PDA

View Full Version : Times invalidated because of pool measurement certification



bobsig
December 24th, 2017, 01:02 PM
I, along with 58 others, swam the Southern LCM championship on 7/29-30/2017. We did so in the University of New Orleans Pool in New Orleans, LA just as we have for years with the exception of the Hurricane Katrina year and several subsequent years.
My problem is that, when I checked my times of the USMS website, the times were in red with an explanation that they could not be used as official for records because the pool's measurement was not certified as it had a moveable bulkhead. I emailed Southern and asked why the certification had not been sent in and they replied that it had been sent but it had an error and USMS would not let it be corrected. This bummed me out as I had 4 top 10 swims and 5 Southern record swims for my age group.
This seems to be an awful price to pay for the innocent, dues and event paying participant who has no control pool certification. All we know is that the bulkhead is at the far end of the pool, 50 meters, where it always has been for LCM meets in the past. There is nothing obvious that we can detect or correct to make the pool certifiable and there is no way to make sure the form is sent in correctly.
There must be some way USMS can rectify this situation without invalidating the times of the swimmers who invested time and money in the meet.

Allen Stark
December 24th, 2017, 01:46 PM
I, along with 58 others, swam the Southern LCM championship on 7/29-30/2017. We did so in the University of New Orleans Pool in New Orleans, LA just as we have for years with the exception of the Hurricane Katrina year and several subsequent years.
My problem is that, when I checked my times of the USMS website, the times were in red with an explanation that they could not be used as official for records because the pool's measurement was not certified as it had a moveable bulkhead. I emailed Southern and asked why the certification had not been sent in and they replied that it had been sent but it had an error and USMS would not let it be corrected. This bummed me out as I had 4 top 10 swims and 5 Southern record swims for my age group.
This seems to be an awful price to pay for the innocent, dues and event paying participant who has no control pool certification. All we know is that the bulkhead is at the far end of the pool, 50 meters, where it always has been for LCM meets in the past. There is nothing obvious that we can detect or correct to make the pool certifiable and there is no way to make sure the form is sent in correctly.
There must be some way USMS can rectify this situation without invalidating the times of the swimmers who invested time and money in the meet.

As someone who has had swims at 2 different meets not count due to measurement irregularities I understand your upset.Your situation seems worse if the measurement was OK, and the problem is bureaucratic.

quicksilver
December 24th, 2017, 05:01 PM
If this pool has been certified in the past, why would that certification suddenly change? Yes, they have to measure, but honestly this rationale should apply moreso for the short course placement

Clearly it (the pool) has a history and a precedent set. One could reason that the bulkhead was locked into the fifty meter spot as it always had been in the past.

Seems very unfair. The meet director evidently did you all a disservice, and should be the one trying to correct the wrong. Good luck wth that.

Windrath
December 24th, 2017, 08:37 PM
Bobsig,

I do hope alot of swimmers read this thread, so they can begin challenging Meet Directors to ensure pool length is certifiable. I am married to the USMS SWIMS coordinator, so I see alot of pool measurement forms. You would not believe how many pool measurement forms are submitted that make little sense. The info is written down and there seems to be no effort to make sure the numbers make sense. Due to many different designs, bulkheads need to be measured every time a meet is held in that pool. Just because the previous meet's measurement was acceptable does not mean the next meet will be.

For your meet, there were questions about the pool measurement. The pre-meet measurement indicated at least one lane was short. The Meet Director should have either had the bulkhead moved or informed all swimmers that times would not count for Top Ten. They did not. The after-meet measurement showed that at least one lane was short. Believe me, a huge effort was made in an attempt to accept the times. But, in the end and after much discussion, the Rules Committee made the decision to NOT accept any times.

If you think about Southern saying the "the measurement had been sent in with an error and USMS would not allow it to be corrected," you will see the problem with that logic. The Meet Director should have fixed the bulkhead and re-measured. I am guessing the MD did not really think about it and just sent it through as if simply doing the measurement met the requirement - even if it was short. The Meet Director (and others) made a mistake and 58 people are paying for it. USMS is the not problem here - the lack of attention-to-detail by the Meet Director is.

If I were in your position, I would be just as dissatisfied as you. In my opinion, you should get your money back because the Meet Host should have done better. They should know if the pool is legal in advance of the meet. If the first measurement is short and they cannot fix it, they should notify all swimmers before the meet begins. If swimmer(s) decide not to compete they should get their money back.

Now, the nuance is that the meet info does give the Meet Director an out because the meet info states that it is a bulkhead pool. As a swimmer, you should pressure the meet director to refund your entry fees because the pool was not of legal length.

Good Luck - I do feel your pain.

Paul Windrath

bobsig
December 24th, 2017, 10:31 PM
Paul, thank you very much for your answer and explanation of the thinking that went into the decision to not certify the pool and subsequently the results of the meet. There are a bunch of questions that I have that I would like to pose:
1. Does USMS take into consideration that the race director was retiring after the meet and might not have a lot of incentive to do the right thing by the athletes in the meet?
2. The bulkhead in question is a solid bulkhead across all 8 lanes and the measurement should be skewed in more than one lane as, logically, the bulkhead would be on a bias and more than one lane would be affected?
3. Did USMS check times to see if they were affected by the alleged shortened lane? I swam in lane 1 thru lane 7 and my times are about what I would expect in all lanes. Lane 8 was used for warm up and warm down.
4. If one lane was affected, why aren't the times in the other lanes ok?
5. If USMS knows there is a problem prior to the meet, why can't they send an email blast to participant or post something on the website? There is not only the entry fees but there a large number of participants from out of town who rented hotel room and traveled decent distances to the meet. It was also one of the longest meets I have attended as there was a computer breakdown and I spent almost 8 hours at the venue on the first day.
I know this is quixotic but I just had to rant as I am frustrated and have lost my thirst for competitive swimming and USMS.

Bob Sigerson

Windrath
December 24th, 2017, 11:23 PM
Bob -

Let me try to answer, based on my personal opinion and not speaking for USMS, with the input from my better half - the SWIMS coordinator:

1) USMS had no knowledge that the Race Director was retiring nor, in imho, should that have any bearing on the decisions that person made. If it did, shame on them for being Race Director. Retirement should not affect how the Race Director did their job.
2) This was part of the problem since there were only measurements on the inner and outside lanes. Since the middle lane was short and the outer lanes were ok, there was no way to determine if the other lanes were of certifiable length.
3) It is not USMS's responsbility to check to see if times were affected or not. There is no way that this can be checked nor factored into the decision.
4) Because of the lack of individual lane measurements, there was no way to determine if some lanes' times could count.
5) USMS does not know any of this prior to the meet because all of the info is submitted sometime after the meet. The responsibility falls entirely on the Meet Host to measure and communicate as needed. Mary Beth received the pool measurements in October. You can see how there is little USMS can do except deal with it after-the-fact which reinforces the Meet Host's responsibility to do it correctly in the first place.

As I answer you, I think back to 1994 when I set a world record in the 200 back and it almost did not count because of how the event was titled. I would have been devastated if it had not counted. So, I really feel your pain. But, as I mentioned a number of times, the responsibility for the pool being legal falls entirely to the host organization and the LMSC. There is nothing USMS can do except deal with the problem after-the-fact.

Although I had no direct responsibility for answering your post, I decided to respond because masters swimmers should NOT assume the pool is legal when bulkheads are involved. Although the Meet Host should take the lead in assuring the swimmers that the course is of legal length, they often do not take this aspect seriously. Thus, the swimmers should pressure the Meet Host to make sure it is legal.

Now, going into the detail a bit. The middle lane was measured three times during the meet (before, after the first session, and end) and was short all three times - by as much as 1/4". While this may seem inconsequential, short is short.

Now, tongue-in-cheek, I have often said that USMS should have a fudge factor for short pools. This fudge factor would be applied to times so that swims can count - even when swum in short pools. No one seems interested in my solution to the "short pool" issue. :)

I wish my response could mitigate your frustration, but I know it can't. And, I doubt it is any consolation that this meet caused considerable stress on Mary Beth because it meant times would not count. At most, I hope this demonstrates that many factors went into the decision. Too bad, the meet host was NOT proactive when this whole thing could have been prevented.

I do hope, for USMS' sake, that you will compete again in the future.

Respectfully,

Paul Windrath

smontanaro
December 25th, 2017, 09:11 AM
I will add a meta-comment. I was the Top Ten Recorder for Illinois Masters for a few years, and found Mary Beth Windrath to be nothing but helpful. Knowing nothing else about this particular situation, I'm confident Mary Beth would have done everything possible to try to make things work out.

ForceDJ
December 25th, 2017, 10:56 AM
If this pool has been certified in the past, why would that certification suddenly change? Yes, they have to measure, but honestly this rationale should apply moreso for the short course placement

Clearly it (the pool) has a history and a precedent set. One could reason that the bulkhead was locked into the fifty meter spot as it always had been in the past.

Seems very unfair. The meet director evidently did you all a disservice, and should be the one trying to correct the wrong. Good luck wth that.

I was thinking the same thing. Is it possible for a pool's measurement to ever change? But then I thought about the moveable bulkhead. And I suppose that IF a new bulkhead were obtained, and the original certified one had been replaced...although the new one gets moored to the same fixtures...the new one might actually have a different measurement. But...in a pool with no moveable bulkhead...seems to me that once it's certified that it's certified for life.

In cases such as what happened with the OP's results...if the pool was advertised as certified by the meet management...and then it wasn't...they should at least be required to refund registration fees.

Dan

Windrath
December 25th, 2017, 03:57 PM
Dan,

You are correct about a pool without bulkheads - once they are measured (every lane) and confirmed each lane is legal, the pool is put on the list of pools that are legal. Now, the devil is in the details - how many pads are being used compared to when the measurement was done. And, if there are any future renovations that affect the pool dimensions, a new measurement is required.

Pools will bulkheads offer many challenges since all bulk heads are not created equal. There are pin-in-place ones, ones that hold in place by other means, ones that sit on the bottom, sturdy ones and narrow flimsy ones. I have seen narrow, flimsy ones become shorter in the middle lanes because the lane lines were really tightened. It can be as much as 2-3" shorter in the middle.

Tweaking can take place in any bulkhead pool. I have seen bulkheads tweaked and re-measured 2-3x to get it as short as possible and still legal.

Then there are issues when using pads at each end vs one end because some bulkhead pools are legal with one, but not two pads in place.

Measurements need to be done before, after each session, and at the end of the final session because bulkheads can move based on tightness of the lane lines, etc.. A pool might be legal at the beginning of the meet, but not at the end. If the measurements are not done completely, issues develop. And, once the meet is over and even a day passes, re-dos are not possible.

Then, you have steel tape vs laser and the skill of the operator. I have seen pool measurements where one lane is 3-4" longer than the one next to it. Or, the entire pool is 6" long. These were operator error. Obvious operator errors leave one wondering about any measuring accuracy at those meets.

Because bulk head pools have so many challenges, it is important that meet hosts understand the consequences of poorly conducted measurements. Many do understand. Unfortunately, there are many who do not. The swimmers are ones who suffer when measurements are not done properly.

So, the best advice to masters swimmers is know the rules and, when you race in a bulkhead pool, ask the Meet Host BEFORE & AFTER if the pool is/was legal.

Good Discussion.

orca1946
December 25th, 2017, 04:10 PM
It all seems very contradictory in how it is measured. I agree if the M D knew before the meet that lanes were short, then it is upon the meet to refund fees! or should have posted this before the meet started by the lane assignments.

quicksilver
December 26th, 2017, 12:27 PM
These move-able bulkheads should ideally be retro-fitted with some sort of pin - to be locked into the deck surface in the exact location, each and every time the length is being changed over to new course dimensions.

Not only would this guarantee a certified pool measurement, but it would alleviate the concern that the bulkhead would have shifted after several hours of being pushed against during competition.

Some bulkheads indeed seem to have some "flex" in the center, especially in the ten lane pools. Surely there must be a way to prevent any give over time. The center lane lines should be triple checked for a vary taut connection to ensure that the middle lanes aren't off by an inch or so.

All this to say - it's very unfortunate to see this happen to the OP. Meet directors should be more pro-active about the seriousness of having a legitimate competition pool.

...this thread from many years ago shed some light on the issues. It's interesting to consider that even a few inches of play could result in a thirteen foot difference over a 1,000 meters. http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?718-The-Art-of-Pool-Length-Measurement

Doug Martin
December 26th, 2017, 02:00 PM
These move-able bulkheads should ideally be retro-fitted with some sort of pin - to be locked into the deck surface in the exact location, each and every time the length is being changed over to new course dimensions.

Not only would this guarantee a certified pool measurement, but it would alleviate the concern that the bulkhead would have shifted after several hours of being pushed against during competition.

The bulkhead at my home pool has exactly this sort of pin, and four corresponding holes on either side of the deck at 25y and 50m. Plus the bulkhead itself must weigh half a ton at least, so it is virtually impossible for the distance to be off. Nevertheless, as Top Ten recorder for my LMSC, I dutifully measure the pool several times a year. My shaky laser measurements are more likely to produce a bad result than the bulkhead itself. There must be lots of pools like this, or with other means of assuring the correct placement. I respectfully suggest--and Paul, please pass this on to Mary Beth and the appropriate authorities--that each LMSC be allowed to identify pools/bulkheads that are similarly foolproof, and that times swum in these pools be automatically included in Top Ten without bulkhead measurement. Only in the case of a national or world record should a measurement be required.

In particular, this would alleviate the uncomfortable situation where a Masters swimmer has to request that the Meet Director measure a pool in a USA Swimming meet, where the measurement requirements are not as stringent as Masters.

gdanner
December 26th, 2017, 04:00 PM
This bummed me out as I had 4 top 10 swims and 5 Southern record swims for my age group.

Unless your LMSC by-laws or policies indicate that your records must meet the same measurement requirements, it is possible you could get them approved as LMSC records. USMS does not require each LMSC to maintain records or how they should do so. I would encourage you to ask your Top Ten Recorder or someone on the Board to consider such a request.

quicksilver
December 26th, 2017, 04:11 PM
The bulkhead at my home pool has exactly this sort of pin, and four corresponding holes on either side of the deck at 25y and 50m. Plus the bulkhead itself must weigh half a ton at least, so it is virtually impossible for the distance to be off. Nevertheless, as Top Ten recorder for my LMSC, I dutifully measure the pool several times a year. My shaky laser measurements are more likely to produce a bad result than the bulkhead itself. There must be lots of pools like this, or with other means of assuring the correct placement. I respectfully suggest--and Paul, please pass this on to Mary Beth and the appropriate authorities--that each LMSC be allowed to identify pools/bulkheads that are similarly foolproof, and that times swum in these pools be automatically included in Top Ten without bulkhead measurement. Only in the case of a national or world record should a measurement be required.

In particular, this would alleviate the uncomfortable situation where a Masters swimmer has to request that the Meet Director measure a pool in a USA Swimming meet, where the measurement requirements are not as stringent as Masters.

Very interesting Doug - the pins seem to be precisely the kind of thing which should avoid constant checking and rechecking when it comes to certifying a pool with a moveable bulkhead.

This post from the older thread goes to show that the askew placement can prove to be a very common problem...



For reasons that should be obvious, I need to not comment about most of what goes on here because one never know when one would be asked to intervene or interpret but I felt a story here was useful.

For a number of years now, I have been officiating at the USA-S Sectional meet that one and now both of my daughters have been competing. A couple of years ago, I was pulling duty as the turn judge at the turn end during the 1000 Free on the first night of the meet. The meet was being conducted in a 50 meter pool with two bulkheads set at 25 yards. I sat down on the corner of the pool and looked down to watch the turns and quickly noticed that the bulkhead was far from being straight. In fact the bow in the center of the pool was on the order of 4-5 inches! (In the 1000 that amounts to over 13 feet difference.) At the time I was not one of the assigned crew, so I got the attention of one of them and explained what I saw. Now at least half of the event had already been contested. No one did anything and I didn't push it that night.

The next morning, I went up to the Meet Referee and simply said "You have a problem". After he said "I do?", I brought him over and showed him the bulkhead. We then scrambled to do what we could. The first thing that happened was the double lane lines were reduced to single lane line that were only as tight as they needed to be. That took care of about half of the buldge. Prelims were run in that configuration. Between prelims and finals, the maintenance crew came in with two come-alongs, broke open the back of the bulkhead and pulled the two bulkheads together in order to straighten the competitive one. The meet then proceeded with what was close to a regulation course. Things like this happen and to this day, I wonder how many NCAA cuts were made in the center lanes of that pool.

Karlene
December 26th, 2017, 04:22 PM
Bob, I understand your frustration in having top 10 swims invalidated. I've probably lost over 20 TT times over the past 25 years due to RD not submitting results and inaccurate pool lengths. I was also at the meet in question, spending two nights in hotels, meals, travel, etc. My goal was to get a NQT in the mile to use for SC Nationals in Indy. My 1500 meter time was 35 seconds faster than the NQT straight up and over a minute faster when converted from LCM to SCY. My question to USMS is: Am I going to have to go to another out of town meet, with the attendant expenses, when my invalidated time is easily faster than the NQT? Per Paul's earlier post, 1/4 inch per length comes out to about 8 inches over 1500 meters. Obviously it won't take me over a minute to cover those 8 inches. And no, I can't enter this event without a NQT per the meet information.

ElaineK
December 26th, 2017, 04:33 PM
No, Karlene, you're good! NQT's are on the honor system! Congratulations! Check out this thread:
http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?13780-Qualifying-for-Nationals

Karlene
December 26th, 2017, 06:04 PM
No, Karlene, you're good! NQT's are on the honor system! Congratulations! Check out this thread:
http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?13780-Qualifying-for-Nationals

No, per the 2018 SC Nationals webpage, "Distance Events (1000/1650) Swimmers may enter either the 1000 freestyle or the 1650 freestyle, but not both. Swimmers entering the 1650 freestyle must meet the NQT."

Windrath
December 26th, 2017, 08:30 PM
Hi Doug,

I had Mary Beth read through thread. She is not opposed to something like this although the post by "ljlete" from an old thread shows that errors can occur when bulkheads are involved. She encouraged you to write up a rule proposal to address what you are suggesting. I am glad that Bob S. posted this as it does demonstrate the challenges when bulkheads are involved.

BTW - to all reading this. Mary Beth does not make up the rules regarding pool measurements. They are the domain of the Rules Committee and her job as SWIMS Coordinator is to follow the rules. There are times when she wants to "play" God and allow swims, but I encourage not to do that. :)

Paul

Windrath
December 26th, 2017, 08:36 PM
Hi Karlene,

Sounds like you would blow the NQT away. The only situation that would cause you to be in trouble is if you entered and swam and did not meet the NQT. Your swim might not count in that case.

Unfortunately, the question you asked has already been answered. The USMS Rules Committee determined that times from that meet cannot count. Technically, yes, you have to do the swim again. BUT, refer to my comment in the first paragraph. :)

Paul

ElaineK
December 26th, 2017, 11:13 PM
No, per the 2018 SC Nationals webpage, "Distance Events (1000/1650) Swimmers may enter either the 1000 freestyle or the 1650 freestyle, but not both. Swimmers entering the 1650 freestyle must meet the NQT."

See Paul Windrath's post. You'll be fine! :cheerleader:

sunruh
December 27th, 2017, 08:56 AM
bulkheads move
period
they flex
the holes egg out
the wrong pins may be used
and there are a few ways to even cheat with them - yes ive seen it
i've seen World Records erased - same meet as my top 10s that were erased

bulkheads need to be measured as per the rules

Karlene
December 27th, 2017, 11:16 AM
See Paul Windrath's post. You'll be fine! :cheerleader:

That's not how I'm reading the meet information. I will be contacting both the meet host and the National Office to make sure. Don't want any surprises when I try to enter the 1650 without a valid NQT.

orca1946
December 27th, 2017, 01:03 PM
That much flex, it seems to me. to be a construction design fault. We need to make manufactures hold to specified amount of flex .
Maybe additional anchor points along the length of the movable wall portion.

sunruh
December 27th, 2017, 02:12 PM
That much flex, it seems to me. to be a construction design fault. We need to make manufactures hold to specified amount of flex .
Maybe additional anchor points along the length of the movable wall portion.
so you are willing to put up the monies for this, thanks for volunteering

orca1946
December 28th, 2017, 12:12 PM
If I were selling these --- a suggestion to the manufacture to improve them and if they did, would be a greater selling point.

jroddin
January 3rd, 2018, 01:35 PM
Bob, I understand your frustration in having top 10 swims invalidated. I've probably lost over 20 TT times over the past 25 years due to RD not submitting results and inaccurate pool lengths. I was also at the meet in question, spending two nights in hotels, meals, travel, etc. My goal was to get a NQT in the mile to use for SC Nationals in Indy. My 1500 meter time was 35 seconds faster than the NQT straight up and over a minute faster when converted from LCM to SCY. My question to USMS is: Am I going to have to go to another out of town meet, with the attendant expenses, when my invalidated time is easily faster than the NQT? Per Paul's earlier post, 1/4 inch per length comes out to about 8 inches over 1500 meters. Obviously it won't take me over a minute to cover those 8 inches. And no, I can't enter this event without a NQT per the meet information.

Karlene,

Here is a link to the NQT FAQ:
www.usms.org/comp/NQT-FAQ.pdf

Here is a cut and paste of the relevant section that may answer your question:


3. Where can I swim my times (e.g. does it have to be a USMS meet)?
Can a USA-S meet, a nonsanctioned meet or a time from my coach during workout count as achieving the NQT?
It does not have to be swum at a USMS sanctioned meet. It can be swum at a USA-S meet, a YMCA meet or during a time trial or in a workout with your coach.

So no, you don't have to travel to another meet.

Jeff Roddin
USMS Championship Committee Chair

knelson
January 3rd, 2018, 03:22 PM
bulkheads move
period
they flex
the holes egg out
the wrong pins may be used
and there are a few ways to even cheat with them - yes ive seen it
i've seen World Records erased - same meet as my top 10s that were erased

bulkheads need to be measured as per the rules

Exactly. The only way to know for sure if the pool meets the requirements is to measure it before and during the course of a meet.


That much flex, it seems to me. to be a construction design fault. We need to make manufactures hold to specified amount of flex

Not really. It's a function of the lane lines being tightened. Tighten them too much and there's going to be some bowing.

Karlene
January 3rd, 2018, 03:31 PM
Karlene,

Here is a link to the NQT FAQ:
www.usms.org/comp/NQT-FAQ.pdf

Here is a cut and paste of the relevant section that may answer your question:



So no, you don't have to travel to another meet.

Jeff Roddin
USMS Championship Committee Chair

Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. I do find it odd that NQTs are required but an honor system is being used. Assumed a verification for that time would be expected to avoid super slow entries (the purpose of a NQT).

flystorms
January 17th, 2018, 10:26 AM
Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. I do find it odd that NQTs are required but an honor system is being used. Assumed a verification for that time would be expected to avoid super slow entries (the purpose of a NQT).

So Jeff, just for clarification, if the coach captures a time for you that meets the NQT standards, does it have to be recorded anywhere? Or is this where the honor system comes into play? We have a tiny team in Memphis and are looking for opportunities for some of our folks to go to Nationals and do more than three events if they can. Thanks in advance.

JPEnge
January 17th, 2018, 01:49 PM
So Jeff, just for clarification, if the coach captures a time for you that meets the NQT standards, does it have to be recorded anywhere? Or is this where the honor system comes into play? We have a tiny team in Memphis and are looking for opportunities for some of our folks to go to Nationals and do more than three events if they can. Thanks in advance.

I had the same kind of question because I didn't know if I'd be able to go to an SCY meet before Nationals and I wanted to expand from my SCM meet schedule of 50s, and it does indeed look like it's more or less an honor system - there isn't a proof-of-time procedure like in USA-S meets.

Karl_S
January 17th, 2018, 06:27 PM
So Jeff, just for clarification, if the coach captures a time for you that meets the NQT standards, does it have to be recorded anywhere? Or is this where the honor system comes into play? We have a tiny team in Memphis and are looking for opportunities for some of our folks to go to Nationals and do more than three events if they can. Thanks in advance.
See FAQ&A here:
http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?13780-Qualifying-for-Nationals&p=177260&viewfull=1#post177260

ForceDJ
January 26th, 2018, 11:25 PM
So I'm just wondering...how much does a pool length need to be "off" for it to be inaccurate, and for times to be invalidated?

Today while lifeguarding at my pool I asked the pool manager if the pools had ever been certified by any governing body. The pool is only about five years old. But, she said "No, not to my knowledge." But, she was instantly very concerned and got out her steel tape measure so that she and I could check it. We measured both sides, and at first we were sure the 25 meter pool was long by abut 1.75 inches. But then we realized we mis-read the conversion of 25 meters to feet-inches. Turns out that it's 'spot on'...or at least within a quarter inch...by human-steel tape measurements. But my question is...how far off is considered "inaccurate" by USA Swimming/USMS/FINA ?

Dan

Windrath
January 27th, 2018, 12:15 AM
Hi Dan,

All of this is in the USMS rule book under sections 106 (Facility Standards) with some additional info under Section 105 and Appendix B.

The pool must be at least as long as the minimum required in the Rule book. There is no allowance for being shorter, so "within" a quarter inch is only acceptable if it is long.

When you measured, it was probably without pads, so there is an additional allowance that must be made for the width of the pad. If you pool is "spot on" without pads, it may be too short when a pad is put in for meets. This is why we really prefer pool measurements to be done with the pad(s) in place.

If your pool has a bulkhead on one of the turning ends, it gets even more involved because bulkheads can move which changes the course length.

Pools do not have to be certified if competition will never be held in the pool. USMS keeps a list of pools that have been measured. What is the name of your pool? If a masters meet has been held there, it has to have been measured for the times to count and the pool would be on the USMS list.

Alot of effort goes into making sure pools meet or exceed the minimum acceptable length

ForceDJ
January 27th, 2018, 10:41 AM
Pools do not have to be certified if competition will never be held in the pool.


I suppose the pool I'm referencing falls under this consideration since it's on a Navy base. I mean we have a USMS group that works out there (active duty, military retirees, family members, and government civilian employees), and until several years ago there was a youth club sponsored by the base that practiced there (in the old pool). But it never hosted (sanctioned) meets that I can recall. Usually the military frowns on allowing the civilian community on bases for such things, and often actually discourages it in odd ways. Not building the pool length to accommodate timing pads may be one of them. But...one never knows! I mean it seems like any company worthy of building competition pools would inform their customers of things such as extra length of a couple inches to allow for timing pads, etc. Before this current pool...which is only about five years old...the pool on this Navy base was 35 (thirty-five) yards long. And, there was not just one, but actually three pools that length on the base at one time. Evidently they were all WWII era pools. I never could ascertain how/why they arrived at the 35yd length to build. Then I was on another military base in another state. There was a 35 yard pool there. So I asked the people at that pool if they had any idea why the military built pools at 35 yards long. Their response was "They did it specifically to discourage outside swimming organizations to ask if they could use the base pool to host swim meets."

Dan