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.

Cheers, Fiona

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,

Klaus