I understand that rules in a given sport need to be applied evenly to all participants.
A few days ago, Owen Lloyd, an All-American swimmer for North Carolina State University, won his race in a freestyle event and (I believe) broke a record. That meant he would get to go to the nation championships.
He was exuberant in his win and he went into the lane next to him to celebrate with his teammate (his teammate had already clearly finished). But, there were still some other swimmers who had not finished yet. The rules prohibit crossing into another lane while the race was still happening. While Lloyd’s celebrating had zero effect on them the race was still happening.
As a result, shortly after the end of the race, the referees disqualified Lloyd.
It is heart breaking and a lot of media coverage are decrying the unfairness of it all. I get that…it really sucks. But, I can’t help but think the referees had to do this. Those are the rules and Lloyd and his coach absolutely should have been aware of them. Yet, on the flip side…it seems a horrible nitpick.
In general, I would argue the nitpickiness should do with how big or small the rule was. Crossing into someone else’s lane is a somewhat big thing, even if it didn’t affect the other swimmers.
On the other hand, if it were to be something tiny like “thou shalt not climb out of the pool until 4 seconds after the race is finished” and he climbed out 3.9 seconds after it was done, then, yeah, that would be a travesty to disqualify him.
I’m a rule follower by nature, but I am willing to discuss changing the rules when there’s a good reason to do so. According to the rules, “A swimmer who changes lanes during a heat shall be disqualified.” From my interpretation, the referee had no choice as the rules say they shall be disqualifed not may be disqualified.
I do feel bad for Lloyd as this is a fairly steep price to pay for a momentary lapse in discipline. But he understood the rules and he broke them. When you break the rules there are consquences.
I do not know if you are a Star Trek:The Next Generation fan but there was an episode that dealt with this.
The Enterprise was visiting a new planet that seemed idyllic. Wesley Crusher was playing with some other kids and fell into a flower bed by accident. On this planet, all crimes carried the death penalty. So, Wesley was to be sentenced to death for smushing flowers. Them’s the rules.
Picard disagreed.
The broader point is does the penalty fit the crime?
ETA: I do think the ref made the right decision here.
Thinking on it some more I believe the rule should be as rigid as it is now.
If they start trying to make exceptions things can get even more weird and unfair.
It is much better to tell everyone who swims competitively that when they are in the pool, they stay in their own lane. Period. Full stop. It is unambiguous and can be taught to everyone from the first time they compete in a swim match.
Anything else is likely to cause more problems.
Still sucks for Lloyd. I do feel for him. He deserved his win and this was a shitty way to lose it.
In the 2001 world swimming championships 4x200 Australia beat the USA in record time but were DQed because team members jumped into their lane in celebration when a swimmer in an outside lane hadn’t finished. The US were also DQed on an errant change over in the same race.
The news of the adjudication came through whilst the Australian team were having their post winning TV interview, which made for dramatic vision.
But guilty as charged and no Australian swimmer has jumped into the pool after a race since.
Personally I think this is just what you could expect with excitable athletes who have spent way too much of their lives breathing in chlorine.
This is the key point for me.
If a strictly-enforced rule prevents future bad behaviour, then it’s a good idea.
There’s a similar thing in English soccer.
If you score a goal, then cross a barrier and jump into the crowd to celebrate, you get a Penalty card - Wikipedia booking. The reason is to prevent crowd trouble.
The question that should be asked is, ‘was he aware of the rule?’ If he fully knew the rule and just didn’t care in his enthusiasm after an awesome swim, then yeah, it needs to be enforced. Not getting into another lane till the official calls the race over is a pretty reasonable and, let’s be honest, low bar to meet.
If he was unaware, he should speak to his coach.
I think maybe he was hoping to amplify his fame with a viral moment, to be honest. Fame is what brings athletes cash. Especially important in low paying/lower interest sports. Not easy to cash in as a swimmer, after all! Gotta chase that fame, make your mark, if you hope for endorsement deals etc. He’ll still make the cover of Sports Illustrated and this controversy will be as viral as he was seeking, so, win win for him, at some level.
He would have been fully aware, this is a rule from the youngest kids all the way up to 100+ year-olds. Usually the rule is that one doesn’t leave the pool until everyone is finished because in a lot of meets the next set of swimmers dives over the ones in the pool and then you get out.
I’ve swam in events before where I’ve stayed in the pool for an extra 3-4 minutes while the older or slower swimmers are finishing up. Normally they will put us all in heats with similar times, but some times that doesn’t always work out. Usually for us Masters swimmers it’s politeness, but we still wouldn’t go in another lane until the race is done so you’d have to pull yourself out of lane.
In this particular case, 100% his own fault. Either he knew the rules and knew he was breaking them and didn’t care, or he was ignorant of the rules and that is zero excuse, or he forgot the rules in the excitement of the moment, which is still zero excuse.
He described the situation as “bonehead discretionary rules.” No, the “bonehead” here is you, jackass. If he came in second to last and got DQ’d, would he still be complaining?
My take is that this “transgression” should’ve been overlooked, as it didn’t affect the race.
I’m reminded of baseball’s “pine tar incident”, in which a lot of grief could’ve been avoided* if the umps had recognized at the time it happened that violation of the rule had no influence on play.
My daughter and her teammates knew this at age 9. So this isn’t plausible. And at that age there is a LONG time between first and last place in many races.
When Douglas MacArthur became superintendent of West Point he lessened the severity of many infractions of their honor code. He found that students would often ignore the honor code because they felt the punishment for many of the violations were unfairly harsh. When he made the changes, students were more likely to report violations than they were before. (At least that’s what I’ve read.)
While I am a rule follower, I don’t support rules I find stupid or draconian punishments for what are minor infractions. i.e. At no point in my life have I ever felt the need to call the police on my neighbors because I smell the pot they’re smoking. When it comes to swim sports, I am afraid I’m somewhat ignorant of the ins and outs of competition and the rules, but it strikes me that it’s very important that all swimmers stay in their designated lane until the race is over. As such, at least for now, the penalty seems fair to me. But I’m certainly willing to hear arguments that it isn’t.
I don’t think the ref really had a decision to make here. Did Lloyd violate the rules? Then he’s disqualified.
I’m not a particular fan of swimming and don’t have a deep understanding of the rules. But that doesn’t seem too unreasonable. He moved lanes while the race was still going on, that does seem to show a lack of respect for the other swimmers and could be a genuine distraction to them (maybe? would you notice it if another swimmer moved into the lane next to you as you were finishing a race, it seems like it to me, but I’m not a professional swimmer*).
It sucks for him, but doesn’t seem outrageous IMO
* - and hoping to god none of my kids become one, those early morning swim meets sound god-awful
My opinion as to how “strict” sports rules should be followed:
Very. There is almost always a valid reason each rule is in the book in the first place.
I remember one time when a high school pole vaulter won her event, and, as a result, won her league’s championship for her team, until somebody pointed out that she was wearing a bracelet, and the high school track & field rules at the time said, “no jewelry,” so she was disqualified and the team championship went to another school. There were cries of, “Where’s the sportsmanship?” and “That’s not fair,” but there is a serious safety consideration that went into the rule, and ignoring it would just send the message, “The rule matters except when it might actually have an effect when it is implemented.”
One of the worst things I hear people say is, “That was not the time to make that call!”. In my opinion, before any rule change is to be implemented, the rules committee needs to ask itself, “If this happened and whether or not this was called decided a state championship, would you call it?”, and if the answer is “No,” “It depends on the circumstances,” or anything other than, “Every time,” then it shouldn’t be in the rules in the first place.
You don’t see USC complaining that it had a world record taken away from it because the relay team that broke the record consisted of athletes from multiple countries.
