PDA

View Full Version : If I Were Asked To Write The Pork Rule...


Q-Dat
07-21-2013, 01:06 PM
I know, I know, nobody asked me but here it is anyway.

PORK: Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder with a pre cook weight of at least 5 lbs (bone in or bone out). It may be turned in chopped, pulled, chunked, sliced or a combination of any of those. At any point during the cook, portions of the 5 lb or greater mass may be removed at such a point that the cook deems that they have reached optimal doneness for turn in. The remaining portion may be returned to the cooker to continue cooking towards optimal doneness if the cook chooses. Returning of pork to the cooker after parting may be done for the purpose of reheating or for the setting of sauce.







Kinda wordy, but I'm not aware of a rule that the rules have a word limit, and I think the extra words are necessary for clarification.

I know some still won't like it, but what do I care its just a suggestion.

The_Kapn
07-21-2013, 01:12 PM
How about:

"PORK: Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder. It may be turned in chopped, pulled, chunked, sliced or a combination of any of those."

Would work for me. 8)

KISS is always the best approach to rule making.

TIM

Hawg Father of Seoul
07-21-2013, 01:16 PM
Stop putting in the "sliced, chunked........." Verbiage it adds nothing.

Q-Dat
07-21-2013, 01:17 PM
KISS is always the best approach to rule making.

TIM

Ordinarily I agree. But we have a situation here where too many people disagree on the interpretation of the simple wording. Additional description is needed here. To the point that it becomes indisputable. I know that some believe that it is clear enough the way that it is, but if it were then we wouldn't keep having these long debates about it.

The_Kapn
07-21-2013, 01:30 PM
For most of my working career I reviewed, wrote, trained, enforced, and trained folks about Rules and Regulations where the stakes were a lot higher than this rule.
I found that the "Rule of Unintended Consequences" reared it's head any time a rule was overly complex and failed to specifically define the desired behavior.

In this case, it appears that the MM has become a bone of contention for some reason.
I personally see no reason to regulate the cooking of that part of the pork.

When judging, I have seen no advantage what-so-ever to that part of the butt being included or not.
It all gets down to succulent, tender pork seasoned to perfection.
Nothing more, nothing less.

If you just let folks cook the basic meat, the best will rise to the top and the others will fall in line at the awards ceremony.

But, argue on--it is a sport in it's own right thanks the the WWW 8)

TIM

Ford
07-21-2013, 02:01 PM
How about:

"PORK: Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Boston Roast, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder. It may be turned in chopped, pulled, chunked, sliced or a combination of any of those."

Would work for me. 8)

KISS is always the best approach to rule making.

TIM

Great Tim. I'd add cook it anyway you want.

Ford
07-21-2013, 02:04 PM
Ordinarily I agree. But we have a situation here where too many people disagree on the interpretation of the simple wording. Additional description is needed here. To the point that it becomes indisputable. I know that some believe that it is clear enough the way that it is, but if it were then we wouldn't keep having these long debates about it.

There's no problem with the new rule. Pork can be trimmed, goes on pit a one piece. After that you can do what you want. That's the rule and intent.

Q-Dat
07-21-2013, 02:14 PM
For most of my working career I reviewed, wrote, trained, enforced, and trained folks about Rules and Regulations where the stakes were a lot higher than this rule.
I found that the "Rule of Unintended Consequences" reared it's head any time a rule was overly complex and failed to specifically define the desired behavior.

In this case, it appears that the MM has become a bone of contention for some reason.
I personally see no reason to regulate the cooking of that part of the pork.

When judging, I have seen no advantage what-so-ever to that part of the butt being included or not.
It all gets down to succulent, tender pork seasoned to perfection.
Nothing more, nothing less.

If you just let folks cook the basic meat, the best will rise to the top and the others will fall in line at the awards ceremony.

But, argue on--it is a sport in it's own right thanks the the WWW 8)

TIM

Again, you and I are pretty much on the same page. I personally couldn't care less if someone hacks off a MM and grills it, but there are more than enough well respected folks in the game that would be to justify being extra descriptive in the rule.

I worded my version the way that I did to both respect time honored BBQ cooking practice, and at the same time eliminate some restrictions that many feel are a bit silly. I believe that in this instance you can't be too descriptive of what is allowed and what is not. That is the only way that this topic will ever go away.

Q-Dat
07-21-2013, 02:21 PM
There's no problem with the new rule. Pork can be trimmed, goes on pit a one piece. After that you can do what you want. That's the rule and intent.

The new rule is fine for honest sensible people. The fear out there is that people will bend the wording to allow them to "trim" down to a small portion snd then grill it. We need this rule to be worded so strongly and in such detail that cheaters will KNOW that they have cheated.

The_Kapn
07-21-2013, 02:58 PM
Let me be perfectly clear---I have no interest what-so-ever in this rule.
I have retired from competing and may, or may not, judge any in the future.

My discussion is about the "process" of rule making.

The purpose of any rule is to define or limit behavior for some valid reason.
Take speed limits for instance.
They are there to control speed (hopefully 8) ) for the purpose of reducing accidents and injuries.

For this rule, the "powers that be" need to define what the desired behavior is, and then restrict --- or allow--- it in "plain English".
That is the proper process.

I have seen no clear statement as to the purpose of this rule in defining behavior other than generalities and emotions.

Apparently, some folks feel there is a real or perceived advantage to processing the MM in some sort of special way.
IF that is the desired goal, then the rule should specifically state that you can not separate the MM and be done with it. 8)

Any real or perceived advantage to separating it should be available to all teams as they desire--- or clearly prohibited to all.

The pros and cons of the quality would be sorted out at the judges table. 8)

For this particular rule, I see no problem with a team slicing the butt into "Pork Steaks" or "Pork Burnt Ends" and smoking/grilling them if they are so inclined.
Would be interesting to see the scores from that 8)
Heck, Judges (myself included) are always saying they want "variety and new stuff" as opposed to the same ole chit! 8)
Those entries would become the latest WWW rage or die an ignoble death! 8)

Rule making is a process. The process here is totally missing the best I can see.

TIM

Lake Dogs
07-21-2013, 05:36 PM
+1 above.

in reference to:
> ... well respected folks in the game that would be to justify being extra descriptive in the rule.

I think this actually is a problem with most sanctioning bodies. They've allowed the "respected folks" who may or may not have had any real experience creating rules, policies, etc. and probably no experience in enforcement of said rules. Policies/Rules that are meant to be left open do so by not adding additional wording. Limit, by words, grant is done sans words.

Ford
07-21-2013, 05:52 PM
The new rule is fine for honest sensible people. The fear out there is that people will bend the wording to allow them to "trim" down to a small portion snd then grill it. We need this rule to be worded so strongly and in such detail that cheaters will KNOW that they have cheated.

The rule allows me to pull the butt at 150f in the mm, cut off the mm, hold, sauce and grill to finish. Put the rest back on for pulled. That's legal in 2014. I have no problem with it. I have no problem if the rule says once its been inspected you can part and cook any way you want.

Keep it simple. It's BBQ.

Q-Dat
07-21-2013, 06:05 PM
The rule can either be written in such a way so as to remove ALL possibility of anyone putting a spin on it, or we can just continue debating this forever. It DOES NOT matter if the rule is clear cut black and white, which I happen to think it is. The fact is that as it is it can be twisted by those who wish to do so. Nobody in this thread wants to do that, so I'm obviously not referring to anyone involved in this thread.

My whole point in this thread is that the wording needs to be sewed up so tight that there are no possible loopholes. Otherwise this debate will never die, and I think that most of us want it to.

Teamfour
07-21-2013, 06:18 PM
he new rule is fine for honest sensible people. The fear out there is that people will bend the wording to allow them to "trim" down to a small portion snd then grill it. We need this rule to be worded so strongly and in such detail that cheaters will KNOW that they have cheated.

Other than this being against the current rule, what is the advantage in doing this? As a judge I focus more on the pulled or chunked meat. If I wanted a slice of pork, I would go judge a pork loin comp. I see the inclusion of MM more as a statement that the cook knows the parts of the butt. Personally I don't find the taste to be that great.

Q-Dat
07-21-2013, 06:29 PM
Other than this being against the current rule, what is the advantage in doing this? As a judge I focus more on the pulled or chunked meat. If I wanted a slice of pork, I would go judge a pork loin comp. I see the inclusion of MM more as a statement that the cook knows the parts of the butt. Personally I don't find the taste to be that great.


Its about the perception that the pork category could become a grilling contest. As it is now there are very successful cooks who put ONLY MM in the box and WIN with it.

Personally I don't care if they grill MM or not, but many do.

watertowerbbq
07-21-2013, 08:00 PM
I think they should just make it so that the only requirement is that it be any cut of pork and of any weight and the only exception be that it can't be ribs. I think the issue started when "they" decided that too many people were turning in pork tenderloin. The only thing that accomplished was to elevate the money muscle.

Lake Dogs
07-21-2013, 08:08 PM
Its about the perception that the pork category could become a grilling contest. As it is now there are very successful cooks who put ONLY MM in the box and WIN with it.

Personally I don't care if they grill MM or not, but many do.

One could easily debate that in chicken they already have a grilling contest.

Q-Dat
07-21-2013, 11:25 PM
Is anyone actually disagreeing with me when I say that the wording of the rule as is, is not indisputable? Because there are multiple pages of discussion in another thread that show that the wording is very much disputed. Not the intent of the rule mind you. Only the wording.

Q-Dat
07-22-2013, 04:54 PM
Is anyone actually disagreeing with me when I say that the wording of the rule as is, is not indisputable? Because there are multiple pages of discussion in another thread that show that the wording is very much disputed. Not the intent of the rule mind you. Only the wording.

No seriously. I am more than willing for someone to show me that I'm wrong.