biscoe
* Ace Member *
is that something you are actually in favor of?
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Is Douglas Adam's SEP a PDGA problem?
- Thread starter teemkey
- Start date
is that something you are actually in favor of?
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 22,008
So you don't believe Johne or KJ didn't see it? Johne said he would have called had he saw it. KJ said he didn't see it.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I've been in favor of using video evidence for a long time with the exception of calls that involve time such as foot faults (promptly), not teeing off in time (30 seconds) or lost disc (3 minutes). However, now that penalty calls require a second, I'm thinking allowing video evidence would be okay for confirming a call but not initiating a call in real time. The video would simply be backing up the player who made the initial call and avoid the issue of other players not paying attention or not in the vicinity of the thrower. Video from a player's cell phone would be allowed so this evidence wouldn't only be available for those being filmed for the event.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 22,008
Conviction is not confirmation. A witness or evidence can confirm it. A jury chooses either to believe them or not as compelling enough to convict, but the jury can not confirm it.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
I would include their "i didn't see it" under my catch all- "believed they were incapable". I have no idea if they saw it or not. They certainly had compelling evidence to call it after Nikko pointed out where Ricky was still standing (imo).
biscoe
* Ace Member *
I would be opposed, partially due to my own Luddite tendencies and the degree to which I feel instant replay sucks in every sport where it is used.
I'm not crazy about using video either. Then next you'd get stopwatches and shot clocks and god knows what else. Then if something goes wrong there's an hour delay until the official tourney clock is finished or whatever. I'd sooner see the PDGA train German Shorthair pointers to recognize foot faults and point at the offending player.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Anyone know of other foot faults that were called and not seconded at the Memorial? Anyone think there were foot faults that weren't called? Consider all of the time and posts spent hashing over this single, relatively trivial infraction, because we had video evidence and it couldn't be used. These flare ups will continue as long as the top cards are being filmed with only our top players taking the social media hits. This time it extended to questioning their education and team motives!?
While not the full solution, it seems that if we're going to provide/allow widely viewed video evidence of the play of some top players outside their control, we should be allowing its use by every player to provide a more consistent competition environment and rules compliance even if only randomly available. Random enforcement has been proven effective to improve behavior in other walks of life. Otherwise, perhaps there should be no video allowed at all.
While not the full solution, it seems that if we're going to provide/allow widely viewed video evidence of the play of some top players outside their control, we should be allowing its use by every player to provide a more consistent competition environment and rules compliance even if only randomly available. Random enforcement has been proven effective to improve behavior in other walks of life. Otherwise, perhaps there should be no video allowed at all.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 22,008
Coming soon... the Disc Golf Justice System.
If were going to use video to confirm penalties, we're going to need a camera sent out with every card.
You suspect right, I wasn't being literal. I disagree though. If you've ran out of rounds to play you're basically mathematically eliminated. There should be enough players that either DNF'ed or from another division that finished playing (like Masters/FPO) that can be trusted to monitor the top cards.
InB4 "Yeah, every jump-putt/step-putt"
Publicly known faults that were missed? None. Were there faults that went uncalled? Absolutely there were. It's just statistically unlikely that there weren't. I'd also wager there were a few that were called. Again, with that many players and throws, statistically speaking there had to be.
I think Ricky's fault has been targeted because it was on video, but it also happens to be a pretty vivid example of the culture of our sport at large. I can only speak for myself, but that's the angle I'm coming at this from. I couldn't care less about team affiliations or education or any of that. I'm not interested in reasons or excuses why a player or players fail to follow or enforce rules as they should. I'm only interested in finding ways to get them to do it. Incidents like this, because they're on video, create opportunities for discussion.
And what's the motivation for these DNFs and otherwise finished players to stick around and perform these duties? I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm at an event strictly as a player (as opposed to events I'm involved with running), that's what I want to be. When I'm done playing, I'm done for the day. I want to unwind and relax and maybe socialize, and if the tournament is over for me and I'm "out of contention", I'm more inclined to hit the road and head home than stick around and play referee for other players. I doubt I'm alone in that.
Also, why is it only MPO that warrants the extra scrutiny? Why wouldn't the top cards in FPO or Masters need monitoring as well? Even if we're only talking about the high level events, aren't they high level events for those folks as well?
Dcinmd
Double Eagle Member
My issue is that you holding the top two cards to a different standard than the other 43 cards that do not have video coverage.
I am also against writing rules that effect 0.001% of PDGA sanction tournaments.
It would be much easier to have a certified officials to make these types of calls on NT events than video evidence.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Certified official on each hole is a pipe dream. No money or will (volunteers). Having tighter rules or conditions for elite pro divisions no problem. Common in virtually all pro sports.
Are the top pros clamoring for a solution? They have the most at stake. I find it interesting that it's in a player's interest to call violations on opponents in top-tier events---it might be worth some extra dollars in his pocket, at the end---and still they're reluctant.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Remember the M.A.D. concept, Mutually Assured Destruction, which was the foundation of detente between USSR and USA? I think that "Tit for Tat" concept underlies the reluctance to make calls unless completely obvious.
Don't get me wrong, I wish the culture would change a bit. At all levels. But in the meantime, the top pros seem to have a bit of a gentlemen's agreement over what calls they'll make...or overlook.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
Maybe that's OK. The rules say "Players are expected to call a violation when one has clearly occurred." That's about the same as "completely obvious", right?
There must be some degree of enforcement going on, or there wouldn't have been any discussion about this particular foot fault. Perhaps we're already almost where we should be. I think we just need one high-profile punishment for not enforcing rules to get there.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,852
Consider this spectrum:
At one end, the players get rewarded entirely based on their skill in the game. (Perhaps Chess is here.)
At the other end, players get rewarded entirely based on their ability to cheat. (Perhaps Ro-Sham-Bo is here.)
Where is disc golf? How much farther towards "all-skill" is it worth going?
At one end, the players get rewarded entirely based on their skill in the game. (Perhaps Chess is here.)
At the other end, players get rewarded entirely based on their ability to cheat. (Perhaps Ro-Sham-Bo is here.)
Where is disc golf? How much farther towards "all-skill" is it worth going?
Rather than just endlessly go round and round for an answer to this, I emailed Conrad Damon, head of the Rules Committee for some clarification. I asked what promptly is supposed to mean and how does it apply to both the initial call and any second calls. I also asked about using evidence vs seeing it live in order to make a call/second.
Here is Conrad's response (bold is my emphasis):
We intentionally avoided writing the rule with a specific number of seconds, preferring to go with a common understanding of promptness. It means that a call has to be made directly after the violations occurs; in general, that translates to before your group moves on to the next throw. The same goes for confirmations. A second is a call on a call, so it must be made promptly after a call.
Other players can look for evidence of a stance violation as long as they bring it up promptly after the throw. The call itself does not have to be made quickly; the process of making the call does. It's fine to say just after the throw "Hang on, I think that was a foot fault, let me look at your footprint."
Other players can look for evidence of a stance violation as long as they bring it up promptly after the throw. The call itself does not have to be made quickly; the process of making the call does. It's fine to say just after the throw "Hang on, I think that was a foot fault, let me look at your footprint."
I followed up that answer asking for further clarification of whether or not the seconding player has to have seen the violation or if evidence left after the fact (a foot print, the player having not moved, etc) could be used.
Here is Conrad's answer to that:
It's really up to the players in the group to come to a decision on the call. If you feel there's sufficient evidence to make or second a call, then you do that. There aren't any specific requirements as to how you come by that evidence.
