DFC 60 - 2022 Masters Water Ski review

[ROBOT]

[Horton]

The YouTube version will be out in a few hours

[Horton]

[UCFskier]

HEY!!!!! turn on your comment section on YouTube!!!!! great spot... agree with you however, super stoked for JT!!! great job!

[Horton]

@UCFskier yeah I never look at the comments on YouTube so I turn them off. if anybody has comments they can leave them here.

[LeonL]

@Horton the way you explained it, I agree that the situation should have been the same as if tournament supplied equipment failed. Skier gets a reride with a protected score.

[skierjp]

@Horton Awesome video, I never thought about the judge being somewhat as a piece of equipment that failed and Fred would have a protected score of 5 with a reride at 39..Awesome Idea

[Horton]

@skierjp The camera and camera operator are essentially tournament supplied equipment. Not the judges.

 

I do think the judges got it wrong but this was a completely unanticipated series of events in the heat of the moment.

[swbca]

If the camera problem had been identified as tournament operation problem by the skier or an advocate, would that have been grounds for a likely successful protest. I don't see how the judges could have come to the conclusion that its the skier's problem as they conferred over this.

[Horton]

@swbca well I wouldn't characterize it as "the skiers problem". What that they did was score him five. If I agree with it or not they did have some form of evidence that they felt justified not crediting him with six ball. I believe they used the video footage of his spray and the buoy after Fred had passed the ball by a number of feet.

 

For some reason this whole thing reminds me of that famous footage of Bigfoot running into the woods.

[disland]

Hmm, The camera didnt fail the operator did. Thats human error. The next question is the camera operator considered part of the officiating crew. If so then I believe that since the boat judge called 6 and they others couldnt tell, then the ruling should always go to the benefit of the skier.

[Horton]

@disland if they scored Fred 6 without enough evidence ( & Fred scored 1 @ 41 ) then JT would have a clear reason to protest. The judges were in a corner. The only solution is to give Fred a re-ride.

[MISkier]

@Horton, you said JT could protest if they scored 6 for Fred without enough evidence. The only evidence they need is that they cannot make a clear call, either with or without the video.

 

According to the rules (at least AWSA 1.15, not sure about IWWF), they give the benefit of the doubt to the skier when it cannot be decided by allowable reviews.

 

Any protest by JT would have to somehow show that the judges did have enough proof to make a clear call. So, given the video issues, I would think he would lose that protest.

[klindy]

First - I wasn’t there and have very little first hand information.

 

I think @Horton described it correctly. The two “shore” judges are on the same side of the lake and therefore MUST be able to see and review live boat video per IWWF rules. The boat judge simply calls whatever is seen from the boat. So if the boat video fails the best they can call is the max number of buoys they know the skier made it around. I would anticipate they would have called for a video review.

 

That review would have discovered the Trakker didn’t have the skier in the frame ( I solution). Then they likely checked the webcast video with the human operator and it didn’t show the skier either. So “assuming” the skier rounded #6 is not the right call. It’s not the same scenario where the skier “might have” missed the gates and then scored 6. So allowing the skier to “ski at risk” isn’t the right call.

 

The failure of tournament supplied equipment appears to be the right call (based on the limited info I have). Unfortunately that means running 39 again but likely a good call.

 

Remember a few things - the “tie goes to the skier” philosophy is an AWSA rule and is not in the IWWF rule book. Second, to reverse a call on “video review”, the two review judges need to agree on the call (different than the original majority call). Therefore if one (or both) review judges call 5, the original score stands. And if the video doesn’t exist, reversing the call is unlikely. Finally, there is a difference between “challenging a call” (limited video review) and a “protest”. The challenge requires putting up some money and a video review is done. A protest is a failure fo follow the rules and doesn’t require any money but does require citing a specific rule that wasn’t followed. A protest is resolved by a majority vote of the appointed judges. It is possible to challenge a call, be “denied” and THEN file a protest of a rule wasn’t followed.

[Horton]

Here is an Instagram video of Chief Judge showing the video to Fred

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CeIICWbACEn/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Ski2000]

I really feel for Fred. It’s crazy that in inconclusive video would put him in this position. I hope that the powers that be don’t punish him overly because of an emotional response to the situation.

 

[brettmainer]

Sounds like an error by the chief judge, who should be more in line for sanctioning than Freddy if anyone is sanctioned.

 

Boat judge calls it 6. Other two judges say “At least 5, but we couldn’t see 6, need to see video before we can conclusively determine any score beyond 5.” Except, there is no conclusive video.

 

@Horton is correct that the proper solution is a re-ride, but I think an equally good (but more susceptible to JT protest) choice would be to say that the boat judge called 6 and there is no visual or video evidence to dispute the call, so the score is 6.

 

I don’t see how the the chief judge can justify “Majority score = 5” if the the two tower judges actually said “at least 5, need to see video to award more”. Score should have been 6 or re-ride with protected 5.

[klindy]

@brettmainer there is no provision in the rule book (IWWF or AWSA) to call something you didn’t see. So simply relying on the boar judge call of 6 is wrong.

 

The way the video review works is of there is a “challenge” of a score, two different judges that were not involved in the original call review the video. If both call something different from the original call, the review score stands. So, with the original call the two towers simply say “eh, no decent video so I’ll go with the boat” and then someone challenges the call the two review judges will have to call 5 since there is no conclusive video.

 

A separate but related rule is a “protest”which is where someone cites a specific rule that wasn’t followed and forces the appointed judges to decide on any possible action. In this case, the score is 5 (BJ scores 6 and other two score 5) and Freddie challenged the call (requires $250 to be posted for the review) and it was changed to 6 after the review, any other skier could have filed a protest because the rule which requires an immediate review of the boat video available of both tower judges are on the same side of the lake (assuming class R) could not have shown clear evidence to change the call.

 

Likewise, if the original call was 6 from all judges and another skier challenged the call, or would I have likely been reversed since there wasn’t conclusive video. Any split call should have triggered an automatic video review (I do not know if that was a standing protocol here).

 

One last thing, since this is a much a “show” as it is a high levels tournament, there may be some “masters” rules or “nautique” rules which caused certain things to happen (e.g.- no athlete requested video reviews allowed, for example). I have no idea if that is true, but it’s possible.

 

Anything that happened after that that may have caused or suggested a DQ is in addition to anything above. What’s above is just the typical path to resolving a conflicting score among judges.

[brettmainer]

@klindy, I know you were trying to be helpful with that post, but you just highlighted why this sport is suffocating in its own red tape. Let’s harken back to the wisdom of John Madden.

 

If all three guys in a bar agree it’s a catch, it’s a catch.

 

If the only judge who actually saw 6 ball says it was good, it is either good or a-ride is given because 2/3 of the judges couldn’t see it. A score of 5 is wrong in those circumstances. Even @Rico wouldn’t like it.

 

At least we can draw comfort from the fact that all of the judges were Safe Sport trained.

[rico]

@klindy the issue is that it seems the judging was done based on video. I was under the impression based on rulebook that the video for turn buoy was only available for review and video judge.

Again, assuming the tower judges fell over on their head while Freddie was running 39, should the call be 0? Or should it be re-ride?

The bottom line is it is the freaking Masters and video should be available under all angles.

[JackQ]

The proper procedure is the judges should make THE CALL by watching the skier. If the have doubts or disagree then review the video. They should not be utilizing the video for the initial call. That is how I understand the rules and common operational procedures.

[JackQ]

When boat video is used, the boat video will be monitored on the tower by another Judge who will advise the Chief Judge if he disagrees with the event Judges decision. In which case the Chief Judge and the review Judge will again review the video file to determine which score is correct.

If they both agree on a score, that will be the given score. If they disagree or agree that the video does not clearly overrule the score given by the Judges, then that score will stand.

If no other Judges are available the Chief Judge may act as boat video review Judge, and if he disagrees with the Event Judge’s decision he will ask the Judges to look at the video and the final score will be decided on by simple majority.