jmpwme

Quade - Anybody over at Perris you might suggest? Can you email me some contact info? Steve.

Elsinore GT is looking for a video person this Sunday (Feb 13) at Skydive Elsinore. GT is also looking for an experieced video person for the season. If interested contact Steve Miller at the addy below. Quade - you available this Sunday? Thanks. Steve. smiller@sheppardmullin.com

Given discussions that are going on, sounds like the new 12 will have issues similar to 8's. Cog or shear. I had envisioned 12 with the cog. From the A bundy, front goes forward a-la 16. Rear piece backward a-la 19's, possibly holding that cheater grip a-la the 16 backward move. Rear waits just short of 360 for points shoulder coming through If vertical is desired, rear would take the over on the flat, under on the hill similar to 19's. I hear Fasttrax is in the tunnel. What are they looking at? Steve.

hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Ron!!! Which technique did they use?

Idea wasn't presented to suggest that any team would do that. Any team that would do that wouldn't last too long in this sport given the ridicule from their fellow competitors. It was merely to point out what I see as a hole in the rules (which is not a new hole btw). That said, I have seen a lot of "lawyering" at some of the big meets. Steve

Exactly - my point is - if you are out of frame, how do the judges know if you show intent. Granted, it may depend on how "out of frame" you are. But, if its bad, how do they tell.

even under the old rules, I think, you could not have the double bust scenario, although, in last years test on this issue, some judges scored it that way. I would be very surprised if you could ever get hit with the busted inter AND the omission, especially since Omniskore won't allow that to register. Ok, so here's a new one. With the current rules and fefe's analysis of the J, what keeps teams from exiting whereever they want in the sequence. If judges are going to start scoring without a penalty at the first scoring formation, why not just pick your strongest exit and start there? I suspect that WOULD result in an omission. Now, is that so much different than having a block out the door out of frame (whether intentional or not) with video picking up on the third point and scoring starting there. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Steve.

Ron - there are still some teams that are using shared memory plans, especially out west. If you are going with memory and no mirrors, what does it really matter how you do the 16 or the new 12 for that matter. For the youngsters out there, there was a time when shared memory was the norm and comp box was always a rear memory block. Granted, the standard bundy build is the fastest most of the time, but I have seen some teams use the reverse bundy to engineer around things. New 12 also provides a great opportunity to swing out of the front memory. Steve.

That has always been my view as well, but - the arguement the other way (which I think is even stronger now) is that if you have a busted inter, the bottom of the block is NOT a scoring formation. Accordingly, why bother to build it, just move on. This scenario was given to several judges about a year ago and they were all over the board on how to score it. The GT plan, right or wrong, is to always build the bottom of the block. Next question with respect to the removal of the NJ - if you have points out of view on exit, is it an omission or just a failure to show with no credit for the points built? Where do the judges draw the line if they can't see what you are doing. For example, new block 12 out the door goes out of view, there is some movement on screen, but you can't see if it shows intent. How do you score it? Does the new rule encourage the video to bust with blocks out the door? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Steve.

Ron - What ya think about taking the memory of new 12 on the rear piece. Bundy is easily built the other way around.

NJ rule is the same - if its not shown, the formation is not counted. With the infringements eliminated, there is no reason to distinguish between the NJ and a bust. Thus, they are combined. Personally, I like that NJ's are not treated differently, but I think the bust rule is important. There is now a VERY subjective standard for trying an inter or just faking it and moving on. Also, does this rule clarify the busted inter problem (ie: if you have a clearly busted inter do you waste time building the bottom of the block or just move on). Not sure this is clear now either. As for FeFe's point - not sure you can look at the scores from a meet under the old rules and equate it to what will happen now. Under the old rules, I suspect top teams were more careful about a bust given the penalty. Now, its not so bad and moving on will almost always be faster. As for 5's - opens up a bundle of options New 12 - this can easily now be a rear slot switcher. Adds a better opportunity to move memory to the rear piece. Thoughts? Steve GT

Steve - That prayer rocked. Best description I've ever heard of the exit count. Hoover's got nothin in you!!!!! It will be proudly displayed in our team room, FRAMED! Steve GT

Open is just that OPEN. All that matters is the final score. The best 5 at the end of the day win, period. IMO, the comment at NSL was out of line, but everybody is entitled to their opinion. After all, this is America. Feel free to disagree with the statement, but don't slam the person giving the opinion. GT has a chance to train along side Blade on several occassions. That team rocked flat out. Gotta agree with Ron, as long as they are in open why should anybody care. On the international scene, some teams are fully professional, paid salaries by their goverment. Admire the talent and the class with which Blade conducted themselves. IT doesn't get any better. Always willing to help other teams, first class all the way. Good luck to the new group. Steve. GT

there is a possibility that IPC may keep zipper-star and force the cog. This will avoid the judging issues. It would be a shame to lose the slot switcher. Have heard rumors that the old Sat-Sat will be new block 12 and that either the zipper or the star will become random 'O'. Also look for a change in the directional arrow of the tail on block 13. Likely to be changed to either direction relative to the points 270. Another change at the request of judges. February sure seems late for a dive pool change when Nationals are early this year. Which pool will the Valentines Meet use???? Steve GT

Does anybody know when the next IPC meeting is and when the new dive pool is will be available? Steve.

I hear that. Thanksgiving weekend has its pluses and minuses for a team building camp. Plus - long weekend. Minus - much relative work and lots of 4-way types are unavailable. Steve GT

Ben - A fourth class is a great suggestion, but USPA has not wanted to go this direction so the battle has been fought along different lines. If this did happen, how many teams would be in Pro? Maybe 6? How would you define who is eligible for Open? Open would be a great class and so would Advanced if properly defined. USPA's point has been exactly the point you made, "you have to draw the line somplace, everybody can't get medals". They are also concerned about how to define "Open" and the redrafting of the rules. I think the new class would have great support among competitors provided that the current problems with the rules are fixed at the same time, otherwise, its out of the frying pan and into the fire. Steve.

I'm not a huge fan of the "cut-off" plan either, especially in the form presented by Doug. I certainly don't want my class determined on 3 rounds of skydiving. We all know that this is not enough. What if Majik or Airspeed has some strange issue and gets an amazingly low score causing them to miss the cut? Would they be in Advanced and out of the hunt for the world meet based on 3 dives? It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, this is skydiving!!! If there was a system in place to rank teams on an annual performance that would be better. BUT - these ideas are not new. USPA is simply not in a position, and frankly neither is NSL right now, to monitor teams all year. Players sub in, sub out, sometimes 50% sometimes 75%, its all over the board. It would require a complete restructuring and be both a rule drafting and logistical nightmare. But even this is not the largest issue with this plan. The largest issue would be to change the thinking of competitors. Most competitors would tell you that they don't want to see Nationals as a boogie, they want to be in the hunt for something. The current system does that for the largest number of competitors. To use a cut-off or ranking system, the glory would have to be in making the cut. The honor of saying "We qualified for Open". This is a radical shift in thinking. As Alex mentions above, its differnet to be in a medal race. It feels like there is something more at stake. There would be no "We qualified for Advanced" honor because the dive pool is different than Intermediate. Accordingly, some fix might need to be made there as well. If not, we are back to the same issues we had before the Advanced Class was created. Essentially, open and intermediate. And - what would an Advance Class medal really mean. This is a step backward, not forward. The three classes we now have work great and provide the most competition for the most people. We don't need to change them. The only changes we need are to fix a few minor inequities and even those aren't so bad. I do differ with Ron. Although I would certainly agree with higher medalists not moving down, I actually like the move up rule. It keeps people from squatting which is why it was created. Now, perhaps the 25% should be changed to 50% to allow pieces to stay together. At a minimum medalist in a higher class should be treated the same as a gold medalist in the subject class. IMO - this is really the only fix we need. One final point - the current system does not prohibit anybody from jumping with the teammates of their choice. The rules just say they may not be eligible for a medal in a certain class or have to go guest. Given that the "cut-off" system would likely not change things at the top of open, top advanced class teams that make the cut would not be medal contenders. Accordingly, there is effectively no change from the current rules. Teams that can't contend for Advanced medals now, would not be medal contenders under the new system either. Steve.

Alex - You are correct in your understanding of the rules. The rule you cite is the one under debate. You also left out one other possiblity for Gold medal Advanced teams - break up and stay in advanced so long as you don't exceed the 25% rule. Although most Advanced Gold medal winners seem to feel obligated to jump open, the option does still remain for them to compete in Advanced within the 25% rule. What do you think of my proposed change which would say no more than 25% can be gold medalists in that class or any medalist in a higher class. While this certainly doesn't fix the PC issue, it does put Advanced Gold winners on the same playing field as medal winners in open. Eliminating the move up rule really doesn't work either if you look at the history of the Advanced Class. If you remember, it was started to avoid squatting when there was only 2 classes and the 25% rule came with it. Of course, this is all old news on this issue. USPA has been discusing a "defend your title once" rule, but I'm not sure how that could be drafted and it seems like an enforcement nightmare. As for your conclusions - I couldn't agree more. The rules are what the rules are and you do your best to compete within them. I also don't think anybody in this thread was bashing PC teams as has been done in the past. I think this thread is bashing the rules. There is a big difference between the two. Steve

"You don't know me very well ....do you? I'd rather fight something I don't agree with than just accept it and do nothing. I may have to live with it, but I don't have to like it " ***************************** Fight on my friend - we have been on the same side of this issue for a long time. I did speak to Mary Lou about the issue I discuss above. It appears that there is some agreement that a fix here is needed. Will it happen? Who knows. But that answer was better than any previously received. Steve.

How did this horse come back to life????? I thought it was dead and gone. To help answer David's question - in the various proposed rules that have been sent to USPA, a player coach is defined as Ron states. Any person who as won a gold, silver or bronze in a USPA Nationals or an IPC sponsored World Championship or World Cup. The fact that you may or may not have taken compensation is irrelevant to the issue. The term "Player Coach" is purely based on ones success as an open class competitor. Additional facts: 1. USPA has made it clear that the use of player coaches is here to stay and that teams using a PC will be eligible to earn medals in Advanced, notwithstanding that this was not the original purpose of the Advanced Class. We should all learn to live with this and go compete. Does it suck to pay a coach all year and then have to compete against that coach in the same class? Perhaps. To each his/her own on that one. But - these are the rules, USPA is not going to change them. GO COMPETE 2. IMO, Ron has correctly spotted the issue with the current rules. PC's, as defined above, are being given more latitude in the Advanced Class than those who have achieved a gold in the Advanced Class and this in simply not fair. For example, a team with John Hamilton, Gary Beyer, Christorpher Irwin and DVG would be eligible to win Advanced under current USPA rules BUT a team with Doug and Kim Glover or Ron and Carlos would not. This part of the rule should be changed. Its a simple change. If you believe in the 25%/move up rule, simply add medalists in a higher class to the 25% prohibition. Its that easy. 3. The use of player coaches, the merits of using a PC, whether they should win medals, how much they contribute to a team etc. has been hotly debated all over this forum since the Optic Nerve days. Let it go, train hard, be willing to pay your dues, compete against the PC teams on equal footing and beat them. Notwithstanding my views on PC teams which I have made very clear over the years, the PC teams in Advanced competed where their competition was. Satori, Jamba and the various Katalyst teams made the Advanced Class one exciting race. Exceed flat out kicked our butts, but they belonged in Advanced, they were a weekend team and had very few jumps with Shannon. They were just that good. That having been said - props to Directe and O2 Project for the decisions that they made. Steve GT

"Wish us luck getting through the snowny and icey winter! " Go West young man, Go West!!! Steve GT

MD looked great, as did Down to Earth. What was up to D2E getting shafted on the live judging??? That seemed pretty wrong. Special props to Exceed, they were clearly the team to beat in Advanced. What a great meet. So close all the way. Its the only way to compete. Congrats to all. Hope to see everybody competing next year. With respect to PC's, this year seemed better than most. I only counted 4 pc teams among the contenders and only 1 PC team on the podium. Surely an improvement over prior years. Steve GT

Congrats to all who qualified for the US team and especially to Jonathan Tagle. Nice job JT. Silver in 4-way and qualified for a second US team. Not a bad Nationals!!!!! Others have mentioned Jonathan's recent success above. He also had a great showing at the Ranch and is among the season leaders on the PST. Steve GT

been there, done that, killed the horse!!!!! Steve