Pinecrest and IAS entry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny. The ones who complain about 2.5 ft have no skin in the game.

It’s not a complaint really, more a statement of fact that it is unsafe to be diving into 2.5 feet of water. That NVSL parents are this defensive over a basic concept such as diving into very shallow water is unsafe is wild.

+1. I’m a PP who said it’s unsafe. Our pool is not NVSL. We are allowed to see something on here and comment on how unsafe it is. You can’t expect every kid in summer league to have a great dive. We have 10 year boys on our team who are fast swimmers that still put their heads too far down when they dive.

2.5 ft does not leave enough room for error. Diving should not be allowed, period. It’s going to take a tragedy for someone to wake up and do the right thing, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you get injured diving into a shallow pool, yes, but by guess is that the people who get paralyzed or seriously injured diving into a shallow pool are diving in as if trying to swim to the bottom, that is going head first and straight down, which is very different than "diving" in for a race start.

Parent of a club swimmer and my kid’s normal start dive would not be remotely safe in a 2.5 foot deep pool. When people are having to alter their entry into the pool to avoid injury that is less than ideal.

Thanks for specifying that your kid is a *club* swimmer.

I wrote the above and my kids are also an OMG *club* swimmers, and both swimming at All Stars. I have no doubt they will be will be just fine tomorrow. Life is about adapting and with so many variable pools in the league they have to adapt at every meet. Not expecting best times, but it is what it is.

I clarified that my kid swims club to make clear that they know how to dive, and they would have to make major adjustments to dive safely into 2.5 feet of water. You clearly don’t care about the kids who may not be as proficient as yours. But keep insisting this isn’t a legitimate safety concern and just something that needs to be “adapted” to because of your perception that NVSL all stars is the be all end all of swimming. 🙄

[Anonymous]

So I assume the you are also all against diving as a sport in general? Because whoo-boy, talk about safety…. How many kids hit their heads, back, etc. on diving boards every year. Time to ban it 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I assume the you are also all against diving as a sport in general? Because whoo-boy, talk about safety…. How many kids hit their heads, back, etc. on diving boards every year. Time to ban it 🙄

You know someone has nothing to back up their argument when they reach for the apples to oranges comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New Poster - I have a swimmer in all stars and yes, I think it’s unsafe to dive in 2.5ft.

As a former NVSL swimmer with kids now on NVSL, I’m shocked all stars is at Pinecrest. No shade to Pinecrest, lovely community and appreciate them stepping up and hosting. Yes, I could pull my child from the meet, but it’s the first time they made it and they are super excited. Child is practicing shallow dives all week and praying no child is injured at the event.

Pinecrest has shaded areas, there are sections with umbrellas and entire sections with tables that have canopies over them. I have not looked at the pool to see if they removed all the umbrellas but there is a good amount of shade at the pool if those are there.

[Anonymous]

2.5 feet is insane. I can’t believe people are defending this.

[Anonymous]

Why don’t they just have the timers walk to the other side of the pool so that the kids can dive into the deeper side of the pool for the 50s? Seems like an easy solution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just have the timers walk to the other side of the pool so that the kids can dive into the deeper side of the pool for the 50s? Seems like an easy solution

Because then you'd have 6' kids trying to turn in 2.5 ft of water. Risk wise, it's either accepting a small chance of a big injury or a 100% chance of multiple small injuries (not to mention DQs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just have the timers walk to the other side of the pool so that the kids can dive into the deeper side of the pool for the 50s? Seems like an easy solution

Because then you'd have 6' kids trying to turn in 2.5 ft of water. Risk wise, it's either accepting a small chance of a big injury or a 100% chance of multiple small injuries (not to mention DQs).

Yep…just not a great facility for a meet, especially a league wide event.

[Anonymous]

Did it not occur to anyone in NVSL that this pool was a bad choice? WTF.

[Anonymous]

See all the previous entries on this site about the fact that other pools don't step up to host. I'm happy Pinecrest volunteered. It's a hike for us to get out there and my kid has events far apart, but I thought they did a nice job today with letting the kids in the water to understand the conditions before the meet. I don't think the injury risk is any bigger than the many many pools around NVSL where either the 50 or 25 starts with a 3 foot dive since they've overfilled the pool. It is a risk, but if you don't want your kid to swim, scratch them. Everyone has their risk tolerance and as others have pointed out, lots of sports--cheerleading, horseback riding, skateboarding/bmx, football, have high injury risks and you have to weigh those and make sure your child understands how to mitigate those risks to the best of their control.

We're in a lower division and really appreciate how Rutherford and Pinecrest stepped up this year to host when they don't send a ton of kids to these meets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just have the timers walk to the other side of the pool so that the kids can dive into the deeper side of the pool for the 50s? Seems like an easy solution

Because then you'd have 6' kids trying to turn in 2.5 ft of water. Risk wise, it's either accepting a small chance of a big injury or a 100% chance of multiple small injuries (not to mention DQs).

So why not in-pool starts? Sure, not optimal but this whole clown show is sub-optimal and with an in-pool start you've eliminated the current head/spine injury risk....

It's as if there aren't any adults in the room, just bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just have the timers walk to the other side of the pool so that the kids can dive into the deeper side of the pool for the 50s? Seems like an easy solution

Because then you'd have 6' kids trying to turn in 2.5 ft of water. Risk wise, it's either accepting a small chance of a big injury or a 100% chance of multiple small injuries (not to mention DQs).

So why not in-pool starts? Sure, not optimal but this whole clown show is sub-optimal and with an in-pool start you've eliminated the current head/spine injury risk....

It's as if there aren't any adults in the room, just bonkers.

Not in NVSL, but in-water starts would be required in our league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just have the timers walk to the other side of the pool so that the kids can dive into the deeper side of the pool for the 50s? Seems like an easy solution

Because then you'd have 6' kids trying to turn in 2.5 ft of water. Risk wise, it's either accepting a small chance of a big injury or a 100% chance of multiple small injuries (not to mention DQs).

But that will still be a thing in IM…

[Anonymous]

I’d rather my DC sit in a parking lot or tennis courts for team areas, than have a pool depth of 2.5ft. It’s a safety issue NVSL.

Not sure what all the other excuses are preventing other teams from stepping up, but I’m sure they are all a lot more palatable than 2.5 ft dives