Spectator's viewpoint: Gate rule really needs to change

[bfreeski]

I posted this thought on another "gate" thread a while back but that thread is now MIA.

 

Like any sport, there is an inherent danger in participating. Moving the exit gate further away might prevent people from taking a ridiculous hit at 6 ball. However, doing so basically assured someone they can make 6 ball if......... they can just get around 5 ball. At which point all we have really done is move the make or break moment to 5 ball.......so maybe our brilliant moderator is on to something......moving 5 ball in six inches will reduce the crack-ups at 5 ball.........especially after we move the exit gates.Perhaps buoys can be made safer, or handles can be made safer. The skiers mind however cannot be changed.....narrow the course? Move the gates? Get rid of the gates? All we would really accomplish is to change where the accidents happen...........vests, bindings, safer buoys, helmets, and handles you can't stick your body parts through may be the condoms and dental dams of our sport........but abstinence is the only 100% safe way to participate.

 

The skier can always let go. If you are so late for six ball that the only way to get back to the gates is to literally risk your life.......let it go......I. the same way, when you are so late at four ball that you cannot make it to five ball (despite the moderator's request) we likely are not going to move five ball closer to the boat.

 

Just my thoughtz

[mwetskier]

on 8 ball courses where the last 6 balls are used depending on which direction your coming from the skiers have to go around a 'zero' ball before going through the gates. its not a rule but thats what they usually do. eliminate the entrance gate and what we call the 1 ball now becomes a no effort 'zero' ball. eliminate the exit gate and the 6 ball is at most 1/2 a ball worth of effort. congratulations you just turned all the 6 ball courses in the world in to 4 1/2 ball courses. all you claim to supposedly grow the sport all though you have no evidence will actually make one lick of difference at all.

[jwr]

@Brady I disagree. The majority of rule changes in football have been for player safety not fan excitement. If anything football is less exciting because they have taken away a lot of the big hit opportunities.

 

If you want to change the gates due to some legitimate safety reason I could understand that. I personally don't see a safety issue with the gates. Personal responsibility, if you want to try and hold onto a bunch of slack, when you know the potential consequences that is up to you. But as my father always told me "If you're going to be stupid, you better be tough".

 

If you really wanted to go after a safety concern why don't we ban hard shells, or all binders for that matter. Seems to be the source of the majority of injuries.

 

I'm not sure what to do about fan excitement. The average person cant tell the difference between 15 off and 38 off. If you aren't invested in the people skiing (A friend, a really good skier, or someone you know face plants a lot), slalom gets boring to watch after awhile.

 

At our local tournaments, one thing that does make it exciting is we have two skiers that are good friends and extremely competitive with each other. They talk smack and taunt each other, even while they are skiing. It's exciting and fun to watch who is going to win between the two of them. I always stop what I'm doing to watch. So maybe we need more competition and less skiing for rankings.

[ctsmith]

I'm not a big NASCAR fan but I have watched it more, a lot more, (at least the last 50 laps) since they fixed the issue of races finishing under caution (some credit must also be given to a DVR). This change was solely for entertainment value and not for safety, as the "overtime" not only provides for an exciting finish but also a big wreck is highly likely.

 

College football games use to end in a tie as well.

 

But don't mess with any slalom rules!

[ForrestGump]

So let me be the butthead here........... How many spectators is this going to bring to tournaments? 10? While I agree that we need spectators, 10 additional at a tournament doesn't help.

[ScarletArrow]

The pitch of the field was changed because drainage issues on fields have been resolved. That was never intended to give offenses an advantage.

 

Field goals were an obvious obstruction issue. It didn't change how field goals are performed, measured and records kept.

 

The change in tackling rules have nothing to do with spectators and everything to do with player safety and the NFL wanting to avoid litigation.

 

To stay with football comparisons (and to keep it apples-to-apples), changing the gate would be similar to what football did with the hash marks (making them narrow).

 

The result is that field goals are largely a non-event as kickers never really have to deal with any sort of angle and it's going to go in +95% of the time inside of 40 yards.

 

Also, not changing the gate would be similar to the NFL rule of a receiver needing 2 feet in bounds for a catch.

 

There would be no easier way to increase scoring and offense (and thus the spectators experience) than this, yet the NFL refuses to adopt the college rule of only 1 foot in bounds.

[webbdawg99]

I agree with changing the exit gates for safety. Plus it only makes sense given the arguments posed by OB. (distance to get back to the wake after 6 should be the same as 2 and 4) However, NOTHING will make slalom skiing any more spectator friendly. Big spray is cool and all, but it looks the same at 28 off as it does at 38. No average spectator can tell or appreciate the difference. The only people that truly appreciate it are the ones that know the difficulty associated with it. And unless you've been behind a boat and attempted it, you wouldn't know. The only way to grow spectators in our sport is to grow participation in our sport.

[Kelvin]

@shane This change isn't going to bring any more spectators to an event by itself, but it just might get those spectators that do come to come back to the next event. The rule as it exists today has driven people away from the sport. Would you be going to Nationals next week if the rule had been changed for the 2013 season?

[Edbrazil]

This is Chet Raley's idea, from his website: http://www.pbtcenter.com/PBTC/Home.html

And at "Chet's Thoughts":

http://www.pbtcenter.com/PBTC/Chets_thoughts/Entries/2013/7/11_Gates_or_No_Gates.html

 

"1)Skier must cross the wakes from left to right anywhere after they (the skier) have passed the pre-gate.

2)No scoring of the entrance gates. As in go where you like.

3)Skier must pass on the right side of left buoy (passengers side buoy) on the exit gate."

 

This idea may already be posted in this discussion, although I don't readily find it. Or whether it is attributed to Chet. I've forwarded it to AWSA Rules Committee for consideration, suggesting that it might be a local option for Class C events next year.

 

The IWWF might be open to experimentation at some selected Class L events. Thinking Pro events, for example.

 

One clarification: you need to start from the 2-4-6 side, can't just hang out forever for # 1. Which wouldn't work for real shortline skiers anyway. And yes, this idea will make the course easier for beginners, and non-shortliners. And 2-ski slalomers!

 

I'm not sure about the endgate scoring, but the big problem is the entry gate, particularly the requirement in Class L+ for gate video. Whatever happens, we should get rid of endgate video, and save a lot of $$$ and tournament compexity, whatever is done.

 

The basic slalom course has stayed about the same, since it was first designed. However, originally, the distance from endgate to # 1 gate was the same as the gate-to-gate distance. And there were only 1 or 2 interior boatgates. And boatgates were 4 yards (12') wide. And buoys might be car innertubes folded twice, or nearly waist-high buoys.

 

The shortened endgates came in around the mid-1960's. Endgates also used to be scored as one point, so a full pass was 8 points. I think that the shortened endgates were first experimented with at the Masters. Back in the East, most of us viewed it as making the course more difficult. But for top skiers at 30 off, the old long endgates required a double-turn coming into # 1, and they liked the new dimensions. Communicated to me by Joe Cash circa 1964. (That famous picture of him is at # 5 at the Masters, when the experimental gates were being tried out, and when he was getting late and reared back, making the huge spray.)

[Than_Bogan]

@webbdawg99 Exactly. I'm not quite sure how this thread drifted to growing the number of spectators; that certainly was never my claim. I merely noticed that when I was a spectator, I hated the current gate rule a lot more than I ever have as a skier.

[Than_Bogan]

@JackQ Thanks for your well-reasoned comments and CONGRATS on your M5 Eastern Region title!!

[jipster43]

@EdBrasil someone needs to grab all your posts and make a coffee table book out of them! I would love to see it under my Christmas tree this year.

 

@webbdawg99 I completely agree. The only way to grow the sport is through making it more user friendly at the entry level. While we are a long way from legislating all gravel pits be dug in dimensions no less than 2300' X 250', changing the gates seems like a pretty simple thing to do. If it doesn't work out, go back to the regular gates.

 

I can remember when palming and traveling used to be called in basketball. While it still bothers me when I see a player commit these sins, I can't say it has ruined the sport. Players like Michael Jordon come to mind. Talk about altering the fundamentals!

[ToddL]

At our club's meeting last night, we briefly disucssed gates and video review. We are thankful to have members of the Rules and the Judges & Scores committees in our local club's board of directors. While the discussions were nice, this is not enough. The formal and official procedure for making recommendations is as follows:

 

Complete a Rule Change Request Form:

Instructions: In order to request that the rules be amended you must be a U.S. Citizen and a current member of USA Water Ski with AWSA listed as your primary sports division. This form must be submitted in electronic format to the Chairman of the Rules Committee by August 31st to be considered for the upcoming year.

 

Link to the Form:

http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/RulesCommittee/AmendRuleRequestForm.pdf

 

Link to the Committees and their contact information:

http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/AWSACommittees.pdf#page=5

[Wish]

Would like to see exit gate rule change for safety. Agree that passing to the right side of the right exit gate ball should count. Used to be that way. If someone can run a pass by running to the left of the entrance gates, good with that counting too.

 

But: Disagree on new course configurations.

 

I had this experiance at the MidWest Reg. They reviewed my gate @38. Announcer after a bit said to the crowd, "that's as close as you can get to the right hand ball and be given the gate". That was all on me as I intentionally tryed for that. Few skiers after me had his gates pulled at 38 or so I was told. He ran it. I'm sure his gate shot was intentional as well. Sometimes you miss sometimes you don't. Posts that suggest changes for the sake of a skier advantage or disadvantage are missing the point. Anyone can run gates. All depends how much of a risk you want to take. No change should be made based on the skiers perspective or ease of running buoys. It's how the gates are viewed and called. If the percentage of poor calls are so low, is it worth the change? Look at jump and the advancements with Splash Eye recording distances. Look how distance used to be recorded. Did they change the jump, ski equipment, boat speed, line length, or anything else to make reading distances easier or more accurate? No, they found a better way to record it and its gotten even better. If you change the gate because it's inconvenient for a few (very few) then I can garrenty no advancement will be made to better read/view/record/call gates through the advancement of tecnonlogy. As for a spectator....please.... as long as announcers are using colors, line off and meters (in US) to discribe how short the rope is the non skiing spectators will never get it. 15 or so non skiers came out to the regionals to see me ski. They were there all day watching skier after skier and I had to explain what the anouncer was saying..again and again. The errors I heard as they explained it back to me or others was extensive. At best they kinda got it after a full day of being immersed in it. So seeing or hearing of a gate pull is tiny compared to the overall confusion of the non skier hearing what makes no sense skier after skier and only seeing what looks the same pass after pass. Leave the spectator and skier out of the argument and focus on ways to better view and call gates for the very few. And try to be patient......technology will advance and better our sport as it already has.

[MillerTime38]

@OB I think the assumption that making the exit gates further out will directly effect skiers safety is a stretch. Do you have any data to support that people are getting hurt taking a hit from the boat to get through the exit gates than any other past of the course?

[GK]

The analogies to most other sports don't hold water in my opinion for one reason. In most of the sports mentioned you show up and play an entire game. If you make a mistake you still have the opportunity to play hard and potentially win. In waterskiing, if you miss your gate, you're done. No redo, no mulligan, thanks for the hundreds of dollars you just spent coming to Regionals, we'll see you next year (if you decide to put up hundreds of dollars and come back).

[thompjs]

Rathburn started this whole gate issue since one of his friends died trying to make the exit gate at -38 at Alcapulco.

[Than_Bogan]

@Wish Fascinating thoughts and well-reasoned, even though I mostly disagree.

[ScarletArrow]

@GK Would you be in favor of keeping the gate rule as is if we guaranteed every skier 6 passes per round like we discussed previously? I think that rule change would do more to appease skiers and fans alike. To other sports analogy, everyone knows you get 3 strikes before your out in baseball. Why not 2 falls or misses within a 6 pass limit? Third "strike" (fall or miss) and you're out.

[Edbrazil]

Some interesting comments interspersed about jumping by @Wish. I've got more comments to add, but that would be hijacking this SL thread. Will probably start another. Note that Video Jump should be credited initially to Corson and Boddoroff.

 

Meanwhile, this picture was posted in the Easterns jump judging area, marked as "backup system" or similar note.

[ntx]

@scarletarrow you kind of do get a "three strikes and you are out" In water skiing, they are called rounds. You go to a three round tournament.

[sbink]

If we could get Chet's proposed gate rule change applied at least through

Class E tournaments it would be a change for the better for all involved.

Judges having to call/review skiers gates and skiers having to have their gates called is

an unpleasant and unneccesary thing that this sport can do without.

 

 

[ToddL]

Jump event has reference buoys which are critical to Skier's paths. 600M, 500M, etc. There is no expectation that the skiers must ski near, in front, after, or between these buoys. However, their consistent location with regards to the jump course and ramp are critical for the advanced jumpers.

 

Slalom gates could be seen in a similar light... Their position could simply be for skier reference, not judging.

 

One issue with Chet's proposal - there is still a rule using a buoy beforewhich a skier may not make a move toward 1 ball. Thus, there is still a requirement to judge that action. There will still be a need for judges and/or cameras to look at that point and make a determination. The issue with the boat's wakes impeding visibility of that buoy are still at play. Thus, the only thing that such a proposal changes is the assumed desirability of the skier to pass by the gate at the most extremely optimal location making it difficult to judge. Whether that assumption is true or not or the extent of its validity is truly unknown.

 

One quick and easy rule change that I would like to see is:

Entry Gates - there is no need to cut gates for being too late (missing to the left of the left buoy on the way in).

Exit Gates - there is no need to cut gates for being too early (missing to the right of the right buoy on the way out).

This is something that should have no debate with regards to Class C and E (where IWWF alignment is not a factor). There is no need to add/remove buoys, only how we use them in judging gates.

 

However, I do personally like the 14M exit gate solution. It just makes sense that the criteria to score a full buoy at 4 ball is the same criteria applied to score a full buoy at 6 ball. Again, this should be implemented at Class C and E initially due to no requirement to align to IWWF.

 

Regarding IWWF. IWWF is not *setting* the rules for everyone. They are providing a consistency of rules across all participating countries. Thus, if a majority of countries desire a change, the IWWF will change. The USA is a significant driver of IWWF rules. USA is a signifcant majority of all competitive water skiers globally. It seems to me that IWWF adopted most of the AWSA rule book as the international standard. The primary thing that AWSA had to change for IWWF was measurments conversion to a global, metric standard. The overwhelming majority of the directionality of rules seems to be from AWSA to IWWF and not the other way around. Thus, if AWSA sees an opportunity to make a change for the better for our sport, then it stands to reason that IWWF will likely follow us (not the other way around). Sure, AWSA may have to "pilot" the changes in the Class C and E sanctions, but if there is merit to the changes, then I don't see why IWWF wouldn't adopt them. At that time, AWSA could apply those changes to Class L and R. Thus, the argument against change of "because IWWF does it the current way" really shouldn't be a barrier to making valid improvements to our sport.

[Wish]

I guess I see this as being somewhat personal. Oh crap, my buddies gate got pulled or my kid or me. I've had gates pulled that I know I made and ones given to me I know I missed. In the end it evened out, made me focus harder on making them and with the hundreds of gates I made and were given, I can accepts the .0005% that were taken away. Yes things can improve and be improved for the call but it seems to be the personal beef that's pushing this. All the way back to Chet (although agree with some changes for safety sake) I still like what I heard the Pros at Skierpalloosa discussing. If a gate is pulled and you complete the next pass, you get credit for the previous pass with the missed gate. If not, your done and the score goes back to the last completed pass. 5 pros and coaches sitting there nodding their heads in agreement.

 

@Edbrazil your photo is a great example of how far we have come in solving a problem without altering much of anything with the actual jump process.

 

If the rule gets changed, heck I'll go with it. Just hate to see it change when we all know someone heading home from the lake is gonna have that "ah ha" moment and have a perfectly good solution/device without altering course peramiters.

[ToddL]

There are a lot of suggestions for how to do things differently. I would say that this isn't about picking one vs. the other. Each suggestion should be considered for its own merit and viability.

 

Process/Protocol related changes:

1) Late entrance gates (left of the left buoy) are not cut.

2) Early exit gates (right of the right buoy) are not cut.

3) Close Gates are assumed good unless evidence to the contrary is clearly present.

4) No more waiting in the water for gate review regardless of depth of technical difficulty. Continue with "at risk".

5) If next pass is run w/o issue, the prior pass' gate question is nullified and the prior pass is valid due to successful harder pass following it.

6) If next pass is only partially successful, then the scoring is based upon prior pass' gate resolution. Again, there must be a time limit for review. Suggest 10 minutes max. If at the time expiration, there is no evidence of a clearly missed gate, the pass is considered valid.

7) If the next pass is only partially successful and if there was no video was captured and no viable judges were able to eye-witness the gate's validity, then I'm not sure what is best here... I can see both sides: a) see rule #3, or b) there is no available evidence to suggest that there was any soft of valid gate and thus, the skier is given an optional reride of that pass with the subsequent pass' score as a protected buoy result at the missed gate speed/line lenght (similar to an opt up situation).

 

None of these changes require buoy moves, or skier method changes. It is all about how we handle what we currently have in a better way.

[ral]

@ToddL, I think you are correct regarding IWWF. They are pretty open and receptive to changes. And even more flexible than AWSA on some things, like boat age for tournaments.

[ral]

@MillerTime38, evidence is mathematical and not disputable. You have 41 m between 4 and 5, and 27m between 6 and exit. So trying to make 4 is a walk in the park compared to trying to make exit.

[tbrenchley]

Just go through the gates...it's not that difficult. I still can't figure out why this is such a big deal right now. It won't make the sport any more exciting to watch or any safer to remove the requirement of going through the gates. Your frustration on not being able to see some pro/amateur run their hardest pass because they missed their 35 off gate should be directed at the pro that missed his gates, not at the rules. It just seems like everyone wants the rule to change because it's easier to not judge them...and if that's the case then instead of @horton's idea to move the 5 ball in 6 inches let's just not judge that ball altogether?

[klindy]

@BG1 there already are two "buoys" in the jump event that every skier must go between - their usually triangular in shape, painted while and have slots near the bottom edge. Fail to get between the side curtains and I promise you that there's no need for a judge to make aa ruling or announcer to explain that the skier "missed the gate".

[BG1]

@kindly What you’re describing is the target, the jump. Thank goodness they didn't put gates before the jump 50 years ago. That may have killed jumping altogether by now.

[DUSkier]

@Chef @Than_Bogan @OB Score of 6 NC was correct. It is a different call for 6 ball

 

14.07: Scoring Buoys

A buoy not missed is scored as follows, up to the point of the first miss:

a) 1/4 point when the skier crosses the line C-D AND the X-Y line in a skiing position (12.03). (See sketch).

b) 1/2 point when the skier has re-crossed line C-D in skiing position (12.03) before the level of the next buoy or end gate.

c) 1 point when the skier has crossed the line of the gate buoys (on a tight line under power of the boat) before passing the level of the next buoy (or the end gate in the case of the final buoy) without falling (12.02).

The intent of the tight line is to ensure the safety of the skier. This means that if the skier can only cross the line of the buoys with a slack line then he will not get the full point so there is no reason to try that. The end gate case is different because of the spacing and thus if the skier can cross the gate line before the end gate buoy and ski away he will be awarded the full buoy. This specifically means that the skier is permitted to have slack going through the exit gates. If the skier skis away then they may continue. If the skier does not ski away, the turn ends and the skier scores 6 provided they crossed the line of the boat buoys before the end gate with or without a slack line. The skier may exit the gate with slack line.

 

And back to the original point of this thread,,,, Did you know that probably one of the biggest events in sport, athletics 100m if you break the start your DONE!!!

 

From a safety standpoint I do like the idea of the extra buoy at exit gate, I have had too many injuries around 6 and at the exit gate!

[MillerTime38]

@ OB and @Ral, I agree that making the exit gates further out would make it easier to score 6 buoys and continue the round, but OB's original argument stressed the idea that this would make it safer. A rule change just to make the sport easier is a bad idea in my opinion but if there is legitimate proof that it would significantly increase skier safety then maybe it would be something to consider

 

@OB I am a shortline skier as well and I am quite familiar with the S-turn method to get a full buoy. In my opinion watching a skier round 6 ball late and have to take a hit going out the gates is exciting. Does it hurt sometimes, absolutely but that is what seperates the men from the boys and the women from the girls.

[Than_Bogan]

@DuSkier "WITH or without a slack line" !! Very interesting. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Honestly I find this to be another reason for a change. Inelegance and special cases in the rules often point to something that should be addressed with a more fundamental change.

[ToddL]

I have been aware of the full buoy rule (no slack line) for a while. It is interesting that the rule was added for safety? I have seen quite a few skiers take enough speed into and through a turn to make it back to the boat guide line with no rope (slack). In the old days prior to this rule, it was not uncommon to see a skier "coast" back to the wake after the last successful buoy while holding a handle with a slack rope only to gently let it drop from their hand just as the rope becomes tight.

 

With the current rule, the above action would not score the full buoy but only 1/2 buoy. Thus, skiers must "take the hit" from the boat for the full buoy to score. Now, we see skiers everywhere scramble to get outside of that last buoy and then choose to "take the hit" in an effort to score that last buoy as a full buoy. The hits range from subtle to superman launches with major OTFs, ankle injuries, and major back injuries, etc. That seems pretty unsafe to me.

 

I know that in reality these skiers really didn't gracefully perform that last buoy rounding and that is why a slack hit is part of the equation. We all know that slalom is not about how pretty your ski ride was, but only did you round buoys and navigate gates.

 

Still, the desire for that final buoy as a fully scored one is so tempting that skiers put themselves in significant risk of injury by "taking the hit." This is true of any buoy 1-5.

 

Now, at the exit gates, it becomes more so a factor since the point of return to the boat's path is more agressive for that full buoy score than the other buoys. So, yes... I think this creates even more risk and thus more safety concern.

[bfreeski]

In order to get a score of 1 ball the skier must pass from the line of the right hand gate, around the buoy, and return to the line of the right hand gate prior to the boat guide at 2 ball.

 

To have a realistic opportunity to advance and score 2 balls, the skier needs turn 1 ball in a controlled manner and early enough to return to the right hand gate line within 27 meters of ball 1. (I imagine someone may challenge the notion that a skier can successfully score 2 balls while going from the right hand gate line and around 2 ball in less than 14 meters, but I find it highly unlikely)

 

Thus, in order for a skier to advance to the next pass they should also have to make their way from the left hand gate line, around 6 ball, and back to the left hand gate line in a controlled manner, within 27 meters.

 

This way, hypothetically at least, if the course continued they would have a chance at continuing to 7 ball......which I have tried a few times (usually on the rare occasion that a pass was so smooth my brain could not believe i was at 6 ball already).....and every time I tried this I was well in front of exit gates after turning 6 ball, even when running late.

 

In my mind the purpose of exiting the gates is to demonstrate that you skied the course, including six ball, with enough control and skill that you could ski a 7th ball, or 8th ball. By moving the gates, or changing the exit rule you are essentially saying someone can ski 5 balls in enough control, and then through brute force, will power, dumb luck, or some combination thereof, get their ski around 6 ball even though they do not have enough control to continue skiing.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[Wish]

Got lean locked outa six in a recent tournament after setting the tip back in and shot like a rocket as if there was a ball 7. I wouldn't call that control but was far from the right hand ball when I passed it. Woulda been nice if that had counted. It used to count. Not sure why that changed.

[ToddL]

@bfreeski - that makes total sense! Exit Gates are where they are for continuation. Taking this further... If a 14M later gate was added at the exit, it would allow for a full 6 buoys on that pass, but would not allow for continuation. I think I understand your point and it makes sense.

 

I still think the rules should be changed where if a skier is too late at entrance or too early at exit gates they are still considered good.

 

[rodb]

Ditto Than and Jack

[The_MS]

Looking at the M4 scores going on now, looks like lots of BOS members missing gates.

[klindy]

I dont know about gate calls but I've seen several "6 no continuation" skiers after balling up at the exit gates.

[ForrestGump]

Ummmm........ 65 M4 skiers. Out of that, it appears 3 have a 6-No continuation. Of that, you don't know what was missed gate and what was not holding onto the rope out the exit gates. That's a lot, @MS?

[The_MS]

When I looked, there were only a handful of skiers out and a few had scores of 6. I hope it is as Keith stated.

As a side note, it would be cool to know how many missed gates out of all of the pulls this week at the Nats.

[MattP]

@MS when the score book is published I will post the number. I doubt it is as high as people think. I will also publish the 6 no continuations for each division.

[The_MS]

@MattP I agree

[klindy]

@MattP how will you determine the difference between a 0 gate and a 6 no continuation? In the score book they look the same.

 

I asked the how many missed gates were caught on camera and the answer was "no many, just a handful". That was today with no more than 2-3 skiers left.

[MattP]

@klindy the skier should be scored 6@x line in the score book for no continuation. If they missed their gate it will be 0@x line

[klindy]

Far enough. Good idea and makes sense.

[LeonL]

@MattP and @Klindy, my eyes are old and I may have missed some, but I only counted three(3) zero scores at given line lengths. If my count is correct I assume there were only THREE entrance gates called for the entire Nationals. That's also assuming the the scorers were accurate in entering their scores as zero at next line as opposed to six at the previous line.

[MattP]

@leonL where are you looking?

[LeonL]

I'm looking at the scorebook as listed under "results" at waterskinationals.com