Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

12" White Stickers
BallOfSpray $5 Donation
BallOfSpray $10 Donation

What I learned from the Mens Slalom Final at the Masters

HortonHorton Posts: 31,040 Administrator
edited May 2016 in Rules/Politics/Issues
First what happened - as far as I can tell
• Asher went out second to last
• Asher ran 5 @ 39
• Asher was scored 4.5 @ 39
• Once back at the dock – (hundreds of yards from the judges) Asher requested a video review of his score
• When Nate started his ride the judge told him he needed 5 @ 39 to win
• Nate ran the 5 @ 39 that he was told he needed
• During Nate’s ride or soon after the judges revised Asher’s score to 5 @ 39

What I did not know until yesterday is the skier has an implied right to know the score needed to win. As far as I can tell this right is clearly stated for Jump but not for slalom. I am under the impression that this is generally accepted in pro slalom as true.

Here is the rub – the starting dock is hundreds of yards from the judges tower and there are a lot of people watching the show. (This is where @FWinter makes some comment about how if the review could be MUCH faster none of this would happen). The show must go on. It was a pickle for the judges. I do not know the exact order of events but you can see how a smooth outcome would be unlikely.

They could have given just Nate a re-ride for bad information but they scored both skiers at 5 @ 39 – forcing a run off. I think they did the best thing for the show. I also think that was the best solution in terms of competition. On the other hand you could say it was unfair to Nate. He won anyway but he was a risk.

It is all messy but I think the officials did a good job. It seems to me that the rules and the event logistics put the officials in an odd situation.

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Barts★ Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Goode ★ Follow ★ Hobe Lake ★ MasterCraft ★ Masterline ★ 

McClintock's ★ Performance Ski and Surf ★ Reflex ★ Radar ★ Rodics OffCourseStokes

bkreisThan_Bogan[Deleted User]Texas6lakeaustinskierchris55Bulldogchris_loganCaleBurdickGaryWilkinson


  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,952 Mega Baller
    How are you going to draw traffic to your site with sensible, reasoned takes like that!?
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • DaveDDaveD Posts: 1,009 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Was Nate informed of the review while he was on the water? If not, could he have been told that?
  • unksskisunksskis Posts: 592 Crazy Baller
    Did they do the run-off for 3rd or go off the last round scores? Feel there should always be a run-off.
  • HortonHorton Posts: 31,040 Administrator
    @FWinter thanks. We all very much appreciate your contributions to this forum

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Barts★ Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Goode ★ Follow ★ Hobe Lake ★ MasterCraft ★ Masterline ★ 

    McClintock's ★ Performance Ski and Surf ★ Reflex ★ Radar ★ Rodics OffCourseStokes

  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 2,563 Crazy Baller
    +1 what @Horton said. It's pretty great that a,skier of the level of @FWinter would comment and give a level of clarity to the situation that he is privy to. Thanks, Freddy.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,066 Mega Baller
    I am not sure why Nate's score wouldn't have been protected. Given that he was given information that changed during his set it seems like it should have been protected.

    I agree it would be nice to have NFL quality instant replay but given the money involved with the sport I don't think that is likely to happen particularly at a site that hosts one tournament a year.
    Mark Shaffer
  • dislanddisland Posts: 1,489 Mega Baller
    For slalom-Get rid of video entirely (except end course for records only). I understand the intent to try and get it right but reality is judges over ruling other judges without any better information. I believe skiers would prefer living with a few bad calls more than all these controversies.
    Dave Island- Princeton Lakes
  • DanEDanE Posts: 933 Crazy Baller
    With this info the judging got even more weird.
    Why wouldn't Nates score be protected from 4th place???
    Runoff was for the win.
    Why was Will punished for the judging errors???
    Are they making up the rules as they go along??
  • chris55chris55 Posts: 411 Crazy Baller
    @FWinter thank you so much for giving inside informations. Looking from the webcast it is difficult to really understand what was going on. And thanks' @Horton for the review too. It is easy to have an opinion when we don't have to make THE decision in this particular case espacially a event like The Masters. But I think Nate should have known for sure the score to beat before hitting the water. If the show has to go on then they can have a show skier ready to jump on the water and do some the time for the judges to make the right call.
  • skierjpskierjp Posts: 1,012 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    You would have thought that the Chief Judge would have called the boat to tell Nate that the score of 4 1/2 is under review for a potential score of 5 for Will.
    There is a rule that the gate review can only be viewed twice ( page 54 ) but it doesn't say anything about anywhere else in the course.
  • gt2003gt2003 Posts: 726 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    This seems to be a not too uncommon happening. My solution, ski your ass off and run the full pass instead of just what u think it takes to win. I can see the point of not letting Nate run until a concrete score is in place. But, if Nate would have chosen to crush 39 off and run into 41, no questions. Maybe this is a result of the skiers just doing what it takes. Ok, crucify me now...
    2014 HO TX
    1996 Malibu Echelon
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 3,266 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited June 2016
    Well, if nothing else, that was good strategic thinking on Nate's part. #iskiconnelly
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
  • gt2003gt2003 Posts: 726 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited June 2016
    3 disagrees (updating to 5), wow, maybe i get my own shirt.

    First off, if it came across that I was being negative, that wasn't my intention. I am fully aware that Nate can run 39 in his sleep and has run more 41's than anyone.

    As @MrJones says " It's a tournament with a winner and prize money. You do what it takes to win. Period." That's exactly what i'm saying.

    My point, agree or not, If you run a ball or two more than needed then this is a non-issue (not necessarily the full pass but a little more than needed). If you make the decision to run just 1/2 buoy more, knowing the judges may change their minds on a previous score, then you are taking the chance on this happening again. It's up to the skier to make that choice knowing what might happen.

    The other fix is not letting Nate (or whoever) run until there is a final decision.

    Just throwing out another point of view out there. Not taking sides one way or the other.
    2014 HO TX
    1996 Malibu Echelon
  • gt2003gt2003 Posts: 726 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Thanks @Than_Bogan , that's not a point of view i'll likely ever be familiar with. So, you aren't sounding anything like an elitist a-hole but just telling it how it is. I can 100% accept that.

    Out of my own ignorance of anything shortline, is the difference between 5 and 5.5 significant (100% serious question)? I wasn't being an ass in the 1st post saying "run the pass", that was me getting carried away because I know Nate can do it. My thought was, if it's not uncommon for the judges to "re-score" 1/2 a buoy higher then maybe shoot for 1 buoy extra instead of just 1/2.

    2014 HO TX
    1996 Malibu Echelon
  • EdbrazilEdbrazil Posts: 1,396 Historical Baller
    Didn't a very similar screwup happen just a couple of years ago? This is supposed to
    be an elite high-level event, not the Podunk Open.
  • WishWish Posts: 8,335 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited June 2016
    @Edbrazil was told it has happened the last 4 out of 5 yrs at the Masters. In one case a reverse decision got reversed again. @DanE the only way I see it is they made stuff up as they went along. Maybe they had something sorta written down for "Masters" rules but was told that even in the morning athletes meeting, where rules are shared, things changed.

    Things I learned; It's cool to get to see more slalom live and in person....but totally not worth it considering the harm this is doing to all involved.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
  • eleeskieleeski Posts: 3,989 Infinite Pandas
    Judging is never perfect. But still it's weird that Masters has so many problems. Trying too hard to be perfect?

    As both a spectator and an occasional high stakes competitor, skiing just for the win is weak. I always try to do the best I can. Sometimes due to training or physical constraints I scale back my potential but I always give 100%. Win by 1/2 buoy is cool if that's what you're worth. Really sucks if you just stop there. Or you stop because the wrong boat is pulling the event. You are out there to entertain the spectators or followers. The couple bucks of prize money in waterskiing hopefully is not keeping the stars from starvation. Pros have a bigger responsibility to stoke the show.

    Give 100%. Always.

  • gregygregy Posts: 2,590 Mega Baller
    Just watched the Finals online. Think Nate went out to put some serious pressure on Will. No doubt there on the runoff.
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 1,662 Mega Baller
    edited June 2016
    From the starting dock on Robin Lake, can the skiers see the previous skiers pass at all? I'm pretty certain Nate had no idea the 1/2 ball was in question or he would have gone out skiing to turn 5.
    How is it that he has to go out at -38, but his score is not protected? That's crap. It's one or the other. Go out for a full re-run unprotected, or a protected start at short line.
    I still love that tournament, but 4 out of the last 5 years? This is not a funny joke.
    Freddie won last year
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 2,563 Crazy Baller
    @gt2003 go back and read the @matthewbrown post. That should clear up some things for you.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,952 Mega Baller
    edited June 2016
    5.5 is completely different from 5. To have any chance at 5.5, you must finish the turn hard, which always brings some risk of getting 4.5 instead. At least at -35 (the shortest line that I can potentially strategize on), the major difference would be at 3. If you need a score of 5 to win, you begin to be a hair cautious at 3. If you need a score of 5.5, you have to go all out at 3 and accept the usual risk. I wouldn't be surprised if the calculus is a bit different at -39/-41.

    Someday I'm gonna start a firestorm of a discussion about how significantly changing the scoring rules could improve skier's incentives to continue and make the sport more fun for everyone. But I gotta be up for fielding a lot of stupid questions and lecturing about game theory and ignoring the death threats. So not today :).
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 2,563 Crazy Baller
    Kinda off topic, but still in the realm of scoring and risk. Long ago, prior to many of you young whippersnappers, there was a system of qualifying for Nationals called EP ratings. For a real long time it required a whole buoy score. (Various obviously based on division) In order to be safe if you were just close to making it and not far beyond the needed score in ability, you got the whole buoy and stood up to avoid the possibility of falling at the buoy and scoring half. Later the scores required were changed to half buoy breaks to eliminate some of that.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,952 Mega Baller
    @LeonL One of the few positive changes that I helped cause was that change to half buoys for EPs! The radical stuff I teased above might be considered as a more general extension of that idea.
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • FWinterFWinter Posts: 148 Open or Level 9 Skier
    @eleeski I'm interested in the 'pros have a bigger responsibility to stoke the show' statement. Care to elaborate on that?
  • gt2003gt2003 Posts: 726 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited June 2016
    Thanks @Than_Bogan . Good input for us non shortliners. Kinda sounds like the scorers should be allowed a certain amount of time to review, make a decision and not be able to go back and change it. Then the next participant can ski. Maybe this could be enacted in the finals only?
    2014 HO TX
    1996 Malibu Echelon
  • skidawgskidawg Posts: 3,438 Mega Baller
    @Than_Bogan is absolutely correct - running a full pass (esp at robin rolly lake) is risky at 39-go for the win. That's all that matters at an event like this.
    NWA....Heaven on earth!
  • DragoDrago Posts: 1,646 Mega Baller
    @gt2003 I think the objective of a webcast is to share the exciting part of the sport, not the waiting around part. If I wanna watch people sitting on a dock or floating at the end of a course, I'll head out to my local reservoir. (@eleeski) ,the pros stoke the sport by showing incredible athleticism in conditions that the majority of tournament skiers would miss their opener. You obviously are financially successful, but to an open skier the rare,small, amount of money matters, as does the title..

    Video obviously does not work.lose the video
    SR SL Judge & Driver (“a driver who is super late on the wheel and is out of sync”)
Sign In or Register to comment.