ISSA - International Slalom Skateboarding Association

I asked this in the 2003 world championship thread where people were talking about DQ but no response so I'll ask here where it really belongs.

Can a skater purposefully blow off a cone so as to set up an upcoming series of cones to be on his/her prefered frontside or backside when entering a wider offset section for example, or perhaps just blow off the last offset cone and go straight into the straight cones again? If s/he arrives at the last cone and is on the opposite side that s/he should be had they ran the course cleanly, is that a DQ?

I worked cones for a while in Morro Bay and I must say that things happen so fast and the cone heads are so far away that occasionally a skater may totally miss going around a cone and not get penalized at all - if the cone doesn't fly out of the circle. Is someone up top watching with binoculars or something? Of course the skaters are honorable but if they weren't...

_________________
Rich Stephens
(aka Marabout Slim)
California, USA

Rich, In every race I've ever heard of, a racer CANNOT pass a cone on the wrong side (without, at least, hitting it) without being considered off-course and disqualified. Think about it. Legally skip one cone just before ten cones offset by 6'. Everyone who was on the course would be swinging 6' left and 6' right about five times, while the cone skipper would be able to tuck in a straight line down the center, passing each consecutive cone on its' opposite side. That just wouldn't make sense. If it were legal, the obvious best choice would be to simply skip the very first cone, running the whole rest of the course on the absurdly easy side, where straight cones are the hardest thing encountered and all of the offsets are backwards.

In most cases, the closest a racer can get to doing what you've questioned, would be to intentionally hit a select strategic cone (even on the wrong side) and accept the time penalty, in order to straighten out the line somewhat. This tactic has been named "Criddling" after one of its' earliest notable proponents, Dave Criddle. The problem with criddling is figuring out during practice and choosing which cone to hit on a course with several "strategically challenging" cones.

Thanks. That totally makes sense. I wasn't thinking right: there is no way to set it up for one side or another like I was thinking, ha!

Obviously going straight down the middle of offsets would be obvious and obviously something that should DQ. Thanks for explaining that "Criddlers" must at least smack the cone to avoid a DQ (Assuming the volunteer cone people, or someone up top, actually notices...)

Rich you can look at each cone in a course and think if you would gain any speed by criddling it or not.

For racers that are at the limit of traction and heading into an offset section they may feel forced to "criddle" the cone. Some more skilled slalomers like Luca likely won't criddle but instead angulate their body to make the "impossible gate" at speed. Dave Criddle was one of the Smarter slalom racers- I had the pleasure of attending a race he was at. I'm not sure if he likes the term named after him.

Here is a shot pirated from Henry Hester's page.



Dave Criddle is a furniture store manager in San Diego.

While mild mannered, he is the last guy you want to meet in a dual slalom race. He set the fastest GS time of the day, in the heat of the day by 2 seconds.

Rich,

In the early 80's in Europe you had to "take" the cone from the correct side, ie criddling wasn't allowed at the time. This obliged the cone judges to see how each cone was hit, a task which was really much too difficult. If a skater hits more than one, two cones in a row it's highly unlikely that a cone judge would be able to tell if the cone was hit on the "right" or "wrong" side. So, it was soon decided that any cone that falls over would count as a hit cone and not as a DQ. This made the task of the cone judge much easier, and it relieves him of any criticism linked to the "judging" we often see in other sports.

Rich Stephens wrote:I worked cones for a while in Morro Bay and I must say that things happen so fast and the cone heads are so far away that occasionally a skater may totally miss going around a cone and not get penalized at all - if the cone doesn't fly out of the circle. Is someone up top watching with binoculars or something? Of course the skaters are honorable but if they weren't...
Rich Stephens

It happened a few times in Europe this year that racers missed a cone and that the cone judges didn't see that. Luckily most of those cases, hopefully all, were solved by other skaters correcting the situation and the skaters themselves accepting the DQ.

Several years ago, as this whole slalom re-birth was just beginning, the issues of criddling, attempting to somehow regulate the racer's intent and even which side of the cone was hit, were hashed out on the other website. I think it was generally concluded that it would take "Thought Police" or a high-speed, stop-action video camera perched directly above EVERY cone to routinely determine which side of each cone was hit or whether a cone was hit at all. While I appreciated the attempt to enforce "sportsmanlike" thought and behavior, routine, reliable enforcement of a ruling about which side of a cone could be hit is almost impossible.

It was also clear that the only routine and reliable way to prove a cone was hit at all would be the standard of total displacement of the cone from the circle or being knocked over.

The whole thing got pretty crazy and detailed for awhile. We discussed intentionally hitting cones with body parts (hands or feet, like Chaput's now-famous hand-criddle at La Costa '02) or adding appendages to boards specifically to circumvent otherwise solid rules.

What if I only had to make contact with a cone (not completely displace or upset) from the inside in order to have committed a legal criddle? Could I place feather wands projecting from each side of my board that would, logically, make contact with every cone I pass? Again... with long enough "feather wands" a rider could ride right down the middle of a bunch of offsets, "brushing" the wrong side of each cone as he went by. Like I said, the whole thing got crazy for awhile, but in the end, the simple enforceable solutions were generally accepted.

One thing I did like about racng in Europe was the concept of having a Judge present. I suppose his job was specifically to look at the way cones were struck and so forth. It is easy to get caught up in the race and miss soemthing. A judge also likely helped skaters and promoters with rules and explanation of rules as well as relieveing the Promoter from having to make a difficult or unpopular call. I liked the Judge that was selected. Erik R. He was impartial and seemed very attentive. Protests could be filed if there was something amiss to a racer.

What were other peoples thoughts about having a judge, of the people who were at races with Erik? (And no he wasn't there to spot criddling).

I'm not sure "judge" is the right word, but if you're talking about appointing someone (or more than one) to the task of carefully watching each lane to make sure that the rider stays on-course (not that he hits the correct side of cones), I'm all for it. We don't have large groups of spectators(yet?), where so many eyes are watching that someone simply couldn't go off-course without it being noticed, but even if we did have that much audience, you couldn't leave officiating in the hands of the spectators anyway.

Funny story, sort of...

At La Costa '01, I fell in practice and disintegrated a bone in my hand. Clear that I wasn't going to risk going ahead and racing (no health insurance), I was quickly offered some pretty heavy medications by some of my fellow competitors. As the race day went on, the organizers became aware that people were occasionally blowing out of the bottom of the course, and that the well-intended, but not so alert cone marshals were missing it.

Because I was not racing, Jack asked me to go down the hill and watch for such occurences. That was Jack's mistake and my mistake was agreeing. Shortly after I reached the bottom of the hill, the medication really kicked in, and I don't really remember much of the rest of the day. I might've walked back up the hill and told Jack he'd better get someone more alert, or I may have laid down on the curb and gone to sleep. Somehow, I think I remember enjoying the racing, but that might've been from the next day.

Maybe the words, "referee" or "umpire" might be better than "judge". I tend to think of judged sports as being things like vert riding, freestyle, gymnastics or figure skating, where subjective opinion matters and judges are usually panelled. I like the fact that slalom skateboarding is a true, objective racing sport. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and I know it doesn't change the nature of the sport, but I'd like to stay as far away from the word "judge" as possible.

We could call him. "Slalom Psycho" or "slalom pervert" because of that cold unwaivering stare. Actually I like the word "Judge" since it has a stronger connotation. People do argue with Umpires, but most know better than to argue with a Judge. I think people are also inclined to argue with Linesmen. So that is the reason I like "Judge".

Though Andy, I am open to another name other than "Judge" to remove the idea of an arbitrary decision maker I just can't think of one where people will respect the call.

I think it's a good idea to have a head judge. The cone judges are normally not enough qualified to be able to see if skaters DQ or not. But with a 80 cone course it would still be pretty difficult. One head judge per course would be good. Organizer could also make sure that all runs are recorded (filmed) if any questions arises.

I like the idea of having some difficult cone(s) worth more than 0.1 in penalty, say 0.5. That way you will only take the difficult cone if you are forced to beacuse you havent skill enough to take it, not because a good racer wants to gain speed. But this is another story.

Hans Koraeus wrote:I like the idea of having some difficult cone(s) worth more than 0.1 in penalty, say 0.5. That way you will only take the difficult cone if you are forced to beacuse you havent skill enough to take it, not because a good racer wants to gain speed. But this is another story.

I understand the idea behind cones of different values. Of course this might discourage criddleing on the higher value cones. But it might also allow a promoter to set courses that did not flow well as a result.

In so many sports we have intentional sacrifices. In Baseball we have the sacrifice fly, in American football we have the fake which can end up in another guy getting sacked. In chess a chess master might be willing to sacrifice his queen for better positioning. We have our criddling.

Depending on the speed a racer has and the location of the cone in the course a cone might be worth criddling ....or might not be worth criddling.

IMHO some of the most interesting courses are the ones where a racer is not sure if criddling a cone will or won't give him an advantage in time. If a cone is assigned a high value....then that judgement call is lost. In those cases a racer is better off not criddling- unless he finds himself behind after his first run.

Ideally it looks great if cones are not hit and racers run clean. To make this happen is simple, make the first cone cone struck a DQ- Like in cyberslalom.

I wouldn't be against racing in such a race. It might make for some very stressful racing. I'd put my money on Luca. But I prefer the idea of notion of trying to figure out the time value for each cone. It just makes the game far more exciting.

Well, just for kicks, here's what I see as MAJOR DIFFICULTIES with having different penalty values for different cones, or even course sections:

1. Determing which cones go where by the judges table.
As we all know, the judges (or timers or whatever,) sit at the top of the hill and the cones are held up and a count is determined. With this system each cone that is knocked over would have to be counted, determined its position and then recorded.

Possible answer: COLORED-CODED CONES. If we had ten different colors of cones, then maybe this would work. (Five DIFFERENT colors for each lane. If a red cone in the left lane gets knocked down and a blue cone in the right lane, you know where it came from and how much it's worth.) As it is we have right now TWO colors.

2. Recording the exact positioning of a cone for any future reference.

Imagine telling Mollica he lost by 3/10ths instead of winning by 1/10ths because he knocked over a 5/10ths cone. His first question would be, "show me where I knocked over a half-second cone and not a 1/10th cone." So you'd have to have a record of each cone for any sort of challenge to the results. Now, a simple cone count ends all discussion.

Possibly answer: a database (something in Filemaker) where a new record is generated for each and every heat during the day. New record, type in racers' names, bracket and then record with check marks each cone knock down and its resultant penalty.

3. More accurate and more exacting cone-heading.

Unless the cones are color coded, then a cone head can't just hold up a cone and wait til the race proctor waves to put them down. The cone heads would have to be dilligent, consistent and ACCURATE in not only judging knock downs and displacements, but also cone values. And this would have to be done for each lane. So that's twice as many dilligent, accurante and consistent cone heads for each race. And they'd have to be consistent, dilligent and accurate from 8 o'clock in the morning til sundown. No more of this, "whoever-is-walking-up-the-hill-can-grab-a-cone-and-hold-it-up" stuff. If you don't know the value of the cone and can relay that value (or accurate location on the course) to the judges table, then keep your hands off.

Possible answer: compensated cone heads. No, I don't mean putting cone heads on the clock and paying them $8 an hour. We can't afford that. But promising a Boy Scout troop a $300 donation for a days' work of playing at a skateboard race might work.

Now, the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of a recordable database. Each cone would have a box and each box would include the resultant penalty. Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the Mollica problem: how do you know for certain he knocked down a cone of one value and not another? How do you record that for later review?

All of these problems are solveable. I fear, though, that trying to implement them now at our stage of development would result in races lasting days instead of hours. It would take a tremendous amount of training and experience to get this system down so that the time between heats is minimal. Right now, though, as I think about it, what I envision is lots of standing around between each run while everyone tries to get an accurate picture of each racer's run and not only how many cones were hit, but also where they were hit.

That's a pickle.

If a cone is assigned a high value....then that judgement call is lost

Judgement is not lost. It's just a different judgement.

Ideally it looks great if cones are not hit and racers run clean. To make this happen is simple, make the first cone cone struck a DQ- Like in cyberslalom

Yes, it looks great doing clean runs. But! It doesn't look great if everybody would just go for saftey.

Hitting cones should give you penalty not DQ. But when you set courses that make you gain something by hitting cones something is wrong.

Wes,

A combination of your suggestions 2 & 3 are used in ski racing.

Trained "gatekeepers" are used. They record which gate(s) are missed on a form. The collection of these forms are the evidence used if a protest is made by a racer.

For slalom skateboarding, you could assign each cone a number, and then have the coneheads put a racer's bib number next to the cone # that they knocked over. Then, collect the forms and calculate the cone penalties.

Problem: It is not an immediate feedback on the cone penalty.


For the use of colored cones, I think only 2 colors are needed. Red vs white chalk marks on the course would indicate which cone goes where. One course would consist of mostly white "normal" cones and a few red "special" cones. The other course would be mostly red "normal" cones and a few white "special" cones. The position of the coneheads when they hold up the cones would indicate which course the cones belong to.

But this (multi-value cones) is a complication that I think is not needed for most races. Isn't it hard enough to get good coneheads using our simple courses?

-- Pat

Wes,

When I say I like the idea with some cones penalizing more than 0.1 sec I don't go as far as you. I see a maximum of 1 or 2 cones per course with this extra penalty, not more. Otherwise it gets to complicated.

I like the idea though to be able to register exactly which cones each skater knocked down but that would take an extreamly well oiled organization. I.e. something for the future.

Wesley Tucker wrote:As it is we have right now TWO colors.

Don’t forget the color of the “original” (and still viable) cones - bright orange.

It's here! The conehead song for everybody's skateboard music library. Sing along when it hits the radiostations anytime soon. Strangly enough the song doesn't want to upload correctly so the end is cut off but you will get the idea.

The conehead song copyright Hans Koraeus

So it's time again
another skatecompetition and I really want to check it out, but...
it's the same story every time.

"Hey man, come here, we need a cone judge"

I don't wanna be a bore
but I don't wanna, wanna go
I don't wanna be a conehead
anymore, anymore

I don't want to be a bore
but I can't take it anymore

All these cones hit to the right and to the left
and then you have to find them quickly to be counted
if not you will have all them skaters on your back
and there is always a cone getting lost somewhere
it gives me nightmares

WesE wrote:Don’t forget the color of the “original” (and still viable) cones - bright orange.

The Turner / 3dm cones are red and white.
The Seismic cones are orange and white.

Hans Koraeus wrote:

If a cone is assigned a high value....then that judgement call is lost

Judgement is not lost. It's just a different judgement.

Ideally it looks great if cones are not hit and racers run clean. To make this happen is simple, make the first cone cone struck a DQ- Like in cyberslalom

Yes, it looks great doing clean runs. But! It doesn't look great if everybody would just go for saftey.

Hitting cones should give you penalty not DQ. But when you set courses that make you gain something by hitting cones something is wrong.

Now how much suspense would there be if no one hit cones? Perhaps I should not hit cones anymore... I think people wouldn't like that. lol.

I'll agree that the judgement call is not lost....but the cone would have to be offset in such a way (like a criddle before an uphill section) as to make hitting it worth the time penalty at all.

Criddling is somewhat self policing. The faster you go...the heavier the time penalty is as a percentage of your total course time.

Also if you gain some speed early in the course... it may be worth the criddle. A criddle is worth less in the end of the course. I just like that it keeps you thinking. It also gives the options of different strategies- some of which will be the correct one.

Good luck finding that correct strategy on race day!

Love slalom!



I also agree that low cone limits force racers to take every run as a safety run and that isn't very exciting.

What we could do perhaps is use a difffernt type of course marker...but then that is for another thread.

great song ...

I tried to Criddle a cone while racing in La Costa II and missed the damn thing, DQing myself for the day.