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

2020 US Nationals Scores Challenges

Zaneh2oskiZaneh2oski Posts: 19 Open or Level 9 Skier
edited August 2020 in Rules/Politics/Issues
hey guys,

@horton wanted me to start a thread talking about the video review from the nationals during some events. I have seen where some people dont like the review and i just wanted to clarify some things about it.

First off, I want to start off by saying ALL the officials did and outstanding job running the tournament and keeping things running fair and smoothly. With that being said, there were some human errors (which is completely understandable) that arose. The judges were able to use the webcast videos to review the scores and make the changes necessary if needed. Some of these reviews were indeed brought to peoples intentions from other skiers that might be watching the event online, but a skier still had to put up the $100 needed for the judges to challenge. From what i was told that has to come from the skier or a representative of the skier. That can be left up to several interpretations, but the way it was explained to me that if anyone come to advocate for a particular skier would be considered a "representative of the skier." I know that I challenged two scores on the weekend that were both overturned and the correct score was given. ( on in B2 slalom event and one during the OM slalom event) Both instances i was speaking out for a skier that deserved to receive the medal they skied for, and the extra video helped make that possible.

I know as an Open skier, when our events are webcasted, the judges will use the extra video if they feel that a call was missed. To me that is the same to all pro sports because they have video review so why shouldnt we?

I was in the judges tower most of the week announcing and I had the opportunity to see what the judges were looking at as well as what they were talking about. There were several instances where the judges might not be able to get a full view of the buoy and the extra video ended up helping out.

I thought this years nationals was fantastic and thanks to everyone who put on the event as well as the judges who volunteered their time to make the event happen. I just wanted to clear up some things that some might not have fully understood.
PSMZmanHortonteammalibubishop8950Than_BoganMISkierfoxriveratDavidPdislandjayskiMick04MarkTimm

Comments

  • HortonHorton Posts: 30,412 Administrator
    @Zaneh2oski AWESOME thanks!

    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

    Zaneh2oskiZman
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 3,121 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Since this comment is pertinent to this new discussion, I will repost it here. FYI Zane did a great job as a site announcer as well as a skier and sportsman at Nationals. Here’s the post:


    @Zaneh2oski I was the judge that initially called 1.5 on Brandon. We watched the replay in the tower and to us it did not appear that he had a tight line at the line of boat guides, rather that the line was coming tight at that point (and he took a pretty good hit). The call was re-reviewed and Brandon got the two. I think that rewatching in frame by frame review (at the production booth and not in the tower), the review Judge was best able to make the call, particularly where it is hard to determine exactly where the buoy line is. I have to say that the video quality of the TWBC feed was really good, and I’m happy when a score is improved on review, particularly if it was my initial bad call.

    “Also, since the TWBC cameras were “official” cameras of the tournament, in addition to the gate cameras, boat camera and end course, the webcast feed could and was used for video review. Again, their picture quality was excellent”.
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
    jayskiZmanBruce_Butterfield
  • HortonHorton Posts: 30,412 Administrator
    The fact that the webcast cameras were the official cameras of the event is brilliant. It almost complete solves the issue of folks at home seeing something on the webcast but the judges can not use it.

    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

    ZmanMISkier
  • bigtex2011bigtex2011 Posts: 568 Crazy Baller
    Nationals was awesome this year. I like the 2 lake set up where you see both lakes from the one vantage point.
  • klindyklindy Posts: 2,616 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    The webcast cameras were designated the official cameras. At the start we had a handheld camera and operator in the boat (center seat) and provided excellent video. As noted the quality was fantastic due to the high quality (read: expensive) transmission gear. At some point after the first day, the decision was made to replace the camera operator in the boat with a SkiDoc and a bullet cam. It worked but you get vibration and, sometimes, marginal views because the rope pulls the camera around.

    Note that the webcast cameras were also used 100% with an operator in tricks. The video quality for tricks was exceptional. Changing boats was a challenge overcome with some great equipment solutions (monopod mount with a battery pack and transmitter attached).

    At one point during the tournament (after the slalom camera changes) the camera feed from the slalom boat became choppy and unusable for video review. For a while we used the shore camera as the boat video review (after the CJ designated that as the official camera). To clarify, the webcast itself isn't the 'official review'. The single specific camera feed before it's combined with other views is the official review.

    The video playback was handled the same way we typically do via SpashEye or by directly adjusting the DVR. While we were using the shore video, the webcast production team could replay the designated camera for that purpose.

    To be clear, the webcast itself was not the review video, but the camera feeds that ended up on the webcast were used.
    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Chairman of the Board
    AWSA Southern Region EVP
Sign In or Register to comment.