New rules discussion

[naiad]

Why would a demonstration of physical prowess be any less valid or expected? My same example requires the need to have physical energy to respond. The physical standard is that you need enough physical energy to say "I am OK". Is that standard unreasonable and if so why?

Some ideas we devised for protocols required much more physical energy that that, such as swimming onto a platform and sitting in a water level chair.

I think it would be easier to do a physical task, such as sitting in a chair or making a hand gesture, than something which needs control of breathing. Several times I have seen someone finish a max dynamic, with no signs of shaking, blue lips etc., and they have been extremely out of breath for more than a few seconds afterwards.

However, I understand that whatever protocol is agreed, there will always be someone who is unhappy with it and who finds that it works to their disadvantage, so we have to compromise and find something acceptable.

Lucia

 

[joanna]

Tyler, I agree that the surfacing protocol must demonstrate mental prowess. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it is important that it isn't too easy. However, I still think it isn't fair to have to say I'm ok within 20 seconds of surfacing - it's a matter of being physically rather than mentally unable to do so.

Before Nice, I was afraid that I won't be able to talk within 20s, because I often feel "out of breath" after a dive. But actually, it wasn't so difficult. 20s were really enough to pronounce a short phrase like this.

Then, before changing the protocol again, I think that we should try it without having a coach talking during the 20s, because this is the interest of the protocol, having to be clear enough to recall and perform some tasks. And there is so much flexibility in the rule (you can do and say anything at any time as long as you do it once in the right order) that we don't need to be afraid doing it wrong.

It was maybe already mentioned, but we also discussed that it was not "natural" for a french to say "I'm Ok". Even if it is simple, you would tend to tell it in your own language, as its purpose is to certify that you are fine. I think that there should'nt be any restriction about the language as long as one hears the word "OK" (I'm Ok, Ich bin Ok, je suis ok, etc...). This should'nt be a problem for the judges as it may even be a disadvantage if the phrase is longer (and it would be difficult to be shorter...).
:wave
Joanna

 

[naiad]

Before Nice, I was afraid that I won't be able to talk within 20s, because I often feel "out of breath" after a dive. But actually, it wasn't so difficult. 20s were really enough to pronounce a short phrase like this.

I'll give it a try again and see what happens.

Another question - are you allowed to hold onto the side of the pool when surfacing? I always have to do this.

Lucia

 

[jome]

Lucia,

No, you have to surface first, then grab onto the pool. A lot of people have problems with this (my self included), but you really just have to detrain your self from doing that.

Ok, so there's been a long, heated debate about the rules. Most agree that the SP could use some fine tuning, but I haven't seen many concrete suggestions yet.

Throw in your suggestions, how ever ridiculous they are. Don't worry, we'll all laugh at you together.

Here's some to give an example of silly suggestions.

1. The athlete is give an 4-digit number 45 minutes before the performance and must repeat the code withing 20s of surfacing. This would test pretty well if he has memory problems. The down side is, how do you make it fair? Some numbers are easier to remember (1111) than others (3729). Maybe just showing 1 digit/letter just before the dive that you have to remember. Just crazy ideas...

2. The athlete is required to place a small object (let's say a coin or a token) through a small slot. Not a huge task if he's ok, but impossible if you have even slight LMC. Obviously wouldn't work for ocean diciplines, but might be fine for pool.

Ok, I'm dry for now. One point to consider is, that while in the pool you could make a pretty complicated protocol that requires fine motor control, obviously in the ocean the SP has to be something a bit more robust. With the waves splashing and conditions changing, it think just being able to hold onto the line, taking your mask off, giving an ok and uttering "I'm ok" maybe a lot to do and in fact a pretty good meter of one's physical and mental state.

 

[DeepThought]

1. The athlete is give an 4-digit number 45 minutes before the performance and must repeat the code withing 20s of surfacing. This would test pretty well if he has memory problems. The down side is, how do you make it fair? Some numbers are easier to remember (1111) than others (3729). Maybe just showing 1 digit/letter just before the dive that you have to remember. Just crazy ideas...

Many people would fail that regardless if there's diving in the middle or not.

2. The athlete is required to place a small object (let's say a coin or a token) through a small slot. Not a huge task if he's ok, but impossible if you have even slight LMC. Obviously wouldn't work for ocean diciplines, but might be fine for pool.

And thuss completing the impression that we are indeed dolphins/seals.
It's not a bad idea for serving the purpose but I think it might be a little bit too rediculous. Also, can we find any other sport that it's performance pass such kind of judgement? Is anybody checking boxer if he can go bar fighting at the end of the fight? if a marathon or a 200m runner can avoid getting hit by a car at the end of the race?
Not that I can't come up with anything better, you invited criticism.

 

[efattah]

I still think that we should make the athlete get out of the water. This would be very easy for the public to understand. So what, maybe you need to come up a bit earlier in order to accomplish it, but it is very spectator friendly and shows that the athlete can take care of his own safety after his performance.

If the diver is in trouble and fails to get out of the water by the time the 'buzzer' goes off, he gets a red card and everyone understands that he failed.

 

[cebaztian]

1. The athlete is give an 4-digit number 45 minutes before the performance and must repeat the code withing 20s of surfacing.

Lovely and very effective in order to prove your mental awareness. Unfortunately this would DQ half of my STA dives since part of the performance is shutting down as many unecessary functions as possible - one of them being memory.
AND we are freedivers - not matemathicians. There must be some natural logic to the tasks: as looking someone into the eyes and saying I am OK.

It was maybe already mentioned, but we also discussed that it was not "natural" for a french to say "I'm Ok".

I really feel for the french in this matter. It must be hard to belong to the most outstanding and refined culture in the history of earth and have to succumb to this anglosaxian lingvistical conspiracy that has been riding this planet for some years now. But I guess you just have to swollow that.
We swedes would really want to say I am OK in some fornordic lingo but we have to compromise ourselves into this silly language that english really is. But try clenching your fist behind your back while saying it - it really helps - I have tried.

Sebastian
Sweden

 

[samdive]

coins in slots, numbers, getting into a chair - what on earth has any of that to do with freediving? The current protocol is fine as I see it - and natural - you have to do things you would normally expect to be able to do freediving for fun or for competition - the only exception was that I agree with Joanna that people should be able to say it in their own language - or even just "OK" as that is universal, or almost.

I also agree that we should try this without the coaching, again without the coaching is more realistic - not as easy, but more realistic, and fairer. And if we all practise it without coaching, then on the day if we are allowed a coach, all the better, if we don't, no need to panic.

Give the rules more of a chance

(but bring back compulsory taps in static!)

S

 

[derelictp]

I agree, the coach should be silent.

Maybe the protocol should be only the strict protocol AND NO MORE SIGNS THAN THAT.

If the athlete does for example 2 ok signs he/she is disqualified.

Simple; Breath, Do your 3 tasks and no more and you are ok.

An option is to shorten the time to 15 sec but only if nessesary after testing no coaching during the 20 sec.

I also like the "get out of the water option" that Eric suggested. But we should wait with this until current protocol with modifications fails to restrict LMC. (If it does)

 

[subaquaticus]

when a rule in sport lead to disqualify an athlete who realized a perfect performance the rule must be precised
When you see for example a freediver at the end of a perf smiling to the judges
and being disqualified because he says OK instead of I'm ok ... do you think the public could understand

I agree with you...

 

[jome]

What does the notorious "field soberity test" have to do with driving? Do you need to be able to walk silly and touch your nose eyes closed to drive? Or to say the alphabet in reverse order? Of course not.

What does it have to do with drunk diving? Well, the idea is, that it may be an indicator that the driver who was acting suspicuous has maybe had more than his limit of substances that affect driving (although the effectiveness of this protocol is highly debatable).

What does being able to remember a simple number or digit have to do with diving? Absolutely nothing. What does samba have to do with diving? Nothing, as long as the diver executes his dive perfectly...It's just that now and again, one diver "drinks too much".

As I said, my ideas may be "out there", but I think the discussion is still valid. What is the best way to objectively judge if a person is within a wanted range of physical and mental shape upon surfacing.

I'll let you all in a secret. I don't care if sambas are allowed or not. I still intend to do my performances without samba. I don't care what the public thinks or what it looks like...Try explaining a sport of holding one's breath over 9 minutes to someone completely unfamilliar with it and you'll see that it makes little difference if the person's a bit shaky or not...To them they're retarded and braindead anyway. There's no rule that will eliminate sambas in competitions. They are simply a part of the sport and the public will always witness those as long as there are freediving competitions. Rules can only affect what performances are valid and what are not and they should be consistent about that. I like the new rules and others seem to be agreeing. But a lot of people do not. What I'd like to see from these people, is some constructive ideas. What would you change? How do you think we could reliably evaluate one's mental and physical state without it looking completely idiotic?

What I do care about is not being subjectively judged for my performance. I have made some suggestions to how that could be. Eric and Tyler have made some good ones. They're just ideas...I'd like to see more. You know, brainstorming...It does not mean that they will be the rules that come into effect. It means that we throw around all ideas, even the stupidest ones, and gather them all up in a big pile. After we have a bunch of ideas, we start sorting them through and see which ones make sense and which are just ridiculous.

It is true that the new rules should be given a chance to prove them selves. If we actually start seeing performances that were clearly out there passed, then there may be room for adjustment. If not, then we'll all live happily ever after. In the meanwhile, I don't see how could it hurt to discuss what might be the other options if they don't work.

I agree about the compulsory tapping...

 

[joanna]

I really feel for the french in this matter. It must be hard to belong to the most outstanding and refined culture in the history of earth and have to succumb to this anglosaxian lingvistical conspiracy that has been riding this planet for some years now. But I guess you just have to swollow that.

Thanks Sebastian for this most constructive comment
But there was no anti-americanism/anglosaxonism in my remark... In switzerland, we have to deal with four languages, and we often choose english to simplify things. When I said french I could have said chinese, italian or whatever. I just think this would be fairer by avoiding disqualifiquation of someone being actually ok but making a language mistake (joining Sam's comment)

I still think that we should make the athlete get out of the water. This would be very easy for the public to understand. So what, maybe you need to come up a bit earlier in order to accomplish it, but it is very spectator friendly and shows that the athlete can take care of his own safety after his performance.

This is an idea, but in pool the walls are not always at water level and it can be tricky to come out... This would ask the use of platforms or constructs to give everyone the same conditions. Would it be realistic for small competitions?

 

[tylerz]

Good thoughts and initiative in exposing yourself to ridicule! I second your suggestion that brainstorming is effective here. I think somebody should take all the ideas and make a list of them with summary information regarding them. That way they can be viewed at once in comparison to each other and then people have the tendency to more fairly consider them.

No matter how crazy they initially sound, it is not fair to cast them aside without looking for the underlying strategy and relation. I don't agree with the opinion that any task which is not obviously a diving task is unacceptable for competitive diving. It is a task. Who cares what it is as long as it accomplishes the objectives. Put it this way, if we are given the choice between a significantly objective assessment of the diver where everybody feels they are treated equally, or another protocol that is not quite as objective, both of which were performed in a small amount of time. I would definately want the first one. I don't think the task would really matter to me as long as it was from the water and was direct in its assessments. I think it is just romanticism that cares about the task and the concept of "natural". Anybody disagree? For what reason?

Cheers,

Tyler

 

[Observer]

Just a thought from a non-diving observer...
How about at the bottom plate you actually have a number of tags you can grab, each with some distinctive marking, like a number, a color, a word, or some other symbol. Upon surfacing, the diver gets 20 seconds to look at the tag they grabbed and put it into a corresponding slot or box on the surface, thus proving their mental acuity. Or if you want to be cute about it, how about having it be a string of pearls rather than a tag, and the string must be looped on something upon surfacing. (pearl diving... get it? )

 

[tylerz]

In the name of brainstorming as Jome suggested:

Upon surfacing the diver secures the rope/buoy, looks for a judge, judge shows a colored/numbered card/sign of which there is 3 possibilities, diver must place hand over the similar sign on the buoy/deck/hanging or wherever they are located, judge shows a different card every 4 seconds (or whatever), diver responds appropriately, cycle repeating for a total of 20-30 seconds. The atheletes movements would be extremely small due to the nature of the placement of the signs, therefore even while recovering the task would require nominal energy. The first sign would be given after 3 seconds of the diver surfacing. Strategy is that the mind would be required to deal with memory of what the diver is supposed to do as a response, recognition of what the judge is requesting, and motion control to demonstrate the ability to react. Disadvantages: In dynamics the diver signs would have to be relocated to the location of the diver at the end of the dive, which leaves room for mistakes; deciding the actual times and seconds requires consideration; placement of hand on the appropriate sign could be subjective - solution: sign is a secured card/tag that needs to be flipped over...

 

[subaquaticus]

I just think this would be fairer by avoiding disqualifiquation of someone being actually ok but making a language mistake (joining Sam's comment)

I completely agree with you...

 

[Veronika]

I consider brainstorming a very good thing here.


Basically there are two types of performances one could chose for a new surface protocol. Number one is mental tasks, number two is motoric tasks that have to do with coordinated movements.
Motoric tasks have the advantage that it seems to be easier to find some that could be used for our purpose. They have the disadvantage that they are either too easy or mostly look dumb ;o). What also came into my mind is that LMC is the hypoxy of the brain. Uncoordinated movements are just the result of this state and come in various shapes and sizes ;o). So if we try to measure the motoric movements that might be caused by a hypoxic brain we are just measure an indicator. If we develop cognitive tasks, we probably measure LMC more directly which should be a good thing. Any thoughts on this ?
Cognitive tasks that could indicate an LMC probably are more difficult to find. It would have to do with some task that cannot be automized, and they must not be too simple. So it would have to incorporate tasks that can be changed, such as (just a few ideas) spelling out a number in English (probably unfair though), calculating numbers that are shown (like e.g. the judge shows 5fingers on left hand and 3 on the right and a sign if the athlete has to add or subtract) etc. .
If we decide to go for a motoric task because we don't find it too embarassing it would have to do with very fine coordination. I could imagine things like drawing a circle in a ring and if you get across the edges than you're DQ'd. The thinner the ring the harder it will get, so the difficulty could be adjusted to our needs.
If we want to and again, do not find it too ridiculous, we could also combine cognitive and motoric tasks. In the HAWIE-R Intelligence Test there is a task that incorporates small cubes that are partly red, partly white. The tested person is shown a figure that can be composed with the cubes. That could be suitable for us, too.

Just a heap of probably useless ideas, just my personal contribution to the brainstorming .

Veronika

 

[subaquaticus]

"how to keep your airways out of the water while shaking with samba"...

well its a lot easier in bi fins than a mono! do you reckon everyone will start changing back?

and even more difficult if you do without fins with a neckweight of 2 kg !

just before doing my DNF in Nice I made the remark to the judges that maintaining my head above water without fins and with a neckweight of 2 kg makes me look like a little dog... all the more since I am prone to push from the bottom of the pool to emerge...

 

[subaquaticus]

I also agree that we should try this without the coaching, again without the coaching is more realistic - not as easy, but more realistic, and fairer. And if we all practise it without coaching, then on the day if we are allowed a coach, all the better, if we don't, no need to panic.

Thank you for pointing out this huge paradox...

How do you want at the same time :

1. test the mental, physical (why not sexual ?) capacity of the athlete ?

2. allow him to have a coach yelling orders ?

All this sounds to me very tricky...

 

[subaquaticus]

What I do care about is not being subjectively judged for my performance.

So do I... But I think that the more complicate the procedure, the larger part is given to the subjectivity of the judge...