On the other hand, if the call was this swimmer leaving early, maybe we need to look into changing our rules to allow definitive photographic/video evidence to be used to overturn some calls.
Pic was taken by swimmer from deck level. 4A results are here.
This post is not meant to knock officials. Unless we give them a rule book that allows them to review/correct a blown call, it's on us as coaches, right?
Your thoughts?
One last point:
The camera angle isn't perfect. It's possible the hands are going up and over the pad, right? If that's the case, maybe we should have the UIL spring for these Omega pads...
8 comments:
clearly outside the -.09 to +.09 The clock probably read +.50 on that one...or more. Ridiculous to have this range.
Seeing that it was the 200 Medley Relay, the hand could not have gone over the pad since it recorded a split for the swimmer coming in. Maybe the officals should be given an eye test. Clearly a mistake on someone's part.
if this call was made by the machine, the pad may not have gone off before the lid says the swimmer left.
we tell kids to hit the front of the pad, but we often see them finish on top - don't get me started on that big boo-boo.
if a wrist/elbow hit the pad just after the lid showed "take-off", an omega pad might have prevented this.
allowing for vid/pic evidence to be used to overturn would have allowed an official to remedy this - provided they felt this pic was sufficient.
change the rule to allow video/photographic evidence to be used to contest a call.
give each coach one challenge per meet.
he/she can throw the red flag in the pool after a dq.
if coach wins challenge, dq is overturned.
if coach loses challenge, he/she has to perform reverse triple - pike - from ten meter platform while wearing blindfold.
In the 4a meet- there were 6 eary takeoffs in the girls and 1 in the boys. 5a had 8 early takeoffs in the girls and 3 in the boys. So 14 girls left early and only 4 boys in both meets. Maybe gender is the issue?? Who knows? It just seems odd that we don't use a protocol to help protect the athlete from electronic issues.
That sounds like a Title IX issue!!! Clearly the DQ's were not proportional to the number of swimmers in the meet.... Where is Nancy Hogshead when you need her?
This is short of conclusive video evidence. Please consider the angle of the camera. According to the results posted at the UIL web site, the 3rd swimmer left .05 early. If the argument is to allow video evidence to overturn an official's call, you must first discuss the quality of the camera used. Will it be a fixed camera or just anyone's in attendance. Consider the shudder speed and MANY other variables. The protocal presently used is a just one especially when you consider that at NCAA's that the officials are taken completely out of the equation when it comes to relay exchanges.
According to the official meet results, swimmer #3 left -0.05 early, as recorded by the automatic take off system. That means that the two deck officials weren't even consulted. The way the rules are written in high school, not only is there no backup for the system, but the officials can't be asked to confirm or deny it's validity.
Post a Comment