As discussed in the thread http://forums.deeperblue.net/freediving-competitions/70340-dynamic-comp-rules-pulling.html, I am opening this new thread with a poll to allow DB members to express their opinion.
Last edited:
-
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!
Dynamic Comp Rules - Pulling [survey]
- Thread startertrux
- 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.
I agree with Bill S. that because of the differences in pools we need some sort of methodology that can be applied equally to all pools.
I would be happy with a change in rules that suggests no change to penalties whilst an athlete is in mid performance (ie. if they pull themselves along the bottom), but a penalty if they grab the side and pull themselves up before their airways are out of the water. The penalty I would suggest would be equivalent to 1m (2 points).
My reasoning is that 1m is the most benefit an athlete can have by grabbing the side and pulling themselves up, therefore a 1m penalty will mitigate this. I see no need for a penalty that penalises more than the athlete could have given themselves.
My logic is as follows: if the athlete pulls themselves up out of laziness then take away the advantage. If the athlete pulls themselves up because they feel they're close to BO then fine, this is a safety issue - but i'd suggest that if they were that close that they had to pull themselves up, then they would be quite challenged in passing the SP, which ultimately tells the athlete that they pushed too hard.
Cheers,
Ben
I would be happy with a change in rules that suggests no change to penalties whilst an athlete is in mid performance (ie. if they pull themselves along the bottom), but a penalty if they grab the side and pull themselves up before their airways are out of the water. The penalty I would suggest would be equivalent to 1m (2 points).
My reasoning is that 1m is the most benefit an athlete can have by grabbing the side and pulling themselves up, therefore a 1m penalty will mitigate this. I see no need for a penalty that penalises more than the athlete could have given themselves.
My logic is as follows: if the athlete pulls themselves up out of laziness then take away the advantage. If the athlete pulls themselves up because they feel they're close to BO then fine, this is a safety issue - but i'd suggest that if they were that close that they had to pull themselves up, then they would be quite challenged in passing the SP, which ultimately tells the athlete that they pushed too hard.
Cheers,
Ben
Pulling during a performance might not benefit the athlete that much, only for balance and such. Having support from the bottom or from lines may be a great advantage if you make a technical error. Still, allowing pulling during a performance brings an ugliness to the dive. I think the rule forces te athlete to focus on swimming not grabbing.
I can see the point with loosing a rule, that it is always a gain with little rules. On the other hand only allowing central lanes is adding a rule.
I can see the point with loosing a rule, that it is always a gain with little rules. On the other hand only allowing central lanes is adding a rule.
I'd just like to point out the rules may say 'pulling' but in fact you will get hit with a penalty (sometimes a DQ) just for 'touching' the lane rope or wall before your airway breaks. A judge can't tell if you are pulling, or just swimming up but touching the wall. From my point of view it's a timing thing, touch or grab the wall a fraction too early and you will be done. I made this mistake last year in a comp, and it was so close the judges had to freeze the video and show it frame by frame. When my hand touched the top of the wall my airway was barely 2 cm below the water....
When I do max dynamics I pack close to 3 litres, and need a lot of neckweight 12pounds+ to compensate. In training I would breathe out before breaking the surface, then grab a hold of the wall to prevent going back down in the water. ie once I have breathed out, and not at packing volume I would sink. I know Tom S wears HEAPS of weight and packs a lot, so he has this even worse. A year or so ago he got a DQ (world record rules is DQ for this vs penalty) for this, he obviously needs to grab something to prevent from sinking. Grabbing the wall to support you at the end of a dynamic is by far the best option safety wise, for some freedivers is the only option. It makes it real tough you have to be %100 spot on with your timing and don't get any allowances for small mistakes. :head
Cheers,
Wal
When I do max dynamics I pack close to 3 litres, and need a lot of neckweight 12pounds+ to compensate. In training I would breathe out before breaking the surface, then grab a hold of the wall to prevent going back down in the water. ie once I have breathed out, and not at packing volume I would sink. I know Tom S wears HEAPS of weight and packs a lot, so he has this even worse. A year or so ago he got a DQ (world record rules is DQ for this vs penalty) for this, he obviously needs to grab something to prevent from sinking. Grabbing the wall to support you at the end of a dynamic is by far the best option safety wise, for some freedivers is the only option. It makes it real tough you have to be %100 spot on with your timing and don't get any allowances for small mistakes. :head
Cheers,
Wal
Last edited:
Yes, grabbing something after surfacing is necessary if the pool is deeper than what makes it possible just to put your feet down.
100% timing and no misstakes is what defines a world class performance to me, and it is hard to go over your limit and still have good timing.
That may be true and it is not the point of the discussion or reason for being against the rule. The main problem is that the rule creates more injustice and more space for result manipulation and speculations than we had without it. So instead of the intended compensation for unequal conditions, it adds more inequality.
Some judges are apparently less strict or less vigilant than others. Some judges may accidentally oversee the early grab, or a touch of the wall or of the bottom. And some judges may even intentionally "help" a countryman or a friend by closing one eye (not that I claim that it actually happened, but it is certainly possible).
I viewed hundreds of videos from dynamic competitions and can tell you that I wonder why many of the performances were not penalized. Of course, the video may be misleading, the judge may often see it better, but I doubt very strongly that the rule is always applied correctly.
I really think that competitions would be much fairer if there were no such rule. Excluding side lanes, or delimiting them with additional lines in a safe distance from the edge would do all what is necessary for equal conditions, would eliminate the need for the rule, would make competitions fairer, would avoid for result manipulation, and would make the rules simpler.
I may sound like a strong advocate of the rule, but actually I think grabbing in the end of the performance does not really matter. I do not however want to se grabbing or pulling during a performance.
The case with unequal judging is not exlusive for this rule, almost any rule has a possibility for the judge to interpret it and judge by his/her standards. This is a part of every sport and a problem as long as you have rules. One solution is less/no rules, but this is not always a good solution. Another way is raising the standard of the judges, this is not always easy.
If the side lanes are exluded i really would like to see something sturdy to grab after surfacing. As Wal stated it is great to have something to hold onto after surfaceing because of pure balance reasons or because of weighting. It would be very unfortunate to se good performances getting DQ because of airways under water since there is nothing to grab. This could happen even after a short swim when you are in full control if the pool is deep and the float is unstable or the weighting is heavy. If this were the case it would also make the safety worse if someone who has gone over the top only has a unstable float or a loose line to grab.
The case with unequal judging is not exlusive for this rule, almost any rule has a possibility for the judge to interpret it and judge by his/her standards. This is a part of every sport and a problem as long as you have rules. One solution is less/no rules, but this is not always a good solution. Another way is raising the standard of the judges, this is not always easy.
If the side lanes are exluded i really would like to see something sturdy to grab after surfacing. As Wal stated it is great to have something to hold onto after surfaceing because of pure balance reasons or because of weighting. It would be very unfortunate to se good performances getting DQ because of airways under water since there is nothing to grab. This could happen even after a short swim when you are in full control if the pool is deep and the float is unstable or the weighting is heavy. If this were the case it would also make the safety worse if someone who has gone over the top only has a unstable float or a loose line to grab.
Last edited:
In Walrus' case - consider this:
he stands at least 6'4" (probably more) is wearing a mono and some serious neck weight that makes surfacing a real effort (even without having just swum a huge distance) How does one make a turn in 1.2 metres of water and come up without support?
Should he be DQ'ed for seeking support within split seconds of his head surfacing?
he stands at least 6'4" (probably more) is wearing a mono and some serious neck weight that makes surfacing a real effort (even without having just swum a huge distance) How does one make a turn in 1.2 metres of water and come up without support?
Should he be DQ'ed for seeking support within split seconds of his head surfacing?
Well, no. I think the current rules say penalty, IF support is taken before surfacing and nothing whatsoever if support is taken after surfacing. Having the same measurments I find it more important to have something sturdy to grab after the surfaceing than being allowed to grab before.
Yes, happens all the time. We are being judged very differently. If I was in the tech commission I would not rest until the judges are given a manual on HOW TO INTERPRET RULES. With video and pictures maybe.
Post mechanical movements? Exactly what is this?
SP - One OK sign. Define an Ok sign. What does ONE mean?
TOWARDS the judge. What does towards mean exactly?
Is FORBIDDEN the same as DQ.
Is touching the same as pulling?
Can one pull with a flat hand on the pool bottom?
... probably more.
Sebastian
But at the same time lets not forget that most people agree that they are getting better and better.
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. :duh
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? :duh
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
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. :duh
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? :duh
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
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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?
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?
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