Spectator's viewpoint: Gate rule really needs to change

[Than_Bogan]

After my unfortunate "skiing" at Eastern Regionals on Friday, I had the chance to sit back and be a spectator all day on Saturday. This was fun, and coincidentally afforded me a new perspective on Gategate. Where previously I was kind of neutral on the whole thing, I walked away quite convinced that the rules need to change.

 

I witnessed a total of 3 gates zeroed. (I purposely avoid the word "pulled" here because that sounds like somebody took something away, but what really happened was the skiers missed them -- well 2 of them did anyhow; that's a separate discussion!)

 

As a skier, I empathized with their plight. In some ways, that seems more disheartening than my missed-opening-pass.

 

As a spectator, I was downright pissed. One of the zeroed passes was a friend of mine from MA. I would have liked to see him ski more, but oh well. The other two were the TOP competitors in W1 and M1. This is what I came for! To see amazing skiers do amazing things. NOT to see them slink back to the dock for an infraction that I couldn't even see from my relatively-expert-spectator's vantage-point.

 

And these aren't old guys who can't see the gates. Nor are they inexperienced tournament competitors. These folks are the very future of our sport! I'm not trying to claim anybody is quitting the sport over this, but I think it points to a real need for a change.

 

As it happened, I got a chance to chat with Lee Mershon* the day before, and he is bringing general support from the Eastern Region to support Rathbun's proposal to (almost) eliminate the judging of the gate. I told him I thought it sounded reasonable, but by the end of the next day I wanted to say "YES! Please get it changed!!"

 

*Wacky irrelevant fact: Lee Mershon was a tower judge the only time my gates were zeroed! I've told that story here recently, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he called them correctly, even though I was unaware that I had missed them.

[andjules]

Exactly! While I agree that it's [currently] part of the skill of running the course (you ought to get it right), as a marketing guy, missing the gates becomes a disappointing non-event for everyone, including the crowd. We need to make the sport more exciting, not less.

[ral]

I do think very experienced skiers tend to miss more gates than non experienced ones, as well as good long jumpers tend to get null jumps, as they play near to the limit to get an edge. I do not think that gates are a contributing factor to the low number of spectators we have in our sport.

 

Even with what I stated above, I do think that the 14m new buoy gate has its merits and do think it might be a good alternative.

[cwillygood]

After to listening to the Eastern Regional meeting i found this proposal very refreshing. I think it would be moving the sport in the right direction. I don't fully understand the new proposal and how it would work but i think the whole concept is good. The owner of Pangaea (Eastern Regionals site) seemed even more for this proposal after he has spent years and thousands on setting up gate video.

[Than_Bogan]

@ral I agree that this is not a major cause of low spectators. It's really all about me :). I want to see these guys ski until they miss a turn buoy.

[mwetskier]

missing a gate because you tried to cut it to close to the right hand ball and blew it is no different from missing a ball because you tried to barely squeeze around it but got a little to narrow. maybe we should change the rules to if a skier gets sort of close to going around a ball but skis just inside it we go ahead and count it any way. some of the very best skiers in the world including 2 current world record holders intentionally ski through the middle of the gates and never lose a pass by missing the gate. i wonder what they know that every one else seems to not know?

[Than_Bogan]

@mwetskier Keeping my spectator's hat on, I disagree. It's easy to see a guy getting narrow and there's typically at least some doubt in my mind that they made it. Gates are not viewable at all from many locations, and so come as a nasty surprise (to me the spectator) while I'm eagerly awaiting a big pass.

 

This isn't the core, fundamental reason for a change, but added to the rest of the case, it pushed me to the "make a change" side.

[Than_Bogan]

@cwillygood I didn't realize you were at the meeting. I'm glad you were! Youth is desperately needed. I actually had the impression I was the youngest person there, at 42. That didn't seem like a good sign. I was only there for the food, actually, but I did ask some questions and had the privelege of being shouted down for my audacity. :) But the low moment to me was after our buddy Dave Robbins offered some criticism of trick judging at Nationals, one person loudly insisted (without being recognized by the chair) that "That's the way we've done it for 30 years" with a tone that suggested there was therefore nothing more to discuss.

 

I used to think I hated change as much as the next guy, but lately some folks are making me feel awfully progressive.

[ForrestGump]

I'm on the fence, even with my talk last week of my gate review issue at regionals. On one hand, not judging gates would make setting up for an ELR so much easier, and judging all much easier. On the other hand, the gates are part of what we do. It's part of the challenge. I am especially not aggreable to Gordon R's idea of moving the right hand gate ball back. I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to not judge them, that's fine. But changing the layout is not fine.

[thompjs]

Gordon's proposal is to add a buoy 14m back. Both entrance gates would still be there as reference for driver and skier.

[Kelvin]

@Than_Bogan From a spectator standpoint, I agree with you. Moomba and the Masters were disappointing this year due to missed gates.

[klindy]

Remember just because AWSA makes a rules change doesn't mean IWWF will agree. At worst there will be difference between AWSA and IWWF events at best any change may take a long time.

[Horton]

back to the original point... I could apply this logic to my request to move 5 ball in 6 inches. I would not want the spectators to see skiers miss or fall at 5 ball.

[Than_Bogan]

@Horton There I completely disagree: this logic does not apply to that. I guess it's time for the tirade I almost put in that original thread:

 

The sport MUST have clear bars to achieve or there is absolutely nothing to see at all. Show skiing will always be more showy, so competitive skiing can only be justified by actually being a competition!

 

So a "slippery slope" argument here must be cut off immediately. No implication exists that I (or anyone else) thinks anything should be changed beyond the gates, nor that the sport should be made inherently easier. (In fact, I think quite the opposite and may eventually start a thread about that very topic.)

 

But the gates have very different characteristics than the rest of the pass, making them a potential candidate to be improved without affecting anything else. I have no objection to those who would like the gate to remain as is. There are some good arguments for the status quo.

 

But I do object to the non-existent parallels and implications.

[ToddL]

@klindy - correct. Thus, if we want our USA elite perfomances to be recognized world wide, we must maintain rules alignment with IWWF.

 

However, for non-international competition, maybe we shouldn't work so hard for alignment with IWWF. The challenge is to figure out where to draw the line (which tournaments/classes) at which IWWF rules alignment is absolutely necessary vs. not needed.

 

My thoughts on that?

By class:

• Class R - International record class - Must have IWWF rules alignment
• Class L - International ranking list class - Must have IWWF rules alignment
• Class E - USA ranking list class - no need for IWWF alignment
• Class C - USA Standard Competition - no need for IWWF alignment

 

 

By "type" of tournament:

• Pro - maybe some events (record events) and not others (more exhibition events)...
• Nationals - by the name itself, this is not internantional competition, we can decide to do whatever USA wants to do here... (but we'd lose Class R/L sanction if we change)
• Regionals - typically follows nationals, but maybe this is another good line in the sand for deviation from IWWF. (Do we really need class L at Regionals?)
• Local - depends upon class, see above

 

ref: http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/2013AWSARuleBook.pdf#page=110

[klindy]

&ToddL your thought I class is how things stand today. However there is a need for rules alignment because there are a raft of skiers who "need" class L opportunities to maintain themselves on the ranking list. Currently the opprtunities are few and far between. To accommodate this frequently tournaments are held concurrently and having even small differences in the rules creates errors and confusion.

 

So while you're technically correct, practicality requires alignment.

[DavidP]

@Horton As we all know, the gate balls can move as the skier enters the course, the turn balls don't. The sport needs to do everything within reason to make it more skier, spectator and logistically friendly or the participation numbers and $$$ will keep declining.

[ToddL]

@klindy - or just separate the L skiers from the C/E skiers vs. mixing classes within divisions.

[ToddF]

the problem with that logic, is it isn't applied to improve or progress the sport or the topic.

 

Which side of the gate your on doesn't really matter, what matters is bringing legitimate and viable options to the conversation.

 

All sports have made major changes during the course of their existence. Football allowing the forward pass. NBA and the three point line, Bob Gibson made MLB lower the pitchers mound.

 

I haven't chimed in on this because I haven't figured out if it would really make much of a difference to me.

 

But I enjoy reading the comments that have thought put behind them, especially ideas that make strong points for or against.

 

It seems that this is a topic that shouldn't get "Chuck Norrised"

[cwillygood]

@Than_Bogan i was there for about half of the meeting. I left right after the gate discussion ended. But it was not a good sign that besides me, i think you and maybe Scotty were the youngest ones there. Not a good sign for our region. It was interesting though when a show of hands went up for the gate change, i was surprised that most people agreed on the change. So maybe there is some hope after all.

 

[DavidP]

Here's what Gordon's gate looks like. The additional ball is 14m (approx 45.9 feet) in front of the right hand gate ball. Seems reasonable to me.

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton I am with you buddy After my slalom set yesterday I need 5 moved in also... But only at 32 off!

 

Ok I have to process. In the Eastern Regionals their were 3 judged missed gates? out of how many passes? Sounds like fractional misses out of 150 or better slalom pulls?

Hey! but what the hell AWSA has been making rules for the Fractional interest groups or influential for as long as competition has existed.

 

@Horton However because I am only 5'7" I want a 1/2 meter extension in my rope along with 5 bouy at 32.

[smanski]

If I have my numbers correct, an 8 buoy course already has this buoy. All that would be required would be to replace the right side yellow boat guide buoy with a red or just paint that sucker.

[ForrestGump]

That picture right there is a recipe for confusing the hell out of me since I'm somewhat color blind.

[BG1]

I was reading where Chet was proposing to leave the course like it is and make the skier cut from left to right anytime after the pre-gates. On the exit he was proposing that the skier could miss the exit gates to the right and it still count. Keeping the ski in a turn at 6 would be safer than turning part of the way then bringing the ski back underneath you to make the exit gates as we do now. Trying to stop the last part of a late, fast, hard turn can vault the skier over into the line and handle. Turning kills speed so turning all the way back into the wakes would be safer than trying to stop the turn and go straight out the gates. I have been for giving the skier 134.5’ for a full 6 just like the other 5 but on buoys 1-5 there is no continuation when you do that so that would be big change. You could give the skier 6 and no continuation if they miss the exit gates to the left but make it to the wakes, .25/.5 if they fall at the buoy, and 6 with continuation if the make or go right of the exit gates.

[Than_Bogan]

@ShaneH I have to get you to John's Pond next July. You would have a lot of fun navigating the "sea of buoys." But I swear to you it's the easiest water I've ever skied. Two weeks back I skied like a dufus and still got 4 @ -38 there, my best score since 2011 ... also at John's Pond.

[Chef23]

@OB should that score have been 5.5 as opposed to 6 NC. It seems to me that you aren't in skiing position if the handle gets ripped from your hands. I guess the only 6 NC I can think of that makes a ton of sense is if you missed the exit gates inside the course.

 

Maybe I misunderstand the skiing position requirement to get the full ball.

[Than_Bogan]

@Chef23 I believe you have it right and nearly everyone else has it wrong. In fact, I saw multiple full buoys awarded at Regionals where the rope tightened up after the skier reached the centerline. Based on the clarification we received here last year (from no less than @skimom herself), I'm just about certain that all of those should have been scored a half. To be honest, I'd find it really hard to NOT award that as a full ball, despite my understanding of both the rule and the injury-discouraging intent. It's tough to take it away from somebody who just took the hit...

 

The 6-ball has an explicit exception if you DO ski away, but if you don't then I believe 5.5 is the correct call.

[Stevie Boy]

Do you know what guy's all sorts of discussions on gates, I have driven and seen many top skiers practice, when you tell them they missed the gates, you get all sorts of comments like they are not that important, because I am working on this or that etc, part of tournament skiing is the gates and the pressures that can be applied, by other competitors, thats what sorts the Men from the Boys or the Women from the Girls.

 

It,s in the Rules you have to go through the Gates, Round the Bouys and Exit through the Gate.

 

Get over it and practice the gate shot in all conditions, people miss gates in competition because they get nervous and do not allow themselves to ski.

 

Sorry Harsh point of view, but thats how it is, I do not know of any other sport where they have changed the rules because competitors, cannot cope with them.

 

Do not change the rules change the way you approach your skiing.

[andjules]

@Stevie_Boy you have (half) a point. We shouldn't change the rules lightly, or because they are inconvenient. The gates as they stand are part of the skill. BUT we also shouldn't blindly keep the rules 'because that's what they've always been'.

 

@Horton the 'move 5 ball' point you're making isn't analogous in my mind. Again, I'm coming from the perspective of a spectator (like @Than_Bogan) and whether or not it was exciting to watch. If someone misses a ball, that's fine, they skied, at some point their mistakes caught up with them, cool. If someone misses the gates, I feel ripped off, like I didn't get to watch them try their best. Yes, they screwed up just the same (the responsibility is theirs), but the experience was different for both skier and spectator. Perhaps a better analogy: If I paid $500 for olympic tickets to watch Usain Bolt run the 100m and he lost, well fine, he lost. But if he got kicked out for false starts, I feel like I got ripped off. Yes, it was his fault. But no fun for me.

 

I don't like Suyderhoud's 14m ball just because I don't like the idea of recreational course people feelign like they have to go fuss with their course. I prefer Chet's idea of letting inside-the-exit-gates be acceptable.

[estrom]

I'm a simpleton, so here's my issue...if getting closer to the right gate ball doesn't give you an advantage (the argument often posed by those wanting to eliminate judging of gates), then why are skiers pushing the limits of getting as close as possible to the right gate ball? I'm not buying that argument.

 

The gates are the start of the course, so work within that framework. If I don't like where the tees are located on a hole, I can't simply tee off anywhere else I'd like. Just my opinion.

[estrom]

BTW, I'm all for a skier getting 1 mulligan/re-do if they miss the gates. Seems like a decent compromise.

 

[mwetskier]

@estrom- the entire world believed the earth was flat for many centuries. just because every one believes something for a long time doesnt all ways make it right. based on the studies by david nelson and the fact that some of the very best skiers in the world are currently splitting the gates right down the middle i think the long held belief that you should try to get as close as possible to the right hand gate ball is no longer true.

[ral]

@estrom, getting closer does give an advantage. Being far ahead of it does not.

[ral]

@OB, what I really trying to say is that if you are running @ 32 off or beyond, being really early (i.e. miss the right by far...) does not give you an advantage. Not the same for a beginner @ longer lines and slower speeds, where it is an advantage indeed.

[ral]

Unfortunately, nothing in the next few months... You should come for the Worlds...

[mwetskier]

every serious sport has razor sharp limits that determine a foul play from a good one like baseball football tennis etc. a great hail mary pass for 40 yards that hits the receiver while hes 5 feet in the air is exciting and cool and the fans love it but if he comes down with his pinky toe over the side lines hes ruled out of bounds and the play is negated. why would we want to have any lower standards for the great athletes in our sport?

[DavidP]

As a spectator, there is more than enough idle time between passes. Another delay of a gate review turn people off. I understand rules are rules, but I also want the sport to grow. If a gate change can help, let's get it done.

[cwillygood]

@rico i agree with you on that and i feel those are good points. But i also think some change would help the sport. I believe the big issue at the Eastern Regional meeting was that there are so few sites that have what it takes to hold such a tournament. It has gotten so complicated over the years and i think that is what is holding our sport back IMO

[jipster43]

from a theoretical perspective the only folks who would benefit from the rule change would be the novice to intermediate course skier. I can see a ton of scenarios where this would encourage tournament participation and no scenario in which it would discourage it.

 

Lots of sport analogies have been bandied about on this thread, but there are very few sports (especially popular sports) that have not evolved significantly in one way or another. The current gates are not original to the sport. Nor are the current bouy diameters. It seems to me that a rule change that positively influences beginners, tournament requirements, and has little to no impact on the most elite skiers should at least be implemented on a trial basis.

[Chef23]

Changing the exit gates changes the sport also. @OB if you change the exit gates my guess is that you would get to -39 more often also. I know it would have made my son run 34/15 two tournaments earlier than he did last year as he was late at 6 ball and missed the exit gates and had a handle pop.

 

I understand your safety point but it does substantially change the sport if you revise the exit gates as well.

 

I have mixed emotions on the issue. I felt bad about the people that missed entry gates but changing them is a substantial shift to the sport. There was about an hour delay before my event due to a missed gate and a protest that overturned the call. With the Rathburn proposal it never would have been an issue.

 

I would tend to think more along the lines of the proposal for the entrance gates and you have to get out the exit gates. Being early helps some particularly for beginning skiers but I don't think it is as substantial as changing the exit gates.

[JackQ]

I think many are missing the point. My first Nationals was in 1979 and I am still competing in 5-10 tournaments/year at the 38 to 39 off level. During this time I have had my gates pulled a half dozen times at the most, so this is not about me!

 

Having a skier's gates pulled (often incorrectly) is a major demotivator for beginning skier and spectators alike. The major issue is that the current is too hard to judge even with the unnecessary expense of video cameras. It took over an hour at the Eastern Regional for one protest to be resolved and the top seed in Women's 1 should have protested as well!

 

Way too often judges have the mindset of "I need overwhelming evidence that the skier made the gates," vice the proper call of I need overwhelming evidence that the skier missed the gates. This disproportionally effects women and children as they struggle to keep the ski in the water across the gates which make the gate call that much harder and more arbitrary! If after reviewing the video for 5 times, and you can not tell for sure, give the tie to the skier!

 

I propose that we need to go to the previous rule, if the skier runs over, touches the gate ball on either side they are good, if the skier clearly missis the ball then they "missed the gates" If we cant go back to that rule than I say remove the gates as a scored event entirely, judges cant judge them consistently; so good riddance!

 

I could care less if that is not good for the Olympics (the reason claimed for change the last rule) as waterskiing is not going to be in the Olympics in my lifetime, heck they just remove wrestling the original Olympic sport! I don't care about the IWSF either, only about 2% of skier need to ski under IWSF rules, they can use those rules at Pro and major events and let the 98% of skier who pay and support the support have control of their own destiny.

 

Jack Mills

[cwillygood]

@JackQ very well said!

[Horton]

Ok I do not have time to read all this but.... do you guys really think that if no skiers miss their gates that the show will be enough better that it will grow the sport.

 

I will try to catch up on all the comments above tomorrow on the plane to see the boat that I can not admit exists or that I am going to ski behind.

[andjules]

I said "we need to make the sport more exciting, not less" which then seemed to spin some comments about whether this was or wasn't the real problem around spectators. To be clear, I don't think this will magically grow the sport. But I do think gate calls make for a less dramatic, less exciting day for both spectators and competitors. People go home a little less jazzed then they could have.

 

I'm less and less convinced that not judging them is the right solution (which I've been advocating). Maybe it's a mulligan on your first pass or two. Maybe it's cheaper, more conclusive technology rather than expensive video systems/reviews. And maybe it's a judge-bias thing as @JackQ and others have suggested - any doubt goes in favor of the skier. Or all of the above. But tournaments will be more exciting when (a) skiers fall or fail trying to make the next buoy, not the gates, and (b) things keep moving instead of falling into analysis-paralysis.

[Brady]

As a newbie to course skiing--I did not use shortline skiing, because I have not yet earned that right--I have to weigh in to this conversation. I do, however believe @Than_Bogan is spot on!!

 

I don't understand why @Horton and others with his opinion are so concerned about the purity aspect of slalom. No one is proposing to change the number of buoys, or the distance from the center line, or the distance between the buoys, or the course length. Rather, they are suggesting IMPROVEMENTS, that if made, will make the sport more enjoyable for the public--thus increasing the interest level of the sport. By altering the entrance gates, it will not change anything about how good a skier is or anything like it or how deep they run. It will simply change how it is perceived and will assist newbies like myself to enter more tournaments and get more involved.

 

The sport I know best, namely Football, is constantly changing how the game is played. The NFL is constantly "tweaking" and changing rules, so that the PUBLIC will stay interested. (Case in point how the rules have changed favoring the pass and protection of the quarterback and receivers) Records have been broken as a result of many of these changes, and that is the way it is. If we need to stay as such a pure level, then why are the boat wakes of today's boats allowed? The waves back in the Wayne Grimditch and Lapoint era were much bigger. How unfair is it that we have much smaller wakes to contend with? Also, our technology is ever evolving. We should all be on EP comp2 honeycombs to make things the same as they were before.

 

I say make the change! Quit holding onto the past and the purism aspect. Like football, leave the field at 100 yards, and 10 yards per first down. Other than that, tweak it until it works to its maximum benefit every year. This sport will grow if the public interest increases through added advertising and awareness and how easy it is to watch from the pubic eye. It will continue to decline if the other happen.

 

Quit fearing the past and the purity and embrace the fact that even though the precious course hasn't changed, the sport as a whole has drastically changed and we are already at a huge advantageous over where this sport was 20 years ago.

[BG1]

For those who think “making the gates” is such a wonderful part of slalom course skiing, I have a great idea for the jump event (not really). We need to put gates in the jump course for the jumpers. Why should slalom skiers have all the fun? Who doesn’t want to travel all the way to the Masters, see Freddy cut and blast off the ramp 230 feet only to find out his score is zero because he missed these gates. Look at all the extra cost and effort judges and tournament officials would get to do. Think of the joy the officials would get from “pulling” Freddy’s gates. “Severs him right for trying to cheat” they would say. Would both skis have to be totally inside the gates or could one be in and one be out? Could one ski go over the centerline of a gate with the other one in? Heck, this could put slalom course gate judging to shame. Of course putting gates in the jump course is preposterous and thank goodness the “powers that be” way back when did not put them in as part of the jump event like they did slalom. It’s time to give the tournament organizers and officials a break from trying to perform the impossible task of consistently/fairly judging gates and let those 6 buoys determine the winner.

[mwetskier]

as far as i can remember no matter what changes have been made to football rules they havent eliminated the out of bounds. baseball still uses the fair foul lines and basketball has had the same playing court boundaries forever. tennis to. the gates in slalom determine each end boundary of the playing field and i think removing them from the equation makes a standard six ball course suddenly become somewhere around a 4 1/2 ball course.

[BG1]

Slalom course skiing is a race course. It’s about accelerating, decelerating, and turning. The slalom course is not a field with boundaries. Boundaries could be added to add yet another impossible thing to judge though. “He got too wide at 3 ball and they pulled it”.

[Brady]

@mwetskier Actually, if you want to use the football analogy, let's go there. The pitch of the field changed, meaning how steep the field is from side to side has changed significantly over the last 50 years. This has given a significant advantage to running backs and recievers. The field goal post location has also changed as well. Just this year, they enacted the no-tuck rule, meaning a person with the ball cannot lower their head into a tuck position when getting tackled. Several rules were changed on how receivers cannot be hit in a defenseless position. It keeps changing to serve the needs of the public viewers, the thing responsible for the success of the sport.

 

Changing the entrance gates does NOT alter in any way shape of form how the balls are run. In shortline skiing, you need to generate significant whip coming into the course. Coming thru the entrance gates early does not give you a competitive advantage, and when we are talking literally inches, it doesn't make sense, when that one small issue is a deterrent for growing the sport. Missing a ball...yes!!! Absolutely! But not the entrance gate. What @Than_Bogan and @OB are suggesting is simply making a way possible for the sport to for the average spectator, faster, more exciting, and less confusing.

 

Doesn't matter to me, I will continue to ski, but I fear that the longer we keep the purism factor, the more our sport will become like Cricket.