|
Post by RiderLeangle on Jun 26, 2015 18:09:01 GMT -5
How quickly people forget. Rules like that have been around in every incarnation of the Salmon Ladder ever since the Stick Slider got axed... (hell you could argue the issue was present before because why not just jump from the bar instead of risking pulling an okuyama on the stick slider)
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Jun 26, 2015 18:16:12 GMT -5
How quickly people forget. Rules like that have been around in every incarnation of the Salmon Ladder ever since the Stick Slider got axed... (hell you could argue the issue was present before because why not just jump from the bar instead of risking pulling an okuyama on the stick slider) Exactly. It's not "an error in design," if the rule explicitly states something. The SSL was an error in design because the original plan failed to work, and had to create the rule to appease safety protocol (even though I was fine with the rule). This Salmon Ladder looks to be perfectly fine. There's a cheat to most obstacles.
|
|
|
Post by m4tt3r0x on Jun 26, 2015 18:27:02 GMT -5
The invisible rule is dumb. (Not inherently the fact they can't skip rungs, I think they should have to go to the bottom) That's my opinion. That's all I've been saying. If I can jump off Roller Hill from the top, then the same should follow here. Just an invisible rule that would be more concrete with something physical doesn't exist. I already said it wasn't a big deal, but this is similar to how people felt over the SSL, which is why I brought it up. The only thing I was arguing was when someone brought in going off course into this, which was absurd.
Also, can someone please show me when they said you had to complete every rung of the old Salmon Ladder? Never "forgot" this, I think it's dumb also, but I've never heard of them saying this. Just always looked more convenient to complete the whole thing when going up. (On Vegas' Second Stage this was NOT a rule, but ANW isn't always trustworthy. I do remember grabbing for the bridge without completing every rung. I believe it was Noah Kauffman last season)
Following thinking about this, this is why an invisible rule is dumb. Now another inconsistency between ANW and Sasuke. Yes, "minor", but not below discussion.
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Jun 26, 2015 19:16:32 GMT -5
The difference with this Salmon Ladder and Rolling Hill is on the Rolling Hill, there's nothing in the way on the way down. On the Salmon Ladder, you're higher in the air, the gap becomes potentially problematic the higher you are, hence going down to have more space. Not all the obstacles are going to have the same specific guidelines, that's a random simplification of two completely different obstacles.
|
|
|
Post by m4tt3r0x on Jun 26, 2015 19:22:45 GMT -5
The difference with this Salmon Ladder and Rolling Hill is on the Rolling Hill, there's nothing in the way on the way down. On the Salmon Ladder, you're higher in the air, the gap becomes potentially problematic the higher you are, hence going down to have more space. Not all the obstacles are going to have the same specific guidelines, that's a random simplification of two completely different obstacles. "There's nothing in the way on the way down. On the Salmon Ladder, you're higher in the air, the gap becomes potentially problematic the higher you are, hence going down to have more space." Yeah that doesn't sound like Roller Hill at all? If you want the SL to be different, make it physically different. That is my point. Also where can I find the old ruling on the older Salmon Ladders?
|
|
|
Post by RiderLeangle on Jun 26, 2015 19:25:37 GMT -5
There's also the fact one is the start of stage 1 and the other is one of the core obstacles of the 2nd stage, the latter would inherently be harder anyways or else they wouldn't place it there, stands to reason it would have harder rules.
Also it's pretty obvious, if you've got one side up on the top, why wouldn't you just reach for it like is legal in ANW but instead waste time and energy bringing the other side up, I'm sure there's probably some official word somewhere that I haven't seen in years but even without that it's pretty obvious just by watching
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Jun 26, 2015 19:30:07 GMT -5
The difference with this Salmon Ladder and Rolling Hill is on the Rolling Hill, there's nothing in the way on the way down. On the Salmon Ladder, you're higher in the air, the gap becomes potentially problematic the higher you are, hence going down to have more space. Not all the obstacles are going to have the same specific guidelines, that's a random simplification of two completely different obstacles. "There's nothing in the way on the way down. On the Salmon Ladder, you're higher in the air, the gap becomes potentially problematic the higher you are, hence going down to have more space." Yeah that doesn't sound like Roller Hill at all? If you want the SL to be different, make it physically different. That is my point. Also where can I find the old ruling on the older Salmon Ladders? Who the hell else thinks those two are the same? One is presented as two options. The other is only one. Are you this critical regarding ANW's 'No hands on bridges' rule?
|
|
|
Post by m4tt3r0x on Jun 26, 2015 19:30:27 GMT -5
There's also the fact one is the start of stage 1 and the other is one of the core obstacles of the 2nd stage, the latter would inherently be harder anyways or else they wouldn't place it there, stands to reason it would have harder rules. Also it's pretty obvious, if you've got one side up on the top, why wouldn't you just reach for it like is legal in ANW but instead waste time and energy bringing the other side up, I'm sure there's probably some official word somewhere that I haven't seen in years but even without that it's pretty obvious just by watching Oh, so you're assuming there's a rule. Assuming. If only there was something physically there to keep things clear like I'm advocating. Lmao. This is hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Jun 26, 2015 19:34:29 GMT -5
There may not be something there keeping them physically away because of setting up and taking down cameras, because you need to potentially access the obstacle without messing with those cameras. It's not just simply "Well, they can jump down early, guess the obstacle is ruined." And it's not as simple as "Move the course back some" because that obviously would have been done if that were the case. You either seem to have ignored or not considered logistics outside 'one is done here in a completely different fashion on a completely different stage.' That's why it makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Jun 26, 2015 19:44:43 GMT -5
Why is this an issue? Follow the rules. If there are no rules, what's to stop someone from hopping over the Wall Lifts or running entirely off course?
|
|
|
Post by cole77000 on Jun 26, 2015 20:24:30 GMT -5
I think this conversation is very interesting as one of the big things that draws me to Sasuke is the obstacle design (being a mechanical design/engineering student myself working in the entertainment industry).
This is one of those things that, I would imagine, is a big grey area in the design process. In my opinion, the idea is that each obstacle follows as many of these simple rules as possible:
- it is clear what a competitor can and cannot touch on the obstacle - the obstacle fits with the stage and course as a whole aesthetically and functionally - the obstacle is neither too difficult nor too easy - the competitor simply attempts to get from point A to point B using the obstacle with no other conditions - the obstacle is nice to look at - the obstacle will not create potential danger for a competitor - the competitor can complete the obstacle without direct interaction with on-set crew - it is exciting to watch a competitor attempt the obstacle - a new obstacle must be as original as possible - the obstacle should not be easily used in such a way that is not intended
These are all traits that I would say describe a "good" obstacle. However these are difficult to all satisfy at once as they are not easily quantifiable characteristics.
In many cases one rule may be sacrificed to amplify one of the others. For example, the infamous Backstream sacrificed continuity with the course as a whole (the "touch the water" rule) for originality and the Ultimate Cliffhanger in Sasuke 25 sacrificed reasonable difficulty for shock value and excitement watching a competitor attempt it.
In this case, we are talking about contention between rule four and the final rule, where the designers need to "artificially" increase the difficulty of the obstacle to avoid unintentional use of the obstacle. This issue has made itself apparent with the Salmon Ladder as its primarily vertical travel which does not naturally bring a competitor our from over water as the vast majority of obstacles do.
The use of a marker signifying completion in ANW I thought was a pretty good decision. Because it is present in a regional finals course, the transitions between the SL and the next obstacle cannot be too difficult and will vary from city to city. Thus, due to a reasonable reach between the SL and whatever comes after it, top competitors can simply reach and touch the next obstacle to signify completion without the additional rule (see Brian Orosco ANW2 I think), thus using the SL in a way that is not intended. This rule didn't stop the flow of the run, didn't significantly change the difficulty of the obstacle, and avoided exploit of the system.
However, the additional rule on the Swap SL was another story. It didn't seem like the rule kept competitors relatively more safe (they have set up much more dangerous stuff), it significantly increased the difficulty of the obstacle (many competitors probably could have recovered and a lot were eliminated by this rule), and there was a VERY VERY VERY clear solution for avoiding exploits without creating a verbal rule. They could have simply retracted the bottom rungs like they did the others once they were finished being used. Very very sloppy in my opinion.
As far as this up/down SL goes, I think it lies somewhere between these two cases. Sure, it is physically possible to get out from above the water in a way not intended (which is a bit sloppy) but there aren't really apparent ways to physically fix it and it doesn't significantly increase the difficulty of the obstacle to force the competitors to go all the way to the bottom (at least probably not to the degree of the Swap SL).
The design process is all about finding a good balance. In this case, there just isn't a fantastic solution.
TL;DR ANW rung rule - thumbs up Swap SL rule - thumbs way down Up/Down SL rule - meh
|
|
|
Post by m4tt3r0x on Jun 26, 2015 20:35:02 GMT -5
Good insight on the obstacle (As far as regarding how much we know about it anyway). I'll say it one last time, my problem is that I think the rule is stupid. There's never been another rule like it (Not counting obviously going off course, and maybe previous salmon ladders) In return I'm reading all of this superfluous information from others. It's the same thing as thinking the DQ rule on the SSL is stupid and thinking the Backstream is stupid. It's an opinion. The rulings are there, but not everyone is going to like them. Arguing this is ridiculous and laughable, putting your 2 cents in on it is not, because it's a worthy discussion.
|
|
|
Post by TCM on Jun 26, 2015 21:07:47 GMT -5
However, the additional rule on the Swap SL was another story. It didn't seem like the rule kept competitors relatively more safe (they have set up much more dangerous stuff), it significantly increased the difficulty of the obstacle (many competitors probably could have recovered and a lot were eliminated by this rule), and there was a VERY VERY VERY clear solution for avoiding exploits without creating a verbal rule. They could have simply retracted the bottom rungs like they did the others once they were finished being used. Very very sloppy in my opinion. As far as this up/down SL goes, I think it lies somewhere between these two cases. Sure, it is physically possible to get out from above the water in a way not intended (which is a bit sloppy) but there aren't really apparent ways to physically fix it and it doesn't significantly increase the difficulty of the obstacle to force the competitors to go all the way to the bottom (at least probably not to the degree of the Swap SL). The design process is all about finding a good balance. In this case, there just isn't a fantastic solution. I appreciate the time you took to make that post, though I want to clarify something regarding the Swap. It's not that they didn't choose to retract the bottom rung, it's that they couldn't. That was the original point, if you missed, you went in the water, hence all the others being retracted. But upon practice, they couldn't get that last one to retract without breaking the obstacle essentially, so the rule was put in place, to appease the group of people whose role is to check the safety measures. This group has been around since 28 and have shut down a number of ideas because of perceived danger. The rule wasn't there by choice. I'd also disagree that the 2nd part to this new Salmon Ladder adds a level of difficulty. We have no clue about the time limit, but having to go down without missing the rung isn't as easy as it seems. I'm certain we'll get a number of fails from this.
|
|
|
Post by mattskills on Jun 26, 2015 21:21:05 GMT -5
Has nobody noticed the fact that in one of the shots of the new salmon ladder you can see a net above the landing platform that would block competitors from jumping down? End of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by lostinube on Jun 26, 2015 21:23:26 GMT -5
Actually, unless you've been on the course when they are explaining the rules to the competitors you wouldn't really know if there have or haven't been more of these rules. Just that we haven't seen them being broken on TV. Competitors are shown and told how to clear the obstacles and everyone should follow those rules. This isn't a free run between the start and the button. It's an obstacle course.
Anyway, jumping from anywhere other than the bottom rung, to me, presents a danger to the competitors (trying to do the jump higher up between the columns as opposed to with the minimum amount of column at the bottom).
And no version of the Salmon Ladder has ever been considered "done" without going through all the rungs. If someone thought that they could reach the Unstable Bridge from the 2nd to last rung of the SSL instead of the last one and tried, they'd probably have been DQed.
|
|
YGK
Paul Hamm
Posts: 220
|
Post by YGK on Jun 26, 2015 21:26:30 GMT -5
I think this new section would split the competitors into 3 groups
1. Those who haven't done it before and can't pull it off 2. Those who haven't done it before but can pull it off on their first try 3. Those who have trained on this downward motion before and can go through it easily
Group 2 would be similar to the first time nagano and nagasaki attempted the first salmon ladder back in sasuke 18 and managed to clear it.
|
|
|
Post by cole77000 on Jun 26, 2015 22:10:39 GMT -5
It's not that they didn't choose to retract the bottom rung, it's that they couldn't. That was the original point, if you missed, you went in the water, hence all the others being retracted. But upon practice, they couldn't get that last one to retract without breaking the obstacle essentially, so the rule was put in place, to appease the group of people whose role is to check the safety measures. This group has been around since 28 and have shut down a number of ideas because of perceived danger. The rule wasn't there by choice. I'd also disagree that the 2nd part to this new Salmon Ladder adds a level of difficulty. We have no clue about the time limit, but having to go down without missing the rung isn't as easy as it seems. I'm certain we'll get a number of fails from this. Ah, then that changes things a bit. I wasn't aware that retracting all of them was the original intention. In this case where the bottom rung was originally meant to retract and didn't due to mechanical failure, then this is just a case of pretty poor design execution. As far as safety goes, it does seem to make sense that it was put into place for safety reasons, as many other pretty up-front changes were made (knee and elbow pads) recently. However, I'm not seeing the relative safety difference between failing due to the lack of rungs and failing the obstacle in the traditional manner. That being said, I'm not an expert on the matter. I was also a bit hasty on assuming that the difficulty difference wasn't so great. Good point.
|
|
|
Post by cole77000 on Jun 26, 2015 22:23:13 GMT -5
Actually, unless you've been on the course when they are explaining the rules to the competitors you wouldn't really know if there have or haven't been more of these rules. Just that we haven't seen them being broken on TV. Competitors are shown and told how to clear the obstacles and everyone should follow those rules. This isn't a free run between the start and the button. It's an obstacle course. And no version of the Salmon Ladder has ever been considered "done" without going through all the rungs. If someone thought that they could reach the Unstable Bridge from the 2nd to last rung of the SSL instead of the last one and tried, they'd probably have been DQed. I agree for the most part. I didn't clarify that such rules shouldn't be avoided altogether, as such rules exist for every obstacle such that the show doesn't devolve into chaos. I should have clarified that the obstacle should be designed such that such rules do not limit the use of the "legal" portions of the obstacle and by extension are not immediately apparent to the viewing audience like the SSL rule was. Additionally, although it's not usually popular to cite ANW as a reference around here, but Travis Rosen skipped the final rung last year in USA vs. World without being DQ'ed. In the case of the SL/UB combo, the obstacle transition was designed very well such that it would be borderline insane to attempt an early transition in regular competition. Such a rule probably wasn't necessary (unless there actually is info out there saying such a rule did exist. In which case everything I just said goes down the toilet).
|
|
arsenette
Administrator
Rambling Rican
Posts: 16,617
Staff Member
|
Post by arsenette on Jun 26, 2015 22:39:03 GMT -5
Yeah the bottom rung of the Swap couldn't be retracted and they were forced to hardwire it. Inui tried to get a brand new obstacle for 3 straight tournaments but couldn't because Health and Safety didn't approve the other obstacles that were to replace it (until this year). They couldn't bring back the original Salmon because it was deemed "too high" by H&S so we were stuck with literally a broken obstacle for 3 straight tournaments. It was always intended for the bottom rungs to go in but it was too janky and so they had to hardwire it causing possibly one of the worst rules ever in the show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 4:02:38 GMT -5
I think this new section would split the competitors into 3 groups 1. Those who haven't done it before and can't pull it off 2. Those who haven't done it before but can pull it off on their first try 3. Those who have trained on this downward motion before and can go through it easily Group 2 would be similar to the first time nagano and nagasaki attempted the first salmon ladder back in sasuke 18 and managed to clear it. Well then I guess you can put Shingo in Group 3.
|
|