lottawatta

Most of the skiers at my lake are tournament skiers and they will ski tournaments regardless. However, I know of several deep shortline skiers in other local clubs who either don't ski tournaments, or quit skiing tournaments for various reasons. ZBS does NOTHING to bring them in.

@bonehead, I fully agree, hence my reason to call a moratorium on any additional rules. I have long protested against the constant rules changes every year. Many of them are change for the sake of change. The rule book has nearly doubled in size in the last 20 years. Technology may be the reason for some of it. However, we should have the goal of reducing the rules, not making new rules. There is NO REASON a class C slalom tournament shouldn't be run with rules printed on one 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. If the powers that be want to have some real change for the better, they can form a task force that has the goal of cutting the current rule book in half! The rule book is the single most intimidating factor to a new tournament skier. A ZBS buoy count score chart is nothing but more complication in explaining how a tournament works.

ZBS is coffin nails for the sport. As someone who has made great personal sacrifices in an effort to put the sport in front of the public, I consider this ZBS a big step backward. The rules need simplified and streamlined, not complicated with this crap. The rules are hard enough to explain to the skiing public now. What are we going to do, pass out buoy charts at the few events that still get public exposure? If an outsider can't watch two consecutive skiers ski in an event and determine the winner by who ran the most consecutive buoys, then we are headed for even deeper obscurity. ZBS is spectacle and not true competition. Skiers of the same age division need to be skiing under the same rules with the same maximum speeds and the same progression up the rope. Not because that is the way it has always been, but because it uniform and is a true measure of who is the best skier on that day. @GK, I respect your opinion and all that you have done to bring otherwise recreational skiers to tournaments, but I couldn't disagree with you more on this issue. At the VERY LEAST, AWSA needs to reconsider this and promote it as an option in local or class C competition, but leave it out of state, regional, or national championships, and leave it off the ranking list.

For MW regionals, per the tournament listing on USAWS, practice is available Thursday after boat tests, Fri and Sat after completion of events. Tickets bought onsite at registration. Signup at starting dock.

I only offered more information to perpetuate the discussion and never intended to identify the skier or site. I am genuinely interested in what others think regarding the correct call, as I have been involved in at least ten other skiers hitting the bank incidents, whether it be a collegiate skier unable to navigate a turn island, or me personally who hit the bank on my pullout at my home lake 2 years ago and broke my ankle. This specific incident has sparked passionate discussions between officials ever since. There seems to be a deep division between those who thought a reride should be granted, and those who thought the correct call was made (both locally and in this thread apprarently). To ask the original question was very fair an appropriate. To fairly debate the question I added information. In the mix, the incident was rehashed, and for that I take responsibility, and I apologize to anyone I offended. @scarlet arrow, don't be discouraged from asking questions, that is what this forum (thanks the the intergalactic leader) is for!

@scarletarrow, I am the one who is the reluctant boat judge these days. Maybe I should temper that as I willingly accept boat assignments, I just don't specifically seek them out, and not only because of this incident, there have been others recently. I am not much of a talkie, touchy, feely type guy. I am there to accurately and fairly judge every skier's pass and make sure they got the same pull as the skier before them and the one after them. I am not there to talk them up or down. I personally, don't like to have the boat crew talk me up or down, or coach me, or talk about what happened the night before while I am skiing. I would rather have the quiet time to think about what I need to do next. Therefore, when I am in the boat, I prefer to remain quiet, or make small quiet talk with the driver (or judge if I am driving). I don't take the skiers mind off of what they are doing. I may sometimes smile and say "good recovery at 4 ball", or "way to stay patient", or "I'll see you at the other end", or "lets run this", but my business type demeanor tends to rub some skiers and parents of skiers the wrong way. I guess they would rather have the court jester or psychological crutch they need to run the next pass as boat judge and they would rather not see me in the boat. Fine, to each his own. To clear up the misunderstanding, at the time of the incident, there was discussion of a reride between judges over the radio, but no actual request by the skier or their representative. Given the circumstances, it was a blessing the only physical damage was to the ski. The skier was more scared than hurt, if that makes sense, and was very clear in that they did NOT want to continue. Well after the event was over the chief judge called a meeting of the event judges indicating a reride request had been made. Quite honestly, we considered two things, first the timeliness of the request, but we also considered the merits of the request just as if it had been asked at the time of the accident. Ultimately, the request was denied, and the skier was offered the opportunity to take an unscored round to "get back on the horse." I, personally, feel the call was correct. While I am curious as to what call my peers outside of this area would make, I do not apologize for my interpretation of the rules at the time. It is my opinion that the wonderful young (and accomplished) skier simply wasn't fully familiar with the site, was told to get wider earlier, and was concentrating fully downcourse and on the gates, and not necessarily on their physical proximity to the bank. I feel it was an unfortunate accident. I love the site and feel there is no liability on the part of the lake owners as the area of the incident was outside of what could reasonable be assumed to be navigable water for a slalom skier.

To address @klindy's points, I will offer some more info. This skier skied the day before and made multiple passes from both ends of the lake. The starting dock end of the lake is "full width" from the turn island to the course. The drop end is significantly narrower until you pass the 55's. Additionally, because there is much more room behind the start end island, the 55's are closer to the turn island at the starting dock end than at the drop end, giving the skier less time to pull out early. With much more open water and shorter run in to the 55's at the start end, I had no reference as to how early and wide the skier was attempting to get on the second pass vs. the first. As to boat path, the skier was skiing 28.6, well above what you would consider a speed that would sink the skier around an island. The way the course is placed diagonally in the lake, there is no way to go wider around the island. The only place the boat can exit the island channel is directly aligned with the course otherwise it would have been on the bank. As a boat judge, I always try to anticipate the acceleration of the boat and engagement of the speed control and look over my should, through the windshield at the boat path as ZO engages and before the skier pulls out. So, in short, there was no boat path issue.

Oldjeep, thelake is not that narrow throughout, only at the end. Please understand we are talking about lake width well before the 55meter buoys. What if this was for placement at a state championships and the skier did not want to continue when asked at the time? What if the reride was requested by the skiers representative well after other skiers in that division had skied and the event was over and results posted?

Scarlet Arrow, what was the consensus of the judges participating in the clinic? Should the skier have been granted a reride?

I guess I should add, I (as the boat judge, event judge, appointed judge) and the chief judge and other appointed officials discussed the situation at length with rule book in hand, with the skier's representative present, and found no "within the rules" reason to grant a reride. I watched the skier pull out well early of the 55's, looking down course, completely oblivious to how close to shore they were, and not stop pulling out until they hit shore. I ordered the boat driver to whip around and I jumped in fully clothed to get to the skier first. If my memory serves, we were about even with the 55's and well wide of the 2-4-6 buoy line when I got to the skier. The lake in question doesn't get significantly wider until just after the 55's. Believe me, I had and have all the sympathy in the world for the skier and felt horrible about it. As with most tournaments, all the skiers know one another, as I knew the family of this skier for many years before the skier was born. It was a difficult decision to have to make, to tell my friends that the junior skier would not be given the reride. It was at the skier's home lake 20 years ago I first joined the century club (first 100' jump in a tournament - used to be a milestone for skiers). IIRC, the skier was allowed to "get back on the horse" and ski the round again as an unscored confidence booster. The junior skier was simply used to wide open spaces and was concentrating so hard on what they were told to do (Pull out early and stay wide), so it was nothing more than an unfortunate accident. Before that day, I always made it a point to ask for boat judging assignments at whatever tournament I was in. These days I am far more comfortable on a tower.

I guess I am too "Old School", but as an official, I wouldn't advocate a reride out of sympathy in a classified age division in a class C tournament because of a skier's age or ability level. If it was a novice tournament, fun tournament, or in the novice division, then yeah, a mulligan might be in order, but when a skier is skiing for a score that would be submitted to HQ for inclusion into the ranking list, then I would choose to adhere to the current rule book.

Would it change anyone's opinion if they knew the skier had skied a tournament round (or two) the previous day at the same site and the same end of the lake with the same rip rap lining the shoreline? If this is the same incident I am thinking of, the skier skied into the riprap at the water's edge, it wasn't a submerged object out from the bank, it was literally the water's edge.

Jody is right, those ford heads are known to develop those cracks and weep some water. One could reasonably expect there to be some minor issues like this with a 23 year old motor. As long as there is no water in the oil, I wouldn't worry about it. There is no reason to believe the motor won't last 100's of more hours while weeping a little water. While I can understand your disappointment, I think you are making a big deal about nothing in the scheme of used boat buying. just my 2 cents.

I am pretty sure Nevin used to make a comp vest with a built in back brace a few years (or more) back. I never tried one because my back was still good back then. I would like to try one if someone came out with it today.

The rules committee was very responsive and assured me I need only apply for a rules exception should I want to host a tournament again. Now if Sammy wanted to come jump at my lake, I would have it painted red in no time!!!

I received a response from my rules committee rep. It appears to be an unintentional consequence of trying to align with the iwwf rules.

IWWF 13.02 l: It is recommended that all jump surfaces (fiberglass) be of a red-orange colour. Wax surfaces on wood will remain their natural colour. IWWF Doesn't require a red-orange color......and allows for wax over wood. Bringing the two in line would be to recommend a red-orange color. There used to be a handful of aqua or white surface in your old stomping grounds of OH, IN, MI @klindy. Not sure how many are still around, but there are some.

At the 2008 Jr. U. S. Open, as skiers arrived to the site, they walked down the path to take a look at the jump. To their horror, it was blue! On practice day, the first jumper went out to take a set. Several other jumpers were at the waters edge as the skier coasted back in after three solid jumps. "There is nothing wrong with THAT jump" was the first comment spoken. I think the performances spoke for themselves. Ask Sledgehammer or Worden what they thought of that scary blue jump. There is a video on youtube of Zach's record in very adverse wind conditions. Where did the need to be exclusionary come from? Was there a specific crash, a specific occurrence on a non-red jump? Did a boat driver drive into it because it was white instead of red? I am not sure why the rules committee thought it was necessary to make red-orange a requirement vs. a recommendation like it has always been, but whatever. It isn't like I need another reason not to host any more tournaments.

I sent in inquiry to my midwest rules committee reps. I was just curious if any ballers knew the reason or not. Seems to me, a red surface is no more safe than another color that is contrasting to the sides and the water. IWWF rules suggest a red-orange color, but allow for any color, including waxed wood's natural color.

"red-orange" was added. Everything else stayed the same. I was just curious as to what or who drove this. I have been over several different color surfaces, and I will take a white, blue, green, or any other color surface over a red surface with no wax or wax full of goose schnit. The only real reason I have an interest in this is because I special ordered my surface blue. I like to be different. My blue surface was good enough for Jr. U.S. Opens and World Disabled championships with nothing but positive reviews and several records.

Anyone know the reasoning behind the necessity to write in the rules that ramps must be red-orange? just curious.

Lets not confuse the host with the officials in this case. The host should be commended for their time and effort in saving the event this year. They certainly spent a lot of time getting ready and probably lost a bunch of money on top of it. If the officials didn't ensure the same conditions for all competitors in the division, it is egg on the official's face, certainly the host shouldn't be disparaged. The host couldn't have swam out after the event started and tightened the buoy if he wanted to. It was the homologator and other event official's fault the buoy was high. With a mindset like Stevie's, no wonder there isn't a line of venues foaming at the mouth to host these big events. This isn't a local tournament where the people who ski at the lake are the officials as well. When you host the worlds, the officials come in and the host has very little input into anything that goes on until the event is over. I commend the hosts for putting their neck on the line and making sure there was a world championship so the competitors could have one this year.

@TFisher One more thing: I see it is your first post. Welcome. Not that I am an anybody here. Mainly a lurker actually. But welcome nonetheless.

@tfisher Yes. I don't want to sound like I am discouraging support for the collegiate teams. I made many good friends, some lifelong, and some that are active on this site, through skiing in college and supporting college teams. I certainly appreciate their struggle to find a course or a jump or even a pull behind an inboard boat. I certainly hope those who ski in college continue to ski tournaments, buy skis, buy boats, and build their own lakes after college. As a lake owner, just make sure you cover yourself, don't have any lofty expectations, and you will be fine.

The last time I had a collegiate ski club use my site, I drew up a lease stating that I was leasing the lake, docks, jump, course, etc. to the university and that liability coverage was their responsibility. They somehow were covered with the school's insurance through a club sports type of policy. I made them give me a certificate of insurance at the time. Then, I wouldn't even drive or get in the boat for fear I would be found partially liable when someone got hurt. Believe me, I was a collegiate team supporter for many years before that. I used to give them keys to my lake to come and go as they pleased. I learned through experience that it wasn't worth my support as few, if any, are still in the sport today. One year, before I became old and crotchety, I was pulling practice with my boat. I had a team president tell me that it wasn't fair I was making money off of them by charging $10 a set. I used my boat, on my lake, with my gas, I drove, and I coached those who wanted it, for $10 a set, and they said it wasn't fair..... On the other hand, I know a few lake owners who rake in fat cash from the collegiate skiers and get tons of free work at their site. It works out well for them. It all comes down to the school and the team leadership I guess.