-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
AIDA World championship indoor 2011- Lignano
- Thread starterGoran Colak
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Hmmm not sure that makes sense to me Gabriele. I understand they HAD to give a red card with the current rules.
But if there is a subjective protest after the objective judging, the whole process is subjective by definition. So why not make it subjective in the first place and save everyone the drama?
If on the other hand, the protest was 100% sure and objective, it means you can include it in the rules in the first place.
Protests (and appeals in the general sense) are usually made against a decision when the rules have not been applied correctly in the first place. If the rule has been applied correctly but the protests are accepted, it's a sign the rules need changing.
It doesn't make sense to me to protest against the rules, only against the application of the rules.
this is not what i meant
protesting against the rule itself is what we're actually doing here, not what Goran did or what i am suggesting
i just wanted to say that a judge, having to decide in few seconds (well, at least 30 or more, but it's still a small time), might lack of subjectivity
what if Marcello gave a white card and the dive was actually to be sanctioned?
the protest analysis must be intended to be objective by definition or at least as much objective as a judging human being can be, or we don't need judges anymore :hmm
How can you give a red card and then take it back? Doesn't make any sense or respect for that matter. why do the coach have to stay close or even in the water, with the athlete? Thats the biggest problem.
Since its a individual performance coach shouldn't be allowed to "interfere" with the performance, like in many many other sports?
Since its a individual performance coach shouldn't be allowed to "interfere" with the performance, like in many many other sports?
Last edited:
Yes, I know, its akward at first but when taste it for a while, its not that bad. For the safety of the diver. Choose your safteys wisely.
As for dropping the grab rule. same rule as in long jump - first tip, hair, finger, surfaced is the mark to mesure. Simple. And they also have their coach in the audience. Simple.
Some idea's for the technical comity team;
1) I think also a person with marketing skills would be good if we want to have a -broader- audience.
2) A magician would also be great, since these people know the best ways to cheat.
3) And two AIDA elder jury person who would help to make sure the results will not jump up because athletes are given too much ease because of a revolutionary change in rules, rendering comparison in historical results useless. Also ensuring the new regulations are also easy for the jury to execute.
4) Test-team, set out to perform documented test of the new proposed regulations and wording.
5) Communication specialist for wording the regulations in a clear, concise, unambiguous way so as even people with not having English as their first language can understand the grammar and logic through the rhetoric used. (Proper use of the Trivium method).
6) Maybe having some informal talks with people from CMAS could also help to do some out of the box thinking.
7) Maybe there is a phase in this process where this forum, and it's bright and diverse writers can be of use?
1) I think also a person with marketing skills would be good if we want to have a -broader- audience.
2) A magician would also be great, since these people know the best ways to cheat.
3) And two AIDA elder jury person who would help to make sure the results will not jump up because athletes are given too much ease because of a revolutionary change in rules, rendering comparison in historical results useless. Also ensuring the new regulations are also easy for the jury to execute.
4) Test-team, set out to perform documented test of the new proposed regulations and wording.
5) Communication specialist for wording the regulations in a clear, concise, unambiguous way so as even people with not having English as their first language can understand the grammar and logic through the rhetoric used. (Proper use of the Trivium method).
6) Maybe having some informal talks with people from CMAS could also help to do some out of the box thinking.
7) Maybe there is a phase in this process where this forum, and it's bright and diverse writers can be of use?
Last edited:
Thanks Jouskary for your nomination: i promise i'll make my best for aaaaall of you freediving people... and for peace in the world, too!!!
Kars, marketing is one of the things freediving need most to grow, at least in Italy
it's something i've been thinking of for a long time and still haven't found: let's open a topic about this!!
Kars, marketing is one of the things freediving need most to grow, at least in Italy
it's something i've been thinking of for a long time and still haven't found: let's open a topic about this!!
Thanks Jouskary for your nomination: i promise i'll make my best for aaaaall of you freediving people... and for peace in the world, too!!!
Kars, marketing is one of the things freediving need most to grow, at least in Italy
it's something i've been thinking of for a long time and still haven't found: let's open a topic about this!!
Following your suggestion I just did:
http://forums.deeperblue.com/general-freediving/92871-how-market-freediving.html#post864284
I was happy to see Goran's red card overturned, regardless of whether the safety's touch was technically in violation. Judges must have some ability to apply common sense in borderline cases, governed by the spirit of the rules. Written rules are designed to minimize ambiguity, but it is not possible to get this down to zero. (Did the athlete properly say "I'm OK" or was it a mumble? If goggles are moved upward 3cm to the eyebrows, do we consider that "removed" or not? If a coach in static is in the motion of tapping at the same instant the athlete decides to come up, and jumps back a split-second later, should this really result in a disqualification? If a CWT diver disconnects his lanyard on the ascent for safety reasons, how far away from the line can he surface before he is considered "out of the comp zone" and DQ'ed?) So there will always be unforeseen ambiguous circumstances requiring a human judgment call.
My preference would be to see the rules stated as simply as possible using common sense, to allow room for judges' interpretation in borderline cases. (E.g.: "If a safety diver, coach, or judge provides any physical assistance to an athlete before a card is given, the athlete is disqualified.") There is still a strong incentive on every side to keep things unambiguous, by not touching at all. If no touch occurs, there is no ambiguity. But in the case that the diver does inadvertently touch the judge's foot, or is congratulated by a careless safety, the judges should have the discretion to decide the outcome in the spirit of the rules. These decisions could theoretically be protested and appealed up to a "Supreme Court" of A-level judges, but the buck stops there. We are humans judging humans on a human endeavor, and perfection is not attainable. We shouldn't pretend that it is.
My own opinion on a case such as Goran's is that, since the interference was not his (or his team's) fault, he should AT LEAST have been allowed a re-swim; i.e. the entire dive should have been invalidated as if it never happened. Perhaps there should be an additional color card for this. (A clear card?) Outright "Disqualification" seems entirely inappropriate in such a case. What if the safety diver accidentally bumps into the diver 15 meters into his swim? What if the announcer messes up the countdown? Clear card, re-swim. But in the spirit of the rules, Goran's performance was obviously very solid, and in any case was technically completed (mask, signal, ok) before the interference occurred. So although there was admittedly some level of ambiguity introduced by the touch, it was not enough to disqualify the performance. As an AIDA judge myself, I would also have given a red card because of the technical ambiguity (or a "clear card" if such a thing existed), and changed it to white on review. Just my two cents.
My preference would be to see the rules stated as simply as possible using common sense, to allow room for judges' interpretation in borderline cases. (E.g.: "If a safety diver, coach, or judge provides any physical assistance to an athlete before a card is given, the athlete is disqualified.") There is still a strong incentive on every side to keep things unambiguous, by not touching at all. If no touch occurs, there is no ambiguity. But in the case that the diver does inadvertently touch the judge's foot, or is congratulated by a careless safety, the judges should have the discretion to decide the outcome in the spirit of the rules. These decisions could theoretically be protested and appealed up to a "Supreme Court" of A-level judges, but the buck stops there. We are humans judging humans on a human endeavor, and perfection is not attainable. We shouldn't pretend that it is.
My own opinion on a case such as Goran's is that, since the interference was not his (or his team's) fault, he should AT LEAST have been allowed a re-swim; i.e. the entire dive should have been invalidated as if it never happened. Perhaps there should be an additional color card for this. (A clear card?) Outright "Disqualification" seems entirely inappropriate in such a case. What if the safety diver accidentally bumps into the diver 15 meters into his swim? What if the announcer messes up the countdown? Clear card, re-swim. But in the spirit of the rules, Goran's performance was obviously very solid, and in any case was technically completed (mask, signal, ok) before the interference occurred. So although there was admittedly some level of ambiguity introduced by the touch, it was not enough to disqualify the performance. As an AIDA judge myself, I would also have given a red card because of the technical ambiguity (or a "clear card" if such a thing existed), and changed it to white on review. Just my two cents.
I too am in favor of some subjective interpretation (i.e. was the athlete assisted...) But I am not in favor of a re-swim, since there is no way somebody can re-swim such a distance again in the same day. Best case scenario they might be able to do it again the next day, but it is like asking someone who competed an ultra-marathon to 're-run' 200km because of a technicality.
The body takes time to recover, the acid must be cleared from the muscles, the free radicals cleared, etc...
The body takes time to recover, the acid must be cleared from the muscles, the free radicals cleared, etc...
True Eric, the re-swim idea is imperfect, and in many cases not realistic. My point was more that the interfered performance should be removed from the record altogether, rather than having a "red card" on the record. If a problem occurs near the beginning of a swim, such as a botched countdown, a re-swim (say, after the other athletes have completed their swims) is meaningful. Or if it could happen a day or two later, if logistically possible. But if Goran had crashed into a safety just after the 250-meter turn, say, there is just not really a good solution.
There was a similar case in the last Winter Olympics where a skier was flagged and stopped halfway down the course due to a crash by the previous skier. They let her re-ski an hour later, but obviously her legs were no longer in prime condition, and she did much worse on the re-run than she probably would have done on the first run. Very unfortunate, no matter which sport it is, but there is no perfect solution for all cases.
For what it's worth, I am in favor of the current no-grabbing rule for DYN/DNF. I consider it part of the surfacing protocol, effectively, and a good demonstration of being in full control of the dive. Remember, the goal is to swim the furthest while coming up clean and in control, not to swim the furthest at all costs while coming up semi-conscious Or else, think of it as style points.
There was a similar case in the last Winter Olympics where a skier was flagged and stopped halfway down the course due to a crash by the previous skier. They let her re-ski an hour later, but obviously her legs were no longer in prime condition, and she did much worse on the re-run than she probably would have done on the first run. Very unfortunate, no matter which sport it is, but there is no perfect solution for all cases.
For what it's worth, I am in favor of the current no-grabbing rule for DYN/DNF. I consider it part of the surfacing protocol, effectively, and a good demonstration of being in full control of the dive. Remember, the goal is to swim the furthest while coming up clean and in control, not to swim the furthest at all costs while coming up semi-conscious
Or else, think of it as style points.Apparently in the old days, the coach would actually hold the athlete up out of the water right after surfacing, to mask any type of problem. Rudi apparently used to do that with Tanya on her early records. It was allowed in the rules back then, and he was just taking full advantage of that option.
Ironically, it is very hard to find videos of early constant weight records, as these are videos that contain stuff that was not media friendly. Several of the records in the 60-73m range had blackouts that were accepted (CMAS rules), and/or line violations on the bottom which were ignored by judges (early AIDA records), or the coach holding the athlete out of the water like a 'prize', proving that the person is still alive...
Kudos to anyone who can compile a definitive video record of all freediving world records. That would be a prize. Every record was video taped. They just need to be found and edited together.
Ironically, it is very hard to find videos of early constant weight records, as these are videos that contain stuff that was not media friendly. Several of the records in the 60-73m range had blackouts that were accepted (CMAS rules), and/or line violations on the bottom which were ignored by judges (early AIDA records), or the coach holding the athlete out of the water like a 'prize', proving that the person is still alive...
Kudos to anyone who can compile a definitive video record of all freediving world records. That would be a prize. Every record was video taped. They just need to be found and edited together.
Personally, I'd be very careful in making the rules more ambiguent, and giving judges too much freedom and more right to decide. Judges are subjective, and they do have liasons with freedivers, which makes them even more subjective. We do not want to be again in the situation like we were for example with samba in the days before the new SP, where at one judge your performance finished with a white card, despite a heavy LMC, while at another one you could not even smile or move a finger, without it being considered an uncontrolled movement, resulting in a red card.
How can you possibly do a max performance again? Thats not even realistic in my op.
True, and so there should be some attempt in the rules to define these terms where possible. For LMC/PBMM, my understanding is that a single head dip is allowed as an LMC, but multiple head dips indicate a PBMM and red card. (Then you get into, did the athlete do a head dip or was it just a nod, etc. It is impossible to remove all subjectivity.) As I mentioned, these decisions could perhaps be appealed up to the top level of judges ,with increasing costs to go higher up the chain, to discourage appeals except in obvious or important cases. But that way, if a local E-level judge disqualifies you for smiling, you have recourse up the chain if it's important to you. And that's also why there are multiple judges for most comps.
There is always a trade-off between ambiguity and spirit. The current absolute no-touch rule is the least ambiguous, but leads to cases like Goran's where the red card is clearly not in the intended spirit of the sport. My preference would be to capture the spirit the most clearly (the athlete must not be physically assisted by anyone else), even if it leads to somewhat more subjectivity in borderline cases. And again, there is still an incentive all around to avoid these ambiguities, by not touching at all.
I also agree that the rules should be as unambiguous as possible. I think the most subjective rule that is still in place is the PBMM. But I would be interested to know how many times such a ruling has been protested and won/lost.
It is a fine line to construct rules that allow for the common sense of judges. I haven't competed internationally for a while and so I have little recent experience of judging consistency when in comes to more subjective rulings under the current rulebook.
However, earlier on, in the days of the LMC rule, it was easily apparent that one judges common sense did not equal anothers. Put another way, some judges had a different flavour of common sense, dashed with a seasoning of bias, personal agendas, and incompetence.
The impression I get that this is less and less the case. I hope that is so!
But it does illustrate I think that we need to collectively push for rules as clear and objective as possible to reduce the natural tendency of people for bias.
I think that the freediving community has done well in pushing for rules that make sense. We a only a tiny bureaucracy compared to other sports and I think it is quite responsive to the feedback of athletes, when you look at other sports.
Just look at European football, last year's hockey playoff final (yes, I was hoping for the Canucks to win) and many other examples. Crap officiating and many subjective rules.
On a lighter side, instead of a clear card, how about a grey card (because it refers to a grey, borderline interpretation of the rules)?
And in very tiny print on the card it says: "you're not going to like this, but...."
It is a fine line to construct rules that allow for the common sense of judges. I haven't competed internationally for a while and so I have little recent experience of judging consistency when in comes to more subjective rulings under the current rulebook.
However, earlier on, in the days of the LMC rule, it was easily apparent that one judges common sense did not equal anothers. Put another way, some judges had a different flavour of common sense, dashed with a seasoning of bias, personal agendas, and incompetence.
The impression I get that this is less and less the case. I hope that is so!
But it does illustrate I think that we need to collectively push for rules as clear and objective as possible to reduce the natural tendency of people for bias.
I think that the freediving community has done well in pushing for rules that make sense. We a only a tiny bureaucracy compared to other sports and I think it is quite responsive to the feedback of athletes, when you look at other sports.
Just look at European football, last year's hockey playoff final (yes, I was hoping for the Canucks to win) and many other examples. Crap officiating and many subjective rules.
On a lighter side, instead of a clear card, how about a grey card (because it refers to a grey, borderline interpretation of the rules)?
And in very tiny print on the card it says: "you're not going to like this, but...."
Last edited: