Zero Based Scoring

[ToddL]

@Chad_Scott - so you are saying that a lot of people voted, eh? (Somewhat tongue and cheek - Given that a small % of competitive skiers actually participate in those tournaments.)

 

Personally, I do not think that fact negates the voice of those skiers who voted. I just hope that the results were a sufficiently significant sample from which to extrapolate the "voice" of the skiing population.

[Jweber]

Whatever parts of ZBS get approved should be approved across the board. Approving it for some tournaments but not others just creates more confusion to our already fattening rule book. Also, most of us don't have time to practice 2 speeds.

[disland]

agree with @Jweber Doing it for just class C is a waste of time. If they want to keep the max speeds, fine, but lets get on with it. People are starting to train.

[MISkier]

Survey results link below. Very slight majority approved of keeping ZBS as originally written. However, there is some information that the vote on the rescind request occurred and the rescind request was amended. The word is that ZBS is allowed in class C at the option of the LOC for both above and below max speeds. ZBS is allowed in records for below max speeds only.

 

I do not know what was decided on how the scores would post or how they would be factored into rankings.

 

ZBS Survey Results

[JackQ]

Don't think this will help to simplify and overly complicated sports.

[Jweber]

For people who only want ZBS (whatever version gets approved) approved for class C, please explain why it makes sense to allow ZBS in tournaments used to qualify for regionals and nationals, but then change the rules once you get there.

[MISkier]

@Jweber, I think the bigger question is how much it will be available, if it is "at the option of the LOC".

[ToddL]

I'll come back to trick-down competition... How Nationals will be run is how Regionals will be run. And so on... Sites just don't have time to run lots of "experimental" competitions. I predict that all LOCs with any elite/advanced skiers attending will follow the Nationals competition format. If they have the bandwidth to run additional sanctions to "welcome" more people to ski, then the are likely already doing that with GR/F - where they can do pretty much whatever they want.

 

When Nationals is run with ZBS and no speed limits, then the other LOC tournaments will follow suit. (Same argument applies to Ability-Based Divisions, etc.)

 

[scoke]

someone hacked my account

 

[LeonL]

What @Jweber said.

[lpskier]

Well, I'll bet there are a lot of partially relieved scorers, if that is the case.

[MrJones]

I only check on this thread about once per week, and then only in passing. Is this a done deal or still up in the air?

[Drago]

LOC = old school. Seriously, we're worried it's too difficult for scoring?? It's a click of a mouse.

[lpskier]

@drago maybe in the future. The scoring program (unless it was modified over the winter) is not designed to accommodate "irregular" scoring.

[scoke]

 

 

 

Ok i'll bite and stand up as one of the ones who want ZBS only for Class C tournaments.

 

 

 

Great idea for a whole laundry list of reasons, arguments and excuses.

 

 

 

 

Here are the top reasons:

 

 

 

 

Nahh I have better things to do. I'm out.

 

 

 

 

But it reminds of this:

 

 

 

 

 

[Kelvin]

@lpskier, the functionality for ZBS is already in the scoring software. ZBS was availalble for juniors and collegiate skiers last year and the software was programmed to accomodate it. For skiers that have an option to shorten or speed up, the system brings up a prompt asking which choice the skier made. Its really not an issue from the judges or scorers perspective. Just a simple question to the skier at the end of the lake.

[LeonL]

@Drago I don't understand "LOC = old school". That just means Local Organizing Committee. Call by any other name and it still means a local group (USAWS sanctioned club) that sponsors a tournament. Is there a more appropriate, more politically correct term???

[Drago]

Old School meaning resistant to change

[MrJones]

And it's a great movie.

[MISkier]

compromise (n.) - an agreement where none of the parties actually gets what they want, except for the party that doesn't want any real change to the status quo.

[lpskier]

The portion of the ZBS rule allowing for increased age group speeds has been repealed. If you are W5 or M7 or up and you want to ski a faster speed in a L event for a world ranking list score ask the organizer to score you as W45+ or M55+. Your "enhanced score" won't count for the national list but should for the world list.

[BRY]

Text of the approved motion:

 

Motion: the ZBS proposal that was passed by the board in January remains, but is modified to cap maximum speeds as per the current Age Division Maximum speeds as defined in rule 10.06(A). However, LOC's may opt to allow higher max speeds, up to 36 MPH for male divisions and 34 MPH for female divisions, excluding juniors, in class C tournaments, at their discretion. All other aspects of the ZBS proposal passed in January remain unchanged.

The motion passes, 14-9-0-2.

[Drago]

Cristal clear. Compete On , my friends

[Horton]

@bry

 

ok I want to make sure I am clear. M3, M4 & M5 guys cannot opt up to 36 for 6 more balls? Is that what was agreed on? If so can we go back to talking about something interesting?

[BRY]

@Horton It seems so for ELR but no for C though at this point I just saw an e-mail that had the voting and motion included. Seems good to get the actual verbiage posted. What I posted above is the heart of it and to my knowledge the complete motion to amend the new rule. :) No interpretations, just the motion.

[BRY]

My read of it is that for ELR the previous max speeds retained:

M3-M6 55K/34

M7, W5-6 52K/32

M8-11, W7-8 49K/30

No option or exception to go faster in ELR.

For Class C the LOC has the option, but not obligated, to allow any M to go 36 and any W to go 34.

In any Class if someone want to go 28mph -38 then have at it, whatever.

If anyone knows differently please chime in.

[MISkier]

@BRY,

 

Was there anything in there about how the scores would be posted and factored into the rankings, particularly if you are exceeding the max speed for your age division? Do skiers get credit for shortening before max speed? Do skiers get credit for skiing above age division max speed? And, is that score altered in any way from what the chart reflects for someone achieving that line length and speed combination in the age division with that speed as the max?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Wow, sanity prevails!

 

I'm all for change and experiments and Class C tournaments are the place to do it until all the unintended consequences get worked out.

 

@MIskier, since "....All other aspects of the ZBS proposal passed in January remain unchanged. ", I would expect the scores would be per the ZBS chart if you go faster at a Class C. So if someone can get a higher buoy count for their ranking by skiing faster, go for it. Its only a ranking list.

[lpskier]

No credit for skiing above traditional age group max speed; you get credit for shortening before max speed; not sure what your last question asks, but if you're asking if the chart scores are still correct for reference, the answer is yes.

 

It is my understanding (I emphasize "understanding") that you can ski up to the IWWF max speed for your age group if it exceeds the AWSA speed by requesting (for example) a 55+, etc age group in an L tournament, just like having International divisions. So if you are M8 with a 49k max speed, in an L event you can request to ski 65+ at 52k for a world ranking list score (but that score won't go in the AWSA books, or at least won't go in the books at the same score total, i.e. you'll get a score calculated at 49k). You can not make this election in an E event as AWSA doesn't offer those divisions and an E score doesn't go on the world list.

 

In a class C at the option of the LOC, you can ski up to 36. Not sure how those scores will work in the ranking list. I guess we'll find out once we have a few tournaments.

 

@Horton That is correct.

[Chad_Scott]

Agree with @Bruce_Butterfield

 

Sanity prevailed.

[Horton]

Well this is really going to hurt my web traffic. Now that this argument is over what are we going to talk about? I hear there's a new rule being developed for 1/4, 1/2 & 3/4 buoys as well as partial credit depending on effort.

 

@eleeski @skimom

[Zman]

That's good. Maybe add partial credit because you intended to get that last buoy?

[ALPJr]

Will be interested to see if the participation numbers go up over the next few years. I expect to see a return of former tourney skiers like me.

[LeonL]

@lpskier rule 10.06c state that a skier may elect to start at a faster speed than normal division max but the score will be as if at division max. Class is not mentioned.

[MISkier]

@LeonL, where are you referencing that information? The rulebook on the USA Water Ski site has an effective date of January 30, 2016 on the first page and it does match what you say about passes greater than division max being credited at division max speed. However, there is also a 2017 Rules Changes Summary publication that rewrites 10.06C and also alters the scoring in 10.13C2. Neither publication matches what I am hearing with regard to the recent decision. I think we really need the official 2017 Rule Book to be published, in the current state, without trying to pull multiple documents together for interpretation.

 

This is what 10.06 A, B and C looks like in the Rules Change Summary (note that max speed for Boys 3 or older is 58 kph).

 

10.06 Boat Speeds and Line Lengths (***May be used for all Classes but certain scoring options do not follow with IWWF scoring i.e. skier will need to make complete pass at maximum speed before the pass will count on their ranking list).

A. The minimum boat speed for all divisions shall be 25 kph (15.5 mph).

1. At the option of the LOC, a skier may start below the minimum speed in Class F only and the pass(es) shall not be scored at or above zero until they have reached the official minimum starting speed. (Also see Rule 3.06).

2. Also, at the option of the LOC as stated in its tournament announcement, or by majority vote of the Appointed Judges, the number of passes may be limited to a specific number but not less than four.

B. The maximum allowed boat speeds shall be as follows:

1. Boys 1/Girls 1 - 49 kph (30.4 mph). 2. Girls 2 - 52 kph (32.3 mph). 3. Boys 2 and all females Girls 3 or older - 55 kph (34.2 mph). 4. All males, Boys 3 or older - 58 kph (36.0 mph).

8

C. A skier may start his run anywhere in the matrix shown in 10.06(g) below, subject only to the maximum speeds for their division as stated in 10.06B.

 

This is the section in the Rules Change Summary that modifies/removes the rule scoring passes higher than max speed as at divisional max speed.

10.06C A skier may elect to start at a speed higher than his division

maximum speed, up to his respective Open Division maximum speed, and

may not return to his division maximum speed on subsequent passes. Any

passes skied at that higher speed shall receive credit for buoys as though

they were being run at his division maximum speed. A skier cannot set a

National record unless they ski at the actual age division maximum speed.

An OM may not ski at 36mph (58k) set a record there and then drag that

score to a 34mph (55k) division The age division maximum speeds shall

be retained for National Records, Men 3-6 (34.2mph-55kph, Men 7

(32.3mph-52kph), Men 8-10 (30.4mph-49kph), Men 11 (28.6mph-

46kph), Women 5-6 (32.3-52kph), Women 7-10 (30.4-49kph) and

Women 11 (28.6-46kph).

 

Additional rules affected by 10.06 include 10.13C2 and 10.13D4

 

10.13C2: When skiing above division maximum speed, the recorded speed

will be as if at division maximum.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@horton, you better start looking for a job!

[lpskier]

@LeonL You are correct. You can ski a faster than max speed but only get scored as if skiing max.

 

@MISkier The rule changed again following a board vote on Friday March 10.

[lpskier]

@Horton How about a discussion on the proposal to widen the width of the boat guides to equal the gate width, so as to accommodate the width (beam) of current boats, particularly Nautique. Personally I think that will make driving harder.

[LeonL]

@MISkier I was quoting 2016 rules because @lpskier was referencing what "was", not what "is".

[lpskier]

@LeonL "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." WJC

[LeonL]

Yes, you're right. Who knows what is right now.

[Mrs_MS]

Sooooo who wants to Score?

[Horton]

@lpskier I only can hope that isn't early April Fool's joke. Any rule that will move the buoys will be catastrophic for the sport.

[lpskier]

@Horton Boat guides, not turn balls. All I can tell you is that it was mentioned as a likelihood at a judge's and scorers clinic this past weekend.

[wtrskior]

Boats are a lot wider these days so there is some merit into looking at a wider boat path. Just Imagine all the courses that would have to be changed though... I'd be buying shares into EZ-Ed!

[disland]

Ridiculous and scary waste of money for sites to have to redo their courses and re-survey. This might be the straw the breaks the back to make me stop sanctioning tournaments. The only reason we still do it is so the promo guys can get credit

[MarkM]

Move the guides? Ya lake owners are going to love this. I don't see this happening.

[Horton]

Ok guys this needs to be a new thread. STOP and start over

 

[MISkier]

The FAQ sheet is here. It seems to indicate that skiers can ski above max speed in a class C, at the discretion of the LOC, and they will receive credit for that. It also implies that score will be factored into the rankings as-is, without a penalty or divisional max speed restriction.

 

@lpskier, I think that skiing faster than divisional max and only being scored at divisional max speed would be true only for E, L, and class C where the LOC did not allow ZBS. In class C with ZBS allowed, the skier would receive the correct credit for a speed higher than max speed and that score would be applied to the ranking directly. Do you agree?

 

Unless the following post on USA Water Ski is not reflective of whatever happened on March 10, I don't see where the class C score with ZBS allowed would be restricted to only divisional max. And, in class C with ZBS allowed, the divisional max is altered and explained to include, for example, all males B3 and older having a max speed of 58 kph.

 

ZBS FAQ Cheat Sheet

[LeonL]

Well, I guess it's official. It is the epitome of stupid to allow skiing above division max in class C, allowing the score to go on the ranking list and then NOT allow it at Refionals and Nationals. We have 3 class C tournaments scheduled for 2017, and I can assure you that we will NOT be using this. I just wonder how many LOC's will opt to allow it.