Judging From Home - (Richelle we need a lesson)

[Mateo_Vargas]

Noticed this while looking at some pictures of a skiers opening pass. Should they have been allowed to continue or is enough displacement to not count?

[Horton]

Look at the next frame....

[Horton]

From Diable Day 3 Open Womens (Mostly)

 

From Diable Day 3 Open Womens (Mostly)

 

From Diable Day 3 Open Womens (Mostly)

[Horton]

Tip of ski went inside but bindings went outside. Legal. looks to me like she trusts the Bubble Buoy.

 

From bottom shot it is clear to me that she is good.

[Mateo_Vargas]

Looks like a ride over to me.

 

10.03 A Miss

It is a miss to ride inside a turn buoy or outside the entrance or exit gate, or to ride over, straddle, or jump a turn buoy, but there is no penalty for grazing a turn or gate buoy with the ski or part of the body. ―Riding over‖ shall be defined as hitting a turn or gate buoy with the ski so as to move it significantly from its position or temporarily sink it. Hitting a turn or exit gate buoy less severely shall be considered as ―grazing.‖ (See chart in appendix)

[Horton]

Crap! We need Richelle for this one.

 

I have $5 on it is legal.

[Mateo_Vargas]

I don't participate in internet gambling.

[Boody]

Because its a bubble bouy, that call would be impossible to see in real time. If the ski is not disrupted and/or you do not see the bouy clearly outside the ski/spray, you give it to the skier. Its easy to judge based on that pic, but no one is going to catch it. Based on the pic, she is riding over the bouy. I will take Horton's bet, with Richelle as the final say.

[Horton]

From Drop Box

[Horton]

I am sticking with my call but gosh. I took maybe 3000 photos last weekend and I did see this more than once ...

[Mateo_Vargas]

I say the rules must be changed. All tournaments must be photographed by Horton and Dirt and those photos must be reviewed before scoring.

[6balls]

That's exactly how I roasted my ankle...way ahead and came in on the ball. Must be something to the bubble buoys. Agree would not see in real time and she gets the pass though technically a ride over.

[skimom]

Good morning!

I don't know which round that was, but from experience there were several calls that were that tough to make. Bubble buoys are very hard as that example shows. 10.12(d) 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). She probably did ride over the top, but those darn things just wilt away and you can't see them. We used a new system for review which worked very well, and Horton was even impressed. Those are some amazing pictures that Horton and Dirt are taking, thanks!

[Mateo_Vargas]

So who wins the $5? Horton or Boody?

[Horton]

Boody can send me a check.

[LeonL]

I would like to think that I could have called that in real time as a miss. Still photos reviewed after the fact can sure look different than live viewing, still a miss to my eyes.

[Than_Bogan]

Do I correctly understand that *technically* any part of the ski riding over the ball is a miss, even if rule 10.12 is satisfied -- i.e. the skier's front foot passes cleanly outside the ball.

 

IF SO: That seems extremely difficult to enforce, and I'm not immediately seeing why that's a valuable rule. Is there some advantage that can be gained by sliding the tip of the ski over the ball?

[The_MS]

Horton is wrong again.

[skimom]

Now we have to write MORE rules??? :)

Not calling this one!

[animal]

What some of us may be missing is the judge's location when making the call. If they are on the boat's side of the course, they probably would have seen at least half the buoy on their side of the ski, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the skier, called it good. Also keep in mind that the judges do not have such a close view of the turn. If the turn was at one ball, tower two is 700 feet away! Until we mandate overhead video buoy systems with instant review, judging is not going to be perfect.

[Horton]

this is 3 ball and my bet is that the ball appeared inside the ski path 1/100th of a sec later.

[ral]

Boat overhead video should be mandatory in any R tournament (IMHO).

 

IWSF 14.06: A miss or "Riding Over"

It is a miss to ride inside a buoy or outside the entrance or end gate or to ride over, straddle or jump

over a buoy; but there is no penalty for grazing a buoy with a ski or part of the body.

"Riding over" shall be defined as hitting a buoy with the ski so as to move it significantly from it

position or temporarily sink it.

 

If, as Horton says, the ball appeared inside the ski path 1/100th of a second later, there is no way that the buoy was not moved significantly or temporarily sunk.

[Than_Bogan]

(copied from @ral's copying from the rulebook) "Riding over" shall be defined as hitting a buoy with the ski so as to move it significantly from its position or temporarily sink it.

 

Interestingly, this rule could be considered out of date with respect to bubble buoys. Although I've never actually skied through one, my understanding is that the entire point is that the buoy head collapses in such a manner as to prevent it from being significantly displaced OR temporarily sunk! So basically this would never happen.

 

Then again, maybe bubble buoys make it so that the "riding over" rule isn't needed anymore anyhow! As I noted above, should I care if someone slides part of the ski over so long as their front foot goes outside?

 

And I would assume that the original intent of this rule was with respect to hitting a ball from the *outside* side, such that the displacement worked to narrow the course and thus in the skier's favor. (Pushing the ball WIDER doesn't seem unfair!) It seems bubble buoys also make that impossible, as you'd simply slide over it from the outside and end up with your front foot NOT going outside of it.

[Horton]

Since you can not see the ball from camera angle in next frame it is on the correct side of the ski or under water.

 

I guess it could be under but that would mean the boat judge should have clearly called a miss.

[6balls]

Tip probably caught it but some natural corner skid of the ski had it down-course of the ball by the time it broke the 1,3,5 plane

[ral]

Than,

 

I have skied on them, and actually if you slide over it (as the likely scenario in the picture), they get under the surface - unlike a normal one that makes the ski go airborne and craps ankles... the motivation for Dave Goode to create them.

 

I think that the original intent is also to avoid the exact scenario in the picture.

 

I guess that an amendment to the rules should be applied stating also that "significant deformation" of the buoy surface for the Goode-like buoys should be considered a miss as well. Video would be mandatory for this, though.

[ral]

@Horton, none of the judges called it a miss? One thing, though. Many times judges tend to be more relaxed in openers...

[Horton]

We can not see what the boat and other side of lake saw. I bet it looked good from boat.

[Than_Bogan]

@ral You've reminded me that ultimately I prefer human judging, despite all the errors that humans make. Only a human can really understand what giving the benefit of the doubt to the skier means, and more importantly that rules should be interpretted relative to the situation. A little kid is different from a novice adult, who is different from me, and then there's the fact that C is different from R and than opening passes are different from tournament-deciding passes.

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure I got that benefit at Nationals this year. On my -22 (which I never practice), the backwash was so bad that it pushed me right into the 3 ball. I bet I "rode over" it pretty thoroughly. So far as I am aware, all 5 judges awarded me the pass.

 

It's totally valid to disagree with this sort of relativism, but personally I think it is the right way to go.

[eleeski]

Historically we haven't had "overhead video". Historical continuity is important. Judging has always been real time - and never been perfect.

 

What is consistent has been the interpretation to "give the benefit of the doubt to the skier". I agree with Richelle (!) that no new rules are needed. Depending on my vantage point, that call could go either way. From the picture vantage, there is a strong likelyhood that I would take the buoy (flash view would show the buoy on the wrong side of the ski). From the other side, I would probably score it (flash view shows the buoy on the proper side of the ski). Note that this would result in the buoy scoring as two views will view opposite the camera angle and only one like the camera. Since Bubble Buoys do not sink or displace, the relevant issue is which side of buoy did the front foot of the ski cross.

 

In all honesty, if that was an early pass, I would not have scrutinized it that much if the rest of the pass was clean. Than is on the mark.

 

Reality is that the buoy will probably score as skied. Advantage Boody - Horton has always been too much of a hard ass judge.

 

Eric

[bxroads]

"In all honesty, if that was an early pass, I would not have scrutinized it that much if the rest of the pass was clean. Than is on the mark. "

 

Exactly my thoughts (not that I'm an expert). Take baseball for example. When the fielders make a great play and its close the runner is almost always called out.

[RichardDoane]

I'm with MS, it's a miss, she turned in front of the ball (doesn't matter if it's a limp buoy or not)

[MrJones]

Nice legs.

[ral]

Interpretation is a double sided sword. Not so good when an extra buoy yielding an extra pass is strangely awarded to a local skier by locally influenced judges giving an unfair advantage against you/yourkid/your friend (pick the one you like). Or worst, when a buoy is unfairly pulled from someone.

 

In the PanAms in Chile, there was a close call for 1/4 buoy. Mark Stevens from Canada visually got 1/4 buoy that would have yielded the gold medal for slalom in 45+. From the shore (i was really close) it looked like he got it. I saw the overhead video and he released the handle 1 m before the buoy without any doubt at all. Did not win the subsequent runoff.

 

In other aspect of waterskiing, tricks are always judged using overhead video.

 

NFL relies on video, soccer does not. Tennis used to rely on human judges, not anymore. Sorry Eric, in is one I do not agree. Historical continuity cannot get over fairness and technology.

[MattP]

One more expensive thing to run a tournament..

[35 in the bag]

Based on the photo it IS a Miss. I don't understand how that could be argued!

 

Reality is that at real time it would be difficult...if not impossible to decern for certain that it was a miss......therefor "by rule" (not favortism, or 1st or last pass, or kid, or Andy, or MS judging Horton) the benifit goes to the skier. Period. The bouy is awarded (1/4, 1/2, 1 as appropriate)

 

The operative point is the certainty of what the judge thinks they see. If you did not clearly see a miss then the score is given to the skier.That means if you think thay MAY have missed...or you think you MAY have seen a miss.....but you are not SURE then you must score in favor of the skier.

 

As for much of the thread which wanders into less than ethical judging......for lots of "reasons" stated above, I for one am disturbed by what has been said and intimated.

 

Judge based on what you see and the "correct" interpretation of the rules, for everyone, every time. If you do that you are with-in the rules............then it doesn't matter if you are wrong or right........you are "correctly judging". If you can't do that then you probably shouldn't judge.

 

John Miller

[Boody]

Horton, just send me $5 by paypal, unless you want to do double or nothing on which is better: wing or no wing? I'm going wing, majority votes.

[eleeski]

Ral, tricks are not judged on "overhead" video. The view for tricks is from the boat at windshield level. Lower and the rooster tail blocks the view. Higher and it becomes hard to discern air. The view trick judges use is far from perfect. Trick judging is far more random than the view.

 

The tournament must run in real time. Or we will never finish a round in a day. Screw the slomo second guessing, accept honest human errors and just ski. Ral's example had the skier losing the runoff so the error did not change who was the better skier in the long run - judging faults and all.

 

35, one frame is a miss, the next is a make. That is a difficult call for a judge in real time to make. I would comfortably stand by either call - and my competence as a judge - especially given the ambiguity of the photo sequence.

 

Imperfect judging does suck. But as long as the system is structurally designed to minimize the effect of these errors the competition is fair. Slalom judging is pretty good about scoring you what you ski - way better than tricks!

 

Boody gets the nod on both the call and the wing! Will I be banned for that comment?

 

Eric

[9400]

Can you imagine a skiers reaction if you score that a miss and there's no hiccup anywhere in the pass? (By the way I wouldn't have a problem with scoring that either way).

[skibug]

I say if you run the bouy over you should get extra credit....that can really cause a pass to go south quick

[ral]

@eleeski, here we use three cameras to judge tricks, two slightly over the windshield level and the overhead one.

 

Most tournaments already use video for the gates. It is real time, only doubts are reviewed and, with the proper equipment, it does not take long. Still real time.

 

"Ral's example had the skier losing the runoff so the error did not change who was the better skier in the long run". Did not understand this.

[eleeski]

"Mark Stevens from Canada visually got 1/4 buoy" then "I saw the overhead video and he released the handle 1 m before the buoy without any doubt at all. Did not win the subsequent runoff." Maybe I misunderstood the situation but if the officiating got him to the runoff he still had to win from there. Regardless, I will stand by my claim that the best skiers will win in the long run as the errors in slalom are infrequent.

 

What exactly is the "overhead" view? We don't have to charter a helicopter now?!

 

Intentionally making a wrong call or carrying a bias into judging is cheating! I don't see it much. Human errors are infrequent but they do happen - all the video and technology helps. But the call pictured above will be difficult and subjective no matter what.

 

Eric

[9400]

I think the 1/4 buoy gets scored wrong more than any other score. Most of the 1/4 that were scored for me were me letting go at the instant I didn't think I was going to clear the buoy. When I let go very, very very close to a buoy, I have broken neither of the 2 lines required in the rule book....but things happen fast. I don't usually review my scores that much so to realize later I got scored a 1/4 is always a surprise to me.

[Than_Bogan]

@35 I must strenuously disagree that judging relative to the situation is unethical. Biasing based on WHO the person is is absolutely unethical, but that's completely different from giving a 10 year old kid who runs over a buoy at 17 mph credit for the pass. The reason this is fundamentally different from favoritism is that I would do that for EVERY kid in that situation, *because* it's the right thing to do. Every example I listed is something I would apply to EVERYONE in that situation.

 

Ultimately people ski because it's fun. Part of the fun is caused by fairness -- this is extremely important and I am in no way diminishing that. Without rules there is no such thing as competition!!

 

But using fairness as an excuse to stomp on the fun of a would-be "new recruit" is a bad decision in my opinion. Such a person is not truly competing with anyone -- they are just trying to get into the sport. Driving them away via pedantry is not part of my plan.

 

And thus a person who is making good, ethical decisions, can still adapt to the situation.

[Chef23]

I have to agree with Than on his point. Two years ago my 10 year old son got his opener taken away from him for running over 1 ball in his first regionals. I have no doubt he did it but he was devastated. He was also no threat whatsover in the event. If he skied great he would run a couple at 32 mph and the winner ran into 35 off. I understand regionals are a different situation than a regular event but it you also want kids to be excited about skiing in them and coming back to the event. My son was a bit of a mental case in slalom at regionals this year and it impacted his skiing where he finished 2 passes below his average. At his point it may take another year of two of good results in regionals/nationals to get that out of his system.

[schroed]

This whole thread brings up a couple points I've been frustrated about over the past few years. One, I think the bubble buoys should be redesigned so that they displace when they're hit by the ski. I have seen numerous instances where the buoy was run over and the skier was given the score. It's too hard for the judges to tell if the skier ran over the buoy or not when the buoys don't move. I believe you could redesign them so that they would move in the water easier, but still deflate when they're run over. Second, for regionals and nationals, I think video should be required for slalom. This would give the skier an opportunity to challenge a call. It should then be up to the ACJ of the event whether or not they'll review it. Right now there is no recourse if a bad call is made.

[Than_Bogan]

I sorta like the video backup for "big tournaments," but there are some potential thorny points to consider.

 

The most fundamental one is: Can you challenge a call that was made for someone else?

 

I have twice already in my short list of Nationals appearances seen clearly incorrect calls influence the top 5 in some way. (To be clear, by "incorrect" I do not mean that the judge was necessarily at fault, but rather that someone with the ideal perspective would have confidently and correctly made a different call.)

 

In each of these cases, it was a buoy that was NOT skied around, but that was awarded.

 

In my experience, the reverse scenario is actually pretty rare. Every good judge I know takes the "benefit of the doubt" rule seriously, so you're not going to see a lot pulled that should have been awarded. So I claim the *main* use of a challenge system would be to challenge somebody else's results.

 

From a social perspective, this gets weird fast. Am I really going to stand up and say *I* would like to reduce that guy's score? And, maybe even more importantly, am I really gonna make sure I or someone I trust is watching everyone who could beat me to decide what to challenge?

 

Like I said, I'm not opposed to the IDEA at all. But I think there are hard questions to answer before I could support a specific implementation of said idea.

[Chef23]

I don't think that people that are watching and are not judges should be able to challenge scores that is a bad slope. The judges are human and not always in the best position but they do the best they can. The last thing we need is other competitors coming forward to reduce other skiers scores.

[Boody]

I agree with Schroeder, we need to have video at Regional and National tournaments. With the stakes this high, we need to be able to get it right. Like instant reply in the NFL. Skiing is fast, its human to make an error, but there is more we can do to make sure the outcome is correct.

[Horton]

also this thread is interesting because the image is kind of bazaar. I think judges can eyeball most turn balls. Gates need video but .... lets not get carried away.

 

Karina is never going to speak to me again ....