As usual you have stirred controversy and got people talking, and that's a good thing. Reading all of the comments, you've inspired me to add my two cents!! OK, starting with where I sort of agree with you.....maybe...hmmm have to think about it... The toe-up second pump. Sure, why not. Skier's are allowed to repeat other tricks they miss for credit, why not the start? I would guess that only one attempt was allowed at the start traditionally because - hey, it's a start. Remember 'starts' used to be a separate event. You either made it or you didn't - skier's job to pick highest point start they knew they could score - or gamble at one that wasn't quite there. When the start and trick events were combined (finally! something that occurred before my time!), I would guess the rules remained to allow only one attempt at the start. I would suggest you submit this proposed rule change to the ABC rules committee. They will evaluate it and make a recommendation to the ABC board for a vote. See Rulebook A106 for how to propose a rule change. By the way, in case people didn't know, the Rulebook and PPG are available online at www.barefoot.org. The rule you would want to change is C1604e. This section contains all the rules for trick event starts. Just a thought. You sort of implied on a second attempt the penalty would be wasted lake. This is true of a ski lake, but not a natural site, for instance the Pearl River. I would suggest a point deduction - say 200 points for a missed first attempt. This would still give a skier more points than say a flying deep, but not take away the victory for the skier that nails the start cold on attempt one. But keep in mind that if you want to change this rule for the toe-up, you need to determine what happens under all contingencies. For example, should the skier get full points if they follow the failed toe-up attempt with a front deep? What about a skier that fails other starts? Do they get reduced points too? In evaluating rule changes the ABC (and World) council - most of whose member's ARE skiers or former skiers themselves, need to evaluate how the rule change will affect the whole of the sport, appeal for spectators, the spirit of competition, and the definition of the event itself. Again, the reason for no points on a failed start attempt was that the points are awarded for a successful start. If the skier misses the toe-up on the first go round, they really didn't successfully complete the start, did they.

Video: OK, first let's clarify a few misconceptions. Video review is only allowed under the rules in a few circumstances. See rule C706. In a nutshell, the chief judge or chief scorer can request it if they can't get a majority decision on skier performance from looking at the score sheets. If the timer malfunctions (or judge working the timer malfunctions) - the video can be looked at ONLY to ascertain time. And also under "exceptional circumstances" at the request of the chief judge - say if the score sheets blew into the lake, and were eaten by a giant serpent (it could happen!), or realistically, something like the judge breaks a pencil and can't write down the run, the judges can be requested to look at the video only to write down what they missed, and this must be done at full speed. Reason for this is so as not to penalize the reviewed skier by giving them circumstances different from other competitors. It happens a lot by the way. You are asked to review trick X, and in doing so, you notice trick Y really didn't score. It doesn't matter. You have to leave it. You can only review trick X.

Now, your slo-mo video. Here we are talking about RECORD review. If you set a pending record, your video goes to record review. There is analyzed, in slo-mo if necessary, to be sure you did indeed break a record. This is done also for the benefit and protection of the skier. Personally, if I set a record, I'd like to know that it was an honest record, and not that I drew a crew of inexperienced judges. I would also like to know that the girl who broke my record was judged to the same standard that I was held to. I have often thought record review was done by a bunch of people who just didn't get enough hugs. This was until I had the privilege of watching record review one after a tournament. I had to reluctantly admit that I was cutting the same things as the judges reviewing the record. Don't forget, it is the skiers responsibility to show the trick clearly to the judges. Little things, like a trick lost in the spray, can cause a downgrade, but hey, it's a national or world record. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you view it), you can't speculate. This is also true of records in other sports by the way, equipment is measured, timers and courses homologated, competitors drug tested, it's just that our sport relies, at least somewhat, on subjectivity. To minimize this, it is necessary to use video and multiple eyes. Record review is done by a panel by the way. A single judge does not determine whether a record stands.

OK, on to those pesky turn rules. First of all, it is a heck of a lot easier to read the rules regarding turns than it is to actually have to perform them. I know. It took me 10 minutes to read the turn rules, and another 10 to have the rotation rule explained to me when I became an asst. scorer. That was what, like 10 years ago. After 10 years, I still can't do turns. 10 minutes vs. 10 years....hmmm no contest there. All I'm saying is, if you are one of the blessed, talented few who have mastered the surface turn, take a few minutes to learn what doesn't score. It will save a lot of grief, and is a lot less painful than say a rib fall at 42 mph. With respect to the 'hitch'. A hitch is a pause (in my OPINION), or a STOP in the action. I am not good enough to determine whether it is a 1/4 second hitch or a 1/2 second hitch, and think it would be a nightmare to determine this while in the boat. However, the rules already state that a change in SPEED of the rotation is not cause for discredit. This pretty much clarifies the issue as best I think it can be clarified. Most judges I have worked with are aware of this distinction; although yes, it will be interpreted slightly differently by different judges. All I can say is that we try to be fair, and when these tricks are performed flawlessly, it truly is a thing of beauty. I'd like to hear how a few of the open pros feel about the 'hestitation' rule and to what extent they think it is over-interpreted. The objective of course is to be sure at the end of the day, the best skier wins. Maybe this is not an issue so much that needs a rule change, but needs to be workshopped with skiers and judges so each knows what the standard should be. If you feel this rule is being mis-applied, perhaps you might suggest it be reviewed at in-depth levels at judge's clinics throughout the year. As Jan mentioned, judges are required to attend periodic clinics at their own expense. Advanced level judges clinics usually do review criteria for crediting multiple turns and other open level tricks. Brian Heeney did the judges clinic in the SCR this year, and yes, he can himself do multiple turns.

With respect to Phil's comments, yes, he was stung by a technicality this year. One that can be easily addressed with a petition for wording change on the rules. By the way, he was stung by the rules, not the judges (again, totally my opinion). The judges did not credit a one foot turn to the front. Unfortunately, the rules state that if a skier fails to satisfy the requirements for a one-foot turn, the trick SHALL downgrade to a two-foot turn provided all requirements are satisfied for a two foot turn (Rule 1612 b). Rule 1612 (i) (the infamous rotation rule) states that "When a two-foot or one-foot surface turn trick immediately follows another turn (sic) of the same kind, the rotation must be in the opposite direction, except for the reverse 540 and 180 turns which can only be in the same rotation as the positional turn." What this rule basically says is that when you are doing two-foot or one-foot turns, you have to do them as "tick tocks" so that the judge can know for certain you are attempting to do 180s or 540s and not hitched up 360's or 1080's. This way the skier is credited for the 180, and avoids the problem for the skier of some judges writing their tricks as 2 180's while another discredits it as a failed 360. Unfortunately skiers who don't know this rule risk losing both turns as no credit. Phil knew the rule. That wasn't the problem-Phil's also a level III (regular) judge by the way. If he had successfully completed the one-foot turn following his two-foot front to back, the rotation wouldn't have mattered. The new "Phil Friendly" rule I would suggest is to change 1612 (b) to read that if a skier fails to satisfy the requirements for a one-foot turn, the trick CAN (not

SHALL) downgrade to a two-foot turn....and to change 1612 (i) to read "When a two-foot or "attempted" one-foot surface turn trick immediately follows another turn (sic) of the same kind, the rotation must be in the opposite direction....... Then we could have just elected not to down-graded Phil's attempted one-foot turn to the two-foot turn, this honoring the turn rule, and he could have received credit for at least the front to back.

This should prevent a skier from getting hosed, again, not by the JUDGES, but by the way the rule is written.

OK, I'm almost done......On to Mulligans. You are kidding right? This is COMPETITION, not EXHIBITION. If I had rightfully on 'Any Given Sunday' beaten a competitor ranked above me because she unfortunately missed a start - and there was no driver error, rollers, unfair conditions etc. which would have allowed a reride, I would feel pretty cheated if that skier could buy their way back into first place. Did Michelle Kwan get a 'do-over' when (after 4 years of practicing and traveling all over) she bobbled a jump at the Olympics? Did a kicker get a 'do-over' when he lost the super-bowl for his team? Did the Jamaican bob-sled team get a 'do-over'? Hey, this is SPORT, remember, the THRILL of victory, and the AGONY of defeat? This is what separates competitors from the guys who just go out and have fun on the weekends. Yes it is totally painful, expensively humiliating, and absolutely sucks when you don't pull it out in the clutch. It is also what makes it all the more exhilarating when you do. Disappointment is part of the risk. It has happened at sometime to every skier I know. It also makes for great war stories later. A tough (and feared) competitor is one who can perform consistently across all situations. We already have many contingencies for novice skiers. That's why we have novice divisions at non RC/standings list tournaments. The standings list doesn't include only the open skiers. We can sanction events where we can bend the rules so people can have multiple tries. They are called fun tournaments. Class F. My experience has been that they don't carry much of a draw for more advanced level skiers. Why? Not enough competition, and loose interpretation of the rules. Tournaments can also include 'pick and choose' rounds to give skiers another shot at impressing their friends and posting a score - but maybe not getting a prize.

OK, I think I wrote more than my 2 cents worth. Thanks for inspiring dialog among skiers, and thanks for having the hutz to publish letters of ranging opinions.

Respectfully, Andrea Eggert - skier and judge

P.S. Hey Paul - regarding straight and squiggly lines. Learned a cool judging Pearl from Brian Heeney at the last judge's clinic. Don't draw the line until the skier has fully crossed the wake. Then you can very quickly and unambiguously draw it as straight or squiggly, depending on whether or not the cross was completed all the way on one-foot. Worked like a charm for me!!!

Andreas:  Thanks for chiming in.  Your input is always appreciated and well thought through.  As for the Mulligans, yes, I was somewhat kidding.  But, I wouldn't be against it, because, I'm the type of competitor that wants to know I beat my competition at their best.  I want to give my competition every opportunity to do their best.  Then when I beat them, assuming I'm at my best, there is no doubts, no "what ifs" period.  And even if they did come back and beat you on a start point, you still have the repeat to remind them of.  

"You hunt down the nearest official, and you begin to hear a lecture on how they thought your 360 had a hitch in it.  The result:  Your score dropped to a big fat zero on your 360.  You spend the rest of the day having your friends tell you how they thing you got hosed.  You come to find out that the judges had to go to video review because their score sheets did not match, and they play the video in slow motion, or frame by frame to look for a hitch."

Jan:  I apologize if you feel insulted by the example, it wasn't meant to insult you.  You seem to be very emotional about the amount of time you feel you put into the sport as compared to others, but it's not fair tot hold ill feelings towards others because they don't choose to put in the same "amount of work" or "type of work" or "amount of time"  that you do.  Though I've chosen not to become a judge, I have a deep respect for the amount of time you and other judges put into this sport.  I've been a spectator to many judges meetings and know that it is a tireless and thankless job.  Running a website promoting barefooting has many similarities.  I spend at least 5 hours each day updating, replying to emails, writing articles, talking to footers that call in, working on promotions, and much more...  If I was doing it all for admiration or money, we would have been out of business long ago.  I do it all because I have a passion for the sport similar to yours.  But I don't expect everyone to go start their own website and be like me.  I have come to realize that I have to appreciate the help when I can get it and know that there are very few people on this planet with the same interest in barefooting and desire to put in as much time doing it as I do. But I'm always looking for help.

Your analogy about the baseball umpire doesn't float with me.  Baseball is America's game.  Millions of people play and watch it each year.  Millions of dollars are spent on it by advertisers, and team owners.  Nothing even close to barefoot waterskiing.  I was a baseball umpire for 8 years umpiring little league games all through high school and college.  Though we were taught the same rules as the major league umpires, we did NOT enforce them as strictly on little leaguers as they do the pros.  If we enforced the strike zone a pro level strike zone in little league, every batter would get a walk.  The games would be extremely boring to watch, and none of the kids would want to play.  So when a barefoot official tells me they treat everyone the same, and the rule is the rule, I don't feel they are acting in the best interest of the sport, and that's to motivate the young skiers to succeed and give them as many opportunities to do so as possible, even if it means relaxing the rules a bit.

- As far as video review is concerned, I've personally had the procedures explained to me several different ways regarding whether they use slow motion or not.  At the 2002 Nationals, I tricked a record 4210 for Mens 3 tricks.  Brian Heeney came up to me afterwards to offer his congratulations and told me all three judges score sheets matched making it easy to score.  I then come to find out, that there was a video review, and Dale Stevens decided the run wasn't clean enough after watching it in slow motion, so they didn't count it as a national record.  To this day, I have not been able to get Dale to reply to my request to review the video and explain to me why 3 judges in the boat thought it was good enough to rate the score, but not clean enough for his standards.  Yes, I do realize that all National and World records are automatically reviewed, but I go to your comment about "Judgement calls".  If the job of the judges in the boat is to score the run, and their judgments can not be over-ruled, then those 3 judges should be the ones reviewing the videos period.  Then all final scores posted at an RC tournament should count as posted. I walked away with a gold medal at the 2002 Nationals but was made to feel that I was lucky to be receiving it.  That sucked.  I just feel that their needs to be a better understanding of when video is used and when it is not.  And if it is used, it should be viewed, judged, and decided on immediately.  Skiers shouldn't be finding out months or even years later, (i.e. Greg Myers), that they won or lost a decision.  The majority of the sporting world doesn't even know what barefooting is, and until there is major money on the line at the events, we need to be putting processes in place that are very EASY to understand and encourage the young skiers to try new things.   A big question I have is what other sport has a video review process in place to critique, and/or, disqualify an athlete from a record that was posted at an event and ruled on by the judges of the event?

- If I had my way, I would do away with judges in the boat all together and require video at every tournament.  The judges would get to sit in an air conditioned RV and review each skier's run on video.   By the time the video would be reviewed, the skier could be sitting next to the judges and get instant feedback, or at worst case, the skier would know exactly where ALL the judging is taking place and the judges could appoint one person to address skiers questions.  No more long hours sitting in the sun, less worry about whether the boats will get speed, less sun block used, and less over-heated and tired judges.   I accept that this may  not happen due to the additional logistics involved in it, but you never know what technology will bring in the next 5-10 years.  5 years ago we didn't know we would have wireless transmission from the boat.

- Jan, you may know just who to go to to get a question answered about your run due to the years you've been in the sport, but I guarantee you that a newcomer to a tournament wouldn't have a clue who to talk to, and if they did, may be embarrassed to ask.  Senior level barefooters/judges can be intimidating to approach.  They end up asking the other skiers, and may get different several different interpretations of the rules, thus confusing them even more.  A guy I really respect after skiing in the Midwest is Joe Knapp.  He will hunt down every skier after their run and ask them what they thought about their performance and if they thought they were treated fairly.  He isn't required to do this, but he gains the respect of and thanks of many new skiers because he introduces them to the judging process and answers their questions on the spot.

- The question is "What is Reasonable"?  The standard re-ride policy would still be in place.  Buying a mulligan would allow the skier to override a decision not to give a re-ride.  If the skier wanted one bad enough, they would come up with the funds.  Kinda like the $10 cost to issue a protest at the Nationals.  

Multiple turns are being paid more liberally now than ever before. This is how some skiers are getting big scores without doing any "hard" 
tricks. You can't start paying multiple hitches. I agree that the judging should continue to be on the liberal side. I also agree that video review should not be done at all, except at full speed for records. If you are judging a run and you question to yourself if it was credit or not, then it was credit. The tie goes to the skier that trains his ass off, not to the judges ego.

- When is attempting a multiple turn "not" hard?  If we don't give something for the effort, then we should stop paying failed toe holds.  I don't think anyone goes into a 360 or 540 thinking I'm going to purposely hitch the turns.  The hitch is a judgement ruled on by the officials scoring the run.  The hitch deduction would give the skier the credit for completely a trick they set out to do, but would tell them they need to clean it up a bit  to get even a better score.  You're not going to put any of the past records in jeopardy.  It would only add to the competition at the top level.

I like your idea of paying points to the person that goes for the toe up again after missing there first attempt at standing up. Maybe you shouldn't even penalize them at all with points because they are penalizing themselves by taking more time to complete the start and also stressing out and being flustered for their tricks.

Other rules that could be addressed:
While judging wakes, use a straight line for a one foot and a squiggly line for two foot crossing. This makes it easier and keep the 70% of judges that look down during the transitions from looking down. It is easier to make a squiggle on the end of a straight line when they touch down than it is to make a squiggly line look straight at the end. To me, this is a no brainer. I know we try to stay within the world rules, but we need to lead, not follow.

Pro's need to be able to ski behind the boat that they are sponsored by. Unless there is a boat that is sponsoring the pro event with cash 
prize. The pro athlete needs to be able to show loyalty to their boat sponsor. Age division skiers get to choose, why not the pro's. I 
guarantee that there would be no complaints from the pro skiers, and what difference does a couple more boat changes make. This would be 
better for the boat manufacturers as well. It would be interesting to see if skiers would actually choose another manufacturer for slalom 
other than the boat that sponsors them, knowing that the other boat has a superior wake.

I wonder whatever happened to the petition that was signed by 75% of the skiers at last years nationals stating that family members should not be allowed to judge relatives, husbands, or wives.  It will be interesting to see if the board actually listens to the competitors and cares about their interest. Even if a family member judges completely fair, the other competitors should have to worry about it...period.

The always opinionated, Paul Stokes

If a hitch is defined as anything under 1 second, but above 1/2 sec. Then any "pause" over 1 second would be considered a 180 turn.  The times could be adjusted to make sense.  Do a study of say 10 skiers that are doing 360s.  Set a time that is easy to judge, and not too critical of the skier.  If someone can say the words "One thousand one" from the time the skier has both hands on the handle in the back or front position during a 360, and the time he/she lets go to come to the front, then, that would be considered too long of a pause., 

As far as starts go, up here in the east at our non regional level events we generally give rerides for failed attempts at difficult start tricks like the toe up but the skier has to do a normal deepwater start if the failed attempt wasn’t due to driver error or rollers in the course. It’s kinda like your mulligan idea, but you don’t have to buy it. This works for us because we don’t have the large number of skiers like other regions do. Our typical turnout for tournaments other than regionals is between 10 – 20 skiers. We often have two rounds, figure 8, or a pick & choose round to make the tournament last longer than a few hours. It’s a very friendly and relaxed atmosphere. We are down to a core level of skiers, everyone has known each other for the past 10 years or so. If a new skier shows up it’s a big deal to us. Everyone will know who he/she is, who brought them, and where they’re from before the day is over. Our tournaments are run for the skier and not for the sake of the event.

Sounds like I need to attend some tournaments in the East

I like the idea of a point deduction for multiple attempts at a toe up, but very rarely have I seen an attempt at a toe up where the skier missed the start and didn’t fall during the attempt. I think that if you have a multiple attempt deduction that you should also have the reride option from deepwater if a skier falls during the attempt. This way the skier has the full opportunity to complete their trick run.

Good idea, and good feedback regarding the failed attempt.

Finally, these rules modifications will work well for tournaments up through the nationals level. I think that if you are competing at the worlds or setting a world record the standards for turns and starts have to be maintained to uphold the validity of the records set in the past. I don’t think that the World Council would entertain the downgrades when there are many open and professional skiers that successfully perform these tricks. I don’t think it would be fair to have world records broken by skiers who scored tricks that were downgraded versions of tricks done by those who set the record. Unless we can get the entire barefoot community onboard with these ideas then we will have issues internationally with the ranking of our skiers.

You're correct, it only works if everyone is on board with it and everyone is being scored by the same rules.  Buy the time someone turns Open-Pro, they have worked out the hitches, but that doesn't mean the judges in the boat have worked out their interpretations of what a hitch is.  My personal feeling is to judge the Open-Pro the same as all others.  Records are meant to be broken, and we need the excitement of new records in our sport.  Keep your eyes looking forward.

Food for thought,

John Skobrak Sr.

Chuck:

Nice article on the rule changes and new proposals. I whole heartedly agree with you on the changes for starts and turns. Not to sure about the starts Mulligan though. I had a similar situation at  Regionals this year where I ended up with a big fat goose egg on two turns instead of the 600 points that it appeared I had performed.  I got hit with the rotation rule on a two-foot front to back directly into a one-foot back to front in the same direction. I failed to hold the one foot for recognition long enough before initiating the back to front, according to two of the three judges. I was not given credit for the one-foot turn, which down graded to a two-foot turn, which was then judged as a failed 360 turn beginning with the front to back (got all that?). There was some serious digging in the rule book to figure that one out, plus a couple separate video reviews. Mass celebration on the shore with the crowd for my first Open run turned into a string of four letter words and wondering why I even bother showing up for tournaments. It pretty much ruined the day for me and left me wondering if I really wanted to continue with the tournament.  Situations like this need to be addressed, as taking tricks away from skiers is not a good way to insure they come back for another try. I would have gladly accepted a "rotation rule penalty" similar to your "hitch penalty".

If the board wants some input for upcoming rules changes, I would be more than happy to offer a few, minus the four letter words of course.

...Phil Gustafson

Thanks for the feedback Phil.  It's skiers like yourself that bring me to tournaments to watch.  I know the feeling you have experienced.  Though we are most pleased with the admiration and respect we get from our peers on the shoreline, it's also important to be able to post a score that reflects your true capabilities, just as your peers view you.  

Chuck,

Good article! A lot of that happened at the SCR Regionals. One note: The judges are not allowed to review the video in slow motion until after they have completed their scorecards. Both in Beaumont and Austin, all video review was done in full motion.  Only after the pencils are down were they allowed to see in slow motion. I don’t know if this is a rule, but this is how it is done in the SCR.

...Pat Scippa

Thanks for the feedback and clarification.

Video review: It is NEVER done in slow motion to review a tournament score for the event. But, lots of people now think it is thanks to your comment! For World Records the video is run in Slow Motion if the reviewer deems it necessary. It definitely helps in many cases and it there to help the skiers. It is not there to hinder the skiers. (Oh yea notice I say skiers - plural, because there are always 2 skiers involved in a record. The one that has it and the one that it looking to take it away)

Start Re-ride. There is already a system in place for that that guarantees the second try. It is called Round 2. Insurance is usually free. We have 1 round events with a 2nd round "pick & choose" so you can do an event over.

Good comments and ideas Chuck. Great feedback from everyone too. Thanks for having the venue for this sort of discussion.

Richard Gray
PS. I know of a group of skiers that have ALL been "hosed" by judges many times. They all figured out a fool proof way around it. We call these skiers "World Champions" and "World Record Holders"