Administrators Horton Posted January 27, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 27, 2014 Funny. Yea sure. Whatever.  Goode ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki ★ Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes Drop a dime in the can  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller lhoover Posted January 27, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 27, 2014 Having to agree with someone who empties our cupboard and bar anytime he is in Houston truly pains me, but OB beees right. Good Grief, the whole darned discussion and emphasis from G. Rathbun was not about mulligans if you miss the gates but about don't judge the gates, period. How in the world this mulligan business ever got to be a rule proposal, and then accepted, is crazy as it begs the question in every other discipline. Tricks get 3 passes? Jumpers get 4? Good Grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller jimbrake Posted January 27, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 27, 2014 @scuppers - that is exactly my take on the sport. There is only a small percentage of the population that wants to do something difficult. Â Not that we need another opinion on the gates, but mine is that, yeah, it's a major bummer when you miss them on your opener (or any pass) at a big tournament, but I only look as far as the guy before me or after me that made them and then verbally abuse myself for blowing it. The last thing I want is a gimmee. They did it. I can do it. I hate mulligans. They are humiliating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ntx Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 Keep in mind that this is only at class c. Regional and national better make the gate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller elr Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 So a class C is no longer a reasonable practice tourney for a regionals/nationals junior skier . . . A lot like video v shore trick judging. Extremely discouraging to the kids when they don't score as well in important events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Horton Posted January 28, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 28, 2014 @elr just tell the kids then need to go through the gates for they don't get ice cream. What is most silly about this rule is that is does not really do anything. Everyone has to go through the gates after the first pass.  Goode ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki ★ Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes Drop a dime in the can  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller 6balls Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 Most real beginners go thru the gates anyway...when not taking a whopping cut at extreme angle it's pretty easy. The beginners issue is getting around the balls. With that, I'm not sure who this helps or how it will create participation. @toddl has it figured out regarding beginner's at tourneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller lottawatta Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 I was telling my Dad about this silly optional first pass gate rule last night and his comment was "this sets the sport back 20 years". (He has been around the sport from the late 1950's. former AWSA board member, senior judge, blah, blah, blah.) As someone who has hosted tournaments ranging from INT, collegiate, grass roots, class C, record, and international competition, I have to say, this rule makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I have no idea how this is going to encourage participation. It sounds like change for the sake of change. Is there some goal to get the rule book to 200 pages I don't know about? We need to simplify the rules, relax tech requirements, reduce costs, THOSE are the ways to reduce the intimidation factor and increase participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Horton Posted January 28, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 28, 2014 @ob I can already imagine the objections to your idea but I think it is insightful and deserves review.  Goode ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki ★ Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes Drop a dime in the can  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Bulldog Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 @OB I have not been in tournament for over 15 years because of the reasons you mentioned... If someone in my area ran an event with your time slot idea I would even pay more money to enter that event vs one that is done on the "hurry up and wait" format that is dragging our sport down. "Do Better..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ForrestGump Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 @OB's idea makes too much sense to ever be approved . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Horton Posted January 28, 2014 Administrators Share Posted January 28, 2014 I hope you guys see the two obvious objections. 1 is your eliminating on site competition. this is a traditional goal that may already be lost but it is a traditional. the second obvious objection is if everybody does not stick around all day who's going to work the tournament. answer these two objections and I think maybe we have a new paradigm  Goode ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki ★ Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes Drop a dime in the can  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Jody_Seal Posted January 28, 2014 Baller_ Share Posted January 28, 2014 Paradigm??? @Horton you cant talk dirty on this web site! I still think that us short guy's should get an extra half meter in our handles!! Â Just think! A half meter, a mulligan every class c round I could be on top of the men 5 rankings list in no time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 Technically, the new rule is not a full mulligan. A full mulligan would allow the skier to repeat the opener speed/line. This is really just a free continuation at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klindy Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 @OB If you want this to be considered to be a rules change you can fill out this form - http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/RulesCommittee/AmendRuleRequestForm.pdf - and send it to the committee. The suggestion may be great and, while I volunteer to be an official at most tournaments I attend, I would love to have some idea of when I ski and get all my rounds in without hanging around all day.  One thing to remember, is the social aspect of organized waterskiing. Perhaps in some instances (simply getting a score on the ranking list) it's less important. Either way it seems you loose even more of the interaction on the "non-competitive" side. The longer term effect may be another point to consider. However, there's no need to wait for a rules change to test the idea. Rule 1.11 allows for a sponsoring club to ask for exceptions to any rule. There are some procedural steps and the Rules Committee has the ability to accept, deny or modify the request. Specifically rule 1.11C states -  1.11 C . At the request of the sponsoring affiliated club, for purposes of experimentation, promotion of spectator appeal, or other reasons, provided that such requests shall be presented with the request for sanction, and in any event at least six weeks in advance of the tournament, to the Rules Committee, which shall approve, amend, or deny the request, and shall give its decision at least one week in advance of the tournament date. Depending on the request and the approval of the rules committee scores posted in the tournament may still be included on the ranking list.  Another new option (another rules change proposal that was accepted) is to sanction the tournament as a Class X tourament. The new rule states -  1.02.B Tournament Classification …. 4. CLASS X - Used for experimental formats; i.e. change in course configuration, different boat speeds, etc., where scores WOULD NOT be placed on the ranking lists. Also see Rule 1.09 C. Seems to me that some careful thought may allow a sponsoring club to experiment with the idea. Granted the desire to actually ski in the tournament may not be there because the scores wont hit the ranking list.  The same rule would allow @Jody_Seal to test his "make the handle longer for short people" idea as well. Pull a 2 or 3 round class C/E/L/R tournament where the scores count and sanction a 3rd (or 4th, 5th, whatever) round to get some skiers to test the results of the idea.  The purpose of the additional tournament classification is to allow to a venue to test ideas and collect some scoring data to be able to compare.  So there's a few ways to make changes progressively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 @OB's idea needs to be considered in context of both a slalom only tournament vs. 3 event tournament.  In 3 ev, the multi event skiers will have to still stay longer and scheduling across all the events will get scrambled anyway. So, I am not sure it will really work. For slalom only, I think there is merit in this idea. However, @Horton is spot on about keeping officials on site. Maybe skiers with official ratings are asked/encouraged to work the "shift" adjacent to the one in which they ski. They could receive payment for their work in form of reduced entry, while those who do not officiate/work have to pay a mark-up for the convenience of come&go ski format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 @Klindy - did these other proposed rules pass? Proposed Rule Changes: ADD: 1.15 Judging Standards When a judgment call is too close to call and cannot be decided by allowable reviews, then the benefit of the doubt shall go to the skier. Rationale: We felt it is necessary to state our standard for judging. This ideal has been in our clinic manual and it needs to be included in the rules.   10.08D2c Each judge shall independently call the entrance gate by observing the monitor. If one or both judges did not observe the entrance gate, or the two judges should disagree, then the video would be replayed only once, either at normal speed or in slow motion to make the call. See 1.15. (If video replay is not available, the boat judge shall call the gates.) Rationale: There have been many frustrations and questions regarding judging gates. This follows along with our trick rule and makes it so that the judges are not totally focusing on the gates. Too many reviews can override the actual score. If it is really that close as in not seeing the ball because the skier was on top, then the score should go to the skier. This also goes along with the new rule proposal #1.15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klindy Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 @ToddL actually there is no "at risk" involved. The skier get the option of continuing to the next pass (or opting up) or accepting a score of zero. The skier then MUST complete the second pass in order to get a score more than zero.  Here's the actual text - 10.03C Add: At a class C tournament or below, A skier who misses their entry gate on their first pass, but goes on to complete the remainder of the pass, may continue to the next pass or accept a score of zero. If the skier completes the next sequential pass (or opt-up pass), then he shall receive credit for both passes and be allowed to continue. However, if the second pass is not fully complete, then the score shall be zero.  NOTE I added the "At a class C tournament or below. While that was the addition to the proposal I don't know exactly how it will be included in the rule. So since the consensus here seems to be that this rule makes little or no sense, I'm wondering how many skiers who DO miss their gate on the first pass will just ski back to the dock or swim to shore and accept the score of zero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klindy Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 @ToddL Yes to the first one - Rule 1.15 Judging Standards. This was approved without debate or discussion. Â According to my notes both rule change proposals passed without debate or discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted January 28, 2014 Baller Share Posted January 28, 2014 @Klindy - "So since the consensus here seems to be that this rule makes little or no sense, I'm wondering how many skiers who DO miss their gate on the first pass will just ski back to the dock or swim to shore and accept the score of zero?"Â Ha! yeah, right. Once in a blue moon when a class C skier misses his/her opening pass entry gate (and also runs the whole opening pass), that skier will ALWAYS reject the score of 0 and take the opportunity to try for the next pass on the way back to the dock. Why wouldn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 10, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 10, 2014 When you consider these two new rules about gates (1.15 & 10.08D2c) the following guidance becomes clear: Watch gates the first time in real time, if there wasn't a clear miss, call it good. If you think you saw a clear miss, call it a miss.  Then, ONLY If the two judges disagree or if one didn't see the gates, you get one replay to call it. Remember, if you didn't see a clear miss in the replay, then it was good. If there still is no agreement, the boat judge calls it (remember must be a clear miss)... Thus, the rules do not require video review of every gate. In fact, I'd argue that they discourage it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klindy Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 @ToddL except for the addition of "one replay" that is EXACTLY how the rules were to be followed previously. The review was NOT intended to be a second, third....or tenth chance to decide. Basically, call the gates however YOU think they should be called and if there's a descrepancy we'll go to the review to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 10, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 10, 2014 @klindy Let's hope that this will move all hositng clubs/sites back to a central approach.  I've seen way too many events where: 1) every gate was reviewed 2) real-time gates were ignored, relying solely on a video review to call it 3) multiple reviews occured due techincal difficulties trying desparately to ensure "towers" could eventually see a video of the gates 4) judges would only ask for consultation from the boat judge vs. yielding the final say to the boat So, per the rules, none of the above should happen in 2014. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klindy Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 @ToddL with all due respect I've never been at an event where "every gate was reviewed".  I'm not sure what you mean by "real-time gates were ignored" but the second half of the sentence implies they weren't even attempted to be determined until after the pass and the video reviewed. Again, I've never seen that happen. I HAVE seen sites where the video is the only thing watched "in real-time" to call the gates. In other words, watch the monitor until the skier goes thru the gates then look up to see them round buoys. For sites which have a 'central' judges tower this practice seems not only acceptable but is precesely why the video is installed to monotor the gates. For #3, there can be a struggle to be sure you're watching the actual gate you're interested in reviewing and not something prior. Again other than 'searching for the right video' I'm not sure I understand your comment. And #4, it depends on the setup as to whether the boat judge gets a vote. In the rules there are 3 configurations listed for judges setups. Under setup 1, the two judges (of 4 on opposite sides of the lake where gate cameras would be) with the best view AND the boat judge call the gate. In this case the BJ gets a vote. For setup 2 or 3, there are two judges on opposite sides of the lake (or same side for setup 3) near the center. They BOTH have a video of each entrance gate and BOTH make the gate call. ONLY in the instance of a disagreement or one missed seeing the gate in real-time do they go to a video review. And ONLY if a video review is not availabledoes the BJ get a vote.  Setup #2 or #3 are most common and in neither case does the boat judge "get consulted". The BJ get's to "break the tie" if a video review is not possible.  I've been to a lot of E/L/R tournaments (some of which you've also been too) and I've never seen what you describe. Unless I completely misunderstand what you're saying, anything close to what you describe would have to be due to tower judges that misinterpret or don't understand the rules. If so, the frustration and delays should have been evident pretty quick. In that case, the CJ should have provided some on-the-job training and/or someone could have filed a protest (last option hopefully).  Will all delays be avoided in 2014 because of these changes? Likely not. Especially if "way too many events" have the rampant judging challenges that you describe. Frankly, I think our judges (senior and regular and even most assistant judges) are better than what you outline. With any rule change there will be a learning curve and I expect the changes to help eliviate some of the challenges with technology, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller LeonL Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 @klindy, when does 10.03c take effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klindy Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 The rules changes took effect when they were passed in January by the AWSA board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 I have seen the situation where the judge looks at the monitor when the skier goes through the gates, watches the pass, then waits for a gate replay, and then calls the pass. In this case the TC and the systems used allowed for an easy gate replay. Thus, the judges waited for the replay before making their call. There was no determination of score until after the replay was viewed. It seems that is not the preferred method anymore even if the technology allows for replay of every gate. That's what I was trying to describe. In most cases there wasn't any delay since the replay happened very quickly and scores were determined about the time the skier came to rest at the other end. Another situation where I have seen video be over used was when it was new to a site (and thus pretty new to the judges in attendance). It was like a new toy. So, it was over used and over analyzed.  I think these rules set a clearer protocol for making the call and the process to do so. That's a very good thing for all of us. Just a side note... I heard elsewhere that there can be up to 2 video reviews. Not sure which is true. The point is, we will all need to wait to the final wording when the official rule changes are published by AWSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Splasheye Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 Okay I have a dog in this fight. SplashEye gives I believe the best technological way of dealing with the problem. Make the review automatic and easy. Personally I am strongly on the "benefit of the doubt" side of the fence. If it's a clear miss call it. Otherwise give it. If its so close you think you need multiple reviews or you can't see the buoy at all, give it. With that said I've spent an enormous amount of time in judges towers watching judges call gates over the last 10 years. In that time I can count the number of times gates were pulled after a review (as opposed to a blatant miss) on two hands. If I were to count the number of times the tower called zero gates (not even asking for a review) then watched the automatic review and changed their call to good it would be at least 5 times that. So don't throw ALL of the baby out with the bathwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ral Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 I have never been in a judging tower where all gates are reviewed. And all reviews I have seen/done are in step by step slow motion and just once. Does not make any sense at all to review at full speed and/or more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Jody_Seal Posted February 11, 2014 Baller_ Share Posted February 11, 2014 The count is 2 and 2, The umpire has been calling behind the plate A "tight strike zone" ..............Strike three batter is out !! Put two judges on the lake, one in the boat, install end course video and play ball. play the game as it called and move on!!! But wait now someone is proposing tournament sites spend thousands on splasheye ! That's the answer!!!???? Right!!!  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 I am glad to hear of the many reports where video feed is used for towers and no replays were needed/used except in rare circumstances. That's the process that is intended as I interpret the rules. Â Notice I said replays, not reviews. I think the word "Review" is specific to when the rules for a review are truly being envoked. This is different from a "replay" where the video system or operator just automatically replays the gates. Â If a site/event is able to offer replays on every skier, that's great. However, the judges should not hold their call until after the replay. The only circumstance where a judge could/should hold his or her call until after a replay is if the judge failed to witness the gate via real-time feed (as per the rules... and this would then be an official "review"). The concern would be a person who might begin to be less attentive to the real-time gate due to the crutch of having an automatic replay, thus holding his or her call until after the replay. In that case I think the judge should be advised against that behavoir. Â As more sites gain access to video feed solutions, these types of issues become relevant for getting the local officials up to speed on the intended process given the technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Splasheye Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 Steady on Jody - read my post again.... "Personally I am strongly on the "benefit of the doubt" side of the fence. If it's a clear miss call it. Otherwise give it. If its so close you think you need multiple reviews or you can't see the buoy at all, give it." Don't need SplashEye to do that - if it makes your life easier (like those nice ski lockers in the side of the SN200) and you want to pay for it then great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ral Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 @ToddL, I totally agree on not holding a judgement until a replay. We do a call and review just if there is disagreement, and every judge needs to make his call. But, thinking loudly, though, I need to acknowledge that we do not review any where there is agreement on a gate being good, but we do replay all that are deemed bad even if everybody agrees... Which I do not know if it is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ral Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 @OB, if I rephrase "Would you be willing to accept a computer based STEERING program with all new boats (that would only increase purchase price $1500) and have this STEERING automation used at EVERY sanctioned C class tournament and above so EVERY pull has an identical boat path. The computer based STEERING program will reduce everyone's score by an average of SIX BUOYS, but it's the most accurate pull skier to skier, pass to pass, then any hand driven path." saying  "Would you be willing to pay US$ 1,500 to have a computed based STEERING program that allows to have Wally driving you while training without solidly hitting every buoy of the boat path" the poll answer would be different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ntx Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 Enough all ready. There are WAY to many restrictions to tournaments. Everything from which year boat can be used, to video gate review. For what? If this was a sport that had a bigger incentive (money) and could support more than a few of its top skiers in a fashion that was better than what a high school drop out could earn, then I would say maybe. Right now, it is a amature sport where even the top skiers struggle to make a decent wage. Ski hard, have fun and lets leave all the costly crap behind. It just does not add to the enjoyment of the sport. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Kelvin Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 @ntx Exactly!! Look at major league baseball - they have all the resources in the world to add technology and yet they still use human beings and roll with the occasional blown call - even if it costs a pitcher a perfect game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 Interesting, @Kelvin... I never thought about what if, baseball moved all officials to a convenient location in the stadium and had them call the plays via video monitors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 Also, in baseball, if a pitcher sets a record, do they require collection of all of the broadcast video and review all angles scrutenizing the validity of the umpire's pitch calls after the fact to determine that the record truly was valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ntx Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 @Kelvin THANK YOU. It just does not have to be this hard. It not like millions of dollars are on the line. Again, REALLY automated driving!!!!! WT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 11, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 11, 2014 I'm not anti-technology. I'm just pro-processes which account for how technology is used (or shouldn't be used). Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. There are times and places where technology has made a vast improvement at an acceptable cost. There are times when it takes a while to figure out the best practices on how to use the new technology. That's where we are with C/E video judging. We are starting to determine, share, and formalize around some best practices on how to use video judging technology. This is a good thing and needs to continue to progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ToddL Posted February 18, 2014 Baller Share Posted February 18, 2014 Official rule changes posted: http://awsasouthcentral.com/downloads/downloads/37-summaryof2014rulechanges.html Not up on USAWS yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now