PDGA NT: 2019 Dynamic Discs Glass Blown Open 24-Apr to 27-Apr-2019

[Steve West]

This Ultiworld article about holes #8 and #17 determining the winner got me to wondering how much impact each hole had on the entire set of finalists. So, I calculated how much each player's final place would have changed if each hole had been eliminated.

For example, Reid Frescura used just 16 throws to finish all four rounds of hole #8. That helped him finish in 34.5th place (two-way tie for 34th). If hole #8 had been deleted, he would have finished in 52.5th place, a change of 18 places, because everyone else would have had more throws taken out of their totals.

On the other hand, Paul would have won even if any one of holes 1, 2, 3, 6, or 13 had not been used.

The chart below shows the average amount by which the place of all players would change if the scores from each hole were dropped.

 

[SD86]

Should outside the circle, diving from the knees, falling on the hands putts be outlawed too?

Probably.

Look, I don't want to get into minutiae and looking for every little possible way to game the system. I just think step-putting should be outlawed, and partially because of what's being discussed in this thread: (potential) abuse of the rules, and reluctance to call violations.

 

[SD86]

Now that I've finished watching the Jomez coverage of FPO Round 4, the thing that most stood out to me was the professionalism of Paige's commentary, even as she discusses a close tournament she lost - and one that was fraught with conflict with the eventual winner.

This stands in some contrast to Catrina's commentary on the Nick Hyde Memorial final 9 video, where Paige roared back to take the win. Compare Paige's honest and objective praise for Catrina's performance to Catrina's muted and somewhat dismissive comments on Paige's performance down the stretch at the NHM.

Some of this is down to commentary style - Paige is more effusive and comfortable/capable behind the mic, but I can't help but ascribe some of the difference to an ability to rise above the emotional and provide objective analysis. Big props to Paige on that point.

I'll definitely give Paige props, but I don't really agree with your assessment of Catrina's commentary.

 

[SD86]

I figured it out. Instead of the 20cm wide and 30cm deep rectangle, make it 20cm wide and 60cm deep. The extra 30 cm is the wiggle room we need for long holes that require a run-up on the approach throw(s).

I wouldn't mind a throw from behind the marker 60cm or more, as long as it's straight back and not at any sideways angles. But the rule as it is, is fine.

 

[denny ritner]

If in fact every player and group were covered for potential real-time infractions, then maybe it makes sense. But under the current scenario, having essentially random video coverage of different players for only some throws on some holes, on some rounds . . .

Well said.

I was co-TD of a major a few years back. I was close to a former world champ who lined up a 200 ft. patent-pending shot from within an evergreen. The player's right foot was behind the mini and he was throwing a hyzer shot. Nobody else was close enough to see the footwork. When he threw it appeared to me that his right foot came off the ground prior to the release of the disc. I was probably 60% sure of what I had seen. In the instant I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the player. I gave significant weight to the fact that I had not been giving similar oversight of the other players' footwork. Unfortunately, upon watching video later, it became clear that it had been a foot fault. In retrospect, I do believe I made the right decision at the time. Since then, however, I've steered away from witnessing player's footwork while officiating. Unless we've got at least one official with all players in the top 1/3 of the field, it's not fair to put certain players under additional scrutiny.

Side note: in the same tournament the golf course cart paths were inbounds and beyond OB on most of the holes. I watched as another former world champ was about to take his 1 meter relief from the inside of the cartpath, which would have been an incorrect lie. I reminded the player to take his relief from the outside of the cartpath. I've wondered if I shouldn't have given that player preferential treatment by assisting him in not incurring a penalty. As a player, I always have a fellow competitor check my new lie on any OB or relief situaton.

 

[paulw]

Well said.

I was co-TD of a major a few years back. I was close to a former world champ who lined up a 200 ft. patent-pending shot from within an evergreen. The player's right foot was behind the mini and he was throwing a hyzer shot. Nobody else was close enough to see the footwork. When he threw it appeared to me that his right foot came off the ground prior to the release of the disc. I was probably 60% sure of what I had seen. In the instant I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the player. I gave significant weight to the fact that I had not been giving similar oversight of the other players' footwork. Unfortunately, upon watching video later, it became clear that it had been a foot fault. In retrospect, I do believe I made the right decision at the time. Since then, however, I've steered away from witnessing player's footwork while officiating. Unless we've got at least one official with all players in the top 1/3 of the field, it's not fair to put certain players under additional scrutiny.

Side note: in the same tournament the golf course cart paths were inbounds and beyond OB on most of the holes. I watched as another former world champ was about to take his 1 meter relief from the inside of the cartpath, which would have been an incorrect lie. I reminded the player to take his relief from the outside of the cartpath. I've wondered if I shouldn't have given that player preferential treatment by assisting him in not incurring a penalty. As a player, I always have a fellow competitor check my new lie on any OB or relief situaton.

This -- and then take it to the next level down and different groups are going to play the same scenario in different ways. One group may have a dominant personality that follows the rules to the letter while the next may have just the opposite. One out-of-bounds mark may be hundreds of feet different from the next, etc. "I think it came in up by the basket", versus "it's way back here", etc. Just humans being human but there's really no way around the variance and if you're playing a tournament you just have to find your happy place given our system. As you're calling a competitor for that foot fault would the other group? You can't know. Your disc is leaning against the mirky edge of the water and your group calls it out -- would three(4) different players see it the same? You can't know.

 

[DiscJunkie]

One man's opinion:
As DG gains viewership on YT or DGPT or Roku or whatever, it will inevitably help grow DG.
As DG grows, viewership will increase. No great revelation here.

As viewer ship increases, we have a great opportunity to educate and raise the level of compliance by having Marshals follow any card that is being filmed or likely to be filmed. Allow the Marshals to call any violation that they see, independently and without appeal.
Is this unfair to the filmed cards? Absolutely. But it is the price of popularity.
We are having rules violations not called due to ignorance, politeness or apathy - and it is all being viewed by the adoring public. Thereby propagating the same behavior in the rising, growing, learnng DG crowd.
Let's get Marshals out there, walking with the filmed groups, making calls, and the Commentators can use that as an opportunity to educate the viewership and enrich our sport's integrity for the future.
There is no perfect solution and this isn't one either.
But given all the pressures and opportunities for this growing sport, I believe it is the best option.
At any rate, I am open to better options.

 

[slowplastic]

I realize the arguments on video not being available for all cards. But I don't care if someone shooting for 16th place doesn't have video available so can't be held to the same standards. The top 4 or top 8 players are playing for way more money in that situation and the tournament title. Not saying I want video review all the time, it's a real PITA in other pro sports and leads to nit-picky side consequences that were never intended initially.

 

[SD86]

I realize the arguments on video not being available for all cards. But I don't care if someone shooting for 16th place doesn't have video available so can't be held to the same standards. The top 4 or top 8 players are playing for way more money in that situation and the tournament title. Not saying I want video review all the time, it's a real PITA in other pro sports and leads to nit-picky side consequences that were never intended initially.

This.

While I understand the argument that it's 'not fair' if not every group has a video camera recording them, or a Marshal assigned to each group, I also agree with the notion that Paul McBeth and Ricky Wysocki's (and Paige and Cat's) card(s)in the later rounds is going for far more money and NEEDS some kind of supervision... definitely more than Lloyd Weema's card, etc.

I'd like to have one or even two Marshals with every group out there. But failing that, I'd like one assigned to as many of the top cards as possible. Unfair? Maybe in that not all groups have the same level of scrutiny. But definitely more equitable in where the money is going to go.

I actually think a better, and possibly the most fair, solution would be a couple of HOLE Marshals that can walk with a group through that hole, or be around that hole watching the groups. Obviously more marshals will be needed for the longer holes that may have multiple groups on them. And you don't have one marshal in a group that, say, hates Cat or Paige, or favors one player over another, at least not or more than one hole.

Those are just ideas, but I do think something needs to be done. The Wysocki/McCray/Nikko incident last year still irritates me to this day. I don't think the problem is going away, and may one day get worse, if some new thinking is not applied to the old rules.

 

[teemkey]

The players apparently don't want to enforce the rules the way the PDGA has written them. So the PDGA needs to decide whether to take measures to encourage the player enforcement, or just let them play.

I don't think the PDGA should intervene to the extent of disqualifying players, or post-hoc penalties that alter the results of a tournament. However, videos showing players ignoring or misinterpreting rules is not good for the PDGA's public image as the governing body of disc golf.

One thing they could do with video is refer filmed rule violations to the Disciplinary Committee. The DC might require players to recertify, if the players are ignoring violations (essentially, saying "You must be unaware of this rule"). This would be basically a "nag" solution, a slap on the wrist, but would (probably) be inconvenient enough that players would likely try to avoid it.

 

[dehaas]

So for everybody saying it's ok to just have course marshals following the top 2 cards because they're playing for money that matters I pose this question:

What about the players scrapping to cash, the players who are playing in hopes that they can keep on the road to make the next event? A couple strokes in either direction could make or break a season.

I understand the argument, if the best of the best are competing things need to be ruled correctly. But to pick and choose who is scrutinized and who isn't is a hard line to draw. All or none seems like the only fair way to do it, and when you're relying on volunteer labor to make it happen I hope you're not holding your breath.

 

[Nova P]

Everyone who's clamoring for tournament marshals to follow around one or more cards is being extremely optimistic about how easy it is to train and maintain a number of competent, impartial, and professional referees.

Just passing the laughably-easy open-book exam on the website is not going to cut it. Marshals on high-profile cards would need to be utterly professional, level-headed, dedicated to the task, impartial, and have an encyclopedic knowledge of not just the rules, but also the exceptions, and skills like conflict management, de-escalation, diplomacy, awareness of what particular details are most important in any given situation.

Organizations like the USTA (tennis) put a lot of time into training umpires, and yet a regional am tournament with a dozen courts (matches) going at the same time might have just one official, pacing from court to court, briefly observing each one and ensuring nothing too terrible is happening, and being ready to go to a particular court if requested by a player to make a ruling or to keep an eye on a suspicious opponent. The lowest-level pro tourneys with $25k added cash would have a few officials, and even those might have only one or two assigned to individual courts, and a couple of floaters keeping an eye on multiple side courts.

It would be a staffing nightmare for the PDGA or local tournament officials.

 

[Jolt]

This have to be a "all or nothing" thing. . but to have trained marshals on +25 cards is impossible today

But then again having a friend or fierce rival beeing yor "judge" is hard. . . i have never called a fault on somebody, but i see faults every week. . . i dont want to be "that guy" that call faults on my friends and rivals that i play with every week

 

[Flick Maniac]

The players apparently don't want to enforce the rules the way the PDGA has written them. So the PDGA needs to decide whether to take measures to encourage the player enforcement, or just let them play.

I don't think the PDGA should intervene to the extent of disqualifying players, or post-hoc penalties that alter the results of a tournament. However, videos showing players ignoring or misinterpreting rules is not good for the PDGA's public image as the governing body of disc golf.

One thing they could do with video is refer filmed rule violations to the Disciplinary Committee. The DC might require players to recertify, if the players are ignoring violations (essentially, saying "You must be unaware of this rule"). This would be basically a "nag" solution, a slap on the wrist, but would (probably) be inconvenient enough that players would likely try to avoid it.

Thats actually a great idea.

 

[Steve West]

This have to be a "all or nothing" thing. . but to have trained marshals on +25 cards is impossible today

But then again having a friend or fierce rival beeing yor "judge" is hard. . . i have never called a fault on somebody, but i see faults every week. . . i dont want to be "that guy" that call faults on my friends and rivals that i play with every week

I don't want to be the guy that lets my friends foot fault week after week. Setting them up for a bad tournament experience when they move up to more serious competition.

You can't throw straight if you don't know where your foot is landing. Call them so they can practice hitting their mark and be more accurate.

They won't make foot faults week after week if they get feedback. In sanctioned events, I call every foot fault I'm sure of, and can't recall ever calling a second one on the same person.

If you don't make calls in a sanctioned event, you're not only cheating the other cards, you're not being a complete player. We are the officials AND throwers. Both are required to participate.

Seems pretty lazy and selfish to shirk your duties because "i dont want to".

Unless it's an unsanctioned event where everyone agrees not to call them. Then it's OK. Always play by the rules everyone has agreed to.

 

[DanJon]

What happens when a marshal doesn't like McBeth and is a big Ricky fan?

 

[brutalbrutus]

Ricky has fans?...

 

[Cgkdisc]

An interesting format tweak might help with the marshal fairness concern. In a 4-round event, after 3 rounds the FPO and MPO fields are split, and optionally cut. The top 12 MPO play the 4th round only among themselves. Current 13th on down either to a cut line or all the way down play the 4th round for 13th place money on down. The 3 top MPO cards are filmed and have at least one marshal following each group actively making calls or seconding, not just observing.

Same thing with FPO. Top 4 determined after 3rd round. They are on video and a marshal is making calls in R4. The rest or remaining groups in the cut are playing R4 for 5th place on down. Could also be top 8 if additional video team and marshal available.

Same procedure could be used for the Split/Cut after 2 rounds in a 3-round event. This would simply be a starting point as we move into the future. More cards would be added to the top split as resources became available.

 

[lyleoross]

What happens when a marshal doesn't like McBeth and is a big Ricky fan?

Ah yes, remember the good old days when those in positions of responsibility felt they needed to be neutral and impartial and we're able to do that?

 

[SD86]

What happens when a marshal doesn't like McBeth and is a big Ricky fan?

As a chess player and tournament director for over a quarter of a century, I would say that anyone who takes the time to learn the rulebook and become certified and then be out at a tournament is likely going to be 'fair and balanced' in making calls, even if he/she hates one player or loves another. I know there were people I did and didn't like in the chess world, but no one ever accused me of being unfair in a ruling, as I made the rulings based on the board and the rules, not on the people playing.

There is also an appeals process in chess tournaments. If a player doesn't like a TD's ruling, he or she can appeal to the lead TD, then chief TD, then to the USCF. I've seen that happen before (and I once made extra money as a player when another player appealed the Organizer's prize payouts, but I digress).

IIRC, there was a tournament a few years ago where Paul McBeth's disc was on an island of grass but surrounded by water. It was not clear in the markings of that hole nor in the caddy book whether that was OB or not. The video showed the players going to the TD (organizer) and asking, and he said he'd go out there and look. McBeth threw a provisional for that hole, as well.

So in the event of a problem like an egregiously biased ruling, which I don't really expect to happen, there could be an appeals process.