Writer said I could use their name, but I'm opting to withhold:
There has been much discussion via this blog, via email, at various swim meets and even in the paper about the number of “computer called” DQs that occurred during the 4A and 5A State meets at UT. I appreciate Button allowing me to add to this dialogue and hopefully clarify some things without confusing everyone!
I spoke today with a senior representative from the UIL office. They said they were unaware that there were any issues during the meet regarding relay disqualifications. In fact, as I understand the UIL official, the electronic judging exchange rule at a national level (NFHS), has been in place for a long time and has only ever had the one complaint – the 2010 SOCA DQ protest by Coach Murphy. In addition, this person indicated that they have not heard from anyone – coaches, parents, officials on the 2011 meet and have NO EVIDENCE that anything was amiss.
I do want to point out that this person was highly professional and reiterated multiple times that she would be willing to review this issue, discuss this issue etc – if only someone brought evidence to her.
So I discussed with her what I thought the issues are – and I list them below:
The relay exchange rule:
The rule as written for high school relay exchanges (with the electronic relay judging equipment) does not take into account any chance that a pad may fail to register a touch. It actually makes no difference when the swimmer touches the pad – it only matters when the pad REGISTERS a touch. Anyone who has operated a timing console, as I have, knows that not all touches register. A swimmer would have to KNOW that the pad registered – not that a person touched the wall in order to be certain to avoid a DQ.
Because the rule for electronic relay exchange judging has no back-up to protect athletes from a failed touchpad, swimmers on relays could be encouraged to skip the block altogether. The only sure way to avoid a computer DQ is to start from the side. This would be an embarrassment and a huge disadvantage for Texas swimmers compared to other states.
The NCAA decided 2 years ago that this rule needed to be changed. They added video evidence requirements where there was no human acknowledgement of any DQ between (-0.09) and 0.0. I noticed Button posted a forum discussing this below.
Pads do fail and there are rules to protect athletes:
The rule as written for high school individual events does take into account that a pad may fail. There are backup plungers and timers. And, in fact, in the same 5A state meet there were also pad failures on individual swims where rules allowed for adjustments. As an example, during the 5A girls state backstroke consolation heat, one swimmer appeared to win the race – the board indicated that she had won. But the final results indicated that a different swimmer had won – apparently her pad had malfunctioned and the timing judge/chief administrative official followed procedure, by adjusting the time, and, subsequently awarded the win to that person.
The official results of the meet indicate that something was amiss:
3% of relay exchanges with computer issues (NRTs) is more than the manufacturers warranty. Why so many? Girls were DQd much more than boys. Why? And in the specific case of SOCA, there are missing splits (pad failure) and a missing reaction time (lid failure) so with an obvious equipment malfunction why was the DQ not vacated??? With this obvious data, a video or photo is not even required to see that this particular disqualification should have been (and should still be) overturned.
I mentioned how quickly the meet referee/director had to turn his attention to the 4A meet after the 5A meet. He did not have a lot of time to review this data and specifically the equipment issues. The UIL official that I spoke with commented that these are professionals that do this weekly but only have 30 minutes to certify the results by rule.
Texas is at a disadvantage with this electronic equipment rule:
The reason that the NFHS has heard little of this issue is that most states do not use electronic take off judging. Someone checked data for Indiana, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, Florida and Colorado. No reaction times listed. Additionally, swimmers that have moved to Texas from some of these states confirm that this technology is not used at High School State championships in many if not all of these states.
More DQs mean less All American times – that hurts states that use this equipment with no back up to ensure the computer called DQs are correct.
Questionable results hurt our sport:
The Southlake Carroll men’s team WON state. This is the first time a North Texas team has done that. And the headlines did not even mention this great feat! The papers/blogs/discussions have all focused on the disqualification and the questions it raises. Wouldn’t it have been better for our sport to say “Local Team WINS State Championship”, than “Local team loses State Championship due to questionable disqualification”.
CALL TO ACTION – the rule must be changed:
I believe that the rule should be changed to include a dual confirmation – either video or an official. And if we cannot do that, then at the very least Texas needs to STOP using this equipment during the state meet. There is no rule that says we have to use it. I also personally believe that the SOCA DQ with evidence of equipment malfunction should be reversed.
In order to make a rule change, we all need to tell the UIL what we believe should happen. If the UIL has no evidence of an issue and no evidence that people want a change, then we, the swimming community, should make sure they get it. I plan to send a letter and I know many other parents will send letters and videos. It needs to be more than SOCA and HP parents and coaches. Who else? Woodlands, Plano, McKinney – many others had DQs and quite frankly – even if you didn’t this year – next year, it could be you! The UIL official specifically mentioned that she needs to hear this from coaches. We must protect our dedicated and hard working athletes – let the UIL know you think there is a problem. Send a letter, propose a change, band together – and together we can improve our sport!
19 comments:
If the UIL official is T.N., I have it from a reliable source that a TEXAS coach with over 20 yrs of UIL coaching, and who happens to be president of NISCA, will be happy to communicate these concerns to the UIL office.
'Nuff said.
Thanks for this call to action. This is a major issue for our state HS swim meet, and the computer malfunction could have happened to ANY team in the state, boys or girls. Maybe it will impact a state title again next year and maybe it won't.
I am also curious how the highly trained officials feel about this rule? There is one official for every two lanes; isn't their expert opinion worth something. Technology is not infallible and the brain and the human eye are remarkable.
First, thank you for some very insightful information. Besides the fact that the swimming community absolutely needs to help drive a change to the rules, my other takeaway is that the UIL was not aware of the issues including the abnormally high number of DQs and NRTs at this years HS Championships. This lack of information clearly points to a flaw in the current system. It is imperative that all parties involved with swimming and other sports do everything possible to protect the athletes. Without processes that continuously monitor and take feedback on current rules and events this can not be accomplished. The UIL should be asked to build in continuous improvement processes for the betterment of all sports and most importantly the athletes. I myself will be sending a letter to the UIL. I encourage others to do the same.
Still confused about how the UIL rules are being applied? I am?
Read with interest these points from the NCAA blog when dealing with the similar issue:
•it is the job of the judges to call it, if they don't catch the obvious jump, then it probably was mechanical error.
•there was a confirmed technical error with the exchange pads. The official committee didn't use video evidence to overturn the call, but rather used the printed data from the exchange results. There were very blatant problems with the pads, and most if not all of the negative times were the result of mechanical failure, not actual early leave on the part of the swimmer.
•This rule, proposed to protect the athletes....and the rule goes on to suggest video as an option.
Also, I know most of our swimmers spend the majority of their time at USA swim meets. So, I have another question?
•Are the rules so tightly written for UIL that common sense or common use of procedures when swimming technology fails is not allowed?
•From the NSHS rule book: The meet committee shall make decisions on matters not specifically covered by the rules or on the misapplication of a rule during a meet.
With all due respect, it seems to me that we spend more time at age group swim meets trying to review results and make sure the results are as accurate as possible. If we make a mistake, we review, repost, rescore.
•So the question is, in high school swimming, is the administrative judge not allowed to look at the information coming out of the timing console, see that there were blatant problems with the pad and overturn the call?
"The Southlake Carroll men’s team WON state. This is the first time a North Texas team has done that. "
I dont believe that is correct. Pearce, Plano have won state before.
Also news stories focus on the out of the ordinary. A team wins every year but not every year is a team cost a title due to equpiment/rule issues.
Agreed - The rules do need to be changed
As a UIL swimming official, I agree. The time for action is now. My understanding is that a trial litigation firm in Dallas has been given much of the evidence, and speaking as one of the many who saw the frame by frame video this weekend, there is NO DOUBT about that call being wrong. I won't speak for other officials, but I believe the rule should be examined, using all of the evidence available, to determine whether or not it represents a fair application of the rule it is meant to enforce.
Response to Anonymous from guest blogger:
My apologies for missing some very good swim programs and giving them their due. My point there was that winning the state title would have been the headline if we had solved this controversy last year or when the NCAA changed their rule. Again - apologies.
2 points:
1. It seems that technicians from the company that manufactures the RTOP (relay takeoff platform) should be on hand in case there are possible malfunctions. To expect meet management to be "up to speed" in critical technical areas of the operation, calibration, testing, and adjustment of this so-called "revolutionary new technology" is perhaps expecting PhD performance from a grammar-school performer (no offense intended, just trying to address the relative familiarity with and "secret inner workings" of the device).
2. "Final Results" are not always final. Several years back a state championship was taken away from a team, almost a year after the fact. Most of you veteran TX people will know the story.
Bottom line is, the UIL will address inequities and correct them when it can, IF they have the necessary amount of valid data (not anecdotes or conjecture) to review the situation.
We now know of three girls teams who received a championship trophy that clearly did not earn it. One of them has been vindicated and a championship restored. Carroll is the third one. There is another one in the middle, never overturned, still leaves a bad taste in honest folks' mouths. But we know Al won that one. This last one, in stark distinction from the first two, occurred because of a mechanical malfuntion, not because of "alleged" improprieties. The current girls state champ, Kingwood, was the "I don't believe it!" beneficiary of a suspected equipment malfunction. If this is shown to be the case, WITH DATA, we think Kingwood would be the first to congratulate Carroll.
This is going to very interesting! Compliments to the well thought out responses of so many caring members of the swimming community.
I understand that the NFHS rules committee will meet March 25 in Indianapolis. Any coach, official or administrator that wants to submit a rule change needs to do it quickly!!! Don't just assume someone else is doing it because the more that make this a point, the more likely it will pass.
The data exists. They say it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I have a feeling the UIL is not that big. This will make a great movie, and someday, they will point to this event as a turning point. Of course, if any network picks up this story, the facts about the number of failures, and the video associated with it, the UIL might be embarrassed into doing the right thing.
Southlake Carroll was 2nd last year, and was the victim of the exact same "automatic relay exchange" protocol in the Prelims of the Girl's 400 free relay. It can't be proved, but it was likely that Southlake Carroll's Girls would have won the Texas 5A State Championship last year also, had their relay survived the Prelim touch pad malfunction. See the blog on Texas Swimming from Feb 2010 for an overview of that DQ.
Coach Kevin Murphy warned everyone last year that this could happen again and now the point has been brought home to a number of teams.
Let's hope that the upswell of justice seekers will prove to be powerful enough to effect this much needed change for Texas HS Swimming.
Not sure what more data the UIL would actually need to reverse the SOCA DQ. First they have several missing splits - indicating a pad failure. There is one very incorrect split (39 seconds for a 50 for a team that without the DQ would have placed 3rd). Then there is the NRT for the lid. So to me, there is enough evidence even without the video and photo.
But as someone who saw it this weekend frame by frame, I was embarrassed. How can anyone look at that video and believe the equipment worked???
This is not about admission of guilt or error. This is about a review of the equipment data warranted by the high number of DQs. In a continuous improvement environment, any company, any school and indeed any athlete would review the data. Once the UIL does that, and once they look at this very specific DQ, the only reasonable option is to overturn it.
The only way to get this changed is for coaches and administrators to tell the UIL they believe a change is warranted.
Has anyone at the UIL seen the frame by frame video?
The UIL would be unlikely to look at the video unless forced to by a court order or an involved Texas Congressman.
I would like the UIL to see the frame by frame video on the giant screen at Cowboy's Stadium. During a press conference.
After reading all of this I believe everyone is missing the key element to the rule, as written.
The rule states that a -0.09 to 0.0 is an automatic disqualification YES - but you cannot just stop there. As any lawyer or for that matter 3rd grader knows, you must read ALL of the words in a definition. It is -0.09 to 0.00 FROM THE MANUFACTURERS STARTING POINT. So what is the starting point?
If I asked you how fast Phelps swims the 100 fly - you could look up the answer by googling 100 fly and phelps. But what if I meant - how fast is his back half 100 fly in the 200 fly? The starting point makes a difference. And we all assume we know what the starting point is, even when someone doesn't say it. That is human nature.
In this case, the manufacturers starting point is the point at which a working pad registers a swimmer in the water's touch. It is NOT when a working pad registers any touch because then a volunteer timer could accidentally set it off (if the reset period had passed) or a swimmer getting out of the water could set it off (again, if the reset period had passed).
The manufacturers starting point makes an assumption that the PAD IS WORKING. So the rule basically states that "from the point the working pad registers that a swimmer touches the wall, to the point that the working RTOP registers that a swimmer has left the block shall not be 0.0 to -0.09 or there will be an automatic DQ".
If during a race, it can be shown that a pad has malfunctioned (as in this DQ in question - based on these responses, I did go look at the official results posted)... So if it can be shown that a pad malfunctioned or did not register a valid touch then BY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO WAY TO CALCULATE THE REACTION TIME.
So the real question is: Was the 200 split listed a valid touch, registered properly so that the RTOP could in essense "start the clock on the reaction time" or do we have evidence that the pad data could not be trusted for that race?
I submit that there is evidence that the pad was not working. If you look at the data in the results, you see that the pad failed to register properly for the remainder of the race. You also see the NRT. If you look at the photo on this blog you see that it is not possible for the Kingwood girl to have touched the wall before the SOCA girl - and therefore you KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that the pad failed.
This DQ should never have even been called. The timing console operator, the timing judge, the meet referree and the meet director should have UNDERSTOOD THIS RULE, as written and vacated the DQ.
NOTE: Still believe the rule should be changed because this analysis still doesn't reflect the fact that there were so many NRTs. Personally I believe there was a pad problem and not an RTOP problem.
Did anyone stop to tell the UIL that the term "suggested protocol" does not mean "SHALL DO THIS"? And in fact, since the suggested protocol has been altered by the NCAA - the experts that suggested it in the beginning anyway - it seems that the UIL should not have used this protocol and/or should delete it altogether.
Hello....I am very impressed with the logic that has been outlined in the blog and the comments section. Many people seem to understand the problem with the "suggested" rule as it now reads and has been "interpreted" by our State Meet Referee and expert.
Let's hope that those that are making the decisions, the UIL/NFHS "rules intepreter"/State Meet Referee, and the State Meet Director from the UIL, are able to understand the logic and make the best move forward for the benefit of all the swimmers, parents, coaches and fans in Texas HS Swimming.
They did not do it last year, and have not done it yet this year.
We will see....
Post a Comment