MCSL individual all stars 2023 event 9

[Anonymous]

http://mcsl.org/results/2023/Individual-All-Star-Program-2023-v03.pdf

Anyone know why this event had 3 heats? I see that heat 2 had only 6 swimmers, and the slowest seed from heat 2 and the fastest seed from heat 1 are tied, but that should be the two spot "14s", and then the second seed from heat 3 would be the "16th" spot, but that doesn't explain why they added the 3rd heat. I know that generally you don't want to run heats with 1 or 2 swimmers, and I could get moving that around if the two #16s tied, to make sure they both get a chance to swim. But this doesn't make sense to me, unless there was a late entire meet scratch after individual-event scratches were due tuesday night, but before the program was issued. Just curious if anyone can speak to this.

[Anonymous]

This usually happens in cases of a tie for the last spot in the field. In this case seeds 16 and 17 were separated by 0.01 so maybe MCSL considers that to be a tie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This usually happens in cases of a tie for the last spot in the field. In this case seeds 16 and 17 were separated by 0.01 so maybe MCSL considers that to be a tie.

In event #14 the 16th and 17th seeds were also separated by 0.01 and they didn't add an extra heat there. Who knows, maybe the 17th seed in event #9 knows someone .. haha.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know why there are 17 swimmers, but in this situation - timed finals, three heats,
8 lanes - the way seeding works, according to USA swimming, is this:

- heats will be swum slowest to fastest
- the first heat has to contain at least 3 swimmers
- the last heat has to be full

If there were just two heats, the first heat has to contain at least 3 swimmers. Ideally the second heat is full, but may not be after the first requirement is fulfilled. So if it’s an 8 lane pool and 10 kids swimming, heat 1 would have 3 kids and heat 2 would have 7 kids.

I think there was clerical oopsy somewhere and they had to let a kid in. What is interesting, is if one kid scratched, would they take an alternate? I think they would to avoid the headache of reseeding.

[Anonymous]

I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

I'm betting the kids at 33.77 were tied for 16th prior to scratches. Then, when two kids scratched, someone mistakenly added two alternates to the field, instead of one, pushing the number of swimmers back to 17, and requiring three heats, instead of the normal 16 in two heats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

But there wasn't a tie for 16. 33.77 is 14th place. 30.62 (1) , 30.78 (2), 30.94 (3), 31.63 (4), 32.13 (5), 33.03 (6), 33.09 (7), 33.17 (8), 33.23 (9), 33.25 (10), 33.42 (11+12), 33.57 (13), 33.77 (14/15), 33.81 (16), 33.82 (17). So you could have had two heats of 8 with 16 swimmers and 16th would not have been a tie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

But there wasn't a tie for 16. 33.77 is 14th place. 30.62 (1) , 30.78 (2), 30.94 (3), 31.63 (4), 32.13 (5), 33.03 (6), 33.09 (7), 33.17 (8), 33.23 (9), 33.25 (10), 33.42 (11+12), 33.57 (13), 33.77 (14/15), 33.81 (16), 33.82 (17). So you could have had two heats of 8 with 16 swimmers and 16th would not have been a tie.

I suspect 14/15th were 16/17th BEFORE scratches, thus prompting the initial planning for a third heat. If that's the case, and two kids scratched as I suspect, then they should have added one alternate to the field and collapsed back to two heats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

But there wasn't a tie for 16. 33.77 is 14th place. 30.62 (1) , 30.78 (2), 30.94 (3), 31.63 (4), 32.13 (5), 33.03 (6), 33.09 (7), 33.17 (8), 33.23 (9), 33.25 (10), 33.42 (11+12), 33.57 (13), 33.77 (14/15), 33.81 (16), 33.82 (17). So you could have had two heats of 8 with 16 swimmers and 16th would not have been a tie.

I suspect 14/15th were 16/17th BEFORE scratches, thus prompting the initial planning for a third heat. If that's the case, and two kids scratched as I suspect, then they should have added one alternate to the field and collapsed back to two heats.

Without thinking someone probably notified both alternates. At that point it's hard to say "ooops, nevermind" so they put them both in and swam the extra heat.

[Anonymous]

Also, MCSL has a rule for breaking ties for All-stars.

"Seeding is at the discretion of the MCSL Board. All qualifying times are sorted by rank. Ties are broken to determine who is entered in the meet by using the next best swim."

I am guessing there was an oopsie and they thought a kid was scratching, let in the alternate and then since its a 9-10 year old, let them still swim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

I'm betting the kids at 33.77 were tied for 16th prior to scratches. Then, when two kids scratched, someone mistakenly added two alternates to the field, instead of one, pushing the number of swimmers back to 17, and requiring three heats, instead of the normal 16 in two heats.

Yes, this is probably what happened! Wish someone could confirm this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

I'm betting the kids at 33.77 were tied for 16th prior to scratches. Then, when two kids scratched, someone mistakenly added two alternates to the field, instead of one, pushing the number of swimmers back to 17, and requiring three heats, instead of the normal 16 in two heats.

Yes, this is probably what happened! Wish someone could confirm this

Why do you need someone to confirm this, who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might see the answer: there was a tie for 16th place. Since they break ties by second-fastest swim, what if each of their second-fastest swims were the same? I'm guessing there's no provision for going further down the list.

And since a heat has to be swum with at least three participants, they let in #18 and #19 to round it out.

I'm betting the kids at 33.77 were tied for 16th prior to scratches. Then, when two kids scratched, someone mistakenly added two alternates to the field, instead of one, pushing the number of swimmers back to 17, and requiring three heats, instead of the normal 16 in two heats.

Yes, this is probably what happened! Wish someone could confirm this

Why do you need someone to confirm this, who cares?

Why are you reading and responding to this thread if you don’t care?