“What other sport takes away team points for celebrating?”

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

A bunch of old timers discussing a swimming race on a wrestling board. 

I learned the same painful lesson years ago after finishing a 500 yard freestyle race

Wait ... how many years ago, how old are you, are you discussing your swimming accolades on a wrestling board?  

[Wrestleknownothing]

36 minutes ago, BigRedFan said:

Not exactly authoritative, is it?  A tweet by a reporter (I guess) quoting an unnamed official.  Which do you think is more likely:  1.a was officially cited without any other swimmer actually being interfered with, and nobody reviewed and overruled what would be an obvious discretionary correction; or 1.b was cited as an obvious infraction occured?

You can guess while I quote.

[Mr. PeanutButter]

6 minutes ago, ionel said:

Wait ... how many years ago, how old are you, are you discussing your swimming accolades on a wrestling board?  

Damnit. You got me 

[wrestle87]

9 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Swimming, apparently

 

That sh*t is so f-ed up, adults getting too big for their own britches “trying to keep the kids in line”, complete travesty.  

[1032004]

7 hours ago, BigRedFan said:

Seems like people don't understand that the swimmer broke a clear rule, most likely unintentionally, and that the official on deck should not have enforced the rule since it appears that no other swimmer's race was affected.  I guess "no harm, no foul" is the thinking?

Yes, exactly.    You act like refs call every penalty exactly by the book.   There probably could have been 5 team points deducted during the recent Iowa/OSU dual with the number of times Brands and Smith came on the mat.  But none were.

Edited March 2 by 1032004

[dragit]

The rule is pasted below.

Based on the incomplete facts I have, it looks like the call followed the rules. 

Please note that 1.b. is also under the heading "interference."  

Also plase note that 1.a. addresses generally interfering with another swimmer.  That's  not what happened here.  1.b. is specific to interference caused by leaving your lane while the heat is still in progress.  That's what happened here. In applying rules the specific trumps the general.

Furthermore, the runner-up plainly states in his interview, where he says he will refuse to stand on top of the podium, that 1.b., changing lanes during the race, was the rule that was applied to DQ the winner.  He calls it the dumbest rule. https://sportssd.iheart.com/content/2024-02-29-swimmer-stripped-of-acc-title-for-celebration-officials-ruining-sport/#:~:text=The NCAA rulebook states that,in accordance with its guidelines.

Text of the rule, which I would advocate should probably be modified as a matter of good policy, but which appears, as currently written, to have mandated disqualification:

Interference
ARTICLE 1. a. Any competitor who interferes with another swimmer during 
a race shall be disqualified from that race, subject to the discretion of the 
referee. If a swimmer is fouled by another swimmer, including interference 
by an outside entity, or due to facility equipment failure during a preliminary 
heat of an event, the referee may allow that swimmer to repeat the race at a 
time not later than 30 minutes after the last heat of the last event in which 
the swimmer is competing during that session of the meet. If a foul occurs 
during a final race, the referee may order the race swum over if, in the 
referee’s opinion, sufficient unfairness prevailed. No person shall be required, 
as a consequence of this rule, to swim with fewer than 30 minutes’ rest 
between a repeated race and any of that person’s regularly scheduled races.
b. A swimmer who changes lanes during a heat shall be disqualified.