Class X Gates Rule Idea

Horton · January 23, 2015

I am working on an idea for a Class X event. Below are two snips from rules.

2) General Rules (Class C+)

a) Events will be run with the below standard. This standard will be known as “Class C+” and will be sanctioned as Class X

i) The purpose of “Class C+” is to the simplify and streamline the officiating burden without compromising integrity

ii) “Class C+” will be meet all standards of USAWS Class C with the following modifications

(1) End course video is required

(2) Tower judges at will have absolute authority to judge the gates closest to their tower

(3) All officials will hold a Regular or higher judges rating

vi) Gates

(1) All skiers will be required to pass between the entrance gates as per USAWS rule (whatever the rule # is)

(2) If skier misses the entrance gates & then competes the pass

(a) That pass would not be scored and the skier must re-run the pass

(i) If the second attempt is successful the ride will continue

(ii) If the gates are missed on the second attempt the that pass will score zero

(iii) If this happens during the Head 2 Head the other skier will have the option to take an additional pass before continuing without risk

(iv) The reride pass will be taken in the same direction as the original attempt

(3) If skier misses the entrance gates & then does not compete the pass

(a) That pass would not be scored and the skier must re-run the pass but cannot improve on the score from the first attempt

Horton · January 23, 2015

When I hatched this gate rule I thought it was a stroke of genius. Now I am wondering if it is just messy. The idea is to have one judge at each end, no gate video and no protests. Letting the skiers re-run the pass is intended to compensate for the fact that there is only one judge and no review.

Where this idea gets fun is in a Head 2 Head. Imagine @bishop8950‌ or @MS‌ misses his gates at 39 but runs it. Go back and do it again. (In the case of @MS‌ this would be awesome for so many reasons)

What I would NOT want is a skier missing gates deliberately to get an extra warm up pass or something like that.

I do not think I detailed it in the rules yet but as with the current USAWS rules if you miss your gates on your opener we will make fun of you and let you just keep skiing.

I don’t know. What do you think?

Chef23 · January 23, 2015

What are you trying to accomplish with this. I am not sure I see the reason for Class X.

Horton · January 23, 2015

@Chef23‌ I am looking for the integrity of a higher level Class event with less people and less cost. The question that led me to the wacky gate idea was – if I only have 1 gate judge and no video how do I tweak the rules to diminish the chance of a skier (who missed the gate) from thinking they got screwed.

lpskier · January 24, 2015

How many rounds and how many entries? This format could skewer the 90 pulls a day rule of thumb. You could easily make a 10 skier an hour tournament into nine skiers an hour if only 2 of the 30 skiers per round (or about seven percent of all skiers all day, miss their gates in one pass per set. (Six minutes per set, average four passes a set, missed pass, drop, ride back, drop adds two passes, or 50% more ski time, or three more minutes per skier. Two skiers miss, six minutes "eaten" = one skier; four skiers miss = two skiers.

Either the tournament entries get fewer (28 instead of 30, often more in a tree rounder) and the length of the day stays the same, or the numbers stay the same and the days potentially get longer by say 108 minutes. Aside from just making the day longer by as much as an hour and 48 minutes (assuming a 20% failure rate per round, that could effect all post Nationals tournaments where I ski in northern NY as it starts to get dark around 7:30 PM by mid August, 6:30 by mid September.

On the other hand, after Labor Day, tournament numbers drop anyway because it is so cold.

On the other hand again, assuming a mutation of course (three hands), we'll really never know how it works in practice until we try it. I say what the heck, go for it.

lpskier · January 24, 2015

Disclaimer: I took a pretty darned good pain killer about an hour ago, so my math and my assumptions could be all screwed up!

lpskier · January 24, 2015

@ Horton: Fewer entries impies more elite. "Sorry, we're already full." Not the best way to get more folks involved.

Horton · January 24, 2015

@lpskier‌ I envision 40 skiers total. 50 at absolute most.this gate idea is honestly a wild idea.

Chef23 · January 24, 2015

I don't see this as a problem in the Eastern Region or how it is going to help draw more people to tournaments.

lpskier · January 24, 2015

If you are running it as an X, why not just make the gate a total option. Or make the gate optional for the first pass. Avoid the resides.

lpskier · January 24, 2015

I have no problem trying new formats as long as it doesn't make a long day a lot longer, and that the goal ist to make the event more fun.

bishop8950 · January 24, 2015

I like the idea of C+. I essentially pick my tournents that way already. If you go to a Class C at Shortline its exactly the same boats/drivers/officials and integrity of an R just less paperwork. At our C event I run the end course camera and work to recruit the best drivers and officials we can get.

The gate rule is interesting. What about simplification in that you only get a second chance once in a set and only if you run the pass and to continue you have to run it again?

Mateo_Vargas · January 24, 2015

How about if you make the gates then you only have to round 5 buoys to complete the pass?

RichardDoane · January 24, 2015

@horton - it seems like too much "do-over" time is being given to someone who missed an entry gate, it would save a lot of time to just have them continue at risk. So the only difference in rules of the C+ gate judging is that you can miss a gate later in your set, not just on your opener?

Edbrazil · January 24, 2015

For a Class CX, how about Chet Raley's idea vs. entry gates:

To receive credit for #1 buoy, you have to start from the 2-4-6 side of the boat wake after

passing the 55m pregates. Would be a great plus for novice skiers, especially those running

at full 23m longline and struggling to make some buoys. For advanced skiers, it would be

very interesting to see where they went vs. the gates. Maybe a little 'early' on them, and maybe

earlier and earlier as the line got shorter and shorter. Who knows, some might opt to 'miss'

the existing gates the hard way.

Could be a step toward trying in higher-class tournaments, and even getting rid of the complex

and expensive video gear needed now.

lpskier · January 24, 2015

So let's designate a coordinator in each region to run one CX tournament during this tournament season. We can all use the same rules, or even better we can have five rule variants. The coordinators should work together so that the best ideas are tried (if we have seven ideas and five tournament, something has to give), and so we are all focused on solutions to the specific problems we are trying to address. In September, we meet to discuss the results of the experiment, what worked, what didn't work, and why. Then we either submit a rule change proposal to AWSA if a rule change is what we want, or a format recommendation to tournament organizes with our "recommended" CX format. We'll need AWSA on board to ensure scores count toward ranking list to continue to attract better skiers, but make the event more fun and user friendly for the Class 3-7 skiers.Yes? No?

ForrestGump · January 24, 2015

Hortons idea about gates isn't so much about gates. It's about how to format an event. Some of you are trying to fix something that isn't really an issue.

The_MS · January 24, 2015

I like @OB idea about 1 judge. Shoreline judging can very from site to site due to positioning of the towers. The boat judge can see it all. I hate re-rides, they take time and gas.

Chef23 · January 24, 2015

I like @MS idea about 1 judge also. With the exception of gates the boat judge generally has the best view short of video. I think I come from a different perspective from @Horton. The bigger challenge from my perspective is to find more sites and make tournament skiing more accessible. More of a C- type of event for level 4-7 skiers where scores still count. I don't want fun class where gates don't matter but looking to provide more access to tournament skiing.

Jody_Seal · January 24, 2015

Wow something that could work! Like the Idea of C+.

However this could be arranged in another fashion. Currently with in AWSA Already Exists a platform for competition as described in the C+ proposal.

Classes for competition in the AWSA are F, C, E and the international levels L and R.

Alternate addendum to C+ proposal:

loosen the rules in Class E as described for the slalom event in the C+ tournament proposal as described below. (Tricks and Jump are pretty well defined as current, no need to change for class E competition)

Rational:

1.Most State federation records and currently some regions can set state records in Class C events. The rest of States and Regions utilize the E classification for records. Nothing changes here

2. The whole competitive system now revolves around a Rankings system for qualification. Class of tournament for quantitative and proficiency requirements are the same for all event classification's.

3. Most all skiers, officials and membership as a whole would like to see the rule book get thinner and not thicker. Adding another confusing classification only adds to the confusion and misunderstanding already written into the current set of rules.

4. At this time the Class C+ and current E classification rules are close and a bit mimicked.

5. National Records still could be set in the revamped E rule definition's .

6. Technology on the field today is far better then when the Classification rules were written or for the most part updated.

7. Many current Class C tournaments now a day's are on site's that are turn key flip the switch electronic site's, with today's electronics to set up a end course feed is low cost and of good quality. I am sure a app could be developed (probably already exist) to be made available on a hand set or screen/ pad.

8. Most event sites today are surveyed and get resurveyed once a year sometimes twice a year. proposal for class E restructuring is that the site must have been surveyed certified every 12 months. Also Cable courses disallowed for class E competition.

Class E already Exist, propose to make the rule change's and we can lighten the rule book and lessen the technology and manpower.

If we were to write any more rules into the book, event Formatting rules are some that need to be considered..

"I am working on an idea for a Class X event. Below are two snips from rules."