Masters Mens Slalom Final Drama

[LeonL]

Cluster f*** if I've ever seen one. No wonder competitive skiing is falling on hard times. I've seen Nate ski on numerous occasions, from the boat and from the shore. Over the last three years I've never seen him come up short at one ball at 41. 43, yes. So, as @webbdawg99 said, if looked suspiciously like the rope was at 43. Seeing as how it's a "R" it's kinda standard practice to use the required video to view the rope and pylon prior to then start of the pass. Is this video available? Or is it a moot point now? Not really moot if put on the wrong loop and NOT videoed either! If that happened the judge needs to be made aware of his/her mistake, the better to pay more attention next time. I'm sure a lot of you guys are aware that once you get to 38, you're not pulling much rope in each shortening. If you're not really in the game it's easy to pull two loops in. Also as someone else asked "who were those judges anyway"?

[Skiwoodgate]

The webcast commentators probably wasn't commenting on what was going on as I'm sure they were as perplexed by it all as much as we all were. This slalom final was full of drama for all the wrong reasons.

[Wish]

@Skiwoodgate exactly.

[webbdawg99]

Did they EVER officially announce Nate the winner?? Not on the webcast...unless it was during the 10 seconds I stepped away. My buddy that was there was under the impression that Freddie had won. The lack of communication makes it even more irritating.

[Texas6]

So have we confirmed they gave it to Nate?

[Horton]

Yes yes Nate gets title

[webbdawg99]

I can't wait for the Zapruder film that shows Fred's ski outside of 6 to surface

[klindy]

@webbdawg99 funny!!

[webbdawg99]

It'll be followed by the Patterson-Giblin film that shows that Nate was on the 43 loop when he came back after running 39.

[LeonL]

Nate announced as winner via USAWS email and on the website.

[ozski]

Oooppppps

 

 

 

 

[webbdawg99]

Yea....waterski mag clearly isn't reading ballofspray today. ha

 

[ToddL]

Webcast - This was the best pause frame that I could find of Freddy's 6-ball. Too close for me to call. Looking at the trail of the ski's path, it was damn close to being good. The arrow points to 6-ball.

 

 

[Horton]

@Toddl if it is too close to call then he should get it.

 

That one video frame may or may not be totally misleading. If that is what the judges saw (and I have no idea what they saw) then they F****ed Freddie out of a Masters title. (sort of... had his score been clear and had Nate gotten 41 after 39.... Everything would be clear)

[ToddL]

Yeah, it's all messed up, @Horton.

 

So, I haven't seen anyone post the summary of what all seemed to have happened... Here's what I understand:

Freddy skis up to 39, during his 39 pass he is late out of 5-ball and with a beyond human effort goes for 6, makes a turn with a ton of slack and somehow keeps the handle and skis away through the gates. He then takes a shot at 41 and gets three.

Then, while Nate is on the starting dock waiting to start his set, word comes out that Freddy's 6-ball at 39 was cut. At this point, Nate must get 5.5 at 39 or better. Nate gets to 39 and runs it without question. Nate has just beat Freddy. Nate takes a shot at 41. Has a great gate, but somehow comes up short, like his ski started to come around too soon, and he does not even round 1 ball.

Meanwhile, the judges have been reviewing video and while Nate is skiing back to the dock, the scoreboard is updated to reinstate Freddy's 3 @ 41 score.

At this point, I'm not sure what happened next, but I can only assume that Nate protested that had he known that Freddy's 3@ 41 score was valid, then Nate would have gone full out to better that score instead of pulling up short coming into 1-ball.

Eventually, Nate is declared the winner.

 

Did I get it correct? Miss anything?

[Horton]

rumor has it the boat crew screwed up and shorten Nate from 39 to 43

[ToddL]

Yeah, I heard that rumor, too. Wasn't sure if it has been confirmed.

[Stevie Boy]

So why didn,t they put both skiers out on the water again ?

[DanE]

Because they had to get the all- important wakeskate finals going.

Never seen such a lame on- water exhibiton before.

 

[webbdawg99]

That summary sounds pretty accurate to me.

 

There should be boat video showing what loop Nate was on after running 39. I've heard that it was confirmed he was on 41.

 

So let's assume that Freddie DID get around 6 and that Nate did come back at 41. Would you say that Freddie deserves the win? I would say that Nate got screwed in that scenario because he was trying to beat 5@39 and not 3@41.

 

As I said before, the whole thing sucks no matter how you slice it.

 

Someone needs to come out and explain what really happened. Nate, Freddie, the spectator and supporters all deserve better.

 

All this being said, I heard that both Nate and Freddie got to watch the video of Freddie's 39 and that 5 was the right call. In the end, I hope they got it right, and I believe that they did. But the whole scenario of how it played out is more than disappointing.

[liquid d]

If that photo is the only thing to go on, 5 should be the call. No way from trail, did the entire ski go outside the bouy. Maybe the tip goes over it, but that would be some serious displacement. In either event, the call should have been made before Nate skied.

[Texas6]

Man he's late in that picture; look how far down course he is. I honestly thought there was no way he held that slack at six ball. What an awesome display of determination and an awesome pass.

[Wish]

Everyone is assuming the scoreboard and announcers got it right when they gave him the 6 ball. It becomes much less complicated if he was never given 6 through the entire process.

[LeonL]

Now here's a harken back to a thread from about a year ago. It was about honesty and integrity with regards to taking what the judges called as opposed what you knew you actually scored. Don't you think that Freddie knew whether he was outside 6 or not?

[webbdawg99]

I disagree wish. I'm not assuming the scoreboard and announcers got it right. It would be quite an easy "sorry we were wrong and spoke too soon"..... But they never explained that they got it wrong. The lack of clarification for what actually happened is inexplicable.

[Wish]

@webbdawg99 agree

[Bulldog]

Has any official summary come out from the Masters??

[kstateskier]

According to rule 9.02 Freddie or his representative cannot protest the judges score of his slalom pass. However Nate or his representative could protest his 41 pass IF he felt the rope was on the wrong loop. Which means the judges either couldn't agree/settle on Freddie's score and then changed their minds.

 

9.02: Allowable Reasons for Protests

 

Protests shall be allowed only for failure of the tournament committee, officials, judges, calculators to comply with these rules and only if this non-compliance with rules has an adverse effect on a skier. No protest shall ever be permitted on a judgment decision by the Judges.

 

I find it hard to believe Nate wouldn't at least try to beat the course record knowing how well he's been skiing 41. Which tells me its possible something was off the way he stood up on his 41 pass awkwardly going towards 1 ball.

 

So who has the video of the loop on Nate's last pass?

[ToddL]

During the women's final, there was a lot of activity on the dock prior to Regina hopping into the water. The web cast video clearly showed people helping her deal with a front binding buckle issue and were helping to duct tape her binding closed. The announcers never commented on that activity but they clearly noticed the delay.

 

It makes me wonder if sometimes the announcers know what is happening and choose to not openly discuss it. I can see how that may be a better strategy.

 

When there are close calls and controversy, the announcers can discuss it openly or keep silent until a decision is made. I think keeping silent is often the better approach, given the variety of knowledge among the spectators. There is no need to clue in the whole crowd to the drama. Those who have a clue already know mostly that something is up.

 

It is unfortunate that in this instance they were not able to communicate the final decision prior to the start of the next event.

 

[gregoryhcain]

Before I watched this I was lamenting the fact that it wasn't broadcast on ESPN or Fox or something. Now I'm glad it wasn't.....how embarrassing for our sport!!!

 

On the other hand, the head to heads in the junior slalom final and the Big Dawg final were much more fun to watch. I think we need to scrap the current format for final placing and go to head to head for the final places. Then we might get TV back....asuming we can get our judging act together.

[Wish]

Head to head yes. Head to head with 2 parallel courses (plenty room on Robin) a 1000x better. And they could take more skiers into the finals.

[mwetskier]

@gregoryhcain -no network production in the past ever broadcast a water skiing event *live* as far as i know. too many variables and possible time delays to chance not fitting into a limited time slot. so all of what is being discussed in this thread would have gone unseen on a *real* tv broadcast.

[ozski]

7 network here in Australia broadcast Moomba live back in the 90's and it was awesome.

[disland]

Interesting question. Are announcers at the Masters "reporters" or paid spokespeople for Correct craft who are paid to deliver the carefully crafted messages? I noticed they never discuss who is on what ski, who has changed skis etc. And they never dive into any controversy of any type.

[Edbrazil]

Noting @mwetskier posting above:

 

I certainly remember the Moomba live broadcasts. I worked that event from 1982 to 1991

inclusive. Pretty sure that Glenn Thurlow's 202' (first over 200') was shown live. They also

had video replays, to some extent. My computer was rigged so that it would send out jump

distances to be pasted on the TV screen automatically. I definitely hesitated a few seconds

before sending out the 202' 61.5m. Different sense of pace in OZ, at least back then. Lots

of downtime with the boat sitting at the ends waiting for water to calm a bit.

 

Back in the days of the PAWS Tour, in 1990, they attempted to do live broadcasts. I worked 2

of these events. The first went off without a hitch, even though the jump ramp had to move

out of the way for Slalom, and quickly brought into place after slalom, during a commercial

break. This was in Charlotte North Carolina, I believe. At the next event, in Toronto, at the

site where the 1979 Worlds had been produced, they almost made it with the live broadcast.

Last event, and last jumper Sammy Duvall on the water, when a soaking rain hit.

 

Maybe a half hour delay until he could get back on the water to finish up. By that time, the

TV "window" had expired, and the live TV part ended with the announcers, who were outside,

trying to cover up, as they and their electronic gear got soaked.

[Horton]

@disland they are paid by Correct Craft. I couldn't begin to guess how much specific direction they get.

[kfennell]

You couldn't? I could. It was like this. Please say Nautique 200 at least 75 times per hour, preferably 200 times.

[RAWSki]

I was there and they never even announced the final winner to the crowd. Only heard about it on the beach. Too bad it was a great event and some great skiing by both men.

[TallSkinnyGuy]

@disland The waterski industry is not big enough to attract much non-industry media. Most likely the announcers are neither "reporters" nor "paid spokespeople" but rather were likely hired by the event producer. I used to work for a company that sponsored sports events. If the Masters is anything like the events we sponsored (which it probably is) then there is an event producer that runs the event and hires all the staff and media talent. This event producer sells sponsorships to pay for event costs and to make enough profit for them to continue producing the event.

 

Nautique was the title sponsor and therefore most likely wrote a check to the event producer, but Correct Craft most likely had very little (if any) involvement in hiring any event staff. The announcers' job is to make the event be perceived by the audience as professional, well run and interesting. And, as @kfennell said, the announcers should provide the event sponsors with numerous "mentions" as this is an important form of advertising that helps make the event worth sponsoring.

 

I think it is probably a good thing for the sport that any controversies or anything that makes the industry look unprofessional or unattractive to a broader audience be kept as quiet as possible to that broader audience (however, it needs to be discussed "internally" to motivate improvement). If the industry manufacturers are going to keep improving their products like we want them to do, they need a lot more support than the core enthusiasts reading this forum can provide.

[Kelvin]

@TallSkinnyGuy For the Masters and any other event Nautique sponsors, the event producer IS Nautique (or at least a subsidiary owned by Correct Craft).

[DefectiveDave]

That was one impressive 39' by Freddie, but I can see why it was a tough call. Unfortunately the judging shenanigans do leave a sour taste in my mouth (regardless of who really won).

 

Oh well, can't wait to see the rematch at Little Mountain.

[RAWSki]

Oh the announcers were a Constant commercial for Nautique along with some of the other sponsors, it was a little over the top but I understand that if it wasn't for Correct Craft, GM Marine, PCM and others an event like that couldn't happen so I was fine with taking it all in.

Enjoyed when they put guests in the booth like Andy too. But there has to be some integrity in the competition and judging. I still highly recommend attending if you at all possible.

[Wish]

I love how it is assumed the judges did "shananegans" or lost "integrity". What makes you all think they did not follow this to the letter of the rule book. Yes yes it all looks bad on the surface and the announcers may have jumped the gun and announced a bit to quick and left out who won but behind the scenes is an unknown. And quite possibly was done perfectly judge wise.

[aupatking]

Like you said @Wish the announcers aren't judging. They only announced what they were told. You guys pay for an event. Ask the announcers to, above all, avoid saying your company name.

[TallSkinnyGuy]

@Kelvin While possible, it would be highly unusual for a company like Correct Craft to produce all the events they sponsor. For example, they sponsor the California Waterski Pro Am that I have attended last year and the prior year -- my understanding is that the Badals produce this event. Regardless, sponsors should get what they pay for and sponsors want controversies that could negatively impact the event to be mitigated.

[Kelvin]

I know that Correct Craft has an event production subsidiary. When we held a Big Dawg qualifier back in 2010, they had a contract for us to sign. For our event, it was largely about making sure we had enough Nautique banners, etc as the local club did all the work.

[ntx]

What @Kelvin said. Nautique is the masters and all that goes with it. It has been like that forever. I like the fact that they have a webcast. Did I say I like that there was a webcast. Remember that the next time you say. Why was there not a webcast??

[Texas6]

We've beat this to a pulp; it was a mistake. It looked stupid, but nobody did it on purpose, or with lack of integrity. The announcers did an awesome job and I enjoyed watching every minute of it. I just hope we get more webcasts

[skidawg]

@kfennell is correct, I heard wakeboarder (don't remember his name) scored a perfect 100 made history, first time ever behind the G23-he never woulda done it wo the new G23, blah blah blah

[TrickyTom]

FYI: Heard that Nate & Freddie will be meeting again on Saturday May 30, 2015 at the Swiss Pro Slalom competition, a $10,000 Cash Prize Event at the Swiss Ski School in Clermont Florida. Will be exciting to watch.