PDA

View Full Version : Anybody paying attention to the new rules being submited?


Tarheel
07-17-2012, 05:45 PM
I have been silent for a while on here and about the KCBS and some of the things going on. I had a chance to read the quick notes to the latest board meeting and came across the proposed change to rule #3 about keeping all of your stuff in your own site. I couldn't help but get a little pissed at this full on micro managing of something that is suppose to be fun. The way it was worded was to even make building boxes together a no no. Now it was tabled till the August meeting because of wording. I sent the board an email expressing my displeasure with this proposal and got a response back:

Roy,

As per the minutes, this motion was withdrawn for re-wording at the August meeting. "Building turn-in boxes" refers to putting meat in them and storage is an issue, thus the re-wording.

As a member of "you people" as we were labeled, I fully understand KISS.

Jeff


On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Tarheel Fireplace wrote:
I have been silent for a while but have tried to keep up with what was going on. I got wind of this proposed change to the rules and was very concerned as to where this organization was going. Is the next rule going to state that I as a cook have to stay in the lines too.

Can you please tell me why building a turn in box together with friends is such a concern that you have to get that far down in the weeds and start micro managing every detail of a contest.

I have on nurmours occasions allowed others the use of my air conditioned trailer to do things like trim meat, build boxes, do dishes, or what ever else they might need. It is all part of going to a contest. The joy and fun of being together and sharing. If I have it and you need it, short of a recipe, you can get it. I think you are without a doubt starting down a path of stay away don't touch, don't talk, don't, don't , don't. You don't want someone to warm their pork up to temp and now you don't want us building boxes together.

Come on cant you people understand the KISS theory! Give it a break.

Roy Murray
Tarheel Smokers


I am more than willing to speak out when it comes to trying to keep this fun time fun. If you have an opinion about it let the board know either way you see it. Come on Bunny where are you at? Talk to me!!!

Roy

Plowboy
07-17-2012, 06:08 PM
Here's the motion per the quick notes from the July 11 meeting. "Preparation" needs definition. This would preclude trimming meat at home.

I move that the following CAPITALIZED wording be added to Cooks Rule # 3:
3) Each team will be assigned a cooking space. Pits, cookers, props, trailers, motor homes, vehicles, tents or any other equipment (including generators) shall not exceed the boundaries of the team’s assigned cooking space. ALL STORAGE, PREPARATION, SEASONING AND COOKING OF PRODUCT SHALL BE DONE WITHIN THE ASSIGNED COOKING SPACE AS WELL AS THE BUILDING OF TURN-IN BOXES. Teams shall not share an assigned cooking space or cooking devices. This motion was withdrawn to reword for the August meeting.

Tarheel
07-17-2012, 06:27 PM
Good point, I had not looked at that part as well.

Now in Jeff's defense here too, I have been going back and forth with emails to him since I sent this. I need to listen to the MP to get a sense of what he was trying to do with this as well.

I told him in the last email if there is a problem with cheating then put it out there and let us police ourselves and let those doing it know that someone is watching. Don't throw a blanket over it trying to stop one little thing and then smother all of us.

Diva
07-17-2012, 06:57 PM
I'm hoping I can still get together and parsley up boxes with my friends the morning of a contest. That would just suck the FU out of FUN.

DawgPhan
07-17-2012, 07:19 PM
I'm hoping I can still get together and parsley up boxes with my friends the morning of a contest. That would just suck the FU out of FUN.


Or doing them at home or the motel...

clayking
07-17-2012, 07:30 PM
Stupid insane rules is why I don't compete in anything anymore, be it archery, fishing, skeet, or cooking contests. Yea, I took up these hobbies or sports for fun, not to confine myself to rule after rule. If one wishes to compete in them, have at it, but I'm out. Life's too short and my blood pressure is just fine where it is......................ck

Hot Wachulas
07-17-2012, 07:34 PM
Here's the motion per the quick notes from the July 11 meeting. "Preparation" needs definition. This would preclude trimming meat at home.

I move that the following CAPITALIZED wording be added to Cooks Rule # 3:
3) Each team will be assigned a cooking space. Pits, cookers, props, trailers, motor homes, vehicles, tents or any other equipment (including generators) shall not exceed the boundaries of the teamís assigned cooking space. ALL STORAGE, PREPARATION, SEASONING AND COOKING OF PRODUCT SHALL BE DONE WITHIN THE ASSIGNED COOKING SPACE AS WELL AS THE BUILDING OF TURN-IN BOXES. Teams shall not share an assigned cooking space or cooking devices. This motion was withdrawn to reword for the August meeting.

Sounds like this could also be used to get rid of prepping/trimming meats ahead of time.

drbbq
07-17-2012, 07:51 PM
I need to listen to the MP to get a sense of what he was trying to do with this as well.

Not aimed at Jeff, but why can't there be a way to get this info without listening to a 3 hour tape. It would be much easier if board members could just speak to us like grownups.

Pappy Q
07-17-2012, 07:53 PM
IMHO, I don't see it as micro managing but rather as a clarification for consistency.

little bit of r & r
07-17-2012, 07:54 PM
This is where I am different. I think as far as the competition stuff it needs to stay in your cook site which includes box building it takes me about 45 min to make all my boxes can you seriously not take a 45 min break from drinking? All meat prep needs to be done at contest also.

Alexa RnQ
07-17-2012, 08:19 PM
The rules committee is saddled with the thankless job of trying to come up with clarified rules because there are teams out there who think that they are somehow more special than the clearly evident intention of the rules. We saw two "separate" teams co-mingling meats in a cambro, who complained bitterly when the rep brought that to their attention because no rule explicitly forbade sharing a holding device.

Come onnnnn. Dishwashing and garnish is one thing, but people need to keep their meat to themselves at a contest. ;)

Tarheel
07-17-2012, 08:42 PM
Ok, for those of you who think that you need to keep the meat or what ever to yourself. Please tell me what advantage is gained by two teams sharing a cambro when it comes to the meat being judged by six individuals. I would almost bet my paycheck that the same meat could be turned in by two seperate teams and get totally diffrent scores. Same meat cut or pulled from the same butt or brisket or rib. I have seen it done with sauce. Same sauce out of the same bottle and two totally diffrent scores. Where is the advantage gained by helping your friend and sharing the cost of some pertty expensive equipment like a cambro.

Think about what you are saying here, I can see that lines need to be drawn but they have been in saying you have to have your own meat and your own cooker.

Plowboy
07-17-2012, 08:46 PM
Sounds like this could also be used to get rid of prepping/trimming meats ahead of time.

LOL. I think I said that in the quote you quoted. :becky:

Plowboy
07-17-2012, 08:47 PM
The rules committee is saddled with the thankless job of trying to come up with clarified rules because there are teams out there who think that they are somehow more special than the clearly evident intention of the rules. We saw two "separate" teams co-mingling meats in a cambro, who complained bitterly when the rep brought that to their attention because no rule explicitly forbade sharing a holding device.

Come onnnnn. Dishwashing and garnish is one thing, but people need to keep their meat to themselves at a contest. ;)

Are you part of the rules committee?

dmprantz
07-17-2012, 09:03 PM
there are teams out there who think that they are somehow more special than the clearly evident intention of the rules. We saw two "separate" teams co-mingling meats in a cambro, who complained bitterly when the rep brought that to their attention because no rule explicitly forbade sharing a holding device.

It's pretty clear to me. Rule 3 defines what has to stay in a cooksite. Rule 7 says where meat can't go once it's been inspected. I think the wrong rule is being changed and too many people have their panties in a bunch....

dmp

Plowboy
07-17-2012, 09:34 PM
This is where I am different. I think as far as the competition stuff it needs to stay in your cook site which includes box building it takes me about 45 min to make all my boxes can you seriously not take a 45 min break from drinking? All meat prep needs to be done at contest also.


Why should the meat be prepped (trimming specifically) at the contest and the box building be done in your site? How does the current situation create an unfair advantage?

djqualls
07-17-2012, 10:17 PM
This is where I am different. I think as far as the competition stuff it needs to stay in your cook site which includes box building it takes me about 45 min to make all my boxes can you seriously not take a 45 min break from drinking? All meat prep needs to be done at contest also.

You must not compete much do you?

mjl
07-17-2012, 10:28 PM
It's pretty clear to me. Rule 3 defines what has to stay in a cooksite. Rule 7 says where meat can't go once it's been inspected. I think the wrong rule is being changed and too many people have their panties in a bunch....

dmp

Is rule #7 at the judges discretion? If the meat leaves the site after inspection is it a mandatory DQ?

LoneStar Smoke Rangers
07-17-2012, 11:59 PM
Why should the meat be prepped (trimming specifically) at the contest and the box building be done in your site? How does the current situation create an unfair advantage?

Todd, This whole thing makes me feel like I am living in California. California just banned restaurants from serving foie gras. Does this mean I can't use duck fat on my ribs any more?!?! Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:becky::becky:

One of the best memories I have was building boxes with Cameron of BamBam BBQ and Mike Davis of Lotta Bull in Vegas......Hilarious!!!!!! Half the fun of these contests are just hanging out with friends.

Alexa RnQ
07-18-2012, 12:08 AM
Are you part of the rules committee?
No. I'd pretty much feel like this:

http://dailyangst.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/birthmark.jpg?w=640

LoneStar Smoke Rangers
07-18-2012, 12:18 AM
This is where I am different. I think as far as the competition stuff it needs to stay in your cook site which includes box building it takes me about 45 min to make all my boxes can you seriously not take a 45 min break from drinking? All meat prep needs to be done at contest also.

I think I hear the theme music from The Hunt for Red October playing in the background.......

This just in Comrades!!! There will no longer be any prize money at KCBS Competitions. These are the People's competitions and are for the good of the People. There now will also be five catagories in all KCBS competitions, Chicken, Pork Ribs, Pork Shoulder, Beef Brisket, and Beef Stroganoff.:wink::twisted::eusa_clap

butt head
07-18-2012, 06:34 AM
Just my opinion but they need to inforce the rules they have before the can change them. In wildwood their are some teams that have all of their cooking eguipment outside the 20+20 so they can fit their party and this has been going on for years

dmprantz
07-18-2012, 07:37 AM
Is rule #7 at the judges discretion? If the meat leaves the site after inspection is it a mandatory DQ?

I would say that it's at the rep's discretion only in as much as Rule 1 puts all rules at the rep's discretion. That said, rule 7 clearly states meat not meating the requirements of that rule will get a DQ with a score of 1. I think that should always happen. If the intent of this rule change is to ensure that your meat doesn't leave your cooksite until turn-ins, I would respectfully suggest that you leave rule 3 alone. In rule 7, I would change the second sentence to read as follows:

"Once competition meat has been inspected, it shall not leave the team's cooking space until it is in an approved KCBS numbered container and ready to be turned in, or with approval by a contest rep."

dmp

Tarheel
07-18-2012, 07:48 AM
I would say that it's at the rep's discretion only in as much as Rule 1 puts all rules at the rep's discretion. That said, rule 7 clearly states meat not meating the requirements of that rule will get a DQ with a score of 1. I think that should always happen. If the intent of this rule change is to ensure that your meat doesn't leave your cooksite until turn-ins, I would respectfully suggest that you leave rule 3 alone. In rule 7, I would change the second sentence to read as follows:

"Once competition meat has been inspected, it shall not leave the team's cooking space until it is in an approved KCBS numbered container and ready to be turned in, or with approval by a contest rep."

dmp

My question again: where is the clear advantage gained by someone taking there meat and putting it in there neighbors cambro to keep it warm or cooler to keep it cold in an effort to cut cost. Other than the cost savings they will realize. It is already stated that you have to have your own cooker and meat and that the meat can not leave the contest. If someone wanted to cheat you can do it very easily and not get caught. Quit worrring about the trivial things and just have fun.

Slamdunkpro
07-18-2012, 07:49 AM
I That said, rule 7 clearly states meat not meating the requirements of that rule will get a DQ with a score of 1.
Intentional or not this was funny!

Slamdunkpro
07-18-2012, 07:53 AM
I have on nurmours occasions allowed others the use of my air conditioned trailer to do things like trim meat, build boxes, do dishes, or what ever else they might need.
Not trying to pick on Roy but doesn't this practice violate rule #7 as it currently exists?

dmprantz
07-18-2012, 07:55 AM
My question again: where is the clear advantage...

Sorry, I neither agree nor disagree with the rule change as I stated it. My only intent was to suggest a change that may have had the desired result of the rules committee without as many side-effects. Personally, I can't think of an advantage that I could get from storing my meat in another team's cooler or Cambro. There could be an advantage to taking meat to another team's site for trimming, seasoning, injecting, resting, etc if the other team has air conditioning. Personally, I don't think I would ever ask to share cooler nor Cambro space with another team, nor would I allow others to share mine. It just opens the door to potential mix-ups and "feels" wrong, but it isn't against the rules. I have no dog in this fight.

dmp

dmprantz
07-18-2012, 07:59 AM
Intentional or not this was funny!

Not, but thanks :)

Not trying to pick on Roy but doesn't this practice violate rule #7 as it currently exists?

As I'm reading rule 7 today, that is not illegal. Which part would think that this violates?

dmp

Capn Kev
07-18-2012, 08:10 AM
My question again: where is the clear advantage gained by someone taking there meat and putting it in there neighbors cambro to keep it warm or cooler to keep it cold in an effort to cut cost. Other than the cost savings they will realize. It is already stated that you have to have your own cooker and meat and that the meat can not leave the contest. If someone wanted to cheat you can do it very easily and not get caught. Quit worrring about the trivial things and just have fun.

I'm not sure this is a trivial thing. Granted, 99% of us probably have the right intentions when doing so. However, why put yourself in a position where people could possibly conceive you were cheating? In addition, how expensive is a cooler and a towel? You can keep your meat double-foiled and wrapped in a towel inside of a cooler and get the same effect that a Cambro provides.

I don't ever like putting myself in a position where someone could accuse me of cheating, even though I know in my heart that it would never happen. So, in regards to meat co-mingling in the same trailer, fridge, cooler, cambro... I just don't agree with it.

Just my $.02

Slamdunkpro
07-18-2012, 08:32 AM
As I'm reading rule 7 today, that is not illegal. Which part would think that this violates?

dmp

I guess it depends what the definition of "contest site" is. That term is only used once, in rule#7. All other references are to "cook space". Are they interchangeable or do they have different meanings? Based on the almighty rep rule I suppose it could go either way.




down down down the rabbit hole we go...........

dmprantz
07-18-2012, 08:39 AM
I guess it depends what the definition of "contest site" is. That term is only used once, in rule#7. All other references are to "cook space". Are they interchangeable or do they have different meanings?

This is just my personal opinion, but I believe that those who make rules pick words that mean something when they use them, and if in this case they chose "contest site" instead of "cook site," then there was a reason for it. Perhaps they wanted teams to be able to prep and store at other sites, or perhaps they felt that restricting the meat to the cook site would make turn ins kinda difficult. Regardless, I believe that the use of contest site means the entire contest.

If the current BOD feel that meat should be restricted to just the cook site, I have no issue with that, but I think the rules should be changed or clarified to state that, hence my suggestion above. Again, it doesn't really matter to me.

dmp

Nordy
07-18-2012, 08:49 AM
Rule 7 says to me... I can't bring my meat to inspection, then leave and trim/prep/season it at home or a hotel and then return it to the contest site to cook.

Makes sense to me...

dhuffjr
07-18-2012, 09:37 AM
The rules committee is saddled with the thankless job of trying to come up with clarified rules because there are teams out there who think that they are somehow more special than the clearly evident intention of the rules. We saw two "separate" teams co-mingling meats in a cambro, who complained bitterly when the rep brought that to their attention because no rule explicitly forbade sharing a holding device.

Come onnnnn. Dishwashing and garnish is one thing, but people need to keep their meat to themselves at a contest. ;)

..... and this boys and girls is why this is now an issue. If you've got the money for gas, meat, entry fee, etc then you can spare a few bucks for a cooler to hold your meat. As much as people complain about micromanagement when you have teams doing something that is against the intent of the rules and arguing that it is not forbidden based on precise wording then you'll get precise wording coming down the pipe.

I'm with the Diva on the turn in boxes if folks want to gather and do them together.

Dishwashing I'm on the fence on. There is a rule that each site must have the tubs for washing. Seems to me there is an intent there. May that ones intent is just to mollify the health department.

Jorge
07-18-2012, 09:49 AM
As usual, my opinion is my own etc...

This is just my personal opinion, but I believe that those who make rules pick words that mean something when they use them, and if in this case they chose "contest site" instead of "cook site," then there was a reason for it. Perhaps they wanted teams to be able to prep and store at other sites, or perhaps they felt that restricting the meat to the cook site would make turn ins kinda difficult. Regardless, I believe that the use of contest site means the entire contest.

If the current BOD feel that meat should be restricted to just the cook site, I have no issue with that, but I think the rules should be changed or clarified to state that, hence my suggestion above. Again, it doesn't really matter to me.

dmp

One example for the way that rule is worded is a contest this season where the health department required all meat to be stored in a common refrigerated truck. Meat was kept in individual coolers and access was supervised to prevent any tampering. If "cook site" was used the options would be no contest, Competitor Series contest, or a variance granted by the board.

My question again: where is the clear advantage gained by someone taking there meat and putting it in there neighbors cambro to keep it warm or cooler to keep it cold in an effort to cut cost. Other than the cost savings they will realize. It is already stated that you have to have your own cooker and meat and that the meat can not leave the contest. If someone wanted to cheat you can do it very easily and not get caught. Quit worrring about the trivial things and just have fun.

Lets assume that teams A and B share a cambro. Lets assume that Team A nailed their chicken, ribs, and brisket but tanked pork. Team B has really good pork. Only those cooks know what product was cooked by each team. It creates the opportunity for two teams to work together to gain a competitive advantage.

dmprantz
07-18-2012, 10:05 AM
One example for the way that rule is worded is a contest this season where the health department required all meat to be stored in a common refrigerated truck....

Good to know, and I think it proves my point that the rule is worded as it is for a reason. Thanks. Just a thought though, if it is a desire of the BOD to prohibit meat outside of the cook site, the wording I suggested should allow that and the refrigerated truck. The rep would have to approve the teams taking meat to the refrigerated truck, but I wouldn't see that a as a problem.

dmp

Tarheel
07-18-2012, 12:17 PM
Lets assume that teams A and B share a cambro. Lets assume that Team A nailed their chicken, ribs, and brisket but tanked pork. Team B has really good pork. Only those cooks know what product was cooked by each team. It creates the opportunity for two teams to work together to gain a competitive advantage.


Ok, what would prevent two teams next to each other from doing this anyway? Again, it is up to 6 individuals to give both entries a score, I will still bet that the same meat from the same butt would get two diffrent scores. If you want to cheat there are ways.

For those that talked about the AC, where is the saftey in triming chicken on a 90+ degree day under an ezup. There is still no advantage gained by triming, seasoning, or storing your meat somewhere else if it is cooked on your own cooker.

Rule 7 means it can't leave the contest and go back to the motel or home. That was to prevent teams from going off the contest site with it. Still wouldnt prevent someone from bringing in some more.

Meat inspection is a formality that we go thru, how many of you have two coolers, you can have meat in for for inspection and meat in another already trimmed and seasoned to cook. We are on an honor system as it is, why make a rule that is not going to prevent someone cheating if they want too. While restricting the rest of us honest competitors.

Tarheel
07-18-2012, 12:20 PM
.....
Dishwashing I'm on the fence on. There is a rule that each site must have the tubs for washing. Seems to me there is an intent there. May that ones intent is just to mollify the health department.


There is no rule that says you have to have tubs for washing. That comes from some health departments at some contest, not the KCBS.

dhuffjr
07-18-2012, 12:41 PM
Rule 17d mentions three containers in the work area.

Jorge
07-18-2012, 01:08 PM
Ok, what would prevent two teams next to each other from doing this anyway? Again, it is up to 6 individuals to give both entries a score, I will still bet that the same meat from the same butt would get two diffrent scores. If you want to cheat there are ways.



Nothing prevents them from doing it, if they are determined to do it. The rule just forces them to be more obvious about it and take a greater risk of being caught. I think the rule is reasonable. I don't think the additional cost of a cooler or cambro is too much of a burden for a team to deal with. You clearly disagree.

Tarheel
07-18-2012, 02:16 PM
Rule 17d mentions three containers in the work area.

You are correct, I stand corrected, it does talk about the requirement for those items. Then the reps need to start checking that as well and dq anyone who doesnt have it or require them to go purchase them before they can compete.

My point is lets dont regulate this to death! I already have to deal with Obama Care.

Capn Kev
07-18-2012, 02:57 PM
The only issue I have, which needs clarification before this rule goes to a vote, is whether or not this new proposed rule would prohibit trimming meat in advance. That would really impact a lot of teams, especially those guys like me that often cook solo. I like the fact that I can trim in advance, and then socialize for a little while on Friday when I get there.

I certainly hope that does not change.

U2CANQUE
07-18-2012, 03:26 PM
Ok, what would prevent two teams next to each other from doing this anyway? Again, it is up to 6 individuals to give both entries a score, I will still bet that the same meat from the same butt would get two diffrent scores. If you want to cheat there are ways.

For those that talked about the AC, where is the saftey in triming chicken on a 90+ degree day under an ezup. There is still no advantage gained by triming, seasoning, or storing your meat somewhere else if it is cooked on your own cooker.

Rule 7 means it can't leave the contest and go back to the motel or home. That was to prevent teams from going off the contest site with it. Still wouldnt prevent someone from bringing in some more.

Meat inspection is a formality that we go thru, how many of you have two coolers, you can have meat in for for inspection and meat in another already trimmed and seasoned to cook. We are on an honor system as it is, why make a rule that is not going to prevent someone cheating if they want too. While restricting the rest of us honest competitors.

The point is one that evidently you have not had at a contest....I have and was on the phone immediately....there is too much of a space and opportunity for cheating to occur....or...appear to be occurring so remove that chance...I don't see what part of sharing cambros has on competition fun

mjl
07-18-2012, 03:41 PM
I would say that it's at the rep's discretion only in as much as Rule 1 puts all rules at the rep's discretion. That said, rule 7 clearly states meat not meating the requirements of that rule will get a DQ with a score of 1. I think that should always happen. If the intent of this rule change is to ensure that your meat doesn't leave your cooksite until turn-ins, I would respectfully suggest that you leave rule 3 alone. In rule 7, I would change the second sentence to read as follows:

"Once competition meat has been inspected, it shall not leave the team's cooking space until it is in an approved KCBS numbered container and ready to be turned in, or with approval by a contest rep."

dmp

Pretty much makes sense to me. Partially based on this thread, I went back and read rule #7 again, and again, and again. I may be more confused then when I started. Obviously, taking your meat off site after the Official inspection is a violation of rule #7. I get that. I am little unclear to the penalty regarding the infraction. If meat were deemed to have left the
contest grounds, it seems it would be scored a 1 by the judges. What if a team is found to have broken rule #7 prior to the meat hitting the judges table? Since the meat is clearly disqualified, should the rule breaking team be allowed, at the Rep's discretion, to purchase additional meat, and move forward without consequence?

Smokin' Gnome BBQ
07-18-2012, 03:42 PM
just a little thought, not meaning to side track anything but...why do you HAVE to have a cambro or cooler to hold meat? If there is no requirement to have one of those items then there is no cost associated with them unless you like the conveniance of one. So there would be no need for teams to have to share them, if you "own" one use it, if your neighbor doesnt..so what , its not required. does this make any sense? to me its kinda like sharing a cooker if you dont "own" one you just cant use the teams next to you cooker. kinda the same thing,right?

dmprantz
07-18-2012, 03:55 PM
Since the meat is clearly disqualified, should the rule breaking team be allowed, at the Rep's discretion, to purchase additional meat, and move forward without consequence?

Personally, I feel that when a team breaks a rule and gets caught, they should not get the opportunity to apologize start over, at least not for that competition. I said in a different thread not too long ago that before you compete in a competition, you should learn the rules enough that you can take a test on them, and ask if you have any questions. I also like to remove special exceptions at reps' discretion.

The bigger question to me is why a team is allowed to turn in the meat at all. A DQ score of 1 means that the meat was turned in, as opposed to a 0 which means that the product is never turned in. I would think that if a team is caught breaking this rule before turn ins, he should be probitted from turning in (and likely wouldn't). My guess is that this is (1) a side effect to adding new requirements to an existing rule which dealt with meat that was turned in, and (2), the KCBS loves to use that score of 1 to indicate a DQ...

dmp

Alexa RnQ
07-18-2012, 03:59 PM
The bigger question to me is why a team is allowed to turn in the meat at all. A DQ score of 1 means that the meat was turned in, as opposed to a 0 which means that the product is never turned in.
If the contest is sitting *right* at the number of teams it needs to be a qualifier, not allowing the entry at all would screw ALL the other teams present. Allowing the entry as a DQ preserves the team count necessary, but penalizes the cook who committed the infraction.

Teamfour
07-18-2012, 05:25 PM
As to the wording of rules - I saw many a battle like this in SCCA sports car racing. The mantra there is: unless the rule specifically says you CAN do something, then you CAN'T.

Shadowdog500
07-18-2012, 08:15 PM
?... I would almost bet my paycheck that the same meat could be turned in by two seperate teams and get totally diffrent scores

That would be a neat test to do to tests the judging system!

Chris

Trucky1008
07-18-2012, 08:31 PM
Pretty much makes sense to me. Partially based on this thread, I went back and read rule #7 again, and again, and again. I may be more confused then when I started. Obviously, taking your meat off site after the Official inspection is a violation of rule #7. I get that. I am little unclear to the penalty regarding the infraction. If meat were deemed to have left the
contest grounds, it seems it would be scored a 1 by the judges. What if a team is found to have broken rule #7 prior to the meat hitting the judges table? Since the meat is clearly disqualified, should the rule breaking team be allowed, at the Rep's discretion, to purchase additional meat, and move forward without consequence?

This exact scenario happened at a recent contest where a team removed their meat from the contest site, and later returned with their meat and started cooking. Later on during the cooking process the team was approached and their meat was confiscated by contest reps/organizers. This team was then allowed to purchase new meat, obtain a second meat inspection and resume cooking, finishing in the top 6 teams at a Sam's Contest. There was no penalty for this team, no judge scores of 1 and no disqualification.

Diva
07-18-2012, 11:29 PM
This is where I am different. I think as far as the competition stuff it needs to stay in your cook site which includes box building it takes me about 45 min to make all my boxes can you seriously not take a 45 min break from drinking? All meat prep needs to be done at contest also.

It doesn't have a thing to do with drinking, lol! It has everything to do with shooting the breeze in the calm before turn in time. But, hey, that's just me.

sitnfat
07-19-2012, 09:00 AM
I met Roy about 4 years ago and I like to blame him for this BBQ addiction. In the last 3 years I have been fortunate to meet a lot of great folks who have helped me along the way. That being said I have also met and seen drama queens or kings. And by that I mean the ones that just don't like so an so and if the oppertunity arises they will try to get them DQ'd on a technicality. I know of atleast one attemp this year. I know if I was at a contest and needed pans or to borrow a electric knife or whatever Roy would help if he could and it wouldn't bother him if he saw me get someone else's. But what about those turds that have a grudge ohhh they got a knife out of another teams area. It just seems like it will open up a can of worms to me. Let the honor system work don't be like DC and make rules just because there is nothing else to do.

Scottie
07-19-2012, 10:47 AM
This exact scenario happened at a recent contest where a team removed their meat from the contest site, and later returned with their meat and started cooking. Later on during the cooking process the team was approached and their meat was confiscated by contest reps/organizers. This team was then allowed to purchase new meat, obtain a second meat inspection and resume cooking, finishing in the top 6 teams at a Sam's Contest. There was no penalty for this team, no judge scores of 1 and no disqualification.


This happened at a contest last year and the team was not allowed to use this new meat. So it seems that its up to a reps interpretation.?

Scottie
07-19-2012, 10:48 AM
Would now be a good time to ask about parting of pork?

Sorry....

afreemaniii
07-19-2012, 10:59 AM
This happened at a contest last year and the team was not allowed to use this new meat. So it seems that its up to a reps interpretation.?

Here's a few questions to ponder:



Does it make sense for cooks to spend hundreds of dollars on a contest only to have the playing field determine on a rep's whim?



Does it sit well with others reading this thread that one rep decides to let a competitor buy new meat and compete while another doesn't?



Wouldn't it be better for everyone who enters a contest to know the rules are the same at every contest regardless of who the rep is?

Personally I would like to know that any team would be handled the same at any contest the KCBS sanctions. Leaving the decision up to a rep leaves the door open for people to question motives when one team isn't allowed to use new meat while another one is. I'm all for the rules and reps erring on the side of the cooks, but we need to have a level playing field for all entrants.

MAP
07-19-2012, 11:16 AM
As a new team just going in to our 3rd comp I find it hard to believe that we have had so much discussion on this and the Pork parting thread. I guess as a former Military man and Athlete I have always tried to play by the rules even as new ones come down I just bend and conform to them or suffer the penility. I don't see either of as a rule change but mo as a rule clarification. Just my 2 cents.

Trucky1008
07-19-2012, 11:17 AM
The reps decision on the incident that I referred to had a huge impact on my team since we finished 7th and therefore will not proceed to the regional event. In my opinion it's a clear rules violation and should be handled as such.

Rich Parker
07-19-2012, 11:24 AM
The point is one that evidently you have not had at a contest....I have and was on the phone immediately....there is too much of a space and opportunity for cheating to occur....or...appear to be occurring so remove that chance...I don't see what part of sharing cambros has on competition fun

I have hard enough time not screwing up my own meat in the cambro to share with a neighbor. I think i would go buy them a cooler if it was that important.

Slamdunkpro
07-19-2012, 12:46 PM
If the contest is sitting *right* at the number of teams it needs to be a qualifier, not allowing the entry at all would screw ALL the other teams present. Allowing the entry as a DQ preserves the team count necessary, but penalizes the cook who committed the infraction.
So, the rules are the rules, except when they're inconvenient?

dmprantz
07-19-2012, 01:10 PM
Does any one by chance have the 2006 KCBS rules available? I ask because I like to study the history and growth of things to figure out how things have come to be. It may provide some insight into the evolution and intent of things. Using Google as my friend, I have found copies of KCBS rules going as far back as 2004, though a few of them are not "official" KCBS supplied PDFs. I'm not sure if that makes them unofficial or just that the KCBS did not provide PDFs until 2006/2007.

The 2004-2005 rules had rule 4:

4. Once meat has been inspected, it must not leave the contest site.

Rule 5 discussed mean inspection in general, and rule 11 included causes for disqualification: Violating any of the rules is not listed. 2004 is when the enhanced meat rule was added as part of rule 3, but there was no mention of DQ there.

I have real trouble finding a copy of the 2006 rules, but by 2007, the previous rules 4 and 5, as well as part of rule 3 was combined into the (then) new rule 8, which says that "competition meat not meeting these qualifications shall be disqualified, given a one (1) in all criteria by all six judges."

Finding a copy of the 2006 rules may provide more insight, but it looks to me that based on these changes, the intent was to say one of two things:

1) If you violate the rule regarding taking meat off premise, your score for that category will be a 1, DQ.

2) If you take the meat off premise, return it, and then turn it in, your meat gets DQed, but if your actions are discovered before turn ins, the result is undefined, and up to the discretion of the rep(s).

If (1) is the case, I would think that there may need to be some reinforcement to the reps involved in the Sam's Clun qualifier above, and maybe corrective action. If (2), I find that unfortunate and would appreciate an advisory. Not for myself, as I know and abide by the rule, but for the sanctity of the KCBS, I think that consistency where possible is important. Just MHO.

dmp

sitnfat
07-19-2012, 01:22 PM
Does it say anything about pork collar???

Uncle Buds BBQ
07-19-2012, 01:47 PM
Does any one by chance have the 2006 KCBS rules available?
dmp
Here ya go...
http://www.worlandchamber.com/statebbq/2006KCBSCooksHandbook.pdf

dmprantz
07-19-2012, 02:11 PM
Looking at the evolution of the rules, it would appear that the intent, or known effect, of the BOD when adding the language regarding disqualification in 2007 was to say that if you take your meat off premise, you should not get the opportunity to have meat reinspected.

dmp

Balls Casten
07-19-2012, 02:47 PM
The reps decision on the incident that I referred to had a huge impact on my team since we finished 7th and therefore will not proceed to the regional event. In my opinion it's a clear rules violation and should be handled as such.

Bum deal Don, I'd enter in DesMoines under Patrol Pork, looks like there is one opening left.

pat
07-19-2012, 02:59 PM
I thought you had someone to "fill the field" for us next weekend? ;-)

mjl
07-19-2012, 03:28 PM
Looking at the evolution of the rules, it would appear that the intent, or known effect, of the BOD when adding the language regarding disqualification in 2007 was to say that if you take your meat off premise, you should not get the opportunity to have meat reinspected.

dmp

Bingo. Upon first hearing about the incident, I couldn't imagine it wasn't a DQ. I am all for rep discretion and erring on the side of the cooks in subjective matters, pooling of sauce, sculpting,quiet time violations etc. When it comes to more objective violations, late turn in, meat leaving contest grounds, lack of identifiable pieces, or illegal garnish, the penalty should not be subject to a judges discretion. It either is, or is not a violation of the rules, and punishment should be meted out accordingly.


I would suggest that rule #7 needs to be revised. The penalties for the same infraction should not vary from rep to rep, or contest to contest. The team in question was quite lucky to have had a Sam's club 50 yards away from the contest site. Had the same violation occurred at a more remote contest, or been reported to the rep a few hours later, the decision to allow the team the chance to in effect get a "mulligan" would have been moot. At the very least, a more cut and dry wording would help to dismiss the notion that Reps may or may not be more charitable to certain teams( Think Lakeland brisket)

End of the day, I don't really have a dog in this fight, other than hoping for more rules clarity. Hats off to the team in question, I don't think I could have pulled off the same cook in similar circumstances...I also wonder if I would have been afforded the same chance.


Matt

pat
07-19-2012, 03:47 PM
xxxx

Harbormaster
07-19-2012, 09:12 PM
This exact scenario happened at a recent contest where a team removed their meat from the contest site, and later returned with their meat and started cooking. Later on during the cooking process the team was approached and their meat was confiscated by contest reps/organizers. This team was then allowed to purchase new meat, obtain a second meat inspection and resume cooking, finishing in the top 6 teams at a Sam's Contest. There was no penalty for this team, no judge scores of 1 and no disqualification.
We received an e-mail clearly indicating that meat inspection was from 9:00am until 5:00pm on Friday. The only way to have your meat inspected outside of this window was with previously obtained permission from the organizer. If the team in question had their meat confiscated after 5:00pm, special treatment was provided in allowing a meat inspection after the new meat was purchased.

This happened at a contest last year and the team was not allowed to use this new meat. So it seems that its up to a reps interpretation.? And that's the way it should be, especially if a clearly defined meat inspection window exists.

Upon first hearing about the incident, I couldn't imagine it wasn't a DQ. I am all for rep discretion and erring on the side of the cooks in subjective matters, pooling of sauce, sculpting,quiet time violations etc. When it comes to more objective violations, late turn in, meat leaving contest grounds, lack of identifiable pieces, or illegal garnish, the penalty should not be subject to a judges discretion. It either is, or is not a violation of the rules, and punishment should be meted out accordingly.


I would suggest that rule #7 needs to be revised. The penalties for the same infraction should not vary from rep to rep, or contest to contest. The team in question was quite lucky to have had a Sam's club 50 yards away from the contest site. Had the same violation occurred at a more remote contest, or been reported to the rep a few hours later, the decision to allow the team the chance to in effect get a "mulligan" would have been moot. At the very least, a more cut and dry wording would help to dismiss the notion that Reps may or may not be more charitable to certain teams.Matt Ditto.

Hats off to the team in question, I don't think I could have pulled off the same cook in similar circumstances... If this had happened to me I wouldn't have even bought more meat. I don't have that kinda extra $$ layin' around, and I ain't that good a cook.
I also wonder if I would have been afforded the same chance. Matt Same here.

Brew-B-Q
07-19-2012, 09:53 PM
I think this is getting carried away. I have no dog in this either, but here are my thoughts:

What advantage does one gain taking meat off site that cannot easily be obtained through other methods? Extra coolers in trailer for example. I question the need for the rule given the lack of enforcement of the rules in general. When was the last time someone had their pork weighed? Or checked on the cooker?

What other rules were broken? Did everyone observe the no alcohol policy? Quiet hours? I personally can't recall.

Maybe there is more to this than I know, but I think it is just another example of how inconsistent KCBS is in general. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have right now.

Tarheel
07-20-2012, 07:05 AM
I think this is getting carried away. I have no dog in this either, but here are my thoughts:

What advantage does one gain taking meat off site that cannot easily be obtained through other methods? Extra coolers in trailer for example. I question the need for the rule given the lack of enforcement of the rules in general. When was the last time someone had their pork weighed? Or checked on the cooker?

What other rules were broken? Did everyone observe the no alcohol policy? Quiet hours? I personally can't recall.

Maybe there is more to this than I know, but I think it is just another example of how inconsistent KCBS is in general. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have right now.

Exactly!!! So why make another rule that no one enforces. Unless there is a clear and definite gain realized that would give a team an unfair advantage don't throw a blanket over us all.

mjl
07-20-2012, 07:59 AM
I think this is getting carried away. I have no dog in this either, but here are my thoughts:

What advantage does one gain taking meat off site that cannot easily be obtained through other methods? Extra coolers in trailer for example. I question the need for the rule given the lack of enforcement of the rules in general. When was the last time someone had their pork weighed? Or checked on the cooker?

What other rules were broken? Did everyone observe the no alcohol policy? Quiet hours? I personally can't recall.

Maybe there is more to this than I know, but I think it is just another example of how inconsistent KCBS is in general. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have right now.

As for being carried away, it doesn't seem like anyone is preparing nooses or sharpening pitchforks. For the most part, I think the discourse on rule #7, and its ability to be interpreted and implemented in different ways has been quite civil. Opinions vary on the interpretation of rule #7, not only from cook to cook, but seemingly from Rep to Rep. I share the opinion of some of my fellow cooks that Rep discretion on some rules could allow for the perception of favoritism. Has rule #7 outlasted its ability to be of use? Maybe. Could the rule stand to be rewritten? Probably. Moving forward, I really don't know what the best course of action might be. I only hope that if rule #7 is deemed necessary, the punishment is consistent for all found to be in violation.

As for violations of the alcohol policy, I would like to think it could carry the same liberal interpretation as rule #7. The alcohol in question would be disqualified and remain in the Reps cooler for all to see. Provided I had the time and means, I could purchase new alcohol, and begin drinking again.

Matt

sitnfat
07-20-2012, 06:46 PM
They ALLLLLLL drink in Bentonville no matter what ya hear

Plowboy
07-22-2012, 02:02 AM
I think the rule to leave the inspected meat on site and to cook the meat onsite are both worthy to stay in the rulebook. Having multiple local contests within miles of my house, I could take that meat home to at least prep it and maybe even cook it depending on how much the rules were relaxed. Yes, a team could cheat and do all of that now, but eliminating either of these rules would allow it to be done in the open on the up and up. If the rules allowed me to take food home to prep and maybe even cook, I'd show up for inspection and be back at 11:30a the next day ready for turn ins. To me, that is what these rules are trying to prevent.

I'm staying out of the discussion of what the penalty should be. Just saying that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater on this one.

Plowboy
07-22-2012, 02:13 AM
I think this is getting carried away. I have no dog in this either, but here are my thoughts:

What advantage does one gain taking meat off site that cannot easily be obtained through other methods? Extra coolers in trailer for example. I question the need for the rule given the lack of enforcement of the rules in general. When was the last time someone had their pork weighed? Or checked on the cooker?

What other rules were broken? Did everyone observe the no alcohol policy? Quiet hours? I personally can't recall.

Maybe there is more to this than I know, but I think it is just another example of how inconsistent KCBS is in general. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have right now.

We've been through these enforcement discussions before. KCBS, at great expense, could have a pit official up your ass for 24 hours like Nascar does in the team pits. Is that what we need to enforce the rules, or are we going to be people of integrity and abide by them? The fact that they don't have a pit official in your team looking at every step you make, doesn't mean that many, dare I say most, of the rules we have are good and worthy rules to govern and guide our competitions. Not taking your meat off site sounds like a good rule to me. If we want team lock downs so you can't leave the grounds after meat inspection, then okay.

Be careful what you wish for folks. Trust me that you won't like the alternatives of more governance or tossing out rules. Greater issues than what to do with a single contest infraction will arise.

I feel bad for Trucky's team. He's a great guy, but the honest to God's truth is he got beat. Moving on to the regional doesn't change the fact that someone loaded their pit at 8:30a in the morning and still placed well above the minimum to make the regional. I kinda wouldn't feel right taking that spot over something like that.

Plowboy
07-22-2012, 02:26 AM
Ok, what would prevent two teams next to each other from doing this anyway? Again, it is up to 6 individuals to give both entries a score, I will still bet that the same meat from the same butt would get two diffrent scores. If you want to cheat there are ways.



You physically can't have the same meat in two different boxes. You could have meat from the same brisket, butt or rib, but it wouldn't be the same meat... just the same source. You couldn't get six of the same quality slices from the same brisket. Hell, even tasting one end of a brisket slice versus the other can be different. Scores most certainly would be different. I'd take that bet every day. I'm not trying to be snarky, but that's not a valid test of judging.

Plowboy
07-22-2012, 02:28 AM
No. I'd pretty much feel like this:

http://dailyangst.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/birthmark.jpg?w=640

Smart girl.

bbqczar
07-22-2012, 03:29 PM
This happened at a contest last year and the team was not allowed to use this new meat. So it seems that its up to a reps interpretation.?


Yep,I have seen several rule violations at comps and usually when the violation is brought up the rep/s will say something like,"I'll go talk to them,we don't want to disqualify them,they spent alot of money and time for this",or they will say something along the lines of,it's not that big a deal,it's kind of a grey area,all of that isn't right at all.

Just Smokin' Around
07-22-2012, 04:11 PM
Yep,I have seen several rule violations at comps and usually when the violation is brought up the rep/s will say something like,"I'll go talk to them,we don't want to disqualify them,they spent alot of money and time for this",or they will say something along the lines of,it's not that big a deal,it's kind of a grey area,all of that isn't right at all.

Do you care to share? I've only done 35 or 40 contests, but, I can't think I've seen any violations of the rules. But, then again, I'm not looking for them. I'm sure there are people living on the edge of legality and not living "the spirit the rules were intended".
There was one exception last year - on my way to the bathroom before turn-ins started, I saw someone garnishing their box with red leaf lettuce. I let them know that was against the rules and asked if they had any other garnish. They didn't. So, I went around to a few teams and gathered up some extra green leaf lettuce and gave it to the young lady. She was very surprised and appreciative. I don't know if that's a rule violation, but, it seemed like the right thing to do.

Just Smokin' Around
07-22-2012, 04:24 PM
.....
For those that talked about the AC, where is the saftey in triming chicken on a 90+ degree day under an ezup. There is still no advantage gained by triming, seasoning, or storing your meat somewhere else if it is cooked on your own cooker. .......

I think one's equipment makes a big difference. Having a nice trailer or motor home to trim meats in comfort and stay out of the weather is an advantage in and of itself. So, there is an advantage to do it in comfort as opposed to 90 degree heat where you may make mistakes trying to get it done. That's why I trim chicken at home. Having other equipment, like a cambro, could be considered an advantage. If I want the advantages of those with climate controlled quarters and other equipment, then it's up to me and my team to provide it or overcome not having it.

But, that's not what this thread was about. I don't see much harm in parsley parties.

Alexa RnQ
07-22-2012, 05:02 PM
Yep,I have seen several rule violations at comps and usually when the violation is brought up the rep/s will say something like,"I'll go talk to them,we don't want to disqualify them,they spent alot of money and time for this",or they will say something along the lines of,it's not that big a deal,it's kind of a grey area,all of that isn't right at all.

Which reps were these?

Bunny
07-23-2012, 09:40 AM
This is where I am different. I think as far as the competition stuff it needs to stay in your cook site which includes box building it takes me about 45 min to make all my boxes can you seriously not take a 45 min break from drinking? All meat prep needs to be done at contest also.

I would much rather prep my meat at home. There's nothing worse than washing chicken at your site. It's much cleaner done at home!

bbqczar
07-24-2012, 12:54 PM
Which reps were these?


No,I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus,but just like has been discussed on other forums and here,it happens,it's just the rules can bend slightly depending on any reps,they have the final say.

Alexa RnQ
07-24-2012, 02:43 PM
Really. I can't imagine K&K Macintosh taking that position, so that leaves us with a very small field of possibilities.