Why cant we have one rule book?

[disland]

I know its hard, I know its political. I know we all agree its ridiculous, having a tournament with some skiers doing L and others doing C and flipping back and forth.

 

Maybe somehow we can find a way. Is it so hard that everyone has just given up. Are we going to go on this way forever?

 

For those in the know. What is the real impediment?

[Chef23]

The L vs C in tournaments is frequently due to lack of judges and video. During the C components of tournaments you will usually have assistant judges and no video.

 

We have a site in the Northeast Pangaea with two lakes. One of the lakes has video and they run L or R on that lake with Regular and Senior judges/drivers and C on the lower lake with no video and assistant judges/drivers.

[disland]

@Chef23 I am not saying we get rid of multiple classes for tournaments, only advocating for it to be run under a single rule book

[LeonL]

Yea, waterskiing starts in the USA and somewhere along the line we let the tail start wagging the dog.

[ToddL]

FWIW, the process to get a rule changed to the IWWF rule book is to formally request the rule to AWSA. Hmmm.

 

AWSA is the dominant force behind the global retrofit of this sport.

 

If I were writing the rule book, I'd have 1 global rule book. Each country can have their own smaller document with an addendum of local exceptions/additions.

 

@disland - your complaint seems to be more about running mixed classes in the same tournament.

[dbutcher]

I am not among those in the know, but do you mean having the same rules and requirements for local tournaments as world record capable tournaments???? If you only have one set of rules and requirements, which do you choose? It would have to be R rules to make new records valid, and that would kill most local tournaments. Or it could be IWWF rules which would have the same destructive effect on local tournaments?? Maybe class E rules could protect all current classes of tournaments????, but then how would you deal with IWWF? I generally like simplification, but this doesn't seem possible. Although, if numbers of AWSA skiers and officials continue to decline, we may have to reduce AWSA requirements at all classes of tournaments (or pay more, travel further, and have fewer tournaments). Interesting idea, but I don't know how to make it work for everyone. Current class C rules/requirements are insufficient for world records, and current R rules/requirements are not necessary for local (class C) tournaments.

 

You can mix class C skiers with class L skiers under one rule book, but it would have to be the L rule book right now.

[jdarwin]

David: Not sure you can merge rulebooks to accomplish your objective. But, I believe AWSA should simply have a "Class C" rule book and leave the rest to IWWF. AWSA doesn't need to be in the "Record" business. They make it WAY to complicated and restrictive. Towboats being the #1 issue.

[disland]

@jdarwin I like that line of thinking

[lpskier]

The primary difference between an E (national record capable) and an L (national record capable and score counted on world ranking list) is the presence of a Pan Am judge and the chief judge may not be an event judge in an L but may be an event judge in an E. Otherwise the judging is the same. Six is still six. Still need a TC, same cameras required, etc.

 

The practical difference between an E/L and an R is that R tournaments tend to attract the skiers that are skiing well enough to set a world record. If they are skiing well, your site is known to ski well (or you want it to start building a reputation), you have good well known drivers, and one or more of those elite skiers think the moon and stars are about to align, they may show up at your tournament.

 

Obviously, the technical difference between an E/L and an R is significant, but how many tournaments have to be an R? There is only a handful of skiers in the world that are capable of setting a world record on "any given Sunday," so if they aren't coming to your tournament, why bother? Unless of course you are developing your site for that level of play and want the practice.

 

So the practical problem with an L is the Pan Am judge. In Florida, they are a dime a dozen (I.e., they have made sure to develop a deep talent pool for officiating) . In NY, not so much. And a three event Pan Am? Fuggedaboutit! Solution? Develop more judges, get then to Senior and in five years get them to Pan Am. Once you have a judging pool, the technical requirements for an E/L are pretty manageable.

 

With all that said, there should be more C tournaments. Not CEL or CELR or even CE. Just C. Simple to run and keep the entry fees low. Free entry to first time competitors; everyone else pays. $60 entry tops for three rounds. Make it fun. Some kid hits the shoreline on a pull out? You bet he gets a reride. Clear case of Judge/driver error. The official should have seen the problem developing and stopped the boat. Some level five kid or new skier misses a deep water start? Driver error. Too fast or too slow. The skier won't come back if he or she is not able to have fun and how much fun is it to be told you are all done before you got out of the water?

 

#iskiconnelly

[Chef23]

Well said @lpskier.

[ToddL]

There is already too much effort attempting to make the AWSA and IWWF rule books agree on basically redundant scope. I am still finding errors/differences which I am quite sure are just accidental gaps vs. intentional differences.

 

I completely agree with @jdarwin 's suggestion. Remove the redundant scope from AWSA. IWWF should be the only rule book for world ranking and international competitions (L/R). AWSA's rule book should only contain intentional deviations from IWWF, and non-world class sanction rules (Class C).

[ToddL]

If AWSA rule book removed the redundant scope, then possibly could E be eliminated? I assume that due to trickle-down requirements, Nationals, Regionals, and possibly State tournaments would end up running under L anyway... If E is kept, then should we force State and Regionals to be E vs. L? Just not sure of the ramifications of all this...

[Bruce_Butterfield]

The hiccup between C and L is what do you allow for regional and national records? There is a much larger pool of skiers who could potentially break those records. IMO, class C is not tight enough for those records and L is overkill (why do you need a Pan- am judge for a US record?) That's the gap the E was created for, in addition to 1 EP performance qualified you for nationals instead of twice in class C back in the old days.

 

I'm fairly certain each region decides on what class to use for its regional tournament - nothing is "forced" nor should it be. They can have a class C regionals if they want.

 

I can see B/G3 through M/W2 and open run as L with everyone else as C or E.

 

 

[klindy]

I agree with the premise that @disland suggests and I think it's best accomplished by doing the exact opposite of what @jdarwin suggests. Let me explain ...

 

As has been discussed above very eloquently by @lpskier, the fundamental differences and technical requirements between E, L and R tournaments are pretty similar. I'd add that the biggest difference between L and R is that a boat video is required to confirm a record. But it's also required to confirm a record for OM, OW, MM, and MW in a class E tournament for a US record. Recall that MM and MW are only recognized in the US and that IWWF only recognizes "Mens" and "Women's" records - no age groups. So that makes the leap from E to L to R even narrower.

 

That said, lots of skiers are looking for that "class L score" so it can be used in the world ranking list for entry into the PanAm's, Worlds, etc. What's incredibly confusing is that the age groups don't match up at all so it's possible to have skiers ski at different speeds or ramp heights etc. So having class L tournaments have become increasingly more important over the years.

 

The IWWF rules are pretty close to the AWSA rules. There are some distinct differences (more confusion). More importantly the bulk of the IWWF rule book is to outline how to set up and administer a "world" tournament (meaning championship type tournament not a local tournament somewhere other than the US). Additionally each country has a governing body (like USAWS / AWSA in the US). Each country has its "rules" which may very well simply refer to the IWWF rules. And frankly the IWWF rule book reads like a long run on sentence and is very difficult to find detailed information quickly.

 

I think the IWWF should simply "accept" or "reject" a specific countries governing bodies rule book as either acceptable for inclusion on the world ranking list (and/or world records) or not. In that case we can have a rule book like we have including the section titled "Records" and, if the standards outlined in the rule book are acceptable to IWWF then a tournament run by AWSA "record capable" rules is good enough. Each other country would do the same.

 

Things like course dimensions, timing charts, buoys sizes, trick points (mostly), etc are already identical all over the world. Things like eligible boats, regional and national tournament requirements, and officials programs/administration, etc can be left to the individual country.

 

Anyway, great topic!

 

 

[Chef23]

I may be in the minority but I would be okay with regional records being set in Class C events. I am in complete agreement that isn't appropriate for national records. In the Northeast there aren't a lot of E,L,R events and it is tough if you have to travel out of region to have a chance to set a regional record.

[klindy]

@Chef23 Regional Tournament requirements and whether regional records can be set at a class C tournament are solely and completely up to the region itself.

 

The only mention of the class of a regional tournament mentioned in the rule book is in 15.01 -

 

B. Regional Championships: The Regional Championships are encouraged to

meet the qualifications of Record Capability. It shall be the responsibility of

the Regional Council to determine if it wishes to impose these standards on

the Regional Tournament and, if imposed, it shall be the responsibility of the

Chief Judge and other Appointed Judges to determine that it does so qualify.

 

The only other AWSA mandated rules for a regional tournament deals with officials qualifications.

 

The point is even the Regional Championships are encouraged but not required to be record capability. As a region you have the ability to decide what threshold is required to set a regional record. Bring it up at your regional meeting this summer.

[jdarwin]

@klindy - Keith, I agree with your points. My biggest issue with USAWS vs IWWF is towboats. As an LOC that hosts four ELR tournaments per year, the technical requirements, site prep, etc., is not the issue. It's towboats. I can pull a world record with my 08 Ski Nautique if I resided in Spain. But not in the US. As the availability of promo boats continues to shrink significantly, we (AWSA) need to align our towboat requirements with IWWF. It doesn't create a level playing field when individual countries (federations) apply different standards to their "L" tournaments. That was my main point.

 

Oh, and using boat video for judging.....another "standard" that is applied differently around the globe. Don't get me started....

[Moskier3ev]

I agree with Joe tow boats are our biggest problem. The last 2 weekends my boat has gotten 25 hours put on it. In Austin we have 2 promo boats. If Covingtons wouldn't have brought their boat last weekend I might have ended with 20 hrs last weekend alone.

 

Jeff Lindsey

Promo Centurion

[klindy]

I fully agree that boats are a big (and growing) problem that needs to be addressed soon.

 

Any viable solutions besides finding more promo owners?

[disland]

AWSA and/or USAWS need to get more involved. Historically they have been hands off on the promo program but that wont work any more. Incentives need to be funnelled into the program or it will implode and take the tournaments, then the membership then the governing bodies with it. Maybe after a nuclear winter a new more innovative governing body will emerge but I dont think anyone want to experience that but it's where we are heading.

[jdarwin]

@klindy - I do not foresee a reversal of fortune in the promo world. It's simply too expensive and time consuming for most with no discernable ROI . The ONLY solution is to allow the use of any previously approved towboat that has an approved speed control. Period.

[dbutcher]

We need to let boat manufacturers know how much we appreciate their past, strong support. Support for 3E towboat promo programs won't increase until the demand for "wake" boats diminishes, and I think that will happen over time.

[jdarwin]

@dbutcher - without question, their is a recognition of the past support but the current system (requirements) are not aligned with current reality. And, I don't believe the support of 3E vs wake boats is a zero sum game. If the towboat manufacturers continue to influence the current year +1 rule via their financial support of USAWS, the # of tournaments will continue to decline. As an LOC, I'm being held hostage by the Big 3 due to the fact that the "current +1" rule is "bought" at the governing body level yet their "support" of the promo programs is not sufficient to support the rule. Those two initiatives need to be aligned.

[lpskier]

So do you suppose the boat manufacturers would support or not support a rule change that would allow older boats to remain in tournament use, and do you think the manufacturers are behind the rule or not? #iskiconnelly