Is Douglas Adam's SEP a PDGA problem?

[teemkey]

Among the PDGA's enforcement rules is 801.02.B, which reads:

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

In Hitchhiker's Guide, Ford Prefect describes a SEP as:

An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. That's what SEP means. Somebody Else's Problem. The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot.

Can we agree that this occurs during sanctioned tournaments? And, if so, can the PDGA do something about it?

Rule 801.02.E is:

A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official. A penalty throw is a throw added to a player's score for violating a rule, or for relocation of the lie as called for by a rule.

Would increasing the number of people authorized to make a call be a good idea? For example, including caddies, or even any certified official present at the site of the (potential) violation. Maybe only players or tournament officials can call, but enlarge the group that can second?

Should video evidence be permitted if available?

Or maybe things are fine as it ... just let the players play.

 

[JC17393]

Increasing the number of people authorized to make a call is an incredibly bad idea. Way too much opportunity for abuse and way too much chance of uninformed (about the rules) people making critical calls. Can you imagine if caddies were allowed to make calls independent of the player for whom they're caddying? Or second calls made by the player for whom they're caddying. Talk about collusion.

I think the answer to the problem of "SEP", and I don't disagree for a moment that there are people guilty of it, is more liberal use of the courtesy violation/penalty for players that fail to observe their fellow players and make calls/seconds when warranted. It would cease to be SEP and quickly become MFP (My ****ing Problem) if they started racking up penalties for their intentional negligence.

 

[teemkey]

Increasing the number of people authorized to make a call is an incredibly bad idea. Way too much opportunity for abuse and way too much chance of uninformed (about the rules) people making critical calls. Can you imagine if caddies were allowed to make calls independent of the player for whom they're caddying? Or second calls made by the player for whom they're caddying. Talk about collusion.

I think the answer to the problem of "SEP", and I don't disagree for a moment that there are people guilty of it, is more liberal use of the courtesy violation/penalty for players that fail to observe their fellow players and make calls/seconds when warranted. It would cease to be SEP and quickly become MFP (My ****ing Problem) if they started racking up penalties for their intentional negligence.

I agree that enlarging the number of authorized violation callers would likely just trade one form of abuse for another, but I don't think courtesy violations would work either.

Who would call those violations? And, of course, the second courtesy violation is a penalty situation and requires another authorized person to confirm.

Also, 812.C says ...

A player receives a warning for the first violation of any courtesy rule. Each subsequent violation of any courtesy rule by that player in the same round incurs one penalty throw. A courtesy violation may be called or confirmed by any affected player, or by an Official. Repeated courtesy violations may result in disqualification by the Director.

... so the number of authorized callers is increased.

(To be frank, I'm not sure how "affected" is interpreted for uncalled stance violations vs. kicking over a basket. I'd say anyone not following the rules affects everyone who does follow the rules -- but I know others would challenge my seconding a courtesy violation from the gallery.)

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think the fundamental problem with most penalties in our sport is the lack of granularity to match the penalty with the severity of the "crime". Think of the various levels of penalties in football that don't directly change the score, for example. In theory, our warning is worth 1/2 a shot but we don't count it in the score until two warnings are applied.

I think foot faults, especially in the fairway, are usually not seen nor feel as a big of a deal to be worth a stroke. However, if a called and seconded foot fault counted as a dot on the scorecard, then you might see more calls. The idea behind the dot is the amount of dots "earned" during a round would be used as tiebreakers. You both shoot 54 but Dave also had one dot and loses the tiebreak.

Dots would accumulate in your score over multiple rounds. Not sure but maybe 3, 4 or 5 dots would convert to 1-throw penalty. Different infractions might earn 2 or 3 dots instead of 1 to better match the perceived severity of doing something. This might be a way to find a balance between full people and video surveillance and the tradition of self officiating in professional ball golf.

 

[JC17393]

I agree that enlarging the number of authorized violation callers would likely just trade one form of abuse for another, but I don't think courtesy violations would work either.

Who would call those violations? And, of course, the second courtesy violation is a penalty situation and requires another authorized person to confirm.

The players who are making calls that require a second and failing to get the support would be a start. In the case of the foot fault controversy at Memorial this weekend, Nikko would be the one calling the rest of the group for failing to perform actions required by rule (observing players for the purpose of ensuring rules compliance is required).

If you get into a situation where seconds are needed but not given...the TD is on the list of people who can confirm a violation and there is no time table associated with it. Note all instances of attempted courtesy calls and take the case to the TD.

Also, 812.C says ...

... so the number of authorized callers is increased.

(To be frank, I'm not sure how "affected" is interpreted for uncalled stance violations vs. kicking over a basket. I'd say anyone not following the rules affects everyone who does follow the rules -- but I know others would challenge my seconding a courtesy violation from the gallery.)

Courtesy violations are unique in the sense that a player may call one on another player not in their immediate playing group. That is where the "affected players" clause generally comes into play.

If I'm not in your playing group, I can't call or second a stance violation on you. By rule I don't have that authority. But I can call a courtesy violation on you if you're screaming inappropriately or throwing on to my group as your actions are affecting me. And I'd extend that to mean that if you're not calling/seconding a violation in your group on a player who's also in my division, I'm affected. So I'd be right to call or second a call of a courtesy violation on you for that.

As for more liberal use of courtesy violations increasing the number of authorized callers on the course, that's not true. Every player in the field is authorized to call courtesy violations already. Spectators, caddies, etc aren't empowered to do that and wouldn't (shouldn't ever) be.

 

[teemkey]

The players who are making calls that require a second and failing to get the support would be a start. In the case of the foot fault controversy at Memorial this weekend, Nikko would be the one calling the rest of the group for failing to perform actions required by rule (observing players for the purpose of ensuring rules compliance is required).

My guess is that players reluctant to call a violation would simply say they didn't see a 'clear' violation, and hence challenge the courtesy violation call. It's an easy weasel.

I suppose I'm asking if a person won't follow a rule that benefits them in competition, do you think they'd follow a rule that harms them?

If you get into a situation where seconds are needed but not given...the TD is on the list of people who can confirm a violation and there is no time table associated with it. Note all instances of attempted courtesy calls and take the case to the TD.

801.02.B says all calls must be made promptly except for misplays, so I'm not sure what process you're suggesting here.

Courtesy violations are unique in the sense that a player may call one on another player not in their immediate playing group. That is where the "affected players" clause generally comes into play.

If I'm not in your playing group, I can't call or second a stance violation on you. By rule I don't have that authority. But I can call a courtesy violation on you if you're screaming inappropriately or throwing on to my group as your actions are affecting me. And I'd extend that to mean that if you're not calling/seconding a violation in your group on a player who's also in my division, I'm affected. So I'd be right to call or second a call of a courtesy violation on you for that.

Keeping the authorization within the division makes sense to me; but I think some players will disagree.

I'm going back to including caddies since they're subject to all the PDGA rules of play (3.05 in the Competition Manual). By allowing them to call or second violations, a player will be able to miss a throw for some reason (tie their shoe, get chap stick out of their bag, etc), while the caddie watches. Maybe the player and his/her caddie can either call or second but not both.

As for more liberal use of courtesy violations increasing the number of authorized callers on the course, that's not true. Every player in the field is authorized to call courtesy violations already. Spectators, caddies, etc aren't empowered to do that and wouldn't (shouldn't ever) be.

We're talking about a way to remedy the lack of rules enforcement. You've suggested using courtesy violations as a method. Hence the size of the enforcement group is increased in order to solve the lack of enforcement problem. I think we're in agreement on that.

 

[teemkey]

I think the fundamental problem with most penalties in our sport is the lack of granularity to match the penalty with the severity of the "crime". Think of the various levels of penalties in football that don't directly change the score, for example. In theory, our warning is worth 1/2 a shot but we don't count it in the score until two warnings are applied.

I agree. Therre's a lot of anecdotal evidence indicating most players think 801.01 (fair play) is the foundation of the rule book, and that violation must be egregious and/or advantageous to be clear (per 801.02.B).

I think foot faults, especially in the fairway, are usually not seen nor feel as a big of a deal to be worth a stroke. However, if a called and seconded foot fault counted as a dot on the scorecard, then you might see more calls. The idea behind the dot is the amount of dots "earned" during a round would be used as tiebreakers. You both shoot 54 but Dave also had one dot and loses the tiebreak.

Dots would accumulate in your score over multiple rounds. Not sure but maybe 3, 4 or 5 dots would convert to 1-throw penalty. Different infractions might earn 2 or 3 dots instead of 1 to better match the perceived severity of doing something. This might be a way to find a balance between full people and video surveillance and the tradition of self officiating in professional ball golf.

Dots? You're a funny guy Chuck

 

[sisyphus]

Hey, I mostly play for the fun of it. In tournaments, I admit the small stuff others do or don't do (which I don't sweat) are affected by my susceptibility to the SEP field around the joy of playing disc golf. I don't want to be "that guy", so I'm not looking for anything unless it's flagrant. And I believe we should all aspire to be true sportsmen (like Bobby Jones), and police ourselves even more stringently than each other.

Now I was kind of intrigued by the notion of dots, actually. The trick is, I've played the second day of a 90 degree weekend on a card where we're all over 50 years old, and not really that good at disc golf, when the tabulating of 24 holes at Idlewild felt a lot like Bistromathics.

 

[d11rok]

I think expanding the group of people that can call faults to outside the group, as well as video replays, are both equally bad (although good in intention) ideas

Case in point: last year's LPGA tour, with some numbnut sitting on their couch and calling in a placement foul on the green, which was only available for review because of video. The video is only present because the foul was on someone in the lead group.

My position: if a penalty is really that egregious, then call it. If it can go either way ( foot faults come to mind) but you are uncertain, then don't call it. The rules are clear in this regard.

 

[BrotherDave]

I think the only realistic way to solve this is assigning a volunteer, official or cut player to every card mathematically in contention just to officiate. Not gonna happen at tourneys smaller than NTs but no one really cares about the integrity of those in general anyway. If the bigger tourneys have the logistics possible to have multiple spotters than why not snag a guy off from flag holding duty and have him follow lead and chase cards to keep things honest?

 

[tampora]

I think the only realistic way to solve this is assigning a volunteer, official or cut player to every card mathematically in contention just to officiate.

There is no point at which someone is 'mathematically out of contention' at the start of any round, ever.

 

[BrotherDave]

There is no point at which someone is 'mathematically out of contention' at the start of any round, ever.

I'm sure Steve West has a chart somewhere that says otherwise. He's good like that.

 

[tampora]

I'm sure Steve West has a chart somewhere that says otherwise. He's good like that.

I suspect you meant to say "realistically out of contention" instead. Everyone except the last-place person could always throw 100-over-par for their final round of the tournament, mathematically speaking.

In which case, I revert back to...

That decision of 'who is too distant from top money to have a chance' would be far too arbitrary.

 

[JoakimBL]

I think the first order of business is to require that all players of a group is present at the lie of the away player before a throw can be made. As it is, and I am guilty of this as well, most players are more concerned with getting to their own disc and figuring out their next shot, than keeping an eye on the away player.

 

[JC17393]

We're talking about a way to remedy the lack of rules enforcement. You've suggested using courtesy violations as a method. Hence the size of the enforcement group is increased in order to solve the lack of enforcement problem. I think we're in agreement on that.

Except my remedy already exists. It changes nothing about the current rules or how they are intended to be used. Just because no one is using the courtesy rules in this manner now doesn't mean that encouraging their use somehow increased the number of people who can utilize them.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting the use of courtesy violations to slap every single player who misses a violation that could have been called/seconded. I'm not talking about handing out warnings and penalties because one player saw a violation and another player, while looking at the same thing, didn't see it as a violation. That would be ridiculous.

Cases where everyone is watching the thrower and no one wants to "be that guy" on a clear violation are the biggest problem that needs to be solved. The Nikko/Ricky thing this weekend is a good example. That wasn't a ticky-tack violation where Rick was an inch off his mark. He missed it by a wide margin. Should have been clear to anyone watching. The other players had no excuse not to see it...middle of the fairway, all of the group was present and close by, no obstructions like long grass or bushes or whatever, the throw wasn't rushed. Saying "I didn't see it" or "I didn't notice it" shouldn't fly in that spot, whereas saying "I think he was legal" or "it was too close to call" as a reason to not second the call would.

Different story if Ricky was off in the scrub where it isn't practical for the whole group to get in close enough to see his mark and his supporting points. No reason to hand out courtesy violations to players who aren't in position to make a call there. Such cases should be able to rely on the honor of the thrower to be in compliance.

 

[DG_player]

I think the only realistic way to solve this is assigning a volunteer, official or cut player to every card mathematically in contention just to officiate. Not gonna happen at tourneys smaller than NTs but no one really cares about the integrity of those in general anyway. If the bigger tourneys have the logistics possible to have multiple spotters than why not snag a guy off from flag holding duty and have him follow lead and chase cards to keep things honest?

This is the obvious solution. Every other "self-officiated" sport uses rules officials at the highest level. Surely there are enough qualified individuals at the big tournaments to provide a rules official for the top cards.

Furthermore, if a rules official suspects there was a violation, there's absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be able to use additional evidence, namely video, to confirm if there was in fact a violation or not. Why not get a call right if you have the information to do so?

 

[Turnipseed]

Since this is the thread for goofy acronyms, let me propose NAP.

Even if you're not bright enough to realize that controversy and rule-breaking cannot be legislated into non-existence, you ought to realize that barely anyone really wants to solve these problems anyway. Without awful tragedies such as the occassional "pro" foot-fault, this here congregation of bubble-blowers would drain off into various other reservoirs of virtual idiocy.

 

[teemkey]

Except my remedy already exists. It changes nothing about the current rules or how they are intended to be used. Just because no one is using the courtesy rules in this manner now doesn't mean that encouraging their use somehow increased the number of people who can utilize them.
...

Granted that rules exist, the problem is that players aren't enforcing them. Maybe it's more accurate to say players enforce them selectively according to their idiosyncratic definition of when enforcement is appropriate. Thanks to video, we've all seen violations called and not called at the highest level of competition, and that's not good for a sport trying to garner respect & popularity from the general public (and advertisers).

The problem IMO is that no one can explain the non-calls in a consistent, reasonable manner.

I'm flabbergasted that neither Nybo or McCray asked Wysocki where his foot was when he threw. Locastro was pointing to the spot, but neither player even walked over to look. They simply decided not to second Locastro's call. Something's rotten in Denmark (and Florida).

I recall an incident where McBeth called Lizotte for a foot fault when teeing off. Feldberg agreed, and although it was just a warning, the three of them looked at a scuff mark in front of the tee box and talked before Lizotte rethrew.

Is the new rule requiring a penalty the difference in player behavior between these incidents, or is it the players involved. Given the non-call at 2017 Worlds, when the rule was still a warning, I'd say it's likely the players.

If it is the players, then I don't think calling courtesy violations is the answer. For one, the first call is a warning -- it only applies to the current round; so one non-call per round doesn't have any actual impact on the players' score.

For two, a second violation carries a one throw penalty, and must be seconded -- if three of the players are not calling violations, who will second the call? You suggested other players in the division might, but how realistic is it that other groups playing their round would see the violation? Maybe at a backed up tee, but super unlikely on fairway throws.

I think the probability of two non-calls in a single round is vanishingly small, and so focusing on courtesy calls as a remedy will be ineffective.

 

[DiscHurler]

As often as you see entire cards at the highest level of play not even pretending to watch each other's shots, I'd say it's pretty obvious the PDGA doesn't care either.

 

[sidewinder22]

The problem IMO is that no one can explain the non-calls in a consistent, reasonable manner.

I'm flabbergasted that neither Nybo or McCray asked Wysocki where his foot was when he threw. Locastro was pointing to the spot, but neither player even walked over to look. They simply decided not to second Locastro's call. Something's rotten in Denmark (and Florida).

Johne and his wife appeared to be looking at something down the fairway, maybe watching action on the next hole in front of them or something else distracting on this wide open course. KJ was over on the bench probably watching the same thing and they aren't exactly close to Rick. Rick might have been in their peripheral, but it wasn't obvious enough to them to second the call. Like Johne said if he saw it he would have called it, and KJ said he didn't see it either. Awfully hard to call something without actually seeing it happen live.