Masters Mens Slalom Final Drama

[Wish]

They meet sooner then that.

[Horton]

I am not sure why the announcers are the subject of of interest. Tyler Boyd is a legit skier, a ridiculously talented human and nice guy. He was doing what he was paid to do. I have never met Dano. If they got crap info they did what they could with that info.

 

The problem is what happened with the officiating. Why was Nate allowed ski before Freddie's score was final? How do you explain Nate's rope being shortened from 39 to 43? How could Freddie's score be revised so many times? (from what I understand it was revised 3 + times but that is a rumor) If a number of judges were unable to make a clear call why did they keep reviewing and reviewing? I understand that one of the final calls was made by an additional judge - not one of the assigned event judges.

 

One point that no one is talking about. There is no judge or camera on the far side of the course. So all views of the 6 ball were on the 1/3/5 side of the lake. You can see from the pavilion but you can not see great. @bishop8950 will can tell you guys that a judge (or photographer) on the other side of the course can see what the other judges can not.

[webbdawg99]

@Horton "How do you explain Nate's rope being shortened from 39 to 43? " Do you have information indicating this is more than just a rumor? I heard that Nate was initially questioning if the rope had been cut to 43 but that it was later confirmed that it was on 41.

[Ralph Lee]

All views of 6 were from the opposite side of the lake?!?! Absolutely Absurd!

[Horton]

@webbdawg99 your rumor is as plausible as my rumor. I was told that is what happened but I don't know for sure

[Wish]

@Horton The original call was in disagreement between judges it goes to video review but the skier (Freddy) does not and is not made to stop skiing. He is supposed to keep skiing. So Freddy gets 3@41 at that point. But then the review comes back as no 6 ball after he is done and before Nate skis. Freddy, within a practical time frame, protests. A new video review with new judges takes place and it again it comes back no. During protest, Nate skis. What or when he was told 6@39 wins, I do not know. Plausible?. And all by the book. While the announcers are outstanding and I have met them both. They were given poor information and never corrected it. It was announced several ways. Perhaps accounting for your 3 revisions. I take nothing away from them and no one else should. They were just doing their job and reporting what they heard or were told. I do believe there is some physical separation between them and the judges reviewing tape.

[Ed_Johnson]

Clearly in the Video, when Nate pulled out after returning from his 41 pass, to the dock, the rope was set at 41.Shows it on the pylon in the Video, 1:37:34, PINK...Unless they changed it back from 43 when he dropped at the far end of the Lake, it was at 41 when he dropped at the Dock...It did look like he quickly may have reacted, and stood up for rollers, coming into one at 41...In any regards, it was great skiing, in tough conditions, by both Freddy and Nate, and I consider them both Winners !!!

[auskier]

@Horton said it.. Also, a 'review judge' is not an appointed judge, or is his/her score used to gain a score. It ultimately comes down to the cheif judges decision if the event judges can not make a decision. see world rule 14:11

This not an issue of integrity or manipulation, its a problem with the rules and the constraints that are constantly increasing on the sport.

I have been a technical controller at moomba for 8 years. I dont need to tell any follower of our sport there has been a number of contentious issues at moomba in recent years. Some of these are due to unavoidable aspects of the site. For example; how often do pro skiers train in a situation where you need to pull out for your gates as the boat is straightening, zero off is engaging, pulling out into a strong head current while dodging plastic bottles? It causes issues.

This year, we decided to not use video from the boat, therefore not being an R class event. Instead, we used 5 senior, world class judges on each side of the lake. Anyone remember the Billy Susi incident? Having a high quality video feed from the boat is near impossible at a place like moomba or callaway, short of a few hundred thousand dollars worth of professional equipment. That leaves us with commercial grade equipment. Add in interference from the city, 100,000 people with electronic devices in the visible area, it all impacts on quality of video transmission. In years gone past, we have turned on receivers and watched security camera footage in the city. It is a noisy area for transmitted signals. At moomba, the direction of the river and the sun causes significant issues in the afternoon as the sun is almost directly behind the skier around 1-3-5 going away from the city. Put all these factors together and it makes it difficult for a judge to make a decision on whether or not a skier went around a bit of rubber a few inches above the water, while the skier is probably travelling 40+mph when you need it most. This review capability is supposed to clarify errors beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately the use of boat video, in the way the rules are written, often only causes more confusion. This situation is just another example of it.

 

As it stands, there is too much unknown. Did the boat judge call 6 and without knowing otherwise, not hearing the radio bring freddy back at 41? Was the score always 5 and the person in charge of the scoreboard put up 3 at 41? Was the boat told to bring Nate on? The public dont know when, where or how the scores swapped to and from 5 at 39 to 3 at 41.

Dont blame the judges, blame the complexity of the judging rules and system that they are bound by.

[LeonL]

Two shore judges sitting side by side, using video for gates is a common practice, within the rules, but a piss poor alternative to having judges on each side. They're gonna see the exact same view. Oh, and @wish there is no protest allowable to the skier in regards to a judgement call.

[skierjp]

Also I believe judges are only allowed to review the video twice. This rule came about from a few years back with Nates gates at The Masters. Of course if the skier protest and puts up the money then it can be reviewed again.

 

[webbdawg99]

@Wish On the webcast, before Nate left the dock, there was a shot from the boat camera of him looking into the boat, holding up a 5, asking 5, then nodding his head in confirmation. At this point, I thought to myself, they must have scored Freddie 5@39. Then 5 seconds later, the announcers said that Freddie's score was 5@39. I believe that Nate was told 5@39 was Freddie's score prior to being pulled into the course for his first pass

[ForrestGump]

Tyler is a real deal skier who's family lineage goes back to the beginning of the modern day era of waterskiing along with Horton's. His mom has even participated in the Masters tournament in the early 70s. So he knows what he's doing and what he's talking about.

 

I've been on the announcers stage with Tyler and some of the other announcers at a few different pro events. As well as being an announcer with Horton at Big Dawg. At the pro events, the announcers were typically distant from the officials. In one case, we were on the other side of the lake from the officials. So I was the one with my ear to the officials radio feeding the announcers the information that was coming across the radio so they would know what to tell the spectators and webcast. The information they announce is only as good as what comes over that radio. And there were numerous times where information wasn't exactly crystal clear. Mainly because there's no set standard for information to be delivered. You're hearing back and forth talk between judges and officials and you can't discern who's speaking in a lot of cases. So it's really easy to "hear" something that is not official or not yet validated as correct. The Big Dawg that Horton and I and then Jeff Greathouse and I did were much easier because the officials were 5 feet away.

 

 

[MrJones]

Talked to a friend who was there. From his vantage point he felt it was clear that Fred didn't get around 6. From my vantage on the web I don't see how he could have gotten around it. Over it yes, but not around.

 

Fred's 39 was amazing in its athleticism and tenacity. Absolutely inspiring to watch. Nate's was amazing for being on the other end of the spectrum. Total control, balance, and timing. Looked like he was cruising a 32 off around 5 to 6. It's going to be great watching these two guys go at it for the next few years.

 

As for the announcers. What do you expect? This is a Nautique event with the webcast and announcers paid by the sponsors. They are going to tow the party line. I understand that and am very happy to have a very good quality webcast and announcing as I sit all day and watch it rain. Good job Tyler.

[Chef23]

I missed the controversy and haven't had a chance to catch the webcast. Regarding the announcers though I don't have an issue with the job they did. The sponsors fund the webcast and I watched a bunch of it on Friday and Saturday and loved the fact that it was available. If they have to pump Nautique that is fine with me in exchange for live coverage of the Masters.

[klindy]

@Horton, you said, "One point that no one is talking about. There is no judge or camera on the far side of the course. So all views of the 6 ball were on the 1/3/5 side of the lake. You can see from the pavilion but you can not see great. @bishop8950 will can tell you guys that a judge (or photographer) on the other side of the course can see what the other judges can not."

 

Come on man, you know the rules better than that! There is a camera IN THE BOAT! The webcast shows very clear, high qaulity video sent wirelessly to the shore. The rules are very clear that, "when boat video is available", it can be reviewed to see if the skier made it around all the buoys. Certainly the initial call is made with judges either watching in real time (on the water) and/or video monitors which may be any number of vantage points including from the boat. I don't know what video angle was available this time.

 

@skierjp And that video can be viewed as many times as needed, slow-mo, regular speed, freeze frame or whateer to make the right call. In Tricks, you can see the review once at regular speed. Not so for slalom.

[E_T]

The thing that ticks me off the most is there is a judges tower in the water at the 6 ball at the south end of the lake. There should be a judge or camera there...

[Freddie Winter]

I don't know if people are still interested in what happened but I can give my account of how it happened.

At 39 I totally screwed up bouy 4 and 5 but got a lean on into 6, threw the ski out, took a big hit and got through the exits. Being totally honest about it I wouldn't put my life on if I got around it. My initial thought and lasting impression is that I did but there was a lot of spray and waves, especially with the cross wind coming from that side of the lake. Anyway, when I was in the water after that pass no one mentioned reviewing the pass so I assumed I had it. I then managed 3@41 which I thought gave me a decent shot at the title.

A couple of minutes after I got back to the dock I was told that my score had been moved back to 5@39 after a review. I then went and asked for a further review from the judges in the pavilion, which is allowed at any IWWF tournament with a fee if the decision is not overturned, which of course I was prepared to pay. I waited and watched Nate ski. As he ran that ridiculously easy 39 I was told that my score had again been changed back to 3@41 which I was pretty elated about. I am told that Nate, after thinking he had won with 6@39, was told as he dropped in he needed to beat 3@41. We all then saw him go inside of 1. I am also told that the line being at 43 and not 41 is a false rumour.

My feeling at the time was that it wasn't fair for Nate that he didn't know the score to beat until the last minute so I assumed he would be granted a reride at 41 to try to beat my score. However, after another 30 or 40 minutes, during which time my score was reviewed again after another protest, this time from Nate, we were told by the chief judge that the decision was that my score was again reset back to 5@39 and the decision was final. I could not review it again meaning Nate was Masters Champion. I wasn't incredibly happy that they had again taken back a score that they had confirmed as 3@41 twice but I understand it's tough for them.

Nate and I were then allowed to watch the video that they judged it from. They use the boat video that has been sent via wireless communication to the tower, which is compressed and low quality as a result. I honestly couldn't see from the video if the ski was inside or outside of the bouy as it was pretty blurry and low quality and contrast (I'm slightly colourblind). All I know is that it was close enough for it to be given, then taken away, then reviewed further and reinstated and then finally taken away.

The result of all this confusion is that I lost out on a big title which is upsetting. However, Nate and I remain friends and we understand that, at this point, this sort of thing is part of the sport. My lasting thought on it is how much of a shame it is that the title came down to an off water decision instead of a definitive on the water display.

[Horton]

At this point I have spoken to a few folks that were there and think I understand what happened. Basically Nate knew that Fred’s 6 ball was in question so he protested for further review. After a lot of scrutiny the call was basically that he was within an inch or so. It was something like “part of his binding was outside the ball”. If that call was correct or not – I have no idea. I tend to give the judges credit for doing the best they can.

 

All the delay and all the confusion with the announcing sucks but it is result of the taking time to review. At least part of the problem is the Masters is a show. Then need to keep it going. For the skiers it is about the title and the check. This is the same problem as any pro event.

 

@klindy My comment about no camera angle from 2/4/6 is just that. Sometimes you can see better from the other side of the lake. Judging from the boat and from the 1/3/5 side is great but it is not the whole picture. If Fred did not go around the ball => that may be best seen from the other side of the lake.

 

[webbdawg99]

Somehow this conversation got flipped to the announcers. If Freddie's account above is accurate, the judges basically overturned themselves multiple times. How can that happen????

[swaterkd]

I feel that if they had just let Nate ski going after 3@41 and reviewed it after this would all be easier or reviewed it before letting Fred try 41. I also think both Nate and Fred have handled his drama very well.

[Horton]

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[skierjp]

Klindy, page 52, 2.C // 2015 rule book. This is in reference to gates but I would assume it would include other calls.

[RAWSki]

My early post about the announcers was not intended as a complaint about them it was a statement that it was very disappointing that once Nate was finally determined to be the winner the Masters management/event producer/or whomever ---never got word to the audience. They could have easily taken 45 seconds between Mens and Women's wake boarding to announce the final decision but they didn't at least I never saw or heard anything.

[swerveit]

The people that lost were both Nate and Freddie, and to a certain extent the sport as a whole.

I'm sure Nate wouldn't want the win like this and Freddie is devastated. Maybe I'm biased but he's a true sportsman. Having played other sports with him (that he thankfully is not professional in) he still does the "the right thing" when its a questionable call. I feel that both Nate and Fredd got scr*wed on this one....

 

I've been in judging towers and its organised chaos, been commentating and the information you get is really no better than what you heard at the masters. Being in the boat when someones skiing in 39/41; is frankly scary!!! Fred will spray you in the boat, you honestly want to hide behind the engine. Skier, Handle feels like its coming into the boat at any minute, and its going to take your head off! so making calls is extremely tricky.

Having said that: I have never seen such a catasrophic debacle in any comp, Ranking or inter-club. Im not an expert on the rules but multiple score changes while someone is skiing I know is

not fair, (for either skier) 3 score changes? bit of a joke, extremely disappointing.

 

Some other obsivations:

"But the show must go on" - if we had a slalom event in the middle of a wake comp it would kick off!! I got the impression it was very rushed due to the importance of wake events...

Also our rules are so complicated, I mean we are talking Theoretical string theory, for going around 6 buoys?! the more complicated something is the more likely it is to fail. so many comps have these stupid situations in... the rules need to be re written and simplified. They were likely created when wooden skis were in distribution, evolve!

 

on a separate note has anyone got the 6 ball 39 on video? that was ridiculous, and the hit out of the gates...... pfffft!

[Horton]

Error. .... with all the posting I missed that @FWinter himself gave his account. If you missed it go back a page.

[Bulldog]

@OB best post of the thread. Sometimes this sport really needs to act like it can be run in a truly professional way. We have had too many of these come up in the last few years...(Dr J, flashing lights, etc) Lots of people want to see the sport grow but that will never happen with this kind of BS happening at least once every season.

[klindy]

@skierjp I'm not sure what rule you're referencing since there isn't a 2015 rule book and page 52 deals with head-to-head.

 

But on page 38 under rule 14.11 it does say that "A gate can be reviewed, as described above, for a maximum of 2 times, then the call has to be made." Previously on page 37 the same rule says "Video gate review may be done at normal speed, slow motion or frame by frame in order to get the right score."

 

EDIT - wait, I see you're looking at the AWSA rule book. Same basic languange but this tournament is run under IWWF rules. That said, the "review 2 times" deals with gates specifically.

[crashman]

All this being said, it looks like we have some great competition to look forward to between FW and Nate. This could be an awesome long term rivalry.

[Horton]

@FWinter did in fact get 3 @ 41 at Robin Lake. That is one hell of a achievement even if his 39 is in question.

[gjohnson]

FWIW, 4 @ 10.25m/-41 is the course record on Robin Lake.

[Stathis Ventouris]

Unfortunate that such a great competition with incredible skiing by both Nate and Freddie was decided by poor judging

[webbdawg99]

It'll never happen. Nobody wants to take responsibility or to be held accountable.

[ToddL]

I'm impressed with the statements that @FWinter has put out there. I know he is disappointed since he is really shaking up the pro scene lately. I know I am looking forward to more impressive skiing by our top athletes this season.

 

I wanted to offer one different perspective, but note this is NOT a criticism of Freddy. My son plays youth baseball and often there are close calls at a base. He has at times gotten really worked up about a call not being correct. My response to him was always, "next time, don't make it so difficult for the referee/umpire." I say it is jest in this context, but the point is when you are at the top of your game, your score and performance are less subject to scrutiny.

 

Freddy said it himself, he had an issue 4-5 and went crazy all out at 6. He had little expectation that he cleanly turned 6 ball. Then, Freddy commented about how smooth Nate's -39 was. I look forward to Freddy's upcoming -39 passes as I am sure he is only going to get smoother and then really show us some true grit at -41 and beyond.

[ToddL]

@OB, Clearly I don't/didn't play baseball. What do you call the field officials then? I though "Umpire" was reserved for the guy behind the plate. We always yell, "Hey Blue..."

[Jody_Seal]

All of the officials are umpire's in baseball except the scorekeeper. The guy behind the plate is the head umpire and can over rule any call the field umpire's make.

[ToddL]

OK. Thanks, @OB / @Jody_Seal!

 

Now, we return you to your regularly scheduled Slalom discussion.

[Kelvin]

There's a difference in baseball. When there is a close call or some of the umpires didn't get a clear view, the huddle and discuss it to make an attempt to get the call right. On the other hand, in waterskiing, all of the event judges get an equal vote on close calls - even the ones that don't have the best vantage point and discussions aren't allowed. Plus, until recently, MLB didn't use any technology, they just rolled with the calls from the umpires based on a single view in realtime and there was a whole lot more money riding on those outcomes.

[webbdawg99]

So I'm not intimately familiar with the rules. My question to all you senior judges/rules experts out there is this: Under IWWF rules, is there a mechanism or procedure in place that could allow a call to be overturned more than once? What is the potential scenario that could have played out here that would be allowed under those rules?

[Horton]

All slalom rides end in failure. That is the nature of the event.

"next time, don't make it so difficult for the referee/umpire." really?

 

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[disland]

I will say again what I have been saying for 2 years. Get rid of boat video. Its not helping. Its a judgement call. There are judges on both sides of the lake, Thats what that floating tower is out there is for. I have been on that tower during the Masters and you can see great. Judges make the call. On the spot in real time. Decision is final. Done. Next skier. That being said I am not out there. So Freddie, Nate which would you prefer?

[kfennell]

Bad boat video is not helping, if you had a GH4 with 1080p/60 All-intra and pulled the memory card after every skiier for review there would never be any question. The all-intra compression is important as it means that the compression for each frame is unique, so you don't get any "ghosting" between frames, and you can stop on any given frame and get a perfect picture.

 

Don't say you can't because of cost either because a GH4 and lens cost less then one of the 4 sets of HD video transmitters they were using at the event, and you could always rent one for less then the cost of one skiiers entry fee.

[disland]

@kfennell the last thing we need is more tech. I can imagine IWWF already writing up minimum camera specs. We need to make it easier to run tournaments not harder. Its not about just $$$, TC's already have too much crap to deal with.

[kfennell]

@disland IMO it should NOT be easy to put on an elite tournament, it should be done in a way that they get it RIGHT. Now for a regular L etc that is a different story, but for a tournament that decides the fate of so much money....

[disland]

@kfennell Well thats a different problem because the rule book has only very small differences between L and R. Even with great video, you still open up the opportunity for delay and over rules and screw ups. Judgment calls need to remain judgement calls. Thats why they dont use a computer to call balls and strikes, even though everyone knows a computer with a few lasers would do a better job at it.

[matthewbrown]

The original call should have been completely finalized before @FWinter ever started his 41 off pass. Once he was allowed to enter the course at 41, the video from the boat that could not CLEARLY confirm or deny his score at 39 should of been a thing of the past. You can't do that to an athlete, that has been training his entire life for that one moment, just pull the rug right out from underneath him. And in Nate's case, the onus is on the event organizers to have their shit together enough to at least give that athlete the courtesy of clearly knowing where he stands and what he needs to do. It all boils down to this, when if ever will it be more about the athletes, and less about the people who put on the show?

[webbdawg99]

@matthewbrown I agree with you. However, there have been instances in the past where the review left a skier sitting in the water for an extended period of time between passes. Id rather let that athlete keep skiing. Then take your time doing the review after.....and get it right......before the next skier comes off the dock

[Jody_Seal]

 

[matthewbrown]

@webbdawg99 I agree with you that in this particular case, this is probably what should of happened. However, doing it that way still leaves doubt in the mind of Freddy. He knows now that there is a slight chance his score could be changed. Whereas, if the call was made decisively with no doubts he could continue on his merry way, skiing like a possessed animal completely in the zone. At an event like this, you would think that the organizers would know the psyche of a skier and make sure that it is catered to properly. Perhaps next year they will find a way to be better prepared.

[Horton]

@matthewbrown for president

[Jordan]

I will point out the one thing that we learned...on a positive note, FWinter is an absolute beast! How he even had a shot at 6 ball is ridiculous...then that held on to that slack hit out of 6? Holy crap!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It is also kind of nice to see a power skier takin' care of business!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!