Is this an "unfair condition"?

[ScarletArrow]

A skier is attempting their second pass at LL and below their max speed.

 

Skier comes around turn island and pulls out for gates.

 

Skier's normal pull-out at the green's is very wide, and during their glide ends up striking some submerged rip-rock from the shoreline and flips over the front before even making a move toward the gates.

 

Needless to say, a scary moment.

 

What is the correct call from an officials standpoint?

[wtrskior]

Reride for sure. Is there really any debate? Should probably be surveying the site before someone gets seriously injured...

[RazorRoss3]

***Warning - non expert opinion***

 

I think should be a re-ride, it is not the fault of the skier that the site has unmarked but near to surface obstructions. The lake is not skier provided equipment so it shouldn't be to the skiers consequence that it caused the fall.

 

***end of non expert opinion***

[ScarletArrow]

@wtrskior in this situation (which happened a few years back) the CJ said "no re-ride"

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Obviously a reride for failure of tournament supplied equipment. That assumes the skier would have a reasonable expectation th at the water was deep enough.

 

But more importantly an unmarked submerged hazard is a huge safety and liability concern. Assuming the submerged rocks were a "reasonable" distance from shore, it should be marked by the site owner or tournament organizer.

 

But if the skier was "right next" to shore that's a different issue where the skier could be responsible.

[skiinxs]

I would be much less worried about granting a re-ride than a potential injury and related liability. More like "can I carry your ski back to the starting dock for you for your re-ride, oh, is it dinged, do you want the same model to replace it"!

[ScarletArrow]

Was the skier too close to shore? Probably.

 

Since they were a B1 skier they really didn't have the self-awareness to understand what might happen.

 

Should the shoreline have been marked? Probably.

 

But I can tell you this skiers pull-out is/was significantly wider(higher) than the average skier and so they probably exceeded any beta-testing parameters done by the lake owner.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Then its the fault of the lake owner/ excavator. Sorry but thats one of my pet peeves - you should be able to comfortably get really wide at long line on any slalom lake.

[Than_Bogan]

Wow, any unmarked hazard within 75 feet of the entrance gates is seriously irresponsible in my opinion.

 

And, assuming you've described the situation accurately, not granting a reride is just ridiculous.

[ScarletArrow]

It happened a few years ago... I believe that part of the shoreline has been fixed. It didn't affect me, but I always found the ruling curious.

 

The skiers fin was bent, so there was no way they were getting back on the water anyway (no replacement).

[UWSkier]

Saw the same thing at WI Collegiate State tourney in '03. Girl was long-line and trying course for the first time. Pulled out wide WAY early and beached. People were yelling from the shore to get back to the wakes but to no avail. Gotta hand it to her though. She popped right up with a mouthful of sand and took a re-ride.

 

I'd say the option of a re-ride would be in order, especially dealing with a novice.

[Kelvin]

Sounds like an out of course fall to me. I haven't looked at the rules on this lately, I believe this is one area where AWSA and IWWF differ.

[Than_Bogan]

Out of course fall implies the skier's fault. Unmarked obstacle is totally different.

 

Just last year I smacked straight into an old wooden gear on my move up for the gate. Reride was granted with no discussion. Of course we also fished out the gear before I went again!

[lottawatta]

Would it change anyone's opinion if they knew the skier had skied a tournament round (or two) the previous day at the same site and the same end of the lake with the same rip rap lining the shoreline? If this is the same incident I am thinking of, the skier skied into the riprap at the water's edge, it wasn't a submerged object out from the bank, it was literally the water's edge.

[lantley]

A gear in the water? Now I know why that tow boat was never the same again. Since it was wooden it must have fallen off a Centurion... proof of just how great they are built and with the strangest materials (No offense meant to any Carbon Pro fans, but I was looking at their ad on the side while I was typing and decided to pick on it). But a wooden gear?

 

I think he definitely deserved a reride and maybe a new fin.

[Chef23]

If it was a Boys 1 skier he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and a reride.

[Than_Bogan]

@lantley Veering off-topic quickly, but the tournament site in Wolfeboro NH was a mill pond for a long, long time before it became a water ski site. Every so often a bizarre artifact from the 1800s will surface -- in this case literally. Because it was water-logged it was almost flush with the surface. Nobody was in doubt that I had hit something, but it took a little effort to find it.

 

@lottawatta Skiing into a clearly visible obstacle is in fact completely different. However, I would grant a reride to a B1 skier in that scenario almost no matter what. I guess if he skied into it like three times in a row I might start to lose sympathy for his plight...

[Jody_Seal]

Re ride due to safety not doing their job identifying potential hazards.

Glad the youngster or whomever did not get hurt.

[jcamp]

Man, if we are telling a Boys 1 kid in that situation that "nope, sorry, that's your fault buddy," we are in more trouble as a sport than I thought we were ...

[lottawatta]

I guess I am too "Old School", but as an official, I wouldn't advocate a reride out of sympathy in a classified age division in a class C tournament because of a skier's age or ability level. If it was a novice tournament, fun tournament, or in the novice division, then yeah, a mulligan might be in order, but when a skier is skiing for a score that would be submitted to HQ for inclusion into the ranking list, then I would choose to adhere to the current rule book.

[ScarletArrow]

@lottawatta it is what you are thinking. you had the best view (obviously). we went over this section last night in the judges clinic and i was curious as to how (or if) it applied.

 

i had forgotten about the previous days tournament.

[ToddL]

Let's see... Optimal shoreline ratio is 10:1. So, assuming optimal, at 10 feet from the water's edge, the depth is only 1 foot deep. I don't know what is the absolute minimum but if a skier is going slow (like a beginner), their fin is probably sitting quite deep in the water. Let's say that they need 6 inches of safe clearance and their fin is sitting 18 inches below the water's surface. That makes the safe distance from the water's edge at 20 feet.

 

Even with an 8:1 slope, the resulting safe distance is 16 feet from the water's edge.

 

How often do you see a skier get closer than 16-20 feet from the water's edge? It is not safe regardless of the lake.

 

With 75' rope plus 20', this mean's the lake's edge should be at least 95' from the course center line along the full length of the course, including 55's for a truly safe lake setup, right?

 

Now, if there is a sand bar, contour, or other inconsistent feature under the water's edge at less than 24" below the water's surface sticking out more than 20' from the water's edge, then it should be marked for safety and skier's reminded at the starting dock.

 

 

[lantley]

Now I understand @Than_Bogan. I would be the one who slammed the big waterwheel when it popped up... "Nope sorry that's your fault buddy" @jcamp Laughed at that but very good point!

[lottawatta]

I guess I should add, I (as the boat judge, event judge, appointed judge) and the chief judge and other appointed officials discussed the situation at length with rule book in hand, with the skier's representative present, and found no "within the rules" reason to grant a reride. I watched the skier pull out well early of the 55's, looking down course, completely oblivious to how close to shore they were, and not stop pulling out until they hit shore. I ordered the boat driver to whip around and I jumped in fully clothed to get to the skier first. If my memory serves, we were about even with the 55's and well wide of the 2-4-6 buoy line when I got to the skier. The lake in question doesn't get significantly wider until just after the 55's. Believe me, I had and have all the sympathy in the world for the skier and felt horrible about it. As with most tournaments, all the skiers know one another, as I knew the family of this skier for many years before the skier was born. It was a difficult decision to have to make, to tell my friends that the junior skier would not be given the reride. It was at the skier's home lake 20 years ago I first joined the century club (first 100' jump in a tournament - used to be a milestone for skiers). IIRC, the skier was allowed to "get back on the horse" and ski the round again as an unscored confidence booster. The junior skier was simply used to wide open spaces and was concentrating so hard on what they were told to do (Pull out early and stay wide), so it was nothing more than an unfortunate accident. Before that day, I always made it a point to ask for boat judging assignments at whatever tournament I was in. These days I am far more comfortable on a tower.

[lottawatta]

Scarlet Arrow, what was the consensus of the judges participating in the clinic? Should the skier have been granted a reride?

[oldjeep]

If the place is that narrow, how many people wind up onshore after a crash?

[BraceMaker]

@ToddL - The 95 feet however assumes that a skier is taking the long line 75' out perpendicular to the pylon - by which that skier is over 35 feet wide of 2 ball on their approach?

 

Same skier is very unlikely to be significantly wide of the ball line at any point in his pass.

[ALPJr]

Syderhoud got a rock roller re-ride at Spencer's in NY one time. Rumor is that it was placed (thrown) in the lake by a competitor just before Mike got to that part of the course.

[lottawatta]

Oldjeep, thelake is not that narrow throughout, only at the end. Please understand we are talking about lake width well before the 55meter buoys.

 

What if this was for placement at a state championships and the skier did not want to continue when asked at the time? What if the reride was requested by the skiers representative well after other skiers in that division had skied and the event was over and results posted?

[ScarletArrow]

@lottawatta i didn't bring it up at the judges clinic - re: the webinar format is not suited for group discussion and one of the judges involved was present and i didn't want to put them in bad spot.

 

In a totally separate incident at a different lake, my son (B1 - not the same skier in the above scenario), in his first year of skiing tournaments, and his first time skiing at this particular lake - after rounding an island, pulled out for the gates and saw a buoy in an odd place along the shoreline (marking what I assume to be a low spot).

 

This totally confused him and caused him to miss his gates on his second pass. He was devastated and came out of the water crying because he felt the situation was "unfair" (I think he was 8 at the time). No re-ride requested or given.

 

I knew the buoy was there, but it never affected me at 15off, but at LL he could pull wide enough to go around the buoy near the shoreline. He has since skied there again and knows how to do deal with "unexpected" buoys.

[Fatroll]

@ScarletArrow was this utopia/Glassy waters?

[Booze]

...or how about, skier gets up and settles just outside the wake, boat spins the island a bit wide and nudges the skier into shallow water. Skier drags the bottom and falls. Reride?

[klindy]

Interesting issue. I've skied plenty of lakes which are narrower prior to the 55m buoys than the rest of the lake. My pull out is typically a little earlier than most skiers (a few feet) and while I've noticed the shoreline in my peripheral vision it's never knocked me of the ski (of course that's not longline either). So certainly lake design plays a part in the overall safety and it would be best if the lake dimensions can be ample enough to accommodate all things. Obviously neither a boat crew or site owner knows this everyone skis and how it could be an issue.

 

That said a few thoughts on this specific example. First safety is the most important aspect. If the boat crew was paying attention on the first pass they probably got a glimpse of "man this kid pulls out wide for the gates". If so, they might have had some premonition of bad potential because "the other end of the lake is pretty tight". Point is, purely in the interest of safety there may have been some boat talk about it. This would be just like taking thru the kid who rides on the inside of the wakes on LL thru a narrow channel between the island and the shore - boat driver keep an eye on the kid as much as possible (adults too but hopefully they're a bit more self-aware).

 

This is no different that the "whip to the dock scenarios" after a set. These lakes are typically tight and working together is important for everyone's safety.

 

Second, in terms of rules there are no specific Irules which cover this except potentially "failure of tournament supplied equipment" (the lake itself) or "unfair conditions". So it's possible that an event judge vote would let the kid ski again depending on the judges and their interpretation.

 

However no one has mentioned what quite likely "can be" a primary cause of the problem - boat path. The original post included a spin around the island "LL below max speed" for a B1 skier. That's pretty slow and I'm order to keep the kid upright a wide path around the island (assuming clockwise) can put the boat closer to shore of its left of center of the course. A boat judge sighting down the course like they should to assure the alignment is similar to all skiers (consistent conditions) could have immediately solved the reride issue - boat path. Likewise an driver just saying the swung wide can solve the reride issue. Again some communication between boat driver and judge is important.

 

Lastly if this was a multi round tournament what happened in earlier or later rounds? I'd assume the hazard was the same for all rounds? Did someone (experienced skier, boat crew or parent) talk to the kid to make sure he didn't do that again?

 

So what's the correct call? ... Was the boat path straight? If so, knowing only the details presented in the original post, I'd probably lobby for a reride if I had any confidence the kid wouldn't do it again.

[klindy]

@Booze I didn't see your post (top of the second page) until mine posted. See above.

[lottawatta]

To address @klindy's points, I will offer some more info.

This skier skied the day before and made multiple passes from both ends of the lake. The starting dock end of the lake is "full width" from the turn island to the course. The drop end is significantly narrower until you pass the 55's. Additionally, because there is much more room behind the start end island, the 55's are closer to the turn island at the starting dock end than at the drop end, giving the skier less time to pull out early. With much more open water and shorter run in to the 55's at the start end, I had no reference as to how early and wide the skier was attempting to get on the second pass vs. the first. As to boat path, the skier was skiing 28.6, well above what you would consider a speed that would sink the skier around an island. The way the course is placed diagonally in the lake, there is no way to go wider around the island. The only place the boat can exit the island channel is directly aligned with the course otherwise it would have been on the bank. As a boat judge, I always try to anticipate the acceleration of the boat and engagement of the speed control and look over my should, through the windshield at the boat path as ZO engages and before the skier pulls out. So, in short, there was no boat path issue.

[RichardDoane]

some lessons you have to learn the hard way, as CJ I'd say "no reride"

[greg]

To be fair to @Lottawatta this situation was not presented totally accurate and sorry that he had to have it re-hashed three years later. It is unfortunate that he feels reluctant to be in the boat as a judge due to this.

Again, it was not that a re-ride was disallowed, the offer was made and the skier chose not to continue. It was the request to ski and post a score at a later time after the division was finished and placements awarded (this was the State Championships). Allowing this would have most certainly stripped the other girls placements already awarded and been a whole other can of worms.

 

[ScarletArrow]

@greg @lottawatta

 

i'm not sure if "he" is me, but i took a situation and intentionally made it very generic so I could ask a legitimate question on something that was covered in the rules in a clinic.

 

i was trying to be respectful by intentionally leaving out specific details, even changing the identity of the skier.

 

the specific details (and an explanation of the call made) were added later.

 

i don't see how this is an "unfortunate re-hash" of something i wasn't involved or concerned with (other than the safety of the skier).

 

i spoke directly with the CJ later in the day to understand the ruling (and no reride was offered as @lottawatta confirmed in a previous post), and i didn't understand the explanation at the time.

 

on what basis are you going to ask questions about rule interpretations other than by situations you have encountered?

 

i'm not sure where i'm reluctant to be a boat judge... i've been one at almost every tournament i've attend since.

[lottawatta]

@scarletarrow, I am the one who is the reluctant boat judge these days. Maybe I should temper that as I willingly accept boat assignments, I just don't specifically seek them out, and not only because of this incident, there have been others recently. I am not much of a talkie, touchy, feely type guy. I am there to accurately and fairly judge every skier's pass and make sure they got the same pull as the skier before them and the one after them. I am not there to talk them up or down. I personally, don't like to have the boat crew talk me up or down, or coach me, or talk about what happened the night before while I am skiing. I would rather have the quiet time to think about what I need to do next. Therefore, when I am in the boat, I prefer to remain quiet, or make small quiet talk with the driver (or judge if I am driving). I don't take the skiers mind off of what they are doing. I may sometimes smile and say "good recovery at 4 ball", or "way to stay patient", or "I'll see you at the other end", or "lets run this", but my business type demeanor tends to rub some skiers and parents of skiers the wrong way. I guess they would rather have the court jester or psychological crutch they need to run the next pass as boat judge and they would rather not see me in the boat. Fine, to each his own.

 

To clear up the misunderstanding, at the time of the incident, there was discussion of a reride between judges over the radio, but no actual request by the skier or their representative. Given the circumstances, it was a blessing the only physical damage was to the ski. The skier was more scared than hurt, if that makes sense, and was very clear in that they did NOT want to continue. Well after the event was over the chief judge called a meeting of the event judges indicating a reride request had been made. Quite honestly, we considered two things, first the timeliness of the request, but we also considered the merits of the request just as if it had been asked at the time of the accident. Ultimately, the request was denied, and the skier was offered the opportunity to take an unscored round to "get back on the horse." I, personally, feel the call was correct. While I am curious as to what call my peers outside of this area would make, I do not apologize for my interpretation of the rules at the time.

 

It is my opinion that the wonderful young (and accomplished) skier simply wasn't fully familiar with the site, was told to get wider earlier, and was concentrating fully downcourse and on the gates, and not necessarily on their physical proximity to the bank. I feel it was an unfortunate accident. I love the site and feel there is no liability on the part of the lake owners as the area of the incident was outside of what could reasonable be assumed to be navigable water for a slalom skier.

[greg]

@ScarletArrow, no was not referring to you.

[Than_Bogan]

@lottawatta Very seriously: Good job taking your job seriously.

 

If the information presented is complete, it's not the call I personally would have made, but I think the more important point is that judges should just try to do their best, which clearly you did.

 

You can be my boat judge any time.

[lottawatta]

I only offered more information to perpetuate the discussion and never intended to identify the skier or site. I am genuinely interested in what others think regarding the correct call, as I have been involved in at least ten other skiers hitting the bank incidents, whether it be a collegiate skier unable to navigate a turn island, or me personally who hit the bank on my pullout at my home lake 2 years ago and broke my ankle. This specific incident has sparked passionate discussions between officials ever since. There seems to be a deep division between those who thought a reride should be granted, and those who thought the correct call was made (both locally and in this thread apprarently). To ask the original question was very fair an appropriate. To fairly debate the question I added information. In the mix, the incident was rehashed, and for that I take responsibility, and I apologize to anyone I offended.

@scarlet arrow, don't be discouraged from asking questions, that is what this forum (thanks the the intergalactic leader) is for!

 

[Waternut]

Now that all the facts are on the table, I agree with the call of no re-ride but I like the fact that the kid was given another unscored round as a confidence booster. I know we all ski different lakes but I don't think I've ever skied a private lake where you could be outside the 2-4-6 line at or before the 55's. I can't imagine there is a rule dictating when you can cut out but there is a point where things just become unrealistic for 99.99% of the population.

 

Off topic but I'm curious...

To throw another monkey wrench into this conversation....Let's say that a lake is really wide and there is no danger of hitting the shore but a skier hit some weeds 15 feet outside the turn buoy in the middle of the course and fell. Would you grant a re-ride for that? I don't know the rule books but my vote is no because they just aren't in a reasonable area of the course. We don't host tournaments at the lake I ski at but we certainly wouldn't clean weeds out that wide.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Ok, weeds are a judgment call. IMO, if a skier is affected by weeds anywhere in the lake - turn island, deep water start, or in the course, that puts the skier at a disadvantage (or failure of tournament supplied equipment) and is grounds for a re-ride.

[ToddL]

@Waternut - I'd say, "No." The main rationale is that the conditions were the same for all skiers at that site, and 15 feet wide is a bit outside the norms of the valid slalom skier path. However, I don't know how close is too close for those fin-grabbing weeds... 2 feet? 5? 10? If the site is actively used, I would expect that they stay cleared out of the "normal" skier pathways. If the site is portable course dropped into the lake for the tournament, then I guess it could be a potential issue.

[The_MS]

That TXI is butter