PDA

View Full Version : UC Club Abbreviations



swimmieAvsFan
March 13th, 2014, 10:23 PM
Since the switch from "unattached" to UC, I've been having to deal with meet results that contain "unattached" in the long and/or short club names, rather than just the UC code. For example, I'm in Potomac Valley, so rather than getting swimmers with UC10 for the club abbreviation, long club name, and short club name, I'm getting UC10 for the abbreviation, Unattached Potomac Valley for the long club name, and Unattached PV for the short club name. I thought the point of the rule change last year was to completely get rid of the word "unattached" in swimmers' affiliations? Also, in talking with the Rules Committee chair, I was under the impression that the club abbreviation and both club name formats were supposed to be identical, i.e. UC10 for all three fields for all of my unattached swimmers.

Am I missing something here?

Chris Stevenson
March 14th, 2014, 04:39 AM
Am I missing something here?

I don't think so, I believe this is a Club Assistant issue with online registrations. I've just been fixing it manually under "Teams" so that the results display correctly, but hopefully we can get Club Assistant to fix this.

swimmieAvsFan
March 14th, 2014, 08:47 AM
I don't think so, I believe this is a Club Assistant issue with online registrations. I've just been fixing it manually under "Teams" so that the results display correctly, but hopefully we can get Club Assistant to fix this.

That's kind of what I was thinking was going on, but after emailing with Club Assistant folks and being told that "no one else" involved in the "hundreds of meets" since we went to the UC codes had issues with club names, I thought that I must have been missing something.

To other TTRs, have you also just been changing things manually as well?

emmett
March 14th, 2014, 11:59 AM
I don't recall seeing anything about handling UCxx/UNAT/Unattached - other than the FINA-induced rule change which, to my eye, appears to institute an official USMS club called Unattached. So I've simply accepted the ERDB audit changes from unat to UCxx and never worried about anything else. Were we supposed to be doing something else? Are you changing the club name in MM? If so, why? It doesn't flow through to the ERDB - only the club code does (I think).

:bolt:

Chris Stevenson
March 14th, 2014, 01:07 PM
I don't recall seeing anything about handling UCxx/UNAT/Unattached - other than the FINA-induced rule change which, to my eye, appears to institute an official USMS club called Unattached. So I've simply accepted the ERDB audit changes from unat to UCxx and never worried about anything else. Were we supposed to be doing something else? Are you changing the club name in MM? If so, why? It doesn't flow through to the ERDB - only the club code does (I think).

:bolt:

No, FINA very specifically forbade USMS from using the word "unattached" to describe a club affiliation in public results for any meet that would be submitted for FINA Top 10. There is no club called Unattached; see 201.3.4.


An unattached swimmer is an individual member who is registered with the UC through an LMSC.

I think UC was supposed to stand for "unified club" or some such but even that name is not supposed to be used. The only club name and abbreviation that should ever appear is UCxx, where "xx" is the LMSC numeric code.

Yes uploading to the ERDB can fix the problem, assuming you accept the change suggested by the web tools, but that's not enough. The meet host needs to publicize results using UCxx and NOT something like "Unattached-VA" or "Unattached-12". LMSC do things differently but sometimes a meet host will generate the results and post it on the host club's webpage (for example).

In Virginia for all sanctioned meets, the TTR (which is me) will generate the results from MM and then upload to the LMSC website, so you need to fix the entries in MM. The ERDB fix is not enough.

Chris Stevenson
March 14th, 2014, 01:13 PM
By the way, thanks to Mollie for bringing this up. Anna Lea and Jeanne are looking into it.

emmett
March 14th, 2014, 01:39 PM
Well, going by the text in http://www.usms.org/rules/20130915_unat_fina_changes.pdf - "All currently unattached swimmers will automatically be registered with the club Unattached and do not have to notify their registrars." you could see where I might get the impression there is now (or at least as of Sept 2013) a club called Unattached.

In Gulf, meet results are always created by the MD and posted wherever they please, as well as forwarded to me for posting on the Gulf web site.

Where/how/when was complete information about the change in handling unat entries communicated to T10 slingers that were not at convention? I missed it somehow.

:bolt:

swimmieAvsFan
March 14th, 2014, 01:52 PM
No, FINA very specifically forbade USMS from using the word "unattached" to describe a club affiliation in public results for any meet that would be submitted for FINA Top 10. There is no club called Unattached; see 201.3.4...

Although this is the first time I'm seeing this explicitly stated, this is the exact issue I'm trying to avoid in PV meet results. I know most people think this is my typical worst-case-scenario kind of thinking, in that there's no way FINA would care how something was posted publicly, as long as it's submitted to them properly, but I know FINA has done somethings that don't always seem to make sense. I'd rather not be the case study for a meet getting rejected by FINA for top 10 and world record consideration, simply because the meet director had someone listed as "Unattached PV" in the meet results.

Not a top ten issue directly, but is this something that should be codified in the rule book, so that there is no ambiguity going forward? Is 2014 a rules year?

Chris Stevenson
March 14th, 2014, 02:20 PM
Well, going by the text in http://www.usms.org/rules/20130915_unat_fina_changes.pdf - "All currently unattached swimmers will automatically be registered with the club Unattached and do not have to notify their registrars." you could see where I might get the impression there is now (or at least as of Sept 2013) a club called Unattached.

In Gulf, meet results are always created by the MD and posted wherever they please, as well as forwarded to me for posting on the Gulf web site.

Where/how/when was complete information about the change in handling unat entries communicated to T10 slingers that were not at convention? I missed it somehow.

:bolt:

I'm not sure when/if Jeanne sent information out from convention, you'd have to ask her. I seem to recall that she sent out an email to TTRs but can't find it just now.

The (outdated) info you linked to was what was adopted at Convention. FINA subsequently rejected it. The wording in the CURRENT (2014) Rule Book is correct; the URL you linked to was a modification of the 2013 Rule Book. Confusing I know, but I suppose it is always best to look at the current rule book.


Although this is the first time I'm seeing this explicitly stated, this is the exact issue I'm trying to avoid in PV meet results. I know most people think this is my typical worst-case-scenario kind of thinking, in that there's no way FINA would care how something was posted publicly, as long as it's submitted to them properly, but I know FINA has done somethings that don't always seem to make sense. I'd rather not be the case study for a meet getting rejected by FINA for top 10 and world record consideration, simply because the meet director had someone listed as "Unattached PV" in the meet results.

Not a top ten issue directly, but is this something that should be codified in the rule book, so that there is no ambiguity going forward? Is 2014 a rules year?

It's a rules year. Jeanne would be the person for this, since she is chair of R&T.

But -- and this is just my personal opinion -- it sounds more like an operational thing to me (i.e. suitable for inclusion in the Guide to Operations). After all the rules currently in the book seem pretty explicit but I don't have time to review them carefully. I'll point Jeanne to this discussion.

swimmieAvsFan
March 14th, 2014, 02:41 PM
...But -- and this is just my personal opinion -- it sounds more like an operational thing to me (i.e. suitable for inclusion in the Guide to Operations). After all the rules currently in the book seem pretty explicit but I don't have time to review them carefully. I'll point Jeanne to this discussion.

That seems more logical than the rule book- I always forget about having the Guide to Operations as a place for information that isn't necessarily right for the rule book.

And thank you for getting Anna Lea and Jeanne involved- this has been bugging me since I took over TTR duties last fall, but I didn't know what to do about it!

emmett
March 14th, 2014, 03:29 PM
I'm not sure when/if Jeanne sent information out from convention, you'd have to ask her. I seem to recall that she sent out an email to TTRs but can't find it just now.

I'm on her TTR list and the only blast item I have from her post-convention was about measurements.


The (outdated) info you linked to was what was adopted at Convention. FINA subsequently rejected it. The wording in the CURRENT (2014) Rule Book is correct; the URL you linked to was a modification of the 2013 Rule Book. Confusing I know, but I suppose it is always best to look at the current rule book.

I was quoting from the explanation, not the rule itself. Outdated though it may be, it is offered up for public consumption as an "Important Update" right near the top of the (supposedly) current Rule Book web page. And what appears in the 2014 RB does nothing in my mind to dispel the notion that we might still refer to UC swimmers as "unattached" (the RB still sports a dozen or so references to unattached swimmers) or that UC might mean something other than "Unattached Club" (which is what I and our registrar assumed when it started to crop up in the ERDB data edit suggestions).


But -- and this is just my personal opinion -- it sounds more like an operational thing to me (i.e. suitable for inclusion in the Guide to Operations). After all the rules currently in the book seem pretty explicit but I don't have time to review them carefully. I'll point Jeanne to this discussion.

After searches for " UC" and "unattached" and "results" and "club name" I don't see anything in the Rule Book about whether or how the CLUB NAME of a UCxx swimmer should be listed in results, only the abbreviation. I agree this could best be handled by inclusion in the GTO - something explicit saying that regardless of what the swimmer (or an online entries service) puts in the long and short club name fields, it must get changed in MM to match the "UCxx" abbreviation and appear that way in ALL published results.

:bolt:

emmett
March 14th, 2014, 05:20 PM
Along the same lines, how about a one-event swimmer? He must be designated as such in the meet results - but must also be indicated as something other than unattached to keep FINA happy. It's been a long time since I've handled an OEVT. Is there a UCxx code for OEVT?

I'm revising a meet process document for my LMSC and want to get this stuff right.

:bolt:

Chris Stevenson
March 14th, 2014, 06:10 PM
Along the same lines, how about a one-event swimmer?

From page 4 of the TTR GTO (http://www.usms.org/admin/lmschb/gto_rectab_general.pdf), your one-stop shop for most questions:


List a one-event member’s club as OEVT and his USMS ID as ONEEVENT

emmett
March 14th, 2014, 06:39 PM
Is there a way to limit searches on the USMS site to JUST the GTO? I searched for OEVT and that didn't come up in the first several pages of hits (got lots of open water results tho...).

So can I assume this is satisfactory to FINA as not being "unattached"?? And then include OEVT for long and short club name in MM?

Hmmm...and I note that the preceding paragraph makes reference to "the Unattached Club of the LMSC", so there is some current official use of such a thing. :)

Chris Stevenson
March 14th, 2014, 06:56 PM
Is there a way to limit searches on the USMS site to JUST the GTO? I searched for OEVT and that didn't come up in the first several pages of hits (got lots of open water results tho...).

So can I assume this is satisfactory to FINA as not being "unattached"?? And then include OEVT for long and short club name in MM?

Hmmm...and I note that the preceding paragraph makes reference to "the Unattached Club of the LMSC", so there is some current official use of such a thing. :)

Absolutely you can limit searches to the GTO. Download the file using the link in my previous post, open it in your favorite PDF reader, and search it. :-)

Other than that, I'm pretty sure that web searches won't "penetrate" into PDF documents. But it's the document that all TTRs should always have on hand or at least bookmarked. It is your

The unattached mention is a mistake, and I had alerted Jeanne (who with the R&T Cmte maintains the GTO) about it. But it still correctly states that it should be listed as UCxx where xx is the LMSC code, which is what started this whole thread.

emmett
March 14th, 2014, 09:02 PM
Absolutely you can limit searches to the GTO. Download the file using the link in my previous post, open it in your favorite PDF reader, and search it. :-)

There's a searchable file for the whole GTO? Where please? :)


Other than that, I'm pretty sure that web searches won't "penetrate" into PDF documents.

Unless there is some extensive behind-the-scenes tagging, search does appear to penetrate pdfs (with the exception of "image" pdfs) if the pdf itself is searchable then the USMS site search includes it - If for instance you search on "ERDB" you'll get loads of pdf files referenced in the hit list.


But it still correctly states that it should be listed as UCxx where xx is the LMSC code, which is what started this whole thread.

I think we're all on the same page about the club abbreviation field being in the UCxx format - that was never at issue (at least for me). What started the thread was a question about what needed to be done with the short and long name fields. I still haven't found anything in any of our code or GTO or tutorials or emails to T10 slingers that any explicit instruction about requiring the "UCxx" in those two fields, or about not having the word "unattached" appear in either of those two fields. I'm simply trying to point out why I suspect that some (perhaps many) TTRs might still be unaware or unsure of the needed change to how they do things regarding those fields (especially when dealing with data originated by online entries). The only place it seems to appear is right here in this thread (but I'd be happy to be shown otherwise). Hopefully all the TTRs are subscribed to this forum and will now be aware. :)

swimmieAvsFan
March 15th, 2014, 09:05 AM
I think we're all on the same page about the club abbreviation field being in the UCxx format - that was never at issue (at least for me). What started the thread was a question about what needed to be done with the short and long name fields. I still haven't found anything in any of our code or GTO or tutorials or emails to T10 slingers that any explicit instruction about requiring the "UCxx" in those two fields, or about not having the word "unattached" appear in either of those two fields. I'm simply trying to point out why I suspect that some (perhaps many) TTRs might still be unaware or unsure of the needed change to how they do things regarding those fields (especially when dealing with data originated by online entries). The only place it seems to appear is right here in this thread (but I'd be happy to be shown otherwise). Hopefully all the TTRs are subscribed to this forum and will now be aware. :)

I'm pretty sure how to deal with the long and short club fields haven't been addressed before this thread, which was my motivation in posting it. I've only been PV's TTR since November of last year, so I thought that I could have missed something from convention that I wouldn't have been in the loop for.

Hopefully now we're not the only 3 TTRs that know how to handle UC swimmers going forward :)

Chris Stevenson
March 16th, 2014, 12:07 PM
Hopefully now we're not the only 3 TTRs that know how to handle UC swimmers going forward :)

I pointed out this thread to Jeanne, she can decide how/if to inform other TTRs.

About a year ago when I was still chair of Recs & Tab, we submitted a list of project requests to IT which they are working on. One of those requests should potentially make this problem better. Have you ever noticed when you are logged in as an administrator and you've uploaded a meet, you can click a link to display the meet results? Doing so generated three separate links for Women/Men/Relay results, which are then listed in publication order.

Basically the request was to include such functionality for everyone, not just TTRs. There were at least two reasons for the request:

- it would be nice to have a stable link to the results, and to be assured they won't disappear. When a meet host puts results on their website, they often delete them or move them later on and break the original links. Even LMSCs do the same.

- the results are updated whenever the ERDB is updated, including changes in club affiliation or corrections to official times.

Anyway, presumably when this request is fulfilled, the UC issue should go away since it would be tied to officially registered clubs, and "UNAT" or "Unattached" are not official names. Then TTRs can just link to those results and not have to worry about it, or worry if the meet director got it wrong.

emmett
March 16th, 2014, 12:53 PM
Agreed. My take has always been, if USMS wants correct/official publication results available/accessible in perpetuity, the ONLY way that can happen is at the national level. The downside is that, at least at the moment, it does not include some of the data we require in the ApndxB Meet Results Preparation - such as the name, address, or email address of the meet director, the name and certification status of the officials (referee, starter, and stroke and turn judges).

Of course, looking through the ostensibly official meet results from all over the country that the web site currently hosts links to, it is clear that very few include this info nowadays.

As the E2EEM evolves to capture all of the desired info, it will likely be easy to incorporate into any results listing. Perhaps scoring totals (individual and club) as well.

jseidler
March 16th, 2014, 03:07 PM
To my knowledge, there has never been a USMS practice, convention or policy specifying the content of the "Team Name" or "Short Name" on the Teams panel of Hy-tek's (Active.com) Meet Manager program.

"Never" is an absolute, so perhaps I should find a better word. But, the bottom line is that meet results are generated and posted by meet directors, some of which are not USMS members, and probably have no knowledge of the FINA concerns. This just isn't a area where guidelines would be effective.

The use of UCxx and OEVT has been a discussion topic of the Records and Tabulation Committee as we know that "unattached" is used all over the internet in meet results.

At the 2013 convention, "Unattached" was defined by a changed rule in the USMS Rule Book, and that rule was intended to cover the use of "unattached" elsewhere in the Rule Book (per Kathy Casey).

Rule 201.3 Representation (this is the rule)
201.3.4 An unattached swimmer is an individual member who is registered with the UC through an LMSC. Swimmers registered with the UC shall not compete in relays or score club points in competition. Competing while registered with the UC shall not be considered as representing a club for purposes of 201.3.5.

(Note: Rule 201.3.5 is the rule about competing as unattached for 60 days prior to changing club affiliation.)

When I saw this discussion forum started concerning the use of Unattached in results, I also went looking in both the USMS and USA rule books for guildelines on team name and short name in Preparation of Results. I do remember from eons ago when my kids were swimming in USA meets, we had to denote the LMSC to which an unattached swimmer belonged in the final results. The notation used was UNAT-20 (Wisconsin LMSC), UNAT-21 (Illinois LMSC), etc., and Meet Manager does support the LMSC suffix. So, if the meet had unattached swimmers from two different LMSC's, the Team Name would be Unattached-LMSC1 and Unattached-LMSC2 as both cases could not be handled with one entry for Team Name Unattached without an LMSC number.

But, overall, there is no USMS guideline or standard for the Team Name or Short Name.

Where did you learn of a practice to use UCnn for Team Name and Short Name?

Jeanne Seidler

swimmieAvsFan
March 16th, 2014, 04:19 PM
To my knowledge, there has never been a USMS practice, convention or policy specifying the content of the "Team Name" or "Short Name" on the Teams panel of Hy-tek's (Active.com) Meet Manager program...


The use of UCxx and OEVT has been a discussion topic of the Records and Tabulation Committee as we know that "unattached" is used all over the internet in meet results.


But, overall, there is no USMS guideline or standard for the Team Name or Short Name.

Where did you learn of a practice to use UCnn for Team Name and Short Name?

Jeanne, I'm not sure who you're addressing with this post, but I'll assume it's me, as I'm the thread's creator.

The above-quoted snips of your post are the most salient points for me. I had been worried (which was confirmed, for better or worse, by a post of Chris's upthread) that FINA was going to have objections to the word "unattached" appearing anywhere in results from SCM or LCM meets, and what, as a TTR, I needed to do in order to make sure results were going to be acceptable to FINA, in light of the fact that MM files are coming from Club Assistant with the word "unattached" spelled out.

This was an issue I first encountered back in the fall when my LMSC was running a SCM meet, and I had reached out to Kathy Casey (who then reached out to Leo Lentendre) and I was told that, when we switched from "UNAT" to UCxx, that all three fields were to be the UCxx code, in order to prevent "unattached" from being able to appear in meet results for meters meets. So, for that meet, I assumed it was just an oversight from Club Assistant, But when I again encountered this issue with all the subsequent meets we've had in our LMSC, I started this thread to see how other LMSCs were handling this, and to see if there was more information I could gather, since I was not at convention last year (I took over TTR duties at the start of November of last year).

Based on this thread and your confirmation, I'm glad to know it wasn't just me not being able to find a set policy. I think that not having some sort of policy or guidance in place on how to avoid "unattached" from showing up in meet results is a glaring oversight, especially if FINA really is going to reject results out of hand if they even see "unattached" in public meet results.

I feel like this has an easy fix, which is to have Club Assistant ensure that all UCxx club abbreviations, along with the long and short form team names, are all the UCxx codes. I know not all meet directors use Club Assistant, but I feel like there must be a huge majority of directors using it, so there would be very few cases of "unattached" showing up in meters meet results. Now, it may turn out that coding the MM files this way is a huge headache, which I wouldn't know about, as I'm a mere chemist, not a computer programmer :)

Hopefully that clarifies where I'm coming from with this thread!

emmett
March 17th, 2014, 05:20 AM
The first I heard about UCxx in anything other than the club abbreviation field, or about the word "unattached" being in any way verbotten, was right here in this thread.