Jump to content

"No view" call?


Than_Bogan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Baller

Thought I'd split this to a new thread since a) I'm fairly sure it's a dumb idea, and b) the thread that got deep into "benefit of the doubt" (which btw isn't a rule at all! who knew!?) didn't involve a "no view" situation anyhow.

 

But that discussion got me thinking if it might be a good thing for the sport, and perhaps ultimately easier on the judges, if there were the option of explicity calling "I couldn't see that" which would then defer to the other judges.

 

There's a minor technical issue with this that if an even number of judges did see something, then you don't have a simple majority, but I think in that case you can give the best score that exactly half of the judges agreed upon. Note that if only 2 judges had a view, that simply means the skier gets the higher one.

 

With 3 judges, I think this always gets the exact same result as just giving it to the skier if you couldn't see it, because the guy who couldn't see would be calling in the best score, and the skier would end up getting as final score the better of the other two judge's scores.

 

But with 5 judges, perhaps there could be cases where this leads to more accurate scoring? There's already a special-case rule for the gates, which actually could go away if the "no view" call came to exist. And the "no view" call could also be used if the far judges had a bad view of the 1-ball, for example. Suppose the 3 judges with a good view of the 1-ball called 1/4, 1/4, 1/2. From the far end, the view isn't good, so under current rules I think the far judges have no choice but to call 1/2, 1/2. This gives the skier a score of 1/2. But since the majority of judges that actually could see it called it 1/4, I'd argue that 1/4 is the most likely score to be correct.

 

And this "no view" concept would completely remove the need to consider "benefit of the doubt," even in Class C. You would always either do your best to get the correct score, without favoring the skier at all, or you would explicitly call "no view" if you couldn't see it well enough to make a determination.

 

Like I said in the first sentence, I'm not even sure that I like this idea. But it seemed worth a little discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
I am pretty sure a blood vessel in Richelle's head just burst

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I don't think this adds complexity in the end. In fact I think it might simplify the rules a bit, since the current special case rules for the gate could be dropped.

 

That doesn't mean it's a good idea! I just don't think added complexity in the rulebook would be a major strike against it.

 

If anybody should pop blood vessels at the idea, it should be fellow Massachusettsan Dave Allen, who would have to add a bunch of stuff to the scoring program!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need cameras suspended over every buoy or a remote control camera on an overhead zip line running down the middle of the course (like they've used over football games) that runs down the course with the skier. In either case, add instant replay and problem solved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
I've never skied a record. Who calls score first? Obviously tower 2 cannot see the entrance gate and tower 1 would have a tough time discerning if a skier turned just inside 5 or 6 ball. Given all judges hear one another and the call of a judge close to the buoy in question calling first may influence the call. What is the "record" sequence of boat/tower1/tower2?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Than - good question. I think it is already covered in:

 

6.05 Disagreement

In any disagreement among judges, the majority rules, and all issues should be settled before the next contestant starts.

 

The intent is that the judges should be positioned so that a majority have a clear view of all buoys/potential scores.

 

The skier's score is the lowest of what the majority of judges call. (don't feel bad if you have to think about that for a minute:) In your example of scores of 1/4, 1/4, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, the score would be 1/2. The only real effect is the far judges don't matter on the gate score (unless they have video, which usually reduces the number of judges to 3 anyway).

 

The rules have been pretty well ironed out for virtually all conceivable circumstances.

 

It doesn't matter who calls first - all are suppose to call their score based on what they believe the skier did and not what they hear the other judges call. But yes, they are human.

If it was easy, they would call it Wakeboarding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@richarddoane that's the order I have been a part of typically. I thought maybe at a record boat went first. I can see where both towers would give a ball that was close where it may be obvious from the boat as a miss. If the boat called first as a miss and if the towers really were on the fence, they probably call miss as well d/t call in the boat. I know in MN this year there were some misses that continued.

No perfect system, I guess. Tall tower platforms at skiwatch helped a lot...great view up there for judging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Towers call first, then boat judge will know if what segment time to call.

If two judges call zero gates + 6 buoys, boat judge might call six, but will give scorer the zero time.

 

Also I typically don't try to call in a score until the boat has stopped to shorten line or change speed so engine noise over radio is reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules have several judging options which depend on site considerations, video availablility and class of tournament. While some are recommendations, the heights and angles noted really do help with visibility issues. Probably the most significant difference in the setups outlined are for E/L/R tournaments.

 

First is a 5 judge configuration - 1 in the boat and 2 each in the same 'tower' on opposite shores - with no gate or boat video. The towers must be located at 44 degrees from the gate (+/- 3 degrees) from the centerline of the gates on each end and about 10' above the water. The entrance gates are judges by the boat judge and the two tower judges with the best view (which means the entrance gates and exit gates are judged by two different sets of two judges + the boat judge). A slight modification to this allows (Class E only) for one of the gates to use video and transmit the signal to the two judges in the tower which is out of position.

 

Second is an arrangement of 3 judges and gate cameras for both gates. There needs to be two judges towers placed between buoys 2 and 5 about 10' above the water on opposite sides of the lake. In this case, the gate video needs to be transmitted to BOTH towers and ONLY the two tower judges (one on each side of the lake) call the gates. Both tower judges and the boat judge call all skier bouys. In the event the two tower judges disagree on the gate, they replay the gate video (real time, slow motion or frame by frame) to get the right call. For Class E only, If no video review is available the boat judge may call the gate. For E/L/R with video review, and the two tower judges can't agree on the gate, the Chief Judge breaks the tie.

 

The third configuration allows for ONE judges tower between buoy 3 and 4 with two judges in the tower. Both gates are transmitted to the tower and only the two tower judges make the gate call. Again boat and tower judges call the skier buoys. Essentially this allows for one tower in the center of the course on one side of the lake.

 

There's an added wrinkle when using boat video (video watching the skier from the boat). In that case, the boat video can be "use to resolve any issues". In that case, there will be a 4th judge (class L/R) watching the boat/skier video and, if that judge disagrees with the boat/tower judges call the video review judge and the Chief Judge determine what call is correct (using some specific language on how to overturn a call). In a class E tournament the Chief Judge can be the review judge and require the towers to review the video again.

 

While that seems fairly complicated, it does help assure the best possible potential for good viewing angles and ability to see what the skier actually does. In Class C tournaments the requirements are significantly fewer and likely means at times you can't see what you should be able to see.

 

In terms of who calls in first, generally the scorer and/or chief judge have a preference and let everyone know at the beginning of the event. I've seen it both ways but probably more often the boat judge calls first (score and time) then the towers. However in the 5 judge configuration above, it's important that the tower judges call in in the right order so the scorer can determine if the skier made the gate. If I recall correctly, at the Nationals this year the towers called in first and then the boat. It gave the boat time to get the time and settle in at or near the end of the lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...