FINA start rules

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the starting signal has
been given,

shall be disqualified.<<

So, was Thorpe actually in the process of starting, or
did he just fall in accidentally before the signal? The
judges' ruling was that he "started" prematurely and
hence was DQ'd. If he had just lost his balance and fell
in prior to the signal (as many seem to concur),
wouldn't that exonerate him? Good case for possibly
instituting a reviewable video replay rule (e.g. NFL,
etc.) of the "start" in world class competition to help
sort things out.

Steve Curtis

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in this
group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

It's never been further defined because everyone knows
damned good and well what a false start is.

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6772-407382F4-38@storefull-
3177.bay.webtv.net...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the starting signal
has been given,

shall be disqualified.<<

So, was Thorpe actually in the process of starting, or
did he just fall in accidentally before the signal?
The judges' ruling was that he "started" prematurely
and hence was DQ'd. If he had just lost his balance
and fell in prior to the signal (as many seem to
concur), wouldn't that exonerate him? Good case for
possibly instituting a reviewable video replay rule
(e.g. NFL, etc.) of the "start" in world class
competition to help sort things out.

Steve Curtis

Count Scrofula said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in
this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

Sorry, but he did not start. He was trying not to enter the
water. He fell into the pool.

Quoted message said:

It's never been further defined because everyone knows
damned good and well what a false start is.

The term false start does not appear in the posted rules.
A false start is a real start that begins before the
starting signal.

You have shot yourself in the face. On one hand you say
"...everyone knows damned good and well what a false start
is," which can only be true if we know what a start is. We
do know what a false start is. A false start is a start. On
the other hand, what Ian did was clearly not a start. He
fell in. Does anyone here start their races that way?

My starts are really bad. I'm like a walrus flopping into
the pool, but even my hopless starts are real starts.
Falling into the pool isn't a start.

In fact, long years ago, I, Martin Smith, was a starter. And
I was taught that if a swimmer had obviously lost his
balance and was in danger of fallingl in, I was supposed to
call for the swimmers to stand up, and I did not have to
charge a false start to anyone. In other words, the starter
was supposed to prevent disqualifications like the one that
happened to Thorpe. Alternatively, if I thought that a
movement of one swimmer had caused another swimmer to fall
off the blocks, I could charge the first swimmer with the
false start.

Quoted message said:

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6772-407382F4-38@storefull-
3177.bay.webtv.net...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the starting signal
>has been given,

shall be disqualified.<<

So, was Thorpe actually in the process of starting,
or did he just fall in accidentally before the
signal? The judges' ruling was that he "started"
prematurely and hence was DQ'd. If he had just lost
his balance and fell in prior to the signal (as many
seem to concur), wouldn't that exonerate him? Good
case for possibly instituting a reviewable video
replay rule (e.g. NFL, etc.) of the "start" in world
class competition to help sort things out.

Steve Curtis

So you are advocating that referees should not refer to the
actual rules but instead just apply some arbitrary set of
rules that match what in their opinion "everyone knows"?

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in
this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

It's never been further defined because everyone knows
damned good and

well

Quoted message said:

what a false start is.

Quoted message said:

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6772-407382F4-38@storefull-
3177.bay.webtv.net...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the starting signal
>has been given,

shall be disqualified.<<

So, was Thorpe actually in the process of starting,
or did he just fall in accidentally before the
signal? The judges' ruling was that he "started"
prematurely and hence was DQ'd. If he had just lost
his balance and fell in prior to the signal (as many
seem to concur), wouldn't that exonerate him? Good
case for possibly instituting a reviewable video
replay rule (e.g. NFL, etc.) of the "start" in world
class competition to help sort things out.

Steve Curtis

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Count Scrofula said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in
this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

Sorry, but he did not start. He was trying not to enter
the water. He fell into the pool.

Looked like a dive to me, i.e., head first as opposed to
feet first. Dive = start according to the rules quoted
earlier. But the rules would certainly be clearer if they
said "enter the water" vs dive. If the rules were to attempt
to distinguish between an off balance entry and a genuine
start attempt, people in mid-air realizing they had beat the
gun could just assume a cannon-ball position (i.e.,
obviously abort mid- flight) and claim it wasn't a genuine
start attempt.

- Al

[...]

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Count Scrofula said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in
this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

Sorry, but he did not start. He was trying not to enter
the water. He fell into the pool.

Quoted message said:

It's never been further defined because everyone knows
damned good and well what a false start is.

The term false start does not appear in the posted rules.
A false start is a real start that begins before the
starting signal.

Quoted message said:

You have shot yourself in the face. On one hand you say
"...everyone knows damned good and well what a false start
is," which can only be true if we know what a start is. We
do know what a false start is. A false start is a start.
On the other hand, what Ian did was clearly not a start.
He fell in. Does anyone here start their races that way?

Eloquently put ...

Quoted message said:

My starts are really bad. I'm like a walrus flopping into
the pool, but even my hopless starts are real starts.
Falling into the pool isn't a start.

In fact, long years ago, I, Martin Smith, was a starter.
And I was taught that if a swimmer had obviously lost his
balance and was in danger of fallingl in, I was supposed
to call for the swimmers to stand up, and I did not have
to charge a false start to anyone. In other words, the
starter was supposed to prevent disqualifications like the
one that happened to Thorpe. Alternatively, if I thought
that a movement of one swimmer had caused another swimmer
to fall off the blocks, I could charge the first swimmer
with the false start.

Excellent post!

FRAN

Al said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Count Scrofula said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in
this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

Sorry, but he did not start. He was trying not to enter
the water. He fell into the pool.

Looked like a dive to me, i.e., head first as opposed to
feet first. Dive = start according to the rules quoted
earlier. But the rules would certainly be clearer if they
said "enter the water" vs dive. If the rules were to
attempt to distinguish between an off balance entry and a
genuine start attempt, people in mid-air realizing they had
beat the gun could just assume a cannon-ball position
(i.e., obviously abort mid- flight) and claim it wasn't a
genuine start attempt.

The swimmer doesn't have the right to claim anything. My
point is that the starter should have the right to call the
start back, when someone is off balance and trying to avoid
going in, without charging a false start. That's the way it
used to be, and there was no need to change the rule. The
need for a rule change was that swimmers were using their
false start in lower level meets as a way to just get in the
water and loosen up. I did it a few times myself. It began
slowing down already glacial swim meets. Otherwise there was
no reason to disallow a single false start per race.

martin

"Al" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MPG.1adda6f1e07f6a5b989786@mayonews...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Count Scrofula said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in
this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

Sorry, but he did not start. He was trying not to enter
the water. He fell into the pool.

Looked like a dive to me, i.e., head first as opposed to
feet first. Dive = start according to the rules quoted
earlier. But the rules would certainly be clearer if they
said "enter the water" vs dive. If the rules were to
attempt to distinguish between an off balance entry and a
genuine start attempt, people in mid-air realizing they
had beat the gun could just assume a cannon-ball position
(i.e., obviously abort mid- flight) and claim it wasn't a
genuine start attempt.

- Al

[...]

So now Martin, fran, sheep and the other idiots taking this
dishonest approach want the officials to determine whether
someone entering the water early was starting or slipping.
Or kind of half way...or starting but then trying to pull
back...or whatever.

It is simple. Once you're on the blocks and taking your
mark, you remain still until the start. You go off the
blocks early, it's a false start. Same as it ever was.

Once again, small children know this. You know it. I know
it. Martin et al USED to know this, until they found
themselves trying to redefine the world to somehow prove
their hero did not make a simple foolish mistake that cost
him an important race.

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So you are advocating that referees should not refer to
the actual rules

but

Quoted message said:

instead just apply some arbitrary set of rules that match
what in their opinion "everyone knows"?

another idiot.

Every single word in the rules is not defined. The word
"breath" is not defined. Many words have a generally
accepted meaning. Once you've taken your mark and you enter
the water, that is a start. Always has been. No one caused
Thorpe's false start except for Thorpe. No one heard these
mysterious phantom noises he thought he heard.

It was a false start and to argue otherwise is disingenuous.
The current rule, for a number of good reasons, is no
mulligans. Want to work at changing that, great. The current
qualifying standard in Australia is a single meet many
months before the Olympics. Wnat to work at changing that,
great. However, to try and change basic definitions merely
because the desired outcome did not occur is pathetic.

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists in
this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

It's never been further defined because everyone knows
damned good and

well

Quoted message said:

what a false start is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>>SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the starting
>>signal has been

given,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shall be disqualified.<<

So, was Thorpe actually in the process of
starting, or did he just fall in accidentally
before the signal? The judges' ruling was that

he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"started" prematurely and hence was DQ'd. If he had
just lost his balance and fell in prior to the signal
(as many seem to concur), wouldn't that exonerate him?
Good case for possibly instituting a reviewable video
replay rule (e.g. NFL, etc.) of the "start" in world
class competition to help sort things out.

Steve Curtis

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:07:23 +0200, Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The need for a rule change was that swimmers were using
their false start in lower level meets as a way to just
get in the water and loosen up. I did it a few times
myself. It began slowing down already glacial swim meets.
Otherwise there was no reason to disallow a single false
start per race.

Way back I when I swam competitively, a single false start
was allowed by each swimmer. There was a very complex set of
head games that went on, trying to use the false starts to
distract other competitors. At times, you would see team
mates do successive false starts to try to pull a key
swimmer from the other team off. Even with one false start
in total per heat, I think you would have the same issue
with head games. I think that this kind of game-playing is
the real reason for the no false starts rule.

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

It was a false start and to argue otherwise is
disingenuous. The current rule, for a number of good
reasons, is no mulligans. Want to work at changing that,
great. The current qualifying standard in Australia is a
single meet many months before the Olympics. Wnat to work
at changing that, great. However, to try and change basic
definitions merely because the desired outcome did not
occur is pathetic.

Why not changing definitions or the rule? Or making
clearer definitions and rules? Or just discussing it?
The desired outcome didn't occur, so be it! Lets now
make sure it doesn't happen again. Or lets praise the
rule as it is, your choice! Why can't it be
discussed? The fact that it happened to Thorpe is
indeed what makes this rule argueable. If you lose
balance to your front you have to make a step ahead
in order not to fall, but if you lose it on the edge
of a swimming pool you will fall/dive. They call it
false start. False starts happen to all swimmers, be
it in training or in serious competitions. Now
someone can champion the actual rule as it is,
praising the fact that the world recordist was dqed
because of one false start, that adds another
dimension of gambling on a swimming competition:
"Will the fastest guy on the pool false start?" They
could even change the rule to make it more easy to
false start. Wouldn't it be fun? 😉

Nelson

You are the one who wants to ignore the rules based upon
some vague claim that "everyone knows". You lack the
intellectual integrity to read the rules and use them. The
starting rules are badly worded and to argue otherwise is
"disingenuous".

I have at no point of time suggested that Thorpe's
disqualification should be overturned. The referees decision
was protested unsuccessfully, so the decision is now final
and that's the end of that.

On the other hand, to ignore the wording of the rules (as
you recommend), shows that you lack integrity.

Why are you so desperate to put down Thorpe and/or his
supporters? It sounds like you are quite biased. With your
level of bias, I would be even more worried about using your
judgement of what "everyone knows" rather than the objective
measure that is the actual wording in the rules.

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So you are advocating that referees should not refer to
the actual rules

but

Quoted message said:

instead just apply some arbitrary set of rules that
match what in their opinion "everyone knows"?

another idiot.

Every single word in the rules is not defined. The word
"breath" is not defined. Many words have a generally
accepted meaning. Once you've taken your mark and you
enter the water, that is a start. Always has been. No one
caused Thorpe's false start except for Thorpe. No one
heard these mysterious phantom noises he thought he heard.

It was a false start and to argue otherwise is
disingenuous. The current rule, for a number of good
reasons, is no mulligans. Want to work at changing that,
great. The current qualifying standard in Australia is a
single meet many months before the Olympics. Wnat to work
at changing

that,

Quoted message said:

great. However, to try and change basic definitions merely
because the desired outcome did not occur is pathetic.

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists
in this group is appalling.

He entered the water. He started.

It's never been further defined because everyone knows
damned good and

well

Quoted message said:

what a false start is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> >>SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the starting
> >>signal has been

given,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> shall be disqualified.<<
>
>
> So, was Thorpe actually in the process of
> starting, or did he

just

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> fall in accidentally before the signal? The judges'
> ruling was that

he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "started" prematurely and hence was DQ'd. If he had
> just lost his balance and fell in prior to the
> signal (as many seem to concur), wouldn't that
> exonerate him? Good case for possibly instituting a
> reviewable video replay rule (e.g. NFL, etc.) of the
> "start" in

world

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> class competition to help sort things out.
>
> Steve Curtis
>

Another idiot argument.

"nelson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It was a false start and to argue otherwise is
disingenuous. The

current

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rule, for a number of good reasons, is no mulligans.
Want to work at changing that, great. The current
qualifying standard in Australia is a single meet many
months before the Olympics. Wnat to work at changing

that,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

great. However, to try and change basic definitions
merely because the desired outcome did not occur is
pathetic.

Why not changing definitions or the rule? Or making
clearer definitions and rules? Or just discussing
it?

Change it perspectively. I personally think the one-shot
trial is the real problem here. But it's absolutely
ridiculous the attempts by people to claim a false start is
not a false start.

Quoted message said:

The desired outcome didn't occur, so be it! Lets
now make sure it doesn't happen again. Or lets
praise the rule as it is, your choice! Why can't it
be discussed? The fact that it happened to Thorpe
is indeed what makes this rule argueable.

Okay, once again it's because the desired outcome was
not reached that justifies changing the process, the
rules, the very definitions we've all known since we
were kids. [censored]!

Quoted message said:

If you lose balance to your front you have to make a step
ahead in order not to fall, but if you lose it on the edge
of a swimming pool you will fall/dive. They call it false
start. False starts happen to all swimmers, be it in
training or in serious competitions.

They're all false starts. Once again, someone wants to ask
the judges to determine by the way someone hits the water
whether it was a fall or a start.

Quoted message said:

Now someone can champion the actual rule as it is,
praising the fact that the world recordist was dqed
because of one false start, that adds another
dimension of gambling on a swimming competition:
"Will the fastest guy on the pool false start?"
They could even change the rule to make it more
easy to false start. Wouldn't it be fun? 😉

Nelson

It's always been a matter of who will swim the fastest legal
race. If FINA wants to turn things back to allowing a single
DQ for the field (like they do for 8 and under swimmers)
because these highly trained athletes can't stand on a
freaking block, okay...but to change it retrospectively
penalizes every swimmer who swam clean. Some want to change
it back to the every swimmer gets a false start...that was
horrendous, five minutes of false starts and re-starts
before a one minute race could be run.

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You are the one who wants to ignore the rules based upon
some vague claim that "everyone knows". You lack the
intellectual integrity to read the

rules

Quoted message said:

and use them. The starting rules are badly worded and to
argue otherwise

is

Quoted message said:

"disingenuous".

No, they're only badly worded for someone who wants to play
games with the meaning of the word "start." Perhaps every
word in the rules needs to be separately defined...and then
we'll need to define every word used in thise definitions...

Quoted message said:

I have at no point of time suggested that Thorpe's
disqualification should be overturned. The referees
decision was protested unsuccessfully, so the decision is
now final and that's the end of that.

On the other hand, to ignore the wording of the rules (as
you recommend), shows that you lack integrity.

To play these idiotic semantic games reveals the individuals
who lack integrity. Perhaps your mother should have taught
you better.

Quoted message said:

Why are you so desperate to put down Thorpe and/or his
supporters? It

sounds

Quoted message said:

like you are quite biased. With your level of bias, I
would be even more worried about using your judgement of
what "everyone knows" rather than

the

Quoted message said:

objective measure that is the actual wording in the rules.

I've never said anyhting bad about Thorpe as a swimmer or as
an individual. It's a shame he DQ'd...but he did, according
to the objective measure of the rules. Now your bias, much
like the other rabid, intellectually vapid and integrity-
free aussie fans, no longer needs to be questioned.

No one questioned what a false start was before. It wasn't
even part of the initial argument in this case, until a
clever lawyer started questioning the definitions.

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:FHOcc.1936$8P2.1508@news-
server.bigpond.net.au...

Quoted message said:

So you are advocating that referees should not refer
to the actual

rules

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but

Quoted message said:

instead just apply some arbitrary set of rules that
match what in

their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

opinion "everyone knows"?

another idiot.

Every single word in the rules is not defined. The word
"breath" is not defined. Many words have a generally
accepted meaning. Once you've

taken

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your mark and you enter the water, that is a start.
Always has been.

No

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one caused Thorpe's false start except for Thorpe. No
one heard these mysterious phantom noises he thought he
heard.

It was a false start and to argue otherwise is
disingenuous. The

current

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rule, for a number of good reasons, is no mulligans.
Want to work at changing that, great. The current
qualifying standard in Australia is a single meet many
months before the Olympics. Wnat to work at changing

that,

Quoted message said:

great. However, to try and change basic definitions
merely because the desired outcome did not occur is
pathetic.

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...
> The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists
> in this group

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> appalling.
>
> He entered the water. He started.
>
> It's never been further defined because everyone
> knows damned good

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

well
> what a false start is.
>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>
>
>
> "Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> message news:6772-407382F4-38@storefull-
> 3177.bay.webtv.net...
> > >>SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the starting
> > >>signal has been

given,

Quoted message said:

> > shall be disqualified.<<
> >
> >
> > So, was Thorpe actually in the process of
> > starting, or did he

just

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > fall in accidentally before the signal? The
> > judges' ruling was

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he

Quoted message said:

> > "started" prematurely and hence was DQ'd. If he
> > had just lost his balance and fell in prior to the
> > signal (as many seem to concur), wouldn't that
> > exonerate him? Good case for possibly instituting
> > a reviewable video replay rule (e.g. NFL, etc.) of
> > the "start" in

world

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > class competition to help sort things out.
> >
> > Steve Curtis
> >
>
>

To use your subjective measure of "everyone knows" rather
than the objective measure of the actual wording of the
rules lacks integrity. I can see that I'm wasting my time
even trying to show you the difference.

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You are the one who wants to ignore the rules based upon
some vague

claim

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that "everyone knows". You lack the intellectual
integrity to read the

rules

Quoted message said:

and use them. The starting rules are badly worded and to
argue otherwise

is

Quoted message said:

"disingenuous".

No, they're only badly worded for someone who wants to
play games with the meaning of the word "start." Perhaps
every word in the rules needs to be separately
defined...and then we'll need to define every word used in

thise

Quoted message said:

definitions...

Quoted message said:

I have at no point of time suggested that Thorpe's
disqualification

should

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be overturned. The referees decision was protested
unsuccessfully, so

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

decision is now final and that's the end of that.

On the other hand, to ignore the wording of the rules
(as you

recommend),

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shows that you lack integrity.

To play these idiotic semantic games reveals the
individuals who lack integrity. Perhaps your mother should
have taught you better.

Quoted message said:

Why are you so desperate to put down Thorpe and/or his
supporters? It

sounds

Quoted message said:

like you are quite biased. With your level of bias, I
would be even more worried about using your judgement of
what "everyone knows" rather than

the

Quoted message said:

objective measure that is the actual wording in the
rules.

I've never said anyhting bad about Thorpe as a swimmer
or as an

individual.

Quoted message said:

It's a shame he DQ'd...but he did, according to the
objective measure of

the

Quoted message said:

rules. Now your bias, much like the other rabid,
intellectually vapid and integrity-free aussie fans, no
longer needs to be questioned.

No one questioned what a false start was before. It wasn't
even part of

the

Quoted message said:

initial argument in this case, until a clever lawyer
started questioning

the

Quoted message said:

definitions.

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:FHOcc.1936$8P2.1508@news-
server.bigpond.net.au...
> So you are advocating that referees should not refer
> to the actual

rules

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but
> instead just apply some arbitrary set of rules that
> match what in

their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> opinion "everyone knows"?

another idiot.

Every single word in the rules is not defined. The
word "breath" is

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

defined. Many words have a generally accepted meaning.
Once you've

taken

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your mark and you enter the water, that is a start.
Always has been.

No

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one caused Thorpe's false start except for Thorpe. No
one heard these mysterious phantom noises he thought
he heard.

It was a false start and to argue otherwise is
disingenuous. The

current

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rule, for a number of good reasons, is no mulligans.
Want to work at changing that, great. The current
qualifying standard in Australia is

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

single meet many months before the Olympics. Wnat to
work at changing

that,

Quoted message said:

great. However, to try and change basic definitions
merely because

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

desired outcome did not occur is pathetic.

>
>
> "Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> message "]news:[email hidden]...
> > The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe
> > apologists in this group

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > appalling.
> >
> > He entered the water. He started.
> >
> > It's never been further defined because everyone
> > knows damned good

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> well
> > what a false start is.
> >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> > message news:6772-407382F4-38@storefull-
> > 3177.bay.webtv.net...
> > > >>SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the
> > > >>starting signal has

been

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

given,
> > > shall be disqualified.<<
> > >
> > >
> > > So, was Thorpe actually in the process of
> > > starting, or did

he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just

Quoted message said:

> > > fall in accidentally before the signal? The
> > > judges' ruling was

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he
> > > "started" prematurely and hence was DQ'd. If he
> > > had just lost

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > balance and fell in prior to the signal (as many
> > > seem to

concur),

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > wouldn't that exonerate him? Good case for
> > > possibly instituting

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > reviewable video replay rule (e.g. NFL, etc.) of
> > > the "start" in

world

Quoted message said:

> > > class competition to help sort things out.
> > >
> > > Steve Curtis
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To use your subjective measure of "everyone knows" rather
than the objective measure of the actual wording of the
rules lacks integrity. I

can

Quoted message said:

see that I'm wasting my time even trying to show you the
difference.

Typical response of the integrity-bereft denizen of the
penal colonies, more interested in getting the gold than
acknowledging the truth. It was a false start. It's not
required to define every single word in the rule. Words do
have commonly accepted meanings. To ignore this fact and try
to redefine a basic concept understood by everyone (at least
until you people grasped on to this "definition" argument)
reveals a real lack of moral fiber.

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:EG0dc.2873$8P2.641@news-
server.bigpond.net.au...

Quoted message said:

You are the one who wants to ignore the rules based
upon some vague

claim

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that "everyone knows". You lack the intellectual
integrity to read the

rules

Quoted message said:

and use them. The starting rules are badly worded and
to argue

otherwise

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

"disingenuous".

No, they're only badly worded for someone who wants to
play games with

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

meaning of the word "start." Perhaps every word in the
rules needs to

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

separately defined...and then we'll need to define every
word used in

thise

Quoted message said:

definitions...

Quoted message said:

I have at no point of time suggested that Thorpe's
disqualification

should

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be overturned. The referees decision was protested
unsuccessfully, so

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

decision is now final and that's the end of that.

On the other hand, to ignore the wording of the rules
(as you

recommend),

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shows that you lack integrity.

To play these idiotic semantic games reveals the
individuals who lack integrity. Perhaps your mother
should have taught you better.

Quoted message said:

Why are you so desperate to put down Thorpe and/or his
supporters? It

sounds

Quoted message said:

like you are quite biased. With your level of bias, I
would be even

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

worried about using your judgement of what "everyone
knows" rather

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

objective measure that is the actual wording in the
rules.

I've never said anyhting bad about Thorpe as a swimmer
or as an

individual.

Quoted message said:

It's a shame he DQ'd...but he did, according to the
objective measure of

the

Quoted message said:

rules. Now your bias, much like the other rabid,
intellectually vapid

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

integrity-free aussie fans, no longer needs to be
questioned.

No one questioned what a false start was before. It
wasn't even part of

the

Quoted message said:

initial argument in this case, until a clever lawyer
started questioning

the

Quoted message said:

definitions.

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> message news:FHOcc.1936$8P2.1508@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au...
> > So you are advocating that referees should not
> > refer to the actual

rules

Quoted message said:

> but
> > instead just apply some arbitrary set of rules
> > that match what in

their

Quoted message said:

> > opinion "everyone knows"?
>
> another idiot.
>
>
> Every single word in the rules is not defined. The
> word "breath" is

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> defined. Many words have a generally accepted
> meaning. Once you've

taken

Quoted message said:

> your mark and you enter the water, that is a start.
> Always has

been.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No

Quoted message said:

> one caused Thorpe's false start except for Thorpe.
> No one heard

these

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> mysterious phantom noises he thought he heard.
>
> It was a false start and to argue otherwise is
> disingenuous. The

current

Quoted message said:

> rule, for a number of good reasons, is no mulligans.
> Want to work

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> changing that, great. The current qualifying
> standard in Australia

is

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> single meet many months before the Olympics. Wnat to
> work at

changing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that,
> great. However, to try and change basic definitions
> merely because

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> desired outcome did not occur is pathetic.
>
> >
> >
> > "Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> > message "]news:[email hidden]...
> > > The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe
> > > apologists in this

group

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

> > > appalling.
> > >
> > > He entered the water. He started.
> > >
> > > It's never been further defined because everyone
> > > knows damned

good

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and

Quoted message said:

> > well
> > > what a false start is.
> > >

bj

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Steve Curtis" <[email hidden]> wrote in
> > > message news:6772-407382F4-38@storefull-
> > > 3177.bay.webtv.net...
> > > > >>SW 4.4 Any swimmer starting before the
> > > > >>starting signal has

been

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> given,
> > > > shall be disqualified.<<
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, was Thorpe actually in the process of
> > > > starting, or did

he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just
> > > > fall in accidentally before the signal? The
> > > > judges' ruling

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that

Quoted message said:

> he
> > > > "started" prematurely and hence was DQ'd. If
> > > > he had just lost

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > balance and fell in prior to the signal (as
> > > > many seem to

concur),

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > wouldn't that exonerate him? Good case for
> > > > possibly

instituting

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > > reviewable video replay rule (e.g. NFL, etc.)
> > > > of the "start"

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

world
> > > > class competition to help sort things out.
> > > >
> > > > Steve Curtis
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

gwydion said:

Martin W. Smith said:

The need for a rule change was that swimmers were using
their false start in lower level meets as a way to just
get in the water and loosen up. I did it a few times
myself. It began slowing down already glacial swim meets.
Otherwise there was no reason to disallow a single false
start per race.

Way back I when I swam competitively, a single false start
was allowed by each swimmer. There was a very complex set
of head games that went on, trying to use the false starts
to distract other competitors. At times, you would see team
mates do successive false starts to try to pull a key
swimmer from the other team off. Even with one false start
in total per heat, I think you would have the same issue
with head games. I think that this kind of game-playing is
the real reason for the no false starts rule.

Those were the days. That behavior was stopped, though, when
the one-false-start-per-race ammedment was added.

I prefer the no-false-start rule myself, but I think the
starter should use the power he has, as stated in the rules,
to call the start back and not disqualify a swimmer for a
situation like the one in Oz.

martin

Count Scrofula said:

"Al" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MPG.1adda6f1e07f6a5b989786@mayonews...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Count Scrofula" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>The intellectual dishonesty of the thorpe apologists
>in this group is appalling.
>
>He entered the water. He started.

Sorry, but he did not start. He was trying not to enter
the water. He fell into the pool.

Looked like a dive to me, i.e., head first as opposed to
feet first. Dive = start according to the rules quoted
earlier. But the rules would certainly be clearer if they
said "enter the water" vs dive. If the rules were to
attempt to distinguish between an off balance entry and a
genuine start attempt, people in mid-air realizing they
had beat the gun could just assume a cannon-ball position
(i.e., obviously abort mid- flight) and claim it wasn't a
genuine start attempt.

- Al

[...]

So now Martin, fran, sheep and the other idiots taking this
dishonest approach want the officials to determine whether
someone entering the water early was starting or slipping.
Or kind of half way...or starting but then trying to pull
back...or whatever.

Yes, mr anonymous, because that is *exactly* what the rules
say the officials are supposed do.

Quoted message said:

It is simple. Once you're on the blocks and taking your
mark, you remain still until the start. You go off the
blocks early, it's a false start. Same as it ever was.

Once again, small children know this. You know it. I know
it. Martin et al USED to know this, until they found
themselves trying to redefine the world to somehow prove
their hero did not make a simple foolish mistake that cost
him an important race.

Read the rules, child.

martin

Count Scrofula said:

"Colin Priest" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You are the one who wants to ignore the rules based upon
some vague claim that "everyone knows". You lack the
intellectual integrity to read the

rules

Quoted message said:

and use them. The starting rules are badly worded and to
argue otherwise

is

Quoted message said:

"disingenuous".

No, they're only badly worded for someone who wants to play
games with the meaning of the word "start." Perhaps every
word in the rules needs to be separately defined...and then
we'll need to define every word used in thise
definitions...

That isn't necessary. We only need to use the common sense
definition of the word start, and then we see that Thorpe
didn't start. We must use the common sense definition of
start because the word is not defined in the rules.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have at no point of time suggested that Thorpe's
disqualification should be overturned. The referees
decision was protested unsuccessfully, so the decision is
now final and that's the end of that.

On the other hand, to ignore the wording of the rules (as
you recommend), shows that you lack integrity.

To play these idiotic semantic games reveals the
individuals who lack integrity. Perhaps your mother should
have taught you better.

I have read the rules. While I wouldn't say they are badly
worded, they don't mean what you think they mean.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why are you so desperate to put down Thorpe and/or his
supporters? It

sounds

Quoted message said:

like you are quite biased. With your level of bias, I
would be even more worried about using your judgement of
what "everyone knows" rather than

the

Quoted message said:

objective measure that is the actual wording in the
rules.

I've never said anyhting bad about Thorpe as a swimmer or
as an individual. It's a shame he DQ'd...but he did,
according to the objective measure of the rules.

No he didn't. Read them again.

Quoted message said:

Now your bias, much like the other rabid, intellectually
vapid and integrity-free aussie fans, no longer needs to
be questioned.

No one questioned what a false start was before. It wasn't
even part of the initial argument in this case, until a
clever lawyer started questioning the definitions.

The issue of a false start doesn't enter into this, because
the start rules don't use the term at all. The only place it
appears is in the rules on the duties of the starter and the
referee, and then it only explains that something is *not* a
false start. The lawyer's analysis is correct as far as I
can tell, and yours is wrong.

martin