Bad Judging - Time to stop being nice about it

[adam]

The Last Nationals I went to, the new rule where you can get DQ'd for holding on to slack to get the full buoy had just been added. I believe it was 2010 at OKE. I was near the end on the low seed lake (turnpike). High seeds were on the GS lake. I skied completely around 4 ball at 38 and had slack so I let go. The previous year, I could have easily gotten the full 4. I expected to get 3.5 and was enough to give me 11th or 12th since the conditions weren't that good. The boat gave me 3.5 and ALL 4 towers gave me 3. I ended up with 3 at 38 and somewhere in the low 20s and my placement. I spoke with the boat judge afterwards and asked him if there was ANY doubt that I went around 4 ball and he said no. I was actually disappointed with only getting 4 ball since I was starting to run it regularly. Getting 3 was adding insult. So much for benefit of doubt. That was my last tournament. The other issue I had was the high seeds skied on a different lake that had much better conditions and a much much MUCH better driver. If 1/2 of the skiers skied on the high seed lake, I would have skied there, but the split was not at the halfway point. I am a regular judge and actually judged at that nationals. I was amazed at how one judge makes the call and the other judge never disagreed. The other judge in tower with me was very old and was not paying that close attention to the skiing. He never went against any of my calls. I always give the skier the benefit of doubt.

 

I know it is adding to the cost of tournaments, but I think the 1/4, 1/2, and whole buoy calls should be made from the boat either with two judges there or a camera that the shore judges can view. As a judge, the 3 and 4 buoy can be very hard to call, but the view from the boat would make it an easy call.

 

My other nit is I think the entire division should be run on the same lake and boat and perferably the same driver.

 

Just my .02 FWIW.

[brettmainer]

The entire sport is getting older...

[6balls]

In tower 1...I can only really call gates and 3 (and that's at a site with kick ass towers). Yet here I am calling six or whatever else. I can't tell if someone gives it hell to six and goes just inside.

Boat sees all. Tower 1 sees start gates and 1-3, tower 2 sees 4-6 and end gates. Not too hard to fix this.

[adam]

I'm not sure if what I typed came across as I intended, but I agree with 6balls with a clarification. I think the tower is the best place to call only the entrance gate from the closest gate to that tower. A camera could replace the tower judges. I believe the boat is the best place to call all 6 buoys AND the exit gate. The tower judges should never overrule what the boat calls for anything other than the entrance gates unless they have access to a view from the boat such as with a camera feed to the tower. Using the current judging scheme, the tower judges could do a better job just monitoring the gate camera and boat feeds. The tower judges could basically sit anywhere (even in an air conditioned space) and in the cases of two judges in the same tower, they would have to make their own calls independently because they don't have to be co-located.

[lpskier]

@Hockdog Rules say one boat judge. If it's a R tournament you have a driver, judge and video operator. #iskiconnelly.

[LeonL]

@skierjp this has nothing to do with judging, just integrity amd a moral compass. The skier that KNEW he missed, so much so that he let the handle go, but yet he was willing to continue to ski due to a judge's error speaks volumes about his personal honesty.

[Moskier3ev]

I agree with Joe Darwin on boat video being the best. The problem I have it needs to be standardized. I went to a tourney last year at certain parts of the day you could not destiquish where the bouy was from the video. If it is to be used it needs to be raised about 2 ft. Above the top of the pylon. Or have requirements on the set up of the camera in the boat.

[ToddL]

Camera quality, monitor quality, glare, rough water, poor color saturation on the monitors, etc. all contribute to the issues with a video solution. I have watched slalom video where the buoys all looked like black shadows which blended into the waves from a decent breeze. I swear I could have seen better from a tower than the poor video image. Also, the judges should determine their score privately first. In a centralized location of video viewing, I have witnessed some consultation on scoring. Maybe that is better, but it isn't the intent of the rules. Separate viewing locations can solve that, but then there is more costs, etc.

 

@BRY summed it up quite well - "In a 3 judge C setup the far judge can see the gates usually (if elevated) but it is a crappy view. In my experience if the gate is good the 1T and BJ get it right, if it is bad they also get it right so far judge non-issue. If it is so close the BJ and 1T split (assuming competent and best effort judging) to the far judge it will be impossible to tell so goes to the skier." Well, it should go to the skier. If the near judges disagree, and the far tower can't see, then the far tower should call it good and not let the other two judges' calls influence.

 

There is another thread about lack of Class C tournaments and many, many threads on barriers to competition, etc. If we all think boat video is better, please don't make it required for Class C. Let's keep class C simple. If a site can offer quality video from the boat, then that is excellent. Let's just not make it a requirement for C.

 

[Beastmode]

@mr jones - I had the same situation happen judging this last weekend in a tournament. they were using the boat dock top as scoring and a judge tower (which could not see if inside or outside if the skier kept sking at far end) . twice we had 3 different calls from towers and boat. One call was 0 from gate tower, 1 from boat and 2.5 from tower 2. the skier kept skiing and looked like he went around 3 and stood up from the far tower. back to the point - we each called what we could see. He wound up getting one.

My input would be the gate tower should always trump the other two judges if he calls missed gates.

 

 

[Jdubs]

Maybe it's because I search out class C tournaments or maybe it's cause I just think differently, but I know that everyone is human ( I am definitely human) and know how mistakes can be made. At the end of the day we all are way too serious about the sport and need to give more thanks to the officials that volunteer at tournaments weekend after weekend. Really - personally knowing what buoy count you skied at a high level tournament setting is what it's really all about anyways. Please don't take the fun out of the sport with bad attitudes.

[Kelvin]

@Beastmode did the tower that cut the gates also give a score for the number of buoys rounded or did they just report -0-? If they just reported 0, they failed to follow the rules as well.

[LeonL]

Some judges just don't know the rules. I was in the tower at an "L" event Saturday. We watched as a skier appeared to run directly centered over the right entrance gate buoy. We agreed that being centered is OK. However he commented that "being an "L" he could be no farther over". My response was the rule book make no differentiation between classes in that regard. He didn't believe me. He is a Senior.

[Beastmode]

@Kelvin - that incident tower 1 just called 0. Like most people have said. we call what we see and are all just volunteers. I have no beef. just giving an example how we can all see different in a pass. Diving and Gymnastics have many judges so the high and lows are thrown out.

[Beastmode]

@Kelvin - that incident tower 1 just called 0. Like most people have said. we call what we see and are all just volunteers. I have no beef. just giving an example how we can all see different in a pass. Diving and Gymnastics have many judges so the high and lows are thrown out.

[Kelvin]

@Beastmode, your situation is a good example of many of the issues discussed here from judges calls to understanding the rules. The various judging positions give some judges a better view than others and I'm fine with that. The real issue in your situation was the judges and scorer not understanding the rules. There are actually 3 separate calls to be made on any single slalom pass. 1) Did the skier make the entrance gate - all 3 judges get a vote and majority rules. 2) How many buoys did the skier round - again, all 3 judges get a vote and the highest number that the majority agree on is the score. 3) Did the skier make the exit gate - again majority rules.

 

In your situation, the scorer should have asked tower 1 for the number of buoys rounded. Depending on who tower 1 agreed with, it could have changed the score.

 

 

[Kelvin]

@Beastmode, your situation is a good example of many of the issues discussed here from judges calls to understanding the rules. The various judging positions give some judges a better view than others and I'm fine with that. The real issue in your situation was the judges and scorer not understanding the rules. There are actually 3 separate calls to be made on any single slalom pass. 1) Did the skier make the entrance gate - all 3 judges get a vote and majority rules. 2) How many buoys did the skier round - again, all 3 judges get a vote and the highest number that the majority agree on is the score. 3) Did the skier make the exit gate - again majority rules.

 

In your situation, the scorer should have asked tower 1 for the number of buoys rounded. Depending on who tower 1 agreed with, it could have changed the score.

 

 

[klindy]

From sitting in towers, boats and at a scoring computer for many, many years I'd say that most judges know the basic rules fairly well but there's always a few with some creative interpretations. Most of the time the difficulty comes into play with new rules that have recently changed for one reason or another. Since most haven't "seen" that situation since the rule change the issue is either "I didn't know that" or " that's not what I believe the new rule says". Either way the call is made more difficult.

 

I also agree that a boat video is about as good as we have to make the call. Even then it can be incredibly difficult to make a decision. It baffles me that the boat video alone is adequate AND REQUIIRED to establish a new world or national record (for OM, OW, MM, and MW divisions), but it's not adequate for the purposes of judging the score for the tournament. One critical caveat is that the transmission of the boat video to the shore and the quality of that video should be high enough qualify that it's possible to judge from the boat video.

 

Personally I think they the majority of the "bad call" situations are caused by not paying enough attention in the tower. It's very easy to get caught up in a conversation with the other tower judge (ironically many times about the rules!) and simply not see the skier go around the buoy (or not). I'm as guilty as anyone else.

 

The rules are well defined as to which judges make which calls. @Kelvin is exactly right that there are three distinct calls to be made even though we typically only call in one score. The gate scenarios are implied in the primary buoy call. To that end it's important the judges AND scorers know that the order they call in is important. Especially in a 5 judge set up.

 

One change that's been talked about here to death and back that I think has had some unintended consequences is the "benefit of the doubt" rule. While I generally believe it's good to give the skier the benefit of the doubt in situations where you really can't make a definitive call, I believe this has been a built in excuse for lots and lots of calls where the official simply didn't pay close enough attention or doesn't make the tough call.

[klindy]

From sitting in towers, boats and at a scoring computer for many, many years I'd say that most judges know the basic rules fairly well but there's always a few with some creative interpretations. Most of the time the difficulty comes into play with new rules that have recently changed for one reason or another. Since most haven't "seen" that situation since the rule change the issue is either "I didn't know that" or " that's not what I believe the new rule says". Either way the call is made more difficult.

 

I also agree that a boat video is about as good as we have to make the call. Even then it can be incredibly difficult to make a decision. It baffles me that the boat video alone is adequate AND REQUIIRED to establish a new world or national record (for OM, OW, MM, and MW divisions), but it's not adequate for the purposes of judging the score for the tournament. One critical caveat is that the transmission of the boat video to the shore and the quality of that video should be high enough qualify that it's possible to judge from the boat video.

 

Personally I think they the majority of the "bad call" situations are caused by not paying enough attention in the tower. It's very easy to get caught up in a conversation with the other tower judge (ironically many times about the rules!) and simply not see the skier go around the buoy (or not). I'm as guilty as anyone else.

 

The rules are well defined as to which judges make which calls. @Kelvin is exactly right that there are three distinct calls to be made even though we typically only call in one score. The gate scenarios are implied in the primary buoy call. To that end it's important the judges AND scorers know that the order they call in is important. Especially in a 5 judge set up.

 

One change that's been talked about here to death and back that I think has had some unintended consequences is the "benefit of the doubt" rule. While I generally believe it's good to give the skier the benefit of the doubt in situations where you really can't make a definitive call, I believe this has been a built in excuse for lots and lots of calls where the official simply didn't pay close enough attention or doesn't make the tough call.

[BRY]

@Kelvin @Beastmode When a score of 0 is called it can be due to skiing inside or displacing the 1 ball, gates could still be good, so no secondary call required as with missed gates. No way to say without being there but a 0, 1 and 2.5 sounds like a sketchy pass to start with. Perhaps 1 was sketchy also and T1 was there on top of it and the call was indeed correct.

[BRY]

@Kelvin @Beastmode When a score of 0 is called it can be due to skiing inside or displacing the 1 ball, gates could still be good, so no secondary call required as with missed gates. No way to say without being there but a 0, 1 and 2.5 sounds like a sketchy pass to start with. Perhaps 1 was sketchy also and T1 was there on top of it and the call was indeed correct.

[ToddL]

Protocol that I see and that works:

if entrance gates are good, only call in the buoys

if all 6, but too early on the exit gates (bad), call in 6 buoys and the words "no continuation"

if bad entrance gates, call in 0 + the number of buoys successfully rounded after the missed gates.

 

Example 1:

T1: "0 gates + 0 buoys" this would mean that T1 saw missed gates and missed 1-ball

T2: "3 buoys" T2 saw good gates and 3 buoys

BJ: "0 gates + 2.5 buoys BJ saw missed gates, but saw 2.5 successful buoys afterwards

Score = 0

 

Example 2:

T1: "0 gates + 3 buoys" T1 saw missed gates, but 3 successful buoys afterwards

T2: "3 buoys" T2 saw good gates and 3 buoys

BJ: "0 gates + 2.5 buoys" BJ saw bad gates, then 2.5 successful buoys afterwards

Score = 0

 

Example 3:

T1: "0 gates + 1 buoy" T1 saw missed gates and 1successful buoy aftewards

T2: "1 buoy" T2 saw good gates and 1 buoy

B: "1.5 buoys" BJ saw good gates and 2.5 successful buoys

Score = 1

 

Pretty basic and clear. Should be the standard. 95% of all slalom judges do this.

 

[ToddL]

Protocol that I see and that works:

if entrance gates are good, only call in the buoys

if all 6, but too early on the exit gates (bad), call in 6 buoys and the words "no continuation"

if bad entrance gates, call in 0 + the number of buoys successfully rounded after the missed gates.

 

Example 1:

T1: "0 gates + 0 buoys" this would mean that T1 saw missed gates and missed 1-ball

T2: "3 buoys" T2 saw good gates and 3 buoys

BJ: "0 gates + 2.5 buoys BJ saw missed gates, but saw 2.5 successful buoys afterwards

Score = 0

 

Example 2:

T1: "0 gates + 3 buoys" T1 saw missed gates, but 3 successful buoys afterwards

T2: "3 buoys" T2 saw good gates and 3 buoys

BJ: "0 gates + 2.5 buoys" BJ saw bad gates, then 2.5 successful buoys afterwards

Score = 0

 

Example 3:

T1: "0 gates + 1 buoy" T1 saw missed gates and 1successful buoy aftewards

T2: "1 buoy" T2 saw good gates and 1 buoy

B: "1.5 buoys" BJ saw good gates and 2.5 successful buoys

Score = 1

 

Pretty basic and clear. Should be the standard. 95% of all slalom judges do this.

 

[klindy]

@ToddL that is the standard protocol discussed and tested at all the clinics.

[klindy]

@ToddL that is the standard protocol discussed and tested at all the clinics.

[ToddL]

But apparently some judges need a refresher.

[ToddL]

But apparently some judges need a refresher.

[jdarwin]

We now use boat video for judging tricks exclusively = no shore judges. Oh, and if you happen to set a world record in slalom, guess what they use to confirm....wait for it......boat video. Hmmmmm. But it doesn't make sense to use it to judge a 28=off pass. Clever.

[jdarwin]

We now use boat video for judging tricks exclusively = no shore judges. Oh, and if you happen to set a world record in slalom, guess what they use to confirm....wait for it......boat video. Hmmmmm. But it doesn't make sense to use it to judge a 28=off pass. Clever.