Gates

[GK]

Will Asher and Nate Smith both miss a shot at the podium after their gates were pulled. Made for a much less interesting event in my opinion. I've always thought that the entrance gate requirement is a silly one in our sport. I know it's been discussed before, but I would support doing away with the requirement to go through the entrance gates. It would help from a novice standpoint and put the focus on the real task at hand for all levels which is going around buoys!

[BraceMaker]

Eh. I think it makes sense to have a start and end point.

 

Perhaps you'd like the concept of a "0" ball. Positioned narrower than the turn ball off to the left as you approached the course. This would be a ball positioned approximately where the turn in for the gate shot occurs, and all skiers would have to be outside this ball in order for 1 to count.

 

Then you'd have to round 6 and get accross the wakes and out to "0".

 

 

 

Fact is, the sport isn't "going around bouys" it is making your passes, including the gate.

[Wish]

but it's drama or drrema as the down under announcers stated.....about a hounded times. All kidding aside, keep the gates. It's an element to to sport that can make or in the Moomba case break you. I am surprised it happened. Seemed to happen at the same end. Shadow? Judge? Wave at pull out?.. who knows but it's what makes the sport interesting. We could just move the buoys (boys in Australian) in about 3 feet and make it easier as well.

[6balls]

at Moomba could be the effect of current...an additional factor to playing the wind.

[Horton]

The water is moving and the gate balls are moving. It is part of the game...

[BraceMaker]

I think it would make sense. After all it would allow the skier more input on how they wanted to get to one. It would have to be narrow enough that an individual doing a two handed gate on shortline would be wider than the ball.

 

I think it logically makes sense.

 

But you need a start and end if you are viewing the course as 6 balls. Otherwise 1 and 6 don't have to be skied, which if you got in the habit of doing a single cut to 1 instead of a gate shot to 1, that you'll have to shift things around for every pass.

[Skihack]

Never have missed a gate in a tourney. However, going early a tad before the gate in practice has never really helped especially at the really shorter line lengths so I really don't see the need for the gate to be a requirement. If you really think the gates should be required, then perhaps you should have to go through two buoys six times than around the outside six times as currently done. Maybe we should add a buoy 10 feet outside each turn ball at a distance from the boat path at 47 1/2. And go between them on each turn.

[ForrestGump]

How about let's not complicate it and leave it as is. :)

[liquid d]

Man , I wish the hole in golf were 6 inches wide too!...but just for me!

[jdarwin]

If the gates mean so much, why don't they score? You can go thru the gates, drop the handle before 1 ball and score ZERO. Makes no sense. Gates are literally worthless and should not be judged because they DON'T SCORE. Or, as an alternative: If you miss the entrance gates on a pass and ski all 6, you get to continue SO LONG AS you ski the NEXT complete pass. In other words, we overlook the miss but you must ski (including gates) the next complete pass to continue on. This makes a little more sense to me but in the end, gates should not be judged because they don't compute into the score. And the worst part is the application of the rule - no one seems to apply the rule consistently. Without video, it can be impossible. Even with video, it can be difficult. This has been a hot-button issue for me for some time.

[crashman]

from a spectator standpoint and as a guy who hasn't skied a tournament- is sucks to see your favorite skiers disqualified because of a missed gate. I wish it were more like a false start- if you miss the gate you just wasted your energy and have to ski the pass again. Again, that's just from a spectator standpoint I understand the rules and purpose for the gates.

[6balls]

@crashman, I like it. A couple of false starts and the runner is DQ'd. Maybe one missed gate per set allowed or something similar.

[smanski]

I am all for narrow "0" ball concept. The gates have been driving me crazy for years. There's nothing worse than skiing a pass in a tournament, worrying the whole time that you may have hopped the gate ball.

[Ed_Johnson]

Agree Moomba is a challenge...Just wish they would take that into account and not be judged so "Strictly."....These Guys didn't miss their gates by a mile or they would not have spent soooooooo much time reviewing and reviewing..If it's that close, the benefit should go to the skier.

[MattP]

But that's the challenge of Moomba.

Andy zeroed one year at 32off in the first round. That's a long plane ride for a pullout and turn in for a gate.

 

The buoys move. They will be in one location when you go to turn in then jump around your ski then move back. It's all part of the attraction of the Yarra.

[Texas6]

I like the gates but I struggle with the idea that a guy could fly all the way to Australia, and pack up his bags after missing a moving gate on moving water. They should give them a second chance for missing gates but the second chance has to be harder, maybe an automatic opt up and if they don't run a full pass at the shorter line length, the missed gate counts. Just throwing out ideas. Nates gate miss really took away from the spectatorship and excitement that could have been

[ral]

I have never missed an entry gate in a tournament, but have missed several exit gates...

[Garn]

I agree with the zero ball idea. Keep the exit gates. But is this just pie-in-the-ski? What would it take to make that happen?

[Wish]

@Garn What would it take to get the PGA to increase the size of the hole.? About the same.

[estrom]

I brought up the idea of a "mulligan" in the last thread where gates were discussed. I think it makes perfect sense instead of just getting rid of the gates. I like the idea of a starting point to the course. A zero ball and exit gates as @Garn mentions also makes some sense as an alternative.

[9400]

Getting rid of the gates would be great....right along with that ski that everyone can run 39 on.

[ral]

Keep the exit gate but add a zero buoy. So more buoys. And instead of having to look at the 55's and gates, you will have to look at 55's, zero buoy and gates. If you have an 8-buoy course, it will be nightmarish. If you have a short setup, you will have to look at the zero buoy after the exit...

 

Where do you put the extra buoy, so it does not bother slow speed skiers, long line skiers, short line skiers, one handed gates, two handed gates, one handed gates with long slide?

 

Let's explain then to a casual observer the rule: need to turn around that buoy, then go near the gate but it does not matter if you get in or out, then go thru the exit gate but it does not matter if you go around that other buoy.

 

Let's talk about risks. How many injuries in the entry gates? How many popped handles? All that happens at the exit gates. So why keep the exit gates but not the entrance gates?

 

I think the entrance gates are a critical factor when it comes to performance. If no entrance gate, scores would probably increase, and I do not think the sports needs that now. I like the PGA size hole example.

 

 

[MattP]

@ral I agree.

 

[ScaredOfCorbets]

So we are talking about relocating the gate(s)? Essentially that's what I'm reading with zero ball.

 

 

[BraceMaker]

To me the argument is as follows:

 

The gate is arbitrary and or pointless, that being early for the gate is a disadvantage in terms of making 1 ball, and that you'd rather be later.

 

Therefore when skiers in tournaments miss the gate they do not feel as if it is a missed pass, or a problem.

 

 

My concept of a Zero Ball is simply to have a point to the left of the wakes that all skiers would have to be outside of in order to mark an "entry" to the course.

 

Its position would not be arbitrary, but would probably require overhead video of a number of skiers.

 

Ideally you would find that regardless of rope length, or speed or single or double gate, that there is a spot a ball could be positioned that all skiers already essentially pass outside of. Its location would be earlier than the gates, but narrower than the 2-4-6 line entering the course.

 

It would reduce the dangers of the exit gate shut down because you can stay on edge off 6 to get over to the exit ball (on the right as you exit.)

 

As such you would not need to change direction or "stop" to the exit gate, but could ride out and be early and wide of the exit ball.

[ral]

I do not know for the rest, but for sure for me, getting near RH gate puts me in a better position to 1 than being near the middle or closer to LH gate.

 

If getting near the middle would be an advantage, nobody in the pro circuit would miss a gate. Nobody, waves, current or wind included.

 

So, in my view, the ability of getting closer to that RH gate without going out of it is also a reflection of good skiing technique.

 

Same thing but more extreme in long jump, where being closer to the foul line gives a measurable advantage. But when you step over the foul line, your jump is void.

[Cypresskier]

I say get rid of the left hand gate buoy. As long as you are on the right side of the exit buoy what does it matter.

[ral]

You can even go over the RH buoy, I really believe this is more than not strict even compared with turn buoys. If the rule was that you cannot touch the gate buoys or go over it, it would be strict.

 

@Cypresskier, I really do not think anyone is too concerned about the LH gate buoy skiing-wise, but it is kind of important for the driver, mate.

[klindy]

@Cypressskier the LH gate buoy also may be important on the exit end of the course too.

[Razorskier1]

I think being over the RH gate ball is mental more than physical. I feel better opening my pass when I am close to the RH ball through the gate. If I am at the middle or late, I feel (mentally) rushed, despite the fact that I am often in just as good a position at the one ball (even at my shorter lines). I do believe that being "way early" (like 2-5 feet) of the RH ball is detrimental, as it forces a very conscious change in my normal rythm in the course due to the elongated glide prior to one. I like the entry gates.

 

From a safety standpoint if I were to do anything I'd either (a) move the end gates further away from the six ball or (b) get rid of them and use the 55s as the exit gate. In tournament skiing when you know you need that gate to keep going, you see a lot of injuries with people trying to hang on for the gate (like my torn shoulder labrum, for example). Giving more time to get around six, stand up, wiggle the ski, or whatever in order to have a safe finish would be beneficial in my view.

[BraceMaker]

Arguably a slight rotation to the gates would give you a bit more room to successfully travel through them.

 

You have a skier cutting across through an opening at an oblique angle. If the left ball stays put and the right ball slides up course you have an opening that is slightly more exposed to the skier so that the skier can move through the gate at approximately the same position, but with less chance of a miss and a better view of where they were going.

[A_B]

I'm not sure the gates were designed with the thought that skiers would be zipping past them at 70mph...

I would not be for eliminating entrance and exit, but would think brighter minds could come up with a modification that keeps the sport safe and is easier to observe and accomplish.

 

My dumb thought would be to have two right hand gate balls about 10 feet apart and the skier has to be between them on entrance and exit. You could have a left hand gate on the second set to keep the boat straight. It would be easier to see the skier between two gates spaced apart vs sideways.

[kevintcom]

I was reading comments about how the gate impacts novice skiers. However, in a Grassroots tournament, I understand that the gates are optional for novices. Really, the gates only start to count for higher skill levels, and that is when I think the skiers should be more ready to ski them. I don't think that we change the entire course just because of one tournament.

I can think of plenty of times when I wished a football field (American) had been either a yard longer or shorter to cause my favorite team to win. However, I wouldn't change the field just for one game. The same seems to apply here.

[ral]

@kevintcom, I agree. But I agree only once, not three times...

[MattP]

It's also the direction with the current so that has something to do with it. Adjusting each gate for wind and current is tough

[Bulldog]

The gates should not count as there is not real advantage if you are a tiny bit early or late, they should just be a reference not a way to be disqualified IMHO. A side note is why are the balls and the gates so large that when they are hit people break ankles and legs, could they not be much smaller in diameter and still have the same function?

[6balls]

Aw hell...just leave it be and ski.

[MattP]

@6balls you can say that again. This sounds like people who want an easier way out than training harder.

[A_B]

We will all be hitting the water soon, so life will go on.

[jipster43]

I remember when you couldn't palm the ball or travel in basketball. I'm not sure if the change has improved the game, but I still rankle when I see someone commit either one of these offenses.

[A_B]

@jipster, they made the changes so the superstars could score more, and the "air" fouls put them on the line on tv and protect them from being injured, all so the fans could see what they came for, sort of why this thread was started...

 

Sports that have made it big have pushed the entertainment factor, but purists will always have an issue with that.

 

I also have issues with palming,,travelling, etc...

[kevintcom]

@ral, sorry for the repeat comment. I got an error on the first two and didn't know they'd posted.

[MattP]

@kevintcom fixed it.

[jipster43]

@AB I'm a Bob Cousy fan - set shots forever!

[GK]

I'm not sure why a zero ball is necessary either. Why do we need skiers to start on the left side of the wakes. We all know that in deep shortline the optimal path would be to start on the left and ski approximately through the gates so nothing is going to change there. How many more collegiate skiers could be getting a good start at 26 mph and running some buoys if the gates weren't in the equation? What's wrong with pulling out wide and early for 1 ball? Scoring doesn't have to change. Like someone said, you get NO points for going through the gates, so why make it a requirement? Don't change the course, just allow a skier to start their run at the point they feel is optimal for them. I just don't see the downside.

[Wish]

bigger gate buoys would lesson the already seemingly narrow path. I ski a float course in MN that's maintained by a great couple. Buoys have to be removed on weekends (sucks), so not really waited down for quick removal/attachment. They look like beach balls. Daunting to go threw them. I run mine on the large side but do sink them low.

[ral]

@Rico, with gate video they are pretty easy to judge...

[Dusty]

How about keep the right hand entrance gate and the left hand exit gate- anything left (entry) or right (exit) counts. It is not an adavantage to the skier to be down course of the entry and up course of the exit. Or maybe make the gates 'vertical ' in the course and about 5 meters wide? Or...

[ral]

@Dusty, I have only seen small kids and early beginners missing the LH buoy.

[Klundell]

Getting through the gates is an art form. How many threads do we have on this forum about getting a start? And some of you want to do away with that art? I don't get it. And yes it is an advantage to be as close to that right hand gate buoy as you can, if it wasn't no one would miss them (especially pros).