Darwin's allow the skier to miss the entrance gates on their opening pass rule change - Poll

[Horton]

From thread:New slalom rule up for vote http://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/9937/new-slalom-rule-up-for-vote

 

At the upcoming board meeting, there is a rule proposal that would allow the skier to miss the entrance gates on their opening pass, complete the pass, complete the subsequent pass and score. In other words, miss your 22-off gate, ski all 6 buoys, come back at 28-off, make the entrance gates and run all 6, you get a "pass" for missing the 22-off gates. But if you miss or fall at 28-off, you score zero.

[Jody_Seal]

I think it is good but should have been applied to juniors and class f tournaments.

[Ed_Obermeier]

As a casual observer to this conversation and a pretty much non-tournament skier, I honestly don't get all the argument against giving a skier the benefit of the doubt, on their opening pass especially. Obvious misses sure call it. If it's that close give them the benefit of the doubt; it's going to make zero difference in placing, rankings etc and the skier gets to at least try two passes making them at least feel like they're getting something out of the entry fee they paid, plus is less likely to discourage someone on the fence about whether or not they want to get into tournament skiing on a more regular basis. Makes the tournament move along faster and keeps it more interesting to both skiers and observers.

 

Reading this and the thread associated I get a strong sense that there a lot of folks out here who really DON'T want more skiers showing up. It's all this anal crap about taking long reviews and splitting hairs on a pass or two that make no difference in the final outcome of the tournament that turns off people like myself who might be a bit more inclined to ski tournaments if it didn't move so slowly and wasn't so freaking anal about small issues that make absolutely no difference in the final tally. Benefit of the doubt goes to the skier, keep it moving. That's how INT does it i.e. Or if you really don't want more people showing up at your tournaments keep doing what you're doing. You'll keep getting what you've always gotten. AKA falling participation.

 

Like @Horton said, when you get to L and R level tourneys THAT is where it rightfully needs to get more anal. Not at C level and lower; IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. The KISS theorem needs to apply here IMO, assuming anyone really does want to see more skiers getting into the tournament scene.

[Than_Bogan]

I think we can craft a better "fix" than that, but I'm certainly not going to be up in arms if it passes.

 

So I do care, but I don't regard it as a particularly good or particularly bad idea.

[Horton]

@Ed_Obermeier the question is if we should change the rules or not. The way the rules are now there is a built in tolerance that allows skiers to miss their gates at class C tournaments. Judges need to always call it the way they see it. Generally a majority of judges can't see so the skier almost always gets a pass. Since this is already the case, I am against making the rules more complicated to codify what is already the reality.

 

I also am against having one set of rules for different classes of tournaments (Class C and above). We have enough darn rules. Can we just be smart about it and go skiing.

 

For the higher class tournaments where we do video review we do need to some fine print to solve reviews that take too long. I am a fan of the idea that if the review takes longer than 90 seconds the skier gets it but that is a different thread.

[Ed_Obermeier]

If that tolerance is already allowed, if most judges are already giving the benefit of the doubt, why is it such an issue?? Why are we even having this discussion? If that is in fact the reality it certainly doesn't seem to be the common perception.

 

This MINOR rule addition would just reinforce to judges to lighten up a bit on the opener, PARTICULARLY in C and below tournaments. It's not changing anything for different classes or adding any significant difference to how above C level tournaments are judged. It's simply saying "lighten up a bit" and quit being so freaking anal about a really close gate call on an opening pass. If judges are pulling gates on an opening pass when it's questionable one way or the other IMO that's too anal and is a net negative to growing participation.

 

If it were me I'd say go to the INT Mulligan rule. Miss the opener gates, come back on pass 2 same line length, give it another go, roll on. But I'm sure the purists would never have that...

[RichardDoane]

INT's mulligan rule provides a second chance for a blown opener, but reinforces poor skiing IMO

[ozski]

If it aint broken... And I don't think its broken. How much would you let them miss by? Would we need a new rule for that? I took almost 10 years off and first pass back I managed to go through the gates and I've not missed one yet, bad gate yes but missed gate no. We need a poll to find out how many people miss their gates and how often... All levels practice and competition.

[Ed_Obermeier]

Reinforces poor skiing @richarddoane? The idea if I remember correctly the idea of the rule is to give beginners/new comers an opportunity to overcome their nerves if they happen to screw up an opener, the idea being to make tournament participation more "friendly" and thus more likely to draw some new blood. I fail to see how in any manner whatsoever that would "reinforce bad skiing". It's the freaking opening pass for crying out loud. IMO one of the huge differences in why INT continues to draw new people where AWSA doesn't, that 2nd chance to calm yourself and pull it together. Such a small thing but makes a big difference to a lot of fence sitters. But again, purists will never consider anything like that.

 

@ozski, again if it's questionable give the doubt to the skier and roll on, if it's obvious it's a miss. If it requires much discussion it's questionable, roll on. Not a tough concept and it's not a new rule. It's just an attempt to take over-analness (is that a word?) out of it and make it a bit more friendly. It's not going to change who ultimately wins, which appears to me to be the issue with the Purists - fear they might get knocked off by someone who got a chance to calm themselves and ski as they usually do. Everyone screws up occasionally, where is the harm in a first pass mulligan?

 

 

[RichardDoane]

missing the entrance gate = poor skiing, IMO. The "friendly" atmosphere comes from the people at the event being glad to see the new faces, helpful with their questions, and inclusive in their behavior and attitude. Seasoned tournament skiers need to remember that at one time everyone was a "newbie", and it's just good manners to show the new arrivals a smile and give a warm greeting. Skiing buoys is a difficult thing to learn and get good at, but let's not "dumb it down" by adding rule modifications. Beginners need to be encouraged to ski the Grassroots, N, F, or X class events while they are learning the ropes.

[6balls]

The course is the course and the gates are the gates.

 

I'm all for a mulligan scenario for first timer's and/or for skiers who have not skied at a particular level to be guaranteed a certain number of passes in their run should they come to a tourney. I'm going to run 4 to 5 passes per tourney set barring catastrophe...they should be allowed the same for fun even if not for scoring.

 

For novice skiers would it also be helpful to video their runs and offer tips for improvement from the tourney committee or a willing top skier at the event along with photo ops and party favors? Just thinking out loud.

[Drago]

Good for kids and new tourny skiers. Makes no difference for others.

[Kelvin]

Keep in mind, this is a change to the US rules so it will apply to Class E tournaments and below. The higher profile situations over the past year or two were international competitions under IWWF rules. This proposal won't change that.

[Klundell]

I'm kind of afraid to say this but I 100% agree with assessment of @horton on this one.

[DW]

What would define missing the gates, since as printed a skier could simply pull to the right for ball one and proceed from there totally skipping the gates. I certainly don't think this was the intention of the rule but technically the pass would be fine per the verbiage above.

[Kelvin]

@DW new gate rule you reference is for experimental Class X rounds. AWSA is looking for data to be able to make an informed decsion on things like this. The scores for the Class X rounds would be captured in the scorebook but would not be included in the ranking list. This missed gate proposal would apply for Class E and Class C and could get you a score in the ranking list.

[Ed_Obermeier]

What's getting lost in all of this is that any half way serious course skier isn't purposely missing their gates anyway. Wide of the entry gate = poor angle to #1 so the likelihood of improved scores for a skier who skis wide of the gates is pretty much zero. If the argument is that it gives someone unfair advantage, there isn't much to argue IMO.

[ForrestGump]

My luck I'll set a new pb by 4 or 5 buoys in Joe's Class X round and get nothing to show for it. Other than a hang over. :)

[Horton]

Sadly I am going to miss Joe's event. If I was going to be there I would totally practice some wacky one ball.

[DW]

As an experiment for a somewhat controversial subject in an attempt to improve the sport is certainly good, my point is when you change a rule opening the opportunity to radically change ones approach to how you execute a pass may lead to some very surprising results as Horton rightly points out, I would certainly be spending time experimenting to see how to take advantage of the rule change. To Ed's point, I don't think the slalom community actually knows the answer as there has never been a reason to approach the course in that manner (think Fosbury flop as an example, it radically changed the sport). I would say the only way to know is to try it and see what happens.