Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

  1. #21
    Very Active Member Swimosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    659

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson View Post
    Times from automatically-recognized meets (USA-S and FINA NGB) would also count for USMS purposes if the pool has been certified.
    By "USMS purposes", I presume you mean both Top Ten and records.

    We had another incident in our LMSC where a USMS member, competing in a USAS meet, swam faster than a USMS national record. But since it was a USAS meet, there were no pool measurements done on the day. The swimmer contacted me a few days later, and after much back and forth (which Anna Lea surely remembers), it was decided to accept the time for Top Ten, but not for a USMS record. This was the correct decision under the rules.

    But, IMHO, this is another flaw in the rules, since if the swimmer had done the same thing in, say, Canada, under the governance of MSC, the record would have been accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson View Post
    Wouldn't that be a nice world to live in?
    Yes, that would be a nice world to live in.

  2. #22
    Very Active Member Chris Stevenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    4,172
    Blog Entries
    1217

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by Swimosaur View Post
    By "USMS purposes", I presume you mean both Top Ten and records.
    Yes, same requirement for both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swimosaur View Post
    We had another incident in our LMSC where a USMS member, competing in a USAS meet, swam faster than a USMS national record. But since it was a USAS meet, there were no pool measurements done on the day. The swimmer contacted me a few days later, and after much back and forth (which Anna Lea surely remembers), it was decided to accept the time for Top Ten, but not for a USMS record. This was the correct decision under the rules.

    But, IMHO, this is another flaw in the rules, since if the swimmer had done the same thing in, say, Canada, under the governance of MSC, the record would have been accepted.
    That was the compromise made to get the new rule passed. Until a couple of years ago, the time would not have been eligible for either USMS Top 10 or USMS record.

    Honestly I am a little less bothered by swims at USA-S meets not counting for USMS purposes, particularly records and particularly if swimmers contact me after the fact.

    While everyone is rhapsodizing about how wonderful FINA's rules are, remember that they don't recognize times done at USA-S meet (or other non-masters meet) for any purpose at all, either rankings or records. This sometimes comes as a surprise for USMS members who compete in Recognized LCM or SCM meets, when their times don't appear in the world rankings. This is a FINA issue, not a USMS issue: we are more forgiving in that regard.

    Circling back to the original post of the thread, I think this lack of FINA recognition of USA-S meets was one of the motivating factors behind dual-sanctioning of USA-S/USMS meets. There are also some small LMSCs that don't have enough people for meets, so USA-S and other Recognized meets are the only way they can get their times to count, short of traveling outside of their LMSC.

  3. #23
    Very Active Member Swimosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    659

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson View Post
    My own personal preference is that USMS follows the same rules as FINA masters, which is that the pool length has to be certified and on file, but that bulkhead verification measurements are not required. They only have this requirement for records but my preference is that we have it for both records and Top 10.
    Do you have or know where I can get a written copy of the FINA masters rules?

  4. #24
    Very Active Member Chris Stevenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    4,172
    Blog Entries
    1217

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by Swimosaur View Post
    Do you have or know where I can get a written copy of the FINA masters rules?
    No I don't, I always just asked Walt Reid, who maintains their records and Top 10. He told me that pool length certification is required for FINA records, and that there are no measurement requirements at all for Top 10. But all times must be done at sanctioned masters meets, no recognized meets (like Senior Games or USA-S meets) and no non-masters meets.

    Here is a link to an online version:

    http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?op...les&Itemid=184

  5. #25
    Very Active Member ALM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Posts
    2,410

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by Swimosaur View Post
    Do you have or know where I can get a written copy of the FINA masters rules?
    I have the printed FINA rule book. Here is a link to the online version:

    http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?op...161&Itemid=184

    Anna Lea

  6. #26
    Very Active Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    178

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    If a USMS member goes to Canadian Nationals and swims a Top Ten time, is he or she responsible for requesting a pool measurement at each session of the meet?

  7. #27
    Very Active Member jseidler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    237

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by swoomer View Post
    If a USMS member goes to Canadian Nationals and swims a Top Ten time, is he or she responsible for requesting a pool measurement at each session of the meet?
    Are you referring to the Canadian Masters Nationals? Or to the Canadian equivalent of the USA Nationals?

    If the question is in regard to the Canadian Masters Nationals, Rule 105.1.7 D applies to pool measurement provided the Canadian Masters Nationals have been sanctioned by the Canadian Masters FINA member organization.

    The context of the rule indicates that the measurement rules and policies of FINA will be the standard as opposed to the USMS measurement rules being the standard.

    Swimmers at the Canadian Masters Nationals do not need to obtain pool measurements for Top Ten times.
    Jeanne Seidler, Wisconsin LMSC Vice Chair, Top Ten Recorder, Sanction Chair
    USMS Records and Tabulations Committee Chair

  8. #28
    Very Active Member Swimosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    659

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    This is a long post, which doesn't suggest anything that hasn't already been suggested. But it says it a little differently.

    Unfortunately, it's hard to dream up any improvement to the current system of USMS pool measurement rules. FINA requires on-the-spot bulkhead measurements, at the end of the session, for World Record applications. That fact drives everything.

    Our problem, here in the US, is that USMS is the leading masters swimming federation in the world. A lot of World Records are set at USMS meets, and it would be a shame to miss any, simply because the pool wasn't properly measured. It would be very nice if USMS was able to say to its members, "You can come to any of our meets, swim in any session, and if you set a World Record, we guarantee that the proper documentation will be kept." With the current pool measurement rules, USMS can say that.

    And it's not an unreasonably high standard. Here in the US, elite swimmers show up at random meets and set WRs pretty frequently. We don't want to drop the ball on any of them. So that demands that we routinely measure the pool after each session, whether or not a WR was set. We want to be prepared. We do it because USMS is a high quality organization, and administers high quality competitions.

    The same is true for USMS national records. Any meet, any session. If you set an NR, the proper documentation is automatically kept.

    But note, for both NRs and WRs, "the proper documentation" includes a whole lot more than just pool measurements. It includes a birth certificate, referee's signature, timing system printout, heat sheets, and possibly other stuff. A lot of ingredients go into a WR or NR application.

    A lot of ingredients that don't go into a Top Ten application.

    So, why don't we think about pool measurements as part of the package of stuff you need to support an NR or WR application, but not part of the package of stuff you need for a TT? According to this story, we would routinely measure the pool at the end of each session (because USMS is a high quality organization), but in the event that the meet officials forget to measure the pool, we would not throw out the top ten times (provided that the pool had been measured at some point, according to some kind of base standard). We would not throw them out because pool measurements are not needed for a TT application, either at the world level, or at the national level.

    This would align our national standards with the world standards. As it is (I think this is how it works), if you do a World Top Ten time in a USMS meet, but the pool isn't measured, then USMS throws out the time, not FINA. Our current set of rules are potentially depriving our members of World Top Ten times, not because of a FINA rule, but because our USMS rules are not aligned with FINA rules.

    It would also align our standards with the standards of other federations. As it is, if a swimmer goes to a USAS meet, or a master's meet in Canada, and does a USMS Top Ten time, we accept the time without on-the-spot pool measurements. Only in USMS meets do we require pool measurements for TT.

    Herein the USMS, according to current rules, if the pool isn't measured at the end of each session, we throw out the whole meet, and none of the times are eligible for USMS Top Ten. This is what happened to the lady in my LMSC, and I'm told that it has also happened in other LMSCs as well. This would fix that problem.

    So, the main idea here is, on-the-spot pool measurements would be required for NRs and WRs, but not for TTs. We would routinely do these end-of-session measurements, to support potential record applications, but if the measurements are missing for whatever reason, we would not throw out the TTs.

    Some modification of the rules along these lines would make sense to me. But if you want to keep the current pool measurement requirement for TT, because “quality control”, or whatever reason, I think you have to answer the questions, “Why do pool measurements, and only pool measurements, leak out of the requirements for record applications? Why do we NOT require birth certificates, referees signatures, timing system printouts, etc., for Top Ten? What is so special about pool measurements?”

    If the answer is, “Well, that would be a logistical nightmare”, I think what we're seeing with the current rules re: pool measurements is exactly that, and that's why things are breaking so often. It makes sense to me that we should require scrupulously high standards for record applications, including pool measurements, but for TT, it would be ok to relax a little, as does the rest of the world.

    That's my 2 cents, and now I'm off for a long weekend.
    Last edited by Swimosaur; March 18th, 2015 at 02:05 PM.

  9. #29
    Very Active Member Chris Stevenson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    4,172
    Blog Entries
    1217

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by Swimosaur View Post
    Unfortunately, it's hard to dream up any improvement to the current system of USMS pool measurement rules. FINA requires on-the-spot bulkhead measurements, at the end of the session, for World Record applications. That fact drives everything.
    Except I don't believe this is true. I think for masters world records, FINA only requires that the pool length has been certified, they don't have bulkhead measurement requirements.

    I may be wrong on this, I'm basing it on conversations I've had with Walt Reid. It is a little confusing because USMS uses the same application for both WRs and NRs and so we use the more stringent requirements (USMS') to drive the form.

  10. #30
    Very Active Member Swimosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    659

    Re: Gnashing Teeth in Frustration over This One!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stevenson View Post
    Except I don't believe this is true ... It is a little confusing ...
    Yes, it's confusing. And there may be some other points in there that are not strictly true in minute detail. But if the scrupulously correct details are inserted instead of the things I botched a bit, I think the story would still roughly hang together.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Sore Teeth?
    By SueM in forum General Swimming-Related Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 8th, 2009, 07:39 PM
  2. Wisdom Teeth Extraction
    By SM-Rocket89 in forum General Swimming-Related Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2007, 09:11 PM
  3. Shoulder frustration
    By Seagurl51 in forum General Swimming-Related Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 21st, 2005, 11:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •