Is Douglas Adam's SEP a PDGA problem?

[teemkey]

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."​

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.​

I think the last piece now is whether the other players in the group are *required* to consider evidence of a violation presented by the player calling the violation.

It would be good to know the penalty, if any, for refusal to consider the evidence. This would seem to be a blatant disregard for the rules, and more serious than a courtesy violation.

 

[BrotherDave]

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?

Are you kidding? I've seen schlubs stay after tourneys to help haul baskets around just for a free Champ Firebird. We bribe all these AMs with merch to come donate to Open already, might as well bribe some more to walk leisurely alongside some of the best players in the sport. It's the ****ing PDGA, why the **** does anybody do anything to sit through boring tournaments that take forever? Because they want to #growthesport or whatever.

Only MPO warrants the extra scrutiny b/c only MPO gets routinely filmed. Social media doesn't go batchit crazy when there's a controversial foot fault in Advanced b/c nobody recording it.

 

[JC17393]

Only MPO warrants the extra scrutiny b/c only MPO gets routinely filmed. Social media doesn't go batchit crazy when there's a controversial foot fault in Advanced b/c nobody recording it.

Wait, so the purpose of having non-playing officials with groups is to avoid social media controversy? I thought we were trying to promote fair play and proper and more consistent rules enforcement. Silly me.

 

[teemkey]

Wait, so the purpose of having non-playing officials with groups is to avoid social media controversy? I thought we were trying to promote fair play and proper and more consistent rules enforcement. Silly me.

... SEP ...

 

[sidewinder22]

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."​

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.​

I was correct about seconding a call, being a call on a call, as the language suggests, but I digress.

To clarify the language in the rule book I would propose that "promptly" be replaced with "before the next throw" or have that addendum it. And that "confirm" be replaced with "convict", since that is what was apparently intended despite their literal meanings. Also "imaginary line" replaced with "imaginary straight line".

 

[BrotherDave]

Wait, so the purpose of having non-playing officials with groups is to avoid social media controversy? I thought we were trying to promote fair play and proper and more consistent rules enforcement. Silly me.

How else would we be arguing about it? If you want to promote fair play and proper, consistent rules enforcement I'd say simplifying the rules to a point that even the best players can figure it out would be a good start. :\

 

[JC17393]

How else would we be arguing about it? If you want to promote fair play and proper, consistent rules enforcement I'd say simplifying the rules to a point that even the best players can figure it out would be a good start. :\

Sorry, but the lack of consistent rules enforcement has less to do with how the rules are written (they aren't complicated as is) and more to do with a lot of players being squishy, spineless wienies who don't want to be "that guy" because too many players have too much ego when it comes to admitting to the possibility that they just might fracture a rule or two on occasion, even unintentionally.

 

[joecoin]

A non-promptly process of deliberation over evidence shown in court of law by two sides. How does a murderer get off on a technicality?

He grabs his cart and gets out of there before anything can happen.

 

[BrotherDave]

Sorry, but the lack of consistent rules enforcement has less to do with how the rules are written (they aren't complicated as is) and more to do with a lot of players being squishy, spineless wienies who don't want to be "that guy" because too many players have too much ego when it comes to admitting to the possibility that they just might fracture a rule or two on occasion, even unintentionally.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I bet making a rulebook for dummies would be easier than changing human nature though.

 

[tampora]

At the other end, players get rewarded entirely based on their ability to cheat. (Perhaps Ro-Sham-Bo is here.)

Wait... Rock papers scissors is all about cheating? Huh? The game I was playing was random luck...

 

[Steve West]

Wait... Rock papers scissors is all about cheating? Huh? The game I was playing was random luck...

 

[cheesethin]

How to win at rock-paper-scissors - BBC article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27228416

Also Derren Brown, British magician/entertainer, does a 'I can beat anyone at RPS' street challenge thing. I think he claims a mixture of predicting behaviour patterns, and also coming in juuuuust a little late with his hand shape so he can observe his opponent as they start to make their hand shape. That what he says anyway - magicians are not known for veracity.

 

[biscoe]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I bet making a rulebook for dummies would be easier than changing human nature though.

The rulebook already IS a rulebook (pamphlet actually) for dummies.

 

[_MTL_]

Not calling rules is a culture issue, not a rules issue. As I've stated before on this site, in most self officiated sports, you are that guy when you don't make calls.

I will share a story about how ridiculous our sport's culture is when it comes to calling rule violations.

I was Marshalling at the Pittsburgh worlds and happened to be with the lead card for a few holes. I say happened to be because we don't just stay with a group, we walk around. The card was Ricky, Paul, Nikko and Will.

Nikko threw by anyone's account a bad shot and for someone of his ability, a horrible shot. As he picks up the mini he shouts very loudly "WHAT THE F*** WAS THAT?!?" I immediately give him a warning.

Afterward, Will comes up to me and says "thank you."

Will saying this made me more mad than Nikko's actions. I immediately said "why didn't you want him? or if you are thanking me, does this imply he should have been warned before and you didn't?"

 

[DavidSauls]

It's cultural, but I think there are a lot of factors that come to play, to various degrees. And it applies unevenly to the rules---we're reluctant to call footfaults or time violations or conduct, but not so much with some other rules.

Some of it is the culture, and not wanting to be "that guy".

Some of it is wishing the same lenience for ourselves.

Or not wanting the game to devolve into a bitter tit-for-tat.

Or thinking a particular rule is a minor, unimportant infraction. In refereed sports, there is the rulebook wording, and then there's the practical application. How much contact is a foul in basketball? Or pass interference?

Or not wanting to be a referee, and wanting to just concentrate on our own game.

Or being annoyed to have to do so, because it's self-officiated and the violator should have called it on himself.

None of which is a good excuse. I'd be much happier if we changed the culture, so players were quicker to call violations on themselves, and willing to accept them when called by others.

But in the meantime, I think it's a mistake when the failure to make calls is attributed to any one factor. A lot of things are weighing on it, and the culture.

 

[teemkey]

It's cultural, but I think there are a lot of factors that come to play, to various degrees. And it applies unevenly to the rules---we're reluctant to call footfaults or time violations or conduct, but not so much with some other rules.

Some of it is the culture, and not wanting to be "that guy".

Some of it is wishing the same lenience for ourselves.

Or not wanting the game to devolve into a bitter tit-for-tat.

Or thinking a particular rule is a minor, unimportant infraction. In refereed sports, there is the rulebook wording, and then there's the practical application. How much contact is a foul in basketball? Or pass interference?

Or not wanting to be a referee, and wanting to just concentrate on our own game.

Or being annoyed to have to do so, because it's self-officiated and the violator should have called it on himself.

None of which is a good excuse. I'd be much happier if we changed the culture, so players were quicker to call violations on themselves, and willing to accept them when called by others.

But in the meantime, I think it's a mistake when the failure to make calls is attributed to any one factor. A lot of things are weighing on it, and the culture.

All true, and there's more.

These are top level players, and they will be on the same card many times in the future. Why (possibly) make an enemy it will be difficult to play with in the future?

Wysocki is always a potential winner, do you want to be "the guy" that cost him a win? OTOH, he usually, doesn't place well at the Memorial. Either way, would a one throw penalty make a difference? (see next point).

As it turned out, Wysocki placed 4th at 198. The only player affected was McBeth at 199, and had there been a tie for 4th the difference in cash was $50. (fwiw, I think McBeth would 2nd Locastro).

Wysocki is the reigning World Champ, a high profile player and a 2nd would be as controversial as a non-call.

It was the 2nd round, and although Wysocki has had his issues with rules in the past, and he doesn't have more than one issue in a given tournament (afaik). Nybo and McCray *may* have thought the Locastro call sufficient as a warning. It would have been interesting if Wysocki had another stance violation in the round, or tournament.

In short, there are a lot of practical reasons not to make a call or 2nd, and it's very easy way to just say "didn't see it." Even with a courtesy warning, it's low cost. If another violation occurs, then the practical effects change.

The net impact seems to be one free violation per round for some players.

And net net: It's far easier to change rules than human nature.

 

[Steve West]

...

And net net: It's far easier to change rules than human nature.

Change, easy. Perfect, hard. Unless you already have the ideal foot fault+failure to call+failure to watch rules handy.

 

[teemkey]

Change, easy. Perfect, hard. Unless you already have the ideal foot fault+failure to call+failure to watch rules handy.

It appears that the situation is that players are not calling violations either because of a "gentleman's agreement" or they believe the cost of calling exceeds the benefit of calling -- or both. There have been many reasons offered regarding why many/most players are reluctant to enforce the rules.

A lot of those reasons are specific to players; that is, the issues cited only apply to a person playing tournament golf. So a rational solution is to relieve the players from being the *sole* arbiters of enforcement -- which would require rule changes.

 

[BrotherDave]

The rulebook already IS a rulebook (pamphlet actually) for dummies.

The Rule Book IS a booklet actually. (Pamphlets are unbound).

Check mate. :|

(An overly complicated and inherently flawed booklet, IMO.)

 

[tampora]

How to win at rock-paper-scissors - BBC article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27228416

Also Derren Brown, British magician/entertainer, does a 'I can beat anyone at RPS' street challenge thing. I think he claims a mixture of predicting behaviour patterns, and also coming in juuuuust a little late with his hand shape so he can observe his opponent as they start to make their hand shape. That what he says anyway - magicians are not known for veracity.

If those are the only rules, I can see why people would try to cheat. I've always played where you have to look the other person in the eye while fists are at waist level in your peripheral vision. Secondly, none of that 'best 2 out of 3' nonsense; no patterns to predict. You lose, you lose.