Ron has posted the official relay take-off protocol form the UIL. Read it here.
Article I addresses a concern both coaches and officials have wrestled with - consistency in positioning. Everyone should now be on the same page there.
As you begin reading Article II you may believe we're going back to the protocol of old. It closes, though, with this:
Moreover, a positive differential recorded by the electronic equipment does not overrule an early takeoff recorded by both judges.
Kind of takes one of the main reasons for using the equipment out of the mix, right? Makes many of us wonder why, if it can't be used to protect athletes from missed calls, we are going to use the system at all...
9 comments:
Ditto...why buy the system and why use it? The system can only hurt the swimmer, never help them. Go back to two judges and trust the judges to make the fair call.
Good enough for the last 70 years.
In this case, the "intepreters" and protocol designers, have eliminated the main reason for using the equipment: To "save" the swimmer!
"Moreover, a positive differential recorded by the electronic equipment does not overrule an early takeoff recorded by both judges."
This statement acknowledges that the electronics could be wrong. If both judges see an obvious early take off, one that everyone in the stands sees too, but the electronics show that it is good, who would be served by that? By the way, the meet ref also has more leeway to deal with electronic issues. By making the pads part of a three way system, the thought is that a balance can be achieved that can address many different issues, including one official who is "off his game" for that meet.
one official who is "off his game"
aha!!!! so you acknowledge it is a man problem, right?!?! it wasn't a gal that was 'off her game', was it?
seriously, coaches aren't asking for revenge or a make-up call here. when an obviously fair start was called a dq by the machine, that didn't mean we needed a blatant false start to be undone by the machine, did it?
we're talking about those bang-bang calls = those starts where an official might go either way, but both made the 'it looked just a little early to me' route.
scenario (under old rule):
two quality officials (i know they're all quality officials. stop interrupting.) see a relay start from their proper positions (i said stop interrupting. i know they're always in proper position.). each makes the call that the swimmer left early. they know it was close, but they're pretty sure about the call. when the meet referee checks the timing system, it indicates a fair start (+0.01). he/she allows the machine to undo the call.
both officials that made the dq call are fine with it, as they know it was close and they're more than happy to have the machine 'save' a relay. they don't have a problem with having a back-up in place on close calls.
Agree that the system is a waste of money. Agree that in the now current rules, the system can only hurt the swimmer and not help. But also feel that this is 10 times better than it was. Still... since according to M. Cousins, a protest must be filed in writing prior to meet certification (which happens within 1 hour of the meet conclusion), I would have a written protest ready. This protocol does not reflect the fact that pads can fail and unless the meet referree chooses to look at it this year - pads will fail, he will ignore it and possibly a problem will occur. I plan to be ready with a protest - just in case.
In the meantime, we should discuss this at the TISCA meeting - maybe we can push for this to go even further.
I think they could have done a better job of tightening the language to make it crystal clear - to me...sadly, it is still open to interpretation and loopholes....
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.
The RTOP is 1/2 of a two part system. The pads are part of the RTOP, so to say that the "pads" are the problem, and to imply that the RTOP has never been an issue is to show a basic lack of understanding of the way the system works. Yes, the pressure sensitive top on the blocks can register when a weighted object leaves it, but without feedback from the pad in the water, there is no way the RTOP can actually tell if the takeoff was good. The only thing the RTOP can do on it's own is give the reaction time at the start. By the way, The RTOP had multiple errors registered throughout last years state meet, just look at the tapes. There were error codes for the the pads in the waters and the block toppers. If nothing else was to change, at least something should have been done to require the system calibration be checked by the manufacturer before and after each session, just like at national meets.
RE: The RTOP had multiple errors registered throughout last years state meet, just look at the tapes.
I personally reviewed the Southlake Carroll relay tape. There were 8 "extra" take offs registered by the lid. Some indicated swimmer 3 left early and some indicated swimmer 3 left late. Regardless of the change to the current rule - the meet referee MUST understand that equipment CAN and WILL fail and that as part of his job responsibilities, he MUST look at the totality of the evidence. If the lid goes off 8 times in the matter of 5 seconds, then it cannot be considered reliable. It may be that the equipment must be calibrated - but it is also true that the meet director/referee/timing console operator must ALSO BE CALIBRATED!!!!!
still a hot-button issue (puns intended)
Post a Comment