• 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!

New rules discussion

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.
I agree with Eric F about another important issue, having national AIDA organizations creating their own rules is a problem. AIDA used to brag about it's international character - a 50 meter dive performed in Andorra and a 50 meter dive performed in Tajikistan holds to the same standarts.
It's not true anymore if some national organizations are now making their own rules. I think it is very bad for AIDA - deinternationalization - definitly not a move towrads the olympic games - not that I care much about them but some regard them as an ideal to aspire to...
Also, it will work against many divers who travel around from one competition to another - "remind me again now that I'm in Luxembourg I need to give the 'ok' sign with both hands before removing the mask?"

Also, the more people working with the new rules, the faster and the better the next version will come if they are unfit.

I also wonder why it didn't happen before that national AIDA's took that liberty with fluid goggles, neckweights and such - was there no national AIDA that thought such a thing should be allowed and now a majority voted for it?
 

This is a very good point and I think something along these lines should definately make it's way to the next iteration of the rules...
 
Reasons I see for the challenges and disputes here:

"DQs for invalid surfacing protocol"
- There has been almost no education on the new rules regarding their intentions, their strategies, and the actual protocol to follow. This is obvious since it is nobody's job to educate every AIDA participant on changes to the system. It is up to the competitors to perform their own research and questioning prior to a competition. Attempting to learn them at the pre-competition prep. does not engrave them in oneself. In the famous (roughly quoted) words of Kirk provided without prejudice for disgruntlements towards the previous rules, "Disqualification are due to the inexperience of the competitors." Then obviously this falls over to the new ones, especially since nobody can be experienced anymore, except to the degree their training includes the new rules.

"Valid performances, should not be"
- The example of a person's head touch the deck, is not a difficult situation to address in the rules. Definately that should be a disqualification, but somebody has to put the effort in to make the rules cover the majority of imaginable circumstances. This is where the community can be employed to a great deal, if after coming up with the general surfacing protocol the committee put it out to the AIDA members to gather a list of invalid states or things requiring consideration. But to say the new rules are flaky because there was not a thorough covering of obvious situations, is not fair. It is new and has bugs that can easily be worked out. I find it interesting that people involved in writing the most controversial suggestions towards rules and putting in much effort to considering how to fool proof new rules, were not consulted in the least for input into the new rules. This type of rigidity in the approach to devising the new rules can only hinder these attempts at progress, or so I believe. I would say if there was a solid understanding of the reasons for such a protocol, it should be obvious that a coach can not inform the competitor to provide the appropriate sequence. The example of language difference, is so minor and easily addressed, that I see this as only addressing that the current state of the rules are imperfected, which most of us who pushed for the change in rules agree with.

"Democracy"
- AIDA breaking into factions that employ different rules is quite against all the previous "hard-lined" arguments put forth especially bashing external-to-AIDA-structure suggestions/petitions. Their was such negativity to such moves just to maintain a concentration within the structure and now it is suddenly OK to not pay attention to that structure when those arguments forced a greater activity towards working within that structure. If they insist on doing such a thing in the name of "concerns for the well-being of..." then I would think they would forge ahead at putting better methods and clarifying ambiguities on top of the new rules as opposed to just dropping them and leaving it up to others. It is a turn your back approach instead of a developing approach. Seems rather negative although I am certain it is not intentional.

"LMC/BO is a problem"
- Maybe with the current ambiguities of the protocol and rules, there will be some wierd cases of OK performances that are horrible in their obvious lack of control and their noticeable scary perception. I think people are focusing on that because they have not fully explored the potential of a clear system utilizing the stance that subjective-LMC is not attempted to be assessed. Eric, Pete, and myself spent huge amounts of time debating and exploring many means of utilizing this stance and believe it or not, the main focus of our attempts was to anhilate the chance that a significant LMC could occur that would end as a "valid" performance. It just happens that we believed in doing this with only objective or closest-to-perfect objective assessment. Nobody has consulted us on these discussions, yet I imagine it was in no small part that our attempt to educate and make suggestions in this regard, had a major impact on the new opinions and sense that something could be changed and therefore was changed in the rules. Maybe that is incorrect, but my main point is that we did see large potential for techniques that would not allow a significant LMC to pass as valid, let alone a BO. Therefore this continued suggestion that this line of reasoning leads to more LMCs and BOs is incorrect, from the stance of our debates.

Until this is addressed, that people after considering/practicing these suggestions and possible protocols, determine whether these protocols will not anhilate LMC and BO, there is not much point arguing about public perception. If all noticeable LMC and BO are disqualified, then everybody is satisfied that the public does have to be considered. It is only when it is fairly determined that we are not leading to such a system, that the issue needs to be addressed. No?


Thanks for your attention.
 
Reactions: jome
The main problem with the surfacing protocol rules were simply that they were so new at this competition (CIPA) that no one had had a chance to train with them. If we all start practising the order - "mask, signal, I am OK" now we will have no problem at the next competition. And if you really can't do that within 20 seconds with a bit of practise in training then you probably did not do a clean dive. If you are still having trouble, dive without a mask and you have more time!

I agree with Francois G that there should be consistency on the coaching - either everyone has one (and if you don't have a coach with you, just ask anyone who is hanging around, pretty much anyone would say yes and help you!) or we take out the prompting allowance completely. I've had comp dives with and without coaches and it certainly makes life a whole lot easy if someone is yelling in your ear - breathe breathe mask signal say you are ok....

when I first started freediving, someone explained the rules to me as "if you would not have been ok to look after yourself on surfacing in the ocean, on your own, then you should be disqualified" - so by that logic, if you really need someone to yell at you to do it - then maybe you shouldn't get the points.

Anyone else want to comment on the fact that taps are no longer required in static if you have your own coach? to me that seems a much more serious issue. I heard of a case recently where someone actually blacked out on hitting the water at the start from overpacking (not an AIDA comp, another agency) and the safety diver didn't recognise this, the athlete eventually woke up underwater and continued the static - if that happened and there were no taps then someone could end up down there a long time before someone pulled them out!

S
 
samdive said:
The main problem with the surfacing protocol rules were simply that they were so new at this competition (CIPA) that no one had had a chance to train with them.
S

How hard can it be -the SP rules were voted upon months ago.
In Sweden many has used them in training - and before the last competition (28th may) it took ten minutes to inform the athletes.

No educational DQ´s where needed.

Sebastian
Sweden

PS. Many in Sweden will support "silent coaching".
 
they may have been but I don't think many people knew they would be in place at this competition - I am an international judge and maybe I got left behind, but I didn't know they had been accepted as final. The UK voted against them and we hadn't heard any official news about the result of the vote.

anyway, it is just a training thing - everyone was used to doing it all one way - and then they had to do it a different way... I got DQd because my head went back under a (admittedly small!) wave on surfacing..... so I would have been out either way....
 

I completely agree with you ! I saw athletes following in a very passive way the orders of a yelling coach... I am not convinced they would have been able to follow the procedure on their own...
 
hi,

my only interest in competitions is that of a spectator, which probably makes my question sound a bit naive. but why are the rules as found on the aida website not declared as "valid until...(a date)". then whatever i download from the internet is what i have to live with and i don't have to worry about possible ongoing changes. by the time the rules are expired there will be a new set of rules. or the same ones with a new expiry date.

and for sure i agree with mentioned arguments that it is upon the athlete to follow the rules and prepare for them.

oh, and another thing:

quote:
I heard of a case recently where someone actually blacked out on hitting the water at the start from overpacking (not an AIDA comp, another agency) and the safety diver didn't recognise this, the athlete eventually woke up underwater and continued the static - if that happened and there were no taps then someone could end up down there a long time before someone pulled them out!

i know of a comparable case. only the coach of the athlete was telling the official judge to take the athlete out of the water (because she was exhaling a lot right after immersing). judge said no, that's ok.

so from a safety point of view i'd rather have my own coach than someone else.

but only if i was into competitions, that is...

roland
 
I think this packing blackout thing is kind of irrelevant. Or not irrelevant, but it sucks just the same with the old rules. I mean if I announce 6 minutes (like I usually do) and blackout at the start, it'll be 5 minutes before anyone notices. I'm screwed anyway, even with the old rules. I just hope to god (or actually to someone else...Oh never mind) that there's another way to notice such trouble...The good thing is though, that usually a packing blackout victim will come around quite soon, contrary to a normal BO...

I don't know if that made any sense...Perhaps I better sleep now and read it again tomorrow
Considering this, it would be actually good if a coach could ask a signal any time BUT only as an addition to the normal safety signals.
 
While I have never had a blackout at the beginning of a static I have trained with a few people who have. It seems to me that anyone who blacks out will either retain their air (no problem) or it will begin to come out of their mouth/nose. If that is the case, it is the responsibility of the safety diver to ask for a signal at that time to ensure everything is okay.

Remember that a safety can ask for a signal at any time if they have any reason for concern. So, if the safety is doing their job, there is no chance someone could black out and be in danger for any length of time.

I recall a thread where someone complained that they didn't know what time they were at during a static because the safety was giving them "extra" taps. Apparently the competitor had released some air and the safety wanted a signal to ensure everything was fine.
 
In my previous post I was building on statements in this thread, but I can´t say I have heard anything directly that informs of the CAFA or USAA stance on their not including the new rules and whether this is a temporary measure just to allow confident competition holding without formal ratings. So, just wanted to say that anything I posted was just on the theory that what is being said in this thread has some accuracy and simplisitic meaning as suggested. I can imagine situations where maybe it is a very wise thing to do for now, but that would suggest removing the formality of ratings and records at such events.

If somebody has more details on the formal stance, reasonings, and consequence, that would assist.

Cheers,

Tyler
 
I don't know of any formal stance or discussions with CAFA as far as the rules. I would hope that any changes to the rules would be additions and not omissions. I don't think it would be right to eliminate any of the rules.

For example, perhaps adhering to the new surfacing protocol but with the addition of CAFA judges having the power to disqualify a competitor if they show signs of an obvious samba, despite having carried out the surfacing protocol.

If that was the nature of the changes I would see no reason why the results/rankings would not be able to stand within AIDA.
 

In Sweden we are discussing the same line of action. If we have additions (and not omissions) we should qualify for Aidaranking.

Bill S (new president of Aidasweden) says:
- Only ranking for countries with same rules.
- Rules are voted upon once a year at christmas.

(But I have a feeling he has not asked the board and has no intention of asking the assembly). He suggests a gentlemans agreement on "silent coaching". Which is not good enough for me.

My belief is that a special assembly would quite easily get majority on a vote of silent coaching.

Sebastian
Sweden
 
Silent coaching=The coach is forbidden to talk to the athlete within the 20sek!

He can not guide the athlete through the SP.
 
derelictp said:
Silent coaching = The coach is forbidden to talk to the athlete within the 20sek!

He can not guide the athlete through the SP.

What does "SP" mean ?

what do you call "THE" 20 seconds ?

Could you explain the role of the coach ouside these very 20 seconds...

Even if silent he may communicate in a very effective visual way with gestures... and freediving will be as tricky as a gambling room in a casino...

I think that all athletes should be treated equal in a comp ; if some are alone and some other receive external help, it is not fair, is it ?
 
Last edited:
Thanks Peter.
For me, and many others here in Finland, it's important that the coach tells the times with a low voice. So the athlete does not need to count taps, check watch etc... (some of us don't use any kind of goggles/masks in static).
But in 20secs after surfacing, it sounds a good idea, not to allow the coach to tell what to do. But this is easily bypassed with shouting spectators. In my Ängelholm dynamic video I can easily hear other Finns shouting me "Goggless off".
 
Sub,

`SP` means surfacing protocol - what the athelete must do upon surfacing.

The 20 seconds would be the 20 second window in which the athelete must must perform the surfacing protocol.

Every competitor has the right to bring a coach into the comp zone with them so it is fair. Whether or not they choose or plan to have a coach is up to the competitor.
 
Jason Billows said:
Sub,

`SP` means surfacing protocol - what the athelete must do upon surfacing.

The 20 seconds would be the 20 second window in which the athelete must must perform the surfacing protocol.

As far as I understood there are 20 additional seconds waiting till the decision of the judge... is then the silent coach supposed to be silent during this second window ?
Jason Billows said:
Every competitor has the right to bring a coach into the comp zone with them so it is fair. Whether or not they choose or plan to have a coach is up to the competitor.
As far as I could hear it might create a confusion with safety divers ; in case of BO, who is responsible of taking the competitor out of the water ?
 
Hi Sub.

If I remember correctly the new rules still state that the SP needs to be done in the first 20 seconds. If they don't perform it within that time then it wouldn't be helpful for someone to coach them along after that time anyway.

Personally I don't think there should be any question about the coaches role in the comp zone. I think they should be able to talk and encourage the athelete during the performance, but never touch them. As for safety, taps and brining someone up if need be, I think that should always be the responsibility of the safety diver upon instruction by the judge.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…