Judging From Home - (Richelle we need a lesson)

[Horton]

The idea of more rules and more headache to set up an event makes me sick. Go help set up jump on a site that does not do it often and then tell me you want to do this.

[dvskiing]

Than, I would respectfully disagree with your thoughts on the 10 year old or anyone else for that matter. My b1 ran over 2 ball at his first regionals at Crystal Point. A graze silimilar to the pic above and continued to ski the pass. I knew instantly he was finished. Sure it was a hard way to learn that lesson but he knew he hit the ball and that was not ok. Good news he went on to win b1 5 or so years later. The point is when we cut slack or over step the (rule in the skiers favor) we are really doing them a disservice in the long run. I would much rather have the skiers of any age learn the lessons or rules locally without the pressure of the bigger tournaments. I have seen numerous instance of unhappy parents and unhappy skiers when calls are made that clearly are correct and the skier is use to the friendly ruling on home sites for gates etc. In the case of the picture above I would call it a miss. In real time who knows based on the following pictures she would have got it. Those are judgement calls and that why we have more than one.

[skidawg]

Ditto Jones comment, and add "what bouy" "Who's looking at a bouy", U boys are slipping, keep your priorities straight.

[Than_Bogan]

@dvskiing. I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I think it's fine to disagree on this, but I might as well explain a little more of my thinking:

 

By the time someone hits a "big tournament," there's a fair chance they are already very interested in the sport. It may be a good time for a "hard lesson" as they transition from poser toward pro.

 

At the same time, we always have to have an eye out for growing our sport. Calls that don't affect any important outcome but DO end up discouraging folks from going to tournaments are a net negative in my book, and to be avoided.

 

A couple of years back, a brand new Girls II skier fell on her opening pass of her first class C round. I believe she was at 17 mph. The boat driver was also the tournament director and quickly took the blame. Strictly according to the rules? I doubt it (although I don't actually know the reride reason give). Right decision? I think so. That same girl is a hardcore tournament addict now and one of the more promising young skiers in our region. I have no way to prove that wouldn't have happened with stricter treatment in her first ever round, but I can't help but feel what happened was a net very good thing.

 

This is a fine line, of course, and one that I think can only be walked by humans. I program computers for a living, so I am acutely aware of how dumb and inflexible they are. I do not think the future of our sport would be brighter with rigid inflexibility at all levels.

[elr]

Accomodations for beginning skiers [opening passes etc.] should not be granted for ranking list tournaments - run a Class F in conjunction with the Class C - its a better place for beginners and doesn't compromise legitimately earned scores.

[gjohnson]

From the photos supplied, you CAN NOT call it a miss. In the photograph where the skiers ski appears to be touching the buoy, the front foot has yet to reach the X-Y coordinates(The line from the boat guides to the turn buoy). Once the front foot crosses the X-Y line is when the buoy can be scored as a miss. In the subsequent photograph, there is no visual evidence that the buoy was missed as it can't be seen. Even though it looks very possible, based on the enlarged photograph, that the buoy may have been ridden over thereby significantly displacing the buoy, the photograph showing the skiers front foot crossing the X-Y line isn't available for reference. Thus, the skier is given the benefit. Horton wins.

[Horton]

Yeaaa!

[Mateo_Vargas]

No Horton is wrong. Sinking a buoy to get the front foot around it is a miss. If that was a real buoy the question would probably be whether it was 2 or 2 1/2. Boody, are going to put Horton's $5 back in the tip jar?

[gjohnson]

Again, you need proof that the buoy was significantly displaced. More pictures are necessary to prove Horton wrong, no matter how badly people would like that to be the result. He's still right.

[Boody]

Not that I really want my $5 but I think one can conclude that the weight of a ski/skier would displace the bubble bouy, based on the afformentioned photo. I guess people see what they want to see.

[Chef23]

I think if that was a real buoy we wouldn't be having this conversation because it definitely would have displaced the ski at some point and she likely wouldn't have run the pass.

[Horton]

The truth is that these photos are really inconclusive. The last photo tells me that the ball is most likely inside. I can see how it could be under the ski but as a judge that would speculation. What I see looks like the ski is wide of the ball line.

[eleeski]

I believe that not only the benefit of the doubt but the benefit of the rule book should be applied to the skier. The photos are inconclusive. Bubble buoys do not sink or displace so it is possible to within the rules have the buoy score. Chef is right - any other buoy would result in a miss. Perhaps the spirit of the rule would be a miss but it is possible to read the rule book and see the presented views and reasonably score the buoy.

 

Horton is such a hard judge that I assumed he was cutting the buoy. Sorry Boody, I'm sure you can find some southern trick cutting judges to support you but I'm saying you owe Horton. My earlier support of you was mistaken (I thought you were scoring the buoy).

 

Actually I had to side with Horton - he is blackmailing me with those spandex photos!

 

Eric

[35 in the bag]

Horton,

 

Can you set up a poll?.........No score (previous full buoy only) - or - Score (previous buoy plus something).

 

There seems to be enough objective disagreement that "we" need an education. Maybe USAWS can weight in for clarification.

 

Leave out the thought of whether it could be seen/discerned in real time. Look only at the evidence presented.

 

I vote "No Score".

1 The buoy is clearly "ridden over"........"temporarily sunk".... as a result of being "hit by the ski" (excerpts rule 10.03). If you don't buy the "temporarily sunk" argument because the buoy is not shown as fully submerged, then use the "move it significantly from its position" argument, as the top of the buoy is not in its original position.....it is depressed.

 

The "Front Foot" position does not play into this... relative to "hitting" a turn buoy, or any other buoy for that matter, except the right hand entrance gate. Note - See appendix (page 86) for " Entrance Gate Judgment" which implies an obvious exception to "hitting" the "right hand gate buoy" - based on the diagram which shows the center of the ski over the center of the gate buoy, and still counting as a "Good" gate. Implying it was ridden over and/or hit.

 

 

 

I don’t see any other exception about “riding over a buoy”. But maybe I am missing something.

 

Look at the "Slalom Scoring Diagram", also on page 86. This may be thin....but notice how the X-Y, C-D and line of gate buoys lines do not extend through the buoys, but are instead interupted by the circumference of the buoys. Does this further support that the buoys are not to be "ridden over"?

Let the debate continue until Horton is either $5 richer or $5 poorer for certain.

 

John M.

http://ballofspray.static.vanillaforums.com/uploads/FileUpload/a6/2114cb9aa6a3df126afe7ec736d649.jpg

[Klundell]

Great Thread! My vote is no score. I get that this was probably very difficult to call in real time but the photo is evidence. This thing is clearly "ridden over" and displaced.

[Horton]

Karina is never going to speak to me again. Yes good thread.

[Horton]

bUMp