What is this score?

[Horton]

Ok this is now the closest call I have ever seen. She gets the 1/2 because call goes to the skier but really this is crazy close. Click the smaller image to see the really big image

[MattP]

@Horton this guy is going to hurt you if you keep picking on his girl.

http://toomuchgaming.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/freddy-krueger.jpg

[jipster43]

Real time, I would score 1/2. Of course I've seen about ten 1/4 bouys scored since @Horton's initial thread regarding how rare 1/4 bouys should be... I was judging for one of them. It's tough doing fractions when the pressure is on.

[Than_Bogan]

@jipster43 I don't think I've seen ten 1/4 buoys in my life, and that includes the fact that I scored 1.25 @ -38 one time (and I'm pretty sure it was correct -- I was trying to beat a 1 in a run-off so the instant I passed the buoy I dropped the rope).

[webbdawg99]

In football it has to be "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the call on the field. I think the same principle could apply here. Clearly, there is a LOT of dispute over what the score should have been. Whatever the call was, it was the right one.

[Jody_Seal]

Really their is no dispute because we were asked to judge from a picture! and pictures don't always tell a thousand words! lets see it in real time from the boat!

[jipster43]

@Than-Bogan I may be guilty of a little hyperbole there. Three would be more accurate! When it came my time to make the call, I heard Horton's voice "1/4 bouys should be very rare" and I defaulted to 1/2 bouy, but it was a 1/4.

[Than_Bogan]

Yeah, those 0s are the hardest ones to spot in real-time. That one time I scored 1 1/4, I think there's about a 10% chance that a slow-mo replay would have shown it was a 1. (The reason I'm 90% sure it was a 1/4 is that I made the choice to let go, as opposed to the handle being pulled out of my hand.)

[ForrestGump]

In real time from the boat, I'm fairly positive I would still have called that 1/4 buoy. Benefit of the doubt doesn't mean you give everything to the skier. If I thought they hadn't come back in, they get 1/4.

[Than_Bogan]

@ShaneH Fair enough. I don't interpret the scene that way: I think there is enormous doubt and actually that 1/2 is slightly more likely to be correct. But I agree with your interpretation of the "benefit" rule, so if you see very little chance that 1/2 is correct, then 1/4 should be your call.

[klindy]

@Than_Bogan Thanks for the comment. I want to be clear, I did NOT say if you can't be sure, then go with a 1/4 buoy. What I did attempt to say was that with the limited data presented in the handful of images posted, we can't be sure of where the 1/3/5 buoy line really is relative to the skier. Knowing where the pictures were taken from the shore, a higher reference point, video rather than still images, ability to review, etc, etc ALL add data which helps make the "right" call. I never said give it your "best guess" either.

 

Attached is the same image as the second one above where it seems she lost the handle. ASSUMING the shoreline is an approximate for the buoy line, it would seem plausible that she never crossed the line. The red line indicates approximately where the 1,3,5 buoy line would be if it was parallel to the shore. The green line is a raw guess of a perpendicular line to the course at the buoy. That may be where most of the antidotal evidence is for my (and perhaps others) 1/4 buoy call. I'm glad that @skimom posted that the video was reviewed and a 1/2 was given to the skier. I have no argument with that decision because I don't have enough info to say otherwise! That's exactly the reason we have video and rules about how to process that review. That’s exactly why the technology requirements are greater at higher level tournaments.

 

The primary point of my previous post was to caution against "giving the benefit to the skier" automatically. I thought I was pretty clear to say that we DON'T have the benefit of all the technology available to the judge’s onsite and it seems the rules worked like they should.

 

@webbdawg99 says "tie goes to the runner". Operative word is tie. In this case a tie would be ON the line at the same time the handle is released. 10.12 says 1/4 buoy if the skier CROSSES the buoy line in skiing position which means they have the handle and they are supported by the ski in skiing position (also says "ultimately able to regain control" which I'm not sure how it applies here except to say she seemed to be in control even after the moment the handle is lost). Maybe this can be considered a "tie goes to the runner" case (assuming the red line in the picture is right)?

 

I completely agree that 1/4 calls should be rare and the shorter the rope the harder NOT to get a 1/2 since the ski must get back inside the buoy line quickly. But 1/4 buoy calls are possible when the question is when did the handle leave the skiers hand. And when they do happen they are tough to call for sure.

 

While I agree that adding more technology shouldn't be the first choice, there are other ways to provide visual aids to help "make the right call". Sportvision invented the line of scrimmage/1 & 10 line graphic for football games. Note it's possible to add the line even if the camera providing the video is in motion. The technology works because the field is always in the same place just like the course is always in the same place even though the view point moves. It might make these types of calls easier. A Cyclops machine in Tennis is similar in that it makes an automatic line call on close calls. The obvious calls are made by the line judge themselves. Again, I'm not advocating for more equipment....but it's possible already give enough money and tolerance for the frustration added by the technology.

 

Than to your point about interpreting the rules or the understanding of the rules, nowhere in the rules have I seen a statement or inference that suggests that if you "can't be sure between two calls, then you call the better one". Especially in the case of slalom judging the rules are pretty black and white. I would agree that, as humans, we have a difficult time deciding which is black and which is white and, even with the technology available, we still may not really know.

 

Back to my original point, don't be too quick to make the "benefit goes to the skier" call because that benefit to one may be an unfair disadvantage to a bunch more (some of whom may not even be at the tournament). Better to use ALL the information available and make the 'right' call. Differences of opinion on what IS the right call are why we have more than one judge and majority rules. To be clear, I am NOT suggesting taking anything away from a skier nor am I saying that everyone that thinks this example is an example of a 1/2 buoy score is wrong. I'm simply saying that given what I see in this post, I can't "see" this as a 1/2 buoy. Given more information the right score could very well be 1/2.

 

[RichardDoane]

Ryder is a Senior Boat Judge, and he calls it as a 1/2

[RichardDoane]

[Horton]

@richarddoane who is that dinosaur in the drivers seat?

[Skoot1123]

@richarddoane - NICE BOAT!!

[RichardDoane]

@horton - don't bite the hand that feeds you....

 

@skoot1123 - that's the Radar MC, and you are absolutely correct, it is a nice boat !

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

@Klindy @skimom I'm getting real confused now. So confused that I went back to the rulebook. And I can't seem to find ANYTHING about this notion of benefit of the doubt going to the skier, in any wording, regarding any aspect of skiing. Did a bunch of us collectively dream that, or am I just not finding it?? Or was that actually removed!?

[Than_Bogan]

@klindy Under my previous (and now seemingly wrong) understanding of the rules, your last sentence would mean you should give a score of 1/2: "Given more information the right score could very well be 1/2." That statement says you don't have enough information to decide between 1/4 and 1/2, and therefore should call 1/2. But let's not get any further into that until somebody can point out what the rules DO say about benefit, doubt, etc.

[ForrestGump]

"That statement says you don't have enough information to decide between 1/4 and 1/2, and therefore should call 1/2."

 

See this is where I disagree. You should score it what you think it is. If I can't see it at all, then I will give the skier the benefit of the doubt. But if I can see the skier/ski/buoy/situation, I'm going to score what I consider to be the correct score. If the other 2 or 4 judges agree with me, then great. If not, then majority rules. The system works well when performed in that manner.

[Than_Bogan]

@ShaneH Right, and my (and Scot and several others) claim about the rules now seems to just be flat wrong. I know for sure I've been told that "doubt to the skier" is a rule by both high level judges and at Judges Clinics. But I can't find anything about it in the rules -- not even anything close. So unless somebody can find what I sure THOUGHT was there, then what you are saying would be exactly right: Call what you think it is.

 

Almost totally irrelevant: I still call this particular picture 1/2 -- I think Keith's green line is a little off. But what I'm far more interested in is clarifying the underlying rule. Under my original understanding, I would have said a call of 1/4 was simply incorrect. But if I totally imagined that rule (which appears to be the case at this moment), then a call of 1/4 would be totally reasonable.

 

I am very much looking foward to learning more!!

[klindy]

@Than_Bogan my last sentence, in context with everything else I wrote, was meant to say that given the info ONLY presented in this thread, my call is 1/4 BUT if I did have the additional information such as seeing it live, video review, a perspective from the boat, knowledge of whether the shoreline was in fact parallel to the buoy line (discussed in my reply), etc, etcc. I MAY have called it 1/2. I suppose saying that it "could very well be 1/2" means I reserve the right to have made a different call knowing more.

 

Per the green line, is sure could be off, it's a raw guess. But I don't think there's any dispute whether the skier actually made it past the buoy with the handle, it was just meant to provide a vague reference. The red line however should be somewhat close, again assuming the shore is parallel to the buoy line.

 

As far as the rules go, I can never recall a "benefit of the doubt" ideal as part of the rule book but it may have been. Certainly it's an ideal that might be intuitive but it's not necessarily fair in all cases. As I suggested, making the "benefit of the doubt to the skier" call gives the appearance of fairness to the skier themselves but it very well can disadvantage others, both onsite and in terms of the ranking list. So, again, my caution was to not automatically follow the benefit to the skier concept but rather, us all the data and tools at your disposal to make the RIGHT call.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

The rules have to be black and white. There never has been anything to the effect of "benefit of the doubt goes to the skier". I have heard that type of comment from numerous senior officials, but that is their philosophy, not a rule.

 

That philosophy sounds good until you think about it a little deeper. What about the other skier who clearly got a 1/2 and this skier was close, but "got the benefit of the doubt"? Is that fair to the first skier?

 

Another real example is that I have judged at record tournaments where a skier will get around 3 at 39 and stand up, but from the judges tower the buoy is completely blocked by the boat and there is no way to see if the skier skied outside or inside of the buoy. If he skied inside and gets credit because of "benefit of the doubt", is that fair to the other skiers when that will be the winning score?

 

The only "fair" call is what the judge honestly believes the skier did. "Benefit of the doubt" should not be a consideration.

 

Another important factor to consider is from that of a skier. I know that if I am skiing at anything shorter than 35 and I'm 6 feet past the buoy with the handle in my hand, I'm already well inside the buoy line. So given the limited perspective of the photo, my own experience as a skier significantly influences my call as a judge, hence my "clearly 1/2" call.

 

That skier experience also weighs heavily in 1/4 buoy calls. As a skier, I know that if I drop the handle anywhere close to the buoy, its because I was not going to get outside it with the handle in my hand. As a judge, I will almost never score a 1/4 if the skier lets go of the handle near the buoy, where many others will say "that was close, I'll give it a 1/4".

[ForrestGump]

I've been told the benefit goes to the skier thing by regular and sr judges, too. But Our local pan am judge told me that you make the call you consider to be correct at that point in time.

[Stevie Boy]

Would we be talking about the ski or the skier when scoring here, to me her feet and therefore her mass, are inside the bouy line, in which case I would score 1/2, the only other factor, is at which point did she give up her skiing position, do you have to be in a skiing position to take the handle, to get half a bouy ?

ie: both hands on ?

[Drago]

Nothing personal, but you aren't even in the conversation here. Read the rule book.

[Stevie Boy]

I,ll consider myself repremanded, it,s been a while, as far as competing, is concerned for me due to injury, I know there have been some rule changes, I will have to make the effort and read them, point taken.

[klindy]

@Stevie Boy

 

Copied from the rule book -

 

8.07 Skiing Position

Skiing position is defined as that position in which all of the following exist:

A. The skier has possession of the tow line; and

B. The skier is riding forward or backward on the water with a ski or skis on his

feet; and

C. The weight of the skier is supported by his ski or skis and the skier is

ultimately able to regain control.

 

Furthermore -

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).

 

So the first question is did the skier get outside the buoy (on her ski and with the handle) - yes

Second, does her front foot pass (downcourse) of the buoy (again while she's on the ski with the handle - yes - so she gets AT LEAST 1/4.

Next, does she recross (going back toward the wakes) the 1/3/5 buoy line? Meaning does her front foot cross the line while she's "on the ski" and with the handle? - that's the question.

 

In this case I believe it becomes a judgment call as to whether her front foot gets inside that line before she loses the handle. In the pictures we can see she loses the handle but the question is where exactly "is the line" - or more accurately where is her foot relative to the line. Unfortunately we can't really know where that line is with a still picture. But as some have suggested (and I agree) it's very hard to actually score a 1/4 buoy when the line is so short since simple physics causes you to get back inside that line really quick. That said, it IS possible to score a 1/4 when, as in this case, the skier loses the handle.

 

According to the CJ, the officials did review the video and determined she did make it inside the line before she lost the handle and therefore scored it 1/2.

[Than_Bogan]

Looks like I learned something on BoS again!! Thanks everyone.

[Horton]

Since the chairperson ( @skimom ) of the rules committee reads this and is crying because this thread could mean 14 new pages in the rule book, let me jump in here.

 

In a class C we need to give the benefit to the skier. With 3 judges we will get a pretty fair score and if the level of judging is pretty good we well get a pretty standard score nationally. There is no amount of rules that will help crappy judges. Slalom judging is generally not very hard, you just have to understand the rule and watch.

 

For higher class tournaments I believe there is enough scrutiny and cameras.

 

The photos that started this thread were posted to get some folks thinking but I trust that the actual score that was given to Karen was fair and correct.

 

If a few Ballers gained a better understanding of the rule book then this thread was a success.

 

 

 

[LeonL]

I'm with @klindy on interpretation of rules, and I say that somewhere between frame 1 and 2 is the critical point as to score. Based on the arc of the ski and her hand position relative to the handle as seen in frame 2 I would have to believe that the ski had broken the 1,3,5 plane with her hand on the handle, thus I would score 1/2. Obviously this is based on incomplete information. From a "not so hardass" Southern Region judge."

[klindy]

@Horton I'm unsure how following the rules as written will add "14 new pages in the rule book". The rules as written are clear and fair. Adding some definition of "benefit to the skier" would probably take those 14 pages.

 

 

[Drago]

It's not, "benefit to the skier" that is being sold in clinics. It's just not pulling a gate if you really couldn't tell, or not calling a quarter on someone at 38 off if you really aren't sure when she let go of the handle...:)

[Horton]

@klindy I reserve the right to exaggerate.

[ForrestGump]

It should always be "Call the right call at that given moment." If you can't make the call, due to the boat being in the way for instance, then you err to the side of the skier.

[Than_Bogan]

So yeah, I think it has come down to what @ShaneH said, which I guess I'd phrase as:

 

If you don't have an adequate view, you give the benefit to the skier.

In all other cases, you call what you think is most likely to be correct.

 

Personally, I think it might be worth codifying this into the rules, especially since I think just a couple of sentences can do it. That said, I appreciate how elegant the rule book is in covering a complicated sport without a ton of crazy verbiage. So if this clarification is likely to turn into something ugly, then I'm comfortable with leaving it as "unwritten rule."

[LeonL]

@ShaneH, that's the proper description. If you can't feel sure of your call "err on the side of the skier", not "give the skier the benefit of the doubt." May be just linguistics, but I see a difference.

[klindy]

Thank you. I can sleep better now....

 

It's important because this is a competitive sport and what seems simple enough can have a big impact. For example, at this year’s nationals Open Men overall was decided by less than 5 NOPS points. That's any 1/4 buoy in slalom, credit for any trick and, literally, was ONE pixel in jump (which would have made a 0.1 meter difference but same distance in "feet"). Benefit of the doubt to one skier who just happened to have a 'closer' call than another makes one champion and the other runner up. I'm not saying that was the case this year but it certainly was a close competition.

 

And it matters even in Class C tournaments. Explain to a parent why their kid got his/her tricks cut at the nationals when "he always gets credit at local tournaments"! It happened more than once this year to me on one day. Were the local judges giving the skier the benefit of the doubt at the local tournaments and then calling them like they should be at the Nationals?

 

@ShaneH said it well - "call the right call at any given moment".

[LeonL]

@klindy, I know that this is predominately a slalom site, but since you brought tricks into the scope of things -- that happens around here sometimes too. Trickers get tricks cut at regionals/nationals that they got credit for all summer long. That's not doing the skier any favors. It may not the judges changing criteria at the Nationals, it could just be different judges that are easy or incompetent.

[Jody_Seal]

yea as far as tricks go this is an age old problem and nothing new paying credit at Class -c tournaments then getting to the big show regionals and nationals and not getting credit. Especially with the little kids, however a good judge will take note and not give credit and pull a skier aside later and tell them why. I know here in Florida we have some of the worlds best trick judges and they will take time out to talk to these juniors. Cindy Benzel was a prime example when my son was in boy-2/3 she would not give credit then go out and tell him why and on top of it tell him how to fix it.

personally I think that our sport has gone off the deep end with all the video replay, even now when calling tricks a judge can have a second look at the run, I think the older judges that learned how to judge 20 years ago are better judges because they did not have all the video replay and had to get it right the first time. I think it should be like baseball call it and play the game! yes we all make mistakes but the sport would be better off with out all the replay and so would the judges!

[Kelvin]

In the Houston area of the SCR we have started doing video tricks even in Class C tournaments and most of the judges are the same one the kids will be getting at Regionals. At some of the earlier tournaments we have had parents ask why tricks are being cut. In that small low key environment it is very easy to take little Johnny to the computer and show him his trick run and why the tricks weren't credit.

[eleeski]

I need to go a bit "Than" regarding the 1/4 score. The course is not quite twice as long as it is wide (43m buoy to buoy length vs 23m buoy to buoy width). Ignoring coordinates (I'm not going "Schnitz" on you after all) a skier will travel back toward the center at about half as fast as they travel downcourse. If a skier clears the buoy by a comfortable 15cm and the buoy is about 15cm radius then once the skier is 60cm downcourse the skier should be inside the buoy line and the score increases to 1/2. If you measure from the front toe, 60cm is barely past the back boot and not even to the fin! That's a pretty small window for a 1/4 score.

 

Maybe a linear assumption of skier path is not exact (going "Schnitz"). Who Z turns (other than me)? Still it may be a conservative guess. How often do you lose angle in the pull? Regardless, the geometry of a 1/4 score makes this a rare event.

 

This case is close. If you go "hard ass" and say the fingertips touching the handle means the handle was lost earlier, if you say all of the front foot (the heel) must clear the buoy line and view her turn as a weak arc or still going out, give her 1/4. I say fingertips in contact with the handle at all is still attached, the tip of the toe is all that needs to clear the line and she is on a normal path, I score her 1/2. The rules allow either view.

 

Neither approach involves "benefit of the doubt". Call what you see with how you understand the rules should apply. Benefit of the doubt, however is real. While it may not be published in the rule book, it is a real policy taught in clinics and official interpretations. Just as the Supreme Court gives judgements that define how we must act based on the wording of laws, the official interpretations from AWSA define how we apply the rules. In the event that you are evenly split on your assessment of doubt after using every means to resolve the doubt, the skier gets the benefit of the doubt, consistently. But you must have sufficient unresolvable factors to create a "benefit of the doubt" situation. Hopefully those will be more rare than 1/4 buoys.

 

Trick judging is a disaster. Credit is random - at all levels. Video is critical because the judge that misses a trick scores it zero by judging incompetence. A review at least lets a judge evaluate a skier. Harsh judging holds back skier development. Easy judging leads to ugly sloppy skiing. The structure is flawed by the all or nothing scoring. Partial credit is the answer.

 

Eric

[Than_Bogan]

@eleeksi I mostly agree, and I would call this 1/2 every time. But I must go even more Than...

 

The 1/4 region can be slightly bigger than you think because this sort of score typically occurs when the skier is screwed and is out of normal rhythm. Thus they may still be on an outbound path after coming to the ball. Let's consider -39 (10.75m) and let's say only a reach of 2m (which even a 5'6" skier can theoretically achieve; mine is nearly 2.5m). The distance to the buoy's centerline is 11.5m, but we're probably more interested in the outside edge of it, which should be at about 11.6m.

 

Ok, so then we work the trigonometry, and we see the rope angle required to swing the ski outside the ball is invsin(11.6m / 12.75m), or about 65 degrees. An out of control skier potentially might manage to continue from there all the way to 90 degrees, and then not actually exit the 1/4 region into the 1/2 region until slightly after THAT.

 

For a skier who is in potentially-successful rhythm, the time spent in the 1/4 zone is nearly negligible, so I doubt I would ever call a 1/4 on someone who was running on time but then suddenly fell around the buoy. But if you're late enough and out of control enough, the time in the 1/4 zone can increase quite a lot, even on extremely short lines.

[eleeski]

@Than_Bogan Theoretically there are such situations where the 1/4 ball zone can be larger than a ski length at shortline. It will look quite weird. A nice arc inwards will not show. The skier will likely fall heading out and end up swimming outside the buoy line. That 1/4 is easier to call and I've actually called 1/4 in such a situation (right after the kid I'm mentoring hears me say that nobody ever skis 1/4).

 

I will stand by my assessment of the geometry of 1/4 balls in normal skiing. And given that the ski will typically be at its slowest at the ball (carryout issues), it is quite possible to pivot the ski around in even less distance (provided the true swing weight of the ski is low enough!). Often the result of this pivot is a lost handle at the buoy (not what happened here) but a tough call that will probably not actually be 1/4.

 

Eric

 

we are spending way too much effort on this issue

[Than_Bogan]

@eleeski I agree on all counts.