Please direct your attention to the Official Rules post.
It's my pleasure to introduce the newest member of the Comment Hall of Fame.
While most feel our new relay take-off judging protocol is a step in the right direction, we're concerned it doesn't quite go far enough. We can't use the automatic system to "save" relays. In the past, we were told this was the best reason to use the system.
He/she has done a great job of stating the reasoning behind our cautious optimism.
Without further ado, I'd like to present Anonymous: our third inductee in the Comment Hall of Fame!
At 11:41 PM, Anonymous said…
Another problem door has been opened by the "new" protocol.
Two judges say DQ, but the RTOP says "OK". Too bad, "you're outta there!" This part of the "new" protocol overturns the last 10 years of positive RTOP readings having the potential to "save" relays!
The whole problem was the malfunction of the touch-pads in the water. Nothing was ever really wrong with the RTOP. That malfunctioning touch-pad problem was, indeed, addressed by requiring at least one judge to confirm the DQ. Bravo, that was the correct step! To do away with the positive RTOP reading to "save" a relay was the wrong step!
The "new" protocol, also effectively says that even if the RTOP, which was never accused of wrong-doing, says positive, two human judges can over-rule it. There has NEVER been a single coach or swimmer or parent that has argued the positive reading of the RTOP.
Pardon me if I seem stupid, but how would one get a positive RTOP reading and actually leave the blocks early? I really do welcome anyone that could explain that to me.
Are there any officials reading this that can explain to me how the RTOP can ever read "positive" and the swimmer actually leave early for a DQ? The "manufacturer's starting point" for the RTOP begins when the touchpad registers. If no one touches the touchpad, how can the RTOP ever register a positive reading? If you do not touch, then the reading will be negative. It is the "close" relay exchange, in the area of +.00 to +.09 that would be at risk if the judges are not able to "judge" that exchange correctly. Again, isn't it the manufacturers that sold this equipment on the premise that the human eye could not, effectively, measure an exchange that close? Wasn't that the original premise of Appendix "B" in the NFHS rule book?
It is not the RTOP! It is the link between the possibly malfunctioning touch-pads and the RTOP.
One thing that was not at fault, the RTOP!
Leave the RTOP positive reading alone and just make sure that there are quality judges ready to over-rule a negative RTOP reading in case of a touch-pad malfunction on a relay exchange.
We back-up ALL final finishes with stopwatches and plungers. Why can't we just focus on the real problem with the touch-pads and leave the rest of the RTOP protocol alone? Again, is there ANYONE out there that really wants to see a positive RTOP reading over-ruled by two human judges? Who wants to be those two judges and contend with the angst and questions and arguments and official protests that will, assuredly, result?
Now we have another "interpretation" presented as a "move forward". The "new" UIL automatic relay exchange protocol is not a move forward or a move backwards, it is a "move sideways" to side-step the real problem.
9 comments:
The way the rule was explained to me is this; The ONLY time the Meet ref will look at the RTOP system is if the two judges are split, otherwise, it will not come into play. In other words, if the two judges have early take off marked on their slips, the RTOP will not ever be looked at or become part of the official record. No one will ever know if the RTOP agreed or disagreed with the decision to prevent second guessing. I guess the main thing now is make sure the judges for the meet are the best available, not just the friends of the meet ref. I have been told that this has been the case at past meets.
If no one will ever know the RTOP reading, then where is the "transparency" that we all need. to have confidence in the "new" protocol?
If this previous comment is the explanation of the new process, then the process reeks of protectionism for the officials and little protection for the swimmers, coaches and parents.
No "official" record of the RTOP readings? Again, why have the RTOP's AT ALL, if it isn't going to come into play except to hurt the swimmer?
It is incredible that we would use a system, that won't be made public, since it might call into question the accuracy of the officials.
Does this mean that the RTOP reading won't even be a part of the "official record" of the meet?
Why don't we do away with the Dacktronics tape and the splits and run it like they run an "old-time" track meet where 8 timers stand on the side of the track and pick places and time at the same time. then, right away they find the athlete and ask them for their name and hand out the ribbons right there. Not much record-keeping or room for arguement at those old meets.
"Close the doors tight" to keep out anyone that might question anything about the RTOP's and the relay take-off judges. The coaches sure can't protest if they never get to see the record of the RTOP reading, huh?
I think the NFHS rule book assures coaches of the option to see the "tape" and the "record" in a protest. In this "new" protocol, is that right taken away?
Now that it has been explained more fully to me, I understand that those that drew up this "new" protocol were very clever to make sure they were completely protected from oversight. Even more so than "back in the day" before Appendix "B".
I am impressed with the planning and intelligence of those that fashioned this protocol to make sure they were well protected!
Too bad they could not have the same concern for our Texas HS swimmers...
Oh and by the way, if the RTOP reads negative, it will flag the take-off, and only one judge needs to concur for the relay to be DQ'ed. Back in the days before RTOP's, both judges had to make a DQ call for a relay exchange to be called a DQ. That is why they called it "dual" confirmation. But, alas, a positive reading on the RTOP means absolutely nothing if both judges call an early take-off. Why have the RTOP's at all? In this "new" protocol, they are not being used in the manner in which they were "sold".
Again, it seems that the judges and the "rule makers" are protected from scrutiny, while the swimmers are left out to dry.
Until someone from the UIL actually explains what the protocol is going to be, everything is just speculation and should be taken with a large grain of sea salt.
This "new rule" will not solve all the problems, if fact it will create new ones. As this person stated in his/her post the RTOP should be available to save the relay if a + 0.01 or greater reading is recorded. I am an official and I guarantee you there will be "issues" this February at the regional and state meets with this "new rule". I have purposely not officiated at the regional or state meets the last several years as I have had kids competing. I have however videotaped officials at these meets and how they observe the relay take off's, etc. A weird "hobby" I know but something I like to do when the kids are in a relay! I have long argued locally with several of our meet refs that all officials are not following proper protocol with relay observations. This is true at the state meet too. My video proves this to be true. It is absolutely alarming how many seasoned and experienced officials do not track the feet leaving the blocks and then look to observe if there is a hand in contact with the wall. I have zoomed on the eyes of the officials and you can clearly see the tracking movements of the eyes going from the hand touch on the wall then observing for feet in contact with the platform / blocks. If the reverse observation is made, as it frequently is, a "good start" may very well be DQ'ed by the 2 officials even though the RTOP will show it to be a good start. This new rule will not work. The RTOP has to be used to "safe" a false start called by 2 officials. Coaches and fans will experience this as soon as February I predict. The RTOP will show a +0.01 or greater "good" start but the 2 officials will DQ the relay and we are right back where we started - the kids get screwed.
I have never watched a high school meet, at any level, where there was single lane jurisdiction on relay take offs. The closest I've seen was at state, where each official had two lanes. All other are either 4 lanes or all eight. I wonder how the anonymous videotaper can tell beyond a reasonable doubt which lanes the improper movement of the eyes are upon? Unless the official is directly on top of the lane, the eyes and head shouldn't have to move, the distance is great enough to allow full range of sight by looking straight ahead. The electronic system has been a tremendous failure, according to our anonymous official, he/she is the only human capable of properly judging take offs, so what do we do? Honor system? Witness how honorable Humble Kingwood was even though they knew they hadn't earned the title. The best solution is untenable at this time, given the equipment UT has (and insists upon using), and the cost of bringing in Omega and setting up the state meet as though it was an Olympic trial.
duin's kingwood gals felt bad for carroll girls, but don't imply they did anything wrong here. the meet referee accepted the relay dq and the uil awarded them a team championship.
let's not knock the u.t. folks, as we've been to enough meets to know they run their events extremely well. you can be sure they use the best equipment their suppliers offer.
as far as officials having too many lanes to observe, that is just the way it goes sometimes. when they're in that situation, though, they almost to a man/woman would give the benefit of the doubt to the swimmer(s). they'd rather not dq a relay if a call was very close, their view was obstructed, a coach was distracting them, etc.
can't remember if i've shared the relay judging i encountered in my first-ever swim meet back in 1973. every time i tell the story, folks think i'm making it up as i go - just like when i'm coaching...
@1:15 am post:
My intent in posting was not to offend anyone but it seems this may have touched a nerve with you. Specifically you state in your post "I wonder how the anonymous videotaper can tell beyond a reasonable doubt which lanes the improper movement of the eyes are upon? Unless the official is directly on top of the lane, the eyes and head shouldn't have to move, the distance is great enough to allow full range of sight by looking straight ahead". My reply to this comment is any decent video with zoom can show detailed and clear tracking of the eyes of the official.....rarely are the 2 lanes the officials are assigned to observe approaching the exchange at the same time (I am referring to the 400 free relay specifically). Frankly it is quite easy to watch the tracking of the eyes in this case and for each lane. In the cases I'm referring too there was enough of a difference in time between the 2 lanes that the official being videotaped clearly was observing one lane and then the other. The tracking and sequencing of the observation were incorrect. The indivdual official observed is one of the most experienced officials Texas has - he teaches clinics and has devoted hours of "free" volunteer time. I'm not picking on him but the point is the rules / techniques are not consistently applied, even by the most seasoned officials. The kids are the ones penalized. My point is the rule should be, in my opinion, that dual confirmation of 2 officials of a relay exchange is needed to DQ a relay BUT the RTOP should be used to save a relay if it shows a fair exchange. I think the best use of the RTOP is simply to save a relay if a +0.01 or greater exchanged is noted on the system - the RTOP shouldn't be used for any other reason given the problems with the system being utilized in Texas at this time.
I have watched officials for many years calling relay take offs and I have to agree with the Anonymous writer that most officials watch the touch then look for the feet. They should be watching the feet then looking for the habds. Very well written, and true from what I have observed.
Post a Comment