By Jason Marsteller
PHOENIX, Arizona, April 11. AT least a handful of times a year, relay touchpad judging equipment is at the center of controversy. It usually winds up costing a team a spot or two in team standings, or the chance to have a time recorded in the books. This year, however, there is a claim that Humble Kingwood's girls 5A state championship title in Texas could be called into question.
Humble Kingwood edged Southlake Carroll by just a point when Carroll drew a disqualification in the 400-yard freestyle relay, costing the team at worst 22 points.
You can judge for yourself whether a disqualification for an illegal relay exchange occurred with this video of the race courtesy of Rod Hogan. Southlake Carroll is in lane 6 in the video.
The controversy surrounding the disqualification, and nearly all other touchpad disqualifications, stems from the steadfast implementation of the -0.09 to -0.01 rule that supersedes any judgment call from a human being.
Under the National Federation of State High School Associations Suggested Protocols for Automatic Relay Judging Equipment, which the University Interscholastic League (UIL) follows for its state championships in Texas, "if the electronic relay takeoff equipment detects an exchange differential (takeoff pad time minus finish pad time) of -0.09 through +0.09 second inclusive, from the manufacturers stating point, the decision(s) of the relay takeoff judge(s) shall not be considered. The determination of the electronic relay takeoff equipment shall be official, with exchange differential of -0.09 through -0.01 seconds from the manufacturers starting point indicating a rules violation and values of 0.00 through +0.09 seconds indicating a legitimate relay exchange."
In the aforementioned Carroll swim, third-leg Jillian Roberts is registered at a -0.09 takeoff, while a frame-by-frame look at the take-off in question would suggest that a +0.27 takeoff occurred.
Meanwhile, a disqualification of Highland Park in the Texas 4A 200 medley relay held at the same time as the 5A meet, caused by a relay touchpad. The touchpad registered a -0.05 takeoff for Emma Gruber, which has been questioned with a photo (seen to the right) demonstrating Gruber's feet still in contact with the pad, while Meredith Kelly has her hand on the wall.
The initial discussion back in 2008 within the Texas high school coaching ranks regarding the implementation of relay touchpad had planned on tweaking the NFHS suggestions so that touchpads would only be used to help a swimmer. For example, if a swimmer was disqualified by dual confirmation by the judges, but the equipment said different, then the swim would stand. In 2009, however, relay disqualifications began being implemented solely based on the equipment.
The UIL also strictly prohibits video to be used in any officiating matter, unlike the NCAA, which allows for a facility to install a video-backup system to protect the athletes in cases such as this after a controversial disqualification of Stanford occurred in 2008.
UIL Video Rule
Videotaping/Filming
Filmers or videotapers will be permitted in the spectator area. Videotape or film will not be used in judging any swimming/diving event. (See All American Diving exception.) Please use extreme wings of spectator area for filming. Please be sensitive to other spectators.
On top of all the commotion occurring at the Texas high school meets, the NCAA Division III Championships also endured controversy due to relay touchpad times. The relay touchpads were not used on the first day of DIIIs dude to lane 8 consistently producing strange readings.
The following day, when coaches were informed that relay touchpads would be back in play, there was a rash of disqualifications in the 400 medley relay with five teams being disqualified in heat three of the women's 400 medley relay. This situation led to the NCAA committee deciding to overturn the relay touchpad disqualifications because the committee had lost confidence in the equipment. All coaches who were impacted were contacted by the NCAA explaining this decision.
An appeal by teams that were not disqualified was rejected. These teams appealed the overturning of the relay disqualifications based on a few principles that included that there was no evidence that the touchpads were malfunctioning. Additionally, the appeal stated that there was no pattern to the disqualifications and that overturning the disqualifications was against the NCAA rules which stated that the relay touchpads were the sole apparatus for determining disqualification so as to eliminate human error from the process.
Regardless of which side of the rulings one is on, relay touchpads definitely have been the center of continued controversy within the sport. Swimming World does believe that a review of the rule calling for automatic disqualifications based solely on relay touchpad equipment should be reviewed.
One suggestion made so far is to require double confirmation of any disqualification, whereas two out of three (touchpad, two referees) would have to confirm a disqualification.
Regardless, a review of the rule should be done to help eliminate the ongoing controversy regarding how relay touchpads are used in swim meets.
Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
April 11, 2011 The team in lane 5 completely covered the starting block with a wet towel for the last swimmer. Is that legal in Texas? Doesn't that keep the block from working correctly? Submitted by: Westin
April 11, 2011 It shouldn't affect the block, as the block is pressure sensitive.
Hmmm what was Carroll's excuse when they did the SAME THING in 2010, DQ'ed the championship away in the final race! I'd also like to see an examination of the Woorldands' prelims relay DQ, in the interest of fairness, and as I'd be curious to see that result. If they hadn't DQ'ed that relay, they likely would have won the meet regardless. Submitted by: swimmingfan1212
April 11, 2011 I don't understand why these articles are posted. To what end? To show that in our sport it takes several years of wrangling to finally, possibly, do the right thing?
Oy veh!
I feel for all the level-headed, hard-working, young athletes who take part in our sport, only to realize that, when it counts most, they can't expect the adults to exercise common sense and fair play. Submitted by: mario2007
April 11, 2011 It definitely looked like a fair start, although it was odd that the swimmer in question looked over to her left side while diving in. Maybe she knew it was close and was trying to look over her shoulder to check or something. Submitted by: liquidassets
April 11, 2011 Nice article. Exchange looks fair - especially when you slow it down. As I understand it - there are no back up times on the pad touches for relay exchanges. We all know that pads fail periodically - that is why we have watches and plungers. So why do we make the assumption that the pads don't fail during a relay exchange? That just seems like we are hiding from the truth. There needs to be back up systems mandated or we should not use the equipment. Would everyone agree to use only the pads for individual races - especially backstroke - if we knew there was no back up whatsoever? I doubt it. Submitted by: notcreative
April 11, 2011 In regards to the 2010 TX swim meet - this happened then too and maybe folks are unaware that there was video evidence then too. Maybe folks are unaware that the Southlake team tried unsuccessfully to get the rule changed to protect ALL teams this year. Maybe folks are unaware that 14 girls relays were disqualified this year - and 9 last year - and then never more than 5 (average of 3.5) for the 10 previous years that did not use automatic electronic relay judging. This is not just an issue for one team - this is an issue for all of swimming and we need to stick together to get this fixed. Personally I agree - The Woodlands and all disqualified teams that had a computer called early start should review any data they have - because most likely it was a bad call on the computer's part and in this case, possibly The Woodlands would be state champs. Submitted by: purchasing
April 11, 2011 Open Letter
Texas High School Swimming Community,
I wish we'd have made a stronger push for rule changes a year ago. Coach Murphy made a great case for revision after last year's state meet and we didn't take up the cause, did we?
The original post on 2010 UIL state meet results is here. Kevin's comment was professional, sincere, and - unfortunately - prophetic:
At 5:24 PM, murphyk said…
#1 Congratulations to the Kingwood Girls and Coach Duin for their Texas 5A State Championship in Girl's Swimming & Diving.
Congratualtions to the Woodlands Boys, especially Knox Hitt, (100 back from lane 8 in consols put the nail in the coffin for southlake Carroll) and Coach Kirchner for their Texas 5A State Championship in Boy's Swimming & Diving.
A job well done!
The TRUTH of Southlake Carroll's DQ in the Girl's 400 free relay in prelims:
Prelims, HT 2, Ln 6, Girls 5A 400 free relay:
Kingwood and Southlake Carroll are stroke for stroke to the finish of the 300, almost identical touches.
*one foot distance seperated the touches, .2 of a second, maximum.
HUKI's 300 time(touchpad) 2:38.02
SOCA's 300 time(touchpad) 2:38.79
(.77 of a second, or one full body length, according to the "infallible" touch pad!)
Southlake Carroll was disqualified, by the "machine" -.03, with no human (dual)confirmation.
Note: Of 17 other Prelim relay exchanges, by Southlake Carroll, having been instructed by the Coach, to use "safe starts", every single one of those 17 exchanges was between .3 and .5
The last swimmer on this 400 free relay, to whom the false start was assigned, was swimming in her 4th Texas State Meet, had never false started before, and was following her Coach's directions to a "T". A four-time HS All-American, swimming in Prelims on a relay dominating the heat, side by side with Kingwood.
No danger of not making the Top 8 in Finals. In fact, the relay time, if it was allowed, would have put the Southlake Team as the #2 seed in Finals, just behind Kingwood.
Team video, soon to be on U-Tube, will show the entire relay, along with the relay exchange in question. Take a look and see if you, as a coach, or a parent, or a swimmer, would like to see your relay, next year, DQ'd in a similar manner.
NCAA protocol was used, that says the "machine" rules from -.09 to +.09, but the NCAA recognizes the possibility of pad malfunction at the end of each of the the first three legs, and, therefore allows for pre-set video, in Championship Meets, at the finish end, for all relay exchanges, in case of a dispute, within the -.09 to +.09 band.
With no video back-up at the Texas State Meet, every HS swim program at the Texas State Meet risks a relay exchange result similar to that of Southlake Carroll. Maybe other teams, this year, were disqualified in the same manner, relying 100% on the "machine", within the designated range of -.09 to +.09
Let's see if we, as a swimming community, can effect a change at future Texas HS State Meets to protect the efforts of our swimmers as they strive to perform to the very best of their ability on a level playing field.
Injustice thrives when men say nothing. The outcome of the meet cannot be changed, but the future credibility of the Texas State HS Meet depends on a correction of our protocol, to accept the possibility of equipment malfunction.
Submitted by:
April 11, 2011 I have seen the frame by frame analysis and it's completely clear. Swimmer #2 from Carroll in the water in lane 6 touches the wall before swimmer #2 in lane 5 from Kingwood. When you freeze the video in frame by frame analysis, swimmer #3 is still clearly on the block with two feet. The "official" results show that Kingwood touched the wall at 143.98 and Carroll touched at 144.05. In other words – they say that lane 5 touched the wall before lane 6. And yet swimmer #2 in lane 6 is a half a body ahead or at least a third of a body. The video that was time stamped puts swimmer #3s take off reaction time at something like .3 NOT negative 0.09. In addition, I'm told a physics major has reviewed the rate of swimmer #3s speed and determined that it was not possible for her to slow down at the rate in which they said she did in order for her split to be what it was.
Also, when you look at the published meet results you see they had pad problems two or three times in the race and at least one take-off split problem. Why didn't the timing equipment operator report a malfunction? Why wouldn't the timing judge or meet administrator have questioned the RTOP split? Standard operating procedures for swimming dictate that it is the timing console operator's job to immediately report any problems that affect the accuracy of the equipment or whenever the touchpad is observed to have failed. It is impossible to know exactly when the pad started to fail.
Thanks for highlighting this issue. Hopefully, the UIL can better understand the "suggested" protocol by the NFHS and choose to implement dual confirmation like USA Swimming or Video confirmation like the NCAA.
Submitted by: txn swimmer
April 12, 2011 Mario the article is a reexamination of what happened and what should not be happening. Evidence comes forward and the entity reports on it.
You answered your question with the second part of your post. Those adults with the power may read this site. Those who coach in TX may forward this on to those with the power to vote in TX. If this article inspires any coach or swimmer to contact the UIL and gets the ball rolling on fairness then the article has served its purpose.
-Levelheaded Coach Submitted by: HC_HLA
April 12, 2011 Anyone want to venture a guess as to which company manufactured the equipment on all of these questionable takeover DQ's? I think the issue with the equipment falls mainly on the design of the equipment. Pressure sensitive equipment malfunctions based on a number of factors, including installation. Spring regsiter blocks work much more consistently. Statistical comparissons of the two types of systems is stunning. Based on comparissons of a major conference meet conducted at sites using the different types of equipment the pressure sensitive blocks or platforms had a failure rate or missing registers of up to 20% of the time; the spring based equipment in 3 conference meets and 1 state HS meet, as well as 3 national meets failed ONCE. I think we can all do the math here. A strong look needs to be taken at the manufacturers based on this information. Imagine if the touchpads failed up to 20% of the time, we would be screaming for stopwatches. I would love to see a broad comparisson of the two types of equipment to see what it shows on a broad level. Submitted by: Fswim
April 12, 2011 I don't believe that Daktronics claims to be pressure sensitive - it says it can sense human touch - which as I understand it has something to do with -- wait for it... WATER CONTENT! Submitted by: purchasing
April 12, 2011 HC_HLA
I was under the impression that this was contested at the state meet, but that touchpad technology reigned supreme despite the obvious video proof to the contrary. After reviewing the article, no such inference is made. Does anybody know if this was indeed contested during the course of the meet?
I should be clear, the great majority of personnel involved in swimming (coaches, refs, etc.) are level-headed and decent folk. I've never thought otherwise. But it is a little concerning that, for lack of a better word, our swimming bureaucracy has failed to correct this issue over the course of 2 years. In fact, this is the first I ever heard of this and I'm a regular visitor to this site.
I want to say "We should follow the lead of the NCAA", but then the 4th to last paragraph sheds more light on why this remains a "controversy", when in fact there should be no "controversy" at all - given video proof that the touchpads failed, the disqualified team should be automatically reinstated. It's just that simple - it's called DO THE RIGHT THING.
Everyone should read this paragraph again, and I'm hoping I'm not the only one who has a problem with this:
"...An appeal by teams that were not disqualified was rejected. These teams appealed the overturning of the relay disqualifications based on a few principles that included that there was no evidence that the touchpads were malfunctioning. Additionally, the appeal stated that there was no pattern to the disqualifications and that overturning the disqualifications was against the NCAA rules which stated that the relay touchpads were the sole apparatus for determining disqualification so as to eliminate human error from the process..." Submitted by: mario2007
April 12, 2011 The Coach did protest the DQ at the meet and was told by the head meet official that the "equipment rules" and the equipment said swimmer 3 left at -.09. Coach said the pads failed and the official said they were working "here"...however, there is no way that they know that beyond a shadow of a doubt, because the lids posted multiple touches and the pads failed multiple times. Very sad that they could not remember that when in doubt, you ere on the side of the swimmer....cardinal rule of officiating. Submitted by: txn swimmer
April 13, 2011 Txn swimmer,
That was my point all along.
People can't even be counted on in making basic decisions anymore, because it's easier to not give a hoot. Submitted by: mario2007
April 14, 2011 Not sure about all the relay take-off pad issues but I thought that NHFS did not allow for them? I know that video is not allowed. Looked at the video and can't tell anything conclusively! Submitted by: CBley
April 14, 2011 to CBley: I have seen the video in slo mo and there is a .27 wait vs. a -0.09 jump from swimmer #3. Not sure what you meant by NFHS does not allow for take off pad issue. The rules allow for them to be used, allows for them to be the ruling factor if the results are in the 0 to -0.09 range, do not allow for video judging but do allow for the meet referee to override the data if the equipment malfunctions if he so chooses. The rule as written makes an assumption that the equipment does not malfunction but luckily if there is a meet referee willing to do so, he may exercise his right to rule. The rule needs to be changed to allow EXPLICITLY for the chance that the pad may fail and therefore a jump may look early even if it is not. Submitted by: purchasing
April 14, 2011 When did NHFS add the use of takeoff pads. 2 years ago you could not use them. You may never use video. The video above tells you nothing deffinitive and is a bad angle to use anyway. What data suggested the pad failed? If they are that bad then they need to be removed period. I refuse to believe the technology is that bad and FINA uses it. Was this equipment functioning and maintained properly? Submitted by: CBley
April 14, 2011 The video can tell you definitively that lane 6 touched the wall WELL BEFORE lane 5 - but the official splits show that lane 5 touched first. The daktronics tape would show you - missing touch, added touch by the timing console operator, 8 extra reaction times and a touch that means a 50 split for two high school girls each at 20 seconds. I'm not an expert - can't tell you if it was equipment that was not managed or whether FINA uses video replay. You should check out some blogs = texasswimming is a good one - issues surfaced at the D2 and D3 NCAA meets too. Boils down to this - pads are not infallible. Automatic relay judging counts on pads working 100% perfectly. Submitted by: purchasing
April 14, 2011 CBley, there is much data that you don't have access to that shows what was happening with the pads during the race. There were multiple pad failures in multiple lanes. The video does prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the pads were wrong, even if there was no data available. The fact that you are unable to get anything "definitive" from the video is a reflection on your ability to process what your are seeing rather than on the angle of the video. You obviously don't know the rules, because you misstated that "You may never use video." The opposite is true. In NCAA, USA, and FINA, video IS used. In some instances, it is used to check the accuracy of the pads, in others to corroborate or overturn them. You obviously don't know anything about timing systems either, or you would know that the they generate tapes that tell what is going on with the system. Just because you refuse to believe something doesn't make it true. Even the referee notes from that meet show that the two take off officials had that as a legal takeoff. These are all facts based on information officially released by the UIL. There is no doubt that the pads failed, there is no doubt that the touch was good, there is no doubt that the Carroll girls won the state championship. Unfortunately for all involved, won and awarded are two different things. Submitted by: Right Guard
April 14, 2011 Right Gaurd I am assuming the Texas meet was conducted using NHFS rules. Am I wrong in that? NHFS rules clearly state no video!!!! When you look at that video only it does not give you anything from that distance that tells me anything. We are discussing lane 6 correct? I know how to run a Dak I am more familiar with Colorodo and prefer it The big difference being one is an open system and the other closed. CTS also does not produce a "tape" like Omni sport/Dak does. You can print it out but it does store all the data and sends it to MM or what ever scoring product you use. This is why I like CTS because you do not have to hold a race to change tapes.
As I said I was not there. If the equipment at this pool is that unreliable then I would think one would just stop using the relay platforms. In my state we don't. Mostly because 2 years ago the NHFS rule book prohibited it. If that has changed I am unaware but I also have mixed feelings about changing the judging standards at states when all season no one really has relay take off platforms and then adding that to the mix.
If you say the referee notes had the takeoff officials saying it is clean then perhaps it is. But looking at that video you are not in the position to tell one way or another. This is precisely why NHFS says NO VIDEO!!!!! Submitted by: CBley
April 15, 2011 "there is no doubt that the Carroll girls won the state championship. Unfortunately for all involved, won and awarded are two different things."
Again, still not true. Haven't seen prelims videos of the Woodlands' relay DQ. If we're overturning DQ's, then the Highlanders should get another shot too.
Anyways, I'd be interested to see the data on whether or not the pads screw up more than human judges did.
I understand the rule about not allowing video to overturn, because you'd have every overzealous swim-parent on deck trying to prove every official wrong every time. BUT, at a meet as huge as the UIL state meet (and generally as well-run), I see no reason why UIL couldn't amend this rule, for their purposes, and allow a very specific video camera to be used in very specific circumstances, only at the state meet, only on relay exchanges, maybe pay some dollar amount to challenge it that gets refunded if the coach is right, etc. etc. I mean, it's at the freaking University of Texas. They had the video equipment to manage this for NCAA's, they should be able to set it up for UIL too, shouldn't they? Submitted by: GigEmAggies
April 15, 2011 The problem here is that the kids only use the RTOP technology once a year. So they do not have practice at any of their other meets: districts or regionals with this technology. Then they are asked to use it...and then the technology malfunctions. Unfortunately, many of the coaches and officials do not understand all of the rules behind the issue and their options for dealing with it. In the Carroll lane, there were two pad failures, another added pad touch, 8 extra lid reactions, one so close to the lid that caused the DQ that anyone would have trouble saying which one "should" have been used to measure the reaction time. As we all know - technology fails - however as someone said earlier; it works more than it doesn't work. We just need a back-up plan for when it doesn't work - there are known problems. The UIL could have done it differently - they chose not to - perhaps the head meet referee and the admin ref did not really look at the data out of the Daktronics timing console, since that alone would have notified them there was a problem. Video or trusting the officials - either one is good. Also, need to get the meet refereed and meet administrator trained on all of the nuances of the rules. I'm sure this has been a learning experience for them. They need to know the differences between the USAS rules, NCAA rules, NFHS rules and UIL Rules. Submitted by: Txn swimmer
April 15, 2011 "I do not know how you would properly console a group of athletes that trained and won a state title only to have it snatched away by faulty electronics and poor rule protocol. I have personally congratulated him (Coach Murphy) on the 2011 Girls State Championship they won outright. Perhaps the UIL should as well."
Quote from Matt Schneider, Past President of the Texas Interscholastic Swimming Coaches
Association.
"I recall for the Southlake Carroll relay the actual exchange was at -0.09 second and by the protocol the relay was disqualified as a result. The officials assigned to the lane did not record an early relay exchange, but, again, by the protocol recommended by the National Federation, this was not considered in the decision."
Quote from Meet Referee Frank Swigon in his referee notes to the UIL released under an open records request.
"At the end of the day, it is up to the officials. The timing system is just one set of data. They make their own decisions."
Quote from Jason Warne, aquatics product manager at Daktronics on the pad failures during the state meet, from the Dallas Morning News.
"...the protocol was a suggestion and that state-level officials could reverse any timing decision. A point of emphasis for this year's federation rule book was that timing systems could fail and that officials should not fall into the 'trap' of letting the machine sort the places out."
Quote from the Dallas Morning News from their interview with Becky Oakes, Swimming Director for the National Federation of State High School Associations. Submitted by: Right Guard
April 15, 2011 "I am assuming the Texas meet was conducted using NHFS rules. Am I wrong in that? NHFS rules clearly state no video!!!!"
"This is precisely why NHFS says NO VIDEO!!!!!"
Today at the TISCA meeting, the UIL and the University of Texas introduced a proposal for the use of video at the state meet. If you had only waited 24 hours before you posted....... Submitted by: Right Guard
April 15, 2011 Texas is going to choose to ignore the NHFS rules. Currently though video is not permissable. I think opening that door is very dangerous.....
Right Gaurd I can not help but wondering if you are personally attatched to this. I am not and simply speaking from an unbiased person who cares about swimming. I personally think using technology not availible all year like Relay pads is a bad idea. primarily because of the reason that lead to the Stanford incident. Not knowing about maintaining contact through the walk-up. To add a new hurdle to a meet like this that no one dealt with all year long is just asking for issues! Submitted by: CBley
April 15, 2011 So let me see... The UIL disqualified a relay based on timing system technology, then said that even though the human officials had been in agreement that the take-off was legal, they had no choice but to uphold the DQ because of NFHS rules. Then when informed there were THREE different videos, from three different angles, that might shed some light on whether the pads had failed or not, the UIL said that video couldn't be used to make that determination because of NFHS rules. Then today, when magazines and papers are printing photos and articles, and lot's of those invovlved are pointing fingers at each other, the UIL says they are proposing the use of video at the state meet, in direct oposition to the published NFHS rules. I'm just going to have to think about that for a while. Submitted by: westin
April 15, 2011 westin-not everything is a conspiracy theory. It usually takes an incident like this for the rules to change. It's how the world works. See Fran Crippen and open water swimming, for example. Or a big blown call in the playoffs to institute video replay in the NFL.
Someone has to be the martyr, that's the way it is. It is still clear to me that, by information made public, the only rule that wasn't properly applied was an "interpretation and emphasis," announced after the fact by Becky Oakes (who has a reputation of her own), that the referee is allowed to overturn the touchpads...which would have been in direct violation of very specific NFHS rules.
Do the rules need to be changed? ABOSLUTELY. Did the meet referee do exactly what he should have done at the time of the meet? ABSOLUTELY!
It's the basic premise of every sport at every level that you can't change outcomes of events by changing the rules after the fact. It seems to me as though that's what many of you want to happen. UIL is taking a serious look at fixing the rule, I'm not sure what else you all want from them (besides their heads on a stake). Submitted by: Gigemaggies
April 15, 2011 gigemaggies, you sound like a UIL official covering for another UIL official. I don't think they should even be using the pads, so trying to find a way to make them more fair seems liek another step backwards. Just stop using the pads, for crying out loud! I would take exception to one thing you said gigem, the ref, like all refs, had the ability to look at the information that had been generated by the pad system and decide whether or not there was a problem. A ref can overturn any decision that is based on faulty information, and that would include the pads, period. Submitted by: Fleetwood
April 15, 2011 Gigeamaggies,
I have a question. Why does the NFHS Appendix B rule 6 say: "An ALLEGED rules infraction that is recorded by the electronic relay takeoff equipment shall be made public only after the race is completed and then ONLY IF there is a resulting disqualification."
When I read that rule, I hear there is a choice. A decision. You seem to believe that the meet referee did not have any choice at all...despite two missing touches, one manually added touches and 8 extra lid readings. I am very interested to understand why you believe that there was no recourse at all? There are also other rules that allow officials to use their head and not just read a report. In fact, one of the main points of emphasis from the NFHS this year was this:
At meets where automatic timing is utilized, it is easy to fall into the "trap" of letting the machine pick the finish or sort the places out. Officials should always try to be in position to judge race finishes in case the timing system malfunctions, a touch pad fails to activate ...
AND this...
Again, it cannot be stressed enough that it is the primary role of an official to be in position to judge a finish, determine legal strokes and turns.
thanks.
p.s. I don't want anyone's head on a stake - but since i have a swimmer who hopes to be at state next year, I want a meet referee who understands the rules and isn't in such a hurry to get to the next event that they don't slow down and think about it....remember this is about the swimmers - the athletes... Submitted by: Txn swimmer
April 15, 2011 I'm not trying to say this is some sort of conspiracy: I think it's an interesting turn of events. I'm just going to have to think about it for a while. One thing you said is definitely true, "Someone has to be the martyr, that's the way it is." I just wonder why it's the kids we're hanging on the cross. Submitted by: westin
April 15, 2011 I agree RTOP's should just not be used in HS when they may really only appear at states. The officials don't work with them all year. The kids don't see them all year. Then you spring this on them. Our state specifically requests them to not even be installed at the facility. I thought is was because they are not permitted. I see that changed but mainly it just makes sense to not add a new wrench to the fire. Submitted by: CBley
April 15, 2011 westin,
I'm with you on that last comment -
"Someone has to be the martyr, that's the way it is."
Gigemaggies, for real? How about EXPECTING people to do the right thing. Why do we respect stupid rules more than doing right by people? Submitted by: mario2007
April 16, 2011 Let me try again - I wrote a response that did was "too long"...
I read all of the comments and feel I must respond because facts are getting mixed up with feelings and opinions.
First: Southlake is not trying to get their DQ overturned with this video. If you take nothing away from this video other than lane 6 touched BEFORE lane 5 - then you have already proven that the pads failed. The results show otherwise. But it is irrelevent - UIL will not use the tape and no one expects them to. The UIL has in its possession and I have personally seen the actual data from the race. You can all see the official results. And from the official results alone you can see that 1. there are missing splits so the pad failed 2. there is an NRT so the lid failed and 3. there is a physically impossible split - no high school girl swims the 50 in 20.17 seconds and no third place relay swims a leg in 40 seconds. In the UIL official data that was requested with open records act, there shows 8 extra reaction times for swimmer 3 - the "early take off" yes, but also 8 more late take offs - which one was she? It also show that the timing console operator had computer generated WARNING errors for lane 6 multiple times and also had to manually add a split. It is clear - with the UIL evidence in the official meet record that the pads and lids failed. Some Southlake parents - this one included feel that the DQ should have been thrown out because of equipment failure. Timing is a judgment call - and therefore is not subject to protest. BUT a misapplied rule is subject to protest and has been protested. In this case, the head referee did not understand Appendix B - which first and foremost is a suggested protocol and NOT A RULE. Only 4 states use lids and only two of those use this appendix - both of those states had issues. Not using the appendix is not disregarding the rules. Appendix B actually has a provision for malfunctioning equipment - multiple. First it says that the time of 0 to -0.09 is FROM THE MANUFACTURERS STRATING POINT - the defined starting point is a VALID pad touch. If the equipment malfunctions during the heat then it cannot be counted. Second Appendix B states that an alleged rule infraction shall not be made public unless and until is is agreed to etc. etc. (Yes TXN swimmer - you have the right point). This means that the head referee can and should have overturned this DQ. Next post will be about the TISCA meeting... Please everyone - use facts - some folks are not. Submitted by: purchasing
April 16, 2011 Second post: I personally attended the TISCA meeting. This meeting is run with Roberts Rules of Order and is not some hokey pokey undertaking as has been implied. One agenda item for new business was the relay issue. The board discussed this topic for approximately an hour. It was a very informative discussion centering on how the equipment works and the data from the meet. Two proposals were put forth and approved - both recommendations to the UIL. First - go back to dual confirmation - the computer lids are used but not in a vacuum - they are used to "help" swimmers and not "hurt" them. This is the USA swimming rule and also the rule used in Washington - one of the 4 states using the lids but one of the two not using the suggested protocol. The second recommendation is to use video as a back up. This is the NCAA rule. UT already has used the equipment since they held the NCAA championships. In fact the aquatic center manager was at the meeting and was very clear that he knows this equipment can fail - all equipment can fail. The video would be used if and only if a computer called DQ was awarded and the coach protested. This happened in the NCAA meet and one DQ was overturned and one was upheld. The UIL folks came into the meeting later and listened to the recommendations - they will go back and review but would like to hear from more schools - many more schools. So if you are not interested in being randomly DQd next year - you should send a letter to Traci Neely at the UIL (her request). Note that Texas is not trying to throw out the book like someone suggested, get the facts. One more post to go... Submitted by: purchasing
April 16, 2011 Last one - I promise... I want to address the person that so vehemently does not think the Southlake DQ should be overturned. The person that keeps bringing up The Woodlands. First - there were only two of the 19 relays DQd that had officially missing splits - official confirmation that the pads malfunctioned - Southlake and Seven Lakes. We know for a fact that Southlake did not have a hand call confirming this. I have no record of whether Seven Lakes had a hand call. Second - it is possible that the equipment malfunctioned on your relay too - on all 17 of them that were in the 0 to -0.09 range. But before you say that your DQ should be overturned too and that you would have won the meet (and by the way, first add up the points you would have gotten), I would ask that you talk to your coach - does he agree that you did not jump? Look at your video/photos if you have it - did the official make a hand call? Do an open records request - was there an official confirming that the DQ was in fact real or is there evidence the equipment malfunctioned? I know that SEVERAL of these DQs did in fact have a hand call - and am told that yours did (I have no proof and therefore do not read this as a fact). The Southlake point is that the official record shows there was a problem and the official head referee chose to ignore it. His words were very clear that day "I am busy getting the 4A meet set up and don't have time for this." He said other things as well but the jist was that the computer called the race and he was going to let it stand without a review (even though the NFHS "point of emphasis document" says that officials should not fall into that "trap"). The rule was misapplied. In the end - whether you think the Southlake DQ should be overturned or not, whether you think that the video shows anything or not, whether you think your DQ was bogus or not - I would ask you one question -- do you want to take this same chance next year? Your team is going to be great again next year - and wouldn't you hate to have a DQ that the UIL had evidence was incorrect just because you didn't want Southlake's DQ overturned? Stop with the accusations that Southlake is a bunch of whiners (which is indeed how your notes read - even if that is not your intention). One more thing... There is actually precedence for using photo/video evidence to overturn a Swimming 5A Championship in Texas and I believe your team should understand this as much as anyone - A championship was overturned when it was found, through photos that one team used a swimmer in 5 different events in order to qualify for the A final and get the extra points - sound familiar???? please - get the facts... Submitted by: purchasing
April 17, 2011 None offense intended mi amigo, I was just trying to get the full-story pulled out of somebody. Thanks for sharing all of the details, so that we now understand the real answers to the important questions. Sounds like the UIL is working to fix the problem for next time, which counts for a lot at the end of the day.
I also have absolutely no affiliation with TWHS. Submitted by: Gigemaggies
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Courtesy of: Pat Harris
ADVERTISEMENT
Special Offer!
|
