A note about "skiing at risk" from Richelle

[Horton]

This is the rule that allows the skiers to ski at risk. It essentially says that instead of the skier waiting between runs and having the review mess with a skiers ride, all the judge has to say is that there is a review and we will let you continue to ski but you might lose your continuing passes. The next skier is held at the dock until the review is done. Most reviews are quick but there are instances where it takes longer and the skier shouldn't have to wait which could jeopardize their timing.

 

10.08E3. The Appointed Judges shall determine the time at which the video review will take place and if the video review is to be after the conclusion of the skier’s last pass, then the skier shall be advised that he is continuing at risk, pending the video review.

 

Richelle

[DanE]

Why call it skiing at risk? Is there any risk whatsoever to continue the set and have the Gates reviewed afterwards? If they are Good you get the score, if not they would have been pulled anyway with instant review.

Of Course it can be challenging mentally knowing you might not get Credit for your hardest passes.

[A_B]

A skier should know themselves if their gate was good or not, and ski on that basis. The video would/should confirm that.

 

The fractional inches from left or right of center buoy has made this overly complicated and hard for everyone to tell.

[MISkier]

To me, there is no risk. I wouldn't plan my next pass any differently or try to ski it differently with the knowledge that my previous pass is under question. And, as a bonus, I'm still skiing instead of getting out of the water. Even if I am committing to additional expense for "invalid" passes taken after my infraction, I think I would still want to ski. Telling me about the review and possible gate issue does only one thing: mess with my head for the next pass. I would prefer they say nothing until I have either completed my possible passes or they have actually made a determination to extract me from the water.

 

As I said in another thread, unless some leg breakers are going to be waiting for me in the alley if my gates are pulled and I continued to ski "at risk", I want to choose the option to continue to ski.

[liquid d]

The word just needs to be spread to skiers. I've been around a long time , and have not seen it used or heard of the rule for that matter. Makes perfect sense.

[MattP]

Can I tell my boat crew before I get in the water that I want to continue at risk if the gate issue arises and for them not to tell me until after the set?

[ForrestGump]

At Risk only means you could lose ensuing passes once gate review is complete. I'd never heard of it either until regionals. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have told them I wanted to continue at risk as soon as they told me my gate was under review so we could continue when the boat timer beeped.

[LeonL]

The term "at risk" has been used since the days of hand driving when rerides due to slow (or fast) boat times were not uncommon. A skier completes a pass, the time is slow, and you inform the skier; the skier doesn't want to repeat the pass and opts up. He/she then is continuing "at risk", because if the insuring pass is missed credit will only be given for the pass that had the slow time. This info is just for youngsters/newbies. All the ancient guys are familiar with this, or maybe not real ancient.

[ral]

I would take the "at risk" option every time. I am not getting cash prizes or beating the world record, but skiing for myself. And if I get to my PB I would be happier than if I have to get back to the dock although the "official" score would be the same...

[klindy]

The way the rule is written its up to the appointed judges to decide when to do video reviews. It's not necessarily an automatic "skier can proceed at risk" situation like a slow time would be.

 

Certainly makes sense but the process of finding the gate in question isn't made any easier when you have 1 or more additional passes to sort through.

 

If the tournament is using splash eye it may be a better decision to decide to 'review' all gates since its an automatic process with splash eye.

[ral]

@LeonL, the term was unprotected rather than "at risk" (which as a matter of fact look kind of the same after writing them...), but it is a different type of risk. It was your skiing not a judge's panel which decided the fate of the run...

[KcSwerver]

At state there were a bunch of geese right before the 55s which made me pull out at a different time than I normally do, I got 4 buoys at that pass. At the end of the lake the driver asked me that if the geese were in my way, and altered my run, they would grant me a re ride. I chose to re ride, what I didn't understand was why it was "unprotected" because I went the exact same speed. I went back through without geese and got the same score as before.

[A_B]

Unprotected just means that your score of 4 buoys is washed out and whatever you get on your next attempt counts.

[Wish]

Way back when I first started skiing tournys, I learned the hard way that it's not my job as the skier to call my own gates. I stopped after ball one and skied to the shore. Found out later the gates were called good.

[A_B]

I think we need a rule that is simply callable by the naked eye. Miss to the right = no good. Run over, hit, or ski to left of either ball = good.

 

As far as end gate, same as every other full buoy rule.

 

Follow the KISS principle!

[MattP]

@Wish always keep skiing, always throw the fist.

[Wish]

Lessoned learned way back and never forgotten.

[Than_Bogan]

@AB I would disagree that the skier knows if he/she made the gate. I have only had a gate pulled one time, back in about my 2nd Regional (long before video reviews). I ran my third pass, which was 36/-15, and I was pretty pumped because I had only done that a couple of times. After we settle in, the boat judge tells me hold on, and then looks very sad and tells me I missed my opening gate. I was a total scrub at Regionals in those days, so it never even crossed my mind to be mad, BUT I was awfully curious because I didn't have the slightest thought that I'd missed the gate. I stopped by and talked to the tower judges and they said "Sorry kid, but it wasn't even all that close." Still not convinced, I climbed the tower a bit later. Damn, they had a really good view.

 

A funnier one was I was judging a woman in a class C tournament. She missed the entrance gate by a minimum of 5 feet and probably closer to 10. I was kind of a novice judge with a not-great view, so when I called 0 it was because I was 100.0% sure that she missed it. I was shocked when the boat judge gave it to her. Later she ended up swimming to my "tower boat" and I told her "Just in case it helps your training in the future, you missed that gate by quite a lot on your [whatever pass it was]." She paid me no attention whatsoever other than to curtly state "No I didn't." So much for trying to help...

[A_B]

Do you close your eyes when you cross the wakes? jk.. I see the right hand gate buoy everytime I cut through the gates. I know if I am early or late and the path is ahead, behind, or over the top of the gate ball.. Maybe I am doing something wrong..?

[scuppers]

Are you supposed to keep your eyes open when you cross the wakes?

[A_B]

Nah, it's scary.

[A_B]

Apparently, the thing to do is wear white shorts and nobody will notice your gates.

[LeonL]

@rico, yes that is my interpretation of the rules. If you are granted a reride due to whatever other than slow speed, the score should be protected.

[ral]

@LeonL, actually that is not 100% correct. If there is no time because of a malfunction (which does not mean necessarily slow speed), the score is not protected (IWSF 8.02).

[LeonL]

Well @ral you're picking nits now. A "no time" situation is treated as a slow time.

[klindy]

If the boat path is deemed out of tolerance to favor the skier the reride is mandatory and not protected.

 

Also the rule referenced by Richelle is an AWSA rule and technically not found in the IWWF rules. That said it makes sense that itts an administrative issue and would still apply for class L/R at tournaments held in the US. That will likely not apply to tournaments held strictly under IWWF rules (outside the US).

[ral]

One thing I saw once, and I considered unfair to say the least, was the following:

 

A 16 year old kid, very good skier, was in big trouble on his third pass. After turning 3, he had a massive fall on his way to 4, with a big shout and cry and the whole thing. The boat turned before getting to the 4-ball guide buoys, to help and rescue him. After a couple of minutes, he was able to get into the boat, and was OK. The judges asked for E-4 time, and there was no time. He was granted a reride, and made the pass...

[GregHind]

Ral I saw something similar at moomba 8 or so years ago. The skier (cp?) did something really wierd to get around th buoy and then skied strait at the boat. Slack everywhere and big danger of getting tangled. The driver pulled the power and they had to offer the skier a reride. The skier declined. Very good sportsmanship.

[LeonL]

That would be tough to do. The skier going to 4 ball and taking a big crash (would most likely have to be near or past the wake) then the boat managing to turn before IT got to the 4 ball gate. Would seem to have to be going pretty slow or extremely short line. Regardless, not fair to his competition. My rule on turning a boat hard to return to a skier is DON'T. Make a controlled turn and if the skier is head up proceed back slowly. If he's upright and not face in the water, five seconds quicker makes no difference.

[KcSwerver]

I think more likely the boat began its turn before going through the next boat guides (instead of turning and not even reaching the guides) would still result in some crazy wacky times.

[LeonL]

Well, if scoring asked for an E4 (not sure what that is, but I assume they needed time for a score of 3) the skier had passed the plane of right hand boat guide. Then how the heck was the boat not past the 4 gate? Really short line?

[ral]

It was 13 m. Difference between 13 m and really short line is not that relevant (2.75 m). Skier pulled all the way to the buoy, managed to turn with significant slack, and fell just after the center of the wakes. 41 m between buoys, and the boat turned just before the guides for 4. PP on those days, so no time as no magnet was near the boat where he turned.

[ForrestGump]

What I don't understand is why the judge called for a Segment 4 time, and then gave a reride. You wouldn't need a Segment 4 time til the ski went outside of 4. If he fell behind the boat going from 3 to 4, you only need the segment 3 time.

[ral]

@ShaneH, you need E-4 to get a full 3. If just E-3 (time from Entrance to guide 3 i.e. 3 ball time) was needed to score a full 3, the boat could throttle down after the skier gets outside 3 and give him plenty of time to get behind the boat before 4...

[ForrestGump]

@RAL, ok I see. This is where the numbering of segment times gets so confusing. That would actually be Segment 3 the way PP and ZO were numbered until the Lync integration this year(since prior to that what you call E1 was actually segment 0).

[sunperch]

@KcSwerver - the re-ride was protected, I was one of the tower judges and I called in for re-ride due to the duck, protected re-ride was confirmed by the CJ.

[ral]

@ShaneH, with ZO in the same situation most likely a slow time would have been recorded, as pobably the boat did cross the ball 4 line, but not thru the guides, though.