Dynamic Comp Rules - Pulling [survey]

[laminar]

It sounds like the main issue for AIDA (if I interpret correctly) is consistency of rules for all competitors. And from the point of view of athletes who actually compete in dynamic apnea, we don't want to be DQ'ed on a technicality that does not appear to give us any special advantage.

I think we need to discuss this idea of consistent rules for all competitors at all competitions. Sometimes it is difficult to find optimal pool space here in Vancouver. I imagine that some other clubs have similar challenges. Even the world championships in Egpyt had pool issues, initially. For example, when CAFA competitions are held, we are often limited to renting two lanes. Sometimes the lanes are in the middle of the pool and other times they are at the edge. Sometimes the depth is uniform and other times there is a shallow end as shallow as 1.3 metres, which is borderline for making a turn underwater and ensuring a stable recovery at the end of the performance (especially w/ monofin). So in some cases, a competitor can stand up after his or her performance, if the dynamic finishes in the shallow end. Of course the actual benefit of this may vary for each competitor (I prefer deep water, myself).

When we've had competitions in Vancouver, competitors have used the pool side when possible to support themselves to recover after their dynamic apnea. Does this mean that those results are invalidated when compared to competitors who competed at competitions that were only held in the middle lanes? Sometimes, the organizers do not have that choice.

I guess my (long winded) point here is that some variables will be almost impossible to eliminate. For example, pool depth should probably be consistent at over 2 metres for the whole distance. But if you try to eliminate these pool variables, you run the risk of making it near impossible to find a suitable pool for competitions, which doesn't help the development of the sport - we all know how pool rental policies can change overnight.

In my mind, if we need absolute fairness for all competitors (and if it really matters), we should remove lane ropes and forbid the use of the wall altogether so that people train to surface on their own power in clear water as if they were in a lake or the ocean.

If that is unpalatable to the athletes, then we allow pulling at the end of the performance on whatever object is available (pool deck, lane rope, flutter board, etc).

7.8.2: Again, I feel that the surfacing rule is one that just causes grief to competitors. I'm sure judges hate applying it, as well. How does letting your legs break the surface (or your shoulders) actually help you with your performace? It doesn't. Drag is increased and whenever your fin(s) comes out of the water, you lose propulsion. I don't think athletes should be penalized for an activity that reduces their performance. Long track speed skaters are not penalized for placing their hand on the ice if they lose their balance. Why penalize them for something that slows them down?

I would love to see this rule stricken and replaced with: "The athlete must keep the airway submerged until the end of the performance."

Pete

[f3dive]

Reviewing video and pictures is a good followup but nothing can compare to being there live and actually experiencing the performance. That is why there are different stages for judges - at E level you can not possibly pick up every little thing but with afew comps under your belt you get better at picking up on those little things that you missed earlier.
In my experience I've given the benefit of the doubt to the athlete where I may have doubt.
I judged Wal doing his 200 metre performance early last year, believed it to be clean then saw him do the same swim in Hawaii on dvd. I knew he had been DQ'ed so watched specifically for the 'grab' at the end.
You can see his arm reaching out for the side with his head popping up. I did not see any advantage to him so would have given that a clean performance. RIght or wrong given the rules? Right (I believe) given the athlete has the benefit of the doubt.
Saying that, the judge that DQed him is a lot more experienced than I.

[trux]

Well, your words only confirm that the rule is nonsense, and adds too much space for mistakes, lapse of experience, speculations, manipulations, or whatever you want to call it. On one side the new Surface Protocol was introduced to avoid such ambivalency and subjectivity in judging, and on the other hand the "pulling" rule was added, erasing so any progress that was made. It cannot be called progress any more.

[trux]

I've just viewed videos from Madcap 2007 of Peter Pedersen, Stig Aavall Severinsen and Elisabeth Kristoffersen. Absolutely amazing performances, and just another argument for removing the "pulling" rule. Both Peter and Stig pulled the line quite evidently while being still completely underwater (I viewed it frame by frame and saw it quite clearly). Only Elisabeth surfaced without touching the line. Fortunately Peter and Stig were not penalized, so their performances are valid, and I really think that it is correct so. On the other hand, it is sad that because of such minor and unimportant detail bringing no apparent advantage, many other freedivers were (and are being) often disqualified. Yes, I am telling disqualified, because the penalty of 20m is practically equal to a disqualification. And in case of a record attempt, the competitor is indeed disqualified (Tom Sietas can serve as an example).

So now, those who advocate the rule, please tell me how many meters, centimeters, or millimeters, Stig or Peter gained by the pulling, and if you really think that they ought to be penalized by -20m?

[cebaztian]

Originally Posted by trux

Fortunately Peter and Stig were not penalized, so their performances are valid, and I really think that it is correct so.

I would say its a pity they were not penalized. If some judges had more balls they would show the red cards on this so many times that the rule would be changed (or athletes behaviour would change). But I guess many hide behind "benefit of doubt". And since Peter is in the aida tech committy I guess the issue would be resolved quicker :-)

Sebastian

[trux]

Yes, you are right, Sebastian. If the rule exists, it should be respected by all competitors and applied by all judges. (Un)fortunately (?), from many videos of DYF and DNF performances I saw, I can tell that there is a rather important percentage of cases where the rule was not applied, although I think it ought to. That's my main argument against the rule - instead of making conditions equal for all (what Bill claimed is its purpose), it brings so great differences (due to a different way of judging), that competing is now completely unjust. When then a more vigilant judge exceptionally correctly penalizes a freediver, then it can be considered nothing else than excessive punishment.

[ggarrett]

Maybe I missed something in the discussion or just do not understand this thread, but isn't touching or grabbing the pool edge before exiting a DQ rather than a penalty?

See 5.17
"Any propulsion assistance other than swimming movements is forbidden (except in case of thrusting against the side of the wall during turns). This means that the nose and/or mouth of the athlete have to exit before or simultaneously, when grabbing the pool edge or the lane-rope in the pool."

I watched a very talented diver get DQ'd for putting his hand on the pool edge before his nose broke the surface. He was no where close to any trouble nor did he propel himself to the surface by doing so. It seemed unfair to everyone except the judge. 2¢.

Peace,
Glen

P.S. What's difference in 5.17 between "side of the wall" versus just "the wall?"

[Billextreme]

Garret,

Have a close look at rule 7.1 and 7.8.3.

/B

[GirlOfWater]

It's the same with this rule as it is with the SP, people do mistakes even though they're well within their limits and should know better. You have to practice coming up from a performance in dynamic just as you practice the turn or the SP (which I learn the hard way).

It's no problem to use your speed from swimming to get your head above water without touching the rope or the wall first, and then grap it. You just have to think about what you're doing and practice it a few times... Doing this, you make it easier for both yourself and the poor judge who's trying to be fair, both to the rules and the athlete.

Even so, I completely agree that the rule gives room for unequal conditions and different judging. This should be worked on and also an adjustment of the penalty should be done, as this isn't such a big deal in my opinion...

The problem with an athlete with a heavy neck weight in a deep pool also needs some attention, but I don't see the reason for this problem in the "pulling rule". A sufficient floating devise is in many cases not present when you surface after a dive, and this is a big problem when you're tired after a dive.

Hmm, conclusion? We need a simpler, easier to judge, more realistic rule about pulling and also need to improve the rutine for how the athlete can be safe and stable upon surfacing. Other than that, just know the rules and train how to follow then, even the tiny details!

Just my opinion

Elisabeth

[trux]

Originally Posted by GirlOfWater

It's the same with this rule as it is with the SP, people do mistakes even though they're well within their limits and should know better. You have to practice coming up from a performance in dynamic just as you practice the turn or the SP (which I learn the hard way).

No, sorry, I disagree, it is not at all the same as with SP. The problem is not in doing the surfacing properly - here I agree that you can train it. You misunderstood the whole issue here. The problem is on the judge's side, not on the competitor's side. I did not yet hear about anyone who was disqualified because of SP even if he did it perfectly, or about someone who passed the SP even if he failed to do it (though I am sure there are such cases too). On the other hand, when you view couple of videos from competitions, you can clearly see that there is a very high percentage of performances that ought to be penalized because of grabbing, but it happens only very exceptionally.

One way out of this situation would be better training of judges, and the other one is removing or seriously modifying the rule. I am afraid that relying on the skills and fairness of judges is not the good way to go. They are only humans, may be tired, upset, distracted, unconcentrated, emotionally in relation with the competitor, or may even intentionally abuse the rule - it is too easy, and there is very little to do against it. Unlike at the SP, where the decision is mostly quite simple and the judge can decide almost with closed eyes, at the grabbing/pulling/propulsing (both underwater and above) it is often on such an edge, that even if the judge is really careful and concentrated, he may not be able to decide correctly without reviewing the exit on video in slow motion.

And in fact it is not a problem only at the surfacing - also at turns there is too much ambiguity - although it is allowed to push the front wall with the hand, using the other hand as a pivot on the pool bottom is by some judges considered a violation of the rule, other judges ignore it, and many judges do not even have the chance to see it.

Again, it offers such a space for injustice and manipulation here that it is absolutely scary, and brings the freediving sport to the level of box or gymnastics, where the judge is almighty and often decides under the influence of personal preferences, external pressure, favorites ranking, mood, etc. I am strongly against any rules that allows for such uncertainty. On my mind touching or grabbing should be allowed within the 2m (or whatever else distance) from the wall, and before the surfacing - only in this way we can have just and equal conditions for all. Well, originally I voted to keep the rule with just a minor penalty, but since I changed my mind and am now completely against it.

[laminar]

To echo trux's post, one of the main reasons for the change in the Surfacing Protocol was precisely because LMC was a judgement open to considerable interpretation and as such there were wildly different interpretations. It's not a good idea to expect that experienced judges will be better at applying the rules than inexperienced judges, not when the entire performance is at stake. While we have the precedent of other sports results at the mercy of bad or good judgements it seems like a good idea to minimize that as much as possible. For better or for worse (and there are drawbacks to the new SP, as well), the new SP is at least easy to judge, whether you are an experienced or inexperienced judge. Is the airway above the surface at all times, yes or no? Did the athlete perform the SP in the proper sequence, yes or no? Did the athlete perform it within the allotted time, yes or no? In rare cases when the athlete struggles valiantly through an obvious LMC and still completes the protocol, the opportunity for subjective judgement is greatly reduced. As I said, this isn't always a good thing because an LMC that severe is clearly not a clean performance, but something's got to give. Having competed I much prefer rules that can be consistently applied over rules that are open to great interpretation.

I think AIDA showed great leadership in updating the SP. However, it shouldn't ever rest on its laurels and continue to consider feedback from judges, athletes, spectators and its directors. The SP can no doubt be improved, as can this pulling rule.

[ggarrett]

Originally Posted by Billextreme

Garret,

Have a close look at rule 7.1 and 7.8.3.

/B

Thank you for the reference. I feel really dense on this one.

5.17
Any propulsion assistance other than swimming movements is forbidden (except in case of thrusting against the side of the wall during turns). This means that the nose and/or mouth of the athlete have to exit before or simultaneously, when grabbing the pool edge or the lane-rope in the pool.

7.1
The mistakes mentioned below are no reason for disqualification, but penalty points will be applied on the concerned performance, negative numbers don't exist.

7.8.3
If the athlete pulls or propels him/herself on a support point (wall, line, bottom, etc.) before the exit of his/her mouth or nose, a penalty of 10 POINTS is applied.

5.17 says to me if an athlete grabs the wall before surfacing, he is DQ'd.

7.8.3 says to me if an athlete grabs the wall before surfacing, he gets a penalty.

What am I missing?
Do both 5.17 and 7.83 not refer to grabbing the wall (i.e. propulsion) before the exit of the airways?
Is the edge in 5.17 different than the wall in 7.8.3? That must be it. Thanks.

Peace,
Glen