The USA Swimming Rules and Regulations Committee has issued a new interpretation concerning the downward butterfly kick allowed during the first stroke at the start and after each turn.  As you know, by their charter, USA-S is required to follow FINA rules and this interpretation reflects the current thinking at FINA on this subject.

I would like to see discussion of this point as well.  While it is clear that any movement of the hands outward or downward is the initiation of the pull, it also seems clear that that the movement must continue in order to be a pull at all, and that merely separating from the hand-over-hand streamline to a static separated position is not a "pull."  I think the purpose of the interpretation is simply to relieve stroke judges of the obligation to determine when the actual pull - catching water in the traditional sense - begins.  The language of the rule does not relieve us of determining whether the movement is the start of a pull, or just a change of streamlining position.  We make the same kind of determination in a continuous turn call, and I think the referee's position was too literal an interpretation of the interpretation, without considering the intent of it. 

Thanks for the reply(s). I agree that it should have been an infraction. My concern is that the word sent out from USA swimming is being taken the way this referee did, in a literal sense and possibly not the way it was intended.  Rhallapp I believe hit it on the mark and that it is to relive the stroke judges of the obligation to determine when the actual pull starts.

Originally posted by Ed Miller ...  This is going to be a tough one for a little while until we all get more familiar with it.   Ed Miller National Officials' Committee Chair

That's an understatement.

This issue is going to be locally big this year, as a number of the local swim teams are now teaching a Kitajima-style pullout with the downward dolphin kick executed essentially at the same time as the pull is initiated.   I became a lot more interested in this issue after I DQ'ed a swimmer for an illegal pullout.  I wound up discussing the rule with the other four officials on deck (small meet), and everyone but the meet referee was fuzzy on the rule.

It's not just an age group issue, either.  When I watched the TV broadcast of the 2010 Short Course Nationals, they had some underwater shots of pull outs in a breaststroke final.  I saw several of the situations described here: it appeared that one swimmer undulated his hands while executing the dolphin kick, but did not initiate an arm pull until after the dolphin kick was completed.  Another broke his streamline but then held his arms straight ahead and still (superman) while executing the dolphin kick, and then initiated the pull.  In that situation the call will be extremely hard to make, as I'd have to observe the initiation of the dolphin kick, turn my attention to the arms, and be certain that they have not initiated a pull.

FWIW, the Level I and Level II exam question on pullouts is worded in an extremely confusing way.  It needs to be re-written.

Thank you, Ed.  I appreciate the clarification.

Rule 101.2.2 is explicit in that "All movement of the arms must be simultaneous and in the same horizontal plane without alternating movement".  The Glossary of the 2011 Rulebook defines horizontal as "parallel to the surface of the water".  Thus, in answer to your question, the pull cannot begin until the arms are parallel to the surface or the water; if the pull begins before the arms are parallel to the surface of the water, that is cause for a disqualification.

Rosa, I don't understand your question.  The 2012 USA-S Rulebook is the final authority on stroke rules.  The only other thing that might help is to obtain a copy of the USA-S video, "Officiating Swimming", and watch it.

On a related note, I still have problems with the question on the exams:

"...if a swimmer uses a single downward butterfly kick followed by a breaststroke kick during or at the completion of the first arm pull..."

I've tested the phrasing in the question with a few people to see how they interpret it. As stated, they see the above text as confusing, but indicating that there is a downward butterfly kick, and then a breaststroke kick during or at the completion of the arm pull. Under that interpretation, the appropriate response would be to DQ the swimmer for multiple violations.

Of course it is also possible to interpret the sentence as referring to a legal sequence as stated in the rulebook. But in the rulebook, the phrasing is clear:

"...a single butterfly kick, which must be followed by a breaststroke kick, is permitted during or at the completion of the first arm pull."

In this rulebook phrasing, there is no doubt that the (optional) butterfly kick is associated with the arm pull, and the breaststroke kick must come after the arm pull.

You assert that the test question says the same thing as the rulebook, but my tests do not support that conclusion.

For example, even non-officials conclude that, "butterfly kick, arm pull, breaststroke kick near the end of the arm pull," does not conform to the rulebook text. When I ask whether that action sequence conforms to the phrasing in the test question, people either can't decide (and tell me they are confused) or they say that it does. I get similar conflicts for some other action sequences.

I haven't tested alternate phrasings for the question, but if the intention is to describe a legal action, I would rephrase the question along the following lines, "...if a swimmer uses a single downward butterfly kick at the completion of the first arm pull, which is then followed by a breaststroke kick, ..."