Why cant we have one rule book?

dislanddisland Posts: 1,053 Crazy Baller
I know its hard, I know its political. I know we all agree its ridiculous, having a tournament with some skiers doing L and others doing C and flipping back and forth.

Maybe somehow we can find a way. Is it so hard that everyone has just given up. Are we going to go on this way forever?

For those in the know. What is the real impediment?
Dave Island- Princeton Lakes

Comments

  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 4,838 Mega Baller
    edited July 2016
    The L vs C in tournaments is frequently due to lack of judges and video. During the C components of tournaments you will usually have assistant judges and no video.

    We have a site in the Northeast Pangaea with two lakes. One of the lakes has video and they run L or R on that lake with Regular and Senior judges/drivers and C on the lower lake with no video and assistant judges/drivers.
    Mark Shaffer
  • dislanddisland Posts: 1,053 Crazy Baller
    @Chef23 I am not saying we get rid of multiple classes for tournaments, only advocating for it to be run under a single rule book
    Dave Island- Princeton Lakes
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    Yea, waterskiing starts in the USA and somewhere along the line we let the tail start wagging the dog.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,701 Mega Baller
    FWIW, the process to get a rule changed to the IWWF rule book is to formally request the rule to AWSA. Hmmm.

    AWSA is the dominant force behind the global retrofit of this sport.

    If I were writing the rule book, I'd have 1 global rule book. Each country can have their own smaller document with an addendum of local exceptions/additions.

    @disland - your complaint seems to be more about running mixed classes in the same tournament.
    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
  • dbutcherdbutcher Posts: 203 Baller
    I am not among those in the know, but do you mean having the same rules and requirements for local tournaments as world record capable tournaments???? If you only have one set of rules and requirements, which do you choose? It would have to be R rules to make new records valid, and that would kill most local tournaments. Or it could be IWWF rules which would have the same destructive effect on local tournaments?? Maybe class E rules could protect all current classes of tournaments????, but then how would you deal with IWWF? I generally like simplification, but this doesn't seem possible. Although, if numbers of AWSA skiers and officials continue to decline, we may have to reduce AWSA requirements at all classes of tournaments (or pay more, travel further, and have fewer tournaments). Interesting idea, but I don't know how to make it work for everyone. Current class C rules/requirements are insufficient for world records, and current R rules/requirements are not necessary for local (class C) tournaments.

    You can mix class C skiers with class L skiers under one rule book, but it would have to be the L rule book right now.
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,373 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    David: Not sure you can merge rulebooks to accomplish your objective. But, I believe AWSA should simply have a "Class C" rule book and leave the rest to IWWF. AWSA doesn't need to be in the "Record" business. They make it WAY to complicated and restrictive. Towboats being the #1 issue.
    Joe Darwin
    dislanddbutcherThan_BoganToddL
  • dislanddisland Posts: 1,053 Crazy Baller
    @jdarwin I like that line of thinking
    Dave Island- Princeton Lakes
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 4,838 Mega Baller
    edited July 2016
    Well said @lpskier.
    Mark Shaffer
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,701 Mega Baller
    There is already too much effort attempting to make the AWSA and IWWF rule books agree on basically redundant scope. I am still finding errors/differences which I am quite sure are just accidental gaps vs. intentional differences.

    I completely agree with @jdarwin 's suggestion. Remove the redundant scope from AWSA. IWWF should be the only rule book for world ranking and international competitions (L/R). AWSA's rule book should only contain intentional deviations from IWWF, and non-world class sanction rules (Class C).
    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,701 Mega Baller
    If AWSA rule book removed the redundant scope, then possibly could E be eliminated? I assume that due to trickle-down requirements, Nationals, Regionals, and possibly State tournaments would end up running under L anyway... If E is kept, then should we force State and Regionals to be E vs. L? Just not sure of the ramifications of all this...
    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
  • Bruce_ButterfieldBruce_Butterfield Posts: 1,046 Mega Baller
    The hiccup between C and L is what do you allow for regional and national records? There is a much larger pool of skiers who could potentially break those records. IMO, class C is not tight enough for those records and L is overkill (why do you need a Pan- am judge for a US record?) That's the gap the E was created for, in addition to 1 EP performance qualified you for nationals instead of twice in class C back in the old days.

    I'm fairly certain each region decides on what class to use for its regional tournament - nothing is "forced" nor should it be. They can have a class C regionals if they want.

    I can see B/G3 through M/W2 and open run as L with everyone else as C or E.

    If it was easy, they would call it wakeboarding.
    MattPToddL
  • klindyklindy Posts: 1,910 Mega Baller
    I agree with the premise that @disland suggests and I think it's best accomplished by doing the exact opposite of what @jdarwin suggests. Let me explain ...

    As has been discussed above very eloquently by @lpskier, the fundamental differences and technical requirements between E, L and R tournaments are pretty similar. I'd add that the biggest difference between L and R is that a boat video is required to confirm a record. But it's also required to confirm a record for OM, OW, MM, and MW in a class E tournament for a US record. Recall that MM and MW are only recognized in the US and that IWWF only recognizes "Mens" and "Women's" records - no age groups. So that makes the leap from E to L to R even narrower.

    That said, lots of skiers are looking for that "class L score" so it can be used in the world ranking list for entry into the PanAm's, Worlds, etc. What's incredibly confusing is that the age groups don't match up at all so it's possible to have skiers ski at different speeds or ramp heights etc. So having class L tournaments have become increasingly more important over the years.

    The IWWF rules are pretty close to the AWSA rules. There are some distinct differences (more confusion). More importantly the bulk of the IWWF rule book is to outline how to set up and administer a "world" tournament (meaning championship type tournament not a local tournament somewhere other than the US). Additionally each country has a governing body (like USAWS / AWSA in the US). Each country has its "rules" which may very well simply refer to the IWWF rules. And frankly the IWWF rule book reads like a long run on sentence and is very difficult to find detailed information quickly.

    I think the IWWF should simply "accept" or "reject" a specific countries governing bodies rule book as either acceptable for inclusion on the world ranking list (and/or world records) or not. In that case we can have a rule book like we have including the section titled "Records" and, if the standards outlined in the rule book are acceptable to IWWF then a tournament run by AWSA "record capable" rules is good enough. Each other country would do the same.

    Things like course dimensions, timing charts, buoys sizes, trick points (mostly), etc are already identical all over the world. Things like eligible boats, regional and national tournament requirements, and officials programs/administration, etc can be left to the individual country.

    Anyway, great topic!

    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Vice President
    lpskierBruce_Butterfield
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 4,838 Mega Baller
    I may be in the minority but I would be okay with regional records being set in Class C events. I am in complete agreement that isn't appropriate for national records. In the Northeast there aren't a lot of E,L,R events and it is tough if you have to travel out of region to have a chance to set a regional record.
    Mark Shaffer
  • klindyklindy Posts: 1,910 Mega Baller
    @Chef23 Regional Tournament requirements and whether regional records can be set at a class C tournament are solely and completely up to the region itself.

    The only mention of the class of a regional tournament mentioned in the rule book is in 15.01 -

    B. Regional Championships: The Regional Championships are encouraged to
    meet the qualifications of Record Capability. It shall be the responsibility of
    the Regional Council to determine if it wishes to impose these standards on
    the Regional Tournament and, if imposed, it shall be the responsibility of the
    Chief Judge and other Appointed Judges to determine that it does so qualify.

    The only other AWSA mandated rules for a regional tournament deals with officials qualifications.

    The point is even the Regional Championships are encouraged but not required to be record capability. As a region you have the ability to decide what threshold is required to set a regional record. Bring it up at your regional meeting this summer.
    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Vice President
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,373 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @klindy - Keith, I agree with your points. My biggest issue with USAWS vs IWWF is towboats. As an LOC that hosts four ELR tournaments per year, the technical requirements, site prep, etc., is not the issue. It's towboats. I can pull a world record with my 08 Ski Nautique if I resided in Spain. But not in the US. As the availability of promo boats continues to shrink significantly, we (AWSA) need to align our towboat requirements with IWWF. It doesn't create a level playing field when individual countries (federations) apply different standards to their "L" tournaments. That was my main point.

    Oh, and using boat video for judging.....another "standard" that is applied differently around the globe. Don't get me started....
    Joe Darwin
    9400thagerklindyMS
  • Moskier3evMoskier3ev Posts: 150 Baller
    I agree with Joe tow boats are our biggest problem. The last 2 weekends my boat has gotten 25 hours put on it. In Austin we have 2 promo boats. If Covingtons wouldn't have brought their boat last weekend I might have ended with 20 hrs last weekend alone.

    Jeff Lindsey
    Promo Centurion
  • klindyklindy Posts: 1,910 Mega Baller
    I fully agree that boats are a big (and growing) problem that needs to be addressed soon.

    Any viable solutions besides finding more promo owners?
    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Vice President
  • dislanddisland Posts: 1,053 Crazy Baller
    AWSA and/or USAWS need to get more involved. Historically they have been hands off on the promo program but that wont work any more. Incentives need to be funnelled into the program or it will implode and take the tournaments, then the membership then the governing bodies with it. Maybe after a nuclear winter a new more innovative governing body will emerge but I dont think anyone want to experience that but it's where we are heading.
    Dave Island- Princeton Lakes
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,373 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @klindy - I do not foresee a reversal of fortune in the promo world. It's simply too expensive and time consuming for most with no discernable ROI . The ONLY solution is to allow the use of any previously approved towboat that has an approved speed control. Period.
    Joe Darwin
    MattPToddLgsm_peterDrago
  • dbutcherdbutcher Posts: 203 Baller
    We need to let boat manufacturers know how much we appreciate their past, strong support. Support for 3E towboat promo programs won't increase until the demand for "wake" boats diminishes, and I think that will happen over time.
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,373 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited July 2016
    @dbutcher - without question, their is a recognition of the past support but the current system (requirements) are not aligned with current reality. And, I don't believe the support of 3E vs wake boats is a zero sum game. If the towboat manufacturers continue to influence the current year +1 rule via their financial support of USAWS, the # of tournaments will continue to decline. As an LOC, I'm being held hostage by the Big 3 due to the fact that the "current +1" rule is "bought" at the governing body level yet their "support" of the promo programs is not sufficient to support the rule. Those two initiatives need to be aligned.
    Joe Darwin
    Bruce_ButterfieldToddL
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 1,819 Mega Baller
    So do you suppose the boat manufacturers would support or not support a rule change that would allow older boats to remain in tournament use, and do you think the manufacturers are behind the rule or not? #iskiconnelly
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
Sign In or Register to comment.

Not sure how to deal with a long link?