Jump to content

Why doesn't anyone s-turn 6 ball?


SlalomSteve
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

When skiers come in late and hot around 6 ball, they turn the buoy normally and end up taking a huge slack hit. When they come in late and hot around earlier balls, they s-turn and cut back to the wakes without a slack hit.So why doesn't anyone s-turn the 6 ball? The only reason I could see not to is because you may end up cross the wakes before the gates, which doesn't matter on earlier balls but does after 6 ball. But I have to think you could adjust the pull to make it through the gates, at least in most instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_

This has been my argument about S-turns and the fact they count for a full buoy for 1-5ball, when you have MUCH more distance to the next boat guides then you do at 6 ball. To me, an S-turn shouldn't be anything more then 1/2point.

90% of the time, the skier essentially does not have the control, or timing to actually commit to a turn and progress through the wakes to the next buoy.

If S-turns were scored as 1/2, then tournaments would be much more exciting to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

distance and speed dictate the use of a s turn to get the line back off of 6 and the exit gate.distance from 6 ball to exit gates is 88' or 27 meters.distance from 5ball to 6 scoring boat guide 133' or 41 meters.line length: making that turn at 58k down course and shorter then 14 or 13 meters trying to get out exit gate slack line either in the air or coiling in the water there is not enough time for s turn survival.longer line lengths and slower speeds may be able to s turn.but what do I know?? by the way Todd dislikesthe elderly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

This is why Gordon Rathbun pushed for the left hand exit ball getting pushed back 14m.Mostly for safety, but as well to make the slack line rule equivalent for all 6 buoys.

It was disappointing it did not gain more traction; unequivocally would enhance safety as opposed to some other recent edicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Gloersen, to your point, the other option could be to add a boat guide on the other 5 buoys to be the full buoy mark. It would be at 27 meters from the buoy being turned and on the same side of the centerline. The skier would have to be under a tight line and cross the boat guide line before that particular guide to receive the full buoy credit. I'm guessing this would take the S turn right out of the equation.

 

The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

it's that thing they do after a safety check!? seriously though, it when a skiers late coming into a ball with too much speed. After rounding the ball, to manage the slack they do an s turn maneuver and try to ski back through the boat guides to get credit for a full ball.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

So if someone “zigs” outside the buoy without “zagging”, he might get one buoy? Do you define zig-zagging using a certain angle of the ski to one side and the other? Personally, I do not see a rule change like this happening.Maybe, if many want to change the rule for a reason, they could make it more difficult by using the farthest buoy guide as reference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

So you can then S-turn at longer lines?Look at Regina at ball 3 in these images, She is well inside the 1/4 buoy line, and clearly in the right edge in the third pic, after being in the left edge at the bouy. 1/2 bouy for her?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Whelp,

certainly you can pick out that one-in-a-million shot. If she got back to the wake, I see he on the left edge the whole time (or at most flat, but trying to turn and get to the next buoy*) and I give her a full buoy with our new rules.

*matter of fact, I believe that was 3 ball and she ran the whole pass

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

, yep. She ran that 39. In pic 3, she is on her right edge (see the spray), after being in the middle on pic 2. In the video, you can clearly see the (not at all standard…) s-turn she did. The thing is, judging intentions, like trying to turn, trying to get to the next buoy, or “at most” flat, in a specific edge is a tricky road to travel. What about JT style body slides then? Should be banned also?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Whatever, why are you guys going crazy over this, it's a discussion, an idea.

Obviously she would get a full buoy score since she went around the next buoy.

It was a suggestion by Caldwell , as he thinks the s-turn to the gate line has lesser value than going for the next buoy, and I think is more than a half-baked idea. He was not talking about banning something , he was talking about a tweak in the rules.A quarter buoy is much more of a judgement call than whether the skier is making one solid move to the other side of the course.I've done my fair share of s-turns, as I’m sure Caldwell has, and I think an s turn may be worth 1/4 less points.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I do not feel anyone is getting crazy about this, just arguing different poiints of view. Mine is that it is very unclear how to judge a solid intention to do something. What about getting back to the wake after the buoy, with no S-turns involved? No solid move to the other side of the course, so less score as well?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Why give any points for an S turn? From a game theory standpoint, the existing rule creates a (strong) incentive to stop skiing. All you have to do is eliminate the entire concept of getting a "full" buoy by returning to the center line and BAM, incentive gone. Then everybody just skis as hard as they can.I've actually been thinking about this for many years, and I am quite convinced it would be better for both competitors and spectators.(You can, of course, rename the scores so that you don't always end up with a half. An easy option is just rename it to a full point at the spot that is now called half.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

It would definitely incentivize continued skiing, but it's actually much less clear whether it would lead to more runoffs. Sure, there would be fewer possible scores to choose from, so that

could

increase the number of ties. However, the current rules often incentivize

stopping

at a tie, as it is too risky to continue, so you give up and accept the runoff. In fact, this incentive even applies to skiers who are earlier in the order. If a pro has a chance to get a full 3 @ 10.25, they often are compelled to take that, since 3 almost always makes the finals, but 2.5 is far less reliable to get in! How many deeper 41s could happen if it was

always

strategically correct to just slam a turn at the 3 ball and see what happens!?So anyhow: My proposal would lead to more

accidental

ties, but far fewer

intentional

ties. It's not quite clear how those would balance out. But if indeed there ended up being more runoffs, I'd be more than happy to accept that consequence to let people actually ski!Those of you assuming I have lost my mind: Keep thinking about it. Reason through all the strategic consequences, as well as the simple fact that a score of 1.5 is very often the result of a much better start than a score of 2.I can't guarantee I'm right, but I have thought about this a lot for a long time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Than_Bogan more yard sales and potential accidents too. But man, maybe this is how to elevate watching interest.Only 2 or three skiers turning 3 and another 4-5 s-turn it doesn’t elevate the rush of watching. On the other hand skiers health is also a priority… don’t know…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Drago. No diagram needed. Including the:renaming, you simply get the full ball at the spot that is currently called half, and you can't score any more than that until you get outside the next buoy. Everything is the same except you don't get anything extra for getting back to the wakes.

@skialex Say more about why you think more injuries night occur. You just keep skiing. Sure, skiing is inherently dangerous, so I suppose technically any incentive to stop skiing reduces danger, but that doesn't feel like what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the primary objection to current rules is that it give the same value to someone that S turns to get back to wakes before next boat guide, as someone that makes the turn and makes an attempt at getting around the next buoy but just misses inside. Than_Bogan's suggestion means someone that just barely gets a ski around the buoy gets same score as someone that makes a turns and misses just inside the next buoy. While it would remove any need to attempt an S turn for full buoy score, I think its a step backward. At least getting back to wakes is a progression over someone that just barely gets the ski outside the buoy and falls just after it makes a turn back, and it should get scored higher.

I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, and some degree of un-fairness will happen. I'm just not sure there is a better solution over what we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@ScottScott That is a valid objection, but is not my main objection. I think the fundamental flaw lies in the incentive to stop skiing.

I disagree that getting back to the wakes is "a progression over" -- in most cases it is the result of giving up because you had zero chance to get another ball. Falling at the end of a turn is usually because you did have a chance to get another ball. At my level, for example, 2 @ -38 is because I had no shot at 3. 1.5 @ -38 often means I did have a shot at 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Than_Bogan if s turning scores as 1/2, then trying to make it to the next buoy to score a full buoy might result in a bad fall like Caldwell’s or Freddie’s and although it’s a big rush for us the spectators, it could result in an injury and hinder the longevity of the athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@skialex Ah, I think I understand.

What it comes down to is that we currently "pay" a skier a 0.5 ball for deciding to stop skiing. And, of course, stopping skiing is safer. If a skier is bad at making safety decisions, maybe that little payoff encourages them to stop sometimes.

It usually doesn't, of course, as no pro is going to care about 3 @ 10.75 vs. 2.5 @ 10.75 -- that is a must run pass. A pro will take whatever risk they are willing to tolerate in order to complete 10.75. The incentive to stop is usually only relevant at 10.25.

At a philosophical level, I prefer to ask skiers to make the same risk assessments at 10.25 that they are already forced to make at 10.75 (and all other rope lengths).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...