Is this an "unfair condition"?

ScarletArrowScarletArrow Posts: 767 Crazy Baller
edited July 2016 in Rules/Politics/Issues
A skier is attempting their second pass at LL and below their max speed.

Skier comes around turn island and pulls out for gates.

Skier's normal pull-out at the green's is very wide, and during their glide ends up striking some submerged rip-rock from the shoreline and flips over the front before even making a move toward the gates.

Needless to say, a scary moment.

What is the correct call from an officials standpoint?
Anthony Warren


  • wtrskiorwtrskior Posts: 704 Crazy Baller
    Reride for sure. Is there really any debate? Should probably be surveying the site before someone gets seriously injured...
  • RazorRoss3RazorRoss3 Posts: 1,321 Mega Baller
    ***Warning - non expert opinion***

    I think should be a re-ride, it is not the fault of the skier that the site has unmarked but near to surface obstructions. The lake is not skier provided equipment so it shouldn't be to the skiers consequence that it caused the fall.

    ***end of non expert opinion***
  • ScarletArrowScarletArrow Posts: 767 Crazy Baller
    @wtrskior in this situation (which happened a few years back) the CJ said "no re-ride"
    Anthony Warren
  • Bruce_ButterfieldBruce_Butterfield Posts: 1,330 Mega Baller
    Obviously a reride for failure of tournament supplied equipment. That assumes the skier would have a reasonable expectation th at the water was deep enough.

    But more importantly an unmarked submerged hazard is a huge safety and liability concern. Assuming the submerged rocks were a "reasonable" distance from shore, it should be marked by the site owner or tournament organizer.

    But if the skier was "right next" to shore that's a different issue where the skier could be responsible.
    If it was easy, they would call it wakeboarding.
  • ScarletArrowScarletArrow Posts: 767 Crazy Baller
    Was the skier too close to shore? Probably.

    Since they were a B1 skier they really didn't have the self-awareness to understand what might happen.

    Should the shoreline have been marked? Probably.

    But I can tell you this skiers pull-out is/was significantly wider(higher) than the average skier and so they probably exceeded any beta-testing parameters done by the lake owner.
    Anthony Warren
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,054 Mega Baller
    Wow, any unmarked hazard within 75 feet of the entrance gates is seriously irresponsible in my opinion.

    And, assuming you've described the situation accurately, not granting a reride is just ridiculous.
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • ScarletArrowScarletArrow Posts: 767 Crazy Baller
    It happened a few years ago... I believe that part of the shoreline has been fixed. It didn't affect me, but I always found the ruling curious.

    The skiers fin was bent, so there was no way they were getting back on the water anyway (no replacement).
    Anthony Warren
  • UWSkierUWSkier Posts: 907 Mega Baller
    Saw the same thing at WI Collegiate State tourney in '03. Girl was long-line and trying course for the first time. Pulled out wide WAY early and beached. People were yelling from the shore to get back to the wakes but to no avail. Gotta hand it to her though. She popped right up with a mouthful of sand and took a re-ride.

    I'd say the option of a re-ride would be in order, especially dealing with a novice.
  • KelvinKelvin Posts: 1,064 Crazy Baller
    Sounds like an out of course fall to me. I haven't looked at the rules on this lately, I believe this is one area where AWSA and IWWF differ.
    Kelvin Kelm, Lakes of Katy, Katy Texas
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,054 Mega Baller
    Out of course fall implies the skier's fault. Unmarked obstacle is totally different.

    Just last year I smacked straight into an old wooden gear on my move up for the gate. Reride was granted with no discussion. Of course we also fished out the gear before I went again!
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • lottawattalottawatta Posts: 118 Baller
    Would it change anyone's opinion if they knew the skier had skied a tournament round (or two) the previous day at the same site and the same end of the lake with the same rip rap lining the shoreline? If this is the same incident I am thinking of, the skier skied into the riprap at the water's edge, it wasn't a submerged object out from the bank, it was literally the water's edge.
  • lantleylantley Posts: 60
    A gear in the water? Now I know why that tow boat was never the same again. Since it was wooden it must have fallen off a Centurion... proof of just how great they are built and with the strangest materials (No offense meant to any Carbon Pro fans, but I was looking at their ad on the side while I was typing and decided to pick on it). But a wooden gear?

    I think he definitely deserved a reride and maybe a new fin.
    If you don't crash, then you ain't trying hard enough!
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 5,659 Mega Baller
    If it was a Boys 1 skier he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and a reride.
    Mark Shaffer
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,054 Mega Baller
    edited July 2016
    @lantley Veering off-topic quickly, but the tournament site in Wolfeboro NH was a mill pond for a long, long time before it became a water ski site. Every so often a bizarre artifact from the 1800s will surface -- in this case literally. Because it was water-logged it was almost flush with the surface. Nobody was in doubt that I had hit something, but it took a little effort to find it.

    @lottawatta Skiing into a clearly visible obstacle is in fact completely different. However, I would grant a reride to a B1 skier in that scenario almost no matter what. I guess if he skied into it like three times in a row I might start to lose sympathy for his plight...
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • Jody_SealJody_Seal Posts: 2,434 Mega Baller
    Re ride due to safety not doing their job identifying potential hazards.
    Glad the youngster or whomever did not get hurt.
    Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.

  • lottawattalottawatta Posts: 118 Baller
    I guess I am too "Old School", but as an official, I wouldn't advocate a reride out of sympathy in a classified age division in a class C tournament because of a skier's age or ability level. If it was a novice tournament, fun tournament, or in the novice division, then yeah, a mulligan might be in order, but when a skier is skiing for a score that would be submitted to HQ for inclusion into the ranking list, then I would choose to adhere to the current rule book.
  • ScarletArrowScarletArrow Posts: 767 Crazy Baller
    @lottawatta it is what you are thinking. you had the best view (obviously). we went over this section last night in the judges clinic and i was curious as to how (or if) it applied.

    i had forgotten about the previous days tournament.
    Anthony Warren
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,733 Mega Baller
    edited July 2016
    Let's see... Optimal shoreline ratio is 10:1. So, assuming optimal, at 10 feet from the water's edge, the depth is only 1 foot deep. I don't know what is the absolute minimum but if a skier is going slow (like a beginner), their fin is probably sitting quite deep in the water. Let's say that they need 6 inches of safe clearance and their fin is sitting 18 inches below the water's surface. That makes the safe distance from the water's edge at 20 feet.

    Even with an 8:1 slope, the resulting safe distance is 16 feet from the water's edge.

    How often do you see a skier get closer than 16-20 feet from the water's edge? It is not safe regardless of the lake.

    With 75' rope plus 20', this mean's the lake's edge should be at least 95' from the course center line along the full length of the course, including 55's for a truly safe lake setup, right?

    Now, if there is a sand bar, contour, or other inconsistent feature under the water's edge at less than 24" below the water's surface sticking out more than 20' from the water's edge, then it should be marked for safety and skier's reminded at the starting dock.

    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
  • lantleylantley Posts: 60
    Now I understand @Than_Bogan. I would be the one who slammed the big waterwheel when it popped up... "Nope sorry that's your fault buddy" @jcamp Laughed at that but very good point!
    If you don't crash, then you ain't trying hard enough!
  • lottawattalottawatta Posts: 118 Baller
    I guess I should add, I (as the boat judge, event judge, appointed judge) and the chief judge and other appointed officials discussed the situation at length with rule book in hand, with the skier's representative present, and found no "within the rules" reason to grant a reride. I watched the skier pull out well early of the 55's, looking down course, completely oblivious to how close to shore they were, and not stop pulling out until they hit shore. I ordered the boat driver to whip around and I jumped in fully clothed to get to the skier first. If my memory serves, we were about even with the 55's and well wide of the 2-4-6 buoy line when I got to the skier. The lake in question doesn't get significantly wider until just after the 55's. Believe me, I had and have all the sympathy in the world for the skier and felt horrible about it. As with most tournaments, all the skiers know one another, as I knew the family of this skier for many years before the skier was born. It was a difficult decision to have to make, to tell my friends that the junior skier would not be given the reride. It was at the skier's home lake 20 years ago I first joined the century club (first 100' jump in a tournament - used to be a milestone for skiers). IIRC, the skier was allowed to "get back on the horse" and ski the round again as an unscored confidence booster. The junior skier was simply used to wide open spaces and was concentrating so hard on what they were told to do (Pull out early and stay wide), so it was nothing more than an unfortunate accident. Before that day, I always made it a point to ask for boat judging assignments at whatever tournament I was in. These days I am far more comfortable on a tower.
  • lottawattalottawatta Posts: 118 Baller
    Scarlet Arrow, what was the consensus of the judges participating in the clinic? Should the skier have been granted a reride?
  • oldjeepoldjeep Posts: 3,148 Mega Baller
    If the place is that narrow, how many people wind up onshore after a crash?
    Chuck P
    Not a mechanic but I play one at home
  • BraceMakerBraceMaker Posts: 2,917 Mega Baller
    @ToddL - The 95 feet however assumes that a skier is taking the long line 75' out perpendicular to the pylon - by which that skier is over 35 feet wide of 2 ball on their approach?

    Same skier is very unlikely to be significantly wide of the ball line at any point in his pass.
  • ALPJrALPJr Posts: 1,641 Crazy Baller
    edited July 2016
    Syderhoud got a rock roller re-ride at Spencer's in NY one time. Rumor is that it was placed (thrown) in the lake by a competitor just before Mike got to that part of the course.
  • lottawattalottawatta Posts: 118 Baller
    edited July 2016
    Oldjeep, thelake is not that narrow throughout, only at the end. Please understand we are talking about lake width well before the 55meter buoys.

    What if this was for placement at a state championships and the skier did not want to continue when asked at the time? What if the reride was requested by the skiers representative well after other skiers in that division had skied and the event was over and results posted?
  • ScarletArrowScarletArrow Posts: 767 Crazy Baller
    edited July 2016
    @lottawatta i didn't bring it up at the judges clinic - re: the webinar format is not suited for group discussion and one of the judges involved was present and i didn't want to put them in bad spot.

    In a totally separate incident at a different lake, my son (B1 - not the same skier in the above scenario), in his first year of skiing tournaments, and his first time skiing at this particular lake - after rounding an island, pulled out for the gates and saw a buoy in an odd place along the shoreline (marking what I assume to be a low spot).

    This totally confused him and caused him to miss his gates on his second pass. He was devastated and came out of the water crying because he felt the situation was "unfair" (I think he was 8 at the time). No re-ride requested or given.

    I knew the buoy was there, but it never affected me at 15off, but at LL he could pull wide enough to go around the buoy near the shoreline. He has since skied there again and knows how to do deal with "unexpected" buoys.
    Anthony Warren
  • FatrollFatroll Posts: 216 Solid Baller
    @ScarletArrow was this utopia/Glassy waters?
    2016 Ski Nautique 200 OB 2016 Radar Vapor 69.5"
    Wish they had a bonus buoy count for increased body fat index
Sign In or Register to comment.