I have no issue with the tolerances but strongly disagree with the rules as written and applied.
Consider that prior to Surepath, we were without quantifiable data for deviation, and relied solely on judgment of an end-course video screen. Enter Surepath, and we have data for every pass! Meaning every driver essentially has a record ("Surepath passport") that follows them. The possibilities in terms of data analytics are endless, and will certainly entice every driver to perform their best, while insisting on remaining within the rules.
Remember that before Surepath, this data simply was not available. Evaluation of each driver's adherence to rules depended as much upon reputation as proper analytics! Now, with the data, objective analysis and evaluation is a snap. BUT, drivers are human, and this ought to be factored. Human performance is sometimes less than optimal, and subtle errors may be made. But these ought not to interfere with the spirit of competition.
Also, let's consider--how many title events have been won with (at least somewhat) favorable boat path? Would it be a stretch to guess 30%? more?
And what are the downsides of the mandatory re-ride with a drift out of tolerance? Maybe Allie Nicholson could describe this for us. I am deeply concerned that the current rules allowed for this kind of result--she got the job done, but was then pick-pocketed. I do NOT attribute this to fault of the driver (Patrice and Becky were both exceptional all day), but to flaws in the rules.
My thoughts:
The advent of Surepath demands excellence from drivers, as their record depends upon best efforts. Frequent deviations will be noticed. And record review is now perfectly objective.
These safeguards alone have enhanced adherence to rules, and we ought to delight in the progress while maintaining proper spirit of competition. Requiring Allie to run 11.25m again in my view completely violates the principles of fair competition.
What should the rules include?
1. In the event of a detrimental boat path (greater than -20 cm) on any buoy up to and including the buoy where the skiers miss occurred, boat judge shall notify skier, and skier shall be offered an optional re-ride.
2. Should the event judges witness repeated excessive deviations or pattern driving, driver shall be removed.
It is possible that number 1 could be expanded upon to properly define the last buoy worthy of consideration for detrimental path.
I do not believe favorable path is cause for re-ride unless after a poll of the appointed officials it is deemed to be intentionally excessive and/or in violation of the spirit of fair competition (in this case the driver would be removed).
I believe this is all that is required for the time being.