According to the published splits in the official meet results, the swimmer in lane 5 touched the pad ahead of the swimmer in lane 6. The swimmer in lane 5 had a split time of 1:43:98, and the swimmer in lane 6 had a split time of 1:44:05.
Would this be sufficient evidence to make a referee consider overturning a disqualification? Debatable, right?
We shot down technical suits, in part, because of the costs. What would it cost to have "official" cameras placed in the proper locatations to make this work? Would we have to sit through NFL-style delays after every close call?
I certainly don't have the answers. Still, if we're going to allow technology (pads/lids) to make calls, shouldn't we be willing to let officials use technology (cameras) to help them correct an error?
20 comments:
Wonder how many of the call over the last couple of years are made by the same officials. I have on video officials at the state meet, sectionals, TAGS, etc obviously looking down at the hands for the wall touch and then looking up for the feet on the blocks. You can clearly see their head movement and on zoom track their eyes...I'm an official and didn't have a kid in the meet this year but I've been on the end of 2 relay DQ's that set national records. It is clear as can be in the video the officials are not proper in their observation. The kids have to know that the pads are pressure sensitive and they have to make sure and make firm contact with them as they come in the wall. Just my observations over the last 4 years!
LESSON 1: first the takeoff feet, THEN the hands on touchpad.
But old wise lion king, most officials watch the hand, and then look up to the feet. Feet to hand gives the "benefit of doubt" to the swimmer.
Lane 5 still could have had a faster swimmer on that leg and the time would have been faster than lane 6 even if they left early, and the DQ was on the third leg
Comment to anonymous - even if the 2nd leg in lane 5 was faster - the time mentioned by the blog was the cumulative time of both the first and second leg. Girl in lane 6 CLEARLY comes in before girl in lane 5 so the split showing lane 5 ahead of lane 6 (overall time) does not make sense.
The splits were cumulative for the first two swimmers.e.g. Lane 5 showed a faster cumulative 200 (for their first two swimmers) than Lane 6 where the girl obviously touched first and her pad didn't register.
Agree this is a matter important to swimmers. As the NCAA rulebook says,
: Timing and judging systems are mechanical and thus prone to periodic failure. The relay takeoff judging uses two mechanical devices to compare times, one on the top of the starting block and the finish pad at the end of the course. The current rules have provision for making timing adjustments when the finish pad fails to record a time but makes no provision when the pad failure occurs as a part of a relay exchange. With the current rules there is no provision to deal with an equipment malfunction in the interval +0.09 seconds to -0.09 seconds.
This rule, proposed to protect the athletes....and the rule goes on to suggest video as an option.
Great idea: PROTECT THE ATHLETES
That sucks. At least when it happened to us, it was the first guy so we couldn't argue.
The DQ, according to the results, was on the exchange between the 2nd SOCA swimmer and the 3rd SOCA swimmer. Southlake Carroll led Kingwood at the 200, and the touchpad did not register the touch accurately. According to splits taken from the video, Southlake Carroll touched the wall at the 200 at 1:43.71, not 1:44.05, as registered by the touch pad. In addition, the touch pad registered NO SPLITS for the 300, the 350 and the 400. (NRT). It is obvious that the touch pad failed. Certainly reason enough to give the benefit of the doubt to the Southlake Swimmers. Wonder if either relay take-off judge saw a bad exchange and turned it in. Alas, since the mechanical take-off system registered the exchange at -.09, there was no need for a "person" to even be there! If the exchange had been registered at -.10, then at least one take-off judge would have had to call a bad exchange for Southlake to have been DQ'ed.
We could probably save some volunteer man-hours and just leave the relay exchange judges in the stands, since the automatic take-off system is so perfect and as we know, the touch pads NEVER fail!.
The splits were cumulative for the first two swimmers.e.g. Lane 5 showed a faster cumulative 200 (for their first two swimmers) than Lane 6 where the girl obviously touched first and her pad didn't register.
Agree this is a matter important to swimmers. As the NCAA rulebook says,
: Timing and judging systems are mechanical and thus prone to periodic failure. The relay takeoff judging uses two mechanical devices to compare times, one on the top of the starting block and the finish pad at the end of the course. The current rules have provision for making timing adjustments when the finish pad fails to record a time but makes no provision when the pad failure occurs as a part of a relay exchange. With the current rules there is no provision to deal with an equipment malfunction in the interval +0.09 seconds to -0.09 seconds.
This rule, proposed to protect the athletes....and the rule goes on to suggest video as an option.
Great idea: PROTECT THE ATHLETES
Big Ten championships at IU - first place winner of women's medley relay has an NRT for the freestyle leg and the third place finisher has a negative reaction time of -0.10 with no DQ. Apparently the NCAA has it figured out - what do they do that is different that TX HS swimming?
Thanks for the blog Button. This problem needs to be addressed very seriously and the SOCA girls should be recognized as the 5A Champs this year. The TISCA meeting will be interesting next fall, to say the least. Congrats to all the Dragons on the excellent season.
This really is not fair to the athletes. Everything must always consider the athletes first and foremost. We need to get awy from coaches and official egos and do the right thing for the athletes. If they can make the right adjustments at Big 10's, Big 12's and at the NCAA's, and some of those meets are held at the Swim Center in Austin, we need to follow suit.
So how do we do that? It seems relatively obvious that a change should be made - either eliminating the computer calls altogether since they are not used during any other HS meet during the season OR, making sure there is a double confirmation. Is there a mechanism to make this change? Didn't this same thing happen last year at the 5A meet? I recall SOCA saying the same thing. If so, why wasn't it changed then? Who could be against this???
Does anyone know what the FoxSportsSouthwest internet webcast looks like? What did the announcers there see and say?
A comment on your originally posed question - shouldn't we allow officials to use technology when in fact we already are using technology to make a call.... Doesn't UT already have these cameras and rules for using them including dual confirmation? They are hosting the NCAAs in a week or so - they will need to use it then.
These blunders of calls (computer calls not officials) hurt our athletes in more ways than just the obvious. For fear of the unwarranted DQ with no apparent recourse, we are suggesting that kids do not swim the fastest race they can but in fact consider swimming off the side of the pool rather than the block (to avoid a faulty lid or a faulty pad). That will significantly reduce the speed of "The fastest high school meet in the country" and reduce the number of all american times coming from texas relays. Heard that one swimmer suggested that if they get to swim this next year, they should wait for the previous relay swimmer to get out of the pool, take a drink of water from the block and then ask the officials between each exchange if it is OK to dive in. Such a shame.
I heard some information today that surprised me, and I wonder if it's true. I heard the NCAA meet this weekend in Rockwall was not using the pads because of what happened and the bad publicity surrounding it, and I heard that Rockwall had canceled there order with Dak for pad orders for the pool. Can anybody verify those? I hope it's true, maybe this campaign to change the rule is working.
Just checked the posted results for the Sun Belt conference Championships at Rockwall. NO reaction times are included.
Talked with a source at Rockwall and they are considering getting the pads, but have questions....
don't you????
actually, no human review is allowed once the computer rules someone disqualified. The computer makes the final call.
Post a Comment