2018 Waco Annual Charity Open DGPT

[bwgort]

You should watch the video. He starts on the correct lie, sizing up his shot and seemingly not liking his proximity to the tree. Then he steps back, looks up at the mando, and proceeds to move his landing point/lie to the left, citing the mando and rules as he does. He did everything on the basis of the rule requiring him to line up with the mando.

It really comes down to whether you believe he knew the correct rule and intentionally deceived his group by knowingly citing a fake/incorrect rule to gain an advantage, or if he genuinely thought he was following the rules and his error was not knowing the rule properly. I lean toward the latter. Still not a good look for the sport, but not what I would call cheating either.

Really good analysis. To me, the takeaway here, is that if you're in DG media, it's important to show these rule discussions that happen because they shape the norms our community follows throughout the year.

 

[JC17393]

Really good analysis. To me, the takeaway here, is that if you're in DG media, it's important to show these rule discussions that happen because they shape the norms our community follows throughout the year.

Agreed that the media needs to show these kinds of discussions. Live coverage is good for that in particular. I'd love it if one of the podcasts were to discuss it this week, particularly if they have Jerm on as a guest (Smashboxx, I'm looking at you).

I don't think there's any need to make it controversial or accusatory or anything, but it would be satisfying to use it (and any future quirky instances like it) to educate a larger disc golf audience while the moment is fresh. Of course, making Jerm aware of his error for educational purposes would be good too. Not that it's likely to be a common occurrence, but better to know the right way to play the rule and never use it than have it happen again and play it wrong again.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Similar to how you hear a lot of players citing the Schusterick/Memorial situation as the reason they are extra careful with scorecards.

You should have just thrown in a shameless plug for your article......

https://www.pdga.com/march-madness-its-not-just-basketball

Pierce, you see, almost suffered a scoring error that would have cost her two strokes.

"It seemed unbelievable, really, after the debacle on hole 17," Pierce said. "They announced me as the winner and everybody's cheering and whatnot, then I get handed the scorecard and my score was wrong. And then so I thought – it was just hard to keep thoughts straight, you know?"

Pierce said her card was totaled at a 60, but she knew 61 was her correct score. She counted and recounted it numerous times before figuring out where to fix the error and turned it in with the correct score. The back-to-back Waco champion said the attention to detail was something she learned from being alongside Will Schusterick at the 2013 Memorial Championship, when he was forced into a playoff after not entering a total score on his card.

 

[InDaWoodsDiscN419]

Waco TD already planning added crowd control measures

As disc golf grows and more people come out to events, the safety of spectators, staff, and

players is always of the utmost importance. So it was a scary moment, then, when Nate

Perkins' drive on the first hole of the playoff on Saturday slipped left and into the gallery

before hitting a woman in the back. By all accounts she was OK – Waco Tournament Director

Ryan Draper said staff offered her first aid, but that she declined and felt more bad about the

situation than physically hurt – but this marked the second premier event in a row where the

crowd came into play on an errant throw. There's no way of telling if Perkins' shot would have

made it back in bounds, or if James Conrad's drive at the Memorial Championship would have

found safety had it not hit someone's water bottle, but the two incidents have put spectators

on center stage in crucial moments.

Courtesy of Steve Hill PDGA article

 

[SD86]

There might be a parallel universe where Simon won. Our universe might converge with that one 20 years down the way. We'll look back at this tourney, telling our grand children about the one time that big Jerm won Waco in extra holes, against some other dude, but when we look it up to see who the playoff was against, there will be no record of Jeremy winning, the record books will say Simon won the playoff and there will be no record of him missing his tee time...

Of course there's a parallel universe where I win this tournament, but there's no possibility of this universe converging with that one.

The Mandela/Dewgarita Effect....

 

[DanJon]

You should watch the video. He starts on the correct lie, sizing up his shot and seemingly not liking his proximity to the tree. Then he steps back, looks up at the mando, and proceeds to move his landing point/lie to the left, citing the mando and rules as he does. He did everything on the basis of the rule requiring him to line up with the mando.

It really comes down to whether you believe he knew the correct rule and intentionally deceived his group by knowingly citing a fake/incorrect rule to gain an advantage, or if he genuinely thought he was following the rules and his error was not knowing the rule properly. I lean toward the latter. Still not a good look for the sport, but not what I would call cheating either.

This sounds dangerously close to abusing the rules. Especially if he started on the correct lie and sized up his throw. Why would he start on the correct lie if he didn't understand the rule? Sounds like he abused the rule to gain a better shot.

It's amazing to me that our "Pro" level disc golfers don't know the rules yet expect outside sponsors to come in, or TD's to raise more cash, so they can make a better living.

Perhaps they should learn the game first.

 

[Steve West]

On another topic, here are the performance tracks showing the top ten MPO players' performances relative to expectations.

Spoiler

 

[bnbanbury]

This sounds dangerously close to abusing the rules. Especially if he started on the correct lie and sized up his throw. Why would he start on the correct lie if he didn't understand the rule? Sounds like he abused the rule to gain a better shot.

It's amazing to me that our "Pro" level disc golfers don't know the rules yet expect outside sponsors to come in, or TD's to raise more cash, so they can make a better living.

Perhaps they should learn the game first.

I am a certified official (for whatever that's worth) and I will admit that I have been confused about the wording of the mando rule and thought that the mando was the line of play until reading through this discussion.

I think if Koling were intentionally trying to deceive his group and knowingly break the rules he probably wouldn't have doubled down on it by talking about it on the coverage commentary and explaining the discussion (thus opening up this discussion here).

The broad over-arching comment at the end of your post made me roll my eyes a bit. Watch a PGA tournament and see how often million dollar athletes have to call a rules official over to explain a situation to them or just get penalized for playing it wrong. Even well intentioned people who try and learn all of the rules are going to make a mistake or misunderstand from time to time.

 

[robdeforge]

This sounds dangerously close to abusing the rules. Especially if he started on the correct lie and sized up his throw. Why would he start on the correct lie if he didn't understand the rule? Sounds like he abused the rule to gain a better shot.

It's amazing to me that our "Pro" level disc golfers don't know the rules yet expect outside sponsors to come in, or TD's to raise more cash, so they can make a better living.

Perhaps they should learn the game first.

FWIW here is a link to the live coverage, right when Jerm steps up to this lie.

I don't think Jerm cheated. As in I don't think Jerm understands the mando rule correctly and decided to not understand it correctly to gain an advantage. THAT would be a pretty crazy and really shifty thing to do. I think he just really, really didn't understand the rules re: LOP and mandos, and nobody else on the card, Sexton, or Terry Miller knew enough to say "woah you're wrong."

I am a certified official (for whatever that's worth) and I will admit that I have been confused about the wording of the mando rule and thought that the mando was the line of play until reading through this discussion.

I mean no offense, but how is that possible? I'm curious as to how somebody could have a fine enough understanding of the fact that SOMETIMES the mando object dictates the LOP, but not in this case. My guess is that Jerm hasn't ever read the rule, or did once or twice in passing, and based his understanding off of word of mouth

 

[JC17393]

This sounds dangerously close to abusing the rules. Especially if he started on the correct lie and sized up his throw. Why would he start on the correct lie if he didn't understand the rule? Sounds like he abused the rule to gain a better shot.

It's amazing to me that our "Pro" level disc golfers don't know the rules yet expect outside sponsors to come in, or TD's to raise more cash, so they can make a better living.

Perhaps they should learn the game first.

Honestly, I think he started on the correct lie more or less by default...an automatic thing borne of routine. Consider how often we simply walk up to our marker and set up to throw without a second thought. When it's an unobstructed lie with an unobstructed path to the target, there's never a hesitation. It's only when there is something out of the ordinary, such as an obstructed lie or an obstructed path to the target that we stop and consider our options.

So once he lined up and didn't like the position, he stepped back to re-assess. No different than stepping back to consider a backhand instead of a forehand or to try to find an alternate alley to aim for with a more comfortable (i.e. not dangerous to his hand) angle. In this case, he spotted the mando and his incorrect recollection/interpretation of the rule gave him his alternative.

I'm not sure it's really "abuse" of the rules. Abuse implies intent to misuse a rule, which I'm not sure is the case. Yes, the rule he was citing was not applicable to his situation but if he honestly believed it was, then playing by it doesn't really mean abuse. Stupidity, maybe. Ignorance for sure. Not really abuse.

I give him the benefit of the doubt on this in terms of his intent to "cheat" mostly because no one present seemed to understand he was getting the rule wrong. Heck, even a couple posters here initially argued he was correct once it was brought up. It is apparently a common misinterpretation. The goal now should be to educate and eliminate that misinterpretation.

 

[bnbanbury]

I mean no offense, but how is that possible? I'm curious as to how somebody could have a fine enough understanding of the fact that SOMETIMES the mando object dictates the LOP, but not in this case. My guess is that Jerm hasn't ever read the rule, or did once or twice in passing, and based his understanding off of word of mouth

In order to play a major or NT you must be a certified official. So Jerm has read the rules and taken the exam just like i have (and everyone else on his card has too).

I would submit that -"The nearest mandatory whose mandatory line is crossed by the line between the lie and the target is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, with one exception" - is a little confusing.

I don't understand the part of your post where you say "I'm curious as to how somebody could have a fine enough understanding of the fact that SOMETIMES the mando object dictates the LOP, but not in this case." The whole misunderstand is in thinking that the mando object always determines the LOP and that was how Koling played the shot, to the mando.

 

[JC17393]

In order to play a major or NT you must be a certified official. So Jerm has read the rules and taken the exam just like i have (and everyone else on his card has too).

One doesn't have to read the book closely or at all to pass the exam. One can also get help with the exam. Not suggesting that is the case here, but being a certified official does not automatically mean one is well-read when it comes to the rule book. You have to pass the test to be a TD too, but it hasn't prevented many TDs I've encountered from not knowing some rules (occasionally very important and common ones).

Of course, I'm an advocate for a tougher, more detailed exam for TDs at the very least. I don't think the test as is does enough to determine one's rules acumen.

 

[robdeforge]

I don't understand the part of your post where you say "I'm curious as to how somebody could have a fine enough understanding of the fact that SOMETIMES the mando object dictates the LOP, but not in this case." The whole misunderstand is in thinking that the mando object always determines the LOP and that was how Koling played the shot, to the mando.

"The nearest mandatory whose mandatory line is crossed by the line between the lie and the target is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, with one exception"

Jerm clearly has enough rules knowledge to know that (sometimes) the nearest mandatory is considered to be the target. Jerm clearly does not have enough rules knowledge to know that this is not always the case. I'm curious as to how somebody can know enough but not enough (in my words). That's why I guessed that he was basing his interpretation of the rules off of word of mouth.

This rule is so much easier to understand if you draw a picture or just visualize what they are talking about instead of taking it all as a bunch of words: Draw a line from your lie to the target. If this line crosses a mandatory line, the mandatory is considered the target. Pretty simple

 

[bnbanbury]

"The nearest mandatory whose mandatory line is crossed by the line between the lie and the target is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, with one exception"

Jerm clearly has enough rules knowledge to know that (sometimes) the nearest mandatory is considered to be the target. Jerm clearly does not have enough rules knowledge to know that this is not always the case. I'm curious as to how somebody can know enough but not enough (in my words). That's why I guessed that he was basing his interpretation of the rules off of word of mouth.

This rule is so much easier to understand if you draw a picture or just visualize what they are talking about instead of taking it all as a bunch of words: Draw a line from your lie to the target. If this line crosses a mandatory line, the mandatory is considered the target. Pretty simple

I get it. I knew when I was writing my post that it was a mistake to admit I misunderstood something. Thanks for pointing out how simple it is.

What I am pointing out is that Jerm was on a card with 3 other certified officials, one of them McBeth who is known to be a stickler for the rules, and they all had a discussion about this before Jerm threw his shot. So maybe it is a little confusing. More likely we are all just simple minded folk though.

 

[robdeforge]

I get it. I knew when I was writing my post that it was a mistake to admit I misunderstood something. Thanks for pointing out how simple it is.

What I am pointing out is that Jerm was on a card with 3 other certified officials, one of them McBeth who is known to be a stickler for the rules, and they all had a discussion about this before Jerm threw his shot. So maybe it is a little confusing. More likely we are all just simple minded folk though.

I wasn't trying to be a jerk or to insult your intelligence. I don't think you or any of the players are simple minded folk. I'm legitimately curious how so many people have a misunderstanding of the rule, and a misunderstanding that seems to be very consistent in its reasoning. I fully admit it's not immediately easy to understand as written.

 

[JC17393]

What I am pointing out is that Jerm was on a card with 3 other certified officials, one of them McBeth who is known to be a stickler for the rules, and they all had a discussion about this before Jerm threw his shot. So maybe it is a little confusing. More likely we are all just simple minded folk though.

Thing is, to assume that people are simple-minded folk is to assume that most people who have the rule wrong (like it appears the entire group did on Saturday) read it and misunderstood it.

I don't believe that to be the case. I think the four players (and go ahead and throw Terry Miller in there too because his live commentary indicated he thought Jerm was right) are reasonably intelligent people. I think it is very possible for reasonably intelligent people to have an incorrect understanding of something because that's how it was presented/taught to them in the first place. They didn't read the rule and misunderstand it. They didn't read the rule at all, instead being told what it said and that's their basis of understanding. The problem is whatever they were told or however they came to acquire their knowledge of the rule was incorrect or incomplete.

Not a whole lot different, really, than people who believe that if you throw a disc OB, you're not allowed to throw it again either immediately, on that hole, or for the round. It's not a rule, it's never been a rule, any cursory reading of the rule book will show that it isn't a rule, but people believe it is because "they heard about it somewhere". "Somewhere" being anything from seeing it [erroneously] enforced by/on someone else or being flat out told it was a rule by someone they trusted to know the rules.

Too many players acquire the vast amount of their rules knowledge in this way. A lot of it, especially the basics like the lie and stance and holing out and so on, is generally correct. But there's a lot of misinformation that gets passed along and people trust it without verifying it. It's a problem in all walks of life, not just disc golf. I think it's magnified a bit in our game because of the prevailing "tradition" of a lax attitude toward compliance and enforcement of the rules.

 

[Flick Maniac]

Yea its a different situation when he explained it and nobody was educated enough (or patient enough to look it up in the rules). I try and do that pre-okaying too whenever the rules allow me to do something out of the ordinary. Like "listen guys I am going to grab this branch behind my lie, and use that to lean out to get a better angle around this stuff. The rules permit me to do that, if it is behind my lie. If you want to look it up in the rule book, please go ahead. I will help you find the rule."

 

[Steve West]

Wouldn't it have been nice if he had double-checked the rule before making the commentary on the next-day edited coverage?

 

[JC17393]

Wouldn't it have been nice if he had double-checked the rule before making the commentary on the next-day edited coverage?

Why would he do that if he was unaware that he might have gotten it wrong? I assume they recorded the commentary on Sunday. This topic only cropped up here for the first time yesterday. No idea whether it was being discussed elsewhere (FB, reddit, youtube, etc) before it came here.

That's why I'm rooting for the topic to come up on one or more podcasts this week. Smashboxx often has the previous weekend's winner on for an interview and we know Jonny reads the forums here, so that's where I hope we get some discussion on the matter.

 

[PoorPutter]

Yeah throw in Nate Sexton on the Jomez coverage as someone praising Jerm for "knowing the rules" and using them to his advantage.....i.e. add Sexton to those who are wrong.

Interesting also Jerm says that Nate (on the card) said he didn't like it, and Jerm told him "if I didn't play it that way, I would have been breaking the rules".