Quance requests investigation
Black Diamond Dave
From the Chicago Tribune (5/9/96)....
------------------
SWIMMER ASKS TRIALS PROBE
By Bonnie DeSimone, Tribune Staff Writer
The supposedly flawed turn that cost Olympic swimmer Kristine
Quance the chance to compete in her best event has taken a U-turn
into murky waters.
Quance, through her attorneys, requested Wednesday that U.S.
Swimming, the sport's national governing body, investigate her
disqualification from the 400-meter individual medley at the Olympic
Trials in March.
Lance Sears, the Colorado Springs-based attorney hired by the
Quance family, said he spoke with U.S. Swimming Executive
Director Ray Essick and U.S. Swimming attorney Rich Young before
making the request.
"We want them to work this out equitably and promptly and fairly,"
Sears said. "This gives them the chance to fix something that's broken.
. . I want them to provide all the remedies they think are available."
Quance's absence from the event deprives the U.S. of one of its best
medal hopes on a women's team that is expected to have great
difficulty reaching the podium. But putting her on the blocks in the
400 IM would require either finding a way to bend international rules
that provide for only two swimmers per event per country or
knocking off one of the other two qualifiers. Sears and family
spokeswoman Sonja Brown have even raised the specter of a
potentially messy rerun of the race.
The major topics raised by Quance and her attorneys:
- Did Bob Brown, the head referee at the meet, violate U.S.
Swimming's rules by not properly reviewing the turn judge's decision
on the meet's first morning?
- Which rules were in effect at the meet--those of U.S. Swimming, or
FINA, the international federation?
- Is it customary for swimming officials at major meets to give
swimmers "warnings" about minor infractions rather than disqualifying
them?
Essick would not comment on the merits of Quance's claims.
"But don't let anyone tell you that the door is closed," he said.
Essick said he would consult with Young and U.S. Swimming
President Carol Zaleski as to whether the body's rules permit such an
inquiry.
Quance, a 21-year-old junior at the University of Southern California,
swam the fastest time (4 minutes 42.28 seconds) in the morning
preliminary of the 400 IM at Trials. At the evening finals, minus
Quance, Allison Wagner won in 4:41.61 and Whitney Metzler
finished second with a 4:46.88.
Although Quance qualified for the Olympic team in two other events,
the 100-meter breaststroke and the 200 IM, Brown said she has not
reconciled to the decision that barred her from the 400 IM finals. She
was ranked seventh in the world in the event last year.
Controversy is the last thing the federation needs 10 weeks before the
Olympics. And the Quance quandary comes on the heels of a
months-long battle over the eligibility of Jessica Foschi, who was
allowed to compete at Trials despite a positive steroids test last year
but did not make the team.
Jim Gray, a Marquette University law professor and assistant director
of the school's National Sports Law Institute, said there is some
precedent for a case such as Quance's winding up in court, under
specific circumstances.
"Courts generally will not overrule a sports governing body unless the
organization's own rules are not followed properly," he said.
The "warning" issue, Gray said, could be the basis of a claim that U.S.
Swimming applies its rules "arbitrarily and capriciously."
###
Adam Bridge
> The major topics raised by Quance and her attorneys:
>
> - Did Bob Brown, the head referee at the meet, violate U.S.
> Swimming's rules by not properly reviewing the turn judge's decision
> on the meet's first morning?
>
> - Which rules were in effect at the meet--those of U.S. Swimming, or
> FINA, the international federation?
>
> - Is it customary for swimming officials at major meets to give
> swimmers "warnings" about minor infractions rather than disqualifying
> them?
>
I have NEVER experienced this and don't believe it's done.
> Essick would not comment on the merits of Quance's claims.
> "But don't let anyone tell you that the door is closed," he said.
>
> Essick said he would consult with Young and U.S. Swimming
> President Carol Zaleski as to whether the body's rules permit such an
> inquiry.
>
He should read the rules: the Meet Referee is the final arbitor of
judgement decisions. After the meet there isn't an appeal process.
> Quance, a 21-year-old junior at the University of Southern California,
> swam the fastest time (4 minutes 42.28 seconds) in the morning
> preliminary of the 400 IM at Trials. At the evening finals, minus
> Quance, Allison Wagner won in 4:41.61 and Whitney Metzler
> finished second with a 4:46.88.
>
> Although Quance qualified for the Olympic team in two other events,
> the 100-meter breaststroke and the 200 IM, Brown said she has not
> reconciled to the decision that barred her from the 400 IM finals. She
> was ranked seventh in the world in the event last year.
>
> Controversy is the last thing the federation needs 10 weeks before the
> Olympics. And the Quance quandary comes on the heels of a
> months-long battle over the eligibility of Jessica Foschi, who was
> allowed to compete at Trials despite a positive steroids test last year
> but did not make the team.
>
Boy, this is just great. What every official needs to know is there's
sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
and turn call. It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to
find itself in this position. The LA Times is right: next we'll see NFL
teams suing over calls that could deprive of them of the superbowl.
There are rules. The rules were followed. The media reporting of what
happened hasn't been particularly accurate: at no time was an offer made
to retract the call based on video replay. The stroke judge was allowed
to view the tape but not to change his call. Any suggestion to the
contrary is fabrication.
> Jim Gray, a Marquette University law professor and assistant director
> of the school's National Sports Law Institute, said there is some
> precedent for a case such as Quance's winding up in court, under
> specific circumstances.
>
> "Courts generally will not overrule a sports governing body unless the
> organization's own rules are not followed properly," he said.
>
> The "warning" issue, Gray said, could be the basis of a claim that U.S.
> Swimming applies its rules "arbitrarily and capriciously."
>
The sad result of all of this will be that age-group meets could become
ferociously officiated.
This is a mockery. USS chose to have the team selected by performance IN
THE POOL. Quance screwed up and can't bear to live with the results of
her own actions...so now it's someone else's fault.
It's BS, pure and simple.
Adam Bridge
SwmCoachB
Their is nothing in the rule book that says a swimmer gets a warning the
first time or on a slight break of the rules. You either do it right or
you do it wrong and if you do it even slightly wrong and get caught you
are DQ'ed. They don't forgive a relay false start if you leave just
before the other person touches.
I have been to several big meets were a dq has been over ruled on a
swimmer because they are the stars of the meet, but if it's a infraction
of the rules it should be a dq whether it's Kristin Quance or Whitney
Metzler.
As far as what rules are in place at the Olympic Trials, it's a USS run
meet so USS rules are in effect.
Brian
Charlie Cockrell
In article <abridge-1005...@dcn128.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:
|>
|> Boy, this is just great. What every official needs to know is there's
|> sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
|> and turn call. It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to
|> find itself in this position. The LA Times is right: next we'll see NFL
|> teams suing over calls that could deprive of them of the superbowl.
|>
This is the issue that bo one seems to be discussing. Someone must put a stop
to all of this litigation or sports governing bodies are going to end up completely powerless
to make any rules, officiate competitions or discipline members for fear of
being sued. I really hope USS slams the door on this quickly. (Something tells
me they won't though.)
Paul Burkhardt
Adam,
I agree with you 100%. This entire Quance story has gone too far. In
the long run, this girl will not be remembered for her achievements but
for this incident alone. Even if she was allowed on the team and got
GOLD medals in her events, the public will always think of her for the
way she behaved at the Trials.
I have spoken with people that were on deck that day and everything
was done by the book - just as it would be for any other swimmer. If Ms.
Quance wishes to pursue this in court, I hope she realizes that the
ENTIRE tape of her swim will be publicized. I can think of one frame or
another that would make a good picture for PARTING SHOTS in the SWIMMING
magazine.
Paul
Unknown
>==========Adam Bridge, 5/10/96==========
>Boy, this is just great. What every official needs to know is there's
>sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a
meet stroke
>and turn call. It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable
>for sport to
>find itself in this position. The LA Times is right: next we'll see NFL
>teams suing over calls that could deprive of them of the superbowl.
>
>There are rules. The rules were followed. The media reporting of what
>happened hasn't been particularly accurate: at no time was an offer made
>to retract the call based on video replay. The stroke judge was allowed
>to view the tape but not to change his call. Any suggestion to the
>contrary is fabrication.
>
>> Jim Gray, a Marquette University law professor and assistant director
>> of the school's National Sports Law Institute, said there is some
>> precedent for a case such as Quance's winding up in court, under
>> specific circumstances.
>>
>> "Courts generally will not overrule a sports governing body unless the
>> organization's own rules are not followed properly," he said.
>>
>> The "warning" issue, Gray said, could be the basis of a claim
that U.S.
>> Swimming applies its rules "arbitrarily and capriciously."
>>
>
>The sad result of all of this will be that age-group meets could become
>ferociously officiated.
>
>This is a mockery. USS chose to have the team selected by
performance IN
>THE POOL. Quance screwed up and can't bear to live with the results of
>her own actions...so now it's someone else's fault.
>
>It's BS, pure and simple.
Hey Adam, quit beating around the bush and tell us what you
REALLY think :-).
Seriously, although it's hard, because I think one of the
fastest swimmers in the world in the 400 IM won't be swimming it
in Atlanta, I have to agree with what you are saying.
The rules are the rules. Unless there is some provision in the
rules to cover these types of things (and from what I've heard,
there isn't anything in the rules except finishing 1st or 2nd at
the Olympic Trials), Quance shouldn't swim the 400 IM at the Olympics.
I certainly hope we don't get a bunch of lawyers involved in
officiating the results of swim meets. Being from the U.S., I
really wish Quance would have qualified for the Olympics in the
400 IM but she didn't. That should be the end of it.
The only way I would change my position on this is if someone
(someone credible) said that it was a bad call and that she
really shouldn't have been disqualified under the rules they
were swimming under. I don't believe someone should miss the
Olympics due to a bad call from an official; but, most
everything I have heard indicates she should have been DQ'd.
What is your opinion on whether she should have been DQ'd or not?
Thanks,
Doug Gilliam
>Adam Bridge
Adam Bridge
In article <DrCMC...@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>, (dougg) wrote:
>
> What is your opinion on whether she should have been DQ'd or not?
>
First....I wasn't standing on deck watching her turn. I saw the film NBC
showed and it was absolutely clear: Quance was in violation of the USS
rule.
Therefore she should have been disqualified.
The turn judge saw the infraction, called it, it was written up, reviewed
by the Meet Referee, and that was it.
Now I happen to know the official who made the call very well. There
wasn't ANY doubt in his mind that there was an infraction. And, contrary
to any and all news reports, he was not given the opportunity to review
the tapes and reverse his call. That didn't happen. He WAS, however,
given the opportunity to watch a huge number of replays in the
truck....and did. He found them very difficult to use because almost all
the angles were inconclusive. He doesn't remember the angle that NBC
eventually aired on the Saturday coverage. Which is a prime example of
why video coverage shouldn't be allowed as a part of the process for
overturning a DQ.
Did the turn judge know the rule? Yes.
Was he able to describe what he saw? Yes.
Was it in his juristiction? Yes. (another DQ by another judge on the same day
was tossed because of this.)
Was he in the correct position to make the call? Yes.
Was there any doubt about what he saw? No.
The DQ stood just like it would at any USS meet.
Adam Bridge
Sacred Heart High School
In article <abridge-1305...@dcn135.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) says:
>
>In article <DrCMC...@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>, (dougg) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
O.K. mabey so but what rules were in use at the time of the meet?
Also the rules say that she should be D.Q.'ed if it gave her a signifcant
advantage over the other swimmers, which it didn't. She won by over 20
seconds.....I think that the ruling should be over turned because she is
our best hope for a gold medal in this summer games.
philip evans
>O.K. mabey so but what rules were in use at the time of the meet?
>Also the rules say that she should be D.Q.'ed if it gave her a signifcant
>advantage over the other swimmers, which it didn't. She won by over 20
>seconds.....I think that the ruling should be over turned because she is
>our best hope for a gold medal in this summer games.
Not if she gets DQ'd for a bad turn at the meet.
And I really wish all this whining would stop.
Andy Duncan
In article <abridge-1005...@dcn128.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:
|>
|> Boy, this is just great. What every official needs to know is there's
|> sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
|> and turn call. It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to
Come on, Adam, it's not the lawyers, it's the clients! Do you blame plumbers
for clogged drains?
Andrew Duncan
Advanced Development
Philips Media
adu...@aimla.com
Josh Jeffrey
In <pevans.20...@mindlink.bc.ca> pev...@mindlink.bc.ca (philip
Me too. Whitney Metzler swam the race right. She didn't get DQed. She
earned her spot to Atlanta. She will get alot better by the Olympics I
predict. Besides that, Alison Wagner is an awesome 400 IMmer. You make
it sound like Kristine is the only one. She is not, in fact they both
have been like 4:39, and I think Alison has a real shot at the gold.
She doesn't let anything faze her. Kristine can. Besides that, Kristine
is in for two events anyhow. Poor Pablo back in '88 missed all of his.
He was the world record holder for goodness sake! Kristine is good, but
she's no Pablo. Alison Wagner has a very strong chance of winning the
gold medal, and who's to say Metzler can't catch up to medal?? Look how
fast Amanda Beard broke onto the scene! Give the swimmers who EARNED
their Olympic berths a chance!
----Josh----
Adam Bridge
> In article <abridge-1005...@dcn128.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:
>
> |>
> |> Boy, this is just great. What every official needs to know is there's
> |> sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
> |> and turn call. It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to
>
> Come on, Adam, it's not the lawyers, it's the clients! Do you blame plumbers
> for clogged drains?
>
Hmmm.....depends on whether the lawyer was part of the problem.
ATTENTION: to all the lawyers, and THEIR lawyers who represented them in
the context of this generic insult which caused substantial mental
distress:
well, on advice of counsel I won't say anything.
Sheesh, lawyers are about as touchy as swim officials :-)
<insert your favorite lawyer joke here...I like the one about lawyers and
pharmecutical testing myself>
Adam Bridge
bir...@e-tex.com
dougg wrote:
>
> >==========Adam Bridge, 5/10/96==========
> >
> >In article <31920A...@spss.com>, Black Diamond Dave
> ><don...@spss.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The major topics raised by Quance and her attorneys:
> >>
>
> REALLY think :-).
>
> Seriously, although it's hard, because I think one of the
> fastest swimmers in the world in the 400 IM won't be swimming it
> in Atlanta, I have to agree with what you are saying.
>
> The rules are the rules. Unless there is some provision in the
> rules to cover these types of things (and from what I've heard,
> there isn't anything in the rules except finishing 1st or 2nd at
> the Olympic Trials), Quance shouldn't swim the 400 IM at the Olympics.
>
> I certainly hope we don't get a bunch of lawyers involved in
> officiating the results of swim meets. Being from the U.S., I
> really wish Quance would have qualified for the Olympics in the
> 400 IM but she didn't. That should be the end of it.
>
> The only way I would change my position on this is if someone
> (someone credible) said that it was a bad call and that she
> really shouldn't have been disqualified under the rules they
> were swimming under. I don't believe someone should miss the
> Olympics due to a bad call from an official; but, most
> everything I have heard indicates she should have been DQ'd.
>
> What is your opinion on whether she should have been DQ'd or not?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug Gilliam
>
> >Adam Bridge
The call was a good call. Quance left the wall toward the back on the
back to breast turn. The videotape confirmed the call. The coach was
quoted (I'm paraphrasing here) that the tape demonstrated the validity
of the call, but he didn't think it would have been made in the Olympics.
Pretty weak argument!
The news report by Black Diamond confirms that there is no merit to
Quance's request for reinstatement, but she is relying on legal BS.
Whether or not the meet conformed to FINA rules (the rules governing the
Olympics) is irrelevant. While it would be wise to match the rules,
Quance needed to make a legal swim under the rules for the Trials to
qualify. I find it hard to believe that she and her coach didn't know
what the rules were for the Trials.
As for getting a warning for "minor" infractions, there is no warning
in USS officiating. A swim is either legal or a DQ, there is no in
between.
Some have argued that she should have been given the chance to swim in
the finals on the merit of her time, since the benefit of her illegal
turn was no more than a fraction of a second. If USS is going to allow
this type of thing, they better be prepared for swimmers doing easy
freestyle for breaststroke, etc in order to qualify.
In summary, this was a very unfortunate event for Quance and the US
team, but it happened and everyone needs to move on.
Birdman
gend...@ctron.com
Most of the articles I've seen posted on r.s.s. seem to support the
Quance D.Q. I'd like to point out that without exception
the swimmers I talk to would like to see Quance swimming the 400 I.M.
in Atlanta, and don't think it was a good decision to D.Q. the woman who
is clearly one of our top two swimmers in that event. I don't know why
more people don't express that opinion here, maybe they are afraid of
the vociferous, angry contingent on r.s.s. who rail on at the mere mention
that there could have been a better way for U.S.S. to handle the situation.
Those who support the Quance D.Q. seem to enjoy a simple minded world
where we just blindly follow rules, and feel good about the results no
matter how perverse they might be. The goal of our US trials is to select
our best Olypmic team. Yet our 400 I.M. medal contender Quance will watch
the event from the side of the pool due to an infraction on a back to breast
turn, in a heat, which might have gained her a maximum of a few tenths of
a second. That's stupid. Plain and simple. (Get ready for the torrent
of chest thumping, tough love, brainless onslaughts championing the idea
that the rules are the rules and we should dutifully march off a cliff to
follow them!!!!)
Eliminating Quance from the 400 i.m. due to her minor infraction would be
something like throwing Emit Smith off the Cowboys because he made an
illegal motion infraction. (And for the record, I would define a "minor
infraction" as that which could improve a time by less than a second.)
U.S.S. could have given Quance a massive 10 second penalty for her infractino
and she still would have comfortably qualified for the finals. There she
would qualify for the Olympics. Problems? And yes, I'd be happy to tell
Mitzy that she's off the team. Go back, train hard and come back again
4 years from now.
Personally I hope Quance wins her law suit. I don't think the issue belongs
in court, but I do think she should represent us in the 400 I.M. at the
Olympics, and I would support any action which successfully accomplishes
that end.
Ed
In article <4n7a47$d...@reznor.larc.nasa.gov>, cock...@hyp24.larc.nasa.gov says...
>
>In article <abridge-1005...@dcn128.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:
>
>
>|>
>|> Boy, this is just great. What every official needs to know is there's
>|> sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
>|> and turn call. It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to
>|> find itself in this position. The LA Times is right: next we'll see NFL
>|> teams suing over calls that could deprive of them of the superbowl.
>|>
>
Michael W. Moore
>
> O.K. mabey so but what rules were in use at the time of the meet?
> Also the rules say that she should be D.Q.'ed if it gave her a signifcant
> advantage over the other swimmers, which it didn't.
I am familiar with the USS Rules regarding the Technical Rules of
Swimming, I must of missed the section that says "the swimmer should be
dq'ed if it gives her a significant advantage over the other swimmers."
Could you give me the section number so I can use it at the next meet I
work.
Michael Moore
RunnSwim
My understanding (as explained to us by Adam Bridge) is that USS Rules
were in effect while the swimmers were in the water, while FINA rules were
in effect when the swimmers were on the deck. Thus, Ron Karnaugh "jumped"
at the start of the 200 IM, which would have been a DQ under USS rules,
but not under FINA rules (where the first false start is charged to the
field). At the Olympics, FINA rules will prevail, both on the deck and in
the water. At the trials, USS rules, were, however, in effect in the
water. Thus, Quance's turn (which gave her no performance advantage) was
illegal under the unique and confusing set of rules for this meet, while
it would not have been an illegal turn at the Olympics.
Both the sportsmanship and legal merit of Quance's appeal rests on the
degree to which the rules regarding the meet were made clear to the
participants and coaches. If participants and coaches were clearly
informed of the peculiar set of rules in effect for the meet, then the
protest is of questionable merit. From my small sampling of coaches and
athletes, it was not at all clear to everyone that FINA deck rules and USS
water rules were to apply.
Regarding the issue of "warning" vs. "DQ," a swim coach, who requests
anonyminity, has prepared the following line of argument:
>>>>>>>>>
[The] summarized argument is as follows:
Every rule that exists in law is by definition, open for interpretation,
swimming rules being no exception. True, a foul was committed
in this case, as was decided by the official. Though the enforcement
of such must not necessarily result in disqualification! Its enforcement
and penalties are hence, relative and subject to the judgement of
authority - in this case, the meet referee.
Examples of said subjective and relative enforcement are found in
specific "D.Q. rules and enforcement of such..." articles of 102.10.(*):
(.3) ...may be considered for...
(.6) ...subject to discretion of referee...
(.8) ...unless referee finds that such action is interfering...
(.9) ...the referee "MAY" at his/her discretion, d.q. the swimmer...
(.10) ...if not considered "EXCESSIVE" by the referee...
In contrast, other specific articles do declare a mandated d.q. penalty.
Examples are found in above "D.Q. rules..." and other articles (e.g.
relay d.q. articles: 101.6.3(D,F) and other USS technical rules
providing "Fair and equitable conditions...so that no swimmer shall
obtain unfair advantage over another...).
Furthermore, where as some rules and parts of rules are distinctly
protective of above goal (preventing an unfair advantage, or enhanced
performance), therefor warranting a disqualification as penalty; others
are merely designed to "...promote uniformity..." in the sport, therefor
not necessarily merriting a d.q.
The article in question (101.5.3B(2), regarding Kristine Quance, is
precisely in this catagory of purpose - not performance related, but
conformity related.
Since penalties are proven by above examples to include relative
degrees of severity and since Kristine's infraction was of minor fault
of a "Non-performance related article," then a foul was administered
in preventing the success of a swimmer, by unjustifiably
disqualifying said athlete.
In conclusion, because swimmers success was prevented by foul of
another (official), then Disqualification article 102.10.9 should be
enacted and Kristine should be allowed to reswim the event. A timed
final swim (solo) should enable her to qualify for Olympic team if
among top two qualifying times.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Larry Weisenthal
E. Anne G. Diday
I know of no other sport that goes to such lengths to disqualify its
athletes. All federations should adopt uiniform rules with as little
regulation as possible. FINA rules and USS rules should be identical
regarding the technical aspects of the swim, e.g. starts, turns,
strokes to avoid confusion. In my view, Quance's dq was a gross
disservice to the sport and to her. Perhaps this donneybrook will
underscore the problem and bring about changes. But I think not. As
long as meet officials are dqing 6 year olds for false starts, the
entire sport will suffer from over-regulation.
philip evans
>
>Most of the articles I've seen posted on r.s.s. seem to support the
>Quance D.Q. I'd like to point out that without exception
>the swimmers I talk to would like to see Quance swimming the 400 I.M.
>in Atlanta, and don't think it was a good decision to D.Q. the woman who
>is clearly one of our top two swimmers in that event.
So ALL the american swimmers are lacking in ethics? I hope you either:
A) are in error in your summation
or
B) don't talk to many swimmers
>I don't know why
>more people don't express that opinion here, maybe they are afraid of
>the vociferous, angry contingent on r.s.s. who rail on at the mere mention
>that there could have been a better way for U.S.S. to handle the situation.
Maybe it's a more rational viewpoint.
>Those who support the Quance D.Q. seem to enjoy a simple minded world
>where we just blindly follow rules, and feel good about the results no
>matter how perverse they might be. The goal of our US trials is to select
>our best Olypmic team. Yet our 400 I.M. medal contender Quance will watch
>the event from the side of the pool due to an infraction on a back to breast
>turn, in a heat, which might have gained her a maximum of a few tenths of
>a second. That's stupid.
Sure there's stupidity - on the swimmer's part. It's a shame to see others
rush to join in.
>Plain and simple. (Get ready for the torrent
>of chest thumping, tough love, brainless onslaughts championing the idea
>that the rules are the rules and we should dutifully march off a cliff to
>follow them!!!!)
Ok, so rules are for everyone EXCEPT americans.
>Eliminating Quance from the 400 i.m. due to her minor infraction would be
>something like throwing Emit Smith off the Cowboys because he made an
>illegal motion infraction. (And for the record, I would define a "minor
>infraction" as that which could improve a time by less than a second.)
This guy gets worse and worse. I'm not surprised he's drawing an analogy with
the "sport" of american football - we all know how gentlemanly the actions of
players, coaches, and owners in that realm are; and how drug-free their sport
is.
>U.S.S. could have given Quance a massive 10 second penalty for her infractino
>and she still would have comfortably qualified for the finals. There she
>would qualify for the Olympics. Problems? And yes, I'd be happy to tell
>Mitzy that she's off the team. Go back, train hard and come back again
>4 years from now.
Guess one of the swimmers you didn't talk to above was the one most likely to
be impacted by your scheme.
>Personally I hope Quance wins her law suit. I don't think the issue belongs
>in court, but I do think she should represent us in the 400 I.M. at the
>Olympics, and I would support any action which successfully accomplishes
>that end.
How about taking a knobkerrie to Mitzy's knees, yah, that oughta do it. And
if you get caught, tie it up in court until after the games are over.
Oh, and do make sure you REMOVE that special tape from the VCR before
returning it to the rental store. . .
>Ed
Michael Barnes
This is absurd.
1) Quance is not a 6 yr old being deked at a developmental league meet.
I have found most officials to be considerate and soemwhat understanding
of 6 yr old swimmers swimming in their first few meets. Don't place the
blame for this on the officials.
2) No, we're not expected to follow the rules over a cliff so to speak.
That is a decision made by each individual person. However, we do expect
our police to enforce the rule in our community fairly and consistently.
This is the officials job also.
3) Several people have admitted that this illegal turn might make the
difference of a few hudnred or even tenths of seconds and therefore should
not apply as Quance won her heat by 20+ seconds. Unfortunately, this rule
was not written and put in the rulebook specifically for Quance's heat of
the 400 IM at the 1996 U.S. Olympic Trials. If you think it is not
possible for a 400 IM to come down to tenths or hundredths of a second you
don't go to many swim meets.
4) Let's talk about American Football. Dan Wilkinson flinches on the
line before the snap. The resulting play is a touchdown but by the
arguments I have read, it shouldn't be called back because the infraction
wasn't a very big one and didn't result in an actual advantage. Football
operates under a set of very well defined rules and if you are observed by
the officials violating these rules then your team is assessed a penalty
of some sort. Quance was observed violating a rule and was penalized. It
was unfortunate that this happened in the football equivalent of a final
second game winning touchdown play in the superbowl and not in the first
quarter of a preseason game, but hey, those are the breaks. (Note: If
you wan't to make a more legitimate argument, try looking at Professional
basketball).
5) There has been lots of talk about the rule book stating something
about preventing any swimmer from gaining an unfair advantage. The text
in question reads as follows "All competitive swimming events held under
USS sanction shall be conducted in accordance with the following rules
which are designed to provide fair and equitable conditions of competition
and promote uniformity in the sport so that no swimmer shall obtain unfair
advantage over another." (Unite States Swimming Rules and Regulations pg.
13) Note that this paragraph has no numbers in front of it. This is
USS's attempt to explain the philosophy behind enforcing the set of rules
that follows it and not a rule in and of itself. This is denoted by the
use of the phrase are designed to.
6) On the other hand, the first part of the preceding sentence states a
rule that all meets sanctioned by USS will be run under the rules. I'm
pretty sure the US Olympic Trials were probablly a USS sanctioned event
and therefore USS rules would be in effect by default and it would be the
responsibility of the coaches and athletes to realize this. If there is
any question about rules notification, it is whether anyone was informed
of the few changes that were made to the rules for this meet, or were
misinformed that there were more changes that actually existed. Also note
that the rule in question is not one which was modified and therefore is
not an issue.
I'm sure I could go back and find some more statements to rail against,
but I think under the circumstances, these are the 6 most common arguments
that I have seen, and I don't attach much importance to them for the
reasons stated above.
lator
mike
--
Michael Lee Barnes - also know as - the original Iridescent Mouse
E-mail barn...@osu.edu
RunnSwim
<insert your favorite lawyer joke here...I like the one about lawyers and
pharmecutical testing myself>
Q: What's brown and black and looks great on a lawyer?
Answer: A doberman
Q: What do you call a hundred lawyers at the bottom of a diving well?
A: A good start
etc.
Larry Weisenthal
RunnSwim
Another person from north of the border with a low opinion of his southern
neighbors jumps in to say:
>>Ok, so rules are for everyone EXCEPT americans.<<
I would, at least, hope that the international community would give US
Swimming credit for one thing and one thing only. In no other country in
the world would one of the country's best female gold medal hopes have
been disqualified after swimming 8 seconds faster than her replacement for
a non-performance related, obscure infraction, not even known by said
swimmer (and most other swimmers and coaches) to be an infraction after a
15 year swimming career that included no DQs during the past 9 years, at
any level, and which was an infraction only under an arcane local rule
which will NOT be in effect at the Olympics, themselves, in a meet being
run under TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES (local rules for the water; Olympic
rules for the deck).
Whatever US Swimming may be, it cannot be said that it is an organization
which is out to win the Olympics at all costs, including ignoring its own
Bysantine and irrational rules, established without any apparent logic
whatsoever for its Olympic selection meet.
I, at least, hope those Aussies who were convinced that Samantha Riley was
DQd during the Pan-Pacs in order to secure the victory of a "Yank," will
now believe the truth that it was just another US official "calling it as
he saw it," consequences be danged.
Larry Weisenthal
gend...@ctron.com
As I re-read what I wrote here yesterday, I just want to make it
explicitly clear that what I mean below is that a violation which
makes a time difference of one second or less is "minor" in Quance's
situation specifically. (where she has swum in a heat, her goal is
to qualify for the final of the 400 i.m., and she has posted a time that
is about 13 seconds better than the eighth place time). Obviously if
we are talking about a 100 breast stroke race and there are eight swimmers
separated by less than one second, that's all the difference in the
world.
It's not always possible to write an air-tight post during 15 minutes
at lunch time :-).
Ed
n article <4nafvr$l...@doc.zippo.com>, gend...@ctron.com says...
bir...@e-tex.com
RunnSwim wrote:
>
> I would, at least, hope that the international community would give US
> Swimming credit for one thing and one thing only. In no other country in
> the world would one of the country's best female gold medal hopes have
> been disqualified after swimming 8 seconds faster than her replacement for
> a non-performance related, obscure infraction, not even known by said
> swimmer (and most other swimmers and coaches) to be an infraction after a
> 15 year swimming career that included no DQs during the past 9 years, at
> any level, and which was an infraction only under an arcane local rule
> which will NOT be in effect at the Olympics, themselves, in a meet being
> run under TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES (local rules for the water; Olympic
> rules for the deck).
>
1. The illegal turn was, in fact, performance enhancing. That is why
it is illegal. It is faster to make the back to breast transition
leaving the wall toward the back. If you allow this you have a big
headache deciding when the swimmer must swim breaststroke during the
breaststroke leg of the IM (ie could the swimmer kick underwater on the
back for 15 meters before starting breaststroke).
2. If Quance and her coach were unaware of the IM turn rules for 15
years there is a serious problem.
3. Would somebody please post the FINA rule governing the back to breast
transition. I am repeatedly seeing statements that the Quance turn was
legal by FINA rules. USS makes a big effort to conform their rules to
FINA rules. The big exception is the no false start rule (for obvious
reasons ). As far as I know, the Quance turn was just as illegal by
FINA rules.
Birdman
Theral Eugene Mackey III
In article <barnes.87-150...@slip1-10.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Michael Barnes <barn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>This is absurd.
>
>6) On the other hand, the first part of the preceding sentence states a
>rule that all meets sanctioned by USS will be run under the rules. I'm
>pretty sure the US Olympic Trials were probablly a USS sanctioned event
>and therefore USS rules would be in effect by default and it would be the
>responsibility of the coaches and athletes to realize this. If there is
>any question about rules notification, it is whether anyone was informed
>of the few changes that were made to the rules for this meet, or were
>misinformed that there were more changes that actually existed. Also note
>that the rule in question is not one which was modified and therefore is
>not an issue.
Obviously, you haven't been reading all the posts. Your statement above is
exactly what is in question. The trials were held in modified USS/FINA rules.
The deck was under FINA, and the water was under USS. The question is how well
was this ruling scheme announced to the coaches and swimmers. As is obvious, it
is confusing. You yourself thought the meet was completely under USS rules, but
in fact, the rules are a mix of FINA and USS. In such a case, the rules should
be given to the coaches prior to the meet to assure all fairness in
understanding them. IMHO, the rules should be the exact same as those to be
used at the actual meet. I think that yes, she was in fault, and yes the DQ
was appropriate, but the rules were also at fault, by not matching those
that the meet would be used for. If the trial is supposed to be a meet to
select the US Olympic team, the rules should match those of the Olympics.
T-mack
--
Theral E. Mackey
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3777b
Internet: gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
Garry Jackson
>....... and which was an infraction only under an arcane local rule
> which will NOT be in effect at the Olympics, themselves, in a meet being
> run under TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES (local rules for the water; Olympic
> rules for the deck).
>
deal out of it. It's ironic that the COACHES were concerned that their swimmers would be
confused by FINA rules and wanted them to compete under USS rules. It's kind of wild
that USS wanted to run the meet under international rules and if the coaches had let them
then Quance wouldn't have been DQ'ed. Let's add to the ill informed debate by saying
that the USS official's DQ'ed Quance to get even with the coaches. How about that.
I would like Quance to swim for the U.S. The way to do it is for USS to make some sort
of an executive decree that even though Quance violated a techical rule her performance
was so far ahead of everyone that she'll represent the U.S. anyway. Gymnastics and
figure skating do it all the time. I don't think the deck officials should be villified
for doing their jobs. The first failure was Quance's and her coach for not understanding
the rules. After the DQ, in her other IM races, she did a straight flip turn from her
back to breast so there was no doubt. She did the same thing at NCAA's. It's not the
officials job to make sure world class swimmers understand the rules of the race. The
rule is not arcane. All the kids in my children's age group swim team understand the
rule and I've seen more than a couple DQ'ed who didn't do it right. Quance knew the rule
but she was trying to get her best time and screwed up.
We should have the best team at the olympics and it's up to USS to take a hard nosed
position and just do it. Not try an wriggle trough some loop hole. They just need to
take a stand.
Garry Jackson
Valerie Magee
bir...@e-tex.com wrote:
> 3. Would somebody please post the FINA rule governing the back to breast
> transition. I am repeatedly seeing statements that the Quance turn was
> legal by FINA rules. USS makes a big effort to conform their rules to
> FINA rules. The big exception is the no false start rule (for obvious
> reasons ). As far as I know, the Quance turn was just as illegal by
> FINA rules.
>
The following is taken from the FINA rules as posted at:
http://www.hk.super.net/~kff/wmsf.html
SW 7 - Breaststroke
SW 7.1
From the beginning of the first armstroke after the start and after each turn, the body
shall be kept on the breast and both
shoulders shall be in line with the normal water surface.
SW 7.2
All movements of the arms shall be simultaneous and in the same horizontal place without
alternating movement.
SW 7.3
The hands shall be pushed forward together from the breast on, under, or over the water. The
elbows shall be under the water
except for the last stroke. The hands shall be brought back on or under the surface of the
water. The hands shall not be brought
back beyond the hip line, except during the first stroke after the start and each turn.
SW 7.4
All movements of the legs shall be simultaneous and in the same horizontal place without
alternating movement.
SW 7.5
The feet must be turned outwards during the propulsive part of the kick. A scissors, flutter
or downward dolphin kick is not
permitted. Breaking the surface of the water with the feet is allowed unless followed by a
downward dolphin kick.
SW 7.6
At each turn and at the finish of the race, the touch shall be made with both hands
simultaneously at, above, or below the water
level. The shoulders shall remain in the horizontal plane until the touch has been made. The
head may be submerged after the
last arm pull prior to the touch, provided it breaks the surface of the water at some point
during the last complete or incomplete
cycle preceding the touch.
SW 7.7
During each complete cycle of one arm stroke and one leg kick, in that order, some part of
the swimmer's head shall break the
surface of the water, except that after the start and after each turn the swimmer may take
one arm stroke completely back to
the legs and one leg kick while wholly submerged. The head must break the surface of the
water before the hands turn inward
at the widest part of the second stroke.
Nothing about the IM, except the order of strokes (not reproduced here, but you can look).
I think it was acknowledged that her infraction is based on the USS rules, which may be (and
in this case are) more - but not less - restrictive than FINA.
Edward M. Powers
In <4nafvr$l...@doc.zippo.com> gend...@ctron.com writes:
>
>
>Most of the articles I've seen posted on r.s.s. seem to support the
>Quance D.Q. I'd like to point out that without exception
>the swimmers I talk to would like to see Quance swimming the 400 I.M.
>in Atlanta, and don't think it was a good decision to D.Q. the woman
who
why
>more people don't express that opinion here, maybe they are afraid of
>the vociferous, angry contingent on r.s.s. who rail on at the mere
mention
>that there could have been a better way for U.S.S. to handle the
situation.
>
>where we just blindly follow rules, and feel good about the results no
>matter how perverse they might be. The goal of our US trials is to
select
>our best Olypmic team. Yet our 400 I.M. medal contender Quance will
watch
>the event from the side of the pool due to an infraction on a back to
breast
>turn, in a heat, which might have gained her a maximum of a few tenths
of
>a second. That's stupid. Plain and simple. (Get ready for the
torrent
>of chest thumping, tough love, brainless onslaughts championing the
idea
>that the rules are the rules and we should dutifully march off a cliff
to
>follow them!!!!)
>
>Eliminating Quance from the 400 i.m. due to her minor infraction would
be
>something like throwing Emit Smith off the Cowboys because he made an
>illegal motion infraction. (And for the record, I would define a
"minor
>infraction" as that which could improve a time by less than a second.)
>
>U.S.S. could have given Quance a massive 10 second penalty for her
infractino
>and she still would have comfortably qualified for the finals. There
she
>would qualify for the Olympics. Problems? And yes, I'd be happy to
tell
>Mitzy that she's off the team. Go back, train hard and come back
again
>4 years from now.
>
>Personally I hope Quance wins her law suit. I don't think the issue
belongs
>in court, but I do think she should represent us in the 400 I.M. at
the
>Olympics, and I would support any action which successfully
accomplishes
>that end.
>
>Ed
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This red-blooded American vehemently disagrees with you, but certainly
not because I'm *afraid* of the faceless international horde that
happens to share my view. I don't know who you've been talking to, but
your personal random sampling hardly constitutes "a majority of
swimmers." All the swimmers *I* talk to, "without exception," thought
the deke was the right call.
The United States Olympic Trials runs by a clear set of rules. I'm not
saying the rules don't suck (I don't really know), but the solution
isn't to seek redress after the fact. If the rules suck, they should
be fixed. If the rules of the NFL called for Emmitt Smith to be thrown
out of the sport for a motion penalty, then he shouldn't act surprised
when it's enforced (although a sport that happily accommodates
wife-beating, drug snorting egomaniacs is pretty poor example to call
upon in this case).
If we want to select swimmers by a different process, that's our choice
(just as it is for other countries who don't have our unforgiving
selection process).
I feel sorry for Quance, she won't get to show the talent we all know
she has ... BUT THAT'S TOO BAD BECAUSE NO ONE *MADE* HER TURN
ILLEGALLY. She knew the rules (or should have). She had the same
chance as all the other swimmers and she blew it. If our Trials
process was different, undoubtedly she'd be swimming the 400 IM in
Atlanta. Making this exception would be a HUGE mistake at this point.
Perhaps those who are most upset by Quance's predicament will work to
change the selection process before the next Olympics (but I doubt any
of them will care much after the furor passes).
BUT, before we categorically conclude that our selection process is
flawed because such a *great injustice* can occur, remember our
selections are utterly free of lobbying, subjectivity, and politicking.
Swimmers' stature, popularity , and reputations don't enter into the
process. There's something to be said for that, even when our greatest
swimmers occasionally show themselves to be fallible.
Ed
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Adam Bridge
>
> Most of the articles I've seen posted on r.s.s. seem to support the
> Quance D.Q. I'd like to point out that without exception
> the swimmers I talk to would like to see Quance swimming the 400 I.M.
> in Atlanta, and don't think it was a good decision to D.Q. the woman who
> is clearly one of our top two swimmers in that event. I don't know why
> more people don't express that opinion here, maybe they are afraid of
> the vociferous, angry contingent on r.s.s. who rail on at the mere mention
> that there could have been a better way for U.S.S. to handle the situation.
>
> Those who support the Quance D.Q. seem to enjoy a simple minded world
> where we just blindly follow rules, and feel good about the results no
> matter how perverse they might be. The goal of our US trials is to select
> our best Olypmic team. Yet our 400 I.M. medal contender Quance will watch
> the event from the side of the pool due to an infraction on a back to breast
> turn, in a heat, which might have gained her a maximum of a few tenths of
> a second. That's stupid. Plain and simple. (Get ready for the torrent
> of chest thumping, tough love, brainless onslaughts championing the idea
> that the rules are the rules and we should dutifully march off a cliff to
> follow them!!!!)
>
She'll watch because she screwed up. Maybe her coach screwed up as well
but Quance was the one who made the mistake in the pool. What if she had
swum a stroke of freestyle coming off the first wall instead of fly?
Should she have been DQ'd for that? There are something like 37 stroke
rules in swimming and none of them are in fine print.
Either we choose our team in the tank or we select them some other way.
Go to the convention this fall and debate it.
> Eliminating Quance from the 400 i.m. due to her minor infraction would be
> something like throwing Emit Smith off the Cowboys because he made an
> illegal motion infraction. (And for the record, I would define a "minor
> infraction" as that which could improve a time by less than a second.)
>
Why bother to have rules at all? Now there's going to be a committee that
will ponder: gee, let's see, how severe was the false start? Surely less
than a second..okay, no problem?
I think you should ponder the meaning of what you suggest and apply it to
all the pools in the United States.
> U.S.S. could have given Quance a massive 10 second penalty for her infractino
> and she still would have comfortably qualified for the finals. There she
> would qualify for the Olympics. Problems? And yes, I'd be happy to tell
> Mitzy that she's off the team. Go back, train hard and come back again
> 4 years from now.
>
Unfortunately, Ed, the there is no provision for a "time penalty" within
USS rules. Is it your suggestion that the Referee make up a rule on the
fly to suit Ms. Quance's vaulted reputation?
> Personally I hope Quance wins her law suit. I don't think the issue belongs
> in court, but I do think she should represent us in the 400 I.M. at the
> Olympics, and I would support any action which successfully accomplishes
> that end.
>
So in the end you're voting to let the ends justify the means.
ab
Adam Bridge
>
> Some have argued that she should have been given the chance to swim in
> the finals on the merit of her time, since the benefit of her illegal
> turn was no more than a fraction of a second. If USS is going to allow
> this type of thing, they better be prepared for swimmers doing easy
> freestyle for breaststroke, etc in order to qualify.
>
I'd just like to point out there is no "time" for a DQ'd swimmer in an
event. The time is discarded as if the swim didn't happen. So, by the
rules, there's nothing to use. Which is part of the reason why the time
is discarded.
ab
Dave Brown
In article <319A82...@e-tex.com>, bir...@e-tex.com says...
>
>1. The illegal turn was, in fact, performance enhancing. That is why
>it is illegal. It is faster to make the back to breast transition
>leaving the wall toward the back. If you allow this you have a big
>headache deciding when the swimmer must swim breaststroke during the
>breaststroke leg of the IM (ie could the swimmer kick underwater on the
>back for 15 meters before starting breaststroke).
>
>2. If Quance and her coach were unaware of the IM turn rules for 15
>years there is a serious problem.
>
>transition. I am repeatedly seeing statements that the Quance turn was
>legal by FINA rules. USS makes a big effort to conform their rules to
>FINA rules. The big exception is the no false start rule (for obvious
>reasons ). As far as I know, the Quance turn was just as illegal by
>FINA rules.
>
You took the words right out of my mouth! My question exactly: since when does FINA allow
leaving the wall toward the back in back-to-breast transition?! I presume this is illegal
by FINA rules; but perhaps officials in other countries fail to call it. And there has
always been a contingent of coaches and fans who felt that there's a certain level of
elite swimmer who shouldn't be made to conform to the rules. I hate to get in a regional
conflict here, but we've had several swimmers come here (from California, as a matter of
fact) and get deeked for an infraction that they say is never called where they come
from... (of course, they may be just "blowing smoke".)
My son was deeked for the same infraction when he was 12 years old. He didn't know it was
illegal either. Thereafter, he knew! Too bad Quance and her coach weren't around at the
time, they could've learned something. (There didn't seem to be such an outpouring of
contempt for the rule at the time my son was deeked, although HE was pretty perturbed at
the time.)
--
Dave Brown Austin, TX
bill fallon
RunnSwim (runn...@aol.com) wrote:
: Another person from north of the border with a low opinion of his southern
: neighbors jumps in to say:
Thanks for the gratuitous comment. Has anyone else noticed that a
seemingly large number of foreigners have an intense antipathy towards the
US, in particular, US Swimming ? Or is just that only the negatives tend
to post ?
b fallon
David Knapp
Curt....@SEN.CA.GOV wrote:
>ea...@nebula.ispace.com (E. Anne G. Diday) writes:
>> I know of no other sport that goes to such lengths to disqualify its
>> athletes.
>
> swimming and the rules that govern it.
No, it isn't. Perhaps there are other sports as technical-detail-minded
as swimming, but I can't think of any right off in which you can be entirely
disqualified for a small mistake.
I refuse to swim anything other than freestyle competitively. The purpose
of a race is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. The
various rules applied to every stroke have the sole purpose of making the
stroke slower than it could be. Anyway, I have no desire to swim another
stroke in a meet only to be made a fool of for any minor mistake in following
the (often arcane) rules.
It astonishes me that the sport of swimming is unable to see how the rules
structure discourages people from participating.
-- Dave
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Knapp d...@llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 |
| http://www-phys.llnl.gov/N_Div/people/davek.html |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| If you're going to be a perfectionist, do it right or don't do it at all. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
JamesB1890
I have read through the past barage of posts and have only 2 comments,
while I feel that there are valid arguments against all of Quance's
claims.
1) To not enforce the rule because it did not result in a sizable (insert
whatever word you want here) advantage is not in the sports best interest.
Sure it did not result in a difference in the qualification places. But,
to allow a judge to make that call would mean they would have to evaluate
every single infraction and compare it to the final results of the meet to
determine if it did effect the outcome. What if Quance had been second by
.2 seconds? Are we going to evaluate the rules differently because she
did well? Most of the USS rules are designed for an official to determine
what they actually saw and then there is a black and white rule that
decides if it is legal. There is no judgement (except as to what the
person saw) involved in most calls. False start rule excepted ("if any
swimmer obtains an unfair advantage...")
2) What legal basis does she have to sue?
James
philip evans
I cannot speak for others, but my dis-approval centres on, and is contained
to, the loons we see making posts which display either a of lack understanding
of rules, of ethics, or both. They relect badly on a populace which has, for
all its faults, been a positive influence on the sport of swimming in the past.
Charlie Cockrell
|> stroke in a meet only to be made a fool of for any minor mistake in following
|> the (often arcane) rules.
|>
Just one comment here - the rule that resulted in Quance's DQ has been described as
'arcane', 'obscure' and other adjectives to suggest that it is some sort of secret to
everyone and officials pull it out of their back pockets to surprise swimmers and
coaches. This is absolute nonsense. Maybe some people in this forum don't know
the rules (although many are obviously very knowledgeable) but I would find it very
hard to believe that a swimmer at Quance's level and her coach, who has been coaching
world-class swimmers for years, would not know the rules. In fact, I would be astonished
if even a majority of experienced swimmers would not know this rule.
Black Diamond Dave
bir...@e-tex.com wrote:
[...]
> years there is a serious problem.
he knew about the rule. Schubert protested that the infraction was
minor and would never have been called in international competition.
Quance said she never knew the rule existed.
- BDD
Michael Barnes
In article <4ndpsn$r...@acmez.gatech.edu>, gt3...@prism.gatech.edu (Theral
Eugene Mackey III) wrote:
€
€Obviously, you haven't been reading all the posts. Your statement above is
€exactly what is in question. The trials were held in modified USS/FINA rules.
€The deck was under FINA, and the water was under USS. The question is how well
€was this ruling scheme announced to the coaches and swimmers. As is obvious, it
€is confusing. You yourself thought the meet was completely under USS rules, but
€in fact, the rules are a mix of FINA and USS. In such a case, the rules should
€be given to the coaches prior to the meet to assure all fairness in
€understanding them. IMHO, the rules should be the exact same as those to be
€used at the actual meet. I think that yes, she was in fault, and yes the DQ
€ was appropriate, but the rules were also at fault, by not matching those
€that the meet would be used for. If the trial is supposed to be a meet to
€select the US Olympic team, the rules should match those of the Olympics.
€
As a matter of fact, I have been reading all of the posts and am familiar
with what the rules were at trials (I have talked to two officials from
right here in Columbus, who had the privilege of working on deck at the
meet). Secondly, I was not uder the impression that the meet was entirely
under USS rules. My point was that as a sanctioned event, by definition
USS rules were in effect as I quoted the appropriate sentence from the USS
rulebook. Beginning with this set of rules, there was a decision made to
modify certain rules to make them more closely resemble FINA rules (or
match in this case). At trials, the rules that were modified were the
deck rules (primarily affecting starts).
My point is that if there was any responsibility to inform anyone, the
responsibility is limited to informing them that rules a, b, and c had
been changed to rules a1, b1 and c1. It is not their responsibility to
also inform everyone that rules d, e and f had not been changed.
Therefore, unless the coaches and athletes were specifically informed that
the turn rule in question had been modified for this meet, it is there
responsibility to realize that the USS rule is in effect. Therefore, the
only way in which Quance would have any kind of legal claim (IMHO) is if
she was incorrectly led to believe that the turn rule had been changed.
Unknown
>==========Garry Jackson, 5/15/96==========
>
>>....... and which was an infraction only under an arcane local rule
>> which will NOT be in effect at the Olympics, themselves, in a
>meet being
>> run under TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES (local rules for the
>water; Olympic
>> rules for the deck).
I just wanted to comment on this point. This whole situation is
more messy than I thought. I have said that if she was
legitimately DQ'd, she should not swim in the Olympics. At that
time, I didn't know about this mixed rules business.
If the reason for the race is to determine who swims in the
Olympics, I don't understand why they didn't use those same
rules for this meet. Did all of the competitors (and Quance in
particular) know which rules they were swimming by and the
differences between the rules?
If she understood which rules she was swimming by, then I think
she shouldn't swim in the Olympics because it appears that this
turn could have improved her time by at least a small amount and
that's unfair. If she didn't know and understand the
difference, the problem was either the fault of whoever set up
this wierd format or her coach for not making sure she
understood the situation.
In any case, this mixed rules business certainly exposes the
whole situation to legitimate scrutiny.
Doug Gilliam
David Knapp
Curt....@SEN.CA.GOV wrote:
> > No, it isn't. Perhaps there are other sports as technical-detail-minded
> > as swimming, but I can't think of any right off in which you can be entirely
> > disqualified for a small mistake.
>
> penalty box, etc.
Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say rules were inappropriate; I said that
in swimming the penalty for any infraction, no matter how minor (disqualification)
is draconian.
Imagine playing basketball with a rule that says if you step out of bounds
you are kicked out of the game. Or if you were kicked out of a gymnastics
competition for not landing perfectly. The point here is that in other sports,
the penalties for infractions are made proportional to the severity of the
infraction; in swimming, you are just disqualified.
> > I refuse to swim anything other than freestyle competitively. The purpose
> > of a race is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. The
> > various rules applied to every stroke have the sole purpose of making the
> > stroke slower than it could be.
>
> This is nonsense. Rules for each stroke are intended to prescribe proper
> procedure for executing those strokes. Your statement is refuted by common
> knowledge; swimmers swim faster and faster each year and the rules stay the
> same.
A primer in logic would be helpful to you. The fact that people get faster
each year in each stroke in no way affects the fact that people swim freestyle
faster than any other stroke; thus, the various restrictions placed on the
other strokes have the effect of making them slower. QED. (and, parenthetically,
duh.)
> > It astonishes me that the sport of swimming is unable to see how the rules
> > structure discourages people from participating.
>
> This statement is patently false. (Why do people write stuff like this AND
> post it in public???)
Perhaps because they enjoy seeing other people act like jerks in public?
Michael W. Moore
Perhaps there are other sports as technical-detail-minded
> as swimming, but I can't think of any right off in which you can be entirely
> disqualified for a small mistake.
>
line and your jump does not count. What about the hammer throw and discus,
if you put your foot over the line, see how many points you score. What
about the high jump- I just barely touched the bar and it came off. I
could continue about football- my foot was on the line etc.
> I refuse to swim anything other than freestyle competitively. The purpose
> of a race is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. The
> various rules applied to every stroke have the sole purpose of making the
> stroke slower than it could be. Anyway, I have no desire to swim another
> stroke in a meet only to be made a fool of for any minor mistake in following
> the (often arcane) rules.
>
I have swum all the stokes, and have been deeked before, the rules are not
that hard to remember. Just practice them in practice and in the race you
will do ok. You can also find the USS Technical Rules of Swimming on their
web site.
> It astonishes me that the sport of swimming is unable to see how the rules
> structure discourages people from participating.
Thats ok, that means I will get a top ten time, because I have taken the
time to practice it correctly, and do it in a race.
michael moore
SwmCoachB
I have to agree with Josh, let those who earn a spot on the team swim. If
yu don't earn a spot, you don't swim. The comparison to Emmit Smith being
kicked off of the Cowboys for a minor moving infraction isn't valid,
unless it was in a selection process to pick who plays for the cowboys.
Thats' what happened to kristin, she made a mistake during the selection
process so she doesn't get to swim.
SwmCoachB
So what you are saying is that we should just forget about the trials if
they don't pick our best people in each event. So we should have kicked
somebody off the 88 team so Pablo could swim the 100 fly and we should
take someone out of the 50, 100, and 200 free so Jenna Johnson the
Americna Rcord holder in a couple of those can swim.
WRONG.
We live and die by the trials and until we stop having trials the trials
decide who swims.
Brian
gend...@ctron.com
I'd like to reply to Adam Bridge, Curt Miller, and Philip Evans all at once
here:
To Philip Evans: take your trash talk somewhere else, it's a waste of time.
To Adam and Curt:
Regarding my suggestion that a 10 second time penalty could have been applied
to Quance and she still would have qualified for the finals:
I do not endorse the idea that time penalties should be devised for infractions.
I only suggested this to point out the absurdity of what USS has done by
eliminating Quance from our olympic team in the 400 i.m.
As I wrote here previously on r.s.s. ..... Imagine the following scenario:
The official DQ's Quance for her back to breast turn. The powers that be
consider the situation. Quance has posted a time that is about 13 seconds
faster than the 9th place qualifier, who is on the bubble (i.e. the 9th
place qualifier will swim in the final if Quance is DQ'd, and will swim
in the consolation final if Quance's DQ is overturned). Quance's time is
fast enough to consider her a contender for a medal in atlanta. The 9th
place swimmer's time is no where near contention. Finally, the video tape
footage does not show a glaring violation. I suggest that USS people should
have overturned the DQ call. They could have done so without embarrassement
to USS. The debate about the legality of her turn would go on, just as it
does now. No big deal. Quance would qualify for the olympics and possibly
win a medal. Now we have Mitzy going instead, and i'll go out on a limb
and predict she does not win a medal. Which scenario do select?
Regarding the analogy I made comparing the Quance DQ to throwing Emit Smith
off the Cowboys for an illegal motion penalty.... Here's another way to
think about it: Let's say Quance is a high school senior and you are a
swimming recruiter for a school with a strong swimming program. You go
to the US nationals and Quance posts her excellent time for a 400 i.m. and
gets DQ'd for an illegal back to breast turn. Do you eliminate her from
consideration? Of course not!! Quance has shown no propensity for DQ's
to my knowledge. Any rational recruiter would hardly be conserned with
the DQ, it is not a long term problem, it can easily be corrected. You would
be a fool not to continue recruiting her, and USS is foolish for not using
better judgement in handling this situation.
This is the US olympic trials. Our common goal is to select our strongest
possible team to go to the olympics. Quance's turn violation could be looked
as a learning experience. Correct her problem and go on. Those of you who
like to state angrily that she screwed up or her coach screwed up, are not
accomplishing a thing. you get the satisfaction of being angry at the woman
for making a mistake, and of blindly following rules to the letter to the detriment
of the strength of our olympic team. Both losing propositions in my opinion.
Adam asks what if she swam some freestyle instead of butterfly? I understand
the motivation of this question... one might think it could be a slippery
slope if Quance were given the benefit of the doubt here, how far might
things be pushed in the future? Personally, I see no question about this
particular example, swimming fly instead of free in inexcusable. The point
is that Quance has no history of DQ problems. She had absolutely no reason
to intentionally try to cheat. It's painfully clear that she could probably
post a time fast enough to qualify top eight in the US olympic trials
DURING WORKOUT! So remind me again.... what was so good about the decision
to uphold the official's call? It's beyond me.
In article <1996May15....@sinet.sen.ca.gov>, Curt....@SEN.CA.GOV says...
>
>In article <4nafvr$l...@doc.zippo.com>, gend...@ctron.com writes:
>
>> Most of the articles I've seen posted on r.s.s. seem to support the
>> Quance D.Q. I'd like to point out that without exception
>> the swimmers I talk to would like to see Quance swimming the 400 I.M.
>> in Atlanta,
>
>Well, EVERYONE would like to see her swim, but... Why would a swimmer who
>qualified for the US Olympic team by following the rules endorse the idea of
>adding someone to the team who didn't follow the rules? I suggest the
>swimmers you've been talking to are not Olympic team members, thus your
>statement is of no import.
>
>> and don't think it was a good decision to D.Q. the woman who
>> is clearly one of our top two swimmers in that event. I don't know why
>> more people don't express that opinion here, maybe they are afraid of
>> the vociferous, angry contingent on r.s.s. who rail on at the mere mention
>> that there could have been a better way for U.S.S. to handle the situation.
>
>Most people in life (and swimming) play by the rules; that's why their
>silence here implies agreement with the ruling.
>
>> Those who support the Quance D.Q. seem to enjoy a simple minded world
>> where we just blindly follow rules, and feel good about the results no
>> matter how perverse they might be.
>
>Support or not of the DQ is not the basic question; it is whether or not
>the written rules were followed. Since most people endorse and follow
>the rules, the fact that a swimmer may be DQ'd for failure to follow those
>rules is an irrelevant issue.
>
>> The goal of our US trials is to select
>> our best Olypmic team. Yet our 400 I.M. medal contender Quance will watch
>> the event from the side of the pool due to an infraction on a back to breast
>> turn, in a heat, which might have gained her a maximum of a few tenths of
>> a second. That's stupid. Plain and simple. (Get ready for the torrent
>> of chest thumping, tough love, brainless onslaughts championing the idea
>> that the rules are the rules and we should dutifully march off a cliff to
>> follow them!!!!)
>
>The less said about these comments, the better.
>
>> Eliminating Quance from the 400 i.m. due to her minor infraction would be
>> something like throwing Emit Smith off the Cowboys because he made an
>> illegal motion infraction. (And for the record, I would define a "minor
>> infraction" as that which could improve a time by less than a second.)
>
>Illegal motion does not result in the DQ of the offending player; the TEAM is
>penalized 5 yards. Swimming is not a team sport, it is only scored as a
>team sport. You are mixing apples and oranges. And can you imagine the
>chaos in trying to apply a "time benefit" to an illegal turn? Who's going to
>measure/monitor that? Officials have enough headaches already.
>
>> U.S.S. could have given Quance a massive 10 second penalty for her infractino
>> and she still would have comfortably qualified for the finals. There she
>> would qualify for the Olympics. Problems? And yes, I'd be happy to tell
>> Mitzy that she's off the team. Go back, train hard and come back again
>> 4 years from now.
>>
>> Personally I hope Quance wins her law suit. I don't think the issue belongs
>> in court, but I do think she should represent us in the 400 I.M. at the
>> Olympics, and I would support any action which successfully accomplishes
>> that end.
>
>She will not win ANY lawsuit regarding this matter. You read it here
>first.
>
>CM
Adam Bridge
I can't imagine a more damning statement about a coach than Quance's.
However, I think those words were said immediately after the race when
disappointment was very keen. Since her coach is one of the foremost
coaches in the United States (just ask him) he certainly knew what rules
the trials were being run under and it was his job to make sure Quance
knew. Maybe she should sue HIM!
A word on the FINA rule. Over the past month I've talked to more than a
few officials who work FINA events. From what I understand there is a
general move within the world officiating community to move toward the USS
version of the rule. That is: DQ's identical to Quances have been handed
down in FINA competition through specific interpretation of the rule.
I've read the rule a couple of times and if I were officiating a FINA
event, without any instruction, I'd not have DQ'd Quance's push off the
wall. BUT...that's the purpose of the official's meetings at the start of
each session of the meet: to set forth the rules. (And please note: we
try NEVER to explicitly go over rules of a stroke that will be heavily
swum on a particular day of a meet to prevent people going out on deck
"loaded for bear.")
Adam Bridge
philip evans
In article <319B97...@usa.net> David Knapp <d...@usa.net> writes:
some *really* dumb stuff - like this:
> Imagine playing basketball with a rule that says if you step out of bounds
>you are kicked out of the game. Or if you were kicked out of a gymnastics
>competition for not landing perfectly. The point here is that in other sports,
>the penalties for infractions are made proportional to the severity of the
>infraction; in swimming, you are just disqualified.
The only score in the sport of swimming is time. Not judges' averages, not
team cumulative points. It is an ABSOLUTELY objective criteria. As such, the
defining limits of permissible behaviour must also be absolute.
And that, gentlemen, is part of its beauty. Those who cannot see this are to
be pitied; those who WILL not deserve not even that.
philip evans
In article <4nfh8j$m...@doc.zippo.com> gend...@ctron.com writes:
>I'd like to reply to Adam Bridge, Curt Miller, and Philip Evans all at once
>here:
>To Philip Evans: take your trash talk somewhere else, it's a waste of time.
Excuse me, but it belongs right where it is, in your lap.
We have a saying on my team: Cheaters know *all* the rules.
Jay
Regarding the analogy I made comparing the Quance DQ to throwing Emit Smith
off the Cowboys for an illegal motion penalty.... Here's another way to
think about it: Let's say Quance is a high school senior and you are a
swimming recruiter for a school with a strong swimming program. You go
to the US nationals and Quance posts her excellent time for a 400 i.m. and
gets DQ'd for an illegal back to breast turn. Do you eliminate her from
consideration? Of course not!! Quance has shown no propensity for DQ's
to my knowledge. Any rational recruiter would hardly be conserned with
the DQ, it is not a long term problem, it can easily be corrected. You would
be a fool not to continue recruiting her, and USS is foolish for not using
better judgement in handling this situation.
This is the US olympic trials. Our common goal is to select our strongest
possible team to go to the olympics. Quance's turn violation could be looked
as a learning experience. Correct her problem and go on. Those of you who
like to state angrily that she screwed up or her coach screwed up, are not
accomplishing a thing. you get the satisfaction of being angry at the wom
---------------------------
Very good analysis...
JL
Spunk1111
David Knapp <d...@usa.net> on Thu, 16 May 1996 01:01:51 -0700 writes:
> Perhaps there are other sports as technical-detail-minded
> as swimming, but I can't think of any right off in which you can be
>entirely disqualified for a small mistake.
Consider bowling (if you will consider that a 'sport')-- if you step over
the foul line, your downed pins don't count for that frame. That would
certainly cost you the win.
> I refuse to swim anything other than freestyle competitively. The
purpose
> of a race is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. The
> various rules applied to every stroke have the sole purpose of making
the
> stroke slower than it could be.
The various rules applied to the strokes make them what they are. They do
not make the strokes slower than they could be. They make the stroke
consistent from swimmer to swimmer. If there were no rules governing the
strokes, it would be a 'free-for-all' (literally) in the pool.
> It astonishes me that the sport of swimming is unable to see how the
rules
>structure discourages people from participating.
I get the impression that you are new to the sport of swimming. Perhaps
you have not received the training and instruction that many swimmers do
receive. If you had, you would understand the need for stroke conformity
and the rule structure for swimming. You might also feel confident
swimming other strokes- besides freestyle. It must be true that old dogs
can't learn new tricks...... jgs
SwmCoachB
So let's take this Emmit Smith analogy a little further. What I hear
being said is that, the trials is a the place were we pick the best two
swimmers in each event to compete at the Olympics. Obviously, Kristin
Quance was one of the two best 400 IM'ers for the US and should be on the
team even though she made a mistake during the selection process and was
passed over in favor of two other swimmers who followed the rules.
Now let's say that Kristin gets to the Olympics and dominates the field in
the 400 IM by the same margin she did at the trials. (I'm not saying she
would, but for argument sake, let's say she would.) If she were to have a
minor break in the rules that didn't give her much of an advantage over
the field but was dq'ed for doing it do we still give her the gold medal
because what she did wrong wouldn't have made such a difference in the
outcome of the race. Of course not. She gets dq'ed and everyone else
moves up.
The way the olympic team is chosen, the top two swimmers in every event at
the trials make the team. Until US Swimming says that the top 2 are
conditional based on their rankings and that another swimmer can replace
them if they are currently ranked higher in the world is this possible.
Brian
SwmCoachB
You just don't get it do you Dave? You right it would be stupid to kick
some one out of a basketball game if the stepped out of bounds. If it
happens in a game, the ball goes over to the other team. If a gymnast
doesn't land perfectly, she isn't sent home, she is given a lower score.
That's were the differences in the sport come in. In basketball if you do
something wrong, it's a foul or a turnover no matter how slight the
infraction. And in basketball the penalties are very easy to inforce.
Swimming is another story. We don't have free throws, we don't use a
scoring system, it's the first person to the well correctly wins. If you
don't do things correctly you arre disqualified.
Let me ask this. If Kristin Quance had broken the World Record during
that swim and the official still had the guts do disqualify her, are you
trying to tell me that since the infraction was so minor she should still
get to keep her record. I hope not. To set a record, you have to do
everything perfect, if you don't you probably don't get the record.
E. Anne G. Diday
You miss the point. A golfer who hits a ball out of bounds does not
walk back to the clubhouse. He takes a one stroke penalty. To send a
swimmer "back to the clubhouse" for most rule infractions is
draconian. A time penalty for a false start would be one adequate
solution. Warning cards to age-group swimmers would be another. But
here, i.e. Quance's Quandary, we are talking about a rule which is not
uniform throughout the swimming community. And, apparently two sets
of rules were in effect at the trials-an absurd situation for coaches
and athletes. U.S.S. has been hoist on its own petard. A rule they
made has hurt American swimming and one of America's very best
athletes. Those who think DQ's are good for the sport of swimming
should rethink the ramifications of that view. Swimming is tough
enough without having to have a U.S. Supreme Court Justice poolside to
adjudicate swims.
Curt....@SEN.CA.GOV wrote:
>In article <4nce9q$3...@alterdial.UU.NET>, ea...@nebula.ispace.com (E. Anne
>G. Diday) writes:
>> I know of no other sport that goes to such lengths to disqualify its
>> athletes.
>This a gratuitous statement and shows a lack of knowledge about the sport of
>swimming and the rules that govern it.
>> All federations should adopt uiniform rules with as little
>> regulation as possible. FINA rules and USS rules should be identical
>> regarding the technical aspects of the swim, e.g. starts, turns,
>> strokes to avoid confusion.
>Maybe so...
>> In my view, Quance's dq was a gross
>> disservice to the sport and to her. Perhaps this donneybrook will
>> underscore the problem and bring about changes.
>What problem are you referring to?
>> But I think not. As
>> long as meet officials are dqing 6 year olds for false starts, the
>> entire sport will suffer from over-regulation.
>Are you saying we shouldn't dq for false starts? How would you ever get a
>race started on equal terms for each swimmer? And, if you want to let 6
>year olds false start to their little hearts content, at what age do we
>start making them do legal starts?
>CM
jop...@m5.enet.dec.com
Just a thought:
What if Quance's lawsuit takes as long as the OJ Simpson trial,
and in the end she wins... Do we then rerun the Olympics?
:^)
--
Joe Oppelt
*************
The opinion of my employer should not be inferred from my posting.
Michael Barnes
In article <4nidka$r...@doc.zippo.com>, gend...@ctron.com wrote:
€I'd like to respond to a few of Michael's six points.
€
€Point 1) Quance is not a 6 y/o
€
€How did Quance go through her career and not have any problems with this
€turn until this crucial moment? Does everyone believe that she had done
€this turn perfectly in every single previous race, only to make a slight
€error now? I think this incident reflects badly on our entire officiating
€system and USS. This problem should have been weeded out long ago.
Why are we assuming that Quance's turns always look like this? Isn't it
just as likely that she normally does a legal turn and in this case, in
the heat of the moment, a very young athlete pushed just a little too hard
coming off that turn and did so illegally, maybe for the first time in her
life?
€Point 2) police are expected to enforce rules uniformly
€
€I think this is an excellent point to the contrary of what you intend.
€Think of situations where police use their best judgement when choosing
€to enforce rules. If you are pulled over for a traffic violation, you
€might get a verbal warning, a written warning, or a written citation.
€The officer uses his best judgement as far as I am aware. At least that
€is my personal experience. I can think of other examples where police
€exercise their best judgement as well.
This is true, and I see people exceeding the speed limit all the time
because this rule is not enforced universally. In fact, I would say in my
part of the country, more people exceed the limit then follow it. So what
happens when we leave the judgment in the hands of the officials and more
people start breaking the rule than following it? At this point, we might
just as well get rid of the rule altogether, and then the next rule that
someone complains about, and so on until there are no more rules. A rule
is not a rule unless it is enforced.
€Point 3) Quance's time clearly belonged in the final, but there are no
€provisions in the rules to allow her in. And a few tenths of a second
€can be crucial.
€
€The point I've been making is that I feel the situation could have been
€handled with an over-rule of the official's DQ. USA's best interest
€would be served and USS would be untarnished. People could continue to
€debate the legality of her turn, but given the video available I feel the
€issue is debatable.
€
€And, of course 400 i.m. races can come down to hundreths of a second.
€But I wouldn't be arguing Quance's case if she were qualifying for the
€finals in 8th by a few hundreths.
But where do we draw the line? Is one second enough? Two seconds? Five
seconds? Secondly, there is no provision in USS rules for overturning
this ruling unless the Referee personally observes the action in
question. In other words, unless the referee was actually watching
Quance's turn from a position in which he could make a good assessment,
there is no one on deck or otherwise that can overturn the turn judges
decision except the turn judge and he obviously declined to do so.
(properly too IMHO).
€Point 4) American football analogy
€
€though I would like to continue to debate the football analogy, it's not
€worth it.
€
€It is the extreme result of elimination from contention, during a qualifying
€heat of a meet solely intended to select our strongest olympic team, for an
€infraction that would have had no bearing on the outcome of the event, of a
€swimmer who is clearly one of our top two athletes in the event, and a medal
€contender at the olympics, which is difficult to reconcile. Analogies are
€rarely perfect.
Again, this goes back to makeing that judgment decision, the drawbacks of
which I have already discussed. We have a clearly defined system for
selecting our Olympic team and it worked the way that it was designed to.
The trials are over and the team has been chosen in accordance with the
rules. Whether the process that was used is the best one that can be
designed is open for debate and maybe this should be the focus of this
conversation because as far as I'm concerned, Quance's deke was legitimate
and in keeping with the posted process.
Edward M. Powers
In <4nheav$o...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> lu...@athena.mit.edu (Jay)
writes:
>---------------------------
>
>Very good analysis...
>
>JL
the legitimately applied disqualification ruling. Quit complaining
about it. The ends don't justify the means. If this is really a
terrible thing, work to change it for our future trials. The system
worked in this case. You're mixing up the Objective (Select the best
possible Olympic team) with the Tactics (Do or die at the Trials meet).
NO ONE objects or disagrees with the objective, we differ over the
tactics, which necessarily cannot be changed after the fact.
Edward M. Powers
David Knapp
SwmCoachB wrote:
> You just don't get it do you Dave? You right it would be stupid to kick
> some one out of a basketball game if the stepped out of bounds. If it
> happens in a game, the ball goes over to the other team. If a gymnast
> doesn't land perfectly, she isn't sent home, she is given a lower score.
> That's were the differences in the sport come in. In basketball if you do
> something wrong, it's a foul or a turnover no matter how slight the
> infraction. And in basketball the penalties are very easy to inforce.
>
> Swimming is another story. We don't have free throws, we don't use a
> scoring system, it's the first person to the well correctly wins. If you
> don't do things correctly you arre disqualified.
Let me say this in very small words so that perhaps you will understand.
I know that in every sport there must be penalties for infractions, no matter
how small. The same should be true for swimming.
But the point I am _trying_ to make is that swimming is one of only a few
sports in which any infraction, no matter how small, causes automatic
disqualification. I can think of only one other sport that is as draconian --
racewalking. And it is (justly) not very popular for that very reason. Can you
name another sport in which a single infraction DQ's you entirely out of
competition? I thought not.
None of the examples people have offered do -- in long jump you get 2 or 3
attempts, so you would have to DQ each. Same for other field events. Running
events can have DQ's, but only for going into another's lane, which is hard
to do by accident. In basketball, etc. an infraction gives a momentary advantage
to the other team.
A much more reasonable approach in swimming would be time penalties; a bad
turn would result in, say, a 2 second penalty. That's the way it's done in
pretty much every other sport in which form counts.
My point is that only in swimming does any deviation from perfect form
result in automatic disqualification, with no second chances, etc. You make
a mistake, and you are out. Period.
I am a little surprised by the abuse that has been leveled at me because of
my opinion on this subject; apparently, holding a different opinion is _prima
facie_ evidence of stupidity. Since I am not in the mood to exchange such
abuse, and since the others in this thread appear incapable of courteous
discussion, I guess that's it for this subject from me.
-- Dave
James G. Acker
SwmCoachB (swmc...@aol.com) wrote:
: So what you are saying is that we should just forget about the trials if
: they don't pick our best people in each event. So we should have kicked
: somebody off the 88 team so Pablo could swim the 100 fly and we should
: take someone out of the 50, 100, and 200 free so Jenna Johnson the
: Americna Rcord holder in a couple of those can swim.
This just reminded me of the 1972 Olympic Trials, where
Kurt Krumpholz set a world record in the 400 freestyle prelims --
and finished fourth in the finals, so he didn't make the team.
(And the record wasn't broken at the subsequent Munich Olympics.)
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Paul Burkhardt
Dave Brown wrote:
> My son was deeked for the same infraction when he was 12 years old.
> He didn't know it was illegal either. Thereafter, he knew! Too bad
> Quance and her coach weren't around at the time, they could've learned
> something. (There didn't seem to be such an outpouring of contempt
> for the rule at the time my son was deeked, although HE was pretty
> perturbed at the time.)
>
> --
> Dave Brown Austin, TX
Dave,
I agree with you but don't buy the agruement that she didn't know that
the turn was illegal. That's one of the "canned" responses given by a
swimmer when they're DQed. Swimmers at that level are very cognizant
of the rules because they "put the envelope" by seeing how much they
can get awayt with. Also, some swimmers think that the rules don't apply
to them and that no official would dare DQ them.
I also believe that her coach (Richard Quick) knows the USS rules
very well. Although I've never met the gentleman, he has been around
swimming for years and he a very impressive record. He didn't get there
by not knowing the rules....
regards,
Paul
gend...@ctron.com
I'd like to respond to a few of Michael's six points.
Point 1) Quance is not a 6 y/o
How did Quance go through her career and not have any problems with this
turn until this crucial moment? Does everyone believe that she had done
this turn perfectly in every single previous race, only to make a slight
error now? I think this incident reflects badly on our entire officiating
system and USS. This problem should have been weeded out long ago.
Point 2) police are expected to enforce rules uniformly
I think this is an excellent point to the contrary of what you intend.
Think of situations where police use their best judgement when choosing
to enforce rules. If you are pulled over for a traffic violation, you
might get a verbal warning, a written warning, or a written citation.
The officer uses his best judgement as far as I am aware. At least that
is my personal experience. I can think of other examples where police
exercise their best judgement as well.
Point 3) Quance's time clearly belonged in the final, but there are no
provisions in the rules to allow her in. And a few tenths of a second
can be crucial.
The point I've been making is that I feel the situation could have been
handled with an over-rule of the official's DQ. USA's best interest
would be served and USS would be untarnished. People could continue to
debate the legality of her turn, but given the video available I feel the
issue is debatable.
And, of course 400 i.m. races can come down to hundreths of a second.
But I wouldn't be arguing Quance's case if she were qualifying for the
finals in 8th by a few hundreths.
Point 4) American football analogy
though I would like to continue to debate the football analogy, it's not
worth it.
It is the extreme result of elimination from contention, during a qualifying
heat of a meet solely intended to select our strongest olympic team, for an
infraction that would have had no bearing on the outcome of the event, of a
swimmer who is clearly one of our top two athletes in the event, and a medal
contender at the olympics, which is difficult to reconcile. Analogies are
rarely perfect.
Points 5,6: no comment
In article <barnes.87-150...@slip1-10.acs.ohio-state.edu>, barn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu says...
>
>This is absurd.
>
>1) Quance is not a 6 yr old being deked at a developmental league meet.
>I have found most officials to be considerate and soemwhat understanding
>of 6 yr old swimmers swimming in their first few meets. Don't place the
>blame for this on the officials.
>
>2) No, we're not expected to follow the rules over a cliff so to speak.
>That is a decision made by each individual person. However, we do expect
>our police to enforce the rule in our community fairly and consistently.
>This is the officials job also.
>
>3) Several people have admitted that this illegal turn might make the
>difference of a few hudnred or even tenths of seconds and therefore should
>not apply as Quance won her heat by 20+ seconds. Unfortunately, this rule
>was not written and put in the rulebook specifically for Quance's heat of
>the 400 IM at the 1996 U.S. Olympic Trials. If you think it is not
>possible for a 400 IM to come down to tenths or hundredths of a second you
>don't go to many swim meets.
>
>4) Let's talk about American Football. Dan Wilkinson flinches on the
>line before the snap. The resulting play is a touchdown but by the
>arguments I have read, it shouldn't be called back because the infraction
>wasn't a very big one and didn't result in an actual advantage. Football
>operates under a set of very well defined rules and if you are observed by
>the officials violating these rules then your team is assessed a penalty
>of some sort. Quance was observed violating a rule and was penalized. It
>was unfortunate that this happened in the football equivalent of a final
>second game winning touchdown play in the superbowl and not in the first
>quarter of a preseason game, but hey, those are the breaks. (Note: If
>you wan't to make a more legitimate argument, try looking at Professional
>basketball).
>
>5) There has been lots of talk about the rule book stating something
>about preventing any swimmer from gaining an unfair advantage. The text
>in question reads as follows "All competitive swimming events held under
>USS sanction shall be conducted in accordance with the following rules
>which are designed to provide fair and equitable conditions of competition
>and promote uniformity in the sport so that no swimmer shall obtain unfair
>advantage over another." (Unite States Swimming Rules and Regulations pg.
>13) Note that this paragraph has no numbers in front of it. This is
>USS's attempt to explain the philosophy behind enforcing the set of rules
>that follows it and not a rule in and of itself. This is denoted by the
>use of the phrase are designed to.
>
>6) On the other hand, the first part of the preceding sentence states a
>rule that all meets sanctioned by USS will be run under the rules. I'm
>pretty sure the US Olympic Trials were probablly a USS sanctioned event
>and therefore USS rules would be in effect by default and it would be the
>responsibility of the coaches and athletes to realize this. If there is
>any question about rules notification, it is whether anyone was informed
>of the few changes that were made to the rules for this meet, or were
>misinformed that there were more changes that actually existed. Also note
>that the rule in question is not one which was modified and therefore is
>not an issue.
>
>I'm sure I could go back and find some more statements to rail against,
>but I think under the circumstances, these are the 6 most common arguments
>that I have seen, and I don't attach much importance to them for the
>reasons stated above.
Michael W. Moore
> I also believe that her coach (Richard Quick) knows the USS rules
> very well.
R Quick is the Womens Swim Coach at Stanford. Quance swims for USC. I
think that Schubert is the coach of USC. (but I could be wrong on who the
USC coach is)
Michael
Spunk1111
Question for all to ponder....
What would've happened had Quance done this turn and had it not been
called?
Would USS officials be called out on the carpet for not making the DQ?
jgs
philip evans
>But the point I am _trying_ to make is that swimming is one of only a few
>sports in which any infraction, no matter how small, causes automatic
>disqualification. I can think of only one other sport that is as draconian --
>racewalking. And it is (justly) not very popular for that very reason. Can you
>name another sport in which a single infraction DQ's you entirely out of
>competition? I thought not.
Not so - false starts are an example; and before you claim that the
"one-start" rule in its various guises negates this, check the rules on relays.
>Running
>events can have DQ's, but only for going into another's lane, which is hard
>to do by accident.
I think it's hard to be an olympic-calibre athlete and screw up on your turns.
Maybe you don't think so for your athletes? By the way, nice of you to
demolish your own point in re sports where a single infraction results in a DQ.
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| David Knapp d...@llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 |
>| http://www-phys.llnl.gov/N_Div/people/davek.html |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| If you're going to be a perfectionist, do it right or don't do it at all. |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Is this REALLY your sig line? Seems a bit of a volte-face from your posts. . .
E. Anne G. Diday
Uh, am I missing something, or do long-jumpers get more than one try?
Should Quance have been allowed to swim again? No one has suggested
such a revision to the rules. Ditto for hammer throw,discus, and high
jump. Ditto for football. Don't see too many super bowls end when
one team is off-sides! I think what we have here is a debilitating
case of group S&M. "I swam the Zambezi River and was dq'd at mile
207, so what's Quance's beef?". Even football players are smart
enough to strictly limit the circumstances in which a player is sent
home. Of course if everyone were absolutely sure the swimming rules
are fair AND clearly written, then we wouldn't be having this
discussion. And for the most part the discussion has been quite
informative for all. sw...@hooked.net (Michael W. Moore) wrote:
> Perhaps there are other sports as technical-detail-minded
>> as swimming, but I can't think of any right off in which you can be entirely
>> disqualified for a small mistake.
>>
>Maybe you should look at Field events. In the long jump, step over the
>line and your jump does not count. What about the hammer throw and discus,
>if you put your foot over the line, see how many points you score. What
>about the high jump- I just barely touched the bar and it came off. I
>could continue about football- my foot was on the line etc.
>> I refuse to swim anything other than freestyle competitively. The purpose
>> of a race is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. The
>> various rules applied to every stroke have the sole purpose of making the
>> stroke slower than it could be. Anyway, I have no desire to swim another
>> stroke in a meet only to be made a fool of for any minor mistake in following
>> the (often arcane) rules.
>>
>I have swum all the stokes, and have been deeked before, the rules are not
>that hard to remember. Just practice them in practice and in the race you
>will do ok. You can also find the USS Technical Rules of Swimming on their
>web site.
>> It astonishes me that the sport of swimming is unable to see how the rules
>> structure discourages people from participating.
>Thats ok, that means I will get a top ten time, because I have taken the
SwmCoachB
Before everybody finishes their attack on the US Swimming rule, ou might
want to look into which rule has been in effect longer and why the other's
have not fallen their lead. Some of you attacking this issue, must be
focused on one section of swimming. I used to deal with high school
swimmers that had to deal with 3 sets of rules. For example when dealing
with backstrokers in Michigan they could have their toes over the egg of
the pool on the start, but they had to get them under if they wanted to
qualify for juniors or Y nationals. And there was a time that the
interpretation of the turn rule was different between USS and Collegiate
which the Y uses. So their was a decision to be made. Did you do the
stand up start which was faster and win the race or did you do a regular
start and try for you cuts. talk about a quandry.
Brian
SwmCoachB
Sure long jumpers get more than one try, so do discuss throwers, hammer
throwers and high jumpers. But how har is it for them to do it over
again. Plus if they do get a rethrow it only effects themselves.
When do you do a reswim and does everybody participate? If they all don't
swim, then it's to the advantage of the lone swimmer, because they get all
that clear water. If they do, what's to say that those that swam well
before can duplicate their performance. That's what the trials are all
about. Performing when it's all on the line. You either do it right then
or you go home and wait for more years.
Brian
SwmCoachB
Okay Dave, just came up with two other sports in which you are dq'ed for a
simple mistake. One of the most popular sports today throws you out of
the contest for failure to add correctly. Yes that's right. If you sign
an incorrect scorecard in golf you are disqualified from the rest of the
tournament. The second sport is track. If you step out of your lane, run
through the exchange zone, or cut in early you are disqualified. No
second chances even if it gives you a slight advantage.
As I have stated before, swimming is a timed event so if you do something
wrong you are disqualified. Would we all be making such a big deal out of
this if Whitney and Alison had times that were closer to Kristin.
Brian
Jill Spetoskey
ea...@nebula.ispace.com (E. Anne G. Diday) wrote:
>Uh, am I missing something, or do long-jumpers get more than one try?
>Should Quance have been allowed to swim again? No one has suggested
As long as you're dragging track into things. I'd parallel the track
events to swimming events. The field events parrallel diving more. In
a lot of ways it's the same. Exchange the relay baton outside your
zone, and it's a dq. No second chances. The same goes for running
outside of your lane in a laned race or going around rather than over a
hurdle.
For the person who said that there was only "perfect form" allowed by
the rules, I'd have to heartily disagree. Swimming is like a sonnet.
There are fairly rigid rules about what must happen when. (ie the
backstroke is swam on the back) However, within these rules, there is
room for trememdous variation and creativity. Watch any high-level
breaststroke race, and you will see eight different swimmers with eight
different strokes.
Just back from working a regional track meet and getting
crispy-crittered,
Jill Marie
jil...@grfn.org
Don Overton
Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too. My daughter had this
quandary at the state meet in the IM. The question was whether to flip
the turn from back to breast. So, she touched the turn in the prelims
and qualified for juniors. Then, she flipped the turn in finals and won
the race (by 2 hundredths of a second as it turned out ... whew!)
Don
David Swarbrick
In article <319CEF...@usa.net> d...@usa.net "David Knapp" writes:
] Let me say this in very small words so that perhaps you will understand.
] I know that in every sport there must be penalties for infractions, no matter
] how small. The same should be true for swimming.
]
] But the point I am _trying_ to make is that swimming is one of only a few
] sports in which any infraction, no matter how small, causes automatic
] disqualification.
False start on the first start?
] A much more reasonable approach in swimming would be time penalties; a bad
] turn would result in, say, a 2 second penalty. That's the way it's done in
] pretty much every other sport in which form counts.
Sorry, I think this would be silly.
] My point is that only in swimming does any deviation from perfect form
] result in automatic disqualification, with no second chances, etc. You make
] a mistake, and you are out. Period.
No, you only have to watch any race to see that swimmers swim all sorts
of different styles; therefore they are 'deviating from perfect form'. The
rules allow that.
All that is requirted for a good rule is that it should be known, be agreed
in its interpretation, and that it be followed fairly.
] | If you're going to be a perfectionist, do it right or don't do it at all. |
I trust this is that quality welcome but seemingly rare in America, irony :-)
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor | Just Mooting UK Law OLS
Swarbrick & Co, Brighouse HD6 1RW | +44 (0)1484 401139 - Free Access
da...@swarb.demon.co.uk | 24hrs all speeds to v.32bis
Off 01484 722531 Fax 01484 716617 | 'Law, Computers, a bit of common'
E. Anne G. Diday
Jill Spetoskey <jil...@umich.edu> wrote:
>ea...@nebula.ispace.com (E. Anne G. Diday) wrote:
>>Uh, am I missing something, or do long-jumpers get more than one try?
>>Should Quance have been allowed to swim again? No one has suggested
>As long as you're dragging track into things. I'd parallel the track
>events to swimming events. The field events parrallel diving more. In
>a lot of ways it's the same. Exchange the relay baton outside your
>zone, and it's a dq. No second chances. The same goes for running
>outside of your lane in a laned race or going around rather than over a
>hurdle.
Except for the track relay, in which missed exchanges are not rare,
dqs in track are rare. However, most age group swim meets will have 8
to 10 deeks. In the track relay, they probably have the best
solution, though a time penalty would be one alternative. Swimming
uses the wrong approach, in my opinion, for the technical aspects of
the swim, i.e. turns and strokes. I think widening the margin for
error is one solution for turns. Track relays have a very substantial
margin within which to make the exchange. Swimmers, such as Quance,
have very little room for error. Give her as much room as you give
for the track relay and you have a much fairer rule. Regardless of
what any other sport does, all sports should strive for inclusiveness
and the opportunity for second chances. In track, I think of the
field events as a sterling example. I do not know Ms. Quance, but
think she is an unfortunate victim of poor rule-making judgment. I
fear the liklihood of change is very slim because so many officials,
coaches, and ex-swimmers (but not new swimmers) are emotionally over
invested in their past dqs.>For the person who said that there was
Michael W. Moore
Swimming
> uses the wrong approach, in my opinion, for the technical aspects of
> the swim, i.e. turns and strokes. I think widening the margin for
> error is one solution for turns.
Hey no problem, get elected from your LSC to the National convention, get
elected to be the US rep to FINA and have them change the rules. (I have
heard that FINA only changes the rules every 4 years)
Track relays have a very substantial
> margin within which to make the exchange. Swimmers, such as Quance,
> have very little room for error. Give her as much room as you give
> for the track relay and you have a much fairer rule.
Maybe you would like to write the rule? There is a lot of room for error
on the turn. Most swimmers do it correctly at every meet, few are deeqed.
Those that are should look upon it at being a learning experience. Which
is why there are more 8 and under deeqed than Senior Level swimmers.
I do not know Ms. Quance, but
> think she is an unfortunate victim of poor rule-making judgment.
And poor judgement in making her turn.
gend...@ctron.com
In article <4ngaqq$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, swmc...@aol.com says...
>
>I have to agree with Josh, let those who earn a spot on the team swim. If
>yu don't earn a spot, you don't swim. The comparison to Emmit Smith being
>kicked off of the Cowboys for a minor moving infraction isn't valid,
>unless it was in a selection process to pick who plays for the cowboys.
>Thats' what happened to kristin, she made a mistake during the selection
>process so she doesn't get to swim.
Of course all of this discussion is just an exchange of opinion. I don't
think they are going to reconsider anything based on a heated discussion
on r.s.s. But that's a large percentage of what goes on here anyway.
Back to the Emit Smith analogy. It only gets more ironic if we consider
your suggestion. Now we are throwing Emit Smith off the cowboys for
an illegal motion infraction during training camp, or a preseason game
(when the Cowboys squad is actively being selected).
Ed
RunnSwim
In article <4nf6c7$q...@reznor.larc.nasa.gov>, cock...@hyp24.larc.nasa.gov
(Charlie Cockrell) writes:
>Maybe some people in this forum don't know
>the rules (although many are obviously very knowledgeable) but I would
find
>it very
>hard to believe that a swimmer at Quance's level and her coach, who has
been
>coaching
>world-class swimmers for years, would not know the rules.
Quance stated for the record that she did not know this rule; nor, do I
believe, to a whole lot of other athletes and coaches. According to the
international rules which will be in effect at the Olympics, the back to
breast transition requires only that the swimmer assume the "breaststroke
position" before taking the first pull. The "arcane" USS rules
additionally require the swimmer to be rotated toward the stomach past the
vertical when the swimmer pushes off from the wall.
It is beyond belief that Quance, who has trained so hard for so long,
would be disqualified in her best event, in which she is 8 seconds faster
than the swimmer who is taking her place, for making a perfectly legal
Olympic turn, which gave her absolutely no performance advantage, in a
meet in which both Olympic and USS rules were in effect.
It reminds me of a lawyer saying "Gotcha."
Basically, a million miles of dedicated training are going for naught
because of a "Gotcha" clause.
Larry Weisenthal
RunnSwim
In article <4nedpa$o...@news3.realtime.net>, dhb...@bga.com (Dave Brown)
writes:
>As far as I know, the Quance turn was just as illegal by
>>FINA rules.
>>
>>Birdman
>
>You took the words right out of my mouth! My question exactly: since
when
>does FINA allow
>leaving the wall toward the back in back-to-breast transition?! I
presume
>this is illegal
>by FINA rules;
O.K., my understanding of this (which comes from Adam Bridge) is that FINA
rules state ONLY that the back to breast transition requires only that the
swimmer assume the breaststroke position prior to the first arm pull. The
USS rules have the additional requirement that the swimmer be rotated past
the vertical before the push-off from the wall is made. Thus, Quance made
a legal FINA (and Olympic) turn.
How many atheletes and coaches could have accurately stated these rules?
Quance is no dummy. Her DQ was a "gotcha", plain and simple. O.K. She
broke the rules. Gotcha. You're out of here.
The dual set of rules in effect was a joke. The use of non-Olympic rules
to select an Olympic team which will swim in the Olympics under Olympic
rules is a joke. DQing Quance for the most minor of arcane rules
violations (rather than giving her a warning and allowing her to swim
finals) is a personal tragedy.
My Solomonic solution to the Wendy Metzler problem is as follows.
Quance qualified in the 200 IM. Metzler qualified in the 400 IM. Quance
is a good 8-10 seconds faster than Metzler in the 400. Quance has a
legitimate shot at a medal in the 400 and a much lesser chance in the 200.
Metzler has little chance in either.
What would be so wrong with just having Quance and Metzler trade events?
Larry Weisenthal
Jill Spetoskey
ea...@nebula.ispace.com (E. Anne G. Diday) wrote:
>Except for the track relay, in which missed exchanges are not rare,
>dqs in track are rare. However, most age group swim meets will have 8
>to 10 deeks.
8-10? That seems like an awful lot of DQs. Still, I'd rather see someone
get deeked in an age group meet at 8, and learn something from it than
not learn and get deeked for the correctable problem in a high stakes
meet.
> I think widening the margin for
>error is one solution for turns.
I've got no problem with changing the rules. However, as long as the
rule is in the books, it is the responsibility of swimmer and coach to
know it.
>Track relays have a very substantial
>margin within which to make the exchange.Swimmers, such as Quance,
>have very little room for error. Give her as much room as you give
>for the track relay and you have a much fairer rule.
15 meters? (just kidding) on the other hand, there are elements of track
that have even lower margins of error than swimming. I've seen 800
meter races where the pack (20 some girls) basically finishes on top of
each other. If someone moves two inches too far in, the entire pack
goes down.
>Regardless of
>what any other sport does, all sports should strive for inclusiveness
>and the opportunity for second chances.
Onlt to the extent that it doesn't allow anyone to gain an unfair
advAntage over anyone else. Allowing a false start can be very useful
to some swimmers. It is also a rule that is possible to abuse.
Jill Marie
(who got her first dq in state meet her senior year in high school, and
would have had a shot at placing. No, I didjn't like it, but I
understand why it was necessary)
jil...@grfn.org
John Heenan
I have been reading through this thread. The trials served two purposes
1. A US National Championships
2. Olympic selection
The rules of each need not necessarily coincide. By US National
Championships rules Quance cannot be credited with a legal time or
place. However the principle of the selection rules is to select the two
best swimmers as swum at the US National Championships. Quance's lawyers
could put a legitimate argument that even though Quance was disqualified
(whether correctly or not) she still proved herself to undoubtably be the
best swimmer and so by the selection principle she desrves to go to
Atlanta. On a technical note I am sure the selection rules nowhwhere state
the proven best swimmers at the championships must not have been
disqulaified. If they do then the rules can be legally challenged as
inconsisent with selection aims.
As for lawyers in sport, the more the merrier!
John
Charlie Cockrell (cock...@hyp24.larc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <abridge-1005...@dcn128.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:
:
: This is the issue that bo one seems to be discussing. Someone must put a stop
: to all of this litigation or sports governing bodies are going to end up completely powerless
: to make any rules, officiate competitions or discipline members for fear of
: being sued. I really hope USS slams the door on this quickly. (Something tells
: me they won't though.)
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Heenan, Sydney Australia jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au |
| John's WWW pages have the controversial SWIM FAQ (and speech!) |
| http://sydney.dialix.oz.au/~sad |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Charlie Cockrell
|>
|> Quance stated for the record that she did not know this rule; nor, do I
|> believe, to a whole lot of other athletes and coaches. According to the
|> international rules which will be in effect at the Olympics, the back to
|> breast transition requires only that the swimmer assume the "breaststroke
|> position" before taking the first pull. The "arcane" USS rules
|> additionally require the swimmer to be rotated toward the stomach past the
|> vertical when the swimmer pushes off from the wall.
And it's been this way for as long as I can remember. It's not new. It's not a secret.
It's not obscure. It's not rare to see swimmers DQed for it.
|> It is beyond belief that Quance, who has trained so hard for so long,
It is beyond belief that Quance would not know the rules! Do you people honestly
believe that a athlete who has probably been participating in this sport since
she was a young child would not know what constitutes a legal turn in her
best event? Please. If you buy this one, I have some swamp land in Florida to
sell to you.
|> It reminds me of a lawyer saying "Gotcha."
This statements indicates that you have a very poor understanding of swimming
rules or how swim meets are officiated. Swim meet officials bend over backwards
to give the athletes the benefit of the doubt. They are not out there to see how many
swimmers they can "get".
|> Basically, a million miles of dedicated training are going for naught
|> because of a "Gotcha" clause.
|>
No, it was negated because Quance and her coaches wern't careful and she failed
to swim the event legally. She has no one else to blame but herself.
Adam Bridge
In article <319B97...@usa.net>, David Knapp <d...@usa.net> wrote:
The result of an infraction in swimming IS hard: complete elimination of
your time from an event. It is one of the most severe penalties in sport.
But swimming is run against a clock and a clock alone. The stroke rules
which define proper form are there as a minimum set of guidelines to
define what a backstroke, a breaststroke, butterfly and freestyle are.
Officials are trained "benefit of doubt to the swimmer." or "call what
you see but see what you call." If you DQ someone, take away that
person's time, then you had better be darn sure of what you saw. And it
applies from 8-under to Olympic athlete: essentially the same rules.
It is this way because how do you otherwise deal with a stroke
infraction? I can't think of another way. Time penalties don't make
sense to me. If a person swims within the form rules for a stroke (there
are less than 40 for all strokes, only a few pages in the rule book) then
the official is obliged to disqualify that swimmer from competition in
that swim. The time is thrown out as if the race never took place.
What works for other sports is irrelevant: they have different issues than
swimming. Basketball has much more to do with water polo than swimming.
Football even less.
Adam Bridge
Adam Bridge
In article <4nord1$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, runn...@aol.com (RunnSwim)
wrote:
> In article <4nedpa$o...@news3.realtime.net>, dhb...@bga.com (Dave Brown)
> writes:
>
> >As far as I know, the Quance turn was just as illegal by
> >>FINA rules.
> >>
> >>Birdman
> >
> >You took the words right out of my mouth! My question exactly: since
> when
> >does FINA allow
> >leaving the wall toward the back in back-to-breast transition?! I
> presume
> >this is illegal
> >by FINA rules;
>
>
> O.K., my understanding of this (which comes from Adam Bridge) is that FINA
> rules state ONLY that the back to breast transition requires only that the
> swimmer assume the breaststroke position prior to the first arm pull. The
> USS rules have the additional requirement that the swimmer be rotated past
> the vertical before the push-off from the wall is made. Thus, Quance made
> a legal FINA (and Olympic) turn.
>
I need to correct this NOW because while the information I gave to Larry
and others here was correct it was only partially correct.
At the USS Officials' Clinic in Colorado Springs we discussed the way FINA
and USS rules are written and interpreted. FINA rules are "minimal",
Carol Zaleski (chairperson of the FINA technical rules committee and USS
President) noted. They need to be translated into a zillion languages.
Standing "beside" FINA rules is a body of interpretation.
BY THE RULE AS WRITTEN Quance's turn was okay. BY THE RULE AS CALLED
Quance's turn was a DQ --- in FINA.
Quance's turn was in violation of the USS rule that explicitly requires
the swimmer to be past vertical toward the breast before the swimmer
leaves the wall.
> How many atheletes and coaches could have accurately stated these rules?
> Quance is no dummy. Her DQ was a "gotcha", plain and simple. O.K. She
> broke the rules. Gotcha. You're out of here.
>
I'll bet that most athletes know they are required to be on the breast
leaving the wall. If it's something they don't "know" intellectually it's
something they "know" by physical memory.
> The dual set of rules in effect was a joke. The use of non-Olympic rules
> to select an Olympic team which will swim in the Olympics under Olympic
> rules is a joke. DQing Quance for the most minor of arcane rules
> violations (rather than giving her a warning and allowing her to swim
> finals) is a personal tragedy.
>
It was very clear to all concerned that USS technical rules were in effect
in the OT tank. There are coaches meetings where the Referee goes over
the ground rules with the coaches. There is the promologated meet sheet.
> My Solomonic solution to the Wendy Metzler problem is as follows.
>
> Quance qualified in the 200 IM. Metzler qualified in the 400 IM. Quance
> is a good 8-10 seconds faster than Metzler in the 400. Quance has a
> legitimate shot at a medal in the 400 and a much lesser chance in the 200.
> Metzler has little chance in either.
>
> What would be so wrong with just having Quance and Metzler trade events?
>
>
I'm probably going to get this part wrong but I think I'll get the essence
correct.
The US Olympic Committee tasks United States Swimming with the process of
putting forward a list of the appropriate swimmers for each event. USS
chose a trials process for selecting swimmers.
After trials the two selected swimmers for each event are given to the
USOC who then builds the team. THAT process is relatively complex. The
#1 swimmer for each event automatically is choosen for that event...etc.
Under FINA rules each nation can only have two swimmers per event. Wendy
Metzler was not on the list of swimmers eligible to be selected for the
200 IM since she wasn't one of the two fastest. And Quance, because she
didn't even make it to finals, wasn't on the list for the 400 IM. Hence
she won't swim.
Also: please not that officials are trained NOT TO DEAL WITH OUTCOME. We
don't care who wins. We only care that someone won fairly.
Quance, at about the 15 meter mark going into the wall on the last leg of
the back stroke, explicitly turned and stuck out her tongue at her coach.
This was widely observed. She was cruising. She screwed up her turn.
She was DQ'd.
Adam Bridge
Paul Burkhardt
Michael,
I stand corrected. You're right that Schubert was the coach. Both
inviduals have been very involved in competitive swimming for years and
therefore know the rules very well. As I recall, the comment the coach
made after to the press after the DQ was that he hoped they were very
sure of the infaction (and not that he wasn't aware of the rule).
Paul
Charlie Cockrell
Kristine Quance is not the first swimmer in history to claim ignorance of the rules
after being DQed and I don't doubt that she may not be able to quote the exact
language in the rule book. But, there is no way that you will ever convince me that
a world class swimmer who has probably been involved with swimming since she
was a young child does not know how to execute a legal turn in her best event.
It simply doesn't add up.
This rule is not new. It's not a secret. It's not used to "get" swimmers. It's not in
fine print in the rule book. It's there just like any other rule and it's not rare
to see it enforced.
Quance (not the official) negated years of hard work by failing to comform to the
rules. The fault is hers and hers alone.
Martin William Smith
(SwmCoachB) writes:
> [...]
> Let me ask this. If Kristin Quance had broken the World Record during
> that swim and the official still had the guts do disqualify her, are you
> trying to tell me that since the infraction was so minor she should still
> get to keep her record.
Why don't they just add the time she gained by breaking the rule?
martin
--
Martin Smith Email: m...@metis.no
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 46900
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 42297
JAWZ
CHECK OUT MY HOMEPAGE AT:
www.nucleus.com/~vanstade/simpson.htm
WHY WERE USS RULES IN EFFECT AT YOUR TRIALS????? FINA WAS IN EFFECT AT
CANADIAN TRIALS. (ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WAS A FALSE START IN MY 100 FLY
CONSOL)
Robert Eloranta
wait a second. It isn't like kgymnastics where you get scored your time is
you score, it wouldn't be right to add time for infractions. If you know how
to swim the strokes you rarley get disqualified. I have been swimming
competitvly for almost 5 years and have only been disqualified about 4 times
these were all when I was young and still learning. There is nothing wrong
with this procedure it has worked well throut my carrer in swimming. It forces
you to learn the strokes.
Jessie
Robert Eloranta
ok so this post was a little late but there seems to be others about this
subject. Why do you have a problem with this? it is a skill to be mastered,
one of the reasons I love swimming because it gives me many chances to set
goals and often times I am able to reach them a sense of self satisfaction. To
do the stroke correctly is part of it. In practice when we are doing stroke
work and I am told that mine is great that gives my whole day a brighter
outlook. Just my opinion
(sorry for the spelling)
Jessie
Edward M. Powers
In <4o34o4$n...@omnifest.uwm.edu> elor...@omnifest.uwm.edu (Robert
Maybe you should get deked for spelling. :-)
jop...@m5.enet.dec.com
In article <319AE0...@usa.net>, David Knapp <d...@usa.net> writes:
|>
|> I refuse to swim anything other than freestyle competitively. The purpose
|>of a race is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible.
Not necessarily. Consider a three-legged race. Racewalking.
Visit a horse racetrack and watch the pacers (is that what
they are called? The ones where the jockeys sit in carts
instead of on the horses' backs.) Even the Indianapolis 500
placed horsepower limitations on the engines. If getting from
the start to the finish is paramount, then why does a hurdler
bother to jump over all those silly walls instead of simply running
past them?
Sure, if you are solely looking to get from point A to point B
as fast as you can (and assuming you are doing it in the water
under your own unaugmented power and not via speedboat) then do
freestyle. And if you are suddenly dumped overboard at sea and
you see a shark fin approaching you, I strongly recommend that
you do freestyle to get to safety. :^)
But there is a special beauty in someone being able to do a
sleek fly. It is certainly an accomplishment for someone to
medal in a non-freestyle event. Many people find it important
to excel at various disciplines. (I wish I could!) Don't knock
them for it...
|>Anyway, I have no desire to swim another
|>stroke in a meet only to be made a fool of for any minor mistake in following
|>the (often arcane) rules.
One tends to wonder if past failure could ferment such sour grapes.
--
Joe Oppelt
*************
The opinion of my employer should not be inferred from my posting.
Michael W. Moore
In article runn...@aol.com (RunnSwim) wrote:
> My understanding (as explained to us by Adam Bridge) is that USS Rules
> were in effect while the swimmers were in the water, while FINA rules were
> in effect when the swimmers were on the deck. Thus, Ron Karnaugh "jumped"
> at the start of the 200 IM, which would have been a DQ under USS rules,
> but not under FINA rules (where the first false start is charged to the
> field).
You should review section 102.14.4. G. The USS rule specifically says
"This rule (disqualification of swimmer charged with false start) shall
not apply to . . . to the Trials for . . . Olympic Teams."
>
> [The] summarized argument is as follows:
>
> Every rule that exists in law is by definition, open for interpretation,
> swimming rules being no exception. True, a foul was committed
> in this case, as was decided by the official. Though the enforcement
> of such must not necessarily result in disqualification! Its enforcement
> and penalties are hence, relative and subject to the judgement of
> authority - in this case, the meet referee.
>
All infractions result in disqualifacations. The referee has to decided in
his mind that the infraction occured, and that all the tests that apply to
being certain that an infraction happened.
> Examples of said subjective and relative enforcement are found in
> specific "D.Q. rules and enforcement of such..." articles of 102.10.(*):
>
> (.3) ...may be considered for...
> (.6) ...subject to discretion of referee...
> (.8) ...unless referee finds that such action is interfering...
> (.9) ...the referee "MAY" at his/her discretion, d.q. the swimmer...
> (.10) ...if not considered "EXCESSIVE" by the referee...
>
.3 Applys to unsportsmanlike conduct.
.6 Applys to obstructing another swimmer
.8 Applys to dipping goggles in the water
.9 applys to to a fouled swimmer
10 applys to rubdown oil
none of these apply to the actual swimming of the race (non fouled)
> In contrast, other specific articles do declare a mandated d.q. penalty.
> Examples are found in above "D.Q. rules..." and other articles (e.g.
> relay d.q. articles: 101.6.3(D,F)
These are relay rules
and other USS technical rules
> providing "Fair and equitable conditions...so that no swimmer shall
> obtain unfair advantage over another...).
>
The Stoke judge and the Turn Judge are *mandated* in sections 102.16.3
(Stroke Judge) and 102.16.4 (Turn Judge) to report infractions and
violations of the rules.
> The article in question (101.5.3B(2), regarding Kristine Quance, is
> precisely in this catagory of purpose - not performance related, but
> conformity related.
She did not do the stroke as the rules say the strokes are to be done.
> Since penalties are proven by above examples to include relative
> degrees of severity and since Kristine's infraction was of minor fault
> of a "Non-performance related article," then a foul was administered
> in preventing the success of a swimmer, by unjustifiably
> disqualifying said athlete.
I disagree, but go to convention convince the Members of the House of
Delegates and have the rules changed.
> In conclusion, because swimmers success was prevented by foul of
> another (official), then Disqualification article 102.10.9 should be
> enacted
She was not fouled by an official, She was able to swim her own race. She
did. She committed an infraction, and she was disqualified.
Michael Moore
RunnSwim
In article <319E9C...@ix.netcom.com>, Don Overton
<dove...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>The question was whether to flip
>the turn from back to breast. So, she touched the turn in the prelims
>and qualified for juniors. Then, she flipped the turn in finals and won
>the race (by 2 hundredths of a second as it turned out ... whew!)
The back to breast flip is, to my knowledge, also legal under USS rules.
In point of fact, Quance flipped back to breast in the 200 IM at the
Olympic Trials and, as you know, qualified for the Olympic team, finishing
second to Allison Wagner.
Had she flipped back to breast in the 400 IM, it would have been a legal
turn and she would not have been DQd.
Larry Weisenthal
Charlie Cockrell
Actually, this *is* illegal. The swimmer must touch the wall while on his/her back at
the back to breast turn. Many elite swimmers do this so quickly or they do a "crossover"
type turn that makes it appear as if they are flipping.
Don Overton
In <4ohfkd$8...@reznor.larc.nasa.gov> cock...@hyp24.larc.nasa.gov (Charlie
in USS swimming, but legal in high school meets. I don't have my rule
book here, so I can't quote it. However, my memory is that the rule
states that the touch must be made as though it were a finish for that
stroke. That is, the back stroke touch must be made on the back.
Don
Adam Bridge
> In article <319E9C...@ix.netcom.com>, Don Overton
> <dove...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >The question was whether to flip
> >the turn from back to breast. So, she touched the turn in the prelims
> >and qualified for juniors. Then, she flipped the turn in finals and won
> >the race (by 2 hundredths of a second as it turned out ... whew!)
>
> The back to breast flip is, to my knowledge, also legal under USS rules.
>
> In point of fact, Quance flipped back to breast in the 200 IM at the
> Olympic Trials and, as you know, qualified for the Olympic team, finishing
> second to Allison Wagner.
>
> Had she flipped back to breast in the 400 IM, it would have been a legal
> turn and she would not have been DQd.
>
>
The rule says that you must have a legal finish concluding each leg of an
IM. It is possible to do a flip turn from back to breast although it
isn't the flip turn we normally associate with the backstroke since the
swimmer must be on his or her back up to the moment of the touch. The
turn is compressed, looks a little funny, but seems to work.
ab
Timothy W. Kipp
In <4ohj9f$a...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> dove...@ix.netcom.com(Don
Overton ) writes:
>
>In <4ohfkd$8...@reznor.larc.nasa.gov> cock...@hyp24.larc.nasa.gov
(Charlie
>Cockrell) writes:
>>
>>|> In article <319E9C...@ix.netcom.com>, Don Overton
>>|> <dove...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>|>
>>|> >The question was whether to flip
>>|> >the turn from back to breast. So, she touched the turn in the
>prelims
>>|> >and qualified for juniors. Then, she flipped the turn in finals
>and won
>>|> >the race (by 2 hundredths of a second as it turned out ... whew!)
>>|>
>>|> The back to breast flip is, to my knowledge, also legal under USS
>rules.
>>|>
>>|> In point of fact, Quance flipped back to breast in the 200 IM at
>the
>>|> Olympic Trials and, as you know, qualified for the Olympic team,
>finishing
>>|> second to Allison Wagner.
>>|>
>>|> Had she flipped back to breast in the 400 IM, it would have been a
>legal
>>|> turn and she would not have been DQd.
>>
>his/her back at
>>the back to breast turn. Many elite swimmers do this so quickly or
>they do a "crossover"
>>type turn that makes it appear as if they are flipping.
>>
>I agree. I am pretty sure flipping the back to breast turn is illegal
>in USS swimming, but legal in high school meets. I don't have my rule
>book here, so I can't quote it. However, my memory is that the rule
>states that the touch must be made as though it were a finish for that
>stroke. That is, the back stroke touch must be made on the back.
>
>Don
in USS but legal in high school (not sure about NCAAs) - also illegal
in USMS. However, I think what Larry is referring to (which is what I
believe Kristime Quance did at the OTs in the 200IM) is the
"old-fashioned" back flip in which you touch the wall with you hand,
flip directly (more or less) backward, and push off on your breast. We
did this when I was an age-group swimmer (way back in the '70s) but
then found that the oxygen debt might not be worth the speed gained
from the turn, so I think it fell from favor. If you're really really
fit though (like Quance), I think it could help in the 200 IM. Using
it in the 400 IM is more questionable because of the need to stay at
least somewhat aerobic at that point in the race...
With regard to the crossover back-to-breast turn being legal in high
school meets - I don't like it!! Well-trained USS swimmers seem to
forget to use it, and it is a huge advantage to the ones who remember.
We've been talking rules and fairness a lot lately in this group so I
thought I'd throw in my vote to eliminate this one.....
Regards,
Tim Kipp
Paul Burkhardt
RunnSwim wrote:
>
>
> The back to breast flip is, to my knowledge, also legal under USS rules.
>
> In point of fact, Quance flipped back to breast in the 200 IM at the
> Olympic Trials and, as you know, qualified for the Olympic team, finishing
> second to Allison Wagner.
>
> Had she flipped back to breast in the 400 IM, it would have been a legal
> turn and she would not have been DQd.
>
I don't understand what's the big issue here? The very first DQ I
witnessed as a Stroke & Turn Apprentice was a swimmer coming off the wall
on their stomach when they should have been towards the back. The
Official made the call, informed the swimmer, and he (the 8 year old
swimmer) went back to the block to swim their next event. I have
subsequently also seen it called at other meets.
Quance isn't contesting the call (nor is her coach).
Paul
Don Overton
In <4okchn$c...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> tks...@ix.netcom.com(Timothy
W. Kipp ) writes:
>
>In <4ohj9f$a...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> dove...@ix.netcom.com(Don
>Overton ) writes:
>>
>>In <4ohfkd$8...@reznor.larc.nasa.gov> cock...@hyp24.larc.nasa.gov
>(Charlie
>>Cockrell) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <4ogfg4$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, runn...@aol.com
>(RunnSwim)
>>writes:
>>>|> In article <319E9C...@ix.netcom.com>, Don Overton
>>>|> <dove...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>|>
>>>|> >The question was whether to flip
>>>|> >the turn from back to breast. So, she touched the turn in the
>>prelims
>>>|> >and qualified for juniors. Then, she flipped the turn in finals
>>and won
>>>|> >the race (by 2 hundredths of a second as it turned out ...
whew!)
>>>|>
>>rules.
>>>|>
>>>|> In point of fact, Quance flipped back to breast in the 200 IM at
>>the
>>>|> Olympic Trials and, as you know, qualified for the Olympic team,
>>finishing
>>>|> second to Allison Wagner.
>>>|>
>>>|> Had she flipped back to breast in the 400 IM, it would have been
a
>>legal
>>>|> turn and she would not have been DQd.
>>>
And here is a strong vote with Tim. I don't like the flip in HS
swimming either. Just to get the flame going, and fill up my mailbox
<grin>, I'll venture that HS swimming should take the USS rulebook and
run with it. In fact, USS should take the FINA rulebook and run with
it. What the h... do we need with all these sets of rules? It just
screws things up, like the Quance controversy. If we had one set of
rules, swimmers could swim instead of memorizing all the political
posturing. Look what politics did to the Indy 500 the other day.
Nothing screws up a good thing like little boys and girls having an old
fashioned hissy fit about who is in charge and who is important here.
Don
Unknown
>==========Adam Bridge, 5/28/96==========
>
>In article <4ogfg4$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, runn...@aol.com
>(RunnSwim)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <319E9C...@ix.netcom.com>, Don Overton
>> <dove...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>> >The question was whether to flip
>> >the turn from back to breast. So, she touched the turn in
>the prelims
>> >and qualified for juniors. Then, she flipped the turn in
>finals and won
>> >the race (by 2 hundredths of a second as it turned out ... whew!)
>>
>> The back to breast flip is, to my knowledge, also legal under
>USS rules.
>>
>> In point of fact, Quance flipped back to breast in the 200 IM at the
>> Olympic Trials and, as you know, qualified for the Olympic
>team, finishing
>> second to Allison Wagner.
>>
>> Had she flipped back to breast in the 400 IM, it would have
>been a legal
>> turn and she would not have been DQd.
>>
>>
>
>
>The rule says that you must have a legal finish concluding each
leg of an
>IM. It is possible to do a flip turn from back to breast although it
>isn't the flip turn we normally associate with the backstroke since the
>swimmer must be on his or her back up to the moment of the touch. The
>turn is compressed, looks a little funny, but seems to work.
A-Ha! ... the legal touch before the flip ... I thought that
must be what they meant whey they mentioned doing a flip turn on
the back-to-breast turn. Of course, a normal backstroke type
flip turn is permitted under High School rules ... but, we don't
want to confuse the situation :-).
All these different rules ??? I don't get it, why do we have
all of these different rules? I vote for one set of rules for
everyone ... swimming is swimming.
Doug Gilliam
>
>ab
Adam Bridge
In article <4ohj9f$a...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, dove...@ix.netcom.com(Don
Overton ) wrote:
>
> I agree. I am pretty sure flipping the back to breast turn is illegal
> in USS swimming, but legal in high school meets. I don't have my rule
> book here, so I can't quote it. However, my memory is that the rule
> states that the touch must be made as though it were a finish for that
> stroke. That is, the back stroke touch must be made on the back.
>
> Don
You can't do the mid-race backstroke flip turn at the end of the
backstroke leg of an IM. BUT...once you touch the wall you may turn in
any manner desired and so people do a backwards flip turn, legs come up,
over their head and they push off the wall on their tummy. That's legal
since they touched the wall on their back. It looks odd though and I
don't see many folks doing it. You need great core body strength to
pull it off!
ab
Michael W. Moore
> All these different rules ??? I don't get it, why do we have
> all of these different rules? I vote for one set of rules for
> everyone ... swimming is swimming.
Now how are YOU going to get all the different organizations to have one
set of rules. There are:
FINA
USS
USMS
NCAA
High School
YMCA
And each has its own little nuances (well I am sure about FINA, USS, USMS,
and High School).
Not Flameing, I think that there should be one set of rules, but I will
live with the 3 sets I officiate under. I just dont have the time to get
everyone to agree on one set.
michael
Jill Spetoskey
sw...@hooked.net (Michael W. Moore) wrote:
>And each has its own little nuances (well I am sure about FINA, USS, USMS,
>and High School).
>
>Not Flameing, I think that there should be one set of rules, but I will
>live with the 3 sets I officiate under. I just dont have the time to get
>everyone to agree on one set.
For one, I'd definitely like to see the nuances agreed upon. Standardize start rules, stroke definitions, and whatnot. However, I'=
d like to see the National Federation (high school) folks continue to allow for experimentation on a state by state basis. (I know t=
hat Michigan, for one, wants to use USS start rules for next season)
Jill Marie
jil...@grfn.org