Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Adam Brid » Sat, 09 Mar 1996 04:00:00




Quote:
> Dumb DQ. Turning back to back on the back is slower than turning back to
> ***. At least according to Maglischo.

> Larry Weisenthal

I think you're refering to the fact that Quance did it and not that the
rule is dumb (which it might be.)

I found the remarks made about it to range from silly to stupid.  It's
clear that she came off the wall improperly (according to USA Today) and
an official caught it and called it.  Swimmers do odd things when they
want to go really fast and she may have not been focused on that
transition.  It happens all the time.  If she had the problem on a routine
basis, however, and wasn't called, then it's a problem for USS officials
who need to call what they see to prevent EXACTLY this situation.  

I wonder how many coaches look at the details of their swimmers' efforts.
Do they stand where an official would and watch the turns?  I'll bet not.
And even if they did they don't see them the same way an official does who
watches hundreds to thousands of DIFFERENT transitions every year.

Adam Bridge

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Stac » Sat, 09 Mar 1996 04:00:00

The Quance DQ begs the question , does the US train correctly for the
olympics, should the US forget about SC Yards and focus on meters (lc and
sc.  Ms Quance just came out of the Pac 10 season where the 400 IMs have
more turns, all it takes is a loss of focus for one turn and its over at
trials.  The US swimmers should prepare on the course they're racing on.
Let's build more 50m pools, and be ready for the Olympics and World
Championships.

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Wolf » Mon, 11 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
>I found the remarks made about it to range from silly to stupid.  It's
>clear that she came off the wall improperly (according to USA Today) and
>an official caught it and called it.  Swimmers do odd things when they
>want to go really fast and she may have not been focused on that
>transition.  It happens all the time.  If she had the problem on a
routine
>basis, however, and wasn't called, then it's a problem for USS officials
>who need to call what they see to prevent EXACTLY this situation.  

I agree with you that the comments about the DQ were sorta stupid.  I read
the Washington Post's new story and I almost called the paper because they
made it sound like Quance got DQed with an archaic rule that is never
called.  I watched the replay of the turn on NBC yesterday and it was
pretty obvious that she did come off the wall on her back.

The problem with this rule in most of the USS meets is that to call it
properly, an official must be directly above the lane to see the
shoulders.  In almost all but the national level meets, there are only two
or three turn judges and thus cannot be above every lane.  I would guess
that swimmers do tend to get away with turns such as this (and be warned
by officials that they need to be careful (as Quance's coach wanted in
this situation)) simply for the reason that officials are rarely in the
position to make this call.  However, at nationals where there is a turn
official for every lane, making the call becomes much easier when the turn
is done incorrectly.  

James

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by RGBE » Tue, 12 Mar 1996 04:00:00

A lot of negative things have been said about the official here.
I didn't see the event, so I can't comment on the call.  He/She
did their job and called what they understand the rules to be.
The swimmer disqualifies themselves, not the official.  It seems
to me like a case of killing the messenger.

Now, that being said, there really should be some other selection
process for picking the elite besides a last chance all-or-nothing
approach as done now.  Picking the top times over the last 3 months
would be a more equitable way of determining who goes.  And it
also would insure that a lapse of sanity by a swimmer would be
dealt with while not holding it against them in a future meet.

Bob Becker
Monsanto-Searle

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Jeff Pa » Wed, 13 Mar 1996 04:00:00




Quote:
>A lot of negative things have been said about the official here.
>I didn't see the event, so I can't comment on the call.  He/She
>did their job and called what they understand the rules to be.
>The swimmer disqualifies themselves, not the official.  It seems
>to me like a case of killing the messenger.

True.  I said some immature things about it (speculation as to whether it was
an official from my area notorious for erring on the side of
disqualification)... after seeing the turn on the NBC broadcast, and seeing
that (1) it wasn't a very ambiguous call and (2) even so, they reviewed it
repeatedly, the official was completely right.  The point still remains,
however hypothetically, about how lenient to be in prelims... if it's a close
judgment call (and they're ALL judgment calls; no official is omniscient), my
preference would be to let it slide in the spirit of creating the best
possible field in finals.  (I'm not thinking of Quance's turn in this case,
but of a start at CIF prelims where they weren't completely sure whether a
swimmer jumped or not; and at that level they don't have any "instant replay"
to review.)

Jeff Pack (http://SportToday.org/)
MY community considers unsolicited adverti***ts almost as indecent
as repressive legislation... if you don't like it, *plonk* it.

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Charlie Cockre » Wed, 13 Mar 1996 04:00:00

|> but of a start at CIF prelims where they weren't completely sure whether a
|> swimmer jumped or not; and at that level they don't have any "instant replay"
|> to review.)

There is no instant replay to review at *any* level. There is no provision in the rules
for using instant replay in swimming. I think NBC was just showing it's ignorance by
indicating that officials reviewed the tapes. (At least I hope that's the case). See
Carol Zaleski's comments on the Daily Quotes from last night on this subject.  There
is no way you can put enough cameras on the deck to cover every angle you need.  So,
the only thing you can rely on is human judgement and nothing else.

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Adam Brid » Wed, 13 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> The point still remains,
> however hypothetically, about how lenient to be in prelims... if it's a close
> judgment call (and they're ALL judgment calls; no official is omniscient), my
> preference would be to let it slide in the spirit of creating the best
> possible field in finals.  (I'm not thinking of Quance's turn in this case,
> but of a start at CIF prelims where they weren't completely sure whether a
> swimmer jumped or not; and at that level they don't have any "instant replay"
> to review.)

Oh, I see, now it's okay to cheat in preliminaries but you have to swim
legally in finals.  THAT'S really fair to the swimmers who swim legally
and make finals.  How about to the ones who DON'T make finals because a
swimmer was allowed to break some "minor" rule like maybe the two-hand
touch on ***stroke or butterfly.  Or a dropped shoulder.

Either there are rules or there aren't Jeff.  I guess you don't want
rules, or won't face the fact that if there are people will face the
consequences.

Adam Bridge

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Jeff Pa » Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:00:00

I _really_ don't want to start a flame-war here.


Quote:


>> The point still remains,
>> however hypothetically, about how lenient to be in prelims... if it's a close
>> judgment call (and they're ALL judgment calls; no official is omniscient), my
>> preference would be to let it slide in the spirit of creating the best
>> possible field in finals.  (I'm not thinking of Quance's turn in this case,
>> but of a start at CIF prelims where they weren't completely sure whether a
>> swimmer jumped or not; and at that level they don't have any "instant replay"
>> to review.)

>Oh, I see, now it's okay to cheat in preliminaries but you have to swim
>legally in finals.  THAT'S really fair to the swimmers who swim legally
>and make finals.  How about to the ones who DON'T make finals because a
>swimmer was allowed to break some "minor" rule like maybe the two-hand
>touch on ***stroke or butterfly.  Or a dropped shoulder.

>Either there are rules or there aren't Jeff.  I guess you don't want
>rules, or won't face the fact that if there are people will face the
>consequences.

Can't we agree to disagree?

In all the sports I've played (baseball, swimming, water polo), I've noticed
two schools of thought on officiating.  The first is the one you're apparently
advocating, that of strict impartiality, in which the referee is God and
simply rewards and punishes based on the rules.  The second school of thought
(found more often in baseball and water polo) is to create the best game
possible.  In this case, the blatant violations are still called, but a varied
amount of leniency is given to infractions that give little or no advantage.  
For example, a major league umpire would not call a balk on a pitcher whose
team was down nine runs; a water polo ref may ignore a foul in set to make the
hole set work for position and/or a shot, and a swimming referee might allow a
questionable first-to-second relay exchange to let the last swimmers battle it
out.

Jeff Pack (http://SportToday.org/)
MY community considers unsolicited adverti***ts almost as indecent
as repressive legislation...
If you don't like it, *plonk* it.  Works great on AOL.

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Tom Brid » Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> Can't we agree to disagree?

> In all the sports I've played (baseball, swimming, water polo), I've noticed
> two schools of thought on officiating.  The first is the one you're
apparently
> advocating, that of strict impartiality, in which the referee is God and
> simply rewards and punishes based on the rules.  The second school of thought
> (found more often in baseball and water polo) is to create the best game
> possible.  In this case, the blatant violations are still called, but a
varied
> amount of leniency is given to infractions that give little or no advantage.  
> For example, a major league umpire would not call a balk on a pitcher whose
> team was down nine runs; a water polo ref may ignore a foul in set to
make the
> hole set work for position and/or a shot, and a swimming referee might
allow a
> questionable first-to-second relay exchange to let the last swimmers
battle it
> out.

Jeff,
        I think what's being said amounts to this "there are rules here"
and your statement said to me "It's okay to break the rules to have a
great race in finals"  I can see that while that may be okay for baseball
(hey, the strike zone has always been an ambiguous zone to the umpires)
and while the benefit of the doubt clause may apply to baseball (tie goes
to the runner), it doesn't apply to swimming.  Swimming is a sport of
absolutes.  You're only racing the clock, you're trying to beat the other
guy's time.  In the Trials it is incredibly important to have the fairest
race possible and the most legal, in most place FINA rules are more
lenient than the USS rules, but if we want to avoid the DQs, we've got to
watch our swimmers.  The Rules are the Rules.  Prelims of an 8&under meet
or Finals in the Oly Trials, the rules have got to be enforced to the
letter.

--
Stellae Ducti Lumine
Tom Bridge

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Michael W. Moo » Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
> and a swimming referee might allow a
> questionable first-to-second relay exchange to let the last swimmers
battle it
> out.

NEVER!!

The official has no idea of what the final result will be, when the first
exchange is made. Nor should he, if the second swimmer left early and dual
confirmation- your ticket gets pulled. You will have an exciting finish,
and it will be the deck officials who will know that when it is over, the
team that committed the infraction will get the dq slip. (There is no
raising of the hand on an early take-off).

What if the team that left early is the team that is the "winner". What if
the second swimmer left 6 inches early and the that team wins by 0.05
seconds. How do you propose reconciling the two. Oh the other team cheated
and now you have second place. Are you sure that is what you want?

Michael Moore

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by William Robert Simpso » Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:00:00

I saw the tape and the official made the right call.  But the officials
should not have looked at the tapes because that there is no place in the
rules of FINA that allows for this.  It is unfair that if someone at say
the Canadian or Australian Trials did the same thing and there was no
underwater cam.  

It has to be fair for everyone!!!

Bo Simpson, UCSC

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Paul Burkhard » Sat, 16 Mar 1996 04:00:00

CM,

Speaking as a USS ref., video replays of stroke & turn violations are not
allowed.  Although my work is at the LSC level, I've had several poeple
(parents) approach me on deck in the past to protest based on what their
camcorder captured and I've never allowed it per USS rules....

Paul

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Paul Burkhard » Sat, 16 Mar 1996 04:00:00

There's been a lot of talk about the Quance DQ, but is anyone aware if a
formal protest was made?  Under USS rules, the swimmer has 20 minutes
after they've been DQed to file a written protest.  Until the protest is
resolved, no results/positions can be awarded.  Did Schubert (her coach)
file a protest?
 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Kirk E Nels » Mon, 18 Mar 1996 04:00:00

: Now, that being said, there really should be some other selection
: process for picking the elite besides a last chance all-or-nothing
: approach as done now.  Picking the top times over the last 3 months
: would be a more equitable way of determining who goes.  And it
: also would insure that a lapse of sanity by a swimmer would be
: dealt with while not holding it against them in a future meet.

I disagree.  The good thing about trials is you're forced to swim well
AT THAT MEET.  The same holds true for the Olympics -- they're not
going to give you the gold because you've got the world record, you've
got to swim your best there.

I don't really think there is any substitute for head-to-head comp-
itition.

Kirk Nelson
--
----------------------------------------------------------------

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering      Phone: (517)353-9953
Michigan State University                or (517)353-7200

 
 
 

Quance DQ (was Trials - 400 IM women)

Post by Jorge Gonzale » Mon, 18 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>There's been a lot of talk about the Quance DQ, but is anyone aware if a
>formal protest was made?  Under USS rules, the swimmer has 20 minutes
>after they've been DQed to file a written protest.  Until the protest is
>resolved, no results/positions can be awarded.  Did Schubert (her coach)
>file a protest?

Yes a protest was filed.  Yes, tapes were reviewed.   Yes the protest was
denied.  Yes, the tapes showed that the disc. was correct.