TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING—
|
NOTE: The report
was ACCEPTED by the Board at its
meeting on |
The Technical Committee met
on August 29, 2006 at the home of Dan Warner.
The meeting was called to order at
TABLED ITEMS FROM
The committee reviewed items
from the April 3, 2005 meeting that were tabled at the New England Swimming
Board meeting on April 12, 2005.
1. Conformity to the
Calendar: The April 3 report read: “Committee members acknowledged that there is
still discussion in the New England Swimming Community concerning the scheduling
of the Open Meet, Senior Championships, 13 and over Age Groups. The committee agreed that they would prefer a
13 and over Age Group Championship and a Senior Championship during short
course with an Open Championship during long course. However, the committee would like to hear
from the Age Group Committee and the Senior Committee on this subject. It was recommended that both committees have
meetings following the Coaches Meeting at the Annual Meeting. Mary Riddell will check to see if space is
available at that time.”
The short course calendar for
2005—2006 includes a 13 and over Age Group Championship and a Senior Championship and it is anticipated that
the long course calendar will include an Open Championship. As recommended by the Senior Committee, the
Senior Championship is scheduled for December rather than during the
traditional “championship season.” Matt
Craven reported that coaches have reported that they do not like this date. If
the calendar was too full in March, partly due to the Sectional Meet which is
being held in
2. Eight and under “Fun
Meet”: The April 3 report read: “There was discussion of the 8 and under
“fun” meet which was held last summer and will be held this summer as part of a
team specialty meet. The two aspects
discussed were if there were a need for this meet and if so, when was the best time for it.
A suggestion was made to have it part of the age group qualifier. The subject was referred to the Age Group
Committee for more discussion and a recommendation.”
The meet this summer was held
as a separate session during a team specialty meet at GMSC. The format seemed to work and attendance was
good. Other options would be the same
type of format (separate sessions) at the age group qualifier, although that
might be too early in the season; a stand alone meet, which might be
financially impractical; or a meet during short course, which would leave 8 and unders
with no meet during long course. Laura Matuszak said that the Age Group Committee would address
this issue again.
3. Invitational Meets: The April 3 report read: “The problem of Invitational Meets was
discussed. The committee recommends that
teams that run invitational meets (which are not on the calendar) be required
to pay the $.50 per individual swim surcharge on all kinds of meets, including
trials and finals meets and distance meets, and all events, including distance
events. It was noted that New England Swimming already has a policy that teams
that run invitational meets are not allowed to include a “Swimmer Participation
Fee” as part of their fee structure. In
addition, teams running Invitational Meets would have to receive permission
from all other teams running calendar meets on their proposed date. If
this is not received, the final decision will rest with the Calendar
Committee.”
Bob Gauvin
reported that several meets that had been “invitationals”
this past year will be on the calendar for 2005—2006. He suggested that not allowing the swimmer
participation fee for invitationals has made them
less attractive. There was discussion
concerning the permission that teams running invitationals
have to receive from teams running calendar meets. Mary Riddell said that late bidders have to
receive permission and she thinks that teams running invitationals
ought to also. She does not want to make
the decision by herself as to whether to sanction a meet or not. The committee
recommends that the original recommendation be submitted to the board with the
addition (printed in bold) that the board made at the April meeting. This
policy will be in effect as of Long Course 2006.
4. Lottery Process: The April 3 report read: “Working or Not? The committee agreed that there has been some
unhappiness with the lottery process.
There are several common complaints.
Teams that are running meets would like to be able to guarantee
admission to their meet to an out of district team. (Currently if a meet is over subscribed, the
out of district team is cut first, before the lottery.) Teams also would like to give preference to
teams that regularly support their meets.
Some teams would like to guarantee a certain level of quality swimmers
in their meets. Also, there are concerns
about the lotteries that are not being run through the office.”
The April 3 report further
read: “Possible Changes: A suggestion was made that addresses some of
these concerns while still maintaining admission to all meets to at least some
New England teams. The committee
recommends the following policy which would be effective as of short course
2005—2006. A team running a meet would
set a number of swims that the team could accommodate in the meet, for example,
4,000 swims. The team could then reserve
up to 75% of those swims for their own team and any other teams (
Mariella Allard reported that this possible change had been
discussed at the meet managers meeting.
The meet managers liked the concept but questioned the 75% figure. Matt Craven suggested that instead of a
percentage, a number of teams be specified, and he suggested two teams. This was appealing to the committee because
it was simple and easy to understand.
However, if three large teams (including the host team) are involved,
the three teams could take up the whole meet and there would be no space for
other teams. With a 75% figure, at least
1,000 spots in a 4,000 swim meet would be available. Bob Gauvin said
that he thought this process would discourage invitationals
and would make teams feels more confident about running successful meets while
still allowing the smaller teams opportunities to be accepted at meets. The committee agreed that it should be
stressed that this policy is optional and also agreed that teams that are
planning to take advantage of this policy should put it in their
invitations. The committee confirmed
that all lotteries would be run by the office.
The committee agreed to resubmit this proposal to the board.
5. Photographers on
Deck: The April 3 report read: “Priscilla Davis has received an opinion from
a USA Swimming attorney. It is currently
under review.”
Priscilla Davis reported that
the only photographers allowed on deck during a meet would be professional
photographers contracted by the host team or press photographers approved by
the host team. No other photographers
would be allowed on deck during the meet.
GENERAL MEET DISCUSSIOIN AND
REVIEW:
1. Meet Entry Fees: The committee recommends that maximum relay
fees be increased to four times the fee for an individual event in the
meet. That would be up to $14 for a
timed final meet and up to $20 for a trials and finals meet. This fee could be charged for relay time
trials also. The committee recommends
that fees for distance events (400 and longer) be increased to $5 for all
meets.
2. Admission Fees: The committee recommends no change to the
current $1 limit for admission to New England Meets.
3. Program Fees: The committee recommends no change to the
current policy which does not limit the charge for programs but requires that
the charge be stated in the meet information.
|
OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP: 1. Swim fastest to
slowest—500 free, 400 IM: The
committee recommends that at all New England championship meets all distance
events 400 and longer be swum fastest to slowest, alternating men and
women. At all other meets this would
be optional but would have to be stated in the meet invitation. The committee recognized that at USA
Swimming championships this is not the policy but at our championship meets
we have more swimmers in these events.
2. Policy to allow distance
events to have 2 swimmers per lane:
The committee does not favor two swimmers per lane especially since
not all timing systems could accommodate this and swimmers do not get
splits. However, it recommends that
our championship meet invitations reflect that this might occur in events 800
and longer if necessary because of the size of the event(s). If swimmers have to swim 2 to a lane, the
committee recommends that girls swim with girls and boys with boys and that
all heats, except those that swim at night, be combined, not just the slower ones. In addition, the committee recommends that
the time standards be looked at for these events. 3. A-B Flight Meet: Matt Craven suggested that we consider A
and B flights for our championship meets.
A certain number of heats (A) would swim in the main part of the meet,
and the rest of the heats (B) would swim after the main meet was
finished. This would allow more
swimmers in the meet and permit shorter sessions. However, some swimmers would be in both
flights, swimmers with non-conforming times would be at a disadvantage, and
the list of those who swim in finals would not be finalized until after the B
flight. The committee does not
recommend this proposal but does recommend that the Senior Committee discuss
it. This entire section was TABLED for discussion at a future meeting. |
RELAYS AT CHAMPIONSHIPS:
1. Number of relays allowed
per team: The committee recommends
unlimited relays at regionals and 12 and under
championships, up to 4 relays per team at 13 and over championships, open
championships, and seniors. The number
of relays, however, may be limited by the meet director due to the size of the
meet. This should be stated in the meet
invitation.
2. Number of relays that may
score: The committee recommends that
only 2 relays be allowed to score at championship and end of season meets. (There is no scoring at regionals.)
3. Composition of
relays: The committee recommends that
there be no limitation on who swims in relays except for the regional
meets. At the regional meets, since each
team can bring so many swimmers, there will be no relay only swimmers. For all meets that allow relay only swimmers,
all relay only swimmers must be listed on the meet entry. Otherwise, they will not be allowed to swim.
4. 13—14 Relays at the
Open: The committee recommends that
separate 13 and 14 relays be eliminated at the Open since teams can compose 13
and 14 relays as part of their unlimited relays.
DISTANCE MEETS:
Maximum number of events
allowed. The committee recommends that
the USA Swimming rules (5 events per day for timed finals, 3 events per day for
trials and finals) apply to distance meets, also. Teams that are running meets may not limit
the number of distance events that a swimmer enters to less than 5 events in a
timed final event.
TIMERS:
Relay and Distance Events Provide Owen Timers: The committee recommends that teams running meets be allowed to require teams to time their own swimmers in all events 400 and longer and all relay events. This would apply to end of season, championship and other calendar meets but must be listed in the meet invitation.
AGE GROUP COMMITTEE REPORT:
Laura Matuszak
presented a list of
guidelines and recommendations for Age Group (and possibly other)
Championships (attached): The committee
accepted the guidelines but recognizes that some facilities and some
circumstances might not allow all the guidelines to be followed. Priscilla Davis does not approve of relay
starts during warm-up sessions because of safety concerns.
|
OTHER: Should teams be guaranteed
a profit at Championship Meets? The
committee had a lengthy discussion.
The committee agreed that teams running championship meets should not
lose money. This is why TABLED for discussion at a future meeting. |
The meeting was adjourned at
9 pm. Submitted by Mary Riddell