krupicka
Double Eagle Member
Need a segway for the commentators to move around the course.
-
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)
Disc Golf Pro Tour
- Thread starter DGPT
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,856
jvphobic;3070503...And booth people are seeing the same thing you are. It isn't like we have extra cameras or shots that would give them extra insight. [/QUOTE said:
Major Tomahawk
Eagle Member
Unsportsmanlike in my opinion. Reminds me of the badminton in the Olympics. Poor sports need to get sanctioned. According to pdga rules, planned unsportsmanship equals DQ.
VictorB
* Ace Member *
I don't think anything Drew did was unsportsmanlike at all.
Reniger
* Ace Member *
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
It seems a hard call to make at this time. If the PDGA defines it as unsportsmanlike like, easy call. Nothing currently forbids it so it comes down to personal taste. If I step aside from my notion that it added an interesting twist, then I can easily see your point. There is inherent risk in players modifying the scores, long term for sure.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,856
The fault lies not with Drew or the badminton players. The fault lies with a system that rewards bad play. Players should never be placed in a situation where doing what gives them best chance of winning is different than playing their best.
Major Tomahawk
Eagle Member
Imagine if Drew was tied with another player during that round and on the last hole the 2 players took turns doinking putts off the rim so they don't have to play Paul. That would be some sad commentary for our sport. Man up and try to beat the best. Beating McBeth would have been a fine feather in Drew's cap.
"1. The booth people need to be in the same location as the switching guy (me). So either I need to travel to them, or they need to travel to me. Or we meet somewhere. Oh, and that place needs to have great internet."
I.......think....you could output the source material as usual...but also have a secondary output going through a private local wireless intranet just for your commentators in the booth. It would be the same video dump going live (but a 2nd signal output) , but the signal should be rock solid for the booth commentators. Research "private peer to peer video network".
I.......think....you could output the source material as usual...but also have a secondary output going through a private local wireless intranet just for your commentators in the booth. It would be the same video dump going live (but a 2nd signal output) , but the signal should be rock solid for the booth commentators. Research "private peer to peer video network".
dashiellx
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,770
The booth would still need to be near the switcher so they know what feed to put out that the booth people want to comment on.
Absolutely. Tanking is indicative of a poor system. It is always bad for sports and games.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Absolutely!
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
From a purely sportsmanship perspective, yes. From a, $800, vs $2,000. Not so much. If I'm thinking about paying the bills, and there is no rule against it, I'm probably going to do it.
Steve is correct, you don't allow such things to occur via the rules. And while I hate to harp on bout this, the PDGA gets whacked for making rules that hold people accountable frequently enough. I've yet to see a situation like this out of their competition structure.
I learned a long time ago, go to the experts and ask their advice. The PDGA has a lot of expertise in these kind of things.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Nice theory but not always feasible when scores in an intermediate event do not matter towards winning a bigger prize. NFL Pre-season games for example. Injury risk is increasingly causing teams to not always field their best players or for the whole game. Drew's situation was a format where the intermediate quarterfinal score didn't carry forward. His only goal was to get a seat in the semis and 8 seats were available. The format gave him the option to adjust his qualifying score and he took it. Not sure how you change the format so the quarter scores do count carrying forward since 8 in the semis don't play in the quarters.
You make the system so it benefits the better score. Here is what I commented on at Reddit.
I think it would be cool to seed the 8 people who have the bye and then let the next 8 who qualify pick the group they want to be in based on the scores. So ultimately Drew would be able to pick the 2 players already on a card (which he basically did by adding strokes).
The only difference is that Cam didn't get the chance to pick, instead based on Drew's decisions he was forced to play in a particular group.
Or just go old school gym class rules and let everyone pick a card in order of their seeding/finish. 8 byes go first, then the 8 quarter-final finishers in order of finish. Think about it, Ricky would have the first choice of card and tee time. Then Paul could choose to play with Ricky and try to eliminate him OR avoid him thinking he could face him later. And so on, and so on. That could be filled with DRAMA and we would be there to film it.
I think it would be cool to seed the 8 people who have the bye and then let the next 8 who qualify pick the group they want to be in based on the scores. So ultimately Drew would be able to pick the 2 players already on a card (which he basically did by adding strokes).
The only difference is that Cam didn't get the chance to pick, instead based on Drew's decisions he was forced to play in a particular group.
Or just go old school gym class rules and let everyone pick a card in order of their seeding/finish. 8 byes go first, then the 8 quarter-final finishers in order of finish. Think about it, Ricky would have the first choice of card and tee time. Then Paul could choose to play with Ricky and try to eliminate him OR avoid him thinking he could face him later. And so on, and so on. That could be filled with DRAMA and we would be there to film it.
If they did that, they'd risk taking themselves out of making the next round at all.
Drew built himself a lead so he had the luxury on the final hole of picking his opponents in the next round based on how he finished out.
If anything, I blame the live, in-real-time scoring that gave him the information necessary to do what he did. Take away the live scoring and perhaps, unaware of where everyone else sits, he finishes the round with a birdie or par.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
More drama if only the top 4 each headed a semi group then the remaining 12 were randomly drawn from a hat live online that evening to fill the groups. More Dodge-like in presentation. 
Define "playing their best."
I laid up from 20' on a flat green once, to clinch a tournament win. Laying up from 20' was not playing my best. It was, however, the smart move, because the only way I was going to lose was to miss the putt AND get a crazy kick and roll out of the miss.
I agree that we want to avoid situations like Drew's. The Devil's in the details---or the wording.
Similar threads
