Missed gates at Moomba

[ozski]

Emma came second in the women's and we had a bit of a chat about it yesterday and she said the current was a pretty big deal during the women's final. She runs the majority of her 38's here in all conditions so it was certainly tough out there. Alex King (NZ) trains with us as well, he got his gates pulled from the city end on -32 and he still thinks he went through them... Personally I think it would be a bad decision to change the gate rule.

[6balls]

@klindy that doesn't change it much. On regular turn buoys, like others I've gone to the "S" technique in an attempt to score the full buoy. Due to the shortened distance to the end gates the "S" is not possible after 6 ball.

 

With the proposed mods on the rules will scores change? The answer is yes. If no one can miss entrance gates, no one has them pulled and scores would change as no one is eliminated on this basis. 9 more skiers could be in contention at Moomba. Removing the gates takes away one of the skills now required in competition.

 

If end gates are extended, some skiers make 6 balls that could not have held on if the gates are placed where they are at present; scores change again. It's a precision sport...if I miss my gates pull 'em. If I spit the handle after 6...no continuance. Anyone can choose their own safety margin after 6 ball...with that much slack there is time to think.

 

 

[eleeski]

There may be two issues here. One is "should we judge gates?" I'm with many who think the gates are part of the sport and should be judged.

 

The second issue may be the strictness of the judges. With moving buoys it can be very difficult to see exactly what the skier has done. Some of the skiers with pulled gates thought they had made the gates. Perhaps the judging was too strict. If you can't be sure on one good review, the gates should score. Knowingly scoring an obviously missed gate is just as wrong as cutting a made gate. But always giving uncertainty to the skier is proper.

 

I have no way of knowing how obvious these misses were. Perhaps an unusual number of skiers were pushing too hard or the gates moved too much and every missed gate was clear to any judge. Normally missed gates are rare but it sounds like Moomba is an unusual tournament.

 

Hard ass judges who read certainty into ambiguous situations do hurt the sport. Legitimate contenders are eliminated to the detriment of spectator appeal. And we generate petitions to remove gates and really screw up the sport.

 

Eric

[DanE]

Why does this discussion emerge everytime some pro miss their gates?

If none of the skiers ever got their gates pulled wouldn't that be kind of strange considering so many cutting it close?

[Stevie Boy]

This may be a shot in the dark, and considered a dumb suggestion, but I will throw it in anyway, Consider Tennis, some sort of artificial electrionic eye, two lasers intersecting the centre of the right hand gate bouy maybe or camera in the bouy, with all the Gizmo's available, there must be a way of judging the gates and take away human error.

This would work even if the bouy had moved, but would still give the skier a target.

[DUSkier]

@Stevie Boy‌ the human error is the skier!!! =) they have mis-judged conditions, Current/wind/rollers etc

 

@eleeski‌ from what I can gather they were obvious misses and not hard ass judges.

 

I think another thing that a lot of people have missed is that Nate went down (as in fell) in the final, from what I felt was a mistake, first one he has made in along time.

 

All in all another fantastic Moomba and I'll be back there again next year!

[Stevie Boy]

@DUSkier, I wasn't having a pop at the judges, it was more about the bouys possibly moving around, I personally think if we can have a more positive way of calling the gate it does away with the argument to change the gate rules.

[MattP]

@DanE‌ It comes up every time because Gordon emails his list about it every time....

[Texas6]

200,000 spectators!!!! Unbelievable. That's like a NASCAR event, only one that also has right turns. Current, debris, complicated obstacles, beer, top professionals, drama. This is one of the coolest professional events our sport has and it's just been added to my bucket list. Having said that, right or wrong, I applaude Gordon's efforts and attempts to improve the sport for broader appeal. If Moomba had 14 spectators on the shoreline, it wouldn't be near as interesting to many of us.

[Chef23]

I started this thread and I didn't really mean it to be an indictment of judging the gates. Personally I think the gates should be judged. For me it was more of a question about skiing on the Yarra because there were a large number of very skilled skiers that missed the gates even at some of their easier passes. It sounds like the Yarra is a very challenging site to ski and the competitors need to be in more of a survival mode rather than trying to break records.

[Skoot1123]

Time to throw my opinion in here. My caveat is, I haven't yet skied in a tournament, so I don't know what it is like to have my gates pulled. When Gordon first brought the gates issue up I could see his point, to some extent I still understand why he brings it up. But now - I have shall we say, shifted course. The rule is: "Go through the gates"! As far as I know there are no exceptions to that, so yes, that does mean that if there is a current, wind, fog, mist, spray, etc and the buoy moves, you still have to go through the gate. That is the part that makes it such a challenge. I have changed my stance on this because the rule is the rule, and you have to draw a line somewhere. If I let go of my handle or if the handle popped out of my hand at buoy 4, would I get a re-ride because "my glove slipped, my finger uncurled, some rubber peeled away from the handle?" Absolutely NOT! Would I like a re-ride if that happened to me? SURE, who wouldn't? But this is the competition, the game, that just won't happen! In this case, this is The Yarra River!! As most folks say it is a very difficult course, and if you make it through to the end, it adds an amount of credibility and prestige. We wouldn't want to take that away from it would we? I don't think so!

 

I believe @eleeski hit it on the head when he said "There may be two issues here. 1: Should we judge the gates and 2: The strictness of the judges." #1: Yes, the gates should be judged, that is part of the game. #2: As I recall the rules state that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the skier, not the course. Will there be arguments there? Absolutely! But what methods/procedures are in place to prevent and/or reduce/eliminate that? Maybe that is where the oppotunity lies to help and grow our sport.

 

I DO applaud Gordon for getting his opinion out there and bringing in fresh/new ideas. Those ideas and opinions are where we generate will truly make the sport better. Perhaps through all of this the judging will be easier and the gates will be less missed.

 

Heres to the middle of the gates.

[ForrestGump]

Every time a pro misses a gate at a tournament, I find myself hoping someone takes away Gordon' computer keyboard.

[Bulldog]

There should only be a change in a sport if there are consistent injuries not just gates being missed. The NHL changed from touch icing to no touch icing because there were some players getting severely injured (career ending in some cases) on a simple icing call - this change made so much sense and everyone (fans, players, owners) all accepted the change. If our pro skiers are simply missing a gate there is no reason to change anything. Its not like the crowd really knows or cares.... most are having a beer, enjoying some sun, and watching athletes perform. Keep it simple - make the gate - round all six - make the exit - shorten...

[MAD11]

@shaneh Amen. @ob I asked that very question of two top pros last week while we were there and both said Moomba much more difficult than the Masters as far as conditions go. I'm not saying your wrong, just giving the feedback I received.

[klindy]

Anyone know what class of tournament Moomba is? Can you set a world record there? Granted conditions may make that unlikely but what's it set up to be?

[ctsmith]

I've recently been in a boat pulling an elite skier who centers the gates. Doubt she (woops, probably gave it away) ever has a gate pulled.

[MattP]

@klindy I would assume R/L @Jody_Seal‌ should know for sure.

@ctsmith‌ hmm Regina?

[ctsmith]

Matt, sometimes putting up with Jody pays off :)

[Jody_Seal]

@Klindy Class R

[MattP]

@OB it is harder when the stands are full and a paycheck is on the line.

[ral]

@klindy, as per the results scorebook, L for slalom and jump, R for tricks. Which, I think, makes sense.

 

http://www.iwsftournament.com/homologation/scorebooks/20140312010302ScorebookAUS326.pdf

[klindy]

Thanks @Jody_Seal and @ral. I didn't think to look at the scorebook.

[schroed]

It seems to me that this issue can be solved more easily on how we judge the gates. As @eleeski stated, it really comes down to the strictness of the judges. I think we should simply have the boat judge be the only judge who can pull a gate. That way we could eliminate all the extra technology and delays from video reviews that have occurred the past. Then change the rule to something like "clearly missed the gate". If it's not obvious, the skier gets the gate.

 

I think changing the rule and eliminating the need to go through the entrance gate would change the game too much. Personally, I think my gate and one ball is the worst part of my skiing and I continually strive to improve it. I have also experimented with not worrying about my gate and I know from experience that if I go a bit early at my harder passes I almost always get further down the course than if I go through the gates. Hence, you'd think I'd be in favor or the rule, but as I stated I am not. I enjoy the challenge of getting through the gates and trying to get a good one ball. I vote for keeping the challenge of getting through the entrance gates and simply changing the way it's judged.

[Chef23]

@schroed at the end of the day I like your idea. If a boat judge can't clearly see a missed gate with the naked eye then I don't think the gate should be pulled. If it is that close the skier isn't getting an advantage. The boat judge is usually the only one who gets a real good look at either entrance or exit gates.

 

This would have the added bonus of eliminating the cost of putting video on place for slalom increasing the number of sites that could have high end tournaments.

[ral]

I do not agree. Video is the best way of judging gates, and the boat is not by any means a good place to do it, because both the position and angle of observation. Do that for C tournaments. If you want L or R, boat view is just not good enough.

[BRY]

@Skoot1123 Go to a tournament! Preferably AWSA but INT will do. GO! You will have a great time, learn a lot, meet some more addicts.

BTW, the vast majority of tournaments are class C with two shore judges and a boat judge with majority rule. Video not required in class C and most do not even have it. All this uproar about video reviews and so forth really applies to class R (record) tournaments. Class R's are approximately 20% of AWSA tournaments. Go to a nice local C, have a great time, and don't worry about this crap, won't apply. But still try to got through the center of the gates....

 

@Chef23 Sorry man, but no, boat judge is not the only one who gets a real good look at the gates. Boat judge has the worst view, too flat. A judge in a properly placed tower or with a properly placed camera really does have the best view, slight angle looking down on the gates. I have spent many hours in said towers, the view is really, really good.

 

Judges don't pull gates, at least I've never seen it. Skiers miss gates and judges just call what happened.

 

The difficulty is in the way the rule is written. When the skier is over the ball and are the over half, less than half yada yada. I believe the clarification to the rule that benefit of the doubt goes to the skier will help. But if you are on the gate ball when you go through the gates...

 

I think Moomba is a great tournament, and I believe the organizers do the best that can be done to make it great and fair for all. They have a lot of experience in doing so. But the Yarra is a junk site. Funky inruns, debris floating with the current, rollers and so forth. It does introduce a luck factor. Similar to bad conditions in snow ski racing, sometimes conditions take the favorites down. But it puts the tournament in the heart of a major metropolitan city. They wouldn't have hundereds of thousands of spectators if it was at a perfect site 10 miles out of the city. Trade offs but not worth changing the sport (removing or significantly altering gates) for one tournament.

 

Gordon may or may not have something there on the safety issue. I've only met him a couple times and he doesn't know me from the thousands of skiers he's met. But I think he is very motivated due the terrible tragedy that happened at his site. But I think better clarity found and more study should be done before changes made.

[Chef23]

@bry you guys are probably right and I agree that judges don't pull gates skiers miss them. I am a slalom judge (not a senior) and I have been both in the boat and in the tower and frequently one of the towers has a view of the entrance and one has one of the exit gates. That may be enough. I do feel that if you have to run it back and forth 5 times on video to see if the gate was good or not then there is something wrong.

 

I feel like there has to be a better way to do it for many events than the current video. I am thinking about events in the Northeast and there are very few sites equiped with video for gates. I am only aware of one off the top of my head. I believe this year our regionals is going to be a class C because of that limitation (which is fine with me). Personally I don't care about world rankings or whatever you get if ski in a class R or L tournament. I do know a handful of people in the Northeast that do care and it makes it tough for them to get those scores.

 

I guess at the end of the day I don't have an answer. I do believe gates should be scored I just would like there to be a way to have consistent judging without a lot of expensive video equipment being required.

 

 

[klindy]

@Chef23‌ as a TC for many years, I fully understand the challenges of setting up a class E/L/R tournament. I've personally owned and installed 1000's of feet of coax cable to get gate and end course video in place for a weekend tournament. I also know of several TC's with the same capacity if the site has ambitions but not the hardware.

 

That said I do think there will be some improvement with the couple subtle but important rules changes. My experience as a senior judge is that most times the judges aren't watching the video over and over again as much as they (collectively) are spending time trying to find the right snippet of video.

 

Regarding Moomba, I look at it slightly different. First there is a tolerance of acceptable dimensions in the rules. Those tolerances are there to account for "nature" and other things which are impossible to control. The goal is to always strive for actual. Likewise, the jump and slalom course would have had to have been surveyed with at least a two point survey to qualify as class L. Usually the survey is done in more optimal conditions without a boat going up and down the course but it should account for the current in that the buoys should float downstream somewhat equally and within the tolerance.

 

IWWF rule 14.05f says - f) Each buoy shall have a strong loop for attaching anchor lines. The buoys must be attached to the anchor line by the use of a system that will tighten the buoy in such a way as to ensure that it does not move around from its position. That rule along with the tolerances available would imply that a cross-course line with a 4' string up to the buoy may not be enough to hold it in place. At a minimum, if it does move around perhaps the course should not be allowed to run as class L (or R).

 

To be clear, the challenges the Yarra river presents are tough! The tournament organizers do an awesome job and the tournament itself is fantastic. The exposure alone is incredible. I'm not criticizing anyone nor suggesting they are doing anything less than an awesome job putt on the tournament. Kudos to all the athletes that worked hard to ski their best and accept the conditions as they were. Kudos also to the tournament organizers for having a tournament above and beyond all others every year.

 

Anyway, I'm sure they've tried lots of different ideas. But it seems there should be some way to install the buoys so that conditions remain consistent from athlete to athlete.

 

 

[smanski]

Let's add gates for jump. In jump, no matter what boat speed or how many cuts, put a set of gate balls at some point before the jump and force everyone to go between them. Who cares if it changes the path the jumper would naturally take, make him go between those freaking buoys. If he is one inch off center to the wrong side and jumps 200+, who cares. It doesn't count because he missed some arbitrary buoy by one inch. Maybe add some exit gates also. Who cares if he rides it out. If he doesn't pass through the exit gates his 200+ jump counts as a big fat zero.

 

[BRY]

@Chef23 Much of my post was to put out a different perspective. If I were someone who had never been to a tournament, like I think many lurkers on this board are, I would be put off from tournaments. My impression would be all tournaments chop a lot of skiers gates and many, if not most skiers get lengthy waits for reviews. This is simply not the case if for no other reason than very few non-R tournaments use video.

 

As you say "frequently one of the towers has a view of the entrance and one has one of the exit gates. That may be enough." With the boat judge I believe for class C that is enough, two towers and boat judges. No video expense, delays or hassle. That is both the knock and advantage to class C. Scores may be inflated a little, but if judges are doing their best then I think it averages out.

 

It really is an issue that affects pretty much only class R tournaments. From a previous thread there were "14 no continuations and 4 missed gates out of 590 pulls at Nationals". Even if @Mattp missed a few, not a whole lot of chopping going on.

 

Safety wise I just don't see an argument at all on the entrance gates. Exit gates maybe, but I haven't seen a clearly stated argument yet. Is it safety, inconsistency with the rest of the course, something else?

[BRY]

@smanski There kind of is an gate for jump already, the lower left and lower right of the ramp. Miss those by much and the penalty is much higher than just getting a zero!

[klindy]

@rico you're right that the IWWF has jurisdiction over class L and R tournament. AWSA deals with class E, C and below.

 

Under AWSA rules according to a rule change passed at this winter meeting, a tournament sponsor can sanction a class X tournament (or a single round in a multi-round tournament) to test whatever change they think is appropriate. So Gordon (or anyone), under AWSA rules, can run a round where the gates are ignored. The only condition is that the scores will not end up on the ranking list (AWSA or IWWF). It's a good opportunity to test various ideas.

[ral]

@Chef23, i have never seen a gate played back and forth 5 times. Just one time, and if in doubt from that time, it is good.

[Jody_Seal]

[thompjs]

If your gate camera is mounted high enough, and you have the appropriate recorders, you can freeze frame the skier right as the ski goes over the ball. It is not a tough call from there.

 

I've been using some Maganavox recorders that have a 30 second rewind -- if the gate call is close, I'll hit hit the rewind, judge the skier bouys, then look for the nose of boat hit pause and then frame foward about 5 frames and make the call. This is usually done by the time the boat times are called in.

 

The splash eye system is very good for this as well. Expensive but maybe worth it.

I haven't used it at tournament, but we did simulation at Sr. Judge clinic and it has some really nice features.

 

I've seen a lot of postings where the poster thinks that these calls are vague, most of the ones I judge are very clear cut. Occasionally there is a call where ski is almost directly over the ball, and that is where the judgement call comes in.

 

 

 

 

[ral]

What @thompjs‌ states is in line with my experience in the judging tower here. And we see all cameras played in sync (gate/boat are relevant, the other gate and path not that much...), so it is really a quick process.

 

If the skier is airborne over the ball, it needs to be apparent that the mid of the ski was outside of the ball to be called no gate. In general, there is little doubt, and video review is done only if there is either a doubt or one or more judges call no gate. So even what might be considered a clear miss is reviewed, thus giving an extra chance to the skier.

 

[ral]

@smanski, IMHO your comparison does not make any sense.

 

Would you change rule 13.08 to consider that a 200+ jump is valid if the skier does not ski away with a tight rope? I mean, he landed with both skis over 200+ feet, why force him to ski away?

 

Would you change the rule 15.14 stating that a FFLBB should be counted even if he lands after the 20s period, or if he lands before the 20s period but falls in second 21 as a result of the trick?

 

The rules are to be applied, so as you need to ski away from a jump and finish a trick within the 20s period and not fall as a cause of it if you want to get credit, you need to go thru the gates...

[thompjs]

Often close ones I think are bad turn out to be good. I think everyone thinks it is the opposite.

 

[gregy]

I remembered this by Andy Mapple in a thread last year.

 

The gates from the city end are always a challenge at Moomba. They are situated slightly on a corner of the river and the a place where the currents tend to swirl and thus the gates can have a little movement to them. I believe we see more issues with the gates being pulled at Moomba because the gate buoys in the rules are so much smaller than they used to be, and we have become accustomed to having no fear of getting close or trying to run them over without penalty. This is just magnified at a site like Moomba. Just part of skiing in the Yarra, it forces a different thought pattern.

As for my opt up to 38's, this was necessary in the first round for me because of my seed and the way the river and tides were. After that I did it to get right into a rhythm after going back and forth from 34 to 36 mph each day.

[A_B]

Is it impossible for the gate buoys on the Yarra to be modified in a way that minimizes their movement? Sub-buoys with shorter lines up to smaller diameter gate balls that would not get pushed around as much?? I would think some of the course gurus like @Edbrazil‌ could come up with something, IF the organizers wanted to improve the situation.

 

I am more for improving the course vs slacking the rules...

[Wish]

Or water fillm...just sayn.

[DUSkier]

New rules are out with amendments to gate judging as well which should speed things up, see below for new ruling. The rule book also has definite heights and positions for gate cameras now as well.

 

Each gate must be judged by two judges using video feeds from cameras placed at the required angle and height to the gates at each end. These camera feeds will be displayed on a monitor and taped. Each Judge will independently call the entrance gate by observing the monitor. In this case only the tower judges determine the gate call. If one or both judges did not observe the entrance gate then the judge will would replay the video to make the call. If both Judges disagree the Chief Judge or an appointed Judge will cast the deciding vote. A gate can be reviewed, as described above, for a maximum of 2 times, then the call has to be made. The exit gate will be viewed directly but the video may be used by one or both judges to resolve any questions.

[klindy]

@DUSkier‌ those are AWSA rules. Moomba is run under IWWF rules which do not have the same language in their rules.

[DUSkier]

@klindy‌ no these are the new IWWF rules, only released 8th of March. Plus being "Down Under" we have no real interest in AWSA rules =)

 

http://iwsf.com/dbheadlines/headlinefiles/World%20rules%202014.pdf

[6balls]

Our courses are portables and the pvc sits on the bottom. The PVC at each buoy has a weight on it. Each course has excellent wind protection from certain directions, but is completely exposed in another to serious whitecaps in a big wind. Before 1/2 water filling the whitecaps would pick our course up despite the weights and move it...turn balls and to some extent driver gates.

We have a driver gate solution but the waves would still move our bouy arms until we went 1/2 water. It's amazing to watch the big waves go right over the buoys now instead of displacing them.

@wish may be right on 1/2 water filled. The other side of that coin on the Yarra would be that current. IF water filled and less buoyant, the buoy also cannot tolerate as much line tension without being pulled under too far.

[ral]

@DUSkier, this is basically how it is done now, but it is good to have it in writing and explicitely limit the number of times. Also, it is good that they explicitely stated the camera's height (position was already defined in the rulebook)

[klindy]

@DUSkier‌ thanks. They now match the AWSA rules. I knew that was likely but didn't know it was done.