Turn and Burn

[jdarwin]

Roger - that was my point, exactly

Animal:  Turn and Burn allows the skier to immediately move to his final round of a multi-round tournament.  Example:  If I miss 35-off during my 2nd round, I can elect to "turn and burn" the 3rd round and immediately proceed back to the starting dock and start my 3rd round.  Typically, I would attempt 35 off again instead of going back to 28 off.  This shortens the tournament timeframe (allowing more skiers to enter), allows out of town skiers to hit the road earlier and saves the LOC fuel costs.  Again, not for every site/tournament but it's worked well for us.

[Than_Bogan]

Ahh, we did "Turn and Burn" once at a tournament that was in serious danger of running too long with a nasty storm approaching.

Based on that experience, I actually don't think scores obtained that way should count.  It's effectively equivalent to a mulligan -- i.e. two chances at your tough pass.  I contend this allows higher scores, on average, than a standard round.

It IS fun, and MUCH faster, but because I feel it is inherently advantageous, I don't think it's right to compare scores obtained this way to scores obtained in the "traditional" manner.

OF COURSE, if this were always an option in every multi-round tournament, then it would simply be a feature of the sport, and thus completely fair.

Unfortunately, one of the constant struggles of formal competition is where to establish lines between fun (which is ultimately the main point) and fairness (which is what differentiates formal competition from practice).

I don't have the answers; just the questions.

[Horton]

Three rounds in a weekend. Why do you have to sit on shore or in a tower for 3+ hours between?

I say give me good times, straight path and judges that know the rules. Besides that lets be creative.

I am friends with someone on the rules committee who is mostly against Turn and Burn. Her reason is that skiers will show up ski and leave without helping with judgeing. I do not think that is a good reason to oppose it but I like her anyway.

[jdarwin]

You may think it's an advantage but empirical evidence points to the contrary.  We're in the process of studying the results from 25+ tournaments that offered T&B and comparing the T&B round scores to traditional scores (by skier).  No advantage.  In the 6 tournaments I've offered T&B, there has been one PB scored - a B3 skier got into 22 off for the first time.  Out of 108 scores over 6 tournaments, only 8 times did a skier EXCEED their USAWS average - and only by an average of .25 buoys.  On the surface, it seems to be a "mulligan" but it’s not.  Wrong use of the term.  It's not a "do-over" at all.  It is simply another round done earlier than normal.Let me give you an example of where Turn and Burn is perfectly legal.  If you are the only M1 skier participating in the tournament, you could conceivably ski all 3 rounds back-to-back-back and be within the rules.  Is that fair?  Some "old-timers" feel 3 round tournaments are unfair.  The ONLY way to achieve "fairness" and "equality" in our sport is for your scores and mine to be earned at the same site on the same day behind the same boat with the same driver.  Doesn't happen. 

 

[Than_Bogan]

Horton, do you disagree that it is inerhently advantageous to have a mulligan (or two)?  Perhaps I am missing something there.  But I've been taking that as a given, and I *think* it follows from that it's not right to compare scores obtained in that manner to the traditional manner.

Is there a flaw in my logic or are you simply saying you're willing to accept that lack of fairness because of other benefits in brings?  (That is in no way sarcastic; I am well aware of the concept of tradeoffs.)

[jdarwin]

Animal - is it fair to compare scores from an "L" tournament and a "C" tournament? 

[Than_Bogan]

Well, those statistics are EXTREMELY interesting, jdarwin.  I look forward to learning more.  I can't understand how it's not equivalent to a mulligan, but I suppose it's possible that a single triple-mulligan round is actually no advantage over a three-round "traditional" approach.

That sure doesn't sound right to me, but if sufficient stats show I my intuition is wrong, then I will change my mind!

[Roger]

I've only been involved in two turn-n-burn tournaments so far, but I agree that the results did not show a significant difference in scores. Mostly, skiers started their 3rd round at a loop something shorter than where they started on their 2nd round.

The only two issues we ran into are:

1) It's harder on the scorers. They can't switch to rnd 3 on the computer scoring, so they have to score the turn-n-burn skiers by hand. This negates all the nice things the computer does for them like show out of tolerance speeds, next loop/speed, etc., so they have to check those things manually. Then they have to add the scores for all the turn-n-burn skiers to rnd3 once they do begin scoring it.

2) The driver has to be aware that the skier is doing the turn-n-burn thing. Being aware, they need to return to the skier if they fall, BUT they must continue at speed through the next gate to obtain a proper time. We had one re-ride due to this issue. We felt that returning to the fallen skier immediately was better for the skier and the tournament timing than continuing the boat out the end of the course and then returning.

It did speed up the tournaments and the skiers who chose to take advantage of the option seemed to enjoy it.

[jdarwin]

John - the Western Region is against it because regional records can be set in Class C tournaments.  Really?  They need to change that rule anyway.  As for the concern of "ski and flee", it doesn't happen at tournaments that are well organized and the LOC knows what they are doing.  And if that's a problem, DON'T OFFER IT!  Pretty simple.  But don't deprive those of us who can run it effectively the opportunity to do so.

[bmiller3536]

It is not a mulligan.....a mulligan would be a do over meaning that score you just posted does not count and you get to go again. The score you post does count and you are simply starting your next round right then.

 

[Roger]

thanimal, it's not a single triple mulligan or a mulligan of any kind. It's still 3 seperate rounds, you just start your 3rd round immediately when you fall or miss on your 2nd round...

[jdarwin]

Roger - I'm not a scorer but the Chief Scorer at my tournaments DOES move round to round.  You have to "exit" something and move to that round but she's found a way to do it pretty efficiently.  We typically do a paper back up of scoring anyway so it's really not a big deal.  A site in Milton, Florida has a paper scoring system that is the nuts!  We've been using their system as a back up for the past year.

[Than_Bogan]

"is it fair to compare scores from an "L" tournament and a "C" tournament?"

No.  But I think I'm missing your point of asking that question.  Those tournament classes are under different rules.

What I'm looking for is that 3 one-round tournaments of a given class, at a given site, should offer no inherent advantage over a single 3-round tournament.  And you seem to be telling me that Turn and Burn meets that criteria, in which case I'd be totally fine with it.

[jdarwin]

OK, and the use of the term "mulligan" is so far out in left field.  The definition of the term is:2. (Golf) In informal and friendly games of golf, a permission to take another stroke without counting the previous stroke against the score, when a stroke was poorly played; a free stroke; as, to take a mulligan.If we were instituting a "mulligan" in skiing, the previous round would not count - that is simply not the case and inferring T&B as a "mulligan" is patently false.

 

[Horton]

I think part of the resistantance is simply because it is new. I think it is a great idea. I have to run 35 before I can score at 38 so if I get a few at 38 why not run another 35 and try 38 again?

 

3 rounds is 3 rounds. It is a change in the way we think but maybe it is time to shake things up. Granted I have not done it or seen it yet but at worst it is an interesting experiment.

[Than_Bogan]

"thanimal, it's not a single triple mulligan or a mulligan of any kind. It's still 3 seperate rounds, you just start your 3rd round immediately when you fall or miss on your 2nd round..."

Well, this is pure semantics now -- I think we all understand what the rules of this are.  It seems we don't all mean the same thing by "mulligan," so I'll just stop using that word to avoid confusion.

[jdarwin]

Animal - the reason I posed that question is that under current AWSA rankings, it makes no distinction between a score acheived in a Class L and a score acheived in a Class C even though they are performed under different conditions.  The "rules" are the same.

[skispray]

I have a question: What do tournament entry fees pay for?  Insurance is my guess...but is there enough left over to compensate officials?

 You see, I actually do like going to tournaments, but it is difficult to explain why considering I have to pay a minimum of $50 to enter, I ski for 3 sets of about 4 passes in an entire day, and I'm put to work by the tournament organizers for like 3-4 hours on my "day off" from work.  Let me reiterate, you have to pay a pretty hefty amount (considering I can ski in practice for the price of gas), you barely ski, but mostly you just work the tournament. 

If you ski great and get a pb it's awesome, and hanging around with everybody there is fun, but despite the upsides there is a lot of work that factors into going to a tournament too.  So who gets all that tournament money?  I can't imagine anyone is using more than $15 worth of fuel in a 3-round tournament, so why don't we pay officials? 

If you've ever been to a motocross race it's largely the same.  You get about 45 minutes of riding and the races last from about 9am to 6pm.  The rest of the time you're just hanging out, watching your buddies race, talking shop, maybe going into town and grabbing a bite to eat.  But the officials they have working the races are employees who are getting paid.  When you go to a race, you just race and enjoy it, you don't get put to work sitting in a wooden tower in the hot sun.  Now I'm not complaining, I really do enjoy going to tournaments, but I just want to know if paying officials would be possible so people that didn't want to do it wouldn't feel bad if they don't.

[Horton]

A lot of clubs make a little money on tournaments. Nothing wrong with that. Pay for site upkeep and such.

 

Sanction fees take a chunk.

 

Gas is not free.

 

Food for officials

 

Stuff

[Than_Bogan]

I'm intrigued that nobody posting seems to have ANY issue with this.  I have talked to many skiers who believe it should be banned (although I don't think they knew it has such a cool name!).  Personally, I'm fairly wishy-washy on it.

But since I seem cast in the role of Devil's Advocate now, let me continue in that role for the moment by talking about the specific situation that FELT unfair to me when I saw skiers ski under these rules.

In round 2, I ski a score of 4.5 @ -32.

I now immediately take my round 3, by starting at -32.

It's completely true that if I fail to run this, then my 3rd round score is less than 6 buoys.  But it's hard for me to think of any situation where any score except the best one counts from a given tournament, so that risk is almost negligible.

If I run it, however, then my 3rd round is now my best of the tournament, and I've acheived that by attempting -32 twice in a row.

(Horton, any chance of extracting this discussion to a separate thread?  I think this is a really interesting discussion, but it's a bit out of place now in the "is skiing dying" thread.)

[Roger]

Other than you're already warmed up so you don't have to run your 22 and 28 again, I don't see what difference it makes if you run your 32 again now or run it in the 3rd round after 22 and 28...?

To me, the main issue is more about weather and boat draw. If round 2 has a boat you prefer more than round 3, you would opt to turn-n-burn and most would probably also opt if there was bad weather on the horizon. This also may have some effect on promo boats as the boat for round 3 may not even get used (though I suppose just showing up gets you a credit).

 

 

[bmiller3536]

Here is how AWSA considers fairness.......

Does every tournament have the oppurtunity to run there events like this? Yes

Than it is fair to the AWSA....just like the PV debate, everyone can use it so it is fair and approved to be used in sompetition.

[Horton]

I will move it.

Reminder to everyone: sometimes we get excited about stuff. Keep it friendly.

[Than_Bogan]

What's Turn and Burn?  Link?

[jdarwin]

I find it interesting that "many skiers" believe it should be banned. Really?  I can get you the names of 100+ skiers who would like to see it continue.  Actual skiers who have participated in a T&B event.  From long line skiers to 41 off skiers. 

But to your example, what's wrong w/ that?  Did you move up in the ranking list as a result.  Have you never run 32 off in a tournament?  Was the boat slower or the rope longer in your 3rd round?  No - you actually had to run the pass - it was simply done 5 mins or 5 hours sooner than typical.  What if the running order was reversed for round 3 and you were the last skier in round 2.  You'd be right back on the water.  Anything wrong with that?  I see that done all the time.  What about run-offs where one of the skiers finished an hour ago and the other just got off the water.  Any advantage there?  You would think so but that's not always the case.

The "advantage" argument just does not hold water per the evidence.  You can "think" whatever you wish but in the end, the numbers speak for themselves.  No one is "blowing out" there scores as a result.  Most ski to their average and only opt for T&B when they fall short of expectations.  If you are concerned about an "unfair advantage", argue for the weighting of tournament scores.  The fact that "L" scores compute the same as "C" scores cause much more problems in the rankings list than T&B could ever hope to acheive.

[HO 410]

Over the course of a tournament season, a skier is going to ski and average number of buoys an average ammount of time. So you are a skier capable of running -32', what are the odds that you are going to go three rounds and never sniff 5 or 6 ball? You are worried about chronology, and Joe's tournaments have more or less showed that chronology does not matter.

 

Also don't neglect the added pressure you just put on yourself. Let's say you had a bad score in round 1, and you just repeated yourself in round 2 but you felt you had an okay start at it. Now you have the pressure to make it or leave the tournament with bad scores: if you had waited for the 3rd round to start you could have cooled off, refocused, and had all your warmup passes back.

[Horton]

Don't get too excited guys.

[Than_Bogan]

Huh, this is totally fascinating.  I'm gonna try to learn these arguments and take them back to folks I know who object.

I'm pretty sure we're all capable of changing our minds in the face of good arguments and especially actual evidence.  I know for sure that I am.

I honestly thought it was a given that it was advantageous, so the fact that not one person here thinks it is AND the stats back you guys up -- that is VERY INTERESTING!

[jdarwin]

Animal - I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with anyone.  I'll be attending the AWSA Rules Committee meeting in November for this very purpose.  I'm passionate about T&B but not from a skier's perspective - it has never benefitted me personally.  My passion is from an LOC perspective.  It allows me to host more skiers.  It allows out of town skiers to attend who otherwise would not have.  It allows for flexibility in scheduling - I have a junior skier who also is a ranked tennis player.  He can ski 3 rounds and be done by 1pm - otherwise, he would not ski.  It reduces fuel consumption - by approx 19% at my events.  This allows me to spend the money on other items like dinner or t-shirts which make coming to the tournament a better experience for everyone.  So, I welcome the discussion and look forward to presenting the facts in front of the Rules Committee.

Joe Darwin

jdarwin (at) lakesatcottonwood.com

[jdarwin]

Skispray:  I have a question: What do tournament entry fees pay for?  Insurance is my guess...but is there enough left over to compensate officials?

Good question.  As an LOC, I'll enlighten you to the costs associated with a tournament.  BTW, most golf tournaments don't pay their officials - they're volunteers.  Unfortunately, we don't have enough outside support at our tournaments to farm out to volunteers. 

The average AWSA event is 23 skiers - 3 rounds - slalom only.  I don't charge my chief officials to ski - they've earned that benefit.   That's 4 entries.  Promo guys ski free - that's typically another 2 entries.  So, we have 17 entries at $50 each (using your entry fee example).  Sanction costs are $125 and $15 for on-line registration.  Our region charges another $50 for sanction approval.  We have to pay $2.50 per skier in head tax to the region.  My last fuel calculation came to $1.79 per skier/per round.  I have to buy two ropes at $50 each - I won't add in for a handle since I have several people can borrow.  Food / drinks for officials is around $125.  At the end of the day, I've taken in $850 and paid out $622.50.  That leaves $227.50 in "profit" for use of my site for the day - assuming I don't have to pick up the hotel bill for a chief official or two.  In that case, I lost money.

In the end, hosting tournaments is about the love of the sport and the opportunity to hang with folks who share that feeling.  It never has been about making money - if you cover your costs and put some beer money in the club's account, you're way ahead.

[Than_Bogan]

If you're going to present to the committee, then I should help you by presenting every possible objection so you can be prepared with the perfect counter-argument!

But I think this thread has served it's purpose.  I'll switch to emailing you (but not until tomorrow at the earliest).

[teammalibu]

Whur yall lernt  al thim big wurds

[teammalibu]

ifin you start short you may go down quick

[thager]

Sounds like an Amber Lynn quote!

[RichardDoane]

I was at the Western Region meeting, and am a supporter of the T & B format.  It makes a lot of sense in a number of ways, and the data that's being collected will be informative at the next rules committee meeting.  I'm hoping to get some Washington tournaments to try it ASAP.  One of the discussions was about allowing it for Trick and Jump as well, which I had never considered.  Seems to me that we need to try it in a 3 event format too, and see how it goes.  Anything that is a benefit to the skier, and within the rules should be supported and allowed.  As for people "skiing and fleeing", they're usually the ones who need to go for some reason or other, and are on the fringes of the tournament group.  At least they paid an entry fee and supported the event financially.

[RichardDoane]

One point to make is that in choosing a "turn and burn" round, it becomes your final round of that event.  So for example, in a 3 round tournament, if you opted for a "T/B" after your first round, you would not be eligible for the 3rd round.

[ForrestGump]

I've used my turn n burn round 5 out of 6 tournaments it was offered. Of those 5, I only improved my score once. It did allow me to drink beer earlier the other 4. :) Win! Win! Seriously, in 3 of the 6 tournaments, I set my best score in the 1st round.

[Drago]

Joe, the record setting thing in the Western Region was my personal comment prior to our running a TB format . I have copied you on everything I did to try the TB format. I thought it was so you could refine and listen to comments, but your, "They need to fix that" makes me think you just think we're a bunch of idiots. I didn't hear you tone, and hopefully I am wrong(?). I think many people throughout the West have differing opinions and reasons for their opinions. Where I ski, Colorado, we don't have E or higher tournaments.As with a runoff, I don't feel records should be set with the TB format. If the West allows regional records to be set in a C, all they have to do is state that T&B rounds will not be accepted as records. I have copied my comments after running a T&b tournament a couple of week ago.

I have copied my report to all.

1.    Skier’s perspective

a.    Skiers that liked the format

                                           i.     Missedopeners

                                            ii.     Workingon their last pass [a guy that runs 38 half the time and didn’t really careabout any other score besides running 38]

b.    Skiers that didn’t like the format

                                           i.     Thenext skier on the dock: timing, readiness, binding cramps

                                            ii.     The“true†last round was hectic with the running order/ not sure who had done theT&B

                                              iii.     Skiersthat are nervous/not really rules-aware yet anyway [too many confusingdecisions]

2.    Driver’s

a.    Need more defined protocols.

                                           i.     Stopand turn to pick up the skier or cruise all the way around the island

                                            ii.     Needa clear signal/time frame to inform the driver of T&B

b.    Becomes a very long set

c.    Messes a bit with the rhythm

d.    Starting and stopping created bow rollers that could createpotential nightmares with re-rides

3.    Judge’s

a.    Boat judge: see 2a, 2a ii

b.    Stuck in tower for a long time

c.    The potential that the last round will be left without judges

4.    Scorer’s

a.    Recording T&B round: had to write it down and record wheninto next round. Created more work when finishing the tournament.

 

Some ideas that werethrown around:

• Allow the skier to start from either end
• Didn’t save time: about the same minutes/skier
• Don’t allow skier to start at the previous round’s opening line length unless they missed their opener.
• Definitely need a signal and time limit for the T&B request.
• Should be required instead of a last minute decision [stated in the Guide, “rounds 2-3 will be T&B formatâ€

 

My personal view: I’m not really certain how it would “helpthe sportâ€. In Western Colorado, we have small, multi-round tournaments withlimited judges and, especially, drivers, and need absolutely all of the skiersto help with judging, scoring, and driving. It is an all-day group effort. Wehave to put a lot of energy into scheduling, many times having small groups inorder to provide a quality skier experience [to allow skiers adequate time toprepare for their set instead of jumping off a tower and rushing to the startdock]. Having some sort of consistent schedule is helpful for a good ski set.It seems this format puts a bigger burden on the host club to “take care ofeverythingâ€, and allow people to just show up and ski and leave, like a runningrace or similar. Waterski tournaments cannot happen without full commitmentfrom the skiers to be there all day and help with the other aspects of thetournament.

 

And....(that was the end of my report sent after the tourney)

 

After lots of talk about this, there is one thing we can't change about our sport: It's damn hard. We can't make it easier. I think the best thing for our sport, recently, is allowing two tournaments a weekend at the same site. Genius! You can do one, or stay the whole time and get two scores/chances to do whatever you set out to do. If you have to be at the lake all day, bring the bikes, kids, Frisbee, cards, football,  IPad, couch, beer, whatever. Plan on it and have some fun.You're either on the bus or off the bus. It takes a commitment. Pay it forward. 

 

Respectfully,

Leigh Sheldrake

 

[bmiller3536]

JD's turn and burn tournaments run really smooth and it seems that every tournament gets better than the previous one because we are still learning what works best.

for example,

splitting up the 2 rnd driving and tower duties so no one gets stuck

Most skiers know if they are going to turn and burn ahead of time so just communicate with the driver and other skiers skiing after you

 

[ForrestGump]

Agreed, Brad. I've driven the turn n burn round at joe's a couple of times. No big deal with two driver's to split it down the middle.

Now, the first time we did TNB at our lake, we didn't have the forethought to schedule 2 drivers for the 2nd round and it did make it long. But we learned our lesson.

[jdarwin]

Leigh – first off, my point about regional records was to illustrate that the issue is not w/ T&B but with regional policy.  You provided a fix – records can’t be set in using T&B – pretty simple.  No different than a run-off situation. The “change†I was referring to was the format – not your regional policy.  I apologize for my poor choice of wording.  Personally, it doesn’t matter to me if you set records in a Class F.  But it does show that what works in one region may not in another – perhaps T&B may be another example.

But, the e-mail I received regarding the Western Region’s membership meeting (you were copied) stated that “the majority of skiers are against thisâ€.  This was arrived at as the result of one tournament?  Wouldn’t a larger sample provide better insight?  As you stated, most of your events are small, multi-round events.  T&B is not applicable at every event.  It has worked very well at many other sites.  But there is planning and coordination that is required to make it work.  I agree that the skiers/officials should be made aware of this in advance.  This is something we do.  I recommended that you split your officials during the T&B round to avoid long stints in the boat/tower.  Did this not occur?  Maybe it wasn’t possible w/ a limited number of officials.  If so, then T&B probably wasn’t an appropriate format to institute.  We create Official’s Assignment and Running Order worksheets a week in advance and e-mail it to everyone so they know when they will be working/skiing.  This has solved many of the scheduling issues we experienced in the past.  I think your critique shows that it may not work in your situation.  I agree that it needs to be “tweaked†and that was the rationale behind allowing it on an exception basis.  Your suggestions should be looked at and implemented if possible.  My only problem with your critique is that you feel it doesn’t save time – it does if performed and managed properly in the right situation.   I ran 3-rounds of 38 skiers (including 12 kids) two weeks ago in 10 hours and 15 min.  Without 20 skiers electing to T&B, the event would have lasted 11.5 hours.  Again, it served its purpose due to the size of the event.  I had plenty of officials to choose from and no one was overworked.  Most of those officials sign up for my tournaments again and again.  My September event filled up in two days via on-line registration.  Therefore, I can only assume that if you have enough officials and it’s scheduled properly, T&B is not an issue w/ driver’s and judges.

The fact that T&B is being attempted and feedback created is a positive.  I hope the Western Region’s rep understands that it is an “option†– not a requirement.  If sites in your region do not see the benefit, then don’t offer it.  But don’t deny other areas that have effectively utilized it.  The “skier advantage†argument has faded from the landscape and has been replaced by logistical concerns.  I’m confident those can be overcome.

[Drago]

thanks Joe,

we actually timed our rounds and it didn't save time. Looks like it may work better in bigger tournaments. We have judges and drivers running all over the place. I was not present at the West meeting, so I'm not sure of their reasons. I'm not sure if they asked "skiers", or how many their majority is. From my experiences with council members in the past, I can guarantee it has nothing to do with records.

[LeonL]

We tried T&B at our tournament in June and had 29 skiers.  Of those only 5 chose to T&B.  It was our first time offering this format and I feel that contributed to the low number taking that option.  We did not plan ahead by splitting officiating crews during the round.  If we had more skiers take the option we would have had complaints from officials, but due to our low number of available judges I don't know if we could have had two crews anyway.  We are going to offer T&B again at our Sept. 4th tournament and will provide updates.

skispray -- I hope the figures that Joe provided enlightened you to the fact that there aren't many extra (if any) dollars left over after tournament expenses.  In fact in the SR the regional fee is $100, so we have $50 more outlay than in the SCR.  We can do a slalom only with in house officials, but when we go 3 event we do have lodging expenses and rarely break even.  In my experience most other sports that DO pay officials, the officials are NOT competitors (ie, your mention of motorcross) anyway.

[Kelvin]

Joe, is T&B available for tournaments after nationals?  I thought I read somewhere that the experimental phase was for the 2010 ski year which ends with nationals.  I'm asking because I would like to add T&B to our fall tournament, but I didn't think it was an option.

[jdarwin]

Kelvin - I'll have to investigate to determine if there was a formalized timeframe.  My recollection is that we would "try it this year", whatever that means.  I would encourage you to submit the request anyway.  I have submitted a request for my fall tournament but haven't heard back yet.  I assume the delay is a result of Regionals/Nationals activity - this is a busy time of year for everyone. 

Of note:  you must submit the proper rules exception form that is provided on the USAWS website.  I previously submitted/distributed a templated form I created that fully explained the concept and how it would be implemented.  But now that the Rules Comm is very familiar with the format, no need for lengthy explanations.

[LeonL]

Joe, let us know.  I applied to Scott Snape for a rules exception for both our tournaments this year not really thinking whether it was considered calendar year 2010 or ski season 2010.  By his answer I assumed our Sept tournament was approved for T&B.   

[jdarwin]

I just received confirmation that the Rule Exception is for the calendar year - not the ski year.  If you received approval, you're good to go.

[MrJones]

Leigh,

Good break down on the +/- of the thing. I am not a fan of T&B, but I think it is something that should be allowed if the majority of skiers want it. I don't think it is a big performance enhancer. The main negative I see is that it affects skiers differently.

Say you have 30 skiers in a 3rd tournament. Lets say you can pull 10 per hour for 9 hours of skiing. Turn and burn is only allowed in the 2nd round. If you are one of the early skiers (out of the 30) it works out great. Say skier number one skis round 1 at 8:00 and then skis round 2&3 at 11:00. If he doesn't have to judge and wants to bug out his day is over before lunch.

If you are skier number 30 then you ski your first round at 10:50 ish, but then when does your second round come? Say every skier does turn and burn in round 2. Now most wont start over at their first pass, but if they have to get picked up, put bindings on, etc it will take longer. Say you are now only pulling 6 skiers per hour so it is 5 hours until our skier number 30 hits the water again. He is not done until after 4:00. It also almost forces people early in the rotation to T&B in the second round because they know that the 3rd isn't going to come around for a long time.

I fully admit to being a bit anal. I like stuff organized and I like to know when things are going to happen. Others are the opposite and that's cool too. For me I would much rather be able to look at the running order and figure out about how much time there is until I ski so I can do all my pre-ski rituals. You know, stretch my bad back-elbow-ankle-etc, visualize my set, sacrifice a live chicken. All the normal stuff.

Lots of good discussion on the board this week. People must be feeling the vibe between Reg/Nats!

 

[Than_Bogan]

(Aside: I've sent an email to jdarwin to see if perhaps I can provide some data analysis help.)

For me personally, not allowing the "Burn" round itself to count for records would help my comfort level quite a bit.  Counting for averages and qualifications wouldn't bother me very much, but setting a record in a case where somebody actually ran a given pass twice in a row would kinda rub me the wrong way.

So that seems like a nice compromise, especially since most skiers (including me) will never have to think about setting any records.

[9400]

Scot and Drago nailed my gripes...makes it very difficult to figure out when you're going to ski