MINUTES OF THE TRI COUNTY MEETING              January 8, 2008      

 

President Gene Howard called the meeting to order at 8:12 PM at Riverton Country Club. 

 

New rep from Wenonah was introduced:

          Ron LaBenski

 

Treasurer’s Report

Ø      Steve Ries reports there was a beginning balance of $14,769.80 in the treasury.

Ø      Total deposits were $2,653.09.

Ø      Total bills paid (all pertaining to the Tri Co Championship Meet) were $1,448.26.

Ø      Ending balance of $15,974.63.

Ø      Balance not too high but there are enough funds for unexpected expenses.

 

Computer

Ø      Joe stated that he had prices for various Colorado timing systems and items.

Ø      Please let Joe know by April 2008 if your club needs to purchase a new timing/starting system.

Ø      Joe will forward all information and prices to all reps via e-mail.

 

David Katz / Swimming Coordinator

Ø      No report.

 

B Meets

Ø      Irene Binz could not attend but it was reported that she is working on the B meet schedule.  Contact her if you have any questions.

 

Old Business

Ø      Tri County website – there were problems with the company.  Lou D’Angelo reported that our domain name would be transferred to godaddy.com.  This is a much more reliable company.  This will also provide a savings to TCSPA.

Ø      Lou D’Angelo and Dom Acciani are currently working together on all computer issues.

Ø      RULE CHANGE PROPOSALS DISCUSSION

Ø       

Proposal #1

President Gene Howard presented the opinion of the TCSPA Executive Board.

 

There is nothing in the USA rules that gives the referee the responsibility of recording the finish of the races.  In referee training sessions, it is suggested that referees note the order of finish so it can be used in emergency situations and to keep the referee involved watching the race.

 

“Referee can overrule any meet official on a point of rule interpretation or on a judgment decision pertaining to an action which the referee has personally observed.”  To be sure, the referee has a great deal of authority in running the meet but I strongly disagree that this rule is intended to give the referee the ability to call the finish of a race.  I don’t believe that “action”, as stated in the rule, is intended to mean the finish of a race.

 

We have an expectation that all meet officials will be fair and honest in performing their job but we have checks and balances - there are two place judges (one from each team) and also three timers on each lane.  If the place judges disagree on the order of finish then the times are used.  This proposal would give the referee the unrestricted ability to disregard the decision of at least one of the place judges, maybe both, and the results of all of the timers. It gives the referee the ability to override the built-in checks and balances in calling the finishes. 

 

The USA rules reference to the difference in times refers to the differences that occur between two timing systems for the same swimmer.  In Tri County, we have one timing system – the manual clocks.  Manual timing systems are, obviously, the least accurate of the timing systems but the reality is, it’s all we have to work with.  This proposal involves a complete misapplication of the USA rule.  To call a finish a tie because the swimmers finished within .30 of a second of each other is simply unfair.  In swimming, .30 seconds is a lot of time in a close race.   I won’t even get into the impact that this proposal would have on the scoring table.

 

There is nothing in the USA or Tri County rules that prohibit place judges from making changes on their cards prior to the card being picked up by the runner. There are no provisions for the scorer’s table nor the referee to review or disregard a place judges order of finish because there are changes made. Based on my own personal experience, changes are often made.  The presumption is that what is reflected on the card is the order of finish as seen by the place judge.  Therefore, it should be processed according to the rules.  The Board recommends a “no” vote on all of the provisions of Proposal 1>

 

Gerry Wixted commented on how well he feels our current system works in determining the winners.  He based his opinion in his many years experience as a Place Judge.  He stated that a Place Judge has only ONE JOB while the referee has many jobs.  One isolated incident does not require a rule change.

 

There was continued discussion by others in regards to the importance of the position/placement of the Place Judge on the pool deck.

 

Lou D’Angelo disagreed with Gene Howard on his opinion.  Lou also stated that he felt the current ballot system is unfair in the relays.  He is also concerned with the time differences between timers.

 

          Proposal #2 -  Discussion on whether 20 minutes or 30 minutes should be allocated for warm-ups prior to a meet.  Much discussion followed.  Vote at the next meeting on 30 minutes.

 

          Second discussion followed on the 30 minute time limit to appeal to the swim coordinator after the conclusion of the meet.  Some felt it was too restrictive.  Various suggestions followed to change the wording.

 

          Proposal #3 – Discussion of how this proposal to change dual meet scoring would hurt the smaller clubs.  Many concerns were voiced.  Many reps felt it would take away the fun and change the nature of this summer league.  Would lengthen the meet.

 

New Business

Ø      No new business was discussed.

 

Next meeting is Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM at Riverton Country Club.

 

Meeting adjourned at 9:42 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Kathy Fitzpatrick

Secretary