Is Douglas Adam's SEP a PDGA problem?

[teemkey]

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.

As I asked above, why not walk over and ask Wysocki to show them where his foot was? IIRC Wysocki did not move for a while after he threw and Locastro called him. If Wysocki truthfully replaced his foot, then either Nybo or McCray could have said "WTF Richard, of course that's a foot fault." Worth it just for that.

 

[JC17393]

Here's the question...do they absolutely have to have seen it live to second the call? Could they not look at what Nikko is pointing out, see that Rick hasn't moved after his throw so the "evidence" remains, and deduce that Nikko is correct and back up his call despite not seeing it "live" during the throw? And wouldn't "they" in this case include Rick himself (who obviously wasn't looking at his feet during the throw but can see where he's standing after)?

I'm not saying that the current rules undoubtedly support this but I think there's a reasonable interpretation that they do. 801.02.B says "Players are expected to call a violation when one has clearly occurred." Nothing specific about seeing it live, so I'd say that if evidence can be provided such that it becomes clear that there was a violation, a second can and should be made.

Even if one wants to say the rules currently demand having seen the violation "live", modifying the rule to allow for such a discussion/debate would be a step in the right direction in terms of enforcement. The incident teemkey cites about Simon and a foot fault (in Australia I believe) is a fair example of how that could work. One player making the initial call and then the other players observing the remaining evidence of a footprint scuffed in the dirt could second the call whether they saw the foul in real time or not. (recognizing that at the time, a second was not required for that call)

I just find it a convenient excuse that having not seen it as JohnE and KJ claim allows them to walk away from the incident scot-free. Fine, you didn't see it happen but at least take a look at the remaining evidence and then decide whether a call is warranted.

 

[sidewinder22]

A call must be made promptly to be enforceable.

Promptly
adverb
1. with little or no delay; immediately.

2. at exactly a specified time; punctually.

 

[teemkey]

A call must be made promptly to be enforceable.

Promptly
adverb
1. with little or no delay; immediately.

2. at exactly a specified time; punctually.

Locastro did call the violation promptly. The rules are silent regarding the speed of seconding the call.

 

[JC17393]

A call must be made promptly to be enforceable.

Promptly
adverb
1. with little or no delay; immediately.

2. at exactly a specified time; punctually.

Okay, so using the Memorial example...Nikko made the initial call immediately. Wouldn't the group huddling up at Ricky's lie, observing his foot positions, and coming to the conclusion that there was a foul and agreeing to second it qualify as "prompt"? The discussion as it happened took about a minute before Ricky walked away and everyone moved on down the fairway. No reason a true discussion and examination of any evidence couldn't have been done in that amount of time if not less. I'd call that having been done "with little or no delay" and "immediately". Absent a specific time period being allotted by rule, punctuality is irrelevant.

I'll also point out that the rule, once upon a time, was that a stance violation had to be called within three seconds of the violation. There was no such time restraint applied to when the second had to come, though it was generally understood that it would be immediate, not 20 minutes later or something. I don't believe the change from a specific time period to the more vague "promptly" was meant to shorten the amount of time taken to make/second a call. In fact, I believe the intent was just the opposite, to give more than three seconds to make a call before the opportunity to do so expired.

I'm all for the rule being more specific in terms of time allowed for making a call, but while the rule uses the inexact description of "promptly", speed and efficiency of the call is open to interpretation.

 

[sidewinder22]

Locastro did call the violation promptly. The rules are silent regarding the speed of seconding the call.

A seconding of the call is also a call. You can't try to reconstruct or dramatize the event after it happened.

 

[teemkey]

PS: "promptly" is relative. For example, the penalty for a lost disc is not enforced until the group has searched for three minutes.

 

[sidewinder22]

Okay, so using the Memorial example...Nikko made the initial call immediately. Wouldn't the group huddling up at Ricky's lie, observing his foot positions, and coming to the conclusion that there was a foul and agreeing to second it qualify as "prompt"? The discussion as it happened took about a minute before Ricky walked away and everyone moved on down the fairway. No reason a true discussion and examination of any evidence couldn't have been done in that amount of time if not less. I'd call that having been done "with little or no delay" and "immediately". Absent a specific time period being allotted by rule, punctuality is irrelevant.

I'll also point out that the rule, once upon a time, was that a stance violation had to be called within three seconds of the violation. There was no such time restraint applied to when the second had to come, though it was generally understood that it would be immediate, not 20 minutes later or something. I don't believe the change from a specific time period to the more vague "promptly" was meant to shorten the amount of time taken to make/second a call. In fact, I believe the intent was just the opposite, to give more than three seconds to make a call before the opportunity to do so expired.

I'm all for the rule being more specific in terms of time allowed for making a call, but while the rule uses the inexact description of "promptly", speed and efficiency of the call is open to interpretation.

That's your opinion.

 

[sidewinder22]

PS: "promptly" is relative. For example, the penalty for a lost disc is not enforced until the group has searched for three minutes.

I would think promptly would require to have actually seen it happen live. Not sure what a lost disc has to do with anything here.

 

[biscoe]

Mild drift- I was walking with a rec group at the Loriella Challenge and saw a foot fault called, seconded and the player called on it agreed with the call and took it with honor. IMO the culture will change eventually, it is just a slow process. It will probably be slowest to change unfortunately among those who are putting for cheeseburgers. If it came to be that they were putting for filet mignon you would see it change quickly at that level.

 

[philstine]

A call must be made promptly to be enforceable.

A call.

No such requirement stipulated for a second.

 

[philstine]

I would think promptly would require to have actually seen it happen live. Not sure what a lost disc has to do with anything here.

That's your opinion.

 

[sidewinder22]

A call.

No such requirement stipulated for a second.

A call and a second should be bang bang. Basically two calls almost simultaneous. That would be an obvious violation.

 

[sidewinder22]

That's your opinion.

That's why it's prefaced with, I would think.

 

[philstine]

A seconding of the call is also a call. You can't try to reconstruct or dramatize the event after it happened.

No, a second is confirmation of the called violation: it is not itself a call. 801.02.C, D, E. If seconding a call were a call, it would also require a second to be enforceable, but that second would also require a second, which would itself require a second, and so on ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

 

[sidewinder22]

So how do you confirm a call without seeing it?

 

[JC17393]

So how do you confirm a call without seeing it?

How does a jury convict someone of murder without seeing it?

 

[sidewinder22]

How does a jury convict someone of murder without seeing it?

A non-promptly process of deliberation over evidence shown in court of law by two sides. How does a murdered get off on a technicality?

 

[Cgkdisc]

If only there were some way to record a video of what happened to confirm a call...

 

[biscoe]

My guess is that the use of a non-specific term such as "promptly" is to enable the players to get it right in cases like this rather than be constrained by something more specific like the "3 seconds" it used to be. In this case 3 of the 4 of them either chose not to do it or believed themselves incapable of doing it.