Gate Rule Proposal

[Edbrazil]

 

I've sent this to the AWSA Rules Committee for consideration as a Rule Exception in 2014 for Class C events.

I believe this was a Chet Raley idea. I know there are a lot of other ideas, but some of them involve adding

buoy(s) or moving them. This doesn't change the current course dimensions:

 

Rule Number: 10.01a

Suggested wording:

Eliminate “follow the towboat through the entrance gate of the slalom course”

 

Add this: “To receive credit for buoy # 1 and subsequent buoys, the skier must start from the 2-4-6 side of the boat wakes after passing the level of the 55 meter buoys (the buoys described in 10.16a2)”

Add: “The entrance gate does not figure at all in the scoring.”

This would be an allowed Rule Exception for 2014, for Class C tournaments, at the option of the Sponsoring Club, and shall be noted in the Tournament Announcement.

 

Someone may have improved wording that accomplishes the same goal. Maybe some selected Pro Events that are run

as Class L could adopt this idea with IWWF approval as a test exception.

[KcSwerver]

Thqt creates a completely different timing experiance before the course. In my mind this is not an improvement of "adding a gate buoy" because it changes the perameters and mechanics for which slalom is done.

 

In my oppinion if a "gate rule change" where to be made it should be less of a "change" and be more of an ammendment. Something like this wont take a year of tournaments to get used to. In my mind i think the 14m buoy proposal is super easy to figure out and it doesnt change the motions drastically at all. It simply amends the current parameters to allow for more forgiveness.

[Edbrazil]

At one of the Tour tournaments back a while ago, when the site needed a 4-buoy course,

we added a "zero buoy" 14m back, while still keeping the gate the same, and scoring the

same. Just to see what the reaction to it was. One of the top skiers didn't like it, maybe

more did, but we took it out for the next day's skiing. A question is: what would the width

be of the Zero Buoy? So, skiers could still easily get around it, even at 9.75m. I tried a

width of 7.5m; thought that would be well out of the way, but note above.

[mwetskier]

i think it might create 2 categories of world slalom records they can be called eg and peg for easy gate and pre easy gate.

[ToddL]

I submitted about 9 change suggestions for gates. These two here should be implemented without any controversy:

1) There is no need to cut entrance gates for being too late (missing to the left of the left buoy on the way in). Only the skier's path relative to the right-hand entry gate buoy will be judged. A skier may cross the boat's path "late" to the entrance gates. Scoring for 1-ball remains the same.

2) There is no need to cut exit gates for being too early (missing to the right of the right buoy on the way out). Only the skier's path relative to the left-hand exit gate buoy will be judged. A skier may cross the boat's path "early" of the exit gates and score all 6-buoys and continue to the next pass.

 

[ToddL]

I also submitted this:

6) If a skier continues "at risk" due to pending gate review and the next pass is run w/o issue, the prior pass' gate question is nullified and the prior pass is valid due to successful harder pass following it.

[ToddL]

And one more worthy of sharing:

 

9) If the skier continues at risk and if the next pass is only partially successful and if there was no video was captured and no viable judges were able to eye-witness the prior gate's validity, then there is no available evidence to suggest that there was any sort of valid gate. Thus, the skier is given an optional re-ride of that pass with the subsequent pass' score as a protected buoy result at the missed gate speed/line length (similar to an opt up situation). In other words, the partial "at risk" pass' buoy count is considered a protected score at the prior rope/speed pass with an option to re-ride the prior rope/speed pass.

Example scenario for further understanding of suggestion #9...

• Skier Ran -15 max speed

• Ran -22 max speed, but the entry gates are under review, skier continues "at risk"

• At risk, skier continued at -28 max speed and got 4 buoys

Now what...? Per suggestion #9 above, three possible outcomes:

1) review completes within time limit and determines valid entry gates; score is 4 @ 28 off

2) review completes within time limit and determines zero entry gates; score is 6 @ 15 off

3) review time limit expires and there is no decision (lack of video, can't determine); the 4 buoys skied on the 28 off line are scored for the 22 off pass: score is 4 @ 22 off

Plus, the skier is given an optional re-ride at 22 off with that 4 buoy score protected.

a) skier does not out ski the 4 buoys; score is 4 @ 22 off

b) skier skis better than the 4 buoys and ends up getting 3 @ 28 off; score is the skier's final performance of the re-ride set; 3 @ 28 off

The re-ride and protected score is given due to unfair conditions due to tournament supplied equipment failure (technical or officiating).

 

[Stevie Boy]

More Rules, More Hassle, More Debate, Leave it alone !

[KcSwerver]

I did not mean timing in the slalom course but timing before it. Why do we have to mandate what happens before the course begins.on a short setup, it may already be super tricky to prepare for gates ( my lake included) some lakes who dont have 55s at all would be forced to put them in. when you have to cross the wake to the driver side just to turn around and go right back it seems almost pointless to me... I dont know. Just Not something i would see as a concrete rule change.

[Than_Bogan]

@KcSwerver You're reading it wrong. The point is just to make the skier cross from left to right just like they do now, except without being require to pass through the entrace gate itself.

 

If we completely nixed the gate, then beginning skiers would start on the right, which would be odd and possibly retard their development. This rule allows them to skip the gate, but still establishes the same basic pattern as we now follow with the gate.

 

Yet one more way to think about the same thing is that we'd have a gigantic gate extending from the left entrance gate buoy to the right 55m buoy.

[KcSwerver]

Whew... Thanks @thanbogan after a whole weekend of skiing i should be able to visualize what side 2,4,6 is haha. Now that i understand it, i think this is a good proposal. I think its as stated above an "eg" or easy gate, but i think its got merit.

[Jody_Seal]

So here we go again, now the one percenter's have someone with some clout to endorse and even promote their cause. Sorry Ed nothing personal just don't see the need or the positive impact such a rule change could make to the sport.

Their are plenty of truly warranted issues in the sport that need attention and change. The gate rule is not one of them.

 

IWWSF six flip scoring rule needs go away!

Reduce the amount of electronic basis rules

Recruit new younger drivers and judges quit making it so hard to be one.

eliminate the sandbagging.

allowance of older boats to be utilized in tournaments.

allowance of the universal ramp in jumping.

Our organization needs to get out of the insurance game.

Give the Krista the chance to make a big impact at headquarters!

 

To you one percenter's Please go learn how to go through the entrance and exit gates!

 

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

@Jody_Seal I generally agree with your higher priority items.

 

But sometime you start by fixing what you CAN fix, regardless of its priority.

[sbink]

I submitted a revision request that has Ed's/Chet's entrance gate and Todd/Chet's exit gate features.

I did request that this apply to class E tournaments also and at the election of the skier

They could ski class E at nationals instead of L.

 

According to klindy at the 13 nationals there was approx.3 percent or 17 skiers or so involved.

 

The biggest problem with the existing gate rule is this.Gates when missed at a Class C tournament are often times not zeroed.A larger than you would think percentage of gates missed at local record tournaments are not zeroed.

This is not according to the rules but is a reality with competitive slalom and being at competitions

with our friends.

Why not revise a rule that few want to enforce anyway?

All skiers would be judged much more consistently with respect to the gates if this proposed

revision was adopted.

[jipster43]

My objection to gates is based on an inability to accurately judge them at 41' off and shorter and the stifling affect they have on beginner participation in tournaments. Other than that I'm fine with them. I love @ToddL 's rule change in terms of no penalty for being late for the entry gates or early for the exit gates.

[gov]

I would like to add my support to a gate change. I run a couple of ponds and the cost is just over the top. Thousands of feet of cable RG6, plastic pipe and power for each pond. OK you can do wireless and batteries if you want to go insane the week before getting them all to work. Many forget that the signal in from the cameras need to get back out to the towers. Yes towers, with power and monitors, unless you spend more money for video from the boat. (Which may be coming down the road anyway, $1000 for each digital unit plus spare and cameras.) Plus the DVRs needed to record, the splash eye for replay and center line. Spare DVRs back up, a spare roll of RG6, a wireless back up if a cable fails, spare wireless incase a wireless fails, generator back up if the power fails, Air conditioning in the equipment room to keep the computers happy, spare computers and monitors and battery backups and... and ... and. I am not kidding. Trenching equipment, shovels and picks. Seed to recover the trench. A rough number since I don't want my wife to leave me.... $20k (it's low trust me) and weeks of work to watch gates....... Income from the tournament was less than half the cost. Not bad you say, two year it would be paid for..... The entry fees for an E, L, R , abc tournaments do not cover Judges cost, gas, swag, food and boat hours. We did not draw enough skiers to break even. BECAUSE IT IS NOW OVER $100 FOR ONE ROUND FOR THE REGIONALS. EGAD!!!!!!! The business model is broke, it is not worth it. Stop this ever deeping hole of cost. This would be a great start.

[Than_Bogan]

@rico I actually think the "soul" argument is the strongest one. Would it just not feel like slalom at all without them? I'm scared of that.

 

But because of the real problems, some of the most important of which @gov has stated, I feel it's worth the risk to at least give it a shot.

 

Btw, @gov's experiences correlate to the fact that we currently (last I knew anyhow) have nobody willing to host Eastern Regionals 2014.

[eleeski]

I see two issues with gates:

First, they are hard to judge accurately. It may be the one place where the skiers and judges disagree in slalom. We do throw excessive technology at being able to split hairs. I worked both in the tower and in the computer room at Nationals this year. You literally can split hairs. But there are still close calls (actually I saw only one). But the minutes spent poring over the reviews were silly. Wording to fix this "If the gate is not clearly missed on review, the gates score".

 

The other issue is more fundamental, do we want gates at all? As a RFF skier, the gates are easy for me. I'm not sure I've ever missed a gate in tournament or practice. I enjoy a significant advantage over my LFF competitors at the gate. However I have only two onside turns (6 ball isn't nearly as critical). The LFF gets 3 onside turns. Gates level this inequity between RFF and LFF. I think I do want gates...

 

Eric

 

Missing to the hard side should count.

 

An opt up unprotected score should be available for an early missed gate. I should have proposed that to Richelle - but she already has enough of my crazy ideas.

[Chef23]

@gov what you posted was part of my reason for posting if regionals need to be an E,L or R. For the eastern regionals this year it took 100 skiers to cover the costs for judges etc never mind covering the costs of the infrastructure.

[eleeski]

Okeheelee would probably sponsor Eastern Regionals?

 

Eric

 

And it's not even late at night for crazy insomniac postings.

[Chef23]

@eleeski Okeheelee is in the South the east is really Northeast.

[eleeski]

@Chef23 I was going to offer my lake but I don't have a jump. And we'd have to do it in May as July is way too hot for the Socal desert. Long flight but a sweet vacation for you in May!

 

Eric

[Chef23]

@eleeski I would live May at your lake it is still wetsuit weather here.

[Jody_Seal]

What I want to know is if I go through the gates do I get a bonus? or do I get scored the same as the skier that cant figure out how to get through and bypasses the gates? two extra for going in and two extra for going out of the gates... That seems fair! I think also we need neophyte scoring ! You know like the old day's! How about a few buoy's for a skiers salute! or I know!!! Run a pass at max speed at lets say 32 off on jump ski's doubles your score. Wait!!! I got more!!! Sorry phone is ringing!!!

[mwetskier]

@Jody_Seal - +1

[Chef23]

My issue isn't with needing to go through the gates but with reducing the costs of running events. The more I think about it the more I am in favor of requiring the gates but I don't like needing to run video to host an event like Regionals. There may be plenty of sites in most regions that are set up for it but there aren't that many in the East.

[klindy]

@Chef23 again...you do not need video gates for Class E...however without video gates, you do need 4 shore judges. Point is there are some options.

[tbrenchley]

I agree with @chef23 100% The debate should never be about the fact that you are required to go through the gates, it should be a discussion on how we can make the judging easier and much less costly to both those running the event and those skiing. Seriously, who came up with the middle of the ski crossing the middle of the buoy as the line in the sand? Even with a camera and slow motion if anyone gets close to that line it's almost impossible to judge. Can't we just come up with a line that only takes two eyes and one look to say it's good or bad?

[Chef23]

@klindy 4 senior shore judges raises costs as well. It is an option and a less costly one than installing video equipment. Thanks for the clarification on the option.

[klindy]

@Chef23 I agree that additional judges (potentially) can add cost as well. But I've never had a judge refuse to help if asked either. With the ability to use a regular on each tower that opens the door to a lot more options inside (not appointed). The other thing 4 shore judges does is completely eliminate gate reviews.

 

It seems we default to using gate video rather than look at all the options.

[Jody_Seal]

Here is the rule book. page 110 gives the classification requirements. You have options! http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/2013AWSARuleBook.pdf

[BRY]

I don't really see the need for this nor any compelling arguments put forward (IMHO) for removing gates. Primarily because this is a Class R/Elite/Pro issue. For ski year 2013 there are approximately 109 R tournaments and approximately 453 C tournaments (some of these are both). So for approximately 4 out of 5 tournaments the cost and delays for judging gates is a moot point. For C just need two tower and a boat judge. In my experience the judges do their best, try hard to get it right and usually do. They call what they see and everyone moves forward.

For beginners and newbs run an F concurrently with the C and have whatever rules you want.

 

I like the left and right to the gate. Makes it a challenge. In the words of Rudi Garmish and Dan Callahan "Not on this side, not on that side, but right in the middle." Allowing missing left does benefit the skier as less precision is required. The shorter the line, the narrower the window, takes a lot of skill.

 

I ran a tournament that essentially broke even with 23 skiers, class C. I comped the appointed judges and guys who brought the boats. Paid for 3 rounds plus a top 8 head to head (NOPS), food and T-shirts. We did go to local businesses to help fund the T-shirts. They gave us money and we put their logo on the shirts. Everyone helped run it, stayed to the end for the head to head (and beer/food) and I think had a great time. Good local tournaments for the masses can be done without crazy expense with current rules.

 

At Regionals and Nationals it should be for the big kids and time to put the big kid pants on. Go through your gate, both ends. I think for Pro events an argument could be made they are selling a product (like NFL, NASCAR, MLP, PGA) so perhaps some rule changes merely to enhance selling the product are in order. But then not an R or L and not for records, doesn't have to be.

 

[Edbrazil]

Just a small note, but my proposal to the Rules Committee doesn't involve removing the gates.

Leave them as-is, and maybe we'll get some good data to go forward after test events.

 

Back in the back when, I did notice that as the towline got shorter and shorter, that the

capable skiers (Pro Tour skiers) would cross the center of the wakes earlier and earlier as

the towline got shorter and shorter. Observations thanks to some jump course buoys

that were in the way. Perhaps indicating that that deep shortline, they might go earlier than

the existing gates. So, yes, might be an advantage for 38, 39, 41, 43. No question would

be an advantage for novices who aren't running shortline at all.