2018 Waco Annual Charity Open DGPT

[JC17393]

Who's saying they set out to cheat? I don't think anyone is going after them for that. In fact, I don't think much of the fervor here is about Jerm (or Ricky in the other thread) specifically. It's more about the general reluctance of most players (including these pros) to not only properly understand the rules, but to actually engage in following and enforcing them as well.

The problem with this incident isn't that Jerm didn't know the rule correctly. It's that none of the players in the group did. Or if they did, they didn't speak up to question or prevent what happened. Unfortunately, it is typical of many players, pro or otherwise. I don't think players need to memorize the rule book or anything, but familiarity with the book such that they can recognize when something is a little off or they don't know what to do and consult the rule book before proceeding would be a great first step in the right direction.

 

[DiscJunkie]

First if Nate didn't know the rules well enough to call Jerm on this one, he wasn't robbed, he gave it away.
The rulebook clearly puts the responsibility on the players in the group. If one of the group failed to follow the correct rule, it's on the group, not on us or the PDGA.

If you want players to know the book, then make the penalties harsh and enforced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PGA allow video evidence and penalties assessed even after the round is over?

 

[lyleoross]

Trying to argue a person's character, or what was in their mind during a round, by what gets said afterward might be a mistake. Tell ya what, Jerm, put on the fedora that Matt Orum is wearing and apologize for bad taste.

The only take away here is: check the rule book.

 

[JC17393]

First if Nate didn't know the rules well enough to call Jerm on this one, he wasn't robbed, he gave it away.
The rulebook clearly puts the responsibility on the players in the group. If one of the group failed to follow the correct rule, it's on the group, not on us or the PDGA.

If you want players to know the book, then make the penalties harsh and enforced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PGA allow video evidence and penalties assessed even after the round is over?

The PGA does, but the big difference is that at PGA Tour events, cameras are everywhere. Every shot by every player is recorded even if 90%+ of it never makes it to air.

The inherent bias against the lead card(s) if we allowed video evidence for the sake of imposing penalties and enforcing rules after the fact is what makes it untenable at the moment. Just consider if this group at Waco (Jerm, Paul, Nate, Garrett) were on the fifth card instead of the lead? A) We'd never have known this happened and B) if we did, it would all be second and third hand stories about what happened. It would still have to come down to the players within the group knowing the rules, consulting the rule book when they don't, and making the calls themselves.

 

[philstine]

I am not going to accuse either one of them of cheating, BUT the fact neither one will even admit that they foot-faulted, even after there is clear evidence is disheartening.

I'm fairly certain I read (maybe in the Memorial thread?) that Ricky has since acknowledged that he did foot fault :thmbup:, but went on to say that he wouldn't have called or seconded the call even if he had known that he could have done so. :thmbdown::thmbdown::thmbdown:

That, to me, treads dangerously close to the line of Player Misconduct (B.5, and B.11).

 

[philstine]

I was more talking about the sour grapes talk of Perkins being "robbed" of a victory because Jerm "got away" with something he could/should have been penalized for than a hard and fast rules issue.

From what I've gathered, if Perkins questioned what Jerm was doing, he did it well after the fact. As in, too late to make a stance violation call *promptly* as the rule calls for and obviously too late to prevent Jerm from making the throw from the incorrect lie in the first place.

To me, passively saying something along the lines of "I'm not sure that was right" after it all happens rather than before or while it's happening is too little, too late. He's free to question and challenge what happened all he wants, but there does reach a point where all opportunities to do something about it have passed and it's just idle talk.

I agree that there does reach a point where the opportunity to do something has passed, and that, in this particular instance, that time had passed.

My question was more at where the cutoff point occurs. I (mis?)read your earlier post as saying that the cutoff point occurs immediately after a player has thrown, as opposed to at some point subsequent but proximate to the throw.

 

[JC17393]

I agree that there does reach a point where the opportunity to do something has passed, and that, in this particular instance, that time had passed.

My question was more at where the cutoff point occurs. I (mis?)read your earlier post as saying that the cutoff point occurs immediately after a player has thrown, as opposed to at some point subsequent but proximate to the throw.

Well, the sequence of events with regard to Perkins saying something to Jerm is hazy at best so it probably is presumptuous to say he was definitively beyond whatever cutoff point there would have been. I'm just assuming since nothing came of it as far as discussion in real time on the course, whatever he said was too late.

That said, in terms of calling a foot fault, which is the only thing left to do after Jerm makes that throw, I would say that the cut off comes when the group moves on to the next thrower. This discussion came up a couple weeks ago following the Ricky foot fault incident at Memorial, and I asked the rules committee to weigh in on what constitutes "promptly" in the stance violation rule. Conrad Damon's (head of the RC) answer was this: "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."

So basically, as soon as the next player arrived at his lie and made a throw (McBeth I think), all recourse regarding Jerm's throw was pretty much exhausted.

 

[Steve West]

... in general...

Key words there. Don't give anyone the idea that there is hard and fast get-out-of-jail-free limit. For example, you might not make an OB call until after everyone has teed off and walked down to the discs. Some players may have made two or three more throws or finished the hole before the group gets to the disc barely OB behind the basket.

To me, promptly means soon enough to still look at the evidence or while memories are really fresh and ideally before anyone has had to change their game plan because of the call. However, the key is that it varies by situation, so no hard definition will work in all cases. Let the group decide if it was prompt.

Just don't try to make 34 foot fault calls on me (because you say I always missed my lie on approach throws) after I make one on you on the 18th hole.

 

[JC17393]

Key words there. Don't give anyone the idea that there is hard and fast get-out-of-jail-free limit. For example, you might not make an OB call until after everyone has teed off and walked down to the discs. Some players may have made two or three more throws or finished the hole before the group gets to the disc barely OB behind the basket.

To me, promptly means soon enough to still look at the evidence or while memories are really fresh and ideally before anyone has had to change their game plan because of the call. However, the key is that it varies by situation, so no hard definition will work in all cases. Let the group decide if it was prompt.

Just don't try to make 34 foot fault calls on me (because you say I always missed my lie on approach throws) after I make one on you on the 18th hole.

I never mentioned anything about anything other than stance violations. Promptly only applies to stance violations. No one should be reading into what I (or Conrad) wrote as applying to anything other than stance violations. So why even bring up OB or anything else?

 

[teemkey]

Because 801.02.B

Players are expected to call a violation when one has clearly occurred. A call must be made promptly to be enforceable (except for misplays).

 

[JC17393]

Point taken.

Still a bit over the top to reference OB as a potential point of confusion in terms of what defines promptly. Especially when the context and the wording of my post made it quite clear that the violation being discussed was a stance violation. Before the next player throws is a pretty good benchmark for determining what constitutes "promptly" in terms of calling a stance violation. Anyone who wants to extrapolate that statement to apply to anything other than stance violations is, to put it bluntly, a troublemaker.

 

[philstine]

That said, in terms of calling a foot fault, which is the only thing left to do after Jerm makes that throw, I would say that the cut off comes when the group moves on to the next thrower. This discussion came up a couple weeks ago following the Ricky foot fault incident at Memorial, and I asked the rules committee to weigh in on what constitutes "promptly" in the stance violation rule. Conrad Damon's (head of the RC) answer was this: "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."

So basically, as soon as the next player arrived at his lie and made a throw (McBeth I think), all recourse regarding Jerm's throw was pretty much exhausted.

In general, and for this particular situation, I concur, with the caveat that if the issue is whether or not a misplay occurred (and in this instance, I think it is at least arguable that Jerm threw from a lie other than that established by the thrown disc (8.11.F.1.b), though if it came to that, I would be inclined to argue for a stance violation once it became clear that Jerm misunderstood the rule, based on the rule of fairness), 8.11.F reserves the right to penalize the misplay even after further throws have been made.

 

[swhite]

So, apparently Paige Pierce came from 6 strokes back to win the 2018 Waco Charity Open in the last round? The tournament concluded last Saturday, but I cannot find a video of this on YouTube. Does anyone know if the round was covered, and will it be available to view?

 

[discflinger]

T had video during DGPT live coverage. I would assume it should be on tube soon. And, yes, we all need to see that epic and fortuitous comeback.

 

[JC17393]

In general, and for this particular situation, I concur, with the caveat that if the issue is whether or not a misplay occurred (and in this instance, I think it is at least arguable that Jerm threw from a lie other than that established by the thrown disc (8.11.F.1.b), though if it came to that, I would be inclined to argue for a stance violation once it became clear that Jerm misunderstood the rule, based on the rule of fairness), 8.11.F reserves the right to penalize the misplay even after further throws have been made.

Sure, but I think in this case, were a misplay penalty to be applied, it would have to come from the TD or at least in consultation with the TD. Which keeps with my argument that the players' opportunities to remedy the situation ends with failing to call the stance violation "promptly".

Basically, I'm not sure the group, after all that transpired and the hole nearly or entirely complete, could change tack and try to call Jerm on a misplay unilaterally. He only misplayed because they all tacitly agreed (lack of dissent = silent agreement) that he was good to go from the lie determined by the mando. To turn around and call a misplay on him well after the fact for doing something they initially allowed him to do would be dirty pool, IMO.

The TD would have to get involved either by the group's request or on appeal by Jerm because I doubt he'd stand for being penalized in that way. And at that point, Jerm's argument about being legally on the lie regardless of which way it was determined (basket or mando) comes into play and since the TD can't use video evidence to prove/disprove it, he could and probably would give him the benefit of the doubt and call it no misplay so no penalty.

 

[Jah Plastifari]

If I am in the group that a questionable rule interpretation affecting a lie happens, I call for a provisional throw also. (It has happened twice that I remember.) Play it out both ways and let the TD decide which score is correct. If Nate Perkins would have done so in this case he may have ended up the winner.

 

[slowplastic]

I get that this isn't an ideal thing.

But so many people keep thinking that this may or may not have affected the outcome of who was first or second.

Think of putting spit outs and also a few stupidly missed putts. Lapse of judgement shots that cost a stroke here or there. For many players. This one was a weird rule thing with a few inches of foot placement, and Jerm still executed a shot. There were over a hundred other strokes over days during the tournament. Plus there was a playoff where Nate shanked a shot and gave it up.

Yeah I don't like that the pro's didn't know the rules. But this one placement of a few inches did not change who won the tournament.

 

[Steve West]

... this one placement of a few inches did not change who won the tournament.

But one penalty throw, if called, could have.

 

[Nova P]

So, apparently Paige Pierce came from 6 strokes back to win the 2018 Waco Charity Open in the last round? The tournament concluded last Saturday, but I cannot find a video of this on YouTube. Does anyone know if the round was covered, and will it be available to view?

Terry the Disc Golf Guy shot it, and I imagine it'll be out soon. With a little help from some friends he's already got rounds one and two on his channel.

 

[mosman253]

One remedial class per year for the national tour would work great, maybe a refresher after any revisions.:thmbup: