klindy

The green buoys …. “Hit it”!

@teammalibu Thanks Mike! I’m due for an update here … All good at the moment but I wouldn’t wish anyone have to go thru what I have, especially anyone from my ski family! Get your check scheduled today!

Prayers and good thoughts for Terry. I’ve l known him for years too and this is tough news. Hang in there and recover fully and quickly!

Don’t forget that MM didn’t exist in 1985 either. So if you weren’t in Open the only other place you could compete is your age group. There were 7 MM competitors this year with 5 getting into 39.

As someone who was part of AWSA leadership while this was implemented, suggesting it’s a “money grab” on the part of USAWSWS is severely short sighted. While the overall benefits of our affiliation with the USOPC can be argued, it is NOT only money. Second, it would be foolish to operate an organization like this without insurance. Without SS or something similar that insurance either becomes impossible to find or prohibitively expensive. Only a fool would think there is “zero exposure” to liability or believe that the problem doesn’t exist everywhere. It’s incredibly unfortunate but with more than a dozen cases and literally a pending case constantly since the beginning within waterskiing, people need to recognize the problem is real and isn’t going to magically go away. So as an organization you have a few options. Ignore it and hope for the best. Hopefully the above and history will suggest that is not the right answer. Or, participate in well recognized, endorsed programs like SafeSport. We can argue that it doesn’t apply or isn’t worthwhile but the fact is, the program does provide some education and “clues” to look out for everyday. Or, as an organization we embark on our own specific, “custom” program that has zero history or backing and would need to ultimately be proven effective (not sure how) to become valuable. Maybe we need an additional, specific program that is sport specific on top of the generic SS training? I’m not suggesting that, but the wide varying opinions expressed by members suggest there is no one size fits all answer. As a group, the more educated we are and the more we collectively know what to look for and HOW to speak up, the better it becomes for all and the few chances there are for something awful to happen. It is not fool proof. It is not perfect. However doing nothing just plain defies logic. I’ve personally taken the main course and all 4 follow up courses. It was largely what I already knew. Each one did enlighten me on something I didn’t think of or didn’t prioritize. Each time was a refresher to keep paying attention. I realize it seems unnecessary and perhaps heavy handed. I’d argue it’s not on either point. It could have been better communicated and unfortunately there were more unknown or undecided details that didn’t help clear communications. That said the membership has seemed to respond with those who wish to participate completing the training and moving on. Time will tell if there’s any effect or if the issues and investigations continue. As a parent and one who had supported and participated in the competitive side of the sport for decades, I hope it does make a difference.

@kevin Jack won mens trick.

@Bruce_Butterfield i kinda like the Goode. You might need to add that to your list above!

@scoke huh?? It’s the executive director Nate Beaudroux. While he may not have filled out his profile he’s posted his email in at least one of his posts above.

Same hole pattern but I need to move the rear toe rubber much more “forward” than centered on the plate. Otherwise my heel was off the edge of the ski. I moved the rubber up to only use two of the three holes used to mount it to the plate.

A scorer can run a pdf copy of a partial scorebook (like they do for running orders) and post it to the waterskiresults site. Check the Jr US Open tournament a few weeks ago and look on the far upper right of the page for a link to the pdf’s. There may be others that I don’t know about.

Okeeheelee for both 2023 and 2024.

The whole subject of boat availability, credit and the “nationals credit” idea is something that needs serious discussion and changes.

https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Waterski/Disciplines/3-Event-Water-Skiing/Technical-Controllers-Resources/VG_v1_0_0.zip?la=en&hash=F9739916CFD60F64911607EE5496BA4B5A7A46AA

Different descriptions resonate differently to different people! FWIW, I understood @Horton right away!

We pulled the ramp all the way on shore and blocked it up for the winter (4 - 55-gallon drums at the corners). So, cleanup and touch up was pretty easy. That said, it was also pretty minimal. We spent far more time touching up and repairing fiberglass and side curtains. We also had a 4'x14' carpeted deck off the front of the lower frame which was recarpeted every couple of years or so. Since the ramp was on a public lake we typically used the ramp as a floating starting dock for practice since it was inconvenient to use a pier or the boat (too many people and/or skis). @ForestLake may be able to chime in on any recent maintenance but that ramp was built back in the early 90's and still looks as good as new.

Agreed. When I learned the reverse back wrap I had to push the handle WAY down (like near my knees) to be able to hold it. Then, while backwards, I learned to stand up straighter and slide the handle just below my butt. It helped me learn which muscles were needed to hold it. It worked better for me to learn it rather than just forcing it back and being pulled front over and over.

We had a steel ramp in SW MI (currently in Holland @ForestLake ). It was simply pained with rustoleum paint (primed and a white color coat). Touched up yearly. You might consider sandblasting and painting if it’s rough. For a gate, we welded 3 vertical pockets at the hight end which would accept a 1”x1” square tube. We made a gate of 3 - 2’ long pieces of tubing with a 1x6 treated piece of wood across the top. The legs for the gate slipped into the pockets and the middle one had a hole which we could put a padlock into. We’d unlock and lay on the lower deck when we skied. The pockets/brackets were held below the surface about an inch to support a piece of 3/4” PVC on top which has small holes 3” on center across the top to water. The gate worked fine but didn’t prevent occasional swimmers/“sliders” from getting on it and sliding down it. We considered adding a heavy rope or chain across the bottom but we’re concerned it would damage the surface or wax.

Great tournament and LOTS of fun! Two lakes constantly busy and great skiing all day long. Thanks for being able to help and to ski!

@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.

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.

@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!

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.

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!

@BlueSki Howard Cosell certainly had a unique personality but he never called a boxing match like they call the WWF. Just like you wouldn’t call a baseball game using cricket terminology or use rugby terms for football.

I’m not a fan of the wakeboard style trick announcing. Even Tyler is doing it now more than in the past.