Jump to content

Could this correctly be scored as a whole or 1/2 buoy?


Horton
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Baller
I would call that a miss.

 

 

10.03 A Miss or Riding Over

A. Skier Turn Buoys. It is a miss to ride inside a turn buoy or to ride over, straddle, or jump over a turn buoy. But 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

in my mind there is a possibility that the skiers front ankle is going to pass outside the ball. @david_ski makes a good point. I've just curious what everybody thinks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I think I'd need to see the next frame or some slow mo.  It sure looks like a ride over in that still but if the ski just grazed the ball and the ski keeps casting/sliding outward and turns around the ball I think it might be possible for a reasonable person to declare it a graze if it didn't displace the ball any more significantly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
46 minutes ago, jjackkrash said:

I think I'd need to see the next frame or some slow mo.  It sure looks like a ride over in that still but if the ski just grazed the ball and the ski keeps casting/sliding outward and turns around the ball I think it might be possible for a reasonable person to declare it a graze if it didn't displace the ball any more significantly.  

This⬆️, and this⬇️

The rule says sinking the bouy.  A few more frames could determine if ankles and that center  part of the ski are outside the bouy to give credit. 
 

either way, it's not "1" it's 1/2 😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
3 hours ago, CharlieThreeThree said:

1.15 Judging Standards

When a judgment call is too close to call and cannot be decided by allowable reviews, then the benefit of the doubt shall go to the skier.

For what its worth, that's an AWSA rule, but not an IWWF rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_

It looks like the edge of the ski will be outside the ball when the skiers ankle passes over the ball.  The ski will be outside the ball when the back half of the ski passes by the ball.

The ball was flattened on the top for a moment but it wasn't significantly moved or submerged.   

Its a heavy Graze but I would call it a Graze.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_

You can’t tell from that picture. If you’re judging, you’d watch the skier pass the buoy in slow motion and make the correct call. 
 

To me, it does not yet appear that the buoy has been displaced and the ski does not follow a rail-like path , so it may never displace it.  If the buoy does get displaced, you can see it pop up out of the water behind the skier and above its normal height after the skier passes it.  It’s often pretty clear and easy to see if you know what to watch for. 

Lpskier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

My take is the tip of his ski clobbered the ball but his feet went outside the ball. I see the rule that @david_ski above. By that text the score is zero? I am not exactly sure what the answer is. I would be inclined to score Dane 1/2. I think that is what he was scored by the actual judges.  ( actual score was 2 1/2 at 41)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

The text of the rule surprised me a bit as it doesn't mention the feet/boots at all.

If that is indeed the governing rule, then I'd say no points for that buoy.

But I had the same impression as many others: that it could be scored depending on where the foot went next.  Did we all just imagine that rule?

Edited by Than_Bogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_

The ski may not displace the buoy. Your binder and your body may. 
 

As the photos point out, there is a lot more to judging than “counting to six.” You need to know the rules, pay close attention and know what to look for  

if the photo’s of Dane were from the MC Pro, I’m sure that the TWBC cameras were designated as “official” cameras, and the CJ probably reviewed the call. If he or she awarded a half, then that’s the right call. The cameras are so good it hard to make a wrong call on video review.

A few years ago I was going to CJ a pro event  and I asked a more experienced judge for advice  He said “Put your best judge on video review.”

 

Lpskier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

@Than_Bogan

IWWF

8.08: A Miss or "Riding Over"
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.......

8.09: Scoring Buoys
A buoy not missed is scored as follows, up to the point of the first miss:......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_
24 minutes ago, Horton said:

@Than_Bogan

IWWF

8.08: A Miss or "Riding Over"
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.......

8.09: Scoring Buoys
A buoy not missed is scored as follows, up to the point of the first miss:......

So what is your verdict ?   Does this instance count as "riding over" .   Still looks like 1/2 to me.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

oh boy. I spoke to an Intergalactic Judge ( Pan-Am ) today about this. apparently this technically should be a miss as per the rule quoted by @david_ski. I'm not sure anybody would have caught this live, but to the letter of the rule it's not good. Frankly, I'm not sure if I agree ( or disagree ) with the rule, but it is the rule.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

@ScottScott exact quote from my email....

Quote

 

Geezzzzz

10.12D.      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).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I see 2 different aspects. 

1st is whether a buoy in question is a miss or not and is determined by whether the skier skies outside the buoy (which can graze the outside of the buoy,) or whether the ski is inside or over it. 

The 2nd, assuming they are outside the buoy, is how far down course they got in skiing position before a fall, that is determined by the front foot. 

Note: I don't say this as an experienced judge, just my interpretation of the rules we're reading.

P.S. Does is say Geeezzzz in the rule book?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
18 hours ago, swbca said:

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.

Soo, upon reading this rule for about the 5th time, I actually now DO seem room to call this 1/2.  There are only two things that should cause us to call it a ride-over (and therefore a miss).  Otherwise the rule clearly states that we're awarding points.

1) Move it significantly from its position.  Nope, I don't see that here.  Crushing a buoy is not changing it's position much at all.

2) Temporarily sink it.  Also nope and for the same reason: the buoy gives and therefore does not sink.

So now I'm claiming that this should be 1/2, and that if we want crushing of modern safety buoys to be called a miss, we need to add that explicitly to the rules.  Personally, I'd prefer that this situation score, and for that perhaps a "clarification" should be added to make it obvious that crushing is neither displacing nor sinking and therefore points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...