Here's the upshot of the long-running high-tech swimsuit debate: Watch what you wear at this year's sectional swim meets.
By now, most in the high school swim community are aware of the ban announced on full-body, high-tech suits. The suits were credited (or blamed, depending on your take on these things) for a season (both boys and girls) in which fast times were the norm, and record times were not surprising (e.g., at last year's Div. 2 state meet, five swimmers broke the state record in the 100 breaststroke, and it was lowered by an astounding 2.23 seconds). For many swimmers, the suit of choice was the full-body blue70s; it wasn't unusual to see entire heats at the state meet (or entire teams, in the case of DeForest's girls team at the Baraboo sectional) wearing the suits.
Here's the press release from the National Federation of State High School Associations announcing the ban on high-tech suits:
http://www.nfhs.org/web/2009/08/hightech_swimsuits_banned_in_hi.aspx
The WIAA has said it will follow the ban recommendations. This is the annual WIAA sports meeting presentation that details the WIAA's interpretation of the ban (the section devoted to suits starts at about 22 minutes and runs for about five minutes):
http://wiaa.tv/events/6683
In short, it sounds like the blue70s are out, while TYRs and Speedos (though it's unclear about the LZRs) are in. Here is some additional information posted by the WIAA recently about the ban:
--------------------------------
SWIMSUIT TECHNOLOGY
Question: Should officials inspect swimmers if they view a potential violation of the new swimming suit rule?
Interpretation: No, all questions regarding the legality of a swimming suit are directed to the coach of the swimmer involved. If no violation is observed by the official, then there is no violation. If a potential violation is observed by an official, the coach of the swimmer is contacted. The coach handles the inspection
and reports to the official whether or not there is a violation.
Question: Will a list of legal or illegal swimming suits be available?
Interpretation: The NFHS is currently informing us that they will not be providing a list of suits at this time. Through their discussions with the NCAA, USA-S, Speedo, and TYR, the requirements of made of textile, permeable and no aid in buoyancy should be easy to just observe. The manufacturers are not making anything that won’t be in compliance. Should a list become available, it will be provided to school administrators, WISCA leadership and WIAA officials.
-----------------------------
Coaches, swimmers and parents may want to pay particular attention to the WIAA sports presentation clip as it pertains to the role of officials and coaches at meets, and the procedure that will be used for identifying, and potentially DQing, swimmers wearing non-conforming suits. The WIAA says it will equate decisions about suits on the pool deck the same way it rules on jewelry. But given that most jewelry takes seconds to take off, and most high-tech suits take several minutes to put on, it's likely that a swimmer risks a DQ (because meet officials won't hold up the meet for a suit change) if they step up to the blocks for a race wearing a banned suit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Blue70, most Lazr's, JAKED and Arena X-Glide are all out, but most obviously only because they have zippers. So you don't need to look at fabric and permeability.
The problem is suits like the FS Pro and TYR Tracer Fusion. They were around well before the LAZR, but are they legal? Nobody will step up and answer that.
If I was an official I would be hopping mad at the WIAA and NFHS for the way this rule reads. They are just supposed to ask the coach if its a legal suit? What the #$#% is the coach supposed to say? And how is the coach supposed to know in the first place?
The sad thing is that this is going to blow up at sectionals, and some kid's year is going to be ruined, either by getting DQ'ed or by getting beat by another swimmer in a suit that should have been banned - AND ITS ALL COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE IF THE WIAA WOULD JUST DO ITS JOB!
prhjd60, the thing is the WIAA and the NFHS are just following the ruling by FINA, and using the exact same words. FINA has not determined what is water permeable, so I would direct things back at FINA somewhat. They too are not putting out a list like they have in the past. I guess I am going to wait and see how USA Swimming treats it this fall, as they are also following FINA's directive. If they seem to accept some of these suits, I would think WIAA will accept them as well. I also don't have to worry about it until the men's H.S. season, and hope that they know what they are doing by then.
Quite frankly with boys, limiting it to jammers and briefs pretty much ends the debate. You could make Jammers out of old life jackets and its only going help a little bit.
For girls its a lot different. Look, all the WIAA has to do is interpret the rule. Take the 6-10 pages from the Walters and All American catalogs with the racing suits, and give a thumbs up or thumbs down on each suit. Admit up front that it is not fancy lab testing, but just a ruling by the governing body based on the text of the rule and the information available. Get a sample of each suit, or look up the manufacturer's literature on line. MAKE A RULING! It might be right or wrong in some objective sense, but at least it will be clear. Then we'll know what is in and out, and we can plan accordingly. Also this way the officials can have some guidance on how to rule if an issue comes up on deck during a meet.
I do think this has the unfortunate chance of leading to a great deal of misunderstanding at sectional and conference meets (often used to get that one last solid time in an event for sectional seeding) -- particularly at the girl's sectionals, where I think this is going to be much more problematic than at boys sectionals, due to the nature of the initial ruling.
Not to take sides on this, but I can see where the WIAA might feel stuck on this issue. With all due respect to the WIAA, you'd be hard-pressed to argue they have the kind of in-house expertise to develop a legal/illegal list of suits. So they must rely on other folks, and the logical ones are the national association (which has taken a pass on this -- so far), USA Swimming (which is said to be issuing some kind of statement this fall) and FINA -- which did issue a list, and which was promptly criticized in numerous quarters for the fairness, as well as rigidity and thoroughness of testing of suits, in developing the list.
Having said all that, it's not hard to imagine a heated discussion occuring on the pool deck of a sectional meet, with two coaches going at it, an official stuck in the middle, and some swimmer off to the side, wondering if she'll be able to swim her race (all of which, of course, probably ruins her preparation for the race). I do think the WIAA has some sort of obligation to avoid having such a scenario play out this fall.
I don't buy the argument about not having the expertise. They had the expertise to issue the rule. They need to intepret it with the same level. We understand they aren't scientists. Don't pretend to be. Just make the best call they can make with the expertise they do have. An umpire may not have a perfect view of every pitch, or every tag on a runner, but his job is to call the balls and strikes, and safe or out, to the best of his ability.
They may well get criticized for whatever ruling they make. But that is not a reason to avoid the issue.
Not to split hairs, but I don't think the WIAA issued any ruling -- in essence, they merely followed the advice of their national association (not surprising, really). And the WIAA seems intent on following the national assocation's lead (or lack of it, really) in not coming up with any list of allowable suits.
Not to get off track, but do we really want the WIAA to become the "sorter-outer" for all of these technical questions for all 22 of the sports it oversees? The WIAA seems pretty much focused on doing a few things -- broad eligiblity issues (not a simple thing), coordinating educational and training programs for officials and coaches, running tournaments, realigning conferences and divisional placements. The swimsuit controversy, it seems to me, is really a technical issue, and one that it seems reasonable to look toward sport-specific organizations for guidance.
Well I certainly don't have any extra hairs to split, but the WIAA added a rule, Rule 3-2-2 to the official rules governing all high school swimming contests in the state of Wisconsin. The rule clearly states that swimmers wearing illegal suits must not compete, and if they take part in the event, ie step on the blocks to start the race, they must, must be, not might be or may be, must be disqualified. The problem is that there really is no clear guidance as to what is an illegal suit.
Are they scientifically qualified, heck no, but they issue interpretations of their rules all the time. For example, they banned the use of laser rangefinders for high school golf, and I doubt they have a single physicist on the staff.
They need to clear this up. They are the only ones that can, for this year. They just have to make the best ruling they can, declare what is and is not legal for this season, and then we can all get on with the actual sport. When FINA, USA Swimming and the NCAA issue more detailed rules, they can adopt those, but they can't wait, the season is under way.
This is certainly an interesting debate, but prhjd60, I disagree about: "Quite frankly with boys, limiting it to jammers and briefs pretty much ends the debate. You could make Jammers out of old life jackets and its only going help a little bit".
They have banned the leggings for boys (and they didn't have zippers or fasteners) yet the girls still get to wear "knee skins" if the "knee skins" weren't banned for girls, then why were leggings banned for boys? Why didn't the girls just be told wear a tank suit that ends at the hips? After all, the knee skins won't help that much.
The FSPro's as jammers do make a difference. I have a little guy who races in them and his times are that much better in his Pro. My HS swimmer had used the FS Pro leggings (now outlawed) and his times this year also were better than in "just jammers". Big time drops? No, not like we saw in the blue70s but respectable time drops.
I am hoping the FSPro's will stay as legal suits as our sons have had good success with these suits.
Becky
Not having boy swimmers in the family, I'll take your word that the FS Pro Jammer makes a difference over a standard FS jammer. The point is still the same, there is no guidance as to whether the FS Pro jammer is legal or not. For both boys and girls, the shape of the suit is defined (whether the differences in shape are "fair" or not is a different debate), but the question of the material the suits are made from is still wide open. What does it mean to be "permeable, 100% to air and water"? We don't know, and the NFHS and WIAA won't tell us.
I'll add another point while I'm on my daily rant on this subject: The NFHS and WIAA expect an official to be able to make a judgement on this rule on the deck. There is no reason the WIAA or NFHS can't just as easily make that same judgement in an office.
Post a Comment