IWSF TC Issue

IWSF Tournament Council Issue: 337
Rules Issues for Our meeting in Chile
Date Opened 2013-04-24
Date Closed 2019-09-01
See all other issues
Here is the issue


Please list Rules issues here for consideration at our meeting:
-------------------------------------------
2013-04-24
Bob Corson comments: IWWF 13.02 g):  An apron shall extend the full length of ramp on the right hand side and be at least 30cm under water when the ramp is set for the 1.80m height in Men?s Division.  IWWF 13.02 k) The jump apron shall have a minimum angle of 28deg from perpendicular and a maximum angle of 60deg. 
AWSA 9.16.c.6: Aprons shall extend the full length of the ramp and shall be at least 20 cm (8?) under water when the ramp is raised to its full height.
The recommended apron angle is 30 degrees from vertical. 
Recommend changing IWWF rule to match AWSA. 20 cm under water is acceptable and maximum angle should not be required providing it meets the 20cm under water requirement. 

2013-04-24
Kuno Ritschard has read the issue and has no comment
2013-04-24
Brian Woolley comments: Is this the tail wagging the dog?
2013-04-25
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah has read the issue and has no comment
2013-04-25
Murray Eade comments: I don\'t believe this needs tampering with.
2013-04-28
Felix Loreto comments: I have been playing with slopes and depths and believe the only change to be made is have IWWF rule specify the 30cm. to be the depth under the w?ter since a variation in the apron angle will change the depth under the w?ter and not necessarily the length under the water.
2013-04-29
Bruce Cockburn comments: Australia would like to propose that the maximum speed for Over 45 Women?s Slalom be reduced from 55k to 52k 
Australia feel it will be safer  and encourage more women to compete if they shorten at 52k at the moment the men and women are at the same speed this only happens at over 35 and 45 age groups in all other cases the men slalom is 3k faster than Women

2013-04-30
Bob Corson comments: Bruce sent in a new slalom rule for consideration.  As it included a graphic, I put it here:
http://www.iwsf.com/iwsftc/2014/New%20Slalom%20Rule.pdf

2013-04-30
Murray Eade comments: I agree with Bruce on the 52k as a maximum for women over 45.
NZ changed our own rules to just this about 4-5 years ago.
2013-05-08
Aaron Larkin has read the issue and has no comment
2013-05-15
Jeffry Armstrong comments: Pan Am will have other items, but please extend this for a considerable time so that we can get it together.  Light weight ropes and Under 13/14 are two items.
I feel there will be others.
2013-05-16
Sergio Font has read the issue and has no comment
2013-06-03
Esteban Siegert has read the issue and has no comment
2013-06-06
Candido Moz has read the issue and has no comment
2013-06-10
Bob Corson comments: Murray Eade requests that we take a look at the skier selecting a boat among available choices in slalom and jump option again.
2013-06-11
Gill Hill comments: We will have our November meeting just 2 weeks before Chile.  We can put our document together at that time.  Anything else that we put forward before then can be incorporated into one paper.
2013-06-11
Bob Corson comments: Candido ha asked that we discuss video systems and resolution
2013-06-12
Bob Corson comments: Bruce Cockburn requests:
At the agenda could I ask that we discuss the starting point for Tricks some skiers still have trouble with the buoys and

I have been informed that skiers at World Cup events are being told that the buoy does not matter and if they start with a positional trick it can be finished after the starting buoy

I don’t disagree with this but it is not our rules
2013-06-12
Larry Gisler comments: I\'dont remember what Bruce say for starting tricks at World cups events, at list in the events that I was a Judge we follow the rules
2013-06-14
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: with reference to what bruce said that \"...the buoy does not matter and if they start with a positional trick it can be finished after the starting buoy\", i think it was also the case at the junior worlds in mulwala (correct me if i am wrong) in february this year. 
2013-07-01
Georgi Renosto has read the issue and has no comment
2013-07-08
Inessa Potes has read the issue and has no comment
2013-07-11
Bob Corson comments: From USAWaterski Technical Committee

IWWF 13.02 g):  An apron shall extend the full length of ramp on the right hand side and be at least 30cm under water when the ramp is set for the 1.80m height in Men’s Division.  IWWF 13.02 k) The jump apron shall have a minimum angle of 28deg from perpendicular and a maximum angle of 60deg.

AWSA 9.16.c.6: Aprons shall extend the full length of the ramp and shall be at least 20 cm (8”) under water when the ramp is raised to its full height.
The recommended apron angle is 30 degrees from vertical.

Recommend changing IWWF rule to match AWSA. 20 cm under water is acceptable.

2013-07-11
Brian Woolley comments: Re: The Apron Rule:I will venture a comment although this was just supposed to be a list of issues for the meeting. 30 degrees looks a little steep to me. I note that the US rule requires aprons on both sides of the ramp and the world rule requires it only on one side. I can\'t see any necessity for both sides to be covered. Leave that optional. Does anyone have a good reason why the world should change to the US rule as opposed to the US changing to the world rule? 
2013-07-12
Felix Loreto comments: I still believe the wording on the rule should be changed specifying that the 30cm is to be the wáter depth at the end of the apron and not a portion of the.
Not in favor of making it 20cm sinc when lowering to its lowest level, there might be the possibility of having less tan 30 cm wáter depth at the end of the apron. The rule should specify mínimum wáter depth 30cm at all ramp heights.
Also believe 30 degrees is a bit steep, would feel safer starting at 45 degrees.
2013-07-14
Bob Corson comments: Please use this topic for listing issues to be discussed at our meeting.  If there is an issue that should be discussed before the meeting or can be resolved before the meeting, let me know and I will start a separate issue topic so it can be discussed.  
Thank you.
2013-08-03
Bob Corson comments: I think we need to address tournament qualifications when changing divisions.
When skiers go into 35+, they have scores at faster speeds in slalom and higher ramp heights.  When they go from one division in to another they may reduce the slalom speed or ramp height.
Probably a performance at a faster slalom speed could be used as equivalent to one at a lower speed.  There might be some add on consideration as well like 6/14.25/58 which could always be considered equivalent to 6/14.25/55, but might it be equivalent to 3/13/55?  Jumping also poses questions.  20m at 54/1.5 the last year in 45+ might not be equivalent to 20m at 51/1.5 the next year in 55+.
We should have a method/procedure to treat the crossing boundry scores.
2013-08-03
Felix Loreto comments: First : What do skiers that go from 58 to 55 say about it? 
Second: A matter of dynamics. The skier moves in a pendular motion behind the boat while the boat is moving forward. If the boat goes faster, there will probably be less ski in the water than at lower speeds. Water coefficient of friction against ski bottom remains the same. Skier weight remains the same.
I remember some 20 years ago somebody had a tension meter between pole and rope to calculate skier effort. Maybe this could be help for dynamic calculation.

2013-08-12
Bob Corson comments: There is a question about qualification from the ranking lists in age division championships.  Example, we say #8 is qualified from the previous year list and #9 is not.  However, in the year of the championships, skier#2 went to the next division.  Does that mean #9 is qualified.  I have always answered no in the it is the rank that is used and the rank was earned in the conditions of that year.  However, this is not stated explicitly in the rules and perhaps should be since I am asked this question.
2013-08-13
Bob Corson comments: Gate cameras must be at least the same height as a judges tower and must be high enough so that the buoy is not hidden by spray of the boat wake/rooster tail.

After a miss, on the return non-scoring pass, the skier must ski straight behind the boat.
2013-08-13
Brian Woolley comments: I don\'t mind Bob\'s suggestion as far as it goes, but I think that to solve the gates visibility problem we will need more than camera height and will have to include adustment of the floatation and attachement method of the bouys themselves.
2013-08-13
Bruce Cockburn comments: I agree with Brian changing the casmera heights will not fix the problem we need to either change the buoys or change our rules to make judging gates easier
2013-08-13
Aaron Larkin comments: I believe we need to explore a foam \"noodle\" type gate ball, similar to a snow ski gate pole. This in my view would be far easier to judge the what we have now. The ski will be on one side or the other...
2013-08-13
Aaron Larkin comments: I believe we need to explore a foam \"noodle\" type gate ball, similar to a snow ski gate pole. This in my view would be far easier to judge than what we have now. The ski will be on one side or the other...
2013-08-14
Bob Corson comments: Aaron,
We did look into this in 2010.  I tried a buoy made just of a foam noodle with a plastic pipe support inside.  However, the boat wake pushed it around too much to be viable.  We then tried a foam noodle section on top of a buoy
http://www.iwsf.com/iwsftc/2010/WCBuoy/
Larry Gisler experimented with this and did not think it was workable.  
I have contacted Dave Goode and asked him if he had some type of solution.  He promised to work on it.  
That is the current status.
2013-08-14
Bob Corson comments: Further Gate Buoy comments:
Here is a test we did in 2008
www.iwsf.com/tc08/GateBuoy/
The buoy was pushed around too much by the wake.  Also I have a comment from Dave Good about a foam noodle buoy as follows:
In my research for developing the BubbleBuoy, I learned from many skiers that \"noodles\" are quite dangerous to ski around. If accidently run over by a slalom ski, the fin/wing can wedge into the foam and can create a terrible crash because the wedged noodle foam causes the ski to lose control.
2013-08-14
Bob Corson comments: I was looking at the seeding rule that we put in 2.05 which says:
The most recently published World Ranking List will be used to make a general classification 
list of all the skiers entered in the World Championships. Skiers with no performances on this 
list will be subject to a random draw in the lowest series.
If a skier is not on the current list, but is on the previous year’s list, that number will be used with a 25% penalty. The procedure will be as follows: All skiers on this year’s list will be seeded and the seed groups set. If a skier has a seed number from the previous year of, for example 40, that number +25% or 50 in the example will be used to decide what seed group the
skier will ski in. That skier will be added to that seed group as the first skier on the water from that group. 
----------------------------------------------------------
There are a couple of points to discuss.
1)Why not use the better of this year or last year +25% instead of only using last year if you are not on this year.  If you are injured this but still have some poor performances you might be on the list but with a significantly lower number than last year.
2) It is confusing in how we say we are going to put a skier with a number from last year as the first out in the seed group.  Why don\'t we just give everybody their number and use that directly.



2013-08-14
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: regarding the seeding rule, what is the planning for the present experimental live ranking list that bob currently have in http://www.iwsftournament.com/homologation/serverranking.htm - i think this might be the way to go. this is the norm for most other sports that seedings be based on current performances, no? 
2013-08-15
Bob Corson comments: I think we need to work a bit on the Ranking List schedule as shown in the Rule Book.
2013-08-22
Jorge Naser comments: What do you think of a buoy with a vertical water stream coming up from the top center of it as a solution to solve the gates visibility problem (only for the odd entry gate buoy of each side)? Maybe it may move too much by the wake, but I believe that we need only the first part of the water jet coming from the buoy (first 10 inches) , and I think that part is consistent. Using water instead of foam noodles can eliminate the risk of a crash. I know this solution means adding complexity to the course set up. You can see a prototype of it at http://youtu.be/HX4h287BvvE
2013-08-23
Felix Loreto comments: Water will not hurt skier nor tangle the ski´s fin.
What concerns me is the hose under the wáter with which the buoy response might be different when returning after being moved by the boat´s wake or the skier hitting it. Will it go back to it´s original place? Also when lake loses water or lake water level rises, the hose will have to adjusted from the bottom provided lake is not too deep and the hose anchorage will not obstruct buoy anchoring chord.
On some public lakes it might not be possible to do this, but where ever there is the possibility I believe it sure is worth a shot.
Why not try it and see what positive results we get. 
2013-08-23
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: excuse me ladies and gentlemen, may i say we are sweating the small stuffs here on the gates issue. waterski is no where near the level of football (european calls it) or soccer as the north americans call it and yet crucial championship games have been lost or won on bad judgemental calls by dedicated and professional referees like a penalty not given when the referee\'s view is blocked or a goal not given when the ball has crossed the line. soccer doesn\'t even have the benefit of video playback as waterski has! so why are we being so paranoical over the slalom gates judging to the point that devices suggested in future not only complicates for the organisers and spectators but are bordering on the farcical. i say, just let the judges make a decision based on a majority after the present system of video review (whether we can see the ski inside the correct side of the buoy or not) and have that decision be final and not appealable as in tricks judging whether any trick has credit or not. and may i also say that the video replay for a decision to be made should not last longer than 3 playbacks so that results can be out quickly for the media and spectators. i think also that there are more problems in subjective tricks judging even from video replays than in slalom but we live with it and have to trust the judges\' decisions. perhaps no more world records but just site records will make everyone, particularly the slalom skiers chill a bit more eh? :-) sorry folks but that was just my viewpoint. thanks for listening. 
2013-08-23
Jorge Naser comments: We should give judges tools they need to be fair, without forgetting skiers waterski conditions, and spectacle. I would not describe as “farcical” any new idea that goes in that direction.  This can inhibit creativity, and we should encourage it. Probably the gate visibility problem will be discussed on our meeting in Chile, and that´s why I presented an idea. I am not convinced that it will work, but it is a start.  This does not mean that gate buoys are more important than solving subjective tricks judging, we can work in both. I did not pretend to offend anyone. What happened with Nate Smith and Will Asher on the 54th Masters was due to lack of tools to make good and fast judging decisions. If we stay with what we have we will continue making bad and/or late judgments. It does not give me relieve to know that in other sports they make big mistakes. We can not judge what we don´t see. If there is no visibility of the gate buoy, the judge should benefit the skier and give that gate, but in some cases the possibility of making a mistake (and being unfair with other skiers) is big. I still think this is a main point in slalom, we should move one step forward and make some changes to prevent this.
2013-08-23
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: i am deeply sorry jorge, i really had not meant \"farcical\" to mean your idea. i wanted to express that waterski rules had over-progressed in enabling judging to be much better than say 20 years ago with the advent of technology. so much so that some of these innovations are not even used to the full capacity they were designed to be used originally. there are simply too much tech in our rules for an ordinary organiser in a developing continent like asia to handle but we still have to handle them despite a huge chasm in terms of numbers and capability of judges we have in asia. there is no end in continually making judging better but such measures do make organising more difficult therefore stunting growth of our sport to the countries new to our sport. other sports grow because of simplicity in organising, officiating and spectator understanding. the human errors in refreeing and judging range across many major sports. what happened to nate smith and will asher happened to many many sporting icons of the past not only in waterski but across the board in all sport. i like to see how our sport can be made simpler in organising, judging and spectator understanding in the long run as i consider this takes a real effort from the WTC. but i do understand too that this is wishful thinking too. please accept my apologies if i had offended you - no intention in that at all, jorge. 
2013-08-23
Jorge Naser comments: Hanifa there is no need for apologize, no offense. The idea of the IWSF TC issues is to know everyone’s point of view. There are many things I don´t see. Felix has a vision from an homologator point of view (he is worried that the buoy original position won´t change). I understand your reasons and respect your opinion for not supporting changes that will turn into a headache when someone tries to organize a tournament. I am also concerned about that. My feelings are that other sports are rectifying there way of thinking, and are starting to apply technology to avoid embarrassing judging mistakes in important instances, even when this technology is expensive (in tennis they are using Hawkeye, for soccer goal line technology they are testing Smart Ball System, Hawkeye System, and Goal Ref system).
2013-09-12
Bob Corson comments: From Jeffry: Does the minimum distance required for a skier to jump 1.65 exclude him from that event?  The issue was brought up in the U21 where you could have a junior age skier who might not have jumped 38m.  Some male skiers wanted to jump at 1.5 which is not available so they had to jump at 1.65.  The 38m minimum is only listed under the World Juniors so it did not apply.  Should it have?  Should the rule be global rather than tournament specific?
2013-09-12
Bob Corson comments: Rule idea:
In exceptional circumstances, if the official video is not clear or malfunctions, other supplied video may be used to establish the correct score.
This is based on the current two record applications both of which have video problems (the Nate Smith record will be sent out shortly) and I received offers to look at other video.
2013-09-12
Brian Woolley comments: Sorry Bob, but that sounds like a very dangerous idea to me. Every controversial decision will result in delays for reviews of an in determinate number of videos. If you must do, it limit it to records.
2013-09-12
Bob Corson comments: Yes, intended for records and only when official video doesn\'t do the job.
2013-09-12
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: perhaps if the wording is as follows in order to not delay results? 
\"In exceptional circumstances, if the official video is not clear or malfunctions, other supplied video may be used to establish the correct score ON PROTEST AFTER RESULTS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED. SUCH PROTEST WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY THE WTC.\" 
2013-09-16
Bob Corson comments: From comments at the U21:
1.  65+ division at 2014 35+ worlds.
a.  There is currently no limit to the number of skiers a country can send in this division.  The thought is that there should be esp. with it taking place in the U.S.  There  were already a lot of U.S. skiers in MEX.
b.  There is currently no minimum qualifications either, perhaps there should be.

2.  Seeding:  Don\'t we now the capability to seed skiers within a series?  We had a tie for first place in the prelims in women\'s slalom, yet the finals will be seeded by random draw to break that tie rather than by preliminary round seeding.

2013-09-16
Bob Corson comments: Trick Scoring:
O, RO, then 7F, RO ooc
B, F, R nc, R nc, R credit, R 
TS, RTS nc,  RTS credit 
Apparently these sequences are scored differently in different regions.
2013-09-26
Bob Corson comments: Seeding and qualification issues based on using current year and previous year.
Skiers changing divisions to different speeds and ramp heights.
The exact method stated in rule 2.05 also needs work.

Question/Recommendation from Candido:
Hi Bob, I agree on the principle but then the last sentence of the following paragraph need to be change.
 
The competitors for the Open World Championships will be drawn in the following manner: 
- 	The most recently published World Ranking List will be used to make a general classification list of all the skiers entered in the World Championships. Skiers with no performances on this list will be subject to a random draw in the lowest series.
If a skier is not on the current list, but is on the previous yearâ€™s list, that number will be used with a 25% penalty. The procedure will be as follows: All skiers on this yearâ€™s list will be seeded and the seed groups set. If a skier has a seed number from the previous year of, for example 40, that number +25% or 50 in the example will be used to decide what seed group the skier will ski in. delete ( That skier will be added to that seed group as the first skier on the water from that group.)
..............
..............
- 	The skiers will then be divided into groups and the start list will be made using reverse order of the combined ranking list scores (current year + previous year). The group size will normally be 15 men and 10 women, but may be changed before the start of the tournament by the Chief Judge. (Cf., however, 13.01 for jumping order in the men\'s event). It is recommended that Series 1 and 2 for women and Series 1, 2 and 3 for men be scheduled so that these skiers will have similar conditions.

 
Some point as a consequence from the above changes
 
Did we still speak about score or placement?
If some from previus year Ranking List are going up did we have to add them to the 15/10 from the current List, or not?

2013-09-26
Larry Gisler comments: I think we need use scores from the dynamic ranking list too ,is the most update Ranking
2013-09-30
Dimos Alexopoulos has read the issue and has no comment
2013-09-30
Bob Corson comments: 1. Individual qualifier numbers for 65+
2. Ranking list progress for skier number assignment and integration into list
2013-10-11
Bob Corson comments: Examine if we will allow video to be used instead of direct observation in slalom on a regular basis rather than by exception.
2013-10-21
Bob Corson comments: I have had inquiries about the tournament video (tricks in this case).  Who owns it? What is the publication policy?  The question concerned a record, but it could apply to all video in general.  I think we could discuss this.
2013-10-21
Brian Woolley comments: The may be a legal matter that varies by country depending on IP, privacy and copyright laws. In Australia, the AWWF has this matter covered in the membership waiver. 
\"Right to Use Image: I acknowledge and consent to photographs and electronic images being taken of me during my participation in any Water Ski Activities I acknowledge and agree that such photographs and electronic images are owned by the AWWF and that the Water Ski Organisations may use the photographs for promotional or other purposes without my further consent being necessary. Further, I consent to the Water Ski Organisations using my name. image likeness and also my performance in the Water Ski Activities, at any time, by any form of media, to promote the Water Ski Activities.\"
However I don\'t know of any case of this actually being enforced.
Brian
2013-10-21
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: we have since 2008, a possibly more encompassing clause in our signed declaration indemnity form for all our daily operations of the towed sport in putrajaya, malaysia as well as in all signed entry forms for the events and the validity is for the end of each calendar year as follows: \"I/we, below, hereby declare that all the information in this form are true and correct. I/we declare that I/we are fit and healthy and does/do not suffer from any epilepsy, heart ailment or any delibilating illness and agree to indemnify the Malaysian Waterski & Wakeboard Federation, Waterski & Wakeboard World Cup Sdn. Bhd., Perbadanan Putrajaya, Marina Putrajaya, Pullman Hotel Putrajaya and/or their promoter/organizer/agents/officials/sponsors from all liabilities & responsibility in the event of any losses, injuries or death suffered by me/us in the course of participating in any waterski/wakeboard activity, towed sports activities, training, tournament or promotion in the Putrajaya Watersports Complex and Putrajaya Lake and understand that Personal Accident insurance cover is available to be purchased from the Organiser and I/we have been advised to do so. I/we also agree that my imageries whether in printed or in electronic form are owned by the Malaysian Waterski & Wakeboard Federation and Waterski & Wakeboard World Cup Sdn. Bhd. and such imageries can be used for any promotion and/or advertisements without any fees. Lastly I/we agree that all safety rules and instructions from the organiser’s or promoter’s management, staff and coaches must be strictly followed. This declaration and indemnity is valid for the calendar year ending 31st Dec 2013.\"  
2013-11-10
Gill Hill comments: Items from E&A for the World TC meeting:
Boat path in Jump – ability to allow young kids to have the boat path inside the course and the ramp. 
Second display in the boat.  
Trick course
Recommendation - Splitting judges for titled events and RC events. 
Jump letters for Zero Off 
Conflict of Interest at RC competitions
Use of out of Confederation Judges at Elite events – as agreed back in 2009!
Judges for World record review 

2013-11-15
Bob Corson comments: I have compiled the above issues into a provisional agenda available here:
http://www.iwsf.com/iwsftc/2013/13meetingagenda.xls

comments please.
2013-11-15
Jeffry Armstrong comments: I would like to add a couple of items. 
What should happen when the first trick or two is missed and can not be retrieved from the video.....what is fair to the athlete?  Mandatory and not protected seems unfair??

Judging tricks after the whole event is over.  Is this what we want?  Add to the rulebook whatever is the choice.  I don\'t think we want judging after the fact and even could be by someone who maybe was a \"pin person\"???

There needs to be something set forth when the trick judges are \'tied up\' with judging and something happens in the trick course that wasn\'t/couldn\'t be seen by the judges.  We may need to re-visit this issue.
2013-11-21
Bob Corson comments: I have updated our agenda and it is now available at:
http://www.iwsf.com/iwsftc/2013/meeting/13meetingagendaV2.xls

Other reference documents can be accessed by using the following link:
http://www.iwsf.com/iwsftc/2013/meeting/
2013-11-27
Marc Raymond has read the issue and has no comment
Replied
Bob Corson - Commented
Jose Antonio Perez Priego - Commented
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah - Commented
Glen Williams - Commented
Felix Loreto - Commented
Bruce Cockburn - Commented
Jacinta Carroll - Commented
Jeffry Armstrong - Commented
Sergio Font - Commented
Ryan Dodd - Commented
Candido Moz - Commented
Gill Hill - Commented
Larry Gisler - Commented
Javier Julio - Commented
Inessa Potes - Commented
Jorge Naser - Commented
Dimos Alexopoulos - Commented
Not Replied
Robin Wright
Hannu Rintanen
Stian Lilleberg
Nigel Talamo
Geoffrey Kee*
Wayne Briant
Donal Connolly
Paul Fong
Corey Vaughn
Ricardo Botas
Santiago Correa
Mario Pigozzi
Richard Carlson
Robert Ritter
James Timothy
Georgi Renosto
Dana Garcia*
Peter Frei
Martin Kolman*
Gavin Kelly*
Member: Password:
My Comment:
-OR- I have read the issue but have no comment at this time