Slalom Scoring 1/4, 1/2, 1, 3/4?

[Edbrazil]

Something I didn't know about, which has changed in the Rules recently. You can round the buoy,

get back to the wake with some slack, take the hit, and ski away. And get just 1/2 point, instead

of a full point. AWSA Rule 10.12C.

What do you think of that? IWWF has a similar Rule 14.07C

Back On The Tour, skiers could get back to the wake with a pile of slack, let go, and get a full point.

I can see why that may have needed to change. I would suggest that this be called 3/4 of a buoy,

so at least the skier gets some credit compared to another who fell just after the buoy.

Of course, Back On The Tour, I saw some pros surviving the hit from some humongous slack.

If you can get 1/4 and 1/2, why not 3/4?

[Than_Bogan]

Oh man. This rule was horribly misunderstood in New England when it first came about several years ago. Everyone (including me) thought they were requiring you to ski away and therefore encouraging injury. In fact, the rule doesn't give credit even if you DO ski away. Its intent is the opposite: Encourage dropping the rope because you're not getting credit either way.

 

But this has confused the snot out of people because they just can't accept give someone a score of 0.5 who gets back to the line and skis away. And it "feels" even worse to deny credit to somebody who just sacrificed his/her body.

 

Maybe it will eventually serve its purpose and train people to absorb slack outside the wake and then come back in on a tight line. (Btw, I SUCK at that. I believe I may be the worst zig-zagger of any skier who has ever run -38. I even try to practice it...)

 

Personally this feels like a treating the symptom of a more fundamental problem. But that's a subject for another time.

[keithh2oskier]

 

[keithh2oskier]

So I am no longer a rated judge (haven't skied in a tournament since college). But Ed's comment intrigued me enough to look the rule up - posted above.

 

My first thought is how someone could actually not get a full buoy if they cross the line of guide buoys before the next skier turn ball assumming they took the hit and skied away from the slack. My thought process was that it would be virtually impossible to cross the next buoy line without the slack being pulled up first. Then after reading @Than_Bogan comment and re-reading the rule with subpoint 1. it clarifies the point Ed was making. So theoretically the skier has to take the hit "outside" (red X below) of the boat guide line but still cross it before the next buoy, and ride away, to score a full point. Is that a correct understanding?

 

 

[DanE]

@keithh2oskier Yes, that is correct.

[eleeski]

Since you can no longer cross the wake on a slack rope and score, no one will try. Zigzag and control things where it's safer for everyone. Nobody actually skis behind the boat on slack and tries to hang on.

 

At least, not in California - we don't have alligators.

 

Worrying about situations that won't happen makes the rule book too big.

 

Eric

[thager]

Great, now the government is involved. Nobody else could put together something this stupid!

[Drago]

It's been,oh,I don't know, 10, maybe 12 years since this rule was written. It's supposed to keep either the skier or driver safer...can't remember

[MISkier]

@Drago,

 

I think the rule change was done to protect both the boat crew (from handle pops) and the skier (from slamming into the side of the boat or from the damage from taking a huge slack hit).

[LeonL]

Noooo, no 3/4. I even feel that we should do away with 1/4.

[Drago]

@MISkier : I knew that, I was being Devil's advocate,as it affects very few skiers and one skier came close to hitting the boat once. I think "showing" the handle is safer for the driver, too

[ToddL]

@eleeski said: "Nobody actually skis behind the boat on slack and tries to hang on."

 

What say you, @Beastmode ? ;-)