JMac thinks he got a raw deal at the US Open - I think he might have a point

[Horton]

Click here to read the JMac Blog

[Shakeski]

He does look well over the front in the pic - however... if judges have looked at the ski tip and skier position breaking the boat line - then I would call it 2... Close one but well explained by JMac.

[wtrskior]

It's really close. Very hard to judge if he is still in skiing position at the buoy line IMO, so I cant say for sure the judges got it wrong. Better video quality would help. Or some type of actual grid they could use to determine if he crossed the line. The pic below os from jasons site.

 

Also as I understand the rules jmac posted there is interpretation whether he could have maintained control at that point. As you watch the actual video before that point it appears he would not be able to, with his weight and momentum taking him down. However, he rounded 2 buoy, whether he can get to 3 ball is not material.

 

 

 

[jdarwin]

Sorry - we don't use boat video to judge - we feel tower judging is much better here in the USA!

[drewski32]

It's really tough to say if he was in skiing position or not though. It looks like his fall actually started right before the line, and he managed to just barely hang on long enough. Literally right before the buoyline he crunches severely if you watch in slow motion

[The_MS]

1/2

[eyepeeler]

Very, very, close call. JMac is absolutely in skiing position. Making the call at full speed from the boat or the towers. 1 1/2.

 

[MattP]

https://instagram.com/p/BLJaP66DYzs/

[Kelvin]

Is the frame by frame video available? Would like to see everything, not just a single photo.

[RazorRoss3]

I've watched the video a couple of times and it looks like he is in the process of falling and just happens to have a tight line as he goes down. Benefit of the doubt goes to the skier so while I'd lean towards 1.5 I am not certain and would likely have given 2 ball in the moment. especially if I had been the farther away tower judge.

[Jdubs]

The judges did the best with what they knew at the time. The score could have gone either way. Everyone that entered the competition virtually agreed that they were going to go with whatever the judges ruled on. I don't know how I would personally have ruled it, but its time to move on. J-mac is a fantastic skier and we all look forward to seeing him rip it up in future events.

[mwetskier]

bill clinton once said under oath ' that depends on what your definition of the word *is* is '. the rule in question says ' 1 point when the skier has crossed the line of the gate buoys '. i would say this call depends on what your definition of *crossed* is.

 

if your talking about crossing a finish line in a foot race you only need to break that invisible plane with your nose or finger tips or whatever. on the other hand if your talking about crossing a city street you need to get *all* the way across or that delivery truck is gonna clip you in the but. so i guess it might be a good idea if the rule committee includes a definition of ' crossed ' in the future.

[Jody_Seal]

After further review I would go with the full buoy! Defiantly skiing position with a tight line and entirely supported by his ski and riding forward, Defiantly past the course boat guide line. Tough call though!

[bishop8950]

Tough call. Based on boat video I would have called in 2.

[gjohnson]

Jmac has possession of a tight tow line, riding forward, and his weight is supported by his ski. He has met all three criteria for the definition of skiing position in his photo.

[jcamp]

In real time I thought it was a two. But after seeing it slowed down it looks like his is on his way to falling. I don't think his weight is actually supported by his ski. He has already tipped past the point of no return by the time the ski crosses the line.

 

Very close call. I don't think there is enough there in the video, even frame by frame, to support overturning the original call.

[Ralph Lee]

2

[Dirt]

Wow that is really close. It looks like a 2 but I can see how you could call 1H. These are good to look at for educational purposes. @skimom ???

[keithh2oskier]

It sounds like IWSF differs from AWSA regarding the criteria regarding scoring buoys. I see AWSA seems more lenient by disregarding the Skiing Position from scoring the buoys.

 

From AWSA rule book:10.12

C. 1 point when the skier has crossed the line of the gate buoys before passing the level of the next buoy with a tight line under the power of the boat.

 

D. For judging purposes, the front foot of the skier shall be used to determine the point at which the skier crosses the quarter, half, and full point buoy lines (or the end gate in case of the final buoy).

 

AWSA Rule book page 60

 

I feel clearly that based on AWSA rules he scored 2 because Skier Position is not a factor in the AWSA rules.

 

Given the event and IWSF rules, it would help if IWSF had a D reference regarding the tip or the front foot for clarity for the judges. I feel that using the tip of the ski would certainly go to the skiers benefit but even the front foot appears he scored 2 based on the rules he sighted but its pretty darn close.

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

It hinges on some annoying semantics I think. As @jcamp points out, he is definitely on his way to falling. The challenge is in "weight supported by ski." I've always found that a little unsatisfying, because the sport is very dynamic and in many positions if you somehow got there statically, you'd just fall over, which sorta sounds like "weight not supported by ski."

 

Whenever I bring this up, I always get "well, you know what they mean." I think this difficult decision helps show that, no, we don't all agree on what it means.

 

If you are in the process of falling, but still placing some pressure on the water with the ski, then I'd call that still "supported by the ski" in the dynamic sense that I believe the rule has to mean.

 

Thus, my call is 2.

 

However, I think it would be pretty easy to justify an interpretation where you leave skiing position the instant you begin a crash (that you don't ultimately recover). In that case, this is pretty clearly 1.5.

 

I generally believe that we don't want a bahzillion page rulebook that tries to be ultra-precise. There's a lot of downside to that. But the downside to the comparatively simple rulebook we have now is that judges have to make judgments. The judges at this tournament did so, and thus the final score is 1.5.

[Jody_Seal]

I would have to disagree that Jason looked to be falling at the full 2 point score. If one looks at his load at the same point off of 1 ball in slow motion his body position looks nearly identical as that of the area just before he losses the handle going to three. 41 aint no joke!!

[Mateo_Vargas]

Would it have even been questioned under the old rule?

[Andre]

Benefit of the doubt goes to the skier.

2.

[lpskier]

I watched it happen and immediately debated the issue with the friends I was standing with, very close to where the fall occurred. My impression was that he clearly made it to the line of boat guide balls before losing the handle but that his weight was not supported by the ski as he was in the process of an out-the-front launch. I said at the time that it was a tough call but that I would score a half. Some agreed with me, some argued that it was a full two. All that said, if it's too close to call with certainty, the benifit of the doubt goes to the skier. See, e.g., AWSA Rule 1.15.

[ToddF]

Now we need judges in new York Like the NFL.

 

Someone or some designated group should be able to review that video and reverse the call made on the field,

 

This wouldn't help at the time, but:

 

1. Have the skier fill out a form Pay 25 bucks and some designated review group in the AWAS, can either overturn or confirm the call.

2. It might take a couple of weeks, and only count towards the overall score or PB of the skier, not standings or cash payout but if someone wants to challenge they would have a fair and viable option to get the score they believe they earned.

 

 

If this already exists, then disregard.

[brody]

Line is tight, still on his ski broke the plane....2

[Edbrazil]

Since this was an "R" tournament, boat video was required. JMac could have put up $250.

to have the call of 1.5 reviewed. A score of 2 would have changed a 3-way tie for 4th

into a 2-way tie for 3rd. Maybe the prize money gain would have not been worth it,

unless his protest was upheld and his $250. refunded.

 

[Kelvin]

@Edbrazil according to his blog, he did protest.

 

@Andre @lpskier The "benefit of the doubt" rule is in the AWSA rulebook but not the IWWF rulebook. This was an IWWF tournament so benefit of the doubt rule does not exist.

 

[Edbrazil]

Missed that. Wonder whether the protest was submitted and handled in the proper

manner, which would have included a review of the boat video by a designated judge

and/or Chief Judge. If so, he would be out $250.

[Edbrazil]

OK. Read the blog. Hours??? Was the protest fee submitted and the proper video review

procedure followed? Blog is not clear about that.

Presumably, the @jdarwin comment was not serious, but an attempt at dry humor.

[bkreis]

after watching the video, I'd say tie goes to the skier and it's 2 as it's too close so decision should favor the skier

 

[jimbrake]

2. Crossed the line still supported by the ski. Not in an optimal position, but still supported. The moment that he releases the handle and the rope begins to recoil, he is still supported and has crossed the line. Would be a very tough call in real time.

[lpskier]

@Kelvin "See,e.g.," in legal parlance, means to review a related but not controlling rule as an example of how the actual rule could or should be applied. I was careful to point out that 1.15 is an AWSA rule. The Open is run under IWWF rules. There does not appear to be a rule comparable to 1.15 in the IWWF rules, but, in my view as a senior judge, the same spirit should apply in application of the IWWF rule. On the other hand, I have been wrong before... Many times.

[Orlando76]

Looks like 2 to me. For those familiar with red light cameras in money hungry towns, that would've cost $248.

[RazorRoss3]

@Orlando76, are you suggesting "close enough for government work"? I can't say I disagree.

[ToddL]

The line in his screen shot is too wide because it is up at the top edge of the back of the boat. If you imagine a point directly under that top edge at the water's level, that is where the yellow line should point to. That would be a little bit in front of his front binding.

 

@mwetskier is onto the problem with the rule text... crossed = ?

 

What is the official portion of the ski that has to cross the line? Front binding? And is it break the plane like in football?

 

Also, I believe that in IWWF and in AWSA records the standard is that the skier must demonstrate proper execution vs. benefit of the doubt.

[lpskier]

@ToddL AWSA rule is the skier's front foot. No comparable IWWF rule. And it wasn't a record score so record standards don't apply. What it was was a tough call.

 

On the video review following a protest, two judges who were not event judges must review the video and agree to reverse the call. If they disagree with each other or agree that the video does not clearly overrule the original call, the original call stands. IWWF 14.11

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I watched the video several times and changed my mind between 1 1/2 and 2 each time I watched. Very close call, but in the end you live with what the officials called and move on. Its no different than a close call in the NFL or NBA - it may or may not be the "right" call, but its what the officials on site called.

[ToddL]

Thanks, @lpskier

[ScottScott]

In the NFL, if the review doesn't give indisputable video evidence to overturn the call, the call on the field stands. Even here with still and slow motion video from the boat we are disputing the evidence. It was close, but not indisputable.....the call on the field stands..... 1 1/2.

[klindy]

I believe the proper call is 2. And there's no doubt the key is the front binding. It's the front binding that need to go around a buoy for a record not just the tip. If it's good for the buoy why not the buoy line.

 

To defend the call of two ... the IWWF rule states 1) possession of the handle; 2) riding forward on the ski and 3) in skiing position. He was on the ski and riding forward. The question is when he lost the handle.

 

If you watch the video in real time you see he actually skis cross course significantly before eventually falling forward into the water. No violent buried tip. So he was supported by the ski.

 

It appears like a tight line past the buoy line. I believe he lost the handle after the binding crossed the buoy line. Therefore score is 2.

 

I have no idea how the call was challenged other than approaching someone to question it. A PROTEST is fundamentally different than asking for a video review to potentially correct the score. Comments above are correct that if he posted $250 the video gets reviewed - and a well defined process is in the rule book to make that happen. If he tried to put up the $250 and it was refused for some reason THEN he has a protestable situation because the officials didn't follow the rules. Semantics I know but you can't protest a judgement call.

 

What bothers me about this is the wide variance of opinions and rationale for the opinion. The rules are pretty clear. Look at the conditions in the rule and apply them to what you see. We have the video to review and we have the rules chapter and verse and we still get a dozen different opinions as to why 2 or 1-1/2.

 

Guess it is harder than just counting to 6 .....

[gjohnson]

@klindy I'm with you 100%. Every year, or so it seems, a debate over a score is discussed and opinions are all over place when, as you stated, the rules are clear.

[lpskier]

Any debate that requires us to get out the rule book and read it, and to then apply the rules to a "hard call" video is a good debate. No matter that our opinions don't effect Jmac's score, we all are better educated as a result of his complaint and this discussion.

[lpskier]

Reminds me of:

 

"You got peanut butter on my chocolate." "You got chocolate on my peanut butter!"

 

"Tastes great!" "Less filling!"

[The_MS]

You can possibly convince me it was 2 but if you put that situation at any ELR event I would bet you will always get a majority 1.5.

[Than_Bogan]

I disagree that the rules are clear. In fact, I think this thread proves that they are not.

 

I would say the rules are clean, which, as I sort of said earlier, is more important to me than clear. To make the rules clear, we need very precise definitions of fuzzy concepts like "skiing position." I'm not certain that's possible, and I am certain it's not worth it.

[wtrskior]

@MS why? what is ELR anyways? AWSA rules read the same when it comes to scoring points for slalom.

 

@Than_Bogan disagree; the rules are clear on what is skiing position. What is not clear to me is where the buoy line is either from a tower or on video. Similar to the strike zone in baseball IMO

[klindy]

@Than_Bogan following are the definitions of a "fall" and "skiing position" directly from the current IWWF rule book.

 

Part of the problem as I see it is the IWWF rule book is largely a long run-on sentence. It's also as much written to administer the World tournaments as it is to define the activities which make up the sport.

 

Either way some rules are clearly left up to interpretation and many have been clarified over time. What I believe you cannot do is make up words or concepts that don't exist in the rules.

 

I always like a debate ... to give the skier a full buoy he must cross the buoy line in skiing position. So, take each part of what defines "skiing position" - did the skier have possession of the towline? To me this is the potential part to argue but in my opinion had a tight line as his front foot crossed the buoy line. Second, is the skier riding forward or backward with a ski on his feet? Again pretty clearly yes. Lastly was his weight entirely supported by the ski? Again yes the skier glided on the ski well after the second wake before ultimately falling into the water. So we've met all three conditions which says the skier is in "skiing position".

 

The first condition that was met that was the exact point at which the skier "fell" was "a)" below - he lost possession of the towline. So that, again to me, defines the precise point where the fall occurred.

 

Rule book text to follow -

 

12.02: Definition of a fall

A fall in any event is defined as accomplished at the moment any one of the following occurs:

a) The skier loses possession of the tow line;

b) The skier does not have at least one ski on one foot; or

c) The weight of the skier is not primarily supported by his ski or skis; and, in addition, the skier is ultimately unable to regain skiing position.

 

12.03: Definition of Skiing Position

Skiing position is defined as that position in which all of the following exists:

a) The skier has possession of the tow line; and

b) The skier is riding forward or backward with a ski or skis on his feet; and

c) The weight of the skier is entirely supported by his ski or skis, or the skier is ultimately able to

regain control.

[RazorRoss3]

so arguably the skier was not able to ultimately regain control so 1.5? if that is correct would it have also been 1.5 if he had continued on the verge of falling for another 10 ft but had never regained control and crashed half way out to 3 ball?

[The_MS]

@wtrskior Because I am a SR Slalom judge and I have judged 100s of events. At those events, I have seen this exact call for this situation many many times.

I was in the same situation myself at 5 ball this year and had the call go at 4.5

An ELR is a record event that has L ruling for the L skiers.