Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse for not following them. Sorry, not a plausible excuse.
doggy, that's not what I'm saying. The debate should not be whether or not MK understood the rules or didn't. People are saying he didn't follow them -- and based upon what I see HE DID. Maybe to the very edge of legality, but it seems he did. I agree with you that ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. But it also works the other way -- excellent knowledge of rules can, in certain circumstances, provide an avenue (some may even say advantage) by utilizing/applying the rules, even the most obscure of rules, properly.
Solid argument ARay, but my suggestion is that when the player applies for PDGA Amateur membership, the player must state if they accepted cash at a PDGA event, and, if so, provide a supplemental explanation of why they are applying as an Amateur. Let the PDGA membership coordinator decide if the player should be accepted as an Amateur.
I assume this is what Professionals who want to re-register as an Amateur must do, although I really don't know the process.
The player being unaware of PDGA regulations is perhaps a bit specious. A player who has played in a sanctioned event has access to people who know the rules for membership. It's highly likely that other players and the TD pitched membership -- particularly if the player makes cash.
I do see what you're saying. Speaking about this in general, my point is that to make that a
universal declaration for all is a slippery slope. We can't apply that solely to the MK situation. Think about the guy/girl who played one tournament 20 years ago in a place and time where there were no Am divisions. What about the guy who only plays locally and who randomly showed up on a regular local league day or mini only to find out there's a one-day C-tier going on. He's encouraged to play the event by the low turnout of players in his division so he does knowing very little other than how to play. He "cashes" with two 940-rated rounds and simply takes the $$ just like he did the other 6 cashes out of 50 times he's played in the local mini/league. After playing a few more times locally he's encouraged to join PDGA and finds this one event means he has to make "the declaration." Not the same. And, in your proposal "the declaration" may hold consequences, if the Tour Manager or Membership C0ordinator can require a
non-member to begin membership as a Pro. And what about the guy/girl who lives in a place in our country that just doesn't offer all divisions? and on and on and on... for every new person who wants to register as an Amateur member.
All I'm saying is making that "declaration" a blanket rule for
everyone applying for Am status, especially if it might come with consequences or conditions, doesn't sound like what we're supposed to be about.
Now speaking specifically, I don't by any stretch imagine or assume that MK wasn't informed of PDGA rules. I guess and assume that he was after being around players for that many years. And I guess that, knowing the situation, he purposefully waited to join and secure his membership with the idea that he might have a chance at an Am Worlds title. He wouldn't be the first person to carefully select what tournaments, what events, and how to do what in order to give himself/herself the best shot at an Am Worlds title.
So, non-members playing in a sanctioned event can foot-fault freely, because the rules don't apply to them?
For a non-PDGA member, knowing the rules of play that day is on a different level from knowing what the implications of accepting cash will have on your future disc golf career.
Steve, that ^^^. Plus I didn't say the rules
didn't apply to non-members. I said how can we expect them to be FULLY INFORMED of our entire competition manual, and in this case specifically things like eligibility issues, dress code, how to lodge a protest, what's the impact of the Tour Manager rulings and exceptions to playing rules, and etc. not specifically about playing the rounds. They still have to conform to the rules during a tournament -- even ones for which they aren't fully informed -- but those things non-tournament, I just don't see how WE the members can make that an expectation.
Please note, the following paragraph is simply a debate, and irrelevant to the greater question IMO.
I did wonder about that Eric, honestly. On the other hand, I'm fairly uninformed and yet I have a decent feel for the structure of the sport, its rules and the consequences of breaking them. You will recall earlier this year at Oak Meadow, I was working off an old rule set, and you pointed out, that was an incorrect interpretation, and what the new rule was. It didn't matter that I didn't know, them's the rules. MK isn't a child, unaware of his interactions with the world and that there might be consequences; he understood the structure of the PDGA well enough to enter and play events over several years without joining. I don't think it's a reach to ask him to understand a little more than he could play several years as a walk on Pro, and then join up to play Am Worlds. I also don't think it's to much to ask him to obey the rules, if he violated them, whether he knew or not. I admit, the situation is complex, but the segregation between money and Am is generally known in the sport and in sport per say, even in Europe, where they also have the internet and can ask questions.
All of the above is honestly irrelevant. I think, as stated by Chuck and JC, there is only really one thing that matters, the intent and long standing position of the PDGA. 1) until you become a member, you don't matter to them, good or bad, they can't follow every player that ever picks up a disc. 2) once you get a membership, you're on the grid. After that you have to follow the rules. It's simple enough.
How I might feel about MK, what he knew or didn't know doesn't matter. The guy could be a saint or a bagger. All that matters is by everything written by the two guys who seem to have the most info is that he played by the rules. If someone doesn't like those rules, now is the time to advocate the PDGA change them.
I still disagree that he (or anyone else similarly situated) was a "Pro" or "walk-up Pro" at those events. He was neither Am nor Pro. None of the above. Just a guy. The Europe issue is probably only tangentially relevant to this argument because they obviously do not have many tourneys with Am divisions at all. The exact same thing that occurred in MK's career could have occurred to a player in the US.
PDGA rules are assumed to apply in any round, sanctioned or not. The PDGA Competition Manual applies to PDGA sanctioned events and only optionally for non-sanctioned events.
THAT, I agree with.
