Substitutions for qualified trials entries, post selection?

[rowing]

New topic, specifically endorsed by 8 lb 6 oz newborn infant Jesus on his special day.


Going forward, *IF* (and that's a big if, with 2022 results as any guide!) a trials event entry meets the time standards and requires a substitution after the original selection protocols are completed....

....who is entitled to make those substitutions, how should athletes be vetted, and should the new lineup have to meet a revised/adjusted standard to reflect the possible change in competitiveness since the HP granted approval for the original lineup to compete at Worlds?

[scullerjonny]

Read Appendix I

https://usrowing.org/documents/2022/1/1 ... df?id=2866

[rowing]

That is not definitive, inclusionary or exclusionary.

National Team Coach is a dubious element. THE National Team Coach? The coach of the trials entry?

At what point does control transfer out of the trials winners' domain and into the auspices of salaried USRowing staff?

[scullerjonny]

National team coach is not a dubious element at all, you just did not consider that phrase in context with what the selection procedures say and what the appendix says.

Specifically, "The national team coach for the impacted boat" makes the recommendations. All boats when getting nominated to the team must designate a coach who is then the nominated "national team coach for the impacted boat"

So if I am the coach of the W2x that the W2x has nominated to coach them at worlds having met the standards required and one of the athletes has to withdraw prior to flying over to worlds, I get to make a nomination for the replacement. But, the nomination committee must approve also, so I as coach of some club that happens to have the fastest W2x do not just get to select the 3rd athlete at my club, I have to choose the fastest combination for the Nomination committee to accept it. The Nomination Committee then determines if they will accept this recommendation and since it is 50% of the impacted boat, the committee also considers whether the entry is still viable after the substitution. I think the substitution process worked pretty well in 2022, after all, they got a medal.

[eeoyre]

Didn't they go from 3rd at a World Cup to 5th at the World Champs (if we are talking about the W2X)?

[scullerjonny]

oh right, maybe they did. I was thinking of the lw2x that got a medal. Still, 5th in that event is not shabby for a mid season replacement.

[lt.wolf]

Will be interesting to see the line up out the camp for a women’s lightweight 2x

[rowing]

Yeah, thanks but no....not talking about Olympic class events and coaches already well under the USRowing umbrella....and you probably knew that but blew smoke anyway....

[scullerjonny]

[quote="rowing"]Yeah, thanks but no....not talking about Olympic class events and coaches already well under the USRowing umbrella....and you probably knew that but blew smoke anyway....[/quote]

Every boat nominates a coach who would be the “national team coach for the affected boat” regardless of if it’s an Olympic event, non Olympic event, u23 or junior. So if the lw4x needs a substitution of one athlete, who ever was designated by those athletes as the coach will nominate and the committee says yes or no. I really don’t see anything unclear or nefarious about what the selection procedures say. I don’t understand where you are getting a different procedure/standard for olympic v non olympic v u23/u19 substitutions from reading the procedures.

[rowing]

Great. But still not answering the original question.

Now, try again.....HOW does that reconcile with the time standards being applied to "qualify" an entry?

---> should the new lineup have to meet a revised/adjusted standard to reflect the possible change in competitiveness since the HP granted approval for the original lineup to compete at Worlds?

[Rocket-Sauce]

"---> should the new lineup have to meet a revised/adjusted standard to reflect the possible change in competitiveness since the HP granted approval for the original lineup to compete at Worlds?"

Valid point. I guess it should depend on *when* the substitution is made. If an athlete needs to sub out at competition? Send in the spare. But if someone needs to sub out soon after trials... maybe a second time trial is valid?

[scullerjonny]

[quote="rowing"]Great. But still not answering the original question.

Now, try again.....HOW does that reconcile with the time standards being applied to "qualify" an entry?

---> should the new lineup have to meet a revised/adjusted standard to reflect the possible change in competitiveness since the HP granted approval for the original lineup to compete at Worlds?[/quote]

Well, you are still not reading the procedures and the appendix. The Appendix deals with that too.. Appendix says if 50% of crew is being substituted, a decision is made whether the crew can continue to be competitive and if the entry remains viable. If only one seat is being substituted in a 4x or 8+, they race and try to do the best in an unfortunate situation of someone having been injured and not able to race. Looks like a 2x injury they make a decision if the entry continues to be viable. So the threshold of 50% has been set if there is a standard to meet or if it just a simple substitution. Then, you have to be flexible as to whether you have to run a time trial and compare to WBT, what if someone is injured a day before leaving for europe after the team just completed a really hard series of pieces part of supercomp to then taper? Are we now forced to run all other boats in a time trial to compare percentages because someone got injured in a 2 person boat? That doesn't make sense. You are dealing with an injury, you cannot have rigid rules because there is no way to write a rule to deal with each and every scenario. Rigid rules have the problem of rigid application. Its happened before where rigid trial rules could have stopped a gold medal. Example, US Speedskating almost kept the fastest 500m skater in the world home from the Olympics because she had her first slip in a race at trials out of maybe 8 world cup races where she either won (most of them) or medaled. Despite that slip over a 35 second race, she still was 3rd fastest. If not for someone else giving up their spot, she would have stayed home and not won a gold medal at the Olympics. Look up Erin Jackson and Brittany Bowe. Rigid rules would also have kept Usain bolt out of the Olympics on one or two occasions where he ended up getting more gold medals.

[rowing]

"Valid point. I guess it should depend on *when* the substitution is made. If an athlete needs to sub out at competition? Send in the spare. But if someone needs to sub out soon after trials... maybe a second time trial is valid?"


Yaayyy!! A prize for the only rowing humpster who can read!

Thank you.

Once a substitution is necessary......indeed, the pedigrees and persnicketing of the coaches and athletes involved are not entirely well served by the PROCEDURES!!! and the APPENDICES!!!!

Again, we have an NGB in cooperation/competition with clubs/personalities and no one seems to be able to see the slow train wreck ahead.

[rowing]

scullerjonny.....NO. Just no. You're blinded by your gobbling and apparently have full amnesia regarding the last few decades of trials and performance.

The CST were set up to pare back the trials avenue for low contested events. Fine.

They still remain a pathway for those (coach or athlete) not comfortable with (and/or capable under) the USRowing line. Fine.

If (moot, because it's already happened recently) a low contested event meets the declared CST (new part going forward), and that entry is not NGB imprimatur, how will substitutions and REQUALIFYING be handled to avoid

1. Conflict of interest on parts of NGB, coaches, athletes
2. Outcomes undesirable

[scullerjonny]

[quote="rowing"]scullerjonny.....NO. Just no. You're blinded by your gobbling and apparently have full amnesia regarding the last few decades of trials and performance.

The CST were set up to pare back the trials avenue for low contested events. Fine.

They still remain a pathway for those (coach or athlete) not comfortable with (and/or capable under) the USRowing line. Fine.

If (moot, because it's already happened recently) a low contested event meets the declared CST (new part going forward), and that entry is not NGB imprimatur, how will substitutions and REQUALIFYING be handled to avoid

1. Conflict of interest on parts of NGB, coaches, athletes
2. Outcomes undesirable[/quote]

I don't understand much of your post. I don't know what you mean by "outcomes undesirable". Its very non-specific. Conflict of interest is also a loaded term, but the coach of the boat makes the proposal for a substitution and the nominating committee acts as a check on that choice. You asked who has to meet a standard if there is a substitution, I said read Appendix I. Its the substitution where its 50% or more because there is some viability determination. How that viability determination is made needs to be flexible because of the situation. If someone goes to World Cup 1 May 30+/- and meets the standard and then gets injured June 5, it will take some time before they are declared not able to compete or viability can actually be determined, because lots of injuries can be recovered from. Silken Laumann is a good example. So too is JR Celski (different sport), but pretty bad injury, plenty of blood (he had a good doctor). So, you have to be fair to the athlete who met the standard and qualified for the team and then got injured and can get back to form in time to meet a good level of performance (in Silken Laumann and JR Celski's case, both were medals). May to end of August has been shown to be enough even in pretty extreme situations. So, an injury right after qualification does not automatically mean substitution is fair to the injured athlete who can recover. You have to also be fair to the athlete who was not injured and already qualified too. They met the standard and the focus should be on giving them the best chance to perform at worlds. That might be no substitution, let their partner recover, the other could be trying other combinations and choosing the best because there is not enough time for recovery. Fair to the athlete who already met the standard is not giving them more hoops to jump through and letting everyone and their dog get another trials race. Instead, fairness to the already qualified athlete is to put them in the best position to succeed at worlds. Seems like you are suggesting that fairness to the athletes who lost the trial is more important. They lost the trial, maybe one can be the sub, but fairness is not letting the 2nd place 2x stay together and win a shotgun trial with 1/2 of the 1st place 2x who already qualified and performed being forced to scramble for a partner having already jumped through the hoops and being caught unlucky because their partner got injured or otherwise decided not to race.