... that the latest omission messages from judges and IPC officials are clear?
Elsinore Equinox' infringement situation in round four, see video
posted Mar 25th, 2005 -
The discussion of the omission has continued in the NSL Forum after the NSL News stories on March 15 and March 17. The video of the jump is not available any longer on the NSL-TV page after the recent update with round five of the SSL Valentine's Meet. There is a new link to the video file for further reviews, which has been set in the NSL Forum's omission topic.
The NSL headquarters also received additional feedback from IPC (International Parachuting Commission) officials, which helps to clarify the situation. Fiona McEachern, the Australian Chair of the IPC Formation Skydiving Committee, is not a judge. However, she supervises the decision making process for rules and rule changes and provided her view with a message from March 17:
A comment from the non judge. This is a judgement call obviously. Klaus has called it differently to a majority of the judges on the panel. The question is: is it an omission under 2.12
1) A formation or inter missing from the drawn sequence
or does it fit under
2) No clear intent to build the correct formation or inter is seen but another formation or inter is presented and there is an advantage to the team resulting from the substitution.
If you think it comes under 1) above then its an omission. If it comes under 2) then, I think, you can see there is some intent to build an Offset as they completed most of the inter and then rebuilt one cat after the funnel, and there is mass confusion before the Zig Zag is shown. I don't think the team got an advantage by doing this and it probably would have been faster for them to build the Offset and go on.
Personally I agree with Klaus, but I'm not a judge. If you call the Offset as an infringement, then wouldn't the Zig Zag also be an infringement as there is no total seperation between the two points? Teams that do not clearly show the second formation of the block are risking an omission. What if the team had busted at the start of the inter and then gone straight to the Zig Zag? I don't believe we want teams to train this as a strategy! I'd advise any team to build the end of the block before going to the subsequent formation for sure.
Happy to be shot down in flames... This is why we change rules on WC years.
IPC Delegate and FS Committee member Carl-Erik Tuv
Carl-Erik Tuv, the Norwegian IPC delegate, former triple bronze medal winner at the world meets in 1999, 2001 and 2003 with the DeLand Norgies and current member of the IPC Formation Skydiving Committee, confirmed FAI Judge Klaus Wellens' first comments and McEachern's follow-up in a message from March 18: "Hi all. I agree with Fiona and Klaus! If no intent is shown to build the Offset/missing from the drawn sequence, then it's an omission. Blue skies, Carl-Erik."
The final word came again from FAI Judge Klaus Wellens on March 19. This time, he went more into the details of the occasion:
I can only repeat what Iemailed before. We can only judge what we see and give only points forwhat we see. So I hope you all agree that the inter funneled, without any attempt of a Offset. The next picture is a total separation, and the next is: you see two of four team members building a Cat, the rest a Side Body and end up in the Zig Zag (without total separation). So if you imagine that the 2-way Cat is an incomplete Offset, you must have a lot of fantasy. A 2-way Cat is the beginning of many more formations than only an Offset. And for me, at least the intend to build it by the majority must be reached to say this is an incomplete formation, two are not enough.
In my opinion, this is a very good example of an omission (omission out of accident). And if there are some (people) calling this not an omission, I don’t understand them.
This is my point of view, and as I remember, we discussed to have something in like the Canopy Formation has, that a minimum of three must be together as described to call it incomplete and not omitted. If you score like this you open the door for a lot of interpretations, like if you see four jumpers solo, facing each other, with no contact, is this an incomplete Star??? And can they move on without getting an omission? This was not the intend of making this rule.
So back to judges rule No.1: judge only what you see. We shall not interpret the picture. And that is what you do, if you say the Offset was incomplete (you never see something that looks like an Offset).
Hope my statement is clear, if not feel free to e-mail.
Have a nice weekend,
No omissions at the FSL Shamrock Showdown 2005
It seems as if participants on either side of this discussion have looked at the situation from all angles. It might be time to make plans for the real competition world. The judges and IPC officials have given clear advice what they expect the teams to do in a situation where the inter of a block goes bad: show at least the bottom end of the block to be on the safe side. This will only cost the second formation of the block, which will not count as a scoring formation. However, it avoids the more costly 3-point deduction for an omission.
Another option is to re-build the first formation of the block and start all over with the same block maneuver. This option will not cause any deductions at all - if the inter goes well this time.
A third option does not seem to make a lot of sense: to just repair the pieces and continue with the inter. The second formation of the block is already lost as a scoring formation when the pieces break during the inter. The team can now build the second formation of the block as it pleases. The second formation of the block just has to be shown to give the judges no reason to suspect an omission.