Don't change the gate rules, change the gates!

[Jordan]

Interesting stuff in the advanced topic thread on gates. Clearly there is a problem if it is that difficult to judge gates and to come to an agreement about how they should be judged.

 

Seems like:

 

1) Often the judges can't even see the gate ball due to spray

2) There seems to be agreement that there is not an advantage at short line if you are too early for the gate

3) There seems to be no apparent advantage to being late for the gates

4) Delays in the current judging system are bad for the skiers and the crowd

 

 

So, time to think outside of the box a little. What if the orientation of the gates were rotated 90 degrees? So the gate was in line with the left side boat path buoys.

 

Advantages:

 

1) Gates could easily be judged from shore

2) Skiers would still have to pull out to the left to set-up the pull to one ball

3) Easier visual cue for beginners

4) No complicated wording required for the rules

 

 

Disadvantages:

1) change is hard

2) need to change existing courses

3) would have to modify portable courses by adding one more short arm

 

 

Discuss folks...

 

[Than_Bogan]

Well, that's certainly interesting! Gotta love outside the box thinking.

 

But I guess I'm not immediately seeing why this makes the judging easier. Ultimately there is still a buoy that you must be on one side of. Can you elaborate on the judging advantages that you foresee?

[Jordan]

I imagine that they perspective of the skier coming at the gate directly into the judge's view, who would be facing the gates from shore would be much clearer.

 

By way of analogy, if you were on a sidewalk and were watching someone enter a door, you may well have a difficult time know which door if there were several doors in close proximity to each other. If you were across the street it would be much easier.

 

Further, the far ball in the current gate set-up seems to often be temporarily underwater buried by spray. This is the ball where most of the problems occur. In the proposed set-up, I think the position of the first ball, would solve this problem as it would be further away from the boat when the skier goes through the gates.

 

By the way, it's thinking like this that validates why I am not in the Advanced Topics Group!! ;-)

[MISkier]

How about just widening the gates? That would move them somewhat out of the way of the boat wash and reduce how much they are obscured from view as the skier goes through. Maybe widen them by 5 feet or so.

[klindy]

Cross posted from the "non-advanced" thread. Before everyone gets more wrapped up about changing gates or how they're judged etc consider the following....

 

I can't post in the Advanced Topic section but to @Horton's point about how we score gates there are only two (types) of tournaments that require gate video - Any R tournament and the US Nationals (rule 10.08 C.1.c). At there's no problem ONLY running groups/divisions of skiers that can break a world record at R and everyone else L or below. That's a pretty small subset of skiers since only 55k and 58k recognized and not multitudes of age groups.

 

At every other level of tournament (including L) use of gate video is optional as long as you have judges towers in the proper location and have two judges in each tower. I understand that if you have one skier who can set a record you need to set up all the hardware and you might as well use it for other divisions to reduce the judges needed and, potentially, solve some judge tower location issues. But far too many L and below tournaments have defaulted to using gate video as the first choice. Much of the problem is solved if you put judges in the right place on shore and eliminate using the video all together.

 

As far as review of the gates when available, MUCH of the time taken to review the video is trying to sort out the hardware. Even with "one button rewind" DVR's the learning curve is steep for judges sitting on the tower for 15-20 skiers a weekend (or whatever). So finding the right spot on the video is the biggest time waster. Letting a skier continue at risk wont help since if you review later (before the next skier) and take the gates you still have the same confusion on the shoreline.

 

In terms of problems like Nate's gate at the Masters - Rule 10.13 A is very clear that the decision needs to be made "before the next pass or next skier". IWWF rule 14.11 also says the score will be final before the next skier skis. So reviewing retroactively, in my opinion, is not allowed according to the current rules. Although I fully support "making sure the correct skier wins" theory of getting the call right. There are ways to solve disputes but it involves challenging along with $250 ($100 for E) and a complaint from someone but that's another topic.

 

Rule 10,08 C.2.d says "It is recommended the view be recorded". Which obviously means it's not necessary to facilitate a gate review even if you need a gate camera to solve a judges tower (or quantity of judges) issue. Further rule 10.08 D.2.c says "(If video replay is not available, the boat judge shall call the gate)". So that means, instead of the two tower judges making the gate call you use all three (two tower and one boat judge) to call the gates and NO VIDEO REPLAY IS NECESSARY for anything E or below. World rules (L and R) require the gate video to be recorded for review purposes.

 

I believe there is merit to cleaning up the 'close call'. Perhaps a clear miss is a miss and anything over the buoy (like tennis - any part of the ball on the line is good) would help simplify things. But I've seen some "close calls" that looked like somethng was over the buoy when the skier passed that are CLEARLY out when you see the review. Our human eyes using consumer grade electronics are a lot to be desired when it comes to "close calls". Indecision on the part of the judges - wanting to see the review over and over before they need to make a call is rediculous. You've seen it in slow-mo, now call it good or not and move on already.

[Jordan]

In fact, now that I give it a little more thought, since there is no advantage gained by being too late for the gate, maybe it shouldn't be a gate at all.

 

Maybe you don't need the second buoy. Just a buoy that prevents you from entering to early.

[klindy]

@Jordan and others the rules already attempt to accommodate much of the issue.

 

There are specific rules in place to define the judges tower locations (44 degrees off the course centerline centered on each gate at least 10% above the water surface). If you don't (or can't ) put a tower there or if you don't want to use 2 judges per tower you can broadcast the gate view to a central location. Specifics exist to define the view etc all aimed at making the visual quality as good as possible.

 

Usually if the gates are not visible due to spray it means the view isn't high enough. Look at the video clips again in the "Regina runs 3-1/2@41 for a pending record" thread. No problem seeing those gates and it doesn't matter who's skiing the rope is at 41 off. Gate balls are perfectly visible.

 

[Ed_Johnson]

Easiest solution would be to leave the gates where they are and just quit judging them, or put an additional buoy about 3.3 feet or 1 meter behind the right hand gate ball, that you absolutely have to be inside of....No hitting or riding over it allowed, period.

[tbrenchley]

Heck let's just make a zero ball that you have to ski around on the left side of the course...as long as you go around that ball you can go whenever you want. We can put it inside the 2/4/6 buoy line (probably 10 feet) and as long as you ski around that ball you have entered the course. Now that's out of the box :)

[tbrenchley]

and you have to ski outside of it after the 6 ball to complete the pass

[Garn]

I've always thought what @tbrenchley suggests would be the easiest and best way to go.

[Moggie]

The more I read on this issue the more in favour of scrapping gates I become. They add nothing to the show and only create issues with judging.

Better to just use the right hand gate buoy and bring it forward by a few metres.

[Than_Bogan]

If we were starting today (as proposed in one thread), then I really like the 0-ball (though I need to think more if I like a 7-ball!). This makes much more sense to both spectators and beginning skiers, is easier to judge, and gives more leeway to establish a crossing point that makes sense with your style. And it preserves the notion that everyone goes through the course in a way that is visually similar.

 

But to go to this NOW, I think it would require something like a 90% super-majority of people wanting it, because otherwise the pain of changing every course would piss off a lot of people.

 

Fwiw, count me in that group. I'd be willing to undergo the effort on "my" courses for this change.

[Jordan]

@Than....you could look at a "Zero" ball as a sort od Quantum thing...if it counts for zero, how do we know it even exists?

[LeonL]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Please don't change the course. I kinda imagine that those advocating a change in the course won't be the ones that have to make said change. If it's that big of a deal, just stop judging gates. From early this year Rathbun started the initiative to make a change in the course for safety reasons. I've been around this sport for twenty-five plus years and have never seen or directly heard of anyone getting hurt hitting a gate buoy. Not saying it hasn't happened, I've just never heard of it. Then Nate misses a couple of entrances and everybody jumps on the bandwagon with every possible solution. Again just stop judging them to avoid the potential of injury, physical and psychological. Or just aim for the middle.

[Andre]

///Picturing Ed and his staff running around in his shop,modifying every EZ slalom course with each new post!!!

[BruceEmery]

Add the 14M buoy that Gordon proposes, but stop judging entrance and only use it for exit. I think this could work because you would really only need to add the extra buoy for tournaments. I'm pretty sure I could practice without it.

[Ed_Obermeier]

@Andre we do have design drawings...

 

One thing about modifying the shape of the existing course. The price for building or purchasing a new slalom course undoubtedly goes up. Unintended negative side effect?