Minnesota Majestic

[sidewinder22]

I disagree with that. Like the college football playoff system, it's fairer if the winner of the toss gets the choice the first hole, then the other player gets the choice the next hole, and so one for as many playoff holes as there are.

College football is a bit different because you play both offense and defense on separate series of plays. Basketball or hockey would be more apt overtime rules with a tip off or face off for each overtime or in disc golf case a coin flip for each hole. This randomizes the order in the fairest way. The first hole might not make a difference who goes first, while the second hole might make a huge difference as you said before.

I do get it. And I do TD, and I always specify playoff holes pre-tournament at players meeting. So yes in the rare situation where I specified pre-tourney a 3-hole playoff loop for 1st place, and then somehow there were exactly three players tied for first, yes they'd still be teeing first on the same holes around and around -- assuming all three players continued to get the same score hole after hole. They'd first have to do that three straight times just to have the effect you're mentioning. So yes, there's still an outside chance. However, once one player was eliminated from the playoff my proposal still works. Of course, there's also an even smaller chance of my specifying a five-hole loop and having the exact number players tied for first as the number of playoff holes I specified pre-tourney.

You are just chasing your own tail on the math here.

Can we at least agree on that?
And hopefully you can acknowledge at least that a number of players think it is an issue for the RC to address. They should either say that it doesn't make that big of a difference to them, make a change, or come up with a position statement.

No, this is really much ado about nothing. I don't see an issue because the order played out exactly the same as it would during the tourney with the even scores continuing to play the same order and the coin flip decided the order/or it was the last hottest score/round. You are just trying to add more bureaucratic red tape to a TD.

 

[araytx]

No, this is really much ado about nothing. I don't see an issue because the order played out exactly the same as it would during the tourney with the even scores continuing to play the same order and the coin flip decided the order/or it was the last hottest score/round. You are just trying to add more bureaucratic red tape to a TD.

Simplifying. I am clearly not alone in my advocation for rotating teeing order in a playoff.

Note: It's the Competition Committee not the RC that would deal with this issue.

Chuck, thanks for clarifying to whom I should write.

 

[sidewinder22]

If you want to play it like college football, then you should get to defend the basket. I'd be ok with having a monkey defending the basket to make it equally fair though.



There are some advantages to going first as well because you get to decide whether to go for it or layup or whatnot and then put the pressure back on your opponent. The second thrower may not have a choice depending on what the first thrower does. Also when playing normal rounds, being first to tee(honors of the tee box) means you are playing hotter with the momentum, so psychologically that may be a bigger advantage than seeing what your opponent does first.

 

[sidewinder22]

The first playoff hole is a bad playoff hole to begin with, so that's part of your issue and you should blame the TD for that, not the PDGA. The second hole is a great playoff hole and it should have ended on that second time playing it except Sexton missed that easy putt for the win. The first time playing the second hole they both made awesome drives, there is nothing you can do about that except applaud them both on that one.

 

[ScottyLove]

And it should be noted that this was NOT a 2-hole loop playoff. It was sudden death. If one of the guys wins on Hole #1, it would've been over right there. They just birdied it every time.

I see ball golf tournaments all the time to 1 then 18... then back to 1 if necessary. It is usually more about logistics and movements of the crown and cameras and much more than are the holes suitable. That's why I have no problems at all with the choice and I was riveted the whole time. We had near aces on #1... how cool would that have been?

 

[araytx]

And it should be noted that this was NOT a 2-hole loop playoff. It was sudden death. If one of the guys wins on Hole #1, it would've been over right there. They just birdied it every time.

I see ball golf tournaments all the time to 1 then 18... then back to 1 if necessary. It is usually more about logistics and movements of the crown and cameras and much more than are the holes suitable. That's why I have no problems at all with the choice and I was riveted the whole time. We had near aces on #1... how cool would that have been?

Correction noted. I should have said 3-hole sudden death loop. I wasn't mad at hole #1 at all (SW apparently favors putting words in other's mouths to make his points). Having an ace-run hole in the sudden death playoff loop made for compelling viewing.

 

[sidewinder22]

SW apparently favors putting words in other's mouths to make his points.

Where?

 

[Anon]

Correction noted. I should have said 3-hole sudden death loop. I wasn't mad at hole #1 at all (SW apparently favors putting words in other's mouths to make his points). Having an ace-run hole in the sudden death playoff loop made for compelling viewing.

I feel like Hole 1 and 22 would have been fine if there was another par 4 mixed in the middle.

I know logistically it would have been a pain but adding hole 3, 4, 5 or 8 to the mix would have made things much more interesting.

 

[corin_brown]

While the content of Terry's interview may have been better, the visual is not.

So, why was the interview content better after The Majestic than after Järva?

I think that the reason why the content was better during Terry's interview was because Rick was speaking to Terry, answering his questions, not staring through a camera lens, into oblivion, like after Järva.

No offense to Smashboxx/Terry, but the way World Tour does it - interviewer asks question on camera, then zoom in on the player answering the question - is how every major sport does it.

Amanda Balionis was doing all the post-round interviews for the PGA this past weekend for NBC/TNT and they showed her while interviewing all of her subjects. And the players spoke to her (not into the camera) while answering her questions and she got important details about their rounds. Those interviews were excellent. (Of course, leaving the camera on a nice looking reporter is a lot easier decision to make than leaving the camera on Terry. )

Of all the post game interviews I've seen (NFL, NBA, F1, Soccer, etc.) the subjects all maintain engagement with the interviewer throughout. Camera's might zoom in during the answer sometimes, or even during the question too, but the subject is still always speaking to the interviewer.

The subject is Ricky, not Terry and Ricky. As a result, the zoom in is appropriate.

Absolutely agree the interviewer is not the subject. And as the subject, Ricky came across way better during Terry's interview (no zoom) than during Avery's interview (with zoom.)

And I also agree that Terry shouldn't be the subject during interviews. But I also don't know too many folks who would say that Avery (with all of his distracting tics, gestures, foibles and general aggro-infomercial/pitch-man delivery) doesn't draw at least some of the audience's attention away from whoever he's interviewing and, as a result, making himself kind of the subject too.

I guess my quarrel isn't with the zoom, specifically, but with where the subject is looking while answering the interviewer's questions. After a question is posed, the subject shouldn't then break engagement with the interviewer and stare into the camera to give their answer. It's jarring visually. Awkward. And it's not just with Rick. I've noticed the same thing happens at a bunch of the pre-tournament interviews that DGWT posts - I'm remembering McBeth.

Whatever. Jussi obviously has his play book that prescribes all of this and I respect that. After all, I'm still watching. And that final round at Järva, and specifically hole 18 was the absolute sickest finish of the season. So the joke's on me, I guess. Lol.

 

[corin_brown]

I feel like Hole 1 and 22 would have been fine if there was another par 4 mixed in the middle.

Good point. This occurred to me too as they were teeing off at #1 for the third time in 15 minutes. Something longer than a par 3 or at least a hole that plays longer, with a high scoring average or increased difficulty, would yield a playoff winner more quickly.

But I didn't have too much of a beef with the playoff format at The Majestic. Logistics are a huge consideration, as lots of folks have said. And the win was pretty dramatic. Not quite like the finish at Järva, but the two OB drives and Rick making the harder of the two putts with an unlucky spit out by Nate made for pretty exciting viewing.

As for order of play off the tee in the playoff, I think this is interesting. I like a coin flip determining choice of order of play and then alternating the order if the playoff goes past one hole. And if there is more than one player in the playoff, I guess draw straws to determine order choice and then alternate after that.

 

[juju]

with an unlucky spit out by Nate

Spit out? Were you watching the same event as everyone else? There were no spit outs during the playoff.

 

[Anon]

Spit out? Were you watching the same event as everyone else? There were no spit outs during the playoff.

Not during the playoffs but maybe the one on hole 19 (i think) is what he was referencing?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not during the playoffs but maybe the one on hole 19 (i think) is what he was referencing?

Also believe there was one on the #14 island hole but I'd need to check replay.

 

[Pbmercil]

Spit out? Were you watching the same event as everyone else? There were no spit outs during the playoff.

Nate had a particularly brutal one earlier in the final round. He hit dead center pole, the nose came up and the headwind he was putting into blew his disc right back out of the basket. Happens to everyone from time to time, but it was a brutal way to give Rick a stroke late in a tournement.

 

[corin_brown]

Spit out? Were you watching the same event as everyone else? There were no spit outs during the playoff.

I was referring to Nate's miss on the last playoff hole. The 20 footer where his putter hit the chains, skittered along the right edge of the tray, flirting with the idea of dropping in before finally deciding to drop out - the putt that, if good, would have sent the playoff to the seventh hole

I now genuflect in front of the bench of The High Court of Correct Disc Golf Nomenclature Usage, as I humble myself and beg the court for sweet mercy - for committing the unspeakable atrocity of referring, on a DGCR forum, to the putt in question as a "spit out" and not by its correct designation, a "chain out."

May God and all of his exalted sages of The High Court have mercy on my soul and save me from complete and abject damnation and from a fate of being permitted to use only a Groove and a Polecat on a disc golf course from this day until the end of my days.

 

[Pbmercil]

I was referring to Nate's miss on the last playoff hole. The 20 footer where his putter hit the chains, skittered along the right edge of the tray, flirting with the idea of dropping in before finally deciding to drop out - the putt that, if good, would have sent the playoff to the seventh hole

Dude that was a total miss. The fact that some % of the time it may have stayed in is irrelevant. He missed his spot by 5 or 6 inches, and on those baskets that putt is spitting out, chaining out, or whatever else you want to call it WAY more often then its dropping in.

The fact that he hit chains doesn't change the fact that it was a miss, pure and simple. I'm sure nate would agree

 

[Broken Shoulder]

Polecats are awesome, Corin. Pick a different punishment.

 

[deadbody]

Dude that was a total miss. The fact that some % of the time it may have stayed in is irrelevant. He missed his spot by 5 or 6 inches, and on those baskets that putt is spitting out, chaining out, or whatever else you want to call it WAY more often then its dropping in.

The fact that he hit chains doesn't change the fact that it was a miss, pure and simple. I'm sure nate would agree

This, that putt wasn't even close.

 

[Jenga54]

I am really "split" on the split screen coverage. It doesn't work very well when the smaller screen is showing drives, but I DO want to show that bonus card specifically when someone may be doing well on that card (such as Doss was). It works a lot better with putts. Maybe I need to adjust the sizing of the shots? But with the simultaneous action, we are usually watching both cards throw or something. Plus, I would hate to miss an Ace and not be able to show it to the viewers if I had a chance. With a crap-ton more of money we could afford one of those fancy recording devices that would let me cue up any shot we have. But it isn't realistic for us at this point.

I also like showing the split screen when the hole they are playing is heavily wooded and blind. Because I think it gives a viewer a perspective on what the thrower is seeing. Plus with the heavily wooded shots, I never know how far a player will get down the fairway if the 2nd cam will even be able to find it if it hits early.

I did like the split screen at the end during the playoff because I want to get the player's reactions to their shots without flipping back and forth quickly.

Open to thoughts and suggestions. I know the split screen doesn't work well with mobile devices.

First a question about the technology. There are 3 cameras rolling, one on screen live at a time (or 2 when split screen). Is the video from all 3 cameras saved or only what's shown on my screen? If it's all saved you can always show the "missed ace" later. Maybe even on that fancy replay system. If we only get to keep the video that shows up on my screen then it's hard to say what is best on wooded holes.

I'm a fan of the mid-flight hard cut. Maybe a bit tough to do on the tightest BRP type holes for disc tracking, but on slightly more open "fairway" holes the cut looks great - thrower view and cut to basket view.

Also, did anyone give any love for the "info bar" at the bottom powered by UDisc? Player name, current score, fairways hit, greens hit etc. that was awesome. Also the scrolling score bar with up to date scores in real time. (Speed it up about double speed) those were all awesome, and recommendations we had.

I think that same info bar could have hole info and/or hole map and you'd have all the bases covered from a viewer experience into what is going on.

I like when the players talk to the camera about the hole, strategy, etc. What if Dana, Val, Nate and crew did a little "chalk talk" pointing at a hole map and pointing out landing zones, hazards, attack strategy. That would be killer.

 

[sidewinder22]

Simplifying. I am clearly not alone in my advocation for rotating teeing order in a playoff.

That is not simplifying, it is complexifying. It doesn't get any simpler than maintaining the same tee order, especially if you have more than 2 competitors tied. KISS - Keep It Stupid Simple. If you flip-flop the tee order in a playoff, it just adds confusion and messes up the players rhythm more than anything else about adding fairness. What happens when someone forgets to flip-flop the order and the tie is broken by a courtesy violation? opcorn: All competitors are playing the same exact course in the same wind(most likely and changing the order will not change the winds randomness). The player with the last hottest round should always lead off the playoff just like the PGA does. If a coin flip is needed to decide the order, then that is just the luck of the draw and should be maintained until there is a winner.

The PGA has no set standard of playoff method other than maintaining the same tee off order dictated by the last hot round. Each event can create their own playoff method, some do a straight sudden death. Some do a 3 or 4 hole playoff aggregate and if still tied after 3 or 4 aggregate, then go into a sudden death playoff. Some events have an extra day playoff of 18 hole aggregate. I think it is best for each event to be allowed for their own playoff methods rather than pigeon-holing a standardized method.

This is all too different than a college football overtime, or a tennis overtime where players switch from offense to defense. The team that wins the overtime coin toss gets to decide either the direction or the possession(not both) meanwhile the other team gets to decide the other - which a disc golf player would not get to decide the direction of play. Players should not have a choice whether to lead off or defer the tee honors from a coin toss, heads should always lead off the tee and remain in order.