what is this score?

[MISkier]

The buoy on that 3.5 seems to be significantly submerged by the skier. Wouldn’t that be enough to call just 3 and not 3.5?

[Stevie Boy]

@eleeski it's not Hostile, it's just a opinion, there has been plenty of controversy over other scores and decisions that have been questioned, if a World Record is going to be ratified. then the decisions made by officials should be right, we do not have the video that they have and we were not on site, I am not questioning there decision, just putting my view on it.

That doesn't make it Right.

[Horton]

@eleeski

This is a slalom world record. Regina likely was paid a fist full of dollars as a result. It matters a lot to her and to the next skier who rises to her level and tries to break this record. This is the supposedly greatest score in the history of women's skiing.

There is not any room for interpretation. She either got her front ankle outside and past the ball or not. Even IF she did get outside and past the ball the video does NOT show it.

The below frames are in sequence.

 

I am sure Regina is less than happy about this thread. I hold her in the highest regard. She is clearly the greatest female skier of our time and some may argue that she is the greatest female skier of all time. Heck she may be the greatest skier male or female of all time. My assumption is that in 2020 she will equal or surpass this score and it will no longer matter to her.

I am beating this dead horse because I care about the integrity of the sport. How did this score get certified as a world record?

[Ali]

First viewing 4.5. Slow motion frame by frame ski comes inside, so 4.

 

Great skiing though, as she turned 3 looks like she is going to run the whole pass but ski just hesitates as it is about to complete the turn which costs her.

 

Cheers

Ali

[John Brooks]

@Horton my speculation is that there were 2 cameras on the pylon, the one you displayed and a higher resolution as a backup and that one of them was very clear and provided what was required to be approved. Many of us, TC's, now use 2 cameras on the pylon.

[klindy]

@Horton the quality difference with @Kelvin video is that he was filming at 60fps with a quality handheld camera (with an quality camera operator properly zoomed) vs a 30fps video more recently which was a much wider angle shot. I said at the time if the score set in 2013 was videoed with a "typical" setup the record would have been accepted. I was more sure the score was 3-1/2 in 2013 than I am 4-1/2 in the current video.

 

@Kelvin, what we need is the unofficial video from the 'grassy knoll' to see if the buoy is on the backside of the ski. See 0:31 & 0:40-0:50 in your video. :smile:

[Horton]

@John Brooks If there is better video then where is it? I have been told it exists but have not seen it. If it surfaces than all questions about the record will stop.

@klindy when it comes to world records I think the "2013 video" quality should be required.

[Stevie Boy]

For what it is worth, which is probably not a lot as @Horton seems to think anything I say is rubbish, Hey Ho ! , But when I enlarge the upper one of the videos above without playing it, it really does appear that the ski is on top of the bouy or about to ride over it, which means a frame or two later and the bouy could have been displaced and the ski would then be viewed as on the outside of the bouy, but that maybe a optical illusion.

Difficult because video or judges from the boat, or in fact anybody could not say that, because of the Ball Of Spray.

Regina Is clearly a Mega Athelete and I do agree with @Horton she is and probably will be the Greatest Water Skier in our time, it will be a long time before there is another like her.

I now gracefully withdraw from this debate.

 

[eleeski]

"Integrity of the sport"? Questioning an old approved record based on somewhat ambiguous video is far from preserving "integrity". It sounds more like seeking interest for a commercial site.

 

But now anyone who judges a record will face the scrutiny of the internet armchair judges (who here seem to think 4 1/4 ?? meaning she got around the buoy but despite hanging on for a while but violated physics and stayed outside the buoy line). Judges will be reluctant to score anything that isn't unambiguously good.

 

If close calls NEVER go to the skier, is that fair?

 

Eric

[Horton]

@eleeski I want to make sure that I'm not putting words in your mouth or misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you saying that video is ambiguous? Would you go so far as to say the video is inconclusive?

[liquid d]

ya know , I called it in the 4th post on this topic...I'm not sure what all the discussion is after that point!

[thager]

Fake views! Fake views!

[eleeski]

The video isn't perfect. But there's plenty of evidence that the ski is behind the buoy. The call on the water stands. 4 1/2.

 

Eric

[BraceMaker]

Is there any requirement to release the actual video used in judging?

 

I think calls made on scene count... Except for records. But at that point it has to be clear what the call is.

[Zman]

@thager You just got the gender wrong. :smile:

[klindy]

@BraceMaker that is the official video.

 

Let’s not forget rule 14.06 in the IWWF rulebook -

 

“14.06: A miss or "Riding Over" (2019)

a) Skier Turn Buoys. It is a miss to ride inside a turn buoy, or to ride over, straddle, or jump a turn buoy. There is no penalty for grazing a turn buoy with the ski or part of the body. Riding over shall be defined as hitting a turn buoy with the ski so as to move it significantly from its position or temporarily sink it. Hitting a turn buoy less severely shall be considered as grazing.“

 

[BraceMaker]

Correct in video review that is certainly not a graze. Which makes it a ride over or miss not a .5 ball. If there is a different video then that could show a graze in which case it's a made half ball and a record. What I read in this thread is that the videos provided seem to show a miss or a ride over which is also a miss.

 

Better quality video MAY clarify the scenario to show it to be clearly a graze and a world record and several posters have implied that this does maybe/could exist. Is there any rule in iwwf that states this video must be produced if it does exist and was used to create this ruling?

 

 

My bestest slow mo on hi def 4k tv at slowest replay looks like a ride over, in practicality I think it would be scored as a 4.5 in the event for placement with a fail to ratify as record score in review

[BraceMaker]

Unless someone can manage to find the frame of outside the ball....

[Kelvin]

@klindy, its my understanding that the record review committee actually requested and reviewed the video from the grassy knoll as part of their process. Isn't there now a rule that prohibits using such unofficial videos?

[MISkier]

It's interesting that it took so long in this thread to note that it looked like the skier was riding over the buoy.

[9400]

Base on what @klindy posted on the rules, the 3.5 becomes a 3, and the 4.5 (which is much harder to see) probably becomes a 4. Although "sinking vs. grazing" is probably going to be open to interpretation....does sinking mean the top of the buoy goes below the water surface?

[MISkier]

If you are grazing a buoy, it should be moving predominantly in a lateral direction across the surface.

 

If the buoy is being submerged by something on top of it, no score.

 

When a buoy is bobbing up and down in a predominantly vertical direction with some amount of released energy/buoyancy demonstrated, it likely has not been grazed.

[klindy]

@Kelvin I don't know if the "grassy knoll video" was used in 2013. In fact I doubt it was both because it's neither an official video nor was it from any of the standard locations - either gate, end course or boat. Further, if it was used, the decision may have been different :smile:

[Zman]

IMHO. Looking at the frame I posted on November 9th, and @Horton posted yesterday, showing the front of the ski outside the buoy, almost to the front foot.

Skier was out running the boat as evident by the next frames where the boat still hasn't moved away from her yet.

If speed was approaching 40 mph, that would be about 60 feet per second, or 2 feet per frame of video shot at 30 fps. @Than_Bogan check my math.

So, one frame later, the buoy would be getting dunked by the rear boot, after be dunked by the front boot.

At 41 off, barely any lean, and the front of the ski grazing the outside of the buoy, the buoy has to get boot dunked. No way around it.

So, does boot dunking disqualify getting at least a quarter or half buoy?

To me, that's the question. Thoughts?

 

[Horton]

@Zman

A ) in the first frame how can we know if the tip of the ski is wide of the ball? To me it is inconclusive because of poor video quality. ( My guess is that she is center punching the ball. Not sure how she does not immediately flip forward )

B ) your analysis could be correct but it is a theory not proof. Regina might have scored 4.5 but I do not see proof. For a world record we need proof.

C ) ANY conversation about a score of 1/4 is ridiculous and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of slalom mechanics.

[skispray]

It seems like her ski did not go outside the buoy in this video. Not sure if it’s the same as was originally posted.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5JGsWLhCaT/?igshid=1grbuhr922ikh

[eleeski]

The world record was ratified. Therefore, that view defines a scoring view. We can't go back in time and hover a drone over the buoy for the "proof". We have to make judgments based on incomplete data - and accept those judgments. As we have in the past. Some past records were approved without video for us to critique!

 

Three pages after @liquid d correctly called it? Further second guessing is just trolling.

 

Eric

 

 

[Zman]

@Horton No disagreement, especially your 3rd point, C). Well, some disagreement on A). B)

With 10.25m line and the ski right about 11.75 from course CL (and good boat path because I know who was driving) there is no way the ski hasn't drifted inside the buoy line shortly after the buoy. As you say, the slalom mechanics rule here. And, she had the handle.

4 or 4-1/2 is the score. Close call for sure.

I saw it from the shoreline and can only say that at full, live speed it sure looked like the ski got wide of 5 ball. I was cheering immediately.

[bishop8950]

@horton we don’t need proof and very often won’t have any. If the call on the water was 4.5 (not unreasonable call, it’s damn close either way) and then the video was inconclusive (Which many would say it is), then it’s a record even without proof.

[Horton]

@bishop8950

 

[bishop8950]

@horton how much proof do you have of any of your tournament performances? Even at a R tournament with the best video kit available you can still get into a situation without proof or in other words an inconclusive video. In that case (often) you have to go with the judges call.

 

It’s happened to me as the judge and the skier.

 

I once had a nationals gate called in by 3 judges, then after splash eye review the entrance gate was zeroed. Then upon my Protested video review, the same video that was used to score me zero was determined by the chief judge to be inconclusive (did not support in or out) and the zero stood. So no proof. Of course I felt a bit like I got screwed and that was my 39 entrance gate, which I proceeded to run the pass, and would have earned be a podium spot and a shot at the MM title.

 

Many times as a judge the video available didn’t not support a confirmation or change to the original call. Again, no proof.

 

This case seems no different to me. Of course it’s a big deal because it’s a WR but from the tournament operations perspective, it’s no different than any other performance in the same tournament.

 

 

[Horton]

The story goes that there is another video that clearly shows Regina getting around 5 ball. This other video is not public ( that I am aware of ) but if it exists will someone please produce it?

 

[eleeski]

John, what is up? Why resurrect this thread? The decision was made by qualified judges and the record stands.

 

You seem to be harping on an excessively strict applications of the rules. Maybe it's good for traffic at the site but it is horrible for the sport. We do not need second guessing of performances or criticism of officials who never give benefit of doubt to the skier.

 

Skiing should be fun. Quit nit picking and go ski.

 

Eric

[Horton]

@eleeski This subject comes back up because I am again hearing about it off line. I care about it because I care about integrity in the sport.

 

Regina may have rounded 5 ball. I do not know. I just do not think that video clearly shows it. What irritates me is the rumors that there is actually conclusive video but for some mysterious reason it is not public.

 

Can't say it enough, Regina might be the best skier male or female in the history of the sport. I fully expect her to meet or exceed this score soon. My issue is with this one record and the the way it was certified. A world record should be beyond reproach.

[eleeski]

I was taught to judge "there must be proof that the skier DIDN'T make it". It looks like she made it, there's a frame where she is outside the buoy, there's enough frames with her holding on long enough to score at least 1/4, those frames also show inward movement enough to earn 1/2, and this is the official video.

 

You are damaging the integrity of the sport by questioning the results based on a non official possible conspiracy theory video. Regina "may" have gotten credit - no, she DID earn credit, officially!

 

Regina is a skilled skier who knows exactly what she needs to do to score. This thread is wrong on many levels.

 

Eric

[VONMAN]

Could it be the front of the ski was just outside the ball and her boots/ankle impacted the buoy, only to submerge from view? If the buoy's were Goode bubble buoy's that would explain a lot. Just adding my fuel to the fire.

[skispray]

Again, how is this not conclusive evidence that a score of 4.5 was not achieved?

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5JGsWLhCaT/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again

[MISkier]

@VONMAN, if the buoy is submerged by a part of the ski/bindings or part of the body before the front foot is clearly outside and around the buoy, then it is a miss. Only grazing is allowed. No submerging.

[Mateo_Vargas]

If it ain't 4 and it ain't 4.5 how about we all agree it's 4 and a taint

[eleeski]

This is so wrong. The score was reviewed and approved. That should define what a scoring buoy is.

 

I hope you guys aren't judges for me. "There's a possibility that that W5F could be slid so I'm going to no credit it!" Happens too often, I'm tired of it and this thread is making that more common. Let's just score everything zero and bitch at @JeffSurdej about declining skier numbers. @Horton This thread is sucking the fun out of skiing. We can't even enjoy Regina's record.

 

Eric

[mshaw200]

@eleeski you're a tricker, how many skiers do you know that actually do a legit and credit T7? VERY very few. And it credit is given left and right. Most of the best "pros" don't do a T7 without a hitch.

 

It's a question because there isn't a public video that shows clear proof of the ski around the buoy. Did you watch the video posted above?

 

Honestly, Regina will probably run 41 one day. No doubt she has the talent and ability to do it. What shes been able to do on a slalom ski is absolutely phenomenal. And with that being said, the video that the public has seen doesn't show clear evidence of the ski outside of 5.

[eleeski]

OK, I'll bite. I know that watching videos in freeze frame isn't proper judging, but if you watch those hitched T7s, the ski is in a different position after every frame. The rules do say that the ski must move continuously but say nothing about consistent rotational speed. Nor is the motion of the body relevant. So severe body hitches and slowing of the ski do not make a trick no credit! I stand by my comment that too many tricks are taken by overzealous (and improper) interpretations of the rules.

 

A WO must be 360 degrees. But nobody can ever execute a WO to exactly 360 degrees. Not physically possible. I teach it with a 20 to 30 degree cut at the wake and a landing 20 degrees back at the wake. So a properly executed WO is 320 degrees - consistent with history but in conflict with the rule book. Beautiful 320 degree WOs have been scoring since day one. Those approved performances and records must stand and the rules must consider what happens in the real world.

 

Since the rule book is subject to interpretation in real life, history must be our guide. Regina's approved record is the historical record that defines what a scoring buoy looks like. T7s (and other tricks) that score in the qualifying tournaments are the guide for us to strive for.

 

Social media driving stricter applications of the rules (through horrible threads like this) are not valid. Tricks should be possible in the real world and buoys should only need to be rounded.

 

Eric

[MillerTime38]

I don’t see anything wrong with @Horton questioning the call based on the video provided and wanting to see the “Better video” that may or may not exist.

 

We all know Regina is the GOAT and there will probably never be another like her, but I wonder if it was a different skier if the record would have been approved with the video in this thread.

[matthewbrown]

That’s 4 if I’ve ever seen 4, that would be what it looked like. That being said, I think the driver short changed her, so may as well just give her a full 5 or maybe even 6 buoys while your at it, she’s going to run it soon anyway.

[Horton]

@MillerTime38

The skier is irrelevant in terms of pointing out that the video is inconclusive. I don't imagine Regina is very happy with me about this thread but I have nothing but respect for her. This thread is 100% about the validity of the video and the certification process.

 

If you take a long look at the things I have made noise about in the last few years, illegitimate scores is something I have complained about relentlessly regardless of who the skier is.

 

I'm still waiting for the long rumored "other video" to surface.

[matthewbrown]

Nothing wrong with having an intelligent discussion where relevant facts are murky at best.

[ForrestGump]

It's been a while on this one. Any new info? Horton mentioned another video a month ago.

[Horton]

@ForrestGump

I have not yet seen the higher res video. I have spoken to 3 known skiers who have seen it (not including the officials who rubber stamped the record). The consensus is that the higher res video is not really that much better quality that the one we have all seen. It does show a glimmer of red at Regina's back boot in one frame.

 

So the video is inconclusive at best. The officials involved seem to have avoided letting anyone outside their circle see the higher res video.

 

The one key official who I spoke to was indignant that I was asking any questions. He said he could send me the video but I would not know what I was looking at. Needless to say he never sent me the video & I feel like I was talked down to by a grumpy old man.

 

Besides that everything else is conjecture. I have no idea what really happened or why. The officials who approved this record are so high up in the sport that there is apparently no oversight. The whole thing is extremely disheartening.

 

 

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@horton from another grumpy old man - give it a friggin' rest! Officials on site made a call, it was reviewed as required and the score was confirmed.

 

Rumors of video from the grassy knoll - whether they show anything different or not - don't matter. The call was made and its done. All the hair splitting by BOS and the rest of the internet community DON'T COUNT.

 

Good or bad, right or wrong, the call was made and it stands. Get over it. Officials in all sports are human and do the best they can to fairly judge the athletes. All the Monday morning quarterbacking and bitching about the official's call DOESN'T MATTER.

 

I wish I could get that beating a dead horse gif to work.......

 

 

[matthewbrown]

There is no way on earth, that the skier could have produced the buoy shaped artifact in her spray, and still gone on the outside of the buoy. This artifact was not present at 1 ball or 3 ball. I can not believe this has gone unnoticed so far and most likely skipped the judges eye as well. Again, not taking anything away from possibly the greatest skier of all time as she will no doubt run this pass soon, and the boat path was insanely straight on this pass, but facts are facts.