Cover photo: USU/Borja Álvarez

On September 22, 2020, as I usually do, I worked as a commentator for the Uruguayan professional surfing circuit that had one of the most controversial endings ever seen and today, after an official communication from the Uruguayan Surfing Union, which took a while to arrive, I think it is pertinent to refer to this.

In some way I am involved in this controversy because in the reading of what happened in the water, without taking into account the scores entered, I maintained, maintain and will maintain that the winner was Francisco Morosini.

Having said that, I must also say that due to a technical problem at the time I did not take into account the first wave of the series, in which Sebastián Olarte closes a large wave with a radical attack on a very critical section of the wave (you can see the mistake perfectly in the live broadcast). That was a serious mistake on my part and for it I apologize.

I repeat, however, that after watching the replay many times and tacitly remembering (because it does not appear in its entirety) Francisco Morosini's first wave, I still consider that he won the series. I even maintain that his first wave could have easily reached the excellent scale, from 8 to 10 points, because I think it touched all the buttons of the criteria that make an excellent wave.

Now, to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: My job as a commentator is limited to that. And the judges' job is limited to giving out scores. This is as old as the dunk hole, it happens thousands of times in top-level WSL events.

Morosini says in his letter that he deserves an apology because a judge gave that wave a score of 3,7 and 4,1 and I think he is right. That wave, as he says, no human being can consider it with that score… But again, the judges consider it that way and so does the USU.

It seems to me that the first was a serious mistake to have given that score and the second was not to have apologized. And I also add: That of having taken so long to respond to you, leading you to send three letters that only today receive a very vague response (they practically do not answer a clear question: Was that wave worth 3,7 and 4,1?).

I think it is pertinent to say, and I may be naive, but I believe it, that no matter how big a mistake was made, I do not believe it was done with malice. I think that the work of those involved is done with good will and a desire for sport to evolve in the country.

Finally, I think we shouldn't be so afraid of people expressing their opinions. As long as it is done with respect, everyone exercises their freedom in the way they want and is free to think as they think. This is also older than the hole in the mate.

I believe, and I will be guilty of naivety once again, that this error will bring about a better judgment of the USU and a better relationship between judges and surfers in which, for example, it will be indicated what is being valued more each day (in the style of the CT).