Rules of the Game

Scott at Timed Finals had an interesting post a few days ago about the various different sets of rules in effect at swimming competitions in the United States.

Scott examines the use of the butterfly kick in breaststroke events and points out that some young swimmers are bound by one set of rules at USA Swimming events and a different set of rules at National Federation of High Schools events. (The former organization runs the US national team and development programs, and the latter governs high school swimming competitions.)

This high school season, the National Federation Swim and Dive Rules Committee changed its rules to allow butterfly kicks, but to the dismay of many coaches and athletes, the rule is different from the USA Swimming rule. The butterfly kick - in which the leg bends and the legs move together in unison - allowed in high school swimming this year permits a swimmer to take a dolphin kick only after the arm stroke, not at any point in it.

What’s the problem then? The high school swimmers who swim for USA Swimming clubs are taught to take the dolphin kick at whatever point in the arm stroke they feel comfortable.

Scott goes on to express the opinion that the competition rules should be uniform and charges the various governing bodies "to come together to discuss these rules in order to keep everyone on a level and similar playing field."

I myself have a role in one of those governing bodies — not for swimming in the United States, but for flatwater canoe-kayak in Canada. I am currently the chairman of the committee that has responsibility for setting the racing rules for national team trials.

Members of the Canadian national canoe-kayak team have to race under at least three different sets of rules during a season:

• Domestic racing rules established by CanoeKayak Canada and in force at regional and national championships, where athletes race for their clubs;
• National team trials racing rules established by the High Performance Commitee of CKC and in force at national team selection trials, where athletes race for selection to international competition; and
• International racing rules established by the International Canoe Federation and in force at international competitions, where athletes race for Canada.

The domestic competition rules are quite different from the international rules. That's partly because those rules are determined by majority vote of the member clubs of CKC, and there is no higher governing body "handing down" rules that must be followed. And partly it's because the scope and objectives of domestic competition are very different from the scope and objectives of international competition.

As I noted, I have some responsibility for setting the second set of rules. The primary purpose of the national team trials is to select athletes for international competition. To do that, we need to let the athletes perform on a fair and level playing field, and we need to collect objective data (rankings and times) that are used to make the selections. A secondary purpose of the trials is to prepare athletes for international competition. In this respect we want to simulate ICF-sanctioned regattas as closely as possible.

In general, then, we stick closely to the ICF rules (PDF) because it clearly supports the secondary objective. But sometimes strict adherence to ICF rules undermines the primary objective.

For this reason there are a very few ICF rules that we do not enforce at our trials; for example, rule 14.1:

At least three kayaks or canoes must be entered before the race can be held. …

We sometimes hold races with two crews, or even only one crew, for example in cases where a crew has yet to meet some minimum performance standard. We also sometimes hold events (usually women's canoe races) that are not yet recognized by the ICF.

This is a relatively minor variance, to which nobody objects. Other cases are not so clear-cut. Here's an example of a very unpopular ICF rule (16.3) that we do enforce at our Trials:

If the competitor does not start, and has no valid reason approved by the Competition Committee, he shall be disqualified for the whole regatta. A competitor, who arrives too late at the start, shall be considered to have voluntarily withdrawn and shall be disqualified under this rule.

ICF rule 16.3 was most famously invoked at the 1988 Olympic Games. French paddlers (and heavy favourites) Philippe Boccara and Pascal Boucherit missed the semi-final for their K-2 1000m semi-final, which was held a short time after Boccara had qualified for the K-1 1000m final. Under rule 16.3 Boccara was disqualified not only from progressing further in K-2, but also from racing the final in K-1 (more here under "Distraits," if you read French).

The rationale behind rule 16.3 is somewhat convoluted. Basically the rule tries to prevent athletes and teams from corrupting the seeded draw by entering events they have no intention of racing. In our case, most of the athletes who run afoul of this rule are young paddlers at their first trials who miss the start of their first heat and then are not allowed to race the entire weekend in any event — singles, doubles, or fours at any distance. By enforcing the rule, we are eliminating the opportunity to evaluate those athletes (and for them to evaluate themselves) against their peers. In other words, we're undermining the primary purpose of the competition. If the enforcement of the rule is not making a significant improvement in the fairness of the competition, then its only purpose is to "teach athletes a lesson" about ICF rules, and that has to be balanced off against the detrimental effects.

Other variances can arise if we start to think that an ICF rule is itself unfair or open to manipulation. Lately I've been starting to wonder about ICF rule 9.3, which concerns boat weighing and measurement following each race:

… Three or more boats according to the decision of the Competition Committee and on a random system shall be re-controlled [weighed, measured, and inspected] immediately after the race.

Usually at the trials we call four boats to boat control; if we call them "on a random system," you have a 5/9 chance of not being checked after your race, even if you win. Part of the primary purpose of the trials is to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of our athletes, and I am not sure that rule 9.3 safeguards that fairness well enough. I would feel more comfortable with a system where the top finishers are always checked — or possibly where all boats are checked.

In such an event, the committee must deal with a temptation to modify the ICF rule and make it "better." Probably something like this is sentiment is the cause of the minor rule difference that Scott pointed out from US swimming. There will always be some tension between the desire to make the rules uniform and the desire to make the rules suit your specific purpose.

Lose To Win

I trust in God
I love my country
And will respect its laws
I will play fair
And strive to win
But win or lose
I will always do my best
   — the Little League Pledge

The Ethics Scoreboard has a fascinating story from the qualification rounds of the Little League World Series of baseball (thanks to Geoffrey Rapp at Sports Law Blog for the tip).

The Ethics Scoreboard article gives a good summary of the sequence of events, but I'll see if I can summarize the larger issue in a few words. Under the rules of Little League baseball, every player on the team must play in any game, or else the team forfeits the game. In baseball, the length of a game is not fixed; it is not a fixed length of time, and it is not even a fixed number of outs, because a team will not take its last at-bat when it is already winning. The "Mercy Rule" in effect in many Little Leagues is a further aggravating factor.

The upshot is this: under certain circumstances, a team can lose a game by forfeit if it scores or prevents the opposition from scoring; or conversely a team might win a game by forfeit if it deliberately allows or deliberately fails to score runs. So under the rules of the game, striving to win is sometimes the opposite of doing your best.

In this case, the team in the field was trying to allow a run, and the team batting was trying not to score one! Unethical behaviour? Sure. A very bad set of rules? Definitely that too.

You simply cannot have a rule that rewards competitors for playing to lose. Don't get me wrong — I like the idea that everybody gets to play, and I applaud the sentiment underlying that rule. I also understand that winning isn't everything. But really, it wouldn't be that hard to tweak things a bit. For example, let the coach satisfy the participation rule by putting players in the field for an inning. Or, if it's about playing and not about winning or losing, why not let the kids play the full six innings, no matter who's winning?

Who's Driving on the Road To Excellence?

I've got my hands on a copy of the Road to Excellence Business Plan, released by the COC in April of this year. From a quick skim I can see that the document has lots of interesting stuff in it, and I'm looking forward to diving into it in more detail.

The report was authored by Dr. Roger Jackson, who was hired in 2005 to lead the COC's summer sport excellence program. At the time, I wondered if Jackson was too much an insider — too much part of the "old boys" network — to drive the kind of changes that would be needed to effect improvement in the Canadian sport system. One anonymous commenter chimed in that Jackson was a "blue blazer old school amateur chariots of fire type."

It turns out that in January of this year, Jackson was hired as the CEO of the Own the Podium 2010 "high performance unit," which was established to lead and manage the winter sport excellence program (I've written aboout Own the Podium most recently here).

The Road to Excellence stresses the importance of "incorporating the summmer sports into the same high performance leadership structure as is now in place for the winter sports." In other words, Own the Podium 2010 will become something called Podium, which will ultimately lead and manage all high performance sport programs in Canada — summer and winter. I'm not exactly sure where Jackson himself would fit into that plan; whether he would become the CEO of Podium, remain as a sort of vice-president on the winter side, or move over to the summer side.

About a month ago, George Gross had an article in the Toronto Sun speculating about the person that might be called upon to lead the planned improvement in summer sports. Now the fact that George Gross had Alex Baumann's name in mind may or may not mean anything. Gross certainly has the ear of the highest powers in the COC, so he may have Baumann's name from a reliable source. On the other hand, he's very careful not to say that in the article, and Baumann's name naturally pops up almost any time there's an opening in high-performance sport.

From the tone of the article, and from what's not being said, I'd guess that Baumann is at least on the short list. And if I can continue continue my quick and shallow analysis, he'd fit the requirements very well. He's young (42), and his still-remembered successes as an athlete would bring instant credibility. He's spent the past decade working his way up through the Australian sports system — so he's experienced and an outsider. That's a combination that's not easy to find.

Organized Sports

Canadian sporting hero Silken Laumann has written a book. I should know better than to judge a book by its press release, but as the father of two kids under five, the headline in the Ottawa Citizen certainly caught my eye: Take your kids out of sports, top rower Silken Laumann says.

Of course, after reading the rest of the article, it seems that Ms. Laumann's position is considerably more nuanced (surprise, surprise). Here's an excerpt from Child's Play:

I am certainly not suggesting that we stop all organized sports and activities, but I am advocating that we pull back in order to create the time for families to be active together. Let's not make physical activity too complicated. Let's rejoice in the fact that our kids want to move and encourage them to jump a little more, wrestle a little more, run outside roaring.

Allow me to superimpose that thought — and the objectives of Laumann's organization, Silken's Active Kids — with some quotes from the Long Term Athlete Development Plan for Rowing, available from Rowing Canada Aviron (draft version here). Here's what Laumann's own "organized sport," and many others across Canada, have to say about young kids and sport:

Stage 1: Active Start
Age: 0 to 6 years
Objective: Learn fundamental movements and link them together into play.
Key Outcomes: Fun and movement skills.
Physical activity should be fun and a natural part of a child’s daily life, not something required.Active play is the way young children are physically active.
Rowing does not have a direct role to play during the Active Start stage other than to support organizations that promote physical activity.

Stage 2: FUNdamentals
Age: females 6 to 8, males 6 to 9
Objective: Learn fundamental movement skills and build overall motor skills.
Key Outcomes: At the end of this stage, children will

• be competent in the fundamental movement skills.
• know how to swim.

Skill development in the FUNdamentals stage should be well structured and FUN, with the emphasis on participation. Children should be encouraged to participate in a variety of sports and physical activity in order to develop fundamental movement skills:

• Agility, Balance, Coordination, and Speed (ABCs)
• Kinesthetics, Gliding (“run”), Buoyancy, Striking with a body part (KGBs)
• Running, Jumping,Throwing (RJTs)
• Catching, Kicking, Striking with an implement (CKs)

In addition, children should learn water safety and how to swim.
Rowing does not have a direct role to play during the FUNdamentals stage other than to support organizations that promote physical activity and the development of fundamental movement skills.

Swim Canada Continues Shake-Up

Swim Canada has been under a lot of pressure to make changes since the poor performance at the 2004 Games. And the performance was poor, although it's simplistic and unfair to just keep trotting out the "no medals" mantra.

This past weekend's annual general meeting is being widely reported as some kind of failure of nerve because "only" three of seven members of the board of directors were replaced.

Replacing three of seven board members is actually a huge change; I don't really know what more the members were hoping for. I hope that at least a few of the cowardly former swimmers who called for a housecleaning during the Games put their money where their mouths are and stood for election.

In September, Swim Canada fired 12-year head coach Dave Johnson; they're also searching for a new director general and a new national team director. Altogether, that's a major purge, and a very real opportunity for a fresh start.

I have served for four years as a volunteer for one of Canada's most successful NSFs, and briefly with the COC, and I'll tell you my impression of Swim Canada from here; it's an overweight organization with bitter internal politics and unclear long-term goals. The national body doesn't get along with the provinces, or the clubs, or the universities, and for the most part they don't get along with each other either. The poor performance in Athens stimulated a lot of unproductive whining, but could also provide an impetus for significant change. If they get the right people in charge, there is no reason why Canada can't again be a significant player in high performance swimming. But it's going to be a lot of work.