Masters Webcast

[BS74]

Just click on the: Watch on Vimeo

[JayG80]

O’Brien.com website coupon code announced 62Masters for 35% off thru Monday. Unsure of capitalization since it was verbal.

[klindy]

I’d suggest the announcing is probably fine for the live onsite announcing. Encouraging people to visit the booths and hyping the on-site sponsors is important. Likewise the WWF style does get the crowd excited. That said, announcing for an on-site crowd is definitely different from a webcast. When we setup the TWBC webcast of the first Nationals (Bennetts) I was one who strongly believed we needed two announcers - on-site and webcast. In fact we had different announcers for each lake so the crossover talk and on-site theater wasn’t on the webcast.

 

I noticed Dano threw the play by play call to Tyler much more often today for tricks. I sincerely appreciate that!

[Swerve200]

Dodd's second jump - had some major rollers on his cut into the jump, smart to pass, but poor conditions probably cost him the jump title....and Dano's announcing is obnoxious!

[BKistler]

I hate the constant shift in camera angle during a trick run. You get this beautiful view from the boat and you are watching each trick, holding your breath… then it cuts away at the most dramatic moment and it takes a second for your brain to adjust to what just happened. Pick an angle and stay with it for God’s sake. It’s only twenty seconds.

[Brokenstack]

All you Dano Haters. Go listen to every single one of the awards presentations that TWBC covers. Tony Lightfoot does the exact same thing Dano does. The difference during the cometition is that TBWC does a webcast that happens to also get broadcast live onsite, The masters is a live onsite event that happens to get webcast. Different announcers would be nice but some one here put up the money.........I am happy to watch what I did for free.

(I dont know anything about trick skiing or wakeboarding so cant comment on that but really does it matter what the tricks are called? I enjoy watching some amazing athletes.)

Oh and the NFL has billions of dollars, cameras everywhere, and replay and sometimes they still get it wrong.......

[APB]

I’m not a fan of Tony’s announcing either. The quality of the vid, the on screen highlights, replays and review are sooo good w twbc.

 

The masters is a staple of the sport but it needs a serious makeover. Will got robbed…. Travers and Poland were the definite days highlights.

[ALPJr]

Thanks. Good finals

[LeonL]

As voiced previously, I have my complaints about Dano, but the advertising isn't one of them. He has no call on that. The sponsors/advertisers support the Masters and the webcast. Just like watching normal broadcast TV, the advertising is gonna be there.

[jhughes]

Wow, tough crowd.

[Jody_Seal]

some of you would whine if your ice cream was cold!!

[morfoot]

Yep...agreed Jody and Joel! Armchair QB's are a dime a dozen after game day and same thing applies here but there is a reason why they aren't announcing OR Skiing in the tournament.

[B_S]

Not enough cheese in the world to go along with all the whine in here.

[klindy]

Not whining … there has been a LOT of feedback over two or so years (still continues) for TWBC and they’ve made constant improvements.

 

The biggest issue in my opinion is using on-site announcers for the webcast (or vice versa). As for advertising, instead of filling dead space by reading advertising scripts (or reminding people to “visit the booth”) webcast viewers would likely appreciate more typical produced commercials and, to fill dead space, tell us about the competitors - history, training, family/friends, etc.

 

There’s room for improvement. They can accept it or reject it. None of it is intended to offend those who do work very hard to produce what we were able to enjoy.

[richfoster]

My comment was total sarcasm. I thought I might get more of a reaction. It seems that too many complain or are offended by just about everything. I do prefer TWBC,but this webcast is good and is much better than having no webcast.

[dave2ball]

Maybe next year we have the option of turning on subtitles so when muted we have some sort of an idea of what is being said.

[RAWSki]

Perhaps Horton needs to start a new site...BOW Board of Whiners

The Masters is unique and a great experience live. Where else in the US can the atheletes ski into the beach cheered on by hundreds. Competitors can see and hear the fans during their entire pass. Does the broadcast need a technical upgrade----probably, i did see drones in use for some purpose and there are several cameras mounted specifically for judging that are not integrated into the broadcast. It's a different animal and produced by a different production company. I am sure some notes are being taken.

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Yeah I share the complaints about announcing, but another major issue is how they changed the camera angle at exactly the wrong times, leaving the viewer thinking ..wait, what...

 

Happened consistently in both trick and jump where the camera angle changed twice for the skier at critical times leaving the viewer disoriented.

 

The Masters is suppose to be the Premier event in 3 event water skiing. IMO, Nautique and the other sponsors need to decide going forward if this is a real 3 event world caliber event, a WWE wakeboard show, or an infomercial for all the awesome boats Correct Craft builds. Currently they are trying to do all 3 at once, and it sucks.

[scoke]

There’s Nate smith, then everyone else. Most dominate skier ever.

[mcskier41]

obviously some of you are content with mediocre broadcasting of a such a Premier and Prestigous event. The broadcast is OK but could improve so much. What is wrong with some constructive criticism. I'm sure all of you receive it from people watching you ski from the boat. Don't you want to see the Masters improve or continue to remain average? Our sport is so small in the world of choices and we need to keep up with the times to stay relevant

[Than_Bogan]

I think it's quite significant that people actually care that the broadcast is not great! If nobody was interested in watching, then this "complaint" thread wouldn't exist.

[disland]

The simple and easiest addition would be to add some skier interviews. It was disappointing we didn't get to hear from Joel after his big win, instead we had an interview with some suit. That was nuts. Just add a 3rd person on the dock. Or move Dano to the dock, he would be great at that.

 

Imagine Tom Brady wins the super bowl and instead of an interview with him, they bring in some suit to pitch his product.

[Slalom.Steve]

There is definitely room for improvement, the video quality and video editing was really bad for sure. But to try to find a bit of balance:

1. I don't know that we can complain about our sport being small and not being on ESPN, then complain when sponsors are willing to pay money to be advertised during skiing events. Is it annoying? yes. Is it a necessary evil to have financial backing? yes. I would love if we had to mention Red Bull in between each pass lol. It was a bit overdone but I'm not really gonna hold it against them.

2. I agree Dano's announcing is very bad for TV/webcast, but probably very good for the live/outdoor loud speakers. Particularly for anyone who's not a full-on ski fan and on the beach talking with people, playing in the water, etc, the "over-hyped" announcing draws attention to the water and creates excitement, and outdoors from a wide-range speaker it doesn't come across as yelling in your face like it does in your living room. What they really need is two different feeds.

3. I see criticism for the judging in regards to Freddie, but it seems to me more a failure of the video crew that they failed to capture Freddie's turn at 6? If the judges had an adequate video to review, I imagine they'd have made the right call, but at least from what was shown on the webcast, I don't see how anyone could tell, so I can't say that they did a good job or a bad job.

[prk]

scoke just a refresher in the last 9 years nate smith DID NOT win every event he enter Jacinta Caroll DID

[buechsr]

Every time I flicked it on, it seemed like there was on average about 700 people watching. More people watch high school football games. This isn't the NFL. For that viewership, I thought coverage and commentating was better than deserved. I like Dan. His golden mic podcasts are great. Different strokes I guess.

[klindy]

@buechsr @SlalomSteve i also like Dano and totally agree that the announcing style is fine for on-site coverage. Even the frequency of pitching the sponsors would be fine live. Totally agree with @disland and dockside interviews. That would be a great addition.

 

All the above suggests that separate announcers (and styles) would be an improvement.

 

Otherwise, I thought the webcast was great! Fun to watch great skiing at Calloway!

[dave2ball]

Ive have also noticed that around 700 viewers were watching at one time. Why is that? After talking with a buddy of mine he did bring up that Nautique wants bodies on the shoreline, not the webcast. That may explain a lot.

[UWSkier]

Didn't watch. Don't care to. Lake 38 this weekend OTOH...

[Jaypro]

As someone who is fairly new to the sport, and admittedly a slalom neophyte, can someone explain to me how Freddie can be de disqualified for arguing a perfectly valid point? If the video they use for review, doesn't clearly show him missing it, and his spray is making it difficult to see anything, not him or his ski, how can you take the buoy away? Wouldn't you need clear video to make such a game changing call? Also, I agree with all the posts about the broadcasting and video, its not even close to TWBC. Close to unwatchable. If we have a tournament called the Masters, shouldn't the qualifications, video, broadcasting, and everything associated with it be up to the highest standards?

[skierjp]

@Jaypro the video you saw on the webcast is not the video used to make the decision. There are multiple cameras plus judges in the towers. If the webcast video would have been used according to the rule book the judges would error to the skiers favor. Remember, it’s not all about Fred, JT had just as much to loose or gain on the outcome of the decision. Fred or JT could have protested the call. Put up the 2 or 3 hundred dollars and you see what the judges saw. Maybe they did not sure.

 

[DW]

It is a shame that the Super Bowl of 3 event skiing is not either popular enough, exciting or compelling to be broadcast on a more mainstream, popular channel (whether streaming, cable or whatever).

[Jaypro]

@skierjp I would think for full transparency the organizers would share that video. That would remove all doubt. I am happy to have skiing on the web at all, I feel the product at the Masters could be significantly better. Given the number of posts on this thread, it seems I not alone.

[skierjp]

@Jaypro I don't get it, you don't believe the judges decision? What would the judges have to gain? Like I said, Fred or JT could protest the call and throw down the money. I've been involved in some of these controversial calls. They are not easy but if there is any doubt you go with the skier. The judges at the Masters have been doing this for a long time. The reason why some of these calls take so long is they have to get all the judges together to review the video and possibly discuss any rules to make sure everyone is on the same page and then they vote.

[buoyboy1]

Since Freddie was the last skier, is there a reason they could not have simply pulled him back at 41 as a provisional then taken all the time necessary to get the call right? Then, if still in complete doubt, take 5 in the finals or is that too much common sense? Seems a bit unfair to leave a skier in the water that long and get out of rhythm of the set while the judges scramble to get a very important call correct should he have been allowed to continue.

[dave2ball]

@buoyboy1 if the cut off is 4 then you can’t make any exceptions. If you do where do you draw the line next time. Unfortunately yes it will break someone rhythm but that happens. Remember these skiers are professionals. They can handle these situations.

[Horton]

@dave2ball I'm not sure you understood @buoyboy1's comment

[dave2ball]

@Horton my take on what he said is bring Fred back at 41. He gets a score. If after 5 minutes of reviewing and it is still inconclusive you take five to the finals.

Not 4 which was the cut off. You know as well as I they can’t change the rules in the middle of the game and a skier must complete the pass prior to move on. Unfortunately an issue came up and it took many minutes to get a ruling. If the officials said inconclusive we will take 5 to the finals then a president has been set.

 

[Horton]

@dave2ball

The problem was that there was a tournament video problem that prevented the judges from making a call in a timely manner. If they had pulled Fred back at 41 they could then gone back later to decide if he got around 6 at 39 or not. It is not different from when a skier gets their gates taken under review after the ride is over. The way they handled it, if they eventually decided the score was 6 Fred would have need had to go back out after a lot of time had passed. It makes more sense to finish the ride and then deal with the review process.

[dave2ball]

@Horton i agree there may of been or was a video issue. But to bring him back at 41 goes agains the rules. This would imply Fred got 6. If Fred got a full 1 that would of bumped JT out. JT would then protest because there was was not conclusive view of a completed pass at 39 by Fred. Make thins more interesting Fred beats JT 1 buoy vs 1/2 @41. Then the judges rule 5@39 that would put JT in the finals a team Nautique skier. I don’t think the judges would do such a thing but the perception is there.

 

Just my personal opinion by not having conclusive views of Fred and him turning or not turning 6 ball the judges should of taken the boat judges call he may of had the best view.

[Horton]

My way the judges can clean it up later and all options are on the table. Your way Fred is screwed it they finally rule that he got 6. It does not impact JT until Fred's final score is final. Fred either got 6 @ 39 or not and that was the question.

[dave2ball]

Unfortunately the rules don’t state you can clean up a score or video review after the next pass if the call is inconclusive. If we were able to someone back while there score is being reviewed that would be great. As of now we are unable to.

I believe Fred got screwed. Did Fred get to see the same video the judges looked at to make there decision? I hope so. I’m guessing he did not.

At one of the most prestigious tournaments video play back should be clear at all angles.

Here is a thought drone footage of passes.

[skierjp]

If Fred put down money and protested he would have seen the exact video that the officials made the call on

[skierjp]

@Horton, pulling Fred back at 41 is a mute point the judges scored him 5@39 so it doesn’t matter. I understand there were some judges that scored 5 which triggered the video review. The real problem would have been if they awarded him 6 after all that wait and he had to continue his set. I believe the rule reads after that long of a delay they would have pulled him to the other end and he could choose any line length 39 or shorter as a warm up pass with a protected score of 6 at 39. He would then continue with his 41 pass. The part that sucks is how tight are your bindings and other factors. I have no doubt Fred would have choose 39 for the practice pass and advanced to 41. He had nothing to lose.

Didn’t they have something similar a few years ago with Nate and a gate call. It took forever and I believe there was a change in the rule where you are only allowed to review the gate twice and you have to make a decision. Everyone is beating up on the judges like they don’t care but they understand the importance of these calls and they want to make sure it’s right.

 

[ALPJr]

For the integrity of a game I’d say you can’t continue play during a official or video review. Wouldn’t know… what down it was, which team had possession, fair or foul, play offense or defense, is 1@-41 enough or do I need 3? Like @dave2ball said, they are pros.

[UCFskier]

@dave2ball they are saying pending review. allow him to continue into 41 due to issues with the review. if after he skis they are able to conclusively say you only achieved 5 at 39, nothing at the 41 pass would count.

 

I agree.... not cool to sit in the water that long. what if they determined he made 6 at 39 and sat that long??

[skierjp]

Rule book

[dave2ball]

@UCFskier i totally understand what they are saying. If they could of pulled Fred back in for his 41 why didn’t they?????? What do the rules say? Is there any rule for this situation? Did Fred protest ? That is my point. I’m not saying what happened was right. Not even sure it’s possible to bring someone back pending a review. This maybe a situation that has not happened before.

[Horton]

I covered the other big mess from Masters Men's Slalom in the new DFC podcast

 

https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/26935/dfc-60-2022-masters-water-ski-review

[rico]

It would have been fine to let Fred continue at risk with a final score to be confirmed after review.

 

Do we know the judge setup at Masters? 5 or 3 with video?

[UCFskier]

Im not say they "could" under the rules rather in a pro event they can set or create rules. no rule say they have to stop before each attempt at the ramp,,,, but on lake Robin its a great idea!! this should be something they consider for next year