IWSF TC Issue

IWSF Tournament Council Issue: 418
Rule Exception Request slalom start with less than max speed with 16m line
Date Opened 2015-05-28
Date Closed 2019-09-01
See all other issues

Here is the issue

The US Junior Team trials is requesting that skiers be allowed to start at a speed less than maximum with a shortened rope.  For example, they would allow a male skier to start at 55kmph with a 16m line when the current rules require that he would start with an 18.25m line.

Vote Yes to allow, No to disallow

Comments:
-------------------------------------------
2015-05-28
Felix Loreto comments: I believe this would be a rule change, not an exception. 
Starting Junior speed is 55KPH/18.25m in prelim and 58kph/18.25m in finals. Rule does not accommodate for shortening the rope at speeds below 58kph boys or 55kph girls. All rule allows is to reduce the speed when conditions require to do so, but never to reduce the rope length at speeds below 58 boys or 55 girls.
If exception were to be accepted, then the scores should only be counted starting at the first 58kph pass for boys or the first 55kph pass for girls. If they fall at that first pass, then their score would only be the amount of buoys obtained at that pass (all other buoys below that do not count).
2015-05-28
Kuno Ritschard has read the issue and has no comment
2015-05-29
Glen Williams comments: I have no problem with this as long as the shorter rope length is scored as the 18m until the skier completes a pass at their maximum speed , I am interested to hear the reason behind this request ? Is this a normal practise in the USA? 
Glen Williams votes YES
2015-05-29
Larry Gisler comments: No reason to no follow IWWF rules .Request this cain of exempton for any specific reason is be against the rules .
2015-05-29
Bob Corson comments: Apparently, this is a common method used in training juniors in some areas.
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2015-05-29
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah comments: Yes Bob and they forgot how to run 18.25.
2015-05-29
Jeffry Armstrong comments: This is in the USA/AWSA rulebook.  They have asked us to accept this before and we declined.  
All their divisions use this.  I am pretty sure that is correct.  I think Glen had asked about this.
Jeffry Armstrong is not voting at this time
2015-05-29
Bruce Cockburn comments: I don\'t believe we should allow an exception for this it is a US rule if we want to allow this to happen we need to change our rules 
I don\'t agree with changing our rules so I vote no to the exception
Bruce Cockburn votes NO
2015-05-29
Jeffry Armstrong comments: Bob
Is this for team trials or for junior US Open?
Jeffry Armstrong is not voting at this time
2015-05-30
Wayne Briant has read the issue and has no comment
2015-05-31
Stian Lilleberg has read the issue and has no comment
2015-06-01
Candido Moz comments: I am confused, in US they normally use this rules, even if we had already voted NO to the previous request?
Candido Moz is not voting at this time
2015-06-01
Hannu Rintanen has read the issue and has no comment
2015-06-02
Bob Corson comments: I believe that this is used in US class E tournaments which are not qualified for International standings and also as a common training method.
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2015-06-03
Jeffry Armstrong comments: Please look at Awsa rule 10:06d.  If you miss, using under max and shorter line length, it is scored as 23m. Now, what is the difference in whether Awsa does this or not. You all know they have used 23m lines since inception. This rule or (or the rules exception request)using 23m has no impact on the end result which makes it of no consequence to this council. 
Jeffry Armstrong votes YES
2015-06-04
Georgi Renosto comments: HEllo to all, slalom has evolved, as a 40 year old skier/coach I can tell that from the 80\'s 23m rope length has been replaced by 18.25m, and 23m has never been used again (prably owith some begginers). As a coach I can tell that for many students running 58km at 18,25m is harder tan doing it at 16m. I see no problem in allowing skiers to start with a 16m rope as long as if they don\'t run 6 bouys at 58km or 55km (wether Junior or U13) those bouys would be counted as 23m or 18,25 depending the circumstance or rulebook used. Thank you.
2015-06-04
Nigel Talamo has read the issue and has no comment
Nigel Talamo is not voting at this time
2015-06-05
Peter Person comments: Georgi has explained this well (Jeffry too). It is used in the USA, without effect on WRL, similarly we\'ve adopted it in Canada for internal use. I see no issue with it, and frankly we\'ll rarely see it in international events if we permit it.
Peter Person is not voting at this time
2015-06-05
Candido Moz comments: As you all know I am also a Disable Officials, and in disable skiing this rule is normally applied. The only thing I don\'t like is to make exception just because different Federation use different rules. Is as Peter state, is normally used only for \"internal use\" why asking for an exception, keep it as Class \"...\" tournament and only the score for the one who follow the IWWF rules will count for Ranking List. I am not against changing the IWWF rules to allow this, but it should not be an exception it should be a rule.     
Candido Moz is not voting at this time
2015-06-10
Bob Corson comments: This issue has taken the allotted time.  Please vote today.  It is unfair not to be able to answer a question because there was no response.  
Bob Corson is not voting at this time
2015-06-10
Nigel Talamo comments: I am don\'t see the need to change the rule and I don\'t see any reason not to grant an exception if one is needed.
Nigel Talamo abstains
2015-06-10
Jeffry Armstrong comments: It is possible that any Federation would want to try a rule exception in order to gather info to submit a rule change. As long as it doesn\'t impact the end score, what is the problem. 
I have already voted
Jeffry Armstrong votes YES
2015-06-10
Peter Person has read the issue and has no comment
Peter Person votes YES
2015-06-11
Candido Moz comments: I vote yes
Candido Moz votes YES
2015-06-11
Larry Gisler comments: It looks that this  exemption need include rule 1.03 too , not only 1401 .
2015-06-11
Dimos Alexopoulos comments: ok for me
Dimos Alexopoulos votes YES
2015-06-11
Jeffry Armstrong comments: Larry:
I do not think that rule 1.03 applies to this situation.  That applies when it is not possible that a rule will work and the judges vote to do it another way.
This is a requested circumstance to either try it out or other reason.  In this case we could ask for a full report from the Chief Judge as to how many people used the exception AND how it worked for those that did use it AND if there were any problems caused by the exception. That would give us input for future use, if necessary.
Jeffry Armstrong is not voting at this time
2015-06-15
Geoffrey Kee                     has read the issue and has no comment
Geoffrey Kee                     is not voting at this time

Non-voting members who have
commented and
Voting members who have Voted
Felix Loreto - Commented
Jose Antonio Perez Priego - Commented
Glen Williams - voted Yes
Larry Gisler - Commented
Hanifah Yoong Yin Fah - Commented
Bruce Cockburn - voted No
Wayne Briant - Commented
Stian Lilleberg - Commented
Hannu Rintanen - Commented
Jeffry Armstrong - voted Yes
Javier Julio - Commented
Nigel Talamo - Abstained
Peter Person - voted Yes
Candido Moz - voted Yes
Dimos Alexopoulos - voted Yes
Non-voting members who have
not commented and
Voting members(*) who have not Voted
Bob Corson
Gill Hill
Robin Wright
Jacinta Carroll*
Ryan Dodd*
Sergio Font*
Geoffrey Kee*
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*