Hello,
I think the solution lies in coming to grips with a consistent approach to the rules.
I think that equating the recovery period with the moments AFTER the finish line of a 100m track race makes no sense at all.
In our sport, the recovery is more like the last 10m of such a race. In a 100m track sprint or say, even better, a marathon, if you fail to cross the finish line, you're out. No official result. Zero points.
So our surface protocol is part of completing the race, not what happens after. The points made about runners collapsing has only relevance to the look and feel of the sport (boxing, rodeo, UFC, are all good counter points).
What I see as a missed opportunity or point for further investigation is in the discussion of the float/no float argument. The assumption that heavy neck weights mean that an enforced self-reliance during SP is just not feasible (self-supported) is not at all evident to me.
That being said, wouldn't make so much more sense if athletes had to support themselves on the surface? Yes, it is difficult. Yes, it would put divers with more body fat or huge lungs at a disadvantage. Boo hoo! Them's the breaks! (It would be nice to level the playing field somewhat for all those big lunged freaks!). So you would have a choice to make: a configuration that lets you float more during SP or one that gives you perfect neutral buoyancy during the swim?
Natalia and a few others have already taken this step with dispensing of goggles. Yes, it is harder to see. Yes, you'll have to wait for the water to clear from your eyes on the surface. Yes, perhaps it can make you feel less sure of how clear and crisp you are at the end of your dive. Yes, people with contact are at a disadvantage if they want to use this approach because they will be almost blind on the surface when they have to face the judge.
But you have possibly higher DR, more streamlining, simplicity, no risk of goggle failure, and a dirt simple SP (for some).
You make your choice and pick your strategy. I see this point the same way.
For sure, if someone needs to scull with their hands or lay on their backs (which would work in the SP as long as mouth doesn't go under), then a samba or pmbm will be way more likely to disqualify a competitor, perhaps to the point where it would virtually eliminate white cards in those cases.
If someone shakes/sambas AND manages to keep their airway above the water, and signal okay, while using hands and arms to support themselves, then in my mind they are conscious enough to deserve the white card.
It would be interesting to see if someone with pmbm could actually keep themselves on the surface under these conditions. And by definition a black out should 99% of the time result in someone going under if a true black out means a momentary complete lapse of motor control.
It also levels the playing field from pool to pool around the world and brings in an extra layer of safety in the sense of clarity for the safety divers - oh! he's gone under...grab him. If he stops sculling, and begins to sink, the safeties can get ready to assist. They have the chance for some amount of fair warning.
I guess we tend to think of optimal weighting in freediving, especially in pool events, as a sacred right. However, going back to a pure safety ideal, if you are neutral underwater and very negative at the surface, you are in more danger. I do like to have the rules have some relation to real world safety strategies...my bias, take it or leave it.
There, all done:
- pmbm: solved
- differences from pool to pool or lane to lane: solved
- subjective judging: solved (airway above surface, full protocol becomes more exacting so less room for false positives)
Just from one simple rule change: self-support during SP. :friday
Okay, my delusional celebration is over. Looking forward to hearing counter arguments or further developments of this train of thought.
Oh, and Linda, you're only a chicken if you stop the race before you get to the finish line, but if you didn't cross it, you just screwed up. :inlove
Pete
