Hart Perry and Ray Duff Receive the 2000 Franklin and Wolf Awards
Each year, two officials are honored during the USRowing annual awards banquet. The Jack Franklin Award is given to an individual who has demonstrated a lifetime commitment of excellence and service to rowing primarily through their work as a Judge-Referee. The Julian Wolf Award is given to recognize outstanding work during the previous year. Any licensed official may nominate an individual for either award. The Judge-Referee Committee selects the winner of the Franklin Award; prior recipients select the winner of the Wolf Award. This past December in Tacoma, Wash., the Franklin Award was given to Hart Perry, North Stonington, Conn., and the Wolf Award was given to Ray Duff, Kings Bay, Ga.
Kris Grudt made the following comments as he introduced each award.
“Most of you know that earlier this year Jack Franklin lost his battle with cancer. In this year, it is appropriate that we honor Hart Perry, a close friend and colleague of Jack’s, with the Jack Franklin Award. Although I could write about Hart, his accomplishments and contributions, he best summarized his 50-plus-year infatuation with “messing around with boats” in a letter I received from him about two years ago: ‘Dear Kris, I completed my 18th year as an umpire at the Henley Royal Regatta (since I am now 65, I will move from the bow of the launch to the stern....). I am now an honorary official of the EARC Sprints and the IRA. I am head official at the Coast Weeks Regatta, Mystic, Conn., and an official in the New England Interscholastic Rowing Association where I am president of the Regatta Stewards. I officiate at most US Coast Guard Academy home races and some Kent School races. I will be retired by FISA as of 1 Jan 1999. Since I have been “on assignment” at FISA Junior and Open Championships as a member of the FISA Juniors Commission, I have not asked to be assigned as a U.S. Judge-Referee, believing others should have the opportunity. I have held a USRowing Judge-Referee license since 1968 and a FISA license since 1971. I realize I have carried out my duties in “unorthodox” ways but have given something to our sport in the areas of fair play and sportsmanship. I am proud of these associations. Through daily work with the National Rowing Foundation, the Henley Royal Regatta, FISA, and the US Coast Guard Academy, I am finding an interesting meaning to the word “Emeritus”! May all of your races finish in an atmosphere of fair play and good sportsmanship with the Umpire invisible while standing attentively in the launch.’”
Julian Wolf Award winner Ray Duff first became a Judge-Referee in 1995. Since that time, he has been very active as an official working at numerous regattas. However, it is not for his excellent work at regattas that Ray was nominated. Rather, it was for his outstanding contribution in the areas of recruitment and development of officials. Ray has made numerous trips throughout the Mid-Atlantic region to recruit new officials. From Virginia Beach to Pittsburgh, he has made his mark by organizing, coordinating and hosting clinics. These clinics are not only for people interested in becoming officials but also for the continuing education of our current officials. Ray has not only provided leadership through his clinic activities but also as a mentor to new referees. Even after he moved from the Washington DC area, he continued to return to honor and complete the commitment that he made to several new officials to serve as their mentor. Ray has just recently relocated with the US Navy from Virginia Beach, Va. to the Kings Bay, Ga., area where he continues his Judge Referee training, recruiting, and regatta duties in the Southeast region.
The Rules of Rowing: Maintaining a Race Cadence
Those who wait expectantly for the minutes from the Judge-Referee Committee may have noticed item 10A from the December 2000 meeting. A proposal to eliminate Rule 2-409, better known as the “race cadence rule,” was defeated by a 2-5 vote. Preceding this vote was a lengthy discussion, prompted by the disparity of answers to a question from the 1999 recertification exam that required interpretation of this rule. As debate over the “correct” interpretation grew, one member of the Committee declared, “Let’s just drop the bloody rule!” Eventually, collective wisdom prevailed over that reactionary declaration and the rule remains as always.
When the Committee publicized that dropping this rule was under consideration, a number of coaches and competitors responded. The intent of this article is to provide background to the rule, along with guidance for its application and interpretation.
Rule 2-409 states: “A crew must maintain a racing cadence of which it is capable in good faith throughout a race, as indicated by its strokes per minute. Any stroke rate that causes a crew to win or advance in a heat shall be considered in good faith, provided that the number of crews to advance is less than the number of crews competing.”
The basis for this rule is fairness and sportsmanship. When crews must progress through preliminary heats in order to reach the semifinal or final, the intent is to cause all crews to expend at least the same minimum effort in terms of stroke rate throughout the first heat. Although stroke rating is not a perfect measure of a crew’s true effort during a race, it is the one variable that can be observed and measured, and years of experience have shown that the majority of coaches will accept stroke rate as an indication of effort.
Rule 2-409 was written to apply only to heats that utilize repechages, under the FISA progression system (Rule 5-210). No crews are eliminated in the heats. The fastest in each heat advance, usually to the semi-finals or finals, and all others go into the repechages, where the first eliminations occur. The race cadence rule applies specifically to just those crews that do not advance in the first heat, requiring them to maintain a respectable and sportsmanship-like racing cadence throughout that first race.
The second sentence of the rule states that “any stroke rate that causes a crew to win or advance” is acceptable. Consider an event for the 4+ with 17 crews entered. Under the FISA progression “A” there will be three heats with just the winner advancing to the semifinals. The 14 other crews are placed into three repechages. Suppose that in one heat a crew establishes a three-length lead at 1,500 m. It begins to drop its rating over the last 500 meters from 34 to 30 and then to 26-27 as it crosses the finish with a one-length lead. This is allowed, since this reduced rating still “caused the crew to advance.” On the other hand, if one of the trailing crews drops it’s rating over the last 500 m from 34-35 to 26-27, this could pose a violation of Rule 2-409, since it did not maintain a racing cadence “of which it is capable in good faith.” Allegedly conserving energy for the more critical repechage by shutting down towards the end of the heat is not allowed, whereas it is acceptable if the crew can still manage to advance to the next level beyond the repechage.
With one exception, this rule is applicable to just the heats. If crews do not advance in the repechage or semis, they are eliminated. If one of these crews chooses to shut down in the final stretch of the race, though they are in technical violation of Rule 2-409, it would be inappropriate to penalize them, since they have already been eliminated from the competition. The one exception is the repechage or semi in which, due to one or more crews scratching from the event, all the remaining crews will advance, i.e., a row-over. Here, all crews must maintain a cadence “of which they are capable in good faith” throughout the entire race.
How does the referee enforce this rule while a race is in progress? The Committee has agreed to standardize the referee’s instructions as follows: When the referee determines that a crew has dropped its rating below an acceptable level, the referee raises the white flag straight up, calls the name of the crew, followed by the instruction “race cadence!” and then lowers the flag. This sequence is repeated as many times as needed.
The national team trials, elite events at the National Championships, and a handful of other regattas use the FISA progression with repechages, and these are the only regattas to which Rule 2-409 will apply. Practically all other regattas follow the USRowing progression (Rule 5-209), which does not employ repechages. Crews are eliminated in the first heat. Suppose there are five entries in a heat with three to advance. The third place crew has a comfortable three-length lead over the fourth place crew at 1,500 meters. Over the last 500 meters, it drops it’s rating, from 34 to 30, and finally to 26 as it crosses the finish line in third place. Since this crew advances, it has technically satisfied the second sentence of Rule 2-409.
In practice, many want to apply the “race cadence rule” to level the playing field by not allowing some crews to cruise through a “slow heat” while others must race all out in another “competitive heat.” The perception and reality of “slow heats” versus “fast heats” is deemed inherently unfair by more than a few coaches and competitors. Reading just the first sentence of Rule 2-409, coaches have requested that it be applied to prevent crews in a slow heat from conserving energy while crews in other heats must spend all they have in order to progress to the next level of progression. Many coaches whose crew has to maintain a 36+ all the way through the finish just to grab the third qualifying spot in their heat do not think it fair that a crew in the other heat can cross the finish at a leisurely 26 and advance. The problem is, Rule 2-409 does not apply to this particular situation, since it explicitly allows “any stroke rate that causes a crew to win or advance.” To address the concern of “slow heats vs. fast heats”, a local regatta rule must be created – the Rules of Rowing do not provide any provisions to remedy this situation.
The thorny question is what constitutes an acceptable cadence? During the race, the referee’s instruction to a crew is simply “race cadence” without stating a specific number. What if a varsity eight responds by increasing it’s rating from 26 to 28 but no further? The crew and coach will argue vociferously that 28 is, for them, an acceptable race cadence. On what basis does the referee decide whether or not to accept this argument? Unfortunately, there are no set rules. A practical suggestion for avoiding controversy is to decide beforehand what the minimum stroke rating shall be and announcing this rating at the coaches and coxswains meeting or at the start of the race for a row-over. By informing all crews ahead of time, when the referee issues the “race cadence” warning during a race, the crew knows exactly what rating it must achieve to avoid further trouble.
There are three points to emphasize in closing: First, Rule 2-409 applies only to regattas using the FISA progression with repechages and to the occasional row-over in other regattas. When coaches ask for protection against slow heats by requiring crews that advance to maintain a race cadence, a local regatta rule must be written and published to cover this situation. Second, there are no rigid guidelines as to what stroke rating constitutes an acceptable race cadence. Whenever possible, referees are advised to poll the coaches before the heats are run, to reach a consensus on what the minimum acceptable rating will be for each event or boat class in the regatta. And third, while everyone should be aware of the race cadence rule, there is no need to zealously enforce it in every race at every regatta. Unless it is a championship regatta or unless the coaches specifically ask that some form of the rule be applied, referees should practice constraint and discretion when it comes to admonishing a crew for not maintaining a proper race cadence. And remember that this rule only applies to heats and row-overs, not to finals.
From the Referee College: The Job of the LOC
The 2000 National Referee College held last October in Colorado Springs was directed towards preparing individuals to work as the Chief Referee at a major regatta. One of the most riveting topics, reviewed in the last Clipboard, concerned the risks of liability that accompany any regatta and steps the Chief Referee can take to maximize safe and fair operation of the regatta. To address apprehension voiced by some over how extensive the responsibilities and duties of the Chief Referee may be, the instructors reminded students of an earlier presentation by Dave Ploss, who described in detail the planning and operation of a regatta from the perspective of the local organizing committee (LOC). The reality is that the Chief Referee does not bear sole responsibility for ensuring safe operations. A safe and successful regatta requires that the officials work in concert with the LOC. This article highlights regatta operations from the LOC’s perspective.
Dave Ploss was well qualified to instruct on this topic. Besides a successful coaching career, he is one of the key members of Quinsigamond Rowing Association (QRA), which serves as the LOC for numerous regattas on Lake Quinsigamond in Worcester, Mass., including the Eastern Sprint Championships for men, the Champion Intercollegiate Regatta, and the New England Collegiate Championships. Over the years, he and his volunteer associates have formed a well-structured organization to support regattas at this site. Their behind-the-scenes work provides officials with all the logistical support and equipment needed to conduct safe and fair races that normally run without a hitch.
Before launching into the numerous details that regatta organizers must deal with, Dave drew the big picture by outlining the major responsibilities of the LOC and of the regatta officials. The job of the LOC is to provide the infrastructure for the regatta, ensure that everyone has the opportunity for fair racing, and make certain that everyone is safe. The responsibility of the officials is to ensure that the racing is conducted in accordance with the Rules, ensure that everyone has a fair chance to win, make certain that each race is conducted safely, and help to keep the regatta on time.
For everything to be in place and running smoothly on the day of the races, the LOC puts in long hours of preparatory meetings and work that oftentimes stretch over several months. Besides arranging for course setup, launches, and other facilities that we see and use on race day, the LOC also has negotiated with local authorities and/or property owners concerning use of the water and regatta site, worked with the coaches of the participating teams to set the schedule, and processed the entries. Recruitment, training, and coordination of the many volunteers who support a major regatta also is the job of the LOC. The costs associated with operation of a regatta can be substantial, in excess of $10,000 to $12,000 to pay for site usage fees, course maintenance and upkeep, security, and insurance. It is the job of the LOC to raise and manage the money needed to support the regatta.
From the referee’s perspective, review what our Safety Checklist asks for. Suitable launches properly stocked with paddles and PFDs. Provision of radios, shore communications, first aid installation, drinking water, ice, blankets, and adequate sanitation facilities. Posting of the course map with traffic patterns indicated, and pre-regatta communication with the competing teams. All of these are deemed important and necessary for the safe and fair operation of a regatta, and all fall within the scope of the three major responsibilities of the LOC. To make the point that satisfying these requirements is not a trivial matter, Dave entertained us with tales of managing the requirement for “adequate sanitation facilities” (i.e. ensuring there were functional Sani-Cans).
Getting everything ready and in place prior to the start of the first race is the task of the LOC. Once the first race is off, much of the LOC’s work is over, and regatta operations are in the hands of the officials. It is worth spending a moment to consider how we perform from the Regatta Director’s point of view. How the crews will judge the quality of a regatta is largely based upon how the races are run. While it is common for referees to note any shortcomings in the operation and/or availability of launches, radios, and such, it also is true that all the planning and hard work completed ahead of time by the LOC can be for naught if the referees allow the schedule to slip or if they mismanage one or more races. This points out how closely the referees and the LOC are intertwined, because although a poor job by the referees in conducting the races will reflect negatively on the entire regatta, the ability of the referees to work competently is largely tied to the adequacy of pre-race preparations by the LOC.
The moral of this story? First, be aware of and appreciate the considerable work and effort by the volunteer LOC in putting together the regatta in the first place. Without their dedication (which often goes unacknowledged), the regatta would never happen. Chief Referees should get into the habit of wanting to work with, and in support of, the LOC. To ensure that the items on the Safety Checklist are all accounted for, it is imperative that the Chief Referee communicate with the LOC sometime before the regatta. The Chief Referee should think of the Regatta Director as a colleague and view other members of the LOC as part of the overall team whose collective responsibility is to ensure safe, fair, and on-time racing for the crews. Most Regatta Directors do not want to be involved in the details of race-to-race operations, since they are usually more concerned with illegally parked boat trailers, overflowing Sani-Cans, and the like. They instead want to trust that all the officials are competently managing the races. Nevertheless, the Chief Referee should also ascertain ahead of time how major decisions will be made concerning things like the weather and water conditions and changes in the race schedule due to unforeseen circumstances. A well-organized LOC will have already considered contingency plans.
Understanding in some detail the work of the LOC provides the Chief Referee with a much broader appreciation of what it takes to make a major regatta run successfully. Some have argued that an official needs to have worked at some time as an LOC volunteer before serving as the Chief Referee at a championship regatta. This is not an absolute requirement and taking the time to talk with LOC volunteers about their work and responsibilities can provide similar insight. The QRA serves as one example of a successful and effective LOC. They have summarized their experience in several handbooks that address all aspects of regatta organization and operations. Dave Ploss made these available to anyone who attended the Referee College and will allow them to be distributed to anyone else who would be interested. Contact Bob Appleyard for more information.
Got a Question? Ask a Clinician
A group of experienced officials from within each region have been designated as Clinicians. These are individuals who have demonstrated expert level familiarity with the Rules of Rowing, who are still actively involved in officiating, and who have volunteered a willingness to share their expertise with others. They are being encouraged to not only conduct classroom clinics and workshops but to also actively serve as a mentor and advisor during regattas. If you seek guidance or counsel on specific questions or incidents you have experienced while officiating, seek out one of the Clinicians during a regatta and ask them. Or, call one on the phone to clear up a point before heading to your next regatta. Current clinicians are listed below by region.
Mid-Atlantic - Michael Bergen, Philadelphia, Pa., 215-844-4574; Richard Biava, Alexandria, Va., 703-256-3356, rdbssb@erols.com; Jim Buckalew, Charleston, W.V., 304-346-5330, buckrow@attglobal.net; Ron Chen, Newark, N.J., 908-464-6340, ronchen@andromeda.rutgers.edu; Joseph Creed, Arlington, Va., creedg@irp.nimh.nih.gov; Tom Dowd, Philadelphia, Pa., 215-765-4349; Roxanne Everetts, Alexandria, Va., 703-75-1777, reveretts@pipeline.com; Bill Fritz, Ft. Belvoir, Va., 703-781-3929, wfritz1920@aol.com; Kate Godwin, Philadelphia, Pa., 215-641-0589, katerow@aol.com; Bill Howard, Arlington, Va., 703-532-4732, whowardva@aol.com; Jim Kelly, Cherry Hill, N.J., 856-662-1438, jmkcrew@home.com; Chip Kerby, Dumfries, Va., 703-590-1458, chip.kerby@us.wmmercer.com; Terry Ryan, Mt. Airy, Md., 301-829-6595, teryan@alumni.princeton.edu; John White, Arlington, Va., 703-534-9756, jdwhiteii@aol.com
Midwest - Bob Appleyard, Lombard, Ill., 630-620-9483, bapple@ix.netcom.com; Kevin Doyle, Duluth, Minn., 218-628-1546; Peter Kay, Cincinnati, Ohio, 513-752-6823; Lee Krapp, Cincinnati, Ohio, 513-231-4141, lkrapp@hrc.com; Don Langford, Wheaton, Ill., 630-665-8993, dlangford@dlbuntrock.com; David Lynch, Des Moines, Iowa, 515-255-8113, dlynch@max.state.ia.us; Joe Tewkesbury, Marietta, Ohio, 740-373-9736, sjtewks@yahoo.com; Larry Tolle, Atlanta, Ind., 765-292-2555, ltolle@ccrtc.com; Nikola Vajda, Buffalo Grove, Ill., 847-821-0253, nikolavajda@tcindustries.com; Bob Walton, Cleveland Heights, Ohio, 216-381-6954, walton3626@aol.com
Northeast - John Garnjost, Stamford, Conn., 203-969-1430; Sandy Killen, Larchmont, N.Y., 914-834-9053; Gene Perry, Cranston, R.I., 401-941-1542; John Quinn, Norwood, Mass., 781-440-9057, jjqjr@aol.com; Michael Richardson-Bach, Marblehead, Mass., 781-631-3950, mb228@cornell.edu; Michael Siconolfi, Syracuse, N.Y., 315-445-4620, siconomt@mail.lemoyne.edu; Bruce Soden, Fayetteville, N.Y., 315-445-2176; Dan Thompson, Schenectady, N.Y., thompsd@mail.amc.edu
Northwest - Bob Cummins, Everett, Wash., 425-258-2923, bcummins@eskimo.com; Tom Fuller, Portland, Ore., 503-284-3433, tfuller@sojpdx.com; Kris Grudt, Portland, Ore., 503-665-8739, kgrudt@aol.com; Chris Lang, Seattle, Wash., 206-547-2101, CJLang14@aol.com; Bob Willenbring, 503-760-8066, rwillenbring@compuserve.com.
Southeast - Dick Alcock, Roswell, Ga., 770-993-0681, dadalcock@mindspring.com; Polly Cooper, S. Miami, Fla., 305-667-2009, cooperpt@bellsouth.net; Sam Dempsey, Black Mountain, N.C., 828-669-7569, sdempsey@wsfcs.k12.nc.us; Ray Duff, King’s Head, Ga., duffh@erols.com; John Iacovino, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 865-483-8330, jaiacovino@aol.com; Tom Lotz, Houston, Texas, 281-486-1852, tlotz@houston2012.org; Sam Martin, Austin, Texas, 512-441-5222; Bob Peterson, Marietta, Ga., 770-977-4724, bpetersen@mindspring.com; Kay Quinn, Gainesville, Fla., 352-332-9219, kayquinnfl@aol.com; Marty Wiener, Winter Park, Fla., 407-628-0134, marty@orc-rowing.com; Joan Zandbergen, Tryon, N.C., 828-859-2092
Southwest – Bill Collins, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 949-466-8475, judybill@gte.net; Ron Hudson, Castro Valley, Calif., 510-886-6419, ron@californiarowing.org; Bob Scurria, Pleasanton, Calif., 925-846-5341, kamco-1@worldnet.att.net; Stan Shawl, Visalia, Calif., 559-798-5614, shshawl@lightspeed.net; John Walker, Huntington Beach, Calif., 714-898-5846; jawblue@aol.com; Bob Whitford, Rancho Cordova, Calif., 916-723-3509, rwhit42aol.com; Julian Wolf, Los Angeles, Calif., 310-478-7577, jwolf@speare.com; John Younger, San Rafael, Calif., 415-454-9211, johny@trinetgroup.com
Practical Tips for the Referee – A Simple Solution for Assisting a Cold, Wet Rower Pulled from the Water
(editor’s note: We continue to solicit practical tips from referees to pass along to the entire corps. Please send any tips you want to share to Bob Appleyard bapple@ix.netcom.com. The following contribution is from Larry Tolle, of Atlanta, Ind.)
With spring racing upon us, rower safety and competitor’s comfort should be in our thoughts. Almost every spring, as novice boats run faster, an oarsman gets ejected into the cold water. Referees should be prepared for such an event. Many carry an “Emergency Space Blanket” for such an incident, but these blankets tend to fall apart over time and they do not cover the entire torso. What I call “Bobbie’s Hot Bag” is an emergency poncho and serves as a good alternative to the space blanket and/or your own referee jacket.
Bobbie’s Hot Bag: Take a 55-gallon plastic bag (28” to 36” wide by 54” to 60” long) that is four to six millimeters in thickness (the heavier the better) and simply cut an 18” to 22" hole out of the closed seamed end. This hole will now be an opening for the head of a cold wet oarsperson riding in your launch. Use a towel to dry their hair and head and have the rower sit in your launch with their knees folded up. Slip the bag over them so that they are fully covered. By the time you reach the dock, you will see a cold, blue-colored rower who you pulled from the water, pink and with steam coming from around the neck of the Hot Bag. After contributing two
Gortex jackets over the years and several space blankets that fell apart when actually needed, spending a few dollars to purchase three Hot Bags is a great investment and they add virtually no bulk or weight to your referee bag.
Get a Judge-Referee Lapel Pin!
Joan Zandbergen, Tryon, N.C., has ordered a new stock of lapel pins. These were designed for exclusive use by Judge-Referees. They can be purchased directly from Joan for $10 each. Net proceeds from the sale of these pins go into a scholarship fund for the National Referee School.
Update on Boats for Central America
By Jean Reilly, Playa del Rey, Calif.
It's all about getting spare parts, repair parts, doing the repairs....and then transporting the boats to their final destination. FISA's Materials and Development Commissions has requested that we repair the boats in the States prior to transport to Central America. Recently Van Dusen Racing Shells lent BFCA their support by donating repair materials for several of the singles and fours. We also have asked Vespoli, USA if it would provide parts to us at cost. Patti Pinkerton is leading our repair effort that will take place at Newport Aquatic Center in California when the spare parts and repair materials arrive, hopefully by late March. An e-mail will be sent when the date is set asking for volunteers to help scrub, paint and repair the boats.
Separately, we have received donations of two additional singles from the University of Pennsylvania that are being transported to California with boats coming to the San Diego Crew Classic. We still have four singles in Jacksonville, Fla. that need transport west. If anyone can help with that, we would be grateful. We are also accepting sculls, sweeps, cox-boxes and, as always, donations to assist with transportation and spare parts.
Help Others Learn from Your Experiences.
Many referees have said that one area they feel weak in is serving on or running a jury meeting to decide a protest. How can you prepare yourself for this assignment? Last year, the Judge-Referee Committee began the task of collecting incident reports and protest summaries from regattas for inclusion in a “Referee Playbook.” The plan is to make this into a practical living document that is being continuously updated. To make this valuable resource a reality, we need to hear from you! It is a good practice for Chief Referees to write a summary of any protests they received during a regatta, as well as summarizing what the jury decision was. Just a little more effort will add a few sentences explaining the rationale and reasoning followed by the jury. Send these to Patty Wilson (bwilson5@spynet.com) who has volunteered to collect and collate these reports.
Judge-Referee Web Page, Up and Running.
The official website for Judge-Referee news and information has moved to the USRowing site (www.usrowing.org). Like all websites, this is always in flux, but its worth a peek if you’ve not yet checked it out. Many of the standard forms we use have been placed on this site for convenient download. Roxanne Everetts (reveretts@pipeline.com) has volunteered to work with the USRowing webmaster to further develop this site, so productive comments and suggestions should be forwarded to her.
Clinicians School is Set for This Fall
The National Referee School presently operates on a three-year cycle, with the Basic Skills School, the Chief Referee School, and a Clinicians School. This year’s curriculum is being designed to help Clinicians from around the country to sharpen their knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm to go forth and help train the next generation of rowing officials. An application for the School has already been mailed to Clinicians, and Clinicians currently certified will be given priority for admission. Judge-Referees who have an interest in becoming a Clinician also will be admitted on a space-available basis. This year’s School will be held September 21-23 at the US Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista, CA, near San Diego. As always, the only cost associated with attending will be transportation to San Diego. Dormitory housing and meals are provided free of charge to the students. For additional information, contact Julian Wolf (jwolf@speare.com) or Bob Appleyard (bapple@ix.netcom.com).
A Primer on Hypothermia
During the recent Ohio-area referee clinic in Columbus, Dr. Matt Chase, a physician who practiced emergency medicine for 15 years and is now the head coach for Westerville (OH) crew and a Masters National Champion, gave a very informative presentation on hypothermia. What it is, what happens to the body as the core temperature drops while heat is drained away by cold water or air, the key symptoms of hypothermia that a rowing official can observe, and how to manage a rower who is hypothermic. Plus, some practical tips on what to do if rowers go into the water, such as don’t attempt to swim to shore, but wait motionless (either with the knees pulled up or draped over the hull of the shell) until picked up by a launch, since movement through the water strips away much more heat. Everyone attending thought this was a valuable presentation. Dr. Chase has generously posted the PowerPoint slides from his presentation for viewing on the internet. Go to the Westerville Crew web page (www.westervillecrew.org) and look for the link to his presentation on hypothermia (the complete URL is www.westervillecrew.org/Hypothermia/Hypothermia_files/frame.htm).
Another Color to Chose for Judge-at-Start
A slight modification to the rules concerns the flag used by the Judge-at-Start. In some venues, the traditional white flag is difficult to see because of a light-colored background. Rule 2-304(b) has been amended to allow the use of a fluorescent green flag as an alternative to the white flag. Reports from early-season regattas where the new flag has been used are favorable. Remember that this is an option, so it is not necessary to immediately go out and add a third (or fourth if you already carry your own orange finish flag) flag to your referee gear.