Video Gate Review Delays

[ToddL]

Recently, @ShaneH 's gates came into review in the middle of his set. Another skier also had a review; hers took 12 mins. Imagine sitting on the water at the end of the lake for that long in the middle of your tourney set. This is what I think it should be:

 

Skier runs a pass w questionable gates. The tower judges indicate their concern, but the boat crew doesn't mention it to the skier so as to not distract the skier. The skier continues his or her set w subsequent passes. After the skier has a clear fall or miss, then and only then do the judges rewind and review the gates. There needs to also be rules about the depth of that review. For example, the judges get only 2 replays at full speed and must make a determination from that only. If the performance is a record, only then can deeper review like slow motion or freeze frame occur.

 

 

[webbdawg99]

Agree 100%. Making the skier sit at the end of the lake while gates are reviewed is unfair to that skier......especially if it ends up that the gates aren't pulled.

[Kelvin]

@ToddL with the right equipment AND the right operator, its not that hard to do a timely video gate review. In fact, they can be done seamlessly without the skier ever knowing its happening. However, I do agree with you that the skier should not be held for a review if its going to take some time.

[ForrestGump]

Yep, my gates weren't pulled. Had I waited, it would have been about 8 minutes to get the "all good" back from the judges.

 

So Richelle Matli explained to me this morning that AWSA rules allow any skier to elect to ski "at risk" and have video reviewed after they fall or miss. At Risk, meaning their score isn't confirmed until the video review is complete. I'd never heard of that before Saturday. Had I known, I would have requested it as soon as they had told me the gate was being reviewed. And I will from here on out. But no one I talked to knew anything about that. Other than the senior judges on site, and skiers who have experienced it before. Unfortunately, I learned my lesson the hard way at a major tournament.

[klindy]

Sorry @ToddL but I can't agree with you on this one for a couple reasons. First, not telling the skier there may be an issue with gates on a earlier pass is asking for trouble. You'd have a line of PO'd skiers all wanting someone else to review their gates or wanting to see themselves. As it stands if you question then call pony up $100 ($250 for class L) and challenge the call. From experience I can assure you that explaining to a skier (or parent of a skier) that it'll cost them just to review it is almost as bad as delivering the bad news whether in the boat or afterward. To not tell the skier that there may be an issue is adding gasoline to a smoldering pile of kindling.

 

Second, the vast majority of reviewed gate are ultimately the "right call". In fact I can remember a call being reversed but I'm sure it's happened. This tells me that the "system" is working but the process or procedure may need improvement.

 

Third postponing the review will NOT make the process faster. It will NOT make it easier for the judges or tech person or whomever to find it on the DVR or VCR. I agree that it helps prevent sitting in the water, tight binding issss and maintain continuity but its generally not an improvement.

 

Fourth, there are current rules which makes video gate review OPTIONAL for all skiers EXCEPT class R (specifically because IWWF wants to review gates in the event of a World Record - which means open men/women only - and that's a very small subset of skiers).

 

Lastly, Splash Eye has a very cool system which AUTOMATICALLY reviews and reruns the gates AFTER each pass. The system "sees" the action in the camera view and, after about 20 seconrds replays it on the screen - in slow motion too if I recall. So there are other systems out there which work better. Problem is clubs/tech folks/ etc don't want to pay for them.

 

I wrote a long reply including rules to attempt to explain why then at majority of this argument is already solvable in the "non" Advanced Topic thread on gate rules which I think is now buried about 5 pages back.

[A_B]

Sorry to hear Shane. I am sure it effected your skiing. Now you have motivation for Nationals.

[alex38]

No way should that delay be any longer than regulation wait time between passes for a competitor (skier). Which is what... 1 min? I forget.

[ForrestGump]

Nope, why would I go spend $1500-2000 to go to nationals and have the ability for the same thing to happen? It absolutely effected my skiing to site there for 4+ minutes. My gate was good. I knew it. But when I'm sitting in the water, I have no recourse or control. I honestly wanted to throw my ski through the window of the tournament trailer when the boat judge finally yelled to me on the shore that my gate had been good. And then to be told by one of our executives that judges didn't know how to work the system is even more irritating. If the technology isn't able to be made to work by our judges in the context that it needs to be used, then it just shouldn't be used. That's pretty simple. And that may irritate some of our judges and tech controllers, but it's what's right.

[klindy]

What regulation wait time?? Wait times vary from lake to lake depending on conditions. Nothing formal anywhere.

[thompjs]

Judges need to get familiar with the equipment. The recorders we used at SCR at SMRR, had a 30 second jump back button. If you wait until skier is at end of a 30+ pass, you hit the jump back, wait to see nose of boat hit pause, then about 4 or 5 freeze frame advances and you would see the skiers front boot at the ball. This could normally be done about the time the skier was set down at the end of the pass.

 

We did have the case where the recorder was possibly in the wrong mode and had to search a bit for it. This is frustrating since you don't always have the exact time you are looking for and the skier is hard to find since they are only on the screen for a fraction of a second.

 

One other time the judge was not hitting the frame by frame but the play forward, so they had a lot of trouble with that. They told skier to continue and two of the gates were resolved before next skier was pulled.

 

This is a good issue for the rules committee.

 

 

[gregy]

I like the idea that if you make the next pass a missed gate is irrelevant. End of the pass the boat judge notifies skier that gate was missed or will need review then go on to next pass. Skier makes pass everything is ok. Skier falls then review continues.

[ForrestGump]

I've actually got no problem with the gate review. But there needs to be some time constraint put on it. The NFL doesn't let the replay official have 10 minutes to make a call. If you can't call a gate via review in 90 seconds, then it should go to the skier and you move on.

[John Brooks]

Sounds like some good ideas here, but I think the skier requesting to continue at risk is the best option. It is important that both skiers and officials understand the rules.

 

The sport always needs new and involved officials so if you do not hold a rating now, sign up the next opportunity you have and help improve our sport.

[BG1]

Gate judging and reviewing will always be a problem. We need to stop doing it.

[ToddL]

Keep the discussion going. There is always room for process improvement and better understanding.

[Than_Bogan]

@klindy When you say gate review is optional in E and L, do I correctly guess that you mean only when there are two judges with a good view of each gate? At some sites this is not easy to achieve, and I had the impression that gate video was an acceptable substitute in that case?

 

Might we be better off to say you simply must have judges towers in the "right" places for E and L? That's a serious question to which I do no know the answer. If we end up closing some sites for E/L use, that could be a real problem. But it's clear that video gate review is causing a lot of dissatisfaction.

[ToddL]

There was a class C event this year where video judging was used just because it was available. It was kind of like kids w a new toy. People were gathered around the screens to get a look. What I didn't like was the discussion between judges before each made their calls. That didn't seem right. Also, there were a few cut gates at that class C. If those cuts were legit, then at least it raised the bar to what higher classifications would score.

[disland]

There should be no gate reviews ever period. Judge gets one shot at it, if they cant clearly see that its out then call goes for the skier.

[disland]

@Than the discussion is not about if video gates are being used its the issue of rewinding a tape to watch it again. I am in favor of using video gates as it gives the judge a great view of it. which is again why in my opinion that is all they need. if its so close they cant see it with a video looking right at it zoomed in then its too close to call and the beneifit should go to the skier.

[gjohnson]

@disland Agreed!

[thompjs]

disland, on the video it come by awfully quick and depending on the size of screen, etc., I think you might like a review -- it might keep your gates from getting cut. I've seen zeros become good almost as much as the reverse.

[webbdawg99]

Well thats pathetic. If someone can't clearly see that the gate was missed, then how can they call it a zero? And obviously, if they actually made it....you didn't see them clearly miss it!!!

[disland]

We need to stop thinking we are the NFL. When waterskiing gets 15 HD cameras and a multi million $$$ production trucks and mega sponsors fine. Until then lets back down on all the camera equipment and recording devices. The poor TC's at these tournaments are getting killed and the sites have to buy too much equipment, just in case Nate Smith or Freddy show up to break a world record

 

[thompjs]

disland, that would be nice for the TC's!

[ral]

I agree with @tompjs. With a basic DVR, I have judged and seen gates judged, and never had a delay of more than 1-2 mins.

[ral]

Rewinding a tape? Multi Million dollars? Are you kidding me???

 

A 4-8 channel 500 GB DVR can be purchased for US$ 200-300. With that, you get both gates, boat video and path in a single unit that allows a VERY quick review in every channel.

[Kelvin]

@ral Not all 4-8 channel DVRs are created equal in this regard. Some are much more cumbersome to do a quick review than others. If you have a model that works well, please share brand names and model numbers.

 

And yes, multi million dollars (or at least a broadcast level sports event production truck and crew) is required to guarantee no delays on the review. For local tournaments, the judges generally get familiar with the use of the equipment and you don't have delays, but at an event like regionals or nationals with judges coming from other locations, there is a learning curve in the use of the equipment. For some the curve is steeper than others.

[thompjs]

Thanks Kelvin, I've got 4 channel recorders but they are a bit tricky to do reviews with. Possible but not easy for sure. What is great about them is they are always recording even if you are reviewing.

 

I've looked at a lot of gate reviews over the past few years, one thing that is surprising is often the buoy moves a bit in the skiers favor just as the ski gets there. Often at full speed it looks like a miss. Most skiers are starting to edge change or let off a bit and are pulled a bit down course just as the ski gets to the ball.

 

For Nationals at SMRR we will move cameras to a higher position to get above spray from boat a short line. I did this at Utopia and the frame by frame gate reviews had the buoy clearly visible at all lengths and with all boats.

 

 

[RichardDoane]

@shaneh - do the judges and yourself a favor,and don't cut the gate so close, there's no advantage to that 6" difference between a clean and questionable gate

[ForrestGump]

Don't assume that you know anything about how I took that gate, @richarddoane . This isn't about whether my gate was good or not.

[BG1]

For the skier, having their gates pulled/reviewed can be anywhere from a distraction to the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” provoking the skier to stop tournament skiing. It’s a high stakes decision for the skier made by others. As a judge I understand this and take the responsibility very seriously but at the same time I’m trying to be consistent/fair. I have been put in a tower and given a 30 second lesson on how to operate the video equipment and then the next skier comes through the gates. Between passes I would be going over and over in my mind how to operate the equipment hoping we didn’t have a gate review because I might make a mistake and stop the tournament. Different equipment has different controls which can lead to mistakes/delays. You can’t blame these mistakes on the officials every time. So do we need to make this $200-300 DVR the worldwide standard? Do we need to require it at every site? Do we need to require that every official attend a clinic to be trained on this equipment to insure proficiency? For those of the “technologically challenged” generation, that might mean the end of their thankless, volunteer judging career, rendering us with even fewer officials. And after doing all that, you still can’t make consistent, fair calls when it’s close, regardless of what standard you put in the rule book. Center the right-hand gate buoy, touch the left side of the right-hand gate buoy, not touch the buoy at all, can go the right of the right-hand buoy but you have to touch it, it still can come down to inches or even less than an inch and the resolution/pixel or frames per second are not even close to giving the official the view required. Give the doubt to the skier? The official can still be faced with “It looked like skier A might have been out by 4 inches so I gave it to him. It looked like skier B might have been out 6 inches so I pulled his.” Lighting from one side of the lake to the other will be different which could also lead to inconsistent close calls because the official could see it differently going each way. So, you’re back to the very expensive equipment that @disland is talking about. But those NFL officials using said equipment have tons of hours of training, are paid up to $160K/year or more, and are the best of the best. And even with that, you still would not be able to tell when the wake/spray covers the buoy. You can’t split a hair with a sledge hammer (current cheap DVR) and you can’t split a hair with a razor blade (super high-tech video equipment) if you can’t see the hair.

Gate judging and reviewing will always be a problem. We need to stop doing it.

 

[alex38]

So I can sit in my living room, nurse my strained Achilles, and communicate all over the world from a device in the palm of my hand-but we can't fix this gate problem??????

 

Weak

 

I want my money back

[BG1]

@alex38 Fixing the gate problem is simple and there is only one real solution. Stop trying to call them. I would think the technology used in golf and tennis to follow the ball could be adapted to waterskiing gate judging somehow but at what cost and what’s the gain? And if this worked as well as anyone could ever dream you would still be getting down to the fractions of an inch! They’re not even scored! There comes a point where you have to say uncle. I know I’ll stop helping put on our tournaments if our sport gets to be that much trouble. It’s hard enough to find enough officials to conduct a 3 round class C tournament and pay expenses.

For the technology to be there and put to use the money has to be there. I saw on the news there are 300,000,000 cell phones in the US with up to $100 or more per month on top of the cost of the cell phone. How many ski sites put on tournaments? 200 would be my best guess off the top of my head. The smartphone would never have gone to market if there were only 200 potential customers. Tennis and golf have millions of viewers on TV and waterskiing has 0.

Gate judging and reviewing will always be a problem. We need to stop doing it.

 

[teammalibu]

@shane I got in that tower as they were trying to review your gate and judged the next 3 groups it was the worst gate judging challeng i have ever expierienced. After that i would vote for a competant judge or 2 close to the gate like the old days! Just make the call no video no review just like many other sports!! I will say at the Cedar Ridge tourney the software that they used it was much easier to see large screen that was bright and easy to see plus seamless frame by frame. Sorry to jones as well but his gate review took about 45 minutes and was impossible to call with the video that they had. All in all judging gates on a small dark screen in the bright sun is a real PITA!!

[sbink]

I totally agree with BG1.Lets simplify so that this becomes a non issue.

[ToddL]

FWIW, @thompjs is an excellent Technical Controller and we are lucky to have him help us in our area.

 

Just like @ShaneH said, this isn't really about a specific instance, but about the process in general and opportunities to discuss how it is being handled differently in various contexts.

 

[ToddL]

I just don't recall so much debate about gates before video. Didn't we just accept the judges' decisions then? Did we just ensure that their eyes had the best view and hope that they made the best call that they could personally assess in real time? The longest delays came when one judge hesitated to make a decision and held up the final buoy confirmation. I recall an occasional extra 30 seconds to 1 minute discussion on the radios waiting on a judge to call in a score.

 

My perspective is that the rule should be to make the call within a specified time limit, like 1 minute. The judges must also make a live call via visual access to the live gate or while watching the live video - write something down on a notepad. Then, if they choose, they can "confirm" their original live call with a rewind and review within the 1 minute window. If after the set time limit has expired and they are still uncertain per the rewind review, then their original live call stands. This type of approach preserves the original live judging and adds the opportunity of video review within reason.

 

Judges should never fail to witness live the gates due to an assumption of being able to watch the video after the pass is over. That is a disservice to the skier who probably skied the pass correctly only to have it put in jeopardy due to technical difficulties.

 

What we want to avoid at lower sanctioned events is any rule which requires video rewind review of every gate before continuation of the next pass. If rewind review becomes a requirement, then we get into the problems noted above of user unfamiliarity with equipment and the occasional technical difficulty. Right now, there is no requirement; but since the video equipment is there, people want to use it to the fullest extent. In that desire, they forget about how they solved close gates before video, and get stuck in the need to rewind and review and become focused on making their call solely off the video review.

 

[ToddL]

@teammalibu - that's a good point: Outdoor, summertime, midday sports and LCD video screens outside in the partial shade just don't mix well.

 

It seems human eyes with polarized sunglasses on a live event (watching the skier) will have a better quality image from which to judge. Obviously, video gives us opportunities to put cameras in locations that would otherwise be more expensive or difficult to built towers. But the LCDs must be of sufficient quality for judging.

[PJ]

midwest region TC just got a nine channel DVR. you can click the channel you want and get an instant 60 second replay in slo-mo. judge towers have remote displays and everybody can review immediately. takes less than 30 seconds typically.

SplashEye also has SplashGates. plug in your gate cams. you get the gate shot replay immediately after skier exits course

[sbink]

The gate issue isn't a new one.I have seen many a competitor at nationals have their gate called

when they truly believed their gate was good.This creates one PO'd competitor and puts them at odds with the judges(who are skiers also usually).Why dont we talk to our regional rules commitee person and promote not calling the gates.We could try it for one year trial period to see if it works.I would bet that we don't go back to what we have now.

[ForrestGump]

Honestly, I've got zero problem with my gate being called into question and don't blame the judges one bit. I only have a problem with the amount of time it took to validate that it was good via the video review. 45 minutes for Jones gate review is WAY over the line. I also heard of another skier on Saturday morning taking 30 minutes for the gate review.

[LeonL]

There are a lot of good ideas put forth here. I know this involves more manpower, but the best situation for calling slalom is four tower judges, placed in the proper position, proper height, and just call 'em ! Another problem is judges having to acquaint themselves to different equipment everywhere they go, and there just isn't time for this. Also a problem is that some boat judges that just don't know the rules. Shane should have been informed of his options, just as in any situation that arises out of the norm the boat judges needs to provide the skier with all options within the rule structure. And @ShaneH, I'll be as tactful as possible, but skiers need to know the rules and demand that they be adhered to. If you know the rules and the boat judge doesn't want to afford you your options, ask that he/she contact the CJ or ACJ as applicable.

[ForrestGump]

@LeonL I've got no issues with the boat judge in my case either. I don't think he or I thought it was going to take as long as it did. I'll agree, I didn't know what my options were or rules were and that's my fault. Had I known, I would have requested immediately to continue at risk as soon as the boat timer double beeped. Live and learn.

[sbink]

Shane-Yeah thats a one hour and 15 minute unneccesary tournament delay(not to mention yours).BG1 is on target with his post.The listed SCR rules commitee members are Kathy Ives

and Bob Mayhew.What would it hurt to request a change for the better.By the way this judge apologizes for delay on your gate review Saturday.

[thompjs]

Todd L, with center towers, you have to judge with monitors. Unless you are on tower at 44 deg line you cannot visually judge gates.

 

Shane -- The Jones gate review required going to my backup gate video recording. I'm not sure what happened to the other system. I rebooted the Maganavox system and had no other problems. Possibly some button got pressed that put it in the wrong mode.

Somehow the date/time on the 4 channel was not set correctly (borrowed unit) and we had to run through quite a few passes until we saw the gate in question. Which was very close call.

That was his last pass anyway, so we waited until we could get both judges to that recorder to call it at the end of the event.

 

While I like the idea of a 1 (or 2 minute) time limit, there might be some thought to this case with Jones, since it was his last pass.

 

Head to Head maybe a real good issue for this time limit.

 

On Sunday Gordon told me he reviewed about 10 gates that were close and never slowed anything down. There were a lot of reviewed gates, so it can work.

 

In an email conversation on this same topic, it was suggested that the tower judge note time of each skiers start and possibly every pass. Will make it much simpler to rewind to specific time. The skier can challenge the gate call (put up money!) and it would be nice to have the time stamps easily available.

 

I'm going to ask for the scoring program to make approximate time stamps more easily available. I need those for endcourse checks as well.

 

 

 

[ToddL]

@thompjs - yes, if the judges are only located at the mid course, then the only vantage to judge gates will be the LCD screens. Still, I think they must make a live call at the time the skier goes at the gates; and if review takes too long, the live call stands.

 

Maybe there are different time limits for reviews on final (incomplete pass) of a set vs. a successful pass mid-set.

 

Software where a user or two "marks" with a key stroke the cut toward the gate would be helpful. Then, you could jump from mark to mark until you locate the skier/pass in question. Also, with given boat speed, the end gates should be easily found based upon full course times.

 

 

[MickeyThompson]

@ShaneH since your experience at Regional's and your comment "why should I go to Nationals spend $1500-2000 and have the ability for the same thing to happen" what is your opinion on judging or not judging the gates?

 

 

[ral]

@Kelvin, you can find several units with remote, mouse and OS/systems that make it very easy to look at and replay.

 

 

[ral]

@ShaneH, more than 2 mins is crazy.

[ral]

Guys, for jump, setups are far more complex, and equipment far more expensive as well. It requires analyzing and setting marks in a specific frames. Have you ever seen a jump length being notified 10-30mins after it happened???