NUS Invitational Lifesaving Championship

29-Jun-2025

Event reflection as lane judge:

The first half of the day was excellent, featuring a balanced mix of individual and relay races.

Common issues to watch for included false starts and transition zone errors, which were the main reasons for Disqualifications (DQs). Some races were particularly challenging due to the multiple elements involved, such as ensuring the wall is touched before releasing the manikin and completing the changeover within the transition zone. There were instances where one judge noticed a problem from their perspective, but it was either not seen or deemed acceptable by others. This led to many potential DQs being dismissed, as we aimed to give athletes the benefit of the doubt and maintain consistency in our judging criteria and observed faults.

A memorable tip from a fellow judge was to observe the gap between the banana buoy's rope and the end of the kick fins. Since the rope length is uniform, a shorter appearance might indicate it hasn't been properly extended. Indeed, when we checked with the athlete post-race, we confirmed the rope wasn't fully extended. Unfortunately for the athlete, he was disqualified according to the competition rules.

This highlights that lifesaving as a sport demands not only physical swimming ability but also skill in handling equipment to meet competition standards.

After lunch, the SERC event was demanding both administratively and logistically. Volunteers had to repeat the same scenario 12 times for two minutes each, which was challenging for some. Rescue teams often appeared disoriented when identifying and prioritizing rescues and manpower usage. In the heat of the moment, some rescuers handled volunteer actors roughly, resulting in minor injuries. While those teams were disqualified, judges at each 'scenario' could have taken a more active role in preventing such rough handling by immediately stopping the rescuers and directing them to alter their actions.

Ultimately, despite a few hiccups and areas for improvement, the event turned out well, with participants, volunteers, and judges all learning more than they knew before.