Letter from Greg Meloon to Big Dawgs

[Horton]

Dear Big Dawg Competitor,

Our team has the upmost respect for each of you. Your continued support of waterskiing through participation in the Big Dawg World Tour has increased the level of performance each year.

 

As I stated in the banquet, it is Nautique’s desire to continue the progression of the Big Dawg World Tour as a showcase of the world’s best 34 mph waterskiers and this past evening’s event represented everything that is great about our sport. Unfortunately, it was also impacted by an unfortunate turn of events in the Final Four.

 

Following the judging team’s decision to grant Jeff Rodgers a re-ride in the Final Four and the resulting change of outcome, Nautique was approached by many of you to intervene and reverse the judging decision. As a sponsor and promoter of the event, the Nautique team firmly believes that our intervention to reverse the judges’ decision would have had negative long term ramifications on the sport and Big Dawg World Tour. We made a conscious effort to hear all parties involved including the competitors on the shore, the competitors in the pairing and the judging team. However, the judges made this call within the rules of the event and therefore we supported their decision.

 

Despite the circumstances, I would like to thank the Final Four for the sportsmanship that was displayed at the awards ceremony. Even in controversy, we have great athletes and a great event.

 

As the promoter of the Big Dawg World Tour, Nautique needs assistance from you, the competitors. The unique head to head format combined with artificial lighting presents challenges not only to the athletes but also to the officials. Our goal is to prevent unfortunate controversies like this from occurring at future events. At the Masters Water Ski Tournament, Nautique utilizes an advisory committee of officials and athletes to provide insight for developing key criteria and with your help we would like to implement a similar advisory committee for the Big Dawg World Tour. In the days ahead our Nautique team and Greg Davis will be working to form this committee. We would very much appreciate any input you have related to this committee and suggestions related to who should serve on it.

 

Thanks again for your participation and understanding. The Big Dawg has been an amazing series for many years and we believe the best is still to come!

 

 

_____________________________________

Greg Meloon

Vice President of Marketing and Product Development

 

[ForrestGump]

Not exactly sure why there needs to be an advisory committee. If you sanction it as Class C, Class E, Class L, or Class R, the rules are the rules(either AWSA or IWSF)and it's up to the chief judge to make the ultimate decision based on those rulesets. Both AWSA and IWSF have a ruleset governing rerides and other critical functions.

[Drago]

Appointed judges, actually. Not allowing a competitor to continue skiing is not in any rule book I have ever seen. After granting Rodgers the re-ride, that became the problem. Keeping the fans in the literal dark...pitiful. I want my Friday night back .

[Ilivetoski]

At the end of the day it is the judges call. No question about it. Same thing as if you dont like a call in a game on TV. You yelling at your TV will not do a thing. Nor will yelling at a ref if you are at the game. You accept the judges/ refs ruling and move on. Complaining about it does nothing.

[A_B]

Apparently, the committee, judges, and skiers, all need to review the unwritten rules as well. Let's just hope the unwritten rules are easier to interpret than 1/4 or 1/2, or gates.

[skierjp]

I can't imagine the backlash if Nautique would have flexed their muscle and reversed the judges decision. I think Greg Meloon, Brian Sullivan and Greg Davis did the right thing. Did the Chief Judge make the right call? Possibly not. It's over with and I think we need to move on. I think Nautique needs to be applauded for wanting to involve the participants in a advisory committee. One question that needs to be answered is what class was the night time finals being run by?

[ToddL]

I think this collection of events (the delays included) was pretty unique and theirefore created a circumstance which has truly never been considered fully by any set of written rules.

 

If we assume that the re-ride request had merit and the judges made the right call, then the question becomes how long should the two skiers have to wait before the matchup continues? Should there be a time limit? When that limit is exceeded, then what? The re-ride and protest process needs to be considered fully in our sport. We need to have clear thought about how to handle significant delays. Our rules don't handle delays as thoroughly as they should. The negative impacts often aren't the rules, but the delays in interpretation and application of the rules.

 

Ultimately, the 1 hour delay to address the protests was the most significant factor impacting spectator's impression of the event. I've never seen a delay that long due to officiating in any other sport anywhere. That is the primary issue that needs to be addressed.

 

Even the delay between the re-ride request and the continuation of the Miller/Rodgers bracket was an issue. I understand that Dave Miller requested a warm-up pass once he learned about Jeff getting the -39 re-ride. Dave had been sitting in the water for more than 10 minutes (if I recall correctly) between his original, successful -39 and when he had to continue at -41. That's almost like taking -41 off the dock. Granted Jeff Rodgers nearly had the same situation with a significant delay before taking his -39 re-ride. Still, it is not the same. In a head to head situation, the nature of the competition is different than any normal Class C/E/L.

 

The spectators who were aware of the situation discussed many ideas about how to handle the re-ride situation. They included:

1) Due to the first delay, the officials should have brough both Dave and Jeff back to the dock end of the lake, let Dave has his warmup and let Jeff take his re-ride, then continue as appropriate.

2) After the protests occurred with such "enthusiasm",

a) completely re-do the Jeff/Dave bracket.

b) take all three to the finals and have a three boat "head-to-head-to-head" final.

 

(Personally, I think the 3-boat final would have been a positive way to handle it and the spectators would have gotten more engaged in watching something unique like that.)

 

I hope this Advisory Committee will address the delays and determine a process and list of pre-approved solutions for how (and for how long) critical decisions by officials will be reviewed and (when under protest) resolved.

[John Brooks]

I feel like either they need to follow the AWSA rules or decide not to sanction the event. If they are going to follow AWSA rules, why spectators have anything to do with it is beyond me. If there is anything to be said it needs to come from the skier or the skier representative, no one else should have a dog in this fight.

[ToddL]

John - while some "spectators" who are very close to the skiers did voice their concerns direclty to officials, there were also competing skiers making official input to to the officials. Our hope is that the officials were able to separate "spectator" opinion from skier inputs during their judgement that night.

 

Regarding generating ideas for handling future situations, anyone's input should be heard for merit.

[David Miller]

Guys everyone is missing the point the bottom line this is not a Pro Event and all the Big Dawgs know we dont ask for rerides due to lights. Point is lights are everywhere out there. Its not about Jeff being a bad dude he just did what he would do in any pro event. The reason all the Big Dawgs went wild over this is because we all know the show goes on no matter what! I guess you could call it a un written rule we would not ask for a reride due to lights because it would cause a lot of tension between us as friends and competitors not to mention delays in the event. Jeff is an awesome guy and I am sure he would not do the same thing again in the future!

[JAS]

Really? Unfortunately the egg is broken and many of us will never look at the Big Dawg series the same. Looks like country club event with special rules, but maybe that's reality. Egos and attitudes are a terrible model to build on. Just my opinion.

[SDNAH2OSKIER]

I can tell just from the amount of chatter about the night that it is WAY OVER BLOWN. Headlights distracting a driver? Uh, if you can drive a car down a line on a freeway with lights from opposing traffic "distracting" you, one set of bobbing headlights in your periphereal vision is a pretty comical excuse for not wanting to take a pass, (I was not there of course) so maybe it looked like a landing light from a 737???? Anyway, and I think its cool Nautique wants to help, but as mentioned, no need to write a NEW book, if you havent read all of the old one.

 

[Zman]

@SDNAH2OSKIER‌ I was watching from around 3 ball looking in the direction where lights were seen as the skier advanced to 5 ball and never noticed headlights. But, I guess it was more an issue at the start of the run?

[LeonL]

A couple of posts above lead me to this: without going to the rule book, my memory serves that there is very little mentioned about the specifics of head to head competition. This along with so-called unwritten rules would suggest either writing specific "Big Dawg" rules, including the unwritten ones, and skip sanctioning altogether, or go strictly by AWSA or IWWF rules. It would seem the former to be more in order.

[jipster43]

I still love the Big Dawg series and this event will have no impact on my future viewing pleasure!

[Skihack]

Is the video of Jeff still available? I would like to see it. I am sure quite a lot of folks would like to see the pass Jeff missed.

[Skihack]

Is there anyway to watch the final four? There is video for the sweet sixteen, elite 8 and the final 2 but no final 4.

[Ilivetoski]

I am confused on the whole not asking for rerides. If I spend all the time to train, all the money to go down there, and make it all the way to the finals and I feel that I was not given a fair chance to put up my best score, I am going to ask for a reride. Its up to the judges to grant or deny it. The entire point of doing anything competitively is to win, and everyone deserves a fair chance.

[David Miller]

Its the Big Dawg and it a show for the spectators it aint about us. Yes we want to win and ski good but what you get is what you get!!!

[David Miller]

If we start asking for re-rides the event is ruined! Cause everyone will have a good excuse for a re-ride....have you ever skied at night? I could ask for a re-ride every pass with all the stuff goin on!

[slow]

If it's an unwritten rule and you don't take the time to formalize it you shouldn't get upset if it's broken.

 

Also if it's a not a competition but a "show" why would you be upset. Obviously is a competition that's grown and the rules must evolve.

[Ilivetoski]

I have skied at night. If all skiers have identical conditions, no re-rides should be granted by the judges. If a skier has conditions considerably worse than others, they deserve a re-ride. If your ZO time was off do you say "forget it, im gonna go to the dock. I got what I got"

[oneski]

I agree 100% with Dave. First and foremost it's a show for the spectators. I think it's a great showcase for our sport by having the best Masters Men skiers in the world go head to head at night under the lights. It's one of the most exciting formats the sport of waterskiing has seen in a long, long time. I think we all also understand that skiing at night, while very entertaining, presents challenges in both skiing and officiating that doesn't exist during the day. Stadium lights surrounded by darkness, water, and lighted buoys looks great from the spectators point of view, but we know the lighting has to have a negative effect on the spatial awareness and vision of the skier, and also certainly has to affect the judges ability to clearly see if a skier misses a ball. (I sat directly underneath the judges stand by the announcers booth and commented that there was no way the judges could clearly see the skier going around the balls in the far side of the course).

Given the skiers and judges limitations during nighttime events, I don't think it's reasonable to consider trying to run it as a R Class.

So, if we recognize that there are limitations in running this type of event and focus more on the entertainment value of great head to head matchups at a world class venue at night with stadium lights rules can be written (or even unwritten but still understood) that address potential problems and issues that typically don't exist during tournaments run in the day.

Personally, I think there will be a high likelihood of distractions when running a tournament at night. Cars with headlights on or cameras that flash as skiers are in their run will typically happen. It's will also have a negative impact for the skier, but I don't think it's realistic to mandate no external light sources. Light flashes from external sources are very likely to happen. It should be written or unwritten that skier should deal with it the best they can, because they won't be granted a re-ride for getting distracted by light.

[gregy]

@ab apparently the unwritten rules are also unspoken rules.

[Ilivetoski]

@oneski that is not the point. It was not a missed buoy. If you spent hundreds of dollars on a plane ticket, hotel room, food, stress of weather or not your ski makes it to nationals and that is for the many events you had to ski in order to qualify for the big dawg finals. You want to win the finals as a competitor. Anyone can say what they want. Claim that they are there for entertainment or whatever. They didnt go to lose. And anyway you look at it, the fact is there is a winner. Sports are designed so that it is an even playing field and the best team wins. If the same thing had happened to Dave, and he requested a re-ride, he would have got it. It is human nature to want to win and as an athlete you cant just turn that off.

[JAS]

How many actual spectators were there at the site? How many stayed?

[Zman]

It was a decent crowd, hard to guess how many - largely made up of people there for the Nationals, skiers, officials and family. Everyone having a great time socializing along shore and watching some awesome skiing. I would estimate half or so were gone before the final 2 skied. MB estimated 70% were gone.

[sunperch]

We left before the final 2 skied, by then we didn't even care who won. We went for the show, everyone around us agreed that the show was ruined by the delay. Didn't really like the kids to be seeing all the drama. We spent a lot of time with our son explaining how to be a good loser in case he had a bad day at Nationals, exactly opposite of what he witnessed @ Big Dawgs under the Lights that night.

[webbdawg99]

@David Miller You say, "Its the Big Dawg and it a show for the spectators it aint about us." I have to throw a MASSIVE BS flag on that statement right there. Sure, that sounds all well and good in theory. And yes, it is a show and the spectators certainly benefit from it. But that statement is so absurd its laughable. If that were the case, then the "protest" that happened wouldn't have happened at the EXPENSE of the spectators. I was on the shoreline where you got out of the water after Jeff got 1.5@41, advancing him to the finals. The words that you spoke to several others on the shore had nothing to do with "spectators" or "the show", but only about yourself and how you clearly thought you got screwed. And honestly, I don't blame you because you're a competitor. The majority of Ballers are competitors. But you will never convince me that the reason that you or anyone else does it is for the spectators.

[David Miller]

Webbdawg I see you still don't get it. As I said yes we all want to win but never in all history of night finals has a reride been requested for lights or anything else. Again nothing against Jeff but he never should have asked! Big Dawgs know lights and flashes are part of the event. You just don't ask. Unfortunately the judge made the wrong call and never should have allowed the reride. That's why every one was so upset. If they allowed the reride then everyone is entitled to a reride cause there are lights or flashes on each pairing. And every time a bit different!! This is not difficult to figure out!! No rerides.

[jcamp]

@ilivetoski now that you've seen the video comparing Jeff's passses to Dave's (and seen the identical flshing lights for both skiers - Dave at 1:07 and Jeff at 1:33) do you still believe that "If a skier has conditions considerably worse than others, they deserve a re-ride."? Put another way, do you think Jeff had "considerably worse" conditions than Dave?

 

IMO, he didn't.

[TylerR]

@David Miller‌ then you should have changed the rules for this special type of event well in advance of the controversy. Or you should have informed the newer members of the club that there was a no rerides under the lights policy. To complain about it for an hour and delay the entire event, and cost our sport spectators, both in person and on the webcast is a prime example of why no one wants to watch our sport any more. The truth is that this entire argument shows why we keep loosing youth skiers at astounding rates. We should be focused on making them have a better time at tournaments rather than fighting over who really deserved second place in the big dawg event.

[LeonL]

@David Miller‌ , it would appear that you didn't get @webbdawg99‌. He spoke nothing specifically of the reride, only of your comment that it's for,the spectators it ain't about us. Then the ensuing protest/delay that drove spectators away.

[webbdawg99]

@David Miller I get it. Trust me....I get it. And if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Jeff wishes he could take it back. And I also bet that we will never see such an incident again. And maybe the judge made the wrong call....but its a "judgement" call. Sometimes judgement decisions are bad.....but that's not the point here. The point is that ego, more than anything, ruined the event. If it was me in the heat of the moment, I MAY have reacted the same way. But don't sit here and feed us the line that its about the spectators. Its about you. You ski for you. I ski for me. And thats it. At no point was the show or the spectators of concern to anyone.....especially you.

 

 

[skidawg]

Next year before the final 8 in the dark (hopefully there will be a next year). The unspoken needs to be spoken for all who are new to the dark (myself as a first timer). No re-rides in the skier meeting before the event. Then none of this happens!

[T-fromTO]

@TylerR In defense of David Miller, he did not personally "complain for an hour and delay the entire event'. The other Big Dawg skiers took up the cause on an immediate strong gut reaction to an extremely unfair call. They did this on their own without any prompting from Dave Miller himself.

[TylerR]

@T-fromTO‌ I'm not just accusing Dave I am saying that everyone who complained is responsible.

[jcamp]

Everyone thinks that the long delay was from all the complaining but it wasn't. A large chunk of that time was from trying to find one of the finalists, who had packed up his gear and left the site.

[T-fromTO]

@jcamp You are spot on. The elephant in the room here is that the altercation between a sponsor and a final 4 skier caused the skier to disappear for at least half an hour. No one knew where he was or what to do without him. The event was very close to being cancelled because of this.

[Ghibli]

The truth begins to trickle out. Shocking(not)...more to the story than just the slighted Dawgs with their pitchforks....

[TylerR]

The truth shall set us free.

[VONMAN]

Stop skiing at night. 99.9% of skiers ski in the daylight. The cowd will enjoy it. The Judge's will enjoy it. This isn't promoting safe skiing to the public. And you can forget the unwriten rules.

[LeonL]

You know, this may sound silly, but waterskiing is a daytime sport for 99.9999999% of all ski rides. Night time skiing in and of itself probably puts some skiers at a disadvantage due to their night vision deficiencies. No one can correct for or train for an improvement in that area.

[JoeMac]

I am thankful that for the opportunity to ski in the Big Dawg and getting to watch the finals on webcast. We missed out on a big opportunity to increase the viewers for next year and years to come. There was a controversy that should have been on camera. It would have been awesome to watch the arguments at the dock on the webcast. Everyone would have been glued to the webcast. Next year we should have cameras and microphones at the starting docks and in the boats to listen to all the trash talking. That would have been entertainment. I do appreciate to announcers, but it was tough for them rambling on during the delay while everyone was wondering what was going on. As much as we like for everything to go smoothly in running a tournament, a little controversy is not a bad thing in entertainment. There is nothing more entertaining that to listen to two skiers joking with each other in the head to head format. There was still amazing skiing at this tournament and I enjoyed skiing and watching all the finalist with there interesting personalities. Looking forward to making my $200 donation next year to try to compete again. If I make the cut.

Joe McCreary

[jcamp]

Watching skiing under the lights (camera flashes and all) is awesome! I'd hate to see this result in no more night skiing in the pursuit of the "best possible" conditions. That's what has already chased most skiers to private lake where no one sees how cool the sport is. It would be a shame if that happened to our highest profile events too.

 

The bottom line is skiing under the lights is harder, but that's what makes it special and so damn impressive. The alternative will have the feel of some record-capabilty tournament at any number of perfect, manicured sites.

[Razorskier1]

Calm heads need to prevail. Big Dawg is great for our sport and this incident, and all of the Monday morning quarterbacking to rehash who was or wasn't right isn't helping. Everyone had lots of passion in our sport. How about we move our focus forward to next year.

[T-fromTO]

Unintentionally, this would have made really good reality TV! Although I don't think that is the direction the sponsors would want to go!

[Klundell]

I have no problem with a code of unwritten rules that @David Miller‌ is talking about. All sports have a code of unwritten rules baseball is famous for them. There might be a reason not to write the rule down. What if there is some lunatic with a laser on shore shining it in someone's eyes and the rule says no rerides that wouldn't be fair either. BTW it's not that crazy it happened in professional motocross.

[sunperch]

@JoeMac‌ You should have joined us at the bar after the event, the entertainment with lots of the Big Dawgs there was priceless.

 

Cindi Jorgensen

[ToddL]

@JAS - I'd estimate about half strayed. Mostly those with kids. Given some travel time to hotels, anything that went past 9:30 was at risk of losing that portion of the crowd. I think the event was on track to conclude before 10pm local time had there been no issue.

 

@JoeMac - the shoreline discussions where interesting to watch. They only seemed to last about 10 minutes at most. I was curious about the remaining hour and what was happening. I guess we have some more insight on that now.

 

 

I wonder what % of the spectators (web and/or on site) do not know the basics of slalom competition. I am always surprised how much announcing commentary is about the mechanics of the sport so as to explain it to the non-competing "public" even though the majority of the spectators are competitive skiers or close friends/family members. I guess it is the "if you build it they will come" dream.