PHOENIX, Arizona, May 11. SWIMMING World has obtained this year's NCAA Swimming and Diving Rules Proposal Survey, which goes out to coaches, athletics directors and conference commissioners prior to the committee process that takes place throughout the summer. The survey is a result of proposals submitted during the year by the NCAA membership.
NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor Brian Gordon explained the process these proposals will undergo before potentially becoming full-fledged rules:
The survey closed last Friday (5/6/2011). Please keep in mind that the survey is just one piece of the rules making process. There will be discussion of the rules proposals at the CSCAA Meetings in San Diego next week and those comments along with the vote totals will be considered first by the NCAA Swimming & Diving Rules sub-committee and then the full Swimming & Diving committee when they meet in Indianapolis in June. The final piece of the process is when the new rule changes are presented to the NCAA Playing Rules and Oversight Panel (PROP) for their final approval this summer.
The full survey is found below. We'd like to see what our readers think about the potential rules changes. Similar to our recent Pop Quiz articles, please respond with your answers and comments.
CHAMPIONSHIP HANDBOOKS: Division I
Proposal: Vote for one of the following options: At the NCAA Championships, the scratch box shall close at:
Rationale: There has been much discussion about what works best for both teams and meet hosts. The current system has been in place for 4 years and this allows for feedback and evaluation as to what works best.
– 6:00 p.m.
– 6:30 p.m.
– No change
Proposal: QUALIFICATION SYSTEM FOR ZONE CHAMPIONSHIPS: Change the qualification standard for the Zone meets to '…achieve at least TWICE in any of the three events.'
Rationale: The numbers at the zone qualifying meets are swelling, especially for women. Once a diver achieves a qualifying score, they have a strong argument with the AD that they have the 'right' to go to the meet. As the rule stands now, a diver only has to achieve the score once. Making it a two-time achievement will help limit the numbers at the zone meet.
– Agree
– Disagree
Proposal: To select up to 16 places in each relay for the Men's and Women's NCAA Championships without exceeding the current cap limits.
Rationale: Adds more credibility to the relays as it allows for legitimately selected relays and not for relays that were added at the Championship to fill the field.
– Agree
– Disagree
Proposal: To eliminate relay alternates at the Division I NCAA Championships.
Rationale: Competitive and financial equity.
– Agree
– Disagree
CHAMPIONSHIP HANDBOOKS: Division I Men
Proposal: Prelims – 11 a.m.
Rationale: Allows for greater recovery between preliminaries and finals for the student athletes.
– Agree
– Disagree
CHAMPIONSHIP HANDBOOKS: Division I Diving
Proposal: Each Zone can choose to hold their Zone Diving Qualifying Meet on any three day period during the week before the Women's NCAA Swimming and Diving Championships. This would allow each zone to choose between a Monday – Wednesday format all the way to a Friday through Sunday format for the Zone competition.
Rationale: The rational is to allow each zone to have the flexibility to allow a longer break between the Zone meet and the NCAA Championships for recovery, academic and travel reasons.
– Agree
– Disagree
CHAMPIONSHIP HANDBOOKS: All Divisions
Proposal: For the NCAA Championships, an institution that has student-athletes that earn an NCAA automatic "A" standard or a provisional "B" standard owns the relay times and can utilize any student-athlete on their championship roster to swim on the qualified relay.
Rationale: Gives institutions that qualify relays the ability to utilize any personnel that are at the competition on relays.
– Agree
– Disagree
Proposal: For the purposes of NCAA Championship qualification in relays, an institution must use the best actual time achieved in competition or can utilize the times of any four swimmers whose aggregate times achieve the qualifying standard.
Rationale: Allows institutions the flexibility to qualify relays by using either method and having the freedom to use their entire roster to achieve qualifying standards. Allows for greater strategy in determining relays line-ups and not having relays pre-determined prior to the championship meet.
– Agree
– Disagree
Proposal: For qualification for the NCAA Championships, no times or performances in swimming & diving will be accepted that have been achieved following the final day of an institutions conference championship meet.
Rationale: Eliminates last chance meets that have become difficult to regulate.
– Agree
– Disagree
The following questions are related to new rules proposals TO BE CONSIDERED by the committee at its annual meeting.
Rule 1-3-7 (Page 18)
Proposal: Eliminate words "should be provided"
Rationale: Starting blocks should be provided for all meets.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 2-1-1 (Page 25)
Proposal: Eliminate words "a track-type starting block may not be used"
Rationale: With modern technology, safe starting blocks with back plates or foot wedges are being developed and utilized. NCAA student-athletes are being put at a disadvantage competing at events in facilities where the newer blocks are used.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 2-1-3-d (Page 26)
Proposal: Change wording to: "If the starting signal has been given before the disqualification is declared, the race shall continue without recall. If the Referee independently observes and confirms the Starter's observation that a violation occurred, the swimmer or swimmers who have false started shall be disqualified upon completion of the race."
Rationale: Most swimmers and officials are operating under no recall false start rules outside of NCAA competition and there is some confusion when applying different rules at the NCAA level. Athletes are forced to enter the water and occasionally swim a distance at full speed before stopping under the current rule and then having to re-start a race. There is an occasional injury risk with a recall being used as well. Changing the rule would put the NCAA rule in line with other swimming organizations.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 2-1-3-h (Page 27)
Proposal: Remove wording: "the option of a declared false start is not available for timed final events."
Rationale: This would allow for a declared false start in timed final events (i.e. 1000, 1650 freestyles, 800 free relay, etc.). Currently if a student-athlete or team is not removed through the normal scratch procedure they must compete in the event or false start to avoid competing. The false start method may cause another competitor to inadvertently false start as well. Additionally, less than honest efforts are often achieved when forced to compete when the declared false start option would alleviate that.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 2-2-1-b Backstroke (Page 28)
Proposal: Add a camera at NCAA Championship and NCAA non-championship meets to allow the referee to review disqualifications made by officials under rule 2-1-b (15m underwater). This would allow reinstatement of a disqualified swimmer if warranted. Video could not be used to disqualify any competitor that was viewed committing a violation that was not previously called by an official.
Rationale: Currently officials are very conservative when making this call and it is rarely enforced. This will allow officials to make the call as written and have the video evidence to back it up or be reversed.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 2-2-1-c Backstroke (Page 28)
Proposal: Change wording to read "During the turn the shoulders may be turned past vertical toward the breast after which a continuous single arm pull or a continuous double arm pull may be used to initiate the turn."
Rationale: Eliminates the wording "kicking and gliding actions are permitted". Adds consistency with rules used by other swimming organizations and federations.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 2-2-2-c (Page 29)
Proposal: Change wording to read "downward butterfly kick"
Rationale: Adds clarity to the rule as it is the "downward butterfly kick" during the swim that makes it illegal.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 2-5-1-d (Page 35)
Proposal: Change the current rule to read: "Obstructing another swimmer by swimming across or otherwise interfering shall disqualify the offender, subject to the discretion of the referee"
Rationale: The current rule only allows exiting the pool by the end of the lane. With some pools having high flat walls, as well as new modern technology items such as relay judging platforms with wires, exiting to the side makes sense and is safer and more practical. The new wording still allows for disqualification if obstruction or interference is caused by such an exit while crossing lanes.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 3-1-k (Page 38)
Proposal: Add "If a student-athlete competes in an illegal swimsuit, that student-athlete shall be disqualified from that event, any event that they have competed in previously during that competition and all further events in the competition. In the event of a relay, the rule shall apply to the disqualification of the relay and all student-athletes wearing illegal suits on that relay. In the case of the penalty being applied, all previous events that student-athlete(s) have competed in will be rescored to reflect the disqualification."
Rationale: With the swimsuit rule now over two years old and universally applied to all domestic and international competition, severe penalties should be applied to those who willingly are breaking this rule.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 3-1-2 (Page 38)
Proposal: Add to existing article "The use of tape and kinesio tape (or a similar generic or branded product of such tape) is permitted to treat a documented medical condition which allows a student-athlete to compete, but, not gain an advantage over the remainder of the field. The referee may seek documentation from a designated health official before certifying the student-athlete eligible to compete with tape or kinesio-tape.
Rationale: Adds the current interpretation for tape to the rules book and expands it to allow for the use of kinesio tape (or a similar generic or branded product of such tape).
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 4-14-6 (Page 56)
Proposal: Eliminate Electronic Takeoff Equipment.
Rationale: This would eliminate electronic takeoff equipment and rely strictly upon human judging of relay take-offs. This is based upon the perceived unreliability of the electronic judging equipment. Sections of the rules book that relate to human takeoff judges would apply. Adoption of this rule would also eliminate electronic equipment video review from the rules book as its adoption and purpose was to evaluate the electronic take off equipment.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 4-14-6-g (Page 56)
Proposal: Add "if the referee deems that a malfunction of the electronic takeoff equipment has occurred to warrant eliminating those electronic readings in a heat, the results of the electronic takeoff equipment shall be eliminated from the entire event, not just that one heat."
Rationale: This would add consistency and fairness into what is currently being practiced. Currently the heat affected has the readings eliminated and it creates unfairness with the other heats in the event being more closely scrutinized.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 4-14-6-c (Page 56)
Proposal: Change wording to read "if there is dual confirmation of an early relay take-off, the electronic takeoff equipment shall be used only to confirm or overturn the decision of the human judges. No reading that did not begin with dual confirmation by human judges shall be considered."
Rationale: Uses the electronic takeoff equipment solely to confirm or overturn a human decision rather than serve as the primary judge for readings that fall within +/- .09. If this rule is adopted it would eliminate 4-14-7 Electronic Equipment Video Review as it would become moot.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 4-14-6-c (Page 56)
Proposal: Eliminate all references to 'manufacturers starting point' in rule language.
Rationale: There is no easy reliable poolside method to check calibration of take-off equipment.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 5-3-3 (Page 72)
Proposal: Change wording in final paragraph to "Swim-offs may be held at a mutually agreed upon time by the teams involved, no later than 30 minutes following the end of the last event of that session. If a mutual time cannot be agreed upon, the meet referee will have the authority to set a time, which may be no later than 30 minutes following the last event of that session.
Rationale: Adds consistency and direction to swim-offs.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 6-2-4-a (Page 79)
Proposal: Change final sentence of rule to read "Allow a diver in finals at championship meets to be awarded the last place points (8th place in finals or 16th place in consolation finals) if they are unable to finish the contest due to injury or serious illness. If the medical personnel believe that the diver could further injure themselves and/or it is unsafe for them to continue, the diver would still score the last place (8th in finals or 16th in consolation finals) points. The medical personnel must communicate this to the diving meet referee immediately.
Rationale: At championship meets the consolation finals are conducted within a short time after the prelims competition. If the diver begins competing in the consolation finals or finals (usually several hours later) and becomes injured during the event they should not be disqualified if they cannot finish the last two dives in their list. If they make an honest effort to compete they should still be able to score points for their team without trying to perform dives that could cause a much more serious injury or be unsafe.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 6-4-2-a (Page 84)
Proposal: Change the wording to: "The forward approach shall begin with not less than three steps and finish with a hurdle, defined as a jump off one foot to a landing on both feet at the end of the board. The diver may use additional steps, hops, leaps and/or jumps during the initial three steps and the culminating hurdle. The forward takeoff shall be from both feet simultaneously to an adequate height to perform the dive.
Rationale: Adds language to clearly allow what is being practiced and performed by divers. Gives clear direction to officials and coaches as to the permissibility of the approach with new modern techniques. This is not changing a rule, but rather removing some ambiguity in how the approach is being interpreted under the current wording.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 6-5-1-a (Page 85)
Proposal: For championship meets, the judging panel for diving events must be composed of at least two paid and certified officials that do not represent any of the participating schools.
Rationale: In no other sports do coaches judge the contestants. There are too many examples of gamesmanship and potential bias.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 6-5-2-a (Page 86)
Proposal: For dual meets, the judging panel for diving events must be composed of at least two paid and certified officials that do not represent any of the participating schools.
Rationale: In no other sports do coaches judge the contestants. There are too many examples of gamesmanship and potential bias.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 8-1-1-c (Page 113)
Proposal: Move the 100 freestyle to event #10 and the 200 backstroke to event #9 in the 16 event program.
Rationale: Gives sprinters more rest after 50 free just before break. Also gives those competing in 200 back the possibility of racing the 500 or fly events.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 8-4-2, 8-4-3, 8-4-4, 8-4-5, 8-4-6, and 8-4-7 (Pages 117-132)
Proposal: Change the order of events in championships meets to have the final heat (s) of the 1650 yard freestyle follow the 100 yard freestyle in the meet program.
Rationale: Puts the 1650 freestyle at the mid-point of the final evening's session and provides for great rest and recovery for student athletes swimming both the 100 freestyle and also swimming the 400 free relay.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule -8-6-n (Page 135)
Proposal: In facilities that have the ability to conduct competition in a 25 yard course (and the head coaches cannot agree on a racing course) the default format for an NCAA dual meet will be short course yards. Note: Facilities that are not capable of conducting competition in SCY would be exempt from this legislation.
Rationale: The NCAA has adopted a 25 yard course for the NCAA National Championship(s). If the coaches are unable to agree on a racing course, the default course will be the NCAA National Championship standard. The vast majority of pools in the United States and at NCAA member institutions are 25 yards in length. Therefore, it is very difficult to prepare for competition in a meters format. Teams that are not equipped with a 25 meter pool are at a distinct competitive disadvantage when forced to race in a distance in which they are not familiar. Swimming in a non-traditional course makes it very difficult to evaluate performance.
– Agree
– Disagree
Rule 9-Note 6 (Page 142)
Proposal: Change Note 6 to read "All time standards, consideration standards and optional-entry standards may be achieved only in 25-yard courses. Diving standards must be met in competition with similar diving requirements as NCAA rules.
Rationale: This would require qualifying standards to be achieved in the same course that the NCAA championships are being conducted.
– Agree
– Disagree