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).
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.
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).
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).
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
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.
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 🙄
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.
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.