Rabbithole Documentation

On September 7, 2019, during Round 2 of the ACAPA Missouri Regional Championship held at Shepherd of the Hills Apple Orchard in Branson, Missouri, competitor Dale R. Huffington (ACAPA Registration No. 4471-B, Joplin, MO chapter) was observed by Chief Line Judge Bernard T. Okoye and two (2) assistant judges employing what is hereinafter designated the “two-hand cupping” technique in the Cortland section of the competition orchard.

The two-hand cupping technique, as documented in Complaint Form ACAPA-DT-7 (Exhibit A), involves the competitor forming a bilateral hand-cup around the apple using both the dominant and non-dominant hand simultaneously prior to executing the twist-and-lift motion. This technique was alleged to provide an unfair mechanical advantage by stabilizing the fruit from two contact points, reducing stem-snap likelihood, and substantially increasing the competitor’s pick rate when applied to the Cortland variety, which is known for its occasionally tenacious stem attachment.

At the time of the incident, Rule 7 of the ACAPA Official Rulebook (9th Edition, then current) did not explicitly name the two-hand cupping technique by that designation; however, Rule 7(b) required that “the picking motion shall originate from a single-hand overhead cradle or single-hand side-cradle approach, with the non-dominant hand used solely for balance and not for primary contact with the fruit.” Chief Judge Okoye asserted that the observed technique violated this provision.

Mr. Huffington’s Round 2 score, achieved in part during the disputed period, was provisionally recorded as 214 Cortland picks in 8 minutes, placing him first in the round. His total event score was subsequently nullified pending Tribunal review.

Mr. Huffington, appearing by telephone on November 3, 2019, and represented by his personal counsel (non-attorney advocate), Mr. Gary Huffington (brother), contended as follows:

1. The technique in question was not, in his understanding, prohibited by Rule 7(b), as the non-dominant hand was “supportive in nature and did not exert torque.”
2. Mr. Huffington stated that he had observed similar techniques employed at NAAPA-sanctioned events and was not aware of a distinction in interpretation between ACAPA and NAAPA technical rules on this point.
3. Mr. Huffington further noted that he had competed in ACAPA events for eleven (11) consecutive seasons without prior violation and requested that this record be weighed in mitigation.
4. Mr. Huffington requested that, in the alternative, any sanction be limited to nullification of the disputed picks only, rather than total event disqualification.

Note: The Tribunal acknowledges that Mr. Gary Huffington, though not a licensed attorney, conducted himself with decorum throughout the telephonic proceeding. The Tribunal’s clerk noted that he had clearly prepared by reviewing the publicly available Rulebook and Tribunal Charter, which the Tribunal commends.

The Tribunal, having reviewed the written complaint, photographic evidence (Exhibits A through D, including time-stamped photographs taken by Assistant Judge Marlene Quist), Mr. Huffington’s written response, and the transcribed telephonic hearing, makes the following findings:

1. Finding 1: Dale R. Huffington did, on September 7, 2019, employ a bilateral two-hand cupping technique during at least twenty-two (22) individual pick attempts in Lane 4, Cortland section, between approximately 10:14 a.m. and 10:22 a.m. local time.
2. Finding 2: The said technique constitutes a violation of Rule 7(b) of the ACAPA Official Rulebook (9th Edition) as the non-dominant hand was in primary stabilizing contact with the fruit at the moment of initial approach, prior to the twist-and-lift motion.
3. Finding 3: The Tribunal accepts that Mr. Huffington may have been genuinely uncertain as to whether the technique was prohibited, in part due to differing standards in use at NAAPA-affiliated events. The Tribunal notes, however, that NAAPA equipment certifications and technical standards are not valid at ACAPA-sanctioned events (see also Rule 2(d) and Footnote 3 of this Decision), and that competitors are responsible for familiarizing themselves with current ACAPA rules prior to competition.
4. Finding 4: Mr. Huffington’s eleven-season clean record is accepted as a mitigating factor.
5. Finding 5: The advantage conferred by the technique was material. Statistical analysis by ACAPA Technical Consultant Dr. Priya Narayan (see Exhibit E) estimates that the disputed picks accounted for a statistically significant portion of Mr. Huffington’s elevated Round 2 score relative to his historical performance baseline.

The central interpretive question before the Tribunal was whether the phrase “used solely for balance and not for primary contact with the fruit” in Rule 7(b) prohibits the two-hand cupping approach when the non-dominant hand touches but does not grip the apple prior to the dominant hand initiating the twist-and-lift.

The Tribunal holds, by unanimous vote, that “primary contact” as used in Rule 7(b) refers not to the degree of force applied but to the sequential order of contact: any technique in which the non-dominant hand makes contact with the apple prior to or simultaneous with the dominant hand initiating the pick motion violates the single-hand cradle requirement. The rule’s purpose is to preserve competitive equity by standardizing the mechanical relationship between competitor and fruit, not merely to prohibit a degree of force.

This interpretation is consistent with the Tribunal’s prior ruling in In re: Castellano, Case No. 2014-IA-0009 (Iowa Autumn Classic), in which a “preparatory thumb-brace” with the non-dominant hand was found to violate the same provision.

The Tribunal further notes that the novelty and apparent prevalence of this technique within the competitive community suggests a need for explicit prospective codification. The Tribunal recommends that the Commissioner and Rules Committee consider adopting an explicit prohibition by name. [Editor’s note: This recommendation was adopted and implemented as Amendment 7(c), effective January 1, 2020.]

As recommended by the Tribunal in this decision, the ACAPA Rules Committee convened a special session in December 2019 and voted 7–1 to adopt Amendment 7(c) to the Official Rulebook, effective January 1, 2020. Amendment 7(c) reads in relevant part:

Mr. Huffington completed his Re-Certification Course in April 2021 and was reinstated as an active ACAPA member in good standing in May 2021. He competed in the 2022 Missouri Regional Championship, placing 14th. He has had no subsequent violations.

This case is frequently cited in ACAPA Rules Committee guidance memoranda as the foundational precedent for Amendment 7(c) and for the principle that non-dominant hand contact timing, not force, is the operative criterion for Rule 7 compliance.

¹ “Cortland” refers throughout to the Malus domestica cultivar of that name, a red apple variety commonly cultivated in the Upper Midwest and Northeast, known for firm flesh, mild tartness, and variable stem resistance. The Cortland variety has been featured in ACAPA Regional Championships since 1993 and is the subject of ACAPA Technical Bulletin No. 7 (“Cortland-Specific Grip and Twist Guidance”, rev. 2018).

² The Tribunal acknowledges the service of four-time ACAPA Champion Darlene Kowalczyk (champion years: 1999, 2002, 2006, 2011) who provided an expert affidavit on standard single-hand cradle technique (Exhibit F). Ms. Kowalczyk’s affidavit was dispositive in clarifying the competitive norm for elite-level pick technique.

³ IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING NAAPA: The North American Apple Picking Association (NAAPA) is a separate and unaffiliated organization. NAAPA equipment certifications, technique approvals, and competitive standing are not transferable to and not valid at ACAPA-sanctioned events. Competitors who hold NAAPA registration should carefully review the ACAPA Rulebook in its entirety before entering any ACAPA event. The Tribunal has observed an increasing number of cases in which competitors have cited NAAPA standards in their defense; such citations carry no weight in ACAPA proceedings. See also ACAPA Commissioner’s Notice 2020-03 (“On the Inapplicability of NAAPA Standards in ACAPA Disciplinary Matters”).