posted Jul 13th, 2016 - All right, I have indulged myself for too long on topics I really enjoy chatting away about. It is time to get serious again, at least for a little while - to be precise: for one time this year.

Our government in skydiving competition, the International Parachuting Commission (IPC) of the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI), meets once a year to make important decisions for the sport.

This year, IPC delegates from all participating countries traveled to Frankfurt, Germany, for the annual meeting. Frankfurt is also home of the current IPC President, Dr. Rainer "EXI" Hoenle, a former German 4- and 8-way competitor, whom I had the pleasure to train and compete with in both events, including the World Meet 1987 in Brazil. Team Scheissegal...

TURNING POINTS: Total Control or Anarchy for the Dive Pool?

The dive pools in 4- and 8-way competition were once again untouched, which confirms its healthy state and the reliability and consistency of the sport's heart and soul. All you recreational 4- and 8-way competitors may keep on practicing the same techniques and get better with them - no need to learn something new or forget something that you have worked on so hard.

And thanks again to the IPC committee for confirming the integrity of the current dive pool.

There were changes in different parts of the rules, and I am glad to report that all changes make a lot of sense to me. That has not always been the case, and I applaud our lawmakers for their great work and for listening to the folks.

Some of the changes are directly related to the open meeting that IPC committee member Mine Petersen from Denmark (VAF Warriors) conducted at the FAI World Cup 2015 in Teuge, and where EXI was busy taking notes. The majority of teams and competitors were asking to drop the cuts for semi-finals and finals, which eliminated teams at FAI events after rounds 8 and 9. Done. Teams and competitors thought that punishment for touching walls and floors at indoor competition made no sense. Gone. The tie-breaking rules were too complicated and not fair. Simplified now, and fair too.

The IPC committee even had the courage to remove another dinosaur from the rule book: the definition of a "side-body link-up." That's a "grip" in plain English...

Oh well, now it gets complicated, as it is always difficult to get a grip on rules and regulations. Let me try at least.

I congratulate the IPC committee for the removal of the obsolete and dinosaur definition. However, sadly I fear now the new situation might cause even more trouble than before. This may sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. I think that either each formation (like the ones with a "side-body link-up") should have a modernized and understandable definition of the required and permitted grip connections - or none of the formations should have any. Now we have none, fine...

The worms may begin to crawl out of the can though when "creative engineering" begins to take place in a situation of "rules anarchy". The trouble with the current interpretation for "as depicted in the dive pool" is the fact that the official graphics of the random formations and blocks are stone-aged, literally, and need to be modernized for clarification.

This would be easy work for a graphics designer, however, the removal of the "side-body link-up" definition would now also require a complete make-over of the undocumented judging interpretation for what is accepted and what not, which was grand-fathered in from generation to generation. That's a lot of work for the committee.

Or you just allow anarchy and any existing or potentially newly invented grip connection. That's a dangerous potential for confusion, misunderstandings and trouble.

Removing the "side-body link-up" definition surely was the much easier option, as opposed to creating a completely new set of detailed definitions for all 16 random formations and 22 blocks. However, it is dangerous, and I hate to see judges and teams argue again over "creative engineering." I have witnessed too much of it in the past, and it is always frustrating.

So I have to encourage the IPC committee to modernize and update the graphics and definitions and allow a clear understanding of "as depicted in the dive pool." The running interpretation for that is really just based on carrying it verbally from generation to generation by coaches, judges, competitors. Again, that is dangerous, and it doesn't provide the newbies in the sport a deserved documentation.

Congratulations again to our lawmakers for making rule changes with common sense. However, I am afraid there is a serious workload coming with the aftermath. I can't wait to see a modernized and maybe even cool-looking version of the dive pool graphics and definitions, so we all know what it really means "as depicted in the dive pool"...