Video of Miller and Rogers. Is this more like the "Zapruder film" or the "Patterson–Gimlin film"?

[mike_mapple]

@ob just so you know before posting wrong information, his flight left at 12 on Saturday and I drove the van back

[webbdawg99]

@MAD11 You had a sweet setup at Nationals and you're spot on about @fizer. Thanks for the cold beer....I needed it after my "nationals nightmare". Cheers!

[JC McCavit]

When this controversy started, I thought I had an opinion. Then I figured out I didn't know the rules. Now I am happy Horton provided this venue so the more experienced guys could bring this to the readers attention. The most important thing I learned is that you can toss the handle if your equipment does not feel right. What a great learning forum, Thanks.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Re: handle throws.

 

Rule 10.11A states " a contestant may refuse to enter the official slalom course on any pass by throwing the handle in the air before the entrance gate. He shall not be penalized for so doing, provided the refusal was for a reason acceptable to a majority of the event judges" (Emphasis mine)

 

10.11B further states ".....or should the reason for the handle throw not be acceptable, he shall not be allowed to continue in that round (Emphasis in rule book)

 

In reality, unless there is a tree floating directly in your path, it is a huge gamble to throw the handle. In almost every case you are better off attempting the pass and asking for a re-ride than to have the judges say "sorry, that was not a valid reason for a handle throw, you're done".

 

As a senior judge, I would not consider "my equipment didn't feel right" a valid reason to throw the handle.

[LeonL]

What @Bruce_Butterfield‌ said. Your own equipment not getting settled in might not be reason enough for me as a judge. But if Jeff saw something that caused him to be waving, perhaps a handle throw was in order.

[Milford]

@Bruce_Butterfield thanks for posting the rule. I think it definitely helps to educate the group, so that if they are posed with a situation that might be unsafe or unclear, they know that it is at least an option to throw the handle. I believe it is always better to error on the side of being safe than to give it a go and risk injury. With regard to my personal equipment, if I don't get the back binding to line up and snap in, I can not ski, period. It is not a question of if it does or doesn't feel right, the boot physically comes off the ski, so if I were to give it a go, without being snapped in, I am at risk of breaking a leg. Not worth it.

 

Once again, correct me if I am wrong, but if a skier has an equipment malfunction, then they have 2 minutes to correct the situation, which I can easily do, if this occurs.

 

With regard to the situation that Jeff Rodgers faced Friday night, I can not say what the right call is, only that if I were posed with a situation that caused me to waive my arms prior to entering the course, I would throw the handle. I don't think a skier is going to be penalized for proactively not skiing do to a serious concern that might affect safety. Skiing into a set of blinding headlights, could certainly be argued as a safety concern. Everyone who organizes these tournaments number one goal is to have a safe tournament. Once the concern is brought up and fixed, the show continues.

[LeonL]

Actually it's three minutes to correct a equipment failure.

[Klundell]

The reason throwing the handle is important rather then waiving your arms and still entering the course and then asking for a re ride is your are effectively getting a Mulligan. Enter the course and ski if I make it no big deal if I miss I can always ask for the re ride. Not saying all that went through Jeff's head but that it why it's important to throw the handle and trust the judges will do the right thing. It's just more fair.

 

[Horton]

Throwing the handle is a way bigger gamble.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@milford, the 3 minute rule is for "emergencies discovered just prior to the contestant's turn to ski (e.g. Ripped binding)". Once you do your first deep water start, that rule no longer applies.

If you have an equipment failure once you leave the dock, you are SOL.

 

If there is a safety concern for a handle throw, the chances of the judges agreeing is pretty good. If it's a "distraction", you are taking a gamble, especially at something like the BD finals.

 

IMO, if you are going to throw the handle, you better be darn sure the judges will see it your way. If there is any doubt, you are better off attempting the pass. If you make it, life is good, if not ask for the re-ride.

 

In Jeff's case, I think a handle throw would have been a mistake. He would have been at the mercy of the judges and we know the controversy that generated.

[klindy]

You may have 3 minutes to fix your equipment but if you throw the handle after you're on the water, like @Bruce_Butterfield‌ said, it's a real gamble that the judges allow a reride. I'll say that 75%+ of the time you're swimming to shore after a short conversation. Maybe at a local class c tournament it'll be different but pretty safe bet that "my binding dish clip in" isn't going to fly far.

[Milford]

Luckily, after 6 years of using my snap in system, I have not had to throw the handle once. It only becomes a concern on really short set up lakes. Thanks for the clarification. Most Regional, National or Big Dawg stops are built with plenty of set up. I guess if I ever have a problem, it is my problem and hopefully I can get some understanding judges. If not, I will live to ski another day.

 

Not being at the final and not knowing how bright the lights were, it is hard to speculate. Based on Jeff's actions prior to entering the course, I still believe throwing the handle would have been the right thing to do. If a skier is signalling that there is a concern, and decides not to ski because of that concern, I don't think it is much risk at all to throw the handle. Once again, the number one goal of every tournament is to have a safe tournament.

 

Of course, I am assuming that the person that throws the handle is not gaming the system and has integrity.

[markchilcutt]

@Milford you use a key word and that is integrity. I don't personally know J Rogers but I know several people who do and all say the same thing "he is a stand up guy,full of integrity and would never intentionally cheat". If we can all read what @marcusbrown wrote on sunday we might be able to help the future of this dying sport. I do not understand why 35+ yr old men cheat in this sport when they have nothing to gain and everything to loss once they are found out.its not like these dawgs are winning a crazy amount of money. I guess our inflated egos get in the way and we lose sight of our integrity. Hopefully many will learn from this deal, move on and make our dying sport better for everyone at all levels involved especially the youth. http://marcusbrown.net/the-big-dawgbacle-part-2-the-end-of-a-sport

[Klundell]

@horton I understand that with the current skiing culture a handle throw might have been a bigger risk but my question is why is it? Shouldn't we be encouraging the use of this rule rather than encouraging skiers to just ski the mulligan pass and then hope for a re ride after.

[SDNAH2OSKIER]

All I know is that I could have easily downed 2 beers during the delay and so I support rerides as a general rule.

 

[tbrenchley]

I am getting ready to take the test for my senior judge and there are a few things that I want to clear up not only for me but for anyone that reads this thread.

 

First, @Bruce_Butterfield‌ "Once you do your first deep water start, that rule no longer applies."

 

The rule states: If a skier notices that his equipment is damaged AFTER a handle throw, a run that leads to a reride, or a completed pass, BUT PRIOR to the boat starting for the NEXT PASS, the event judges may grant him, upon immediate request, three minutes to repair or change the damaged equipment. (Emphasis added by me)

 

So if I'm reading this right the first deep water start is not the end of this rule's application. It can be used after a handle throw (that is acceptable to the majority of judges) a granted reride or a completed pass. The confusion I have is that the rule 10.11 handle throws says: He shall not be penalized for so doing, provided the refusal was for a reason acceptable to a majority of the event judges and nowhere in the rules is there any list or definition as to what constitutes an "acceptable reason" so I can only assume this is one of those unwritten rules again that we've been talking about all weekend.

 

I don't know if broken equipment would be considered "reasonable" and I would highly doubt I would give @Milford‌ a reride because he couldn't get his boot to snap into place but if his boot connection was broken and it wasn't just operator error I would be more than willing to allow him his 3 minutes to attempt to fix it. I would love to hear from some seasoned judges about any unwritten rules regarding this scenario or something similar.

[LeonL]

Few on BOS are more seasoned than @klindy‌. What say ye Keith?

[theinvisiblesoul]

just ski!!

[tbrenchley]

Why don't you go do that @theinvisiblesoul‌ and we'll keep hanging out here on the forum discussing how we can make the athletes involved and this sport better for all those that choose to participate at every level that is offered. Thank you for your input.

[Drago]

@tbrenchley‌ : in the dark ages , when Bruce and I skiid open, that was the rule (before the opening pass). It is now prior to ANY pass.

[Skihack]

:)

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@tbrenchley‌, that is one of the challenges of being a judge - sometimes the governing rule is in 2 or 3 places in the rulebook. So, yes, 10.01 covers damage prior to starting (no longer applies after deepwater start), 10.11 covers handle throws, 10.15 covers Damaged equipment after a handle throw or between passes, and re-rides. (Yes I cheated and looked them up) It is one of the more difficult jobs of the judge to determine which rule applies to a given situation.

 

I really don't like it when "unwritten rules" gets thrown around. There is no such thing. The confusion sometimes arises because there is no way the rules can envision every possible scenario. I still come across unique situations after more than 30 years in this crazy sport. That's why we have "judges" and most situations require a majority of the event or appointed judges to make a decision. It is very rare when a decision rests with a single individual.

 

FWIW, I have learned a heck of a lot more about the rules by being a skier rather than a judge. Most of my experience comes from having unique situations happen on the other end of the rope.

[ALPJr]

I agree that sportsmanship and integrity in athletics can not be over emphasized. I also believe the officials call is the call. As a volleyball and basketball dad, and a basketball official I would not want players, coaches or fans making or correcting calls. Unless video review is an approved option, than the officials call on the court, the field, or on the pond, is the call. The rules are created through the cooperation of the leadership within each of the organization/leagues, the safety committees and the officials/judges. It is the responsibility of the officials leadership to make sure the officials/judges on the court/pond have the knowledge and skills to perform well at the given level of play. I believe this applies to all levels of sport whether youth, scholastic, novice or professional. Ultimately the league is responsible for creating a fair game and level playing field.

[eleeski]

Somebody sued McDonalds for hot coffee. A lawyer took the case and a jury interpreted the law to find McDonalds guilty. Within the written laws doesn't make it right. Since the title of this thread is conspiracy theory based, I'm convinced that the government was behind all of this so we can only throw tepid coffee at the airport security drink confiscators.

 

We take this way too seriously. Why a bunch of rich old guys get so worked up over four grand is interesting. Perhaps the M1 should get this tour since that money means a lot more to them. And there might be some future skiers developed. And if tricks were offered we'd have controversy to discuss every week!

 

Can I get a Panda now? I do realize that this entire situation is more Panda worthy so my ridiculous comments just don't seem so ridiculous by comparison.

 

Eric

 

[David Miller]

After reviewing everyone comments relating to the controversial call at the Big Dawg I want to make one last comment.

 

This statement was posted earlier by 2788 "We should not be debating what Rodgers Dave Goode Dave miller or Mapple did and be trying to justify or condemn there actions" None of these guys started it was all the Big Dawgs that spoke up.

 

The whole point that most people seem to over look is the fact that the judge should have denied the call based on the fact that everyone of the skiers that have skied in the night finals in the past or that night could have legitimately asked for a re-ride due to lights and distractions. Point being I don't condemn Jeff for asking it just should have been denied based on simple common sense. If I happened to be the chief Judge and was asked for a reride due to lights and distractions I would have to say no. If I would approve a re-ride I know a war would break out with all the other skiers because almost all of them could justify the same call for a re-ride.

 

This is the whole reason everyone got so upset!!!!

 

Oh by the way Marcus great post and nothing against you but I definitely got 2.25 bouys in the prelims! lol

[ForrestGump]

Unwritten rule= no rule at all

[Horton]

@eleeski‌ You don't get pandas when you make sense. Keep trying.

[Texas6]

@eleeski - I have been lobbying for a Panda for months without success; delivered some of my most ridiculous content to bolster my efforts- nothing, nada, zilch, no Panda - If you get one for a reasonable post on rich old guys getting overly worked up, I quit

[Skihack]

What would Jesus do?

[The_MS]

What would Chuck do?

[ski6jones]

 

[The_MS]

Rooster

[sunperch]

@MS @ski6jones sounds like we already had TX law, now we should consult lawyer J. Noble Daggett from 'Dardanelle and Yell counties.

[MISkier]

I'm not going to get into taking sides on this, but I do have a hypothetical question:

 

I have a 850,000 candlepower handheld spotlight. You can feel heat on your face from 4 feet away. You're going to notice this when I'm using it. I'm not dumb enough to bring this to the Big Dawg finals, but let's suppose I was.

 

Let's suppose I want to use that spotlight instead of my wimpy old camera flash to get some really good shots of my favorite skier during the night finals. To my dismay, I actually end up disrupting the run and affect the score. What would be done then regarding any request or granting of a re-ride?

 

Now let's suppose I have that same spotlight, but I intend to use it while the skier competing against my favorite skier is skiing. This time, I intend to disrupt the run and affect the score. Now, what would be done regarding any request or granting of a re-ride?

 

In both runs, I affect the skier not the driver or any judges.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@miskier, that's exactly why a "no-reride" rule is a bad idea. We have judges to decide if whatever circumstances gave one skier a disadvantage over another and warrant a re-ride or not.

[MattP]

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif

 

[A_B]

The headlights weren't turned on and off, it was Bigfoot walking in front of them.