I am a diving coach and have concerns about the starting block issue. The concern is not the blocks themselves. I believe that this is a liability issue that I fully understand even though I may not agree with it.

The concern I have is in reference to the distances used by the IHSA. We have some pools in my area that can swim metric distances. In our first dual meet, the host team informed us that they were setting up for metric distances so that the starting blocks could be used because they met the criteria. That is fine for them but many pools don't have that choice. Our kids will always be at a disadvantage because they can't practice for the metric distances.

I am aware that the National Federation allows for yard/metric distances. However information given out in the past and that is currently contained on the IHSA web site is in yards and not meters. I know that swim coaches are upset about the block issue but it appears to me that this is not in accord with the rules and IHSA Sectional and State Meet standards. If the distances are not standardized, it will give some teams an unfair advantage in competition. Will there be a ruling to clarify this situation?

Thank you,

Wayne Oras

------------------------------------

The above note was sent to the IHSA to at least make them aware that the national rules committee created more problems when applying this new rule change. Years ago they were concerned with injuries and shallow water. In an attempt to resolve this issue, a no false start rule was instituted. That rule apparently didn't address the situation so they came up with the high/low block rule at the starting end. It was around this time that I had been doing some research on the safety of springboard diving. The lack of a standard height and depth for starting blocks concerned me. I felt that one standard should be required. The high block in four feet of water and low block in shallower water would seem to create more problems than it solved. In my mind the swimmer with the least amount of experience would be the one at greater risk. In any case a new ruling has been issued.

While researching the safety of springboard diving, I came across a statement that said "It would be difficult to conclude that adding a foot or two of depth provides for greater safety…if the contact forces are in excess of those that a diver can manage." Looking back into the history of swimming, swimmers were diving off blocks in much shallower water than is required now. Injury from the dive, was never a concern. The reason was the belly flop dive used at that time. The entire surface of the body absorbed the impact, which didn't allow for very deep penetration. In the late 1970's and early1980's someone was filming starts from underwater. With a relatively flat start, the body would only penetrate a foot and a half to two feet below the surface at its deepest point. From that point on the body would be traveling parallel to the bottom and then rise toward the surface. This meant that there was a safety margin of a foot and a half to two feet between the pool bottom and the swimmer's body. The point that interested me was that the swimmer's head was slightly shallower than the rest of the body as it moved parallel to and away from the bottom.

Since that time coaches have been playing with underwater steering movements that would cut off mere tenths or hundredths of a second for a race. This dive is made at a steeper angle so that as the underwater direction changed, the swimmer could add a little more force by using a dolphin kick for the extra propulsion. At one time it was called a pike scoop start which eventually was banned.

I am by no means and expert in this area but I do see a problem in the future. The new rule from the National Federation Rules Committee poses a far-reaching financial dilemma for its member schools. In the past schools with less than 4 feet at the starting end purchased the lower starting blocks. Some schools placed the blocks in the deep end of the pool. For those that didn't, they will have to make that move now. Some schools have the ability to swim metric distances but have to re-purchase the high blocks because they got rid of them when the low block ruling came through. With the ability to swim meters, they may have to buy lane lines to fit the new distance. If this rule is changed again, other modifications will have to be made. I believe that US Swimming requires a 6 foot depth at the starting end. If this is the case, schools may have to dig deeper to stay up with the changes. That would be very expensive and maybe even prohibitive for some. Many schools will be resigned to start in the water because gutter offsets and design do not afford a safe dive. These pools may have no other choice.

The new ruling may have addressed one issue but created more inconsistencies which is not in line with the purpose of having rules. Rules were established to set standards and eliminate any unfair advantage. I would suggest that some reasonable standard be established before any member schools make decisions to spend money on something that may change again and cost them even more money in the future. My thought is that the rules committee may be pushing swimming out of the high school athletic program. The immediacy of implementation and the implication that other changes will take place in the future are cause for this concern. What will the changes be next year? How many schools just can't afford to meet these changes? To base decisions like this on the "potential for injury" is not wise. When requiring changes that are this far reaching and expensive, decisions should be made on something a little more concrete than just having a "potential for injury". There is a difference between a "potential for" and an actual injury. A decision like this one should have been better thought out.

---------------------------------------

After opening this article on my site, I ran across some skuttlebutt. Many coaches believe that this issue surfaced because of a lawsuit somewhere in the country that occurred from starting blocks. Allegedly it has surfaced from non-competitive swimming related injuries. If this is true, someone used the rules committee as a think tank by making questionable inferences and suppositions and then applied them to the starting end of the pool. I will be trying to verify this information.

---------------------------------------

Jan 4,2002 I was informed by the National Federation that the info referring to the 2 incidents that created the new starting block ruling is not accurate and that I should check my source. Therefore I deleted the incidents and I will recheck that info.

Back To Current Topics