Should we change the gate rule - Advanced Topics Version

[Horton]

There is a lot of talk about his.

I am not sure if skiers really want this or there are a few that are making a lot if noise.

I am pinging the 44 skiers that are currently listed for the Advanced Topics group. Let’s see what they think.

 

@6balls

@AB

@Alvin Neff

@bishop8950

@brooks

@Bruce_Butterfield

@Bruce55

@Chad Scott

@chrisrossi

@DaveLemons

@Dirt

@Drago

@DUSkier

@DW

@Ed_Johnson

@Ham Wallace

@jdarwin

@jimbrake

@Klundell

@MAD11

@Mapple

@Marco

@MarcusBrown

@matthewbrown

@MrJones

@MS

@OB

@ral

@richarddoane

@rico

@ripa38

@schroed

@scoke

@scotchipman

@Sethski

@ShaneH

@skidawg

@skiep

@TFIN

@Than_Bogan

@Triplett

@tsixam

@twhisper

@Wish

 

[Klundell]

@Horton I like it.

[Horton]

@Klundell I do not see your vote

[Ed_Johnson]

Agree with the part, "If it's close it's good." Especially at 41 off. Being wide at 41 is not going to help you, and the wider boats absolutely effect the gate ball...Benifit should go to the skier on a close call.

[Alvin_Neff]

I like the idea of skier friendly calls in the case of a very close review. If more than one review is needed, the skier should get the benefit of the doubt. I also think the skier should not be held at the end of the slalom course while reviewing the gate. There is no reason that they cannot continue at risk, if the gate review cannot be done rapidly. I have seen a good friend of mine iced at Nationals while a long gate review was done, the gate was eventually called good, but his feet were cramping, and he lost his entire rhythm.

[Horton]

@Ed_Johnson I wrote that option badly. What I mean is if under review it is hard to tell let it go. If you miss it you miss it and the rules have always stated that you need to go between the balls.

[Horton]

What Alvin said!

[Ed_Johnson]

Agree with the between the buoys rule....However, it seems some judges pour over video, measuring in Centimeters, looking for a reason to take it away from the skier. If it's that close, give it to the skier. Especially at the really short line lengths, when the boat does effect buoy position.

 

PS: A really clear miss should be obvious.

[Klundell]

Fixed it.

[Drago]

I feel the actual rule is close to being fine the way it is, however, the center if ski thing is absurd. Just don't touch it at all. Likewise cameras all over the place (absurd). I said this somewhere else, but a mulligan rule similar to an opt up rule might work (gotta run the next full pass). Should be called within , say , 15 seconds. MLB doesn't even use video review, sheesh.

[Drago]

Sorry @Horton, I guess I should've answered " left of the ball", the old days part made me glaze over that option

[Horton]

13 to 4 so far. Hmmmm

[RichardDoane]

run a safe entry gate, it's not that difficult, get rid of the cameras IMO, Judge call if missed, otherwise benefit to the skier

[6balls]

agree with @richardoane

[A_B]

I like no video at all except elite events where there is money or National titles on the line. The video should be reviewed once and it should be obvious the skier wasn't in compliance, if it is that hard to tell, call it good. The skier should also not be asked to sit in water for,more than his 30 seconds. They should begin skiing the next pass. If the review isn't completed before the next skier hits the water, the score stands. Head to head would need an exception on time to wait, as the next skier needs to know what score has been approved.

 

I think a pair of binoculars in the judges towers should be standard issue at every event.

[DUSkier]

This was my suggestion after Moomba, however review should be done at normal speed and if a definite decision cannot be made call it good. I also believe Cameras should be at a certain height to make view clearer, I could be wrong on this and would have to read up, but in the rules there is no stipulation for a camera height, there is however for a judges tower??

[Than_Bogan]

It was hard for me to vote, because I don't have a strong conviction amongst these options.

 

What I DO strongly feel is that we should ditch the cameras and the reviews. Require a decent view of the gate, and make it explicit that you give it to the skier unless you are SURE he/she missed it.

 

I judged some rounds of an L last year, so I had that better-than-class-C view. I 0ed two gates (on the same poor guy although his 3rd round was a great score) due to a completely obvious miss. He had no complaints; all 3 judges on that end 0ed the gate both times.

 

Hm, that brings up an interesting possibility. What if we just ask people to call their "best guess" (as usual) and then the gate counts unless ALL THREE judges on that end 0 it. (Or in a Class C, both would have to.)

 

If three qualified folks are watching your gate and not one of them thinks you made it, I would think there is little cause for protest? And this doesn't require video and doesn't cause those horrible delays.

 

Haven't thought it through that much, but at first blush it seems like a good idea.

[Marco]

"If it is close, it is good". Thats the key point. There is no way to be accurate judging which side of the centerline of a round object the ski passes over at high speed, and a "miss" by an inch or two has zero effect on the skiers ability to run the pass. If there is any question that the gate was made or not, it should be judged as a good gate. A miss should need to be ovious and without question.

[bishop8950]

I think we should at least go to "one review" but even better if we can get over the gates. To do this we need a proposal and there have been many lately, I don't have a better one.

 

Last year at Nationals I ran 39 but my gate was very tight. Towers gave it to me upon first review of video. Splash eye reviewed it several times and overruled the towers. I floated for what seemed like 5 minutes during the deliberations. I do not feel treated unfairly because that was he way it was supposed to go according to the rules at that time. But I believe there is a better way.

[Than_Bogan]

To clarify one thing: I am personally fine with using video to ratify a world record, but it shouldn't be used during the tournament to affect the results.

[A_B]

May it should just be if you are right of the gate it is a miss. If you hit it, go over the top, etc, its good.

The misses by an inch would probably count on visual, but the foot misses will get called out.

[skidawg]

One thing that no one typically addresses: A shortline skier doesn't gain an advantage by missing the gates on the right side (actually if you are to early, it is a disadvantage). Also, why should a skiers successful pass be pulled if you miss the gates on the late side (definate disadvantage), but the rules say its a zero. Food for thought.....?

[DUSkier]

@skidawg so why are the pros cutting the gate so fine????? If it is no advantage why not aim for the middle??? Obviously I do not ski at these super short line lengths, but believe there must be an advantage otherwise they would not be so close to the right hand ball. the only time I could see it being a disadvantage is if the skier leans too long (which is not the fault of the gate) which would have them carrying too much speed, same as anyone learning a new pass..

[skidawg]

It's not a matter of purposely cutting the gates close. The optimal gate comes by turning in at the right time with the proper speed and width. When it's time to go, u gotta go or else you lose speed and angle! So waiting a bit longer just to split the gates would cause a lack of speed and angle.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I am adamantly opposed to this one:Something like the current rule or old rule but add that there can be only ONE review from the judges AND if it is close it is good for 2 reasons: 1) Many times the first review is changed and it takes multiple reviews to really determine if its "good", and 2) How close is "close"? This is no better than the current situation. One of the biggest problems is that many times the buoy is hidden by the boat's spray and very difficult to see to begin with.

 

Like Skidawg said, there is no real advantage to missing the gates by a few inches, so why penalize the skier? It is not giving him an advantage over the other competitors. The best solution is to not score the entrance gates.

[jdarwin]

The best solution is to not score the entrance gates. Bruce - the gates don't "score" - they are simply "judged". I completely agree with your opinion but I wanted to clarify that because it is an important distinction that supports your argument. I have said for years that the gates should not be judged because they don't "score". Go thru the gates and drop the handle and your score is "zero" - therefore, why are they even judged and why should the skier be penalized for not going thru them?

[Horton]

@Bruce_Butterfield

 

Darn engineers! Ok I wrote that badly. What I mean by “Something like the current rule or old rule but add that there can be only ONE review from the judges AND if it is close it is good” is … If the judges have to look twice or are not sure then it is good. If the skier clearly misses it is a ZERO.

 

A lot of the problem with the current rules is the judge simple cannot tell. We need to eliminate endless video review but I still think ultimately the skier needs to go between the gates.

 

Sort of like tie goes to the runner.

 

Ooooo so I confess this is really my preference.

 

 

[Ed_Johnson]

The problem seems to be when it takes a group of Judges, reviewing, over and over, down to the slightest Micro-Nano-Inch, holding up the entire Tournament..For God Sakes, if it is that close, just "GIVE IT TO THE SKIER."

 

Should be a unanimous decision that it was a "CLEAR MISS," and not a "MICRO MISS."

[DUSkier]

ummm,,, so pull out later at the 55's. This is what anyone would do if they are regularly on the right hand ball and getting correct width, speed and angle. obviously this all gets harder as the line gets shorter but that's why they are pro skiers and I'm sitting here in Australia freezing my butt off =)

[Bruce_Butterfield]

JD - thanks, you're right - you shudda been a lawyer!

 

Horton - you missed the point. The one review and "its close" option is NOT an improvement - its more of the same problem. The gates are really hard to judge with the current good/no-good criteria. Any change needs to be in how the gates are scored judged.

 

The old AWSA rule where if you touched it, it was good, was a major improvement, but we've gone backwards from that. By far the best option is to not judge the entrance gates. There is no benefit to the skier, just major benefit to the the tournament sponsor and judges.

[A_B]

If there is a change, and they count, I would like to see two right hand gate balls at some distance from each other that the skier has to go in between. Eliminate the video and the towers and boat call it, like the old days.

 

This would mean modifying the course, and many floating courses would be challenged to switch hate balls around. I'll leave the typo, as it might be a Freudian slip!

[Sethski]

A couple of simple points in my opinion:

 

Beginners benefit with an earlier gate or no gate requirement at all...thereby encouraging newbies to try tournament skiing as soon as they can get around some buoys. As it is now, they may learn to run the course, but the gates are a whole added challenge which discourages people from trying.

 

Shortline is more difficult if you are too early because the gates are already the earliest wake crossing in the course. Therefore if you get good speed and direction yet you are early, you will apex too early for one ball. This really only applies at 38 and beyond.

 

Waiting for video review simply sucks. Our sport is already too complex for the average joe to watch. Add in some skier getting his gate pulled and Joey Spectator is lost.

 

My 2 cents.

[Horton]

@sethski I never liked you

[Sethski]

@rico I wasn't saying that the idea of going through two buoys was difficult for spectators to understand. It's the fact that we find out (like the Masters) after an event is over that the outcome was actually different than perceived.

 

And as far as an earlier start being an advantage with an adapted gate, think what you will, but at 39 and beyond (and maybe 38 too), it is impossible to stay wide enough to round the buoy for more than a split second and impossible to get wide enough without a counter-cut (what we now call the gate) to round the buoy. I'm open to ideas if you think there is a plausible idea for an "adapted gate".

 

@horton Cut your hair and stop the bromance with @shaneh.

[Drago]

Crap, now Nate's USOpen gates were pulled, too? That is a long delay.

[ForrestGump]

@Drago No kidding. It's impressive that Nate got a US Open invite at such a young age. He had to be like 9 the last time one was held.

[Horton]

I'm not sure I ask the questions correctly for the poll.

 

My preference is that we keep the current rule but that we changed the way we judge it. no video or just one fast video review. clearly we want to eliminate instances where there are minutes of review. if the judges cannot clearly see if the skier went between the balls then must score is as good.

 

is the skier is @sethski the score is 0

[Sethski]

@horton. Huh?

[Horton]

@sethski sorry cellphone typo. fixed it

[MattP]

@horton then liked your own post. Classic.

 

[ForrestGump]

I was the victim of an unnecessarily long gate review at Regionals this weekend. And honestly, it irritated me. My ski on the 2nd pass was nowhere close to the right gate buoy. And then at the end of the lake the boat judge told me they called for a gate review. So I sat. And I sat. And I sat. 4+ minutes go by according to the boat driver who was timing it. Really???? At the point that the boat judge indicated I could go at risk, I was now thoroughly mad. So I took my 3rd pass all jacked up and mad, and went down at 1 ball. I walk back down the lake and the boat judge finally calls out that they called my gate good. Almost 8 minutes after I took the gate in question.

 

So I went to tournament officials and said that something needed to be done about the gate review process. The response I received was that there were judges that didn't know how to operate the review video systems. WTF???? That shouldn't be my problem. Much like a driver, the electronics and processes for judging should be transparent to the skier. NOT effect the skier. I qualified for regionals and nationals. I payed my entrance fee. I paid for practice. I paid for an RV space. I spent a lot of money, only to walk away feeling like my performance wasn't important to the AWSA. I am in no way advocating doing away with the gates. But the process to call them in these tournaments is stupid. If you can't call a gate within 90 seconds of a gate review being called, it should go to the skier.

 

Don't misunderstand..... I'm not mad at the judges who were in the towers. I'm mad at how we go about doing this.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Shane, that is the crux of the problem. We need a way that is immediately obvious to the judges. The centerline of the buoy criteria is a real problem when the buoy is frequently not visible due to spray or the buoy moving around. This weekend, the "technical difficulties" were far too frequent and part of the problem with the current system. It needs to be simplified.

 

Horton, the problem with your solution is if you ask 10 different judges when "close" is good or not, you will get 10 different answers. How is that an improvement?

[A_B]

Change the rule to a skier has to hit or ski between the gates, call them by the chair (with binoculars) a clear miss to the right is a miss. A skier hits any piece of the ball and its his/hers.

30-second rule on deliberations or it goes to the skier. Move on.

 

Technology for technology sake is not needed here. The technology doesn't work, obviously. Only an overhead video at each end would work, or adopt something like what they use in tennis with balls being called out. Then how much more $ would every event cost?

 

 

[Ham_Wallace]

Leave it alone. There would be the need for a complete new book of records.

 

[Than_Bogan]

@Ham Wallace Actually, I disagree. We didn't reset the records for Perfect Pass, Zero Off, fiberglass, carbon fiber, smaller buoy diameter, Bubble Buoys, man-made super-lakes, and a zillion advances in boat and ski designs.

 

There certainly would have to be some discussions about the topic of records, but I don't think it's automatic that any change would require starting over.

[Horton]

@Ham I say we leave the rule as it is but we eliminate video gates from 99% of the tournaments. Judges call it as they see it and move on. If they are not sure it is called as good.

 

World records and pro events where money is on the line keep the video gates and make sure the judges can get the review done in 90 seconds or less.

 

What happened to @ShaneH and others is unacceptable but fix is should not mean changing the meaning of a slalom pass.

[A_B]

In the old days, on early passes, the driver would lean over and tell the skier they needed to clean up their gates. I guess this is the price for improvement....

[DW]

To Shane' issue and a very good point. Set a time limit for review along with a specific start time for a review and if a decision can't be made at that point, skier gets the pass.

 

What is the driving factor behind changing the rule and why do you want to change it? If it is judging, set up appropriate judging parameters rather than specific gate rule change? Thoughts?