to complaints; for example, recently there has been this meet director who is unhappy with my efforts on his behalf and publicly derided them as "flawed."

Can you explain to me how your paperwork would decrease if you allow swimmers more time to request splits (ie, to submit more paperwork)? I'm pretty sure the opposite would happen.

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 06:06 PM
[Response sent via PM.]

Muppet
September 21st, 2010, 09:15 PM
I would encourage all swimmers going to any meet to bury the Meet Director and Meet Referee with official requests for splits during the meet for every swim that they participate in.

Oh good, another reason to charge for split requests!!

Rick, I believe you have some good reasoning as to why to allow requests to be submitted after the meet is over. I, for one, missed out on a Top 10/All American time last year because I forgot to submit a request for the 800 of a 1500. That's my (the swimmer's) fault for not knowing/remembering the rules.

However, as good as meet directors, timing judges and admin referees may be, I don't trust the accuracy of decisions made a month after the meet. Think of backstroke as an example of an after-the-meet split request gone wrong. How is the referee to remember that a particular swimmer in a particular lane did or did not do a flip turn (ie illegal finish for backstroke) at the 50 or 100 of a 100 or 200? See the problem?

osterber
September 21st, 2010, 11:37 PM
...

[Response sent via PM.]

That Guy
September 21st, 2010, 11:48 PM
Sorry, your time of 9:35.65 in the 1650 freestyle was a technical error, and you do not get the world record just because we didn't notice it before the end of the meet.

And all this time I'd been holding out hope that my 38 split for the first 100 of the 200 LCM fly two months ago would eventually be recognized... I broke Phelps' 100 fly WR by 11 seconds!!! Although... it occurs to me now that maybe I shouldn't have posted video evidence to the contrary... hindsight is 20-20... :badday:

Betsy
September 22nd, 2010, 01:10 PM
At the meet I host Nov 6 in Virginia Beach, I am going to have a Sign-Up sheet at the Registration/Check-in desk for split requests. I am going to try to alert swimmers that they can request splits if there is a chance that the split time might make top10. I'll have to talk to the referee about what information he/she needs during the meet. At the end of the meet, I plan to have the referee authorize the split times from the printouts. Then, I can deal with the paperwork the next day. Does that sound like it will work?
Records are another matter - we have to have the referee sign the forms that day. Because we offer the distance relays for SCM, we hope to have several new relay records. And there are a few individuals, Chris Stevenson included, who may get individual records.

Chris Stevenson
September 22nd, 2010, 02:35 PM
At the end of the meet, I plan to have the referee authorize the split times from the printouts. Then, I can deal with the paperwork the next day. Does that sound like it will work?


It should work, as long as you have access to the raw data for the heat of the split requests. To truly verify a split time when there is some question about it (since you don't have buttons or manual watches to compare again) it is sometimes necessary to compare the splits to those of the rest of the heat.

For example, you can tell if a touchpad was incorrectly triggered if (say) lane 5 is ahead of lane 6 and widening the lead...and suddenly there is an odd outcome because s/he missed the pad or it was triggered by someone else (eg someone filling up his goggles).

I noticed at PR that there were LOTS of weird split results on some events. I don't envy Walt Reid having to go through those.

Of course, sometimes someone enters an event like 800 free but really wants a 100 time. That person may blast the first 100 and then take a LONG time to do the next 50-100 before resuming at cruise speed. On the printout the resulting splits might look a little wacky. I would think a meet referee would want to make note of this when it happens. (Allowing split requests after the fact makes this practice a little complicated.)

osterber
September 22nd, 2010, 09:14 PM
To add... I don't believe there is anything that requires you to complete record forms the same day, beyond convenience. At our big meets, I do record applications after the meet, and FedEx the paperwork to our referee to sign, then get them back, make copies, and send in. Depending on what access you have to your referee after the meet, that is an option.

If you are new to running meets... One thing to also do is keep any notes that are written by key people. For example, our referee, place judge, timing operator, etc. all have heat sheets that are marked up with order of finish, empty lanes, etc. Encourage those people to also note anything unusual on their heat sheets. Then be sure someone collects those heat sheets and gets them into your files. For example, if we have an 800 swimmer go out hard for a 100 split, typically one or more people will mark something about it in their heat sheet. So when digging through the paperwork later, you can get confirmation that a "fast" split for that lane "makes sense".

-Rick

ALM
September 22nd, 2010, 09:22 PM
I have only processed a few record applications, but aren't you supposed to have the timers sign the timing sheets when there is a record? How do you handle that - do you have the timers all sign every timer sheet, just in case?

osterber
September 22nd, 2010, 09:44 PM
Was this stopwatch or touchpad timing? With automatic/touchpad timing, only the signature of the referee is required, along with printouts from the timing system, etc. I don't recall the policy for stopwatch only timing.

-Rick

ALM
September 22nd, 2010, 09:47 PM
Touchpads with manual watches as backups. These are the instructions on the record form:

"Attach the printout showing event number, heat number, splits, backup from the electronic timing system and/or time card with the signatures of all three timers."

I interpreted the "and" as saying that I needed to submit both the backup from the electronic timing system, AND the time card with the signatures of all three timers.

Perhaps Chris can clarify. I recall frantically running around at the end of one meet, trying to find the timers for a certain lane after we realized that a record had been set.

osterber
September 22nd, 2010, 11:24 PM
You're right, I never noticed that wording. In years of submitting record applications, I have never submitted a timer signatures. It seems this wording on the record application could be clarified either way. :-)

In our championship meets anyways, we only have two human timers per lane, which is sufficient when using touchpads. So I could never get three timer signatures anyways.

-Rick

Chris Stevenson
September 23rd, 2010, 05:04 AM
Touchpads with manual watches as backups. These are the instructions on the record form:

"Attach the printout showing event number, heat number, splits, backup from the electronic timing system and/or time card with the signatures of all three timers."

I interpreted the "and" as saying that I needed to submit both the backup from the electronic timing system, AND the time card with the signatures of all three timers.

Perhaps Chris can clarify. I recall frantically running around at the end of one meet, trying to find the timers for a certain lane after we realized that a record had been set.

I had interpreted it that way too, but I have heard from very many experienced hands who always do as Rick does (without the signatures) so clearly Walt accepts them that way. I believe the signatures are only required if buttons/watches are the primary system or if the touchpad completely fails (eg the person misses the pad) and the watches must be used.

Given the fact that automatic timing from splits can be used for records -- there ARE no timers in that case, since until this past Convention manual timing for splits was not allowed -- I don't see how timer signatures can be a requirement if the touchpad time is deemed valiid.

I'll ask Walt to be sure; we need to make another change in the record application form anyway for the Rule Book. (The form does not make it clear that *copies* of the birth certificate or passport are sufficient for proof of age.) Maybe we can re-word this part.

On a related manner, I'm not looking forward to trying to re-word the split request form in light of the passage of R48. Now we have the following:

1. Split requests must be submitted ahead of time for backstroke and relay leadoffs.

2. Split requests must be submitted by the end of the meet in other cases when automatic timing is the primary system.

3. When timers/buttons are used as the primary system, all split requests must be submitted before the swim. (This should be obvious, but...!)

4. The same primary timing system shall be used for splits as is used for the completed swims. (In other words, if touchpads are available and functioning, a swimmer cannot request a hand-timed split.)

osterber
September 23rd, 2010, 10:06 AM
One interesting note... and I need to check the USA Swimming rulebook more closely for a reference. In all my workings with nationally-certified USA Swimming admin refs, they repeatedly pointed out that when using touchpads (i.e., automatic primary system), in the event of a pad malfunction, a corrected time (i.e., adjusted/calculated button, etc.) is then considered an automatic time.

I.e., if you're running a meet with touchpads, with one backup timer per lane, and have a pad malfunction on a finish... if you make the appropriate correction to the single button time, then that corrected/adjusted time is considered an automatic time for the purposes of the rules, records, etc.

I.e., if you have a pad malfunction, and correctly adjust a button time following the procedures, even with just a single button, then that should be sufficient for a record.

I don't think that's ever happened in our meet (needing to use an adjusted button for a record). However, based on my use of the record application form... if that happened, we likely wouldn't have the signature of the timer available. (We wouldn't put 2 and 2 together to even know it was a record until later in most cases.)

This of course also just gets to... at some point, we do need to trust that everyone is honest. If anyone really wanted to, it would be trivial to forge a timing system printout for any time that I wanted to for any swimmer that you wanted to.

-Rick

jroddin
September 23rd, 2010, 10:48 AM
This of course also just gets to... at some point, we do need to trust that everyone is honest. If anyone really wanted to, it would be trivial to forge a timing system printout for any time that I wanted to for any swimmer that you wanted to.

-Rick

The record app doesn't specify which printout is actually required for the record. However, in my dealings with Walt it is the "Race History" that is required, not the "Race Summary." I am using CTS terminology and don't know what Omega, Daktronics, etc. may use. The Race Summary can be printed out later in the meet after adjustments have been made. The Race History comes off the press real time and shows all of the original pad hits and can't be printed later. Therefore, for honesty purposes the Race History is the one that can't be changed (unless somebody uses white-out, etc. to make a change or if they can recreate the sheet using Word using the same fonts, etc.). The problem is if you 100% require the Race History for the record app, you are SOL if the printer happens to jam during that heat because you cannot recreate it later - unless Walt will accept a Race Summary with an honest mea culpa.

Why are all these details so critical? Here's my best explanation why you can't just turn in meet results signed by the ref from a meet that used aumatic timing: you need a copy of the heat sheet to place the swimmer in a specific heat/lane. You then use the Race History to show what that heat/lane actually did. Meet Results, as we all know, sometimes contain errors with the wrong swimmer, NS, etc. But pairing the heat sheet with the Race History tells the story.

Jeff

osterber
September 23rd, 2010, 11:26 AM
The Race History is not difficult to forge. It's just a printout. Anything along the way is not hard to forge. Heck, you can fake out a touchpad with a button trivially if you want to.

This is why there are humans involved. We trust Walt to make sure the supporting paperwork is appropriate. If I send in something that doesn't make sense, he'll ask, and we'll explain. Heck, in a non-record situation, I had a swimmer appeal to the USMS Officials Committee about my decision to invalidate a touchpad time in an event and use the (adjusted) button, for a _competitor_. The result of my invalidating the touchpad time for the competitor was that the competitor won race by a few hundredths. (The pad times said swimmer A beat swimmer B by a few tenths. The buttons said that swimmer B won. The watches said that swimmer B won. The place judge said that swimmer B won. Based on that, we declared a pad malfunction for swimmer B, and used an adjusted button, which had swimmer B win. Swimmer A appealed.)

The end result is that the paperwork needs to all tell a consistent story. If there's an anomaly, we dig deeper.

-Rick

Chris Stevenson
September 23rd, 2010, 11:45 AM
One interesting note... and I need to check the USA Swimming rulebook more closely for a reference. In all my workings with nationally-certified USA Swimming admin refs, they repeatedly pointed out that when using touchpads (i.e., automatic primary system), in the event of a pad malfunction, a corrected time (i.e., adjusted/calculated button, etc.) is then considered an automatic time.

I.e., if you're running a meet with touchpads, with one backup timer per lane, and have a pad malfunction on a finish... if you make the appropriate correction to the single button time, then that corrected/adjusted time is considered an automatic time for the purposes of the rules, records, etc.

Yes. I had a conversation with Charlie Cockrell (Officials chair) about this very issue. He said that 3 timers are only needed if they are the *primary* timing system.

So I wondered why at meets that have 2 timers/lane, there are often instructions that you should request a third timer if you are going for a record? I forgot to ask Charlie this, but I think the reason is that sometimes the pad simply fails to register. Or possibly a swimmer misses the pad. If there is NO time, then an adjustment is not possible and you need the 3 timers.

Betsy
September 23rd, 2010, 12:09 PM
I usually process 2-3 records each year at my meet. If the electronic timing is working, you just have to submit the CTS printouts and heat sheet to show heat and lane. Fortunately, I have never had to use watch times. It would be hard to go back after the meet and figure who was timing which lane.
One year a swimmer broke a record but the pad did not register. We figured the adjusted time from the buttons and submitted it. Walt used the printouts and corrected the way we had adjusted the time. Good service!

osterber
September 23rd, 2010, 03:44 PM
If there is NO time, then an adjustment is not possible and you need the 3 timers.

If the pad misses at the finish (i.e., single lane malfunction), you can make an appropriate correction using either a single button, or a single watch, if that's all you have. Having more than one human helps to make it more reliable, but a single button backup is sufficient.

(Otherwise, every meet would always need 3 human timers per lane, even if you had touchpads, just in case, and for sure that doesn't happen.)

-Rick

Chris Stevenson
September 23rd, 2010, 04:10 PM
If the pad misses at the finish (i.e., single lane malfunction), you can make an appropriate correction using either a single button, or a single watch, if that's all you have. Having more than one human helps to make it more reliable, but a single button backup is sufficient.

Yes, I realized my brainfart soon after I posted but couldn't get back here to change it.

So then I guess don't know why at some meets (with automatic timing as the primary system) they have you request a 3rd timer if you anticipate breaking a record.

osterber
September 23rd, 2010, 05:33 PM
Thought it might have been a brainfart. :-)

I think the reason people ask for 3 timers is mostly not knowing. The USA Swimming, USMS, and NCAA rulebooks are a bit vague in the areas of timers required for records, and what you do when a pad malfunctions. My recollection is that the concept that you can correct a pad malfunction with a single button is largely based on established practice and interpretation, and is not firmly or clearly written in any of the rulebooks. Nobody wants to screw it up, so everyone over-prepares. (Which isn't a terrible thing... three buttons are better than 2, which are better than 1.)

The terrible problem arises when you have one human timer, and the touchpad fails, and it happens to be the one race that the timer was asleep and missed the finish as well.

-Rick

jroddin
September 23rd, 2010, 08:54 PM
What if for some reason the starting system doesn't activate in a heat with a potential record? Would that not be a good case for having the third backup timer?

Or, let's say your timing system only has 2 buttons per lane and the swimmer misses the pad and the two button times are far apart - so you need to rule one of the button times out. The watch times, presumably, tell the story as to which button time is good and which is bad. Let's say you had a third watch on the lane. If the one person with the bad button time was also off with the watch, at least you have that middle watch time to use. Or do you then use the one button time and apply a horizontal or vertical correction to come up with a pad time? If the latter is the case where you are permitted to use just one button time than it is even rarer to need the 3 watches (except to give the timing judge some peace of mind that the one button time is legit). My head hurts thinking about this...

osterber
September 23rd, 2010, 10:34 PM
The timing system not starting is easy to deal with, as long as you can start the timing system late. That's a heat malfunction, and the heat malfunction correction rules go into play. Even if you only have one timer/button per lane, you have, in effect, as many timers and you have lanes to correct. If you have 8 lanes, then for each lane, you get a pad-to-button differential, and then average that differential across all lanes, and that tells you exactly how late the timer started, and thus how much time to add to each pad time to correct. That is very accurate, given that you're introducing 8 or 16 or 24 humans into the formula.

In the case of a pad malfunction, and you have a bad human timer... of course more timers will help. In my experience working with USA Swimming National Admin Referees, the general practice is that you look to find as much agreement with your data that you can, while keeping in mind that if you have human timers pushing buttons and watches, then you may have corresponding pairs of good or bad data. For example, you may have a timer who is slow on the finish, and the pad _and_ button is always slow. However, they may also be slow at the start with the stopwatch, so that may "correct itself" on both ends of the swim.

You also have order of finish that can help. If you have watch or button data that matches, or does not match, the order of finish, that can help piece together the data.

In the end, it becomes a judgment call in terms of what data is valid. The standard of course is 0.30 second difference between a pad and button to signal a problem... but it is the judgment of the Timing Judge (under the direction of the Referee) to determine if it was the pad that was bad, or the button that was bad, or both, based on the available data.

But certainly... it is a dream having three human timers per lane if you can get it. (Although sometimes... I'd take one good competent timer, over three bad human timers.)

In the very very rare case that I have no good data to arrive at a time, I've got no choice but to manually insert the slowest possible time that fits the available data. For example, I know you finished about 3 seconds ahead of the swimmer in lane 6, but don't know by how much, I might give you a time that is 1.00 seconds faster than lane 6, knowing it couldn't be slower than that.. but I can't know that it was any faster.

-Rick

Conniekat8
September 30th, 2010, 02:18 AM
Touchpads with manual watches as backups. These are the instructions on the record form:

"Attach the printout showing event number, heat number, splits, backup from the electronic timing system and/or time card with the signatures of all three timers."

I interpreted the "and" as saying that I needed to submit both the backup from the electronic timing system, AND the time card with the signatures of all three timers.

Perhaps Chris can clarify. I recall frantically running around at the end of one meet, trying to find the timers for a certain lane after we realized that a record had been set.

I remember in our meets, the head timer often starts running around frantically looking for a third timer, when we have someone who *might* set a world record.

Mark and the meet admin and officials tend to be in charge of that part at our meets, rather then me, so I don't know if it's a requirement, or if he wants to be safe rather then sorry. I do remember being dragged off from whatever I am doing at the time, to be the third timer myself.