2018 Competition Rules Changes

[biscoe]

What's the chance that a significant segment of the complaining pros (and PDGA CC & BOD) simply don't like Ams winning anything other than a trophy?

My best guess is the actual number of complaining pros isn't all that many. The CC and BOD on the other hand have been trying to push away from payout based Am events for years.

 

[Karl]

It seems to me the only result of having the current split between pros and ams is all the shenanigans it takes to try to maintain the current split between pros and ams.

If a split is needed, is the act of pocketing a few bucks in cash the all-important watershed event that changes the nature of a player forever? While repeatedly getting hundreds of dollars in store credit is completely ignorable? Wouldn't a split based on skill level (or accomplishments) make more sense?

Of course a split is not needed.
There are no "skill levels" (either that or there are 100K 'skill levels' in the PDGA).
Having everyone of a certain age grouping in 1 division make more sense IMO (those who want to gamble for money, can; those who want to play for competition, don't ante up).

 

[Discette]

...


And I'll take you at your word that you're sure that (this) scenario isn't all that rare:

An Am player playing in pro division

1) TELLS a TD he's declining cash;
2) then weeks later said Am CHANGES HIS MIND and asks for merch in lieu of cash;
3) said Am is told that the TD has already distributed that prize;
4) said Am COMPLAINS to PDGA that the TD violated a rule or cheated him out of his prize or something like that; and
5) PDGA offices rules that the TD MUST give equivalent merch to said Am.​

Did I correctly summarize what you said happened? I am gonna contend that if that happens more than once or twice, seems more like a set-up scam to me.

I will tackle this part first.

The part that is not rare, is that an Am declined cash and expected prizes. The other part that is not rare, is that a Pro only event does not always have access to prizes and merchandise.


In the scenario I used, the cashing Am left before the awards ceremony so what happened next was completely rare. Had the Am stuck around the TD could have worked something out, but it would not be as easy as flipping a switch.

 

[krupicka]

What it sounds like is there was confusion by the TD on what the Am wanted to do: decline (1.10.A) or take merch (2.1.F). Looks like the TD thought the former while the Am was expecting the latter. I always assume the latter at my events.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I will tackle this part first.

The part that is not rare, is that an Am declined cash and expected prizes. The other part that is not rare, is that a Pro only event does not always have access to prizes and merchandise.


In the scenario I used, the cashing Am left before the awards ceremony so what happened next was completely rare. Had the Am stuck around the TD could have worked something out, but it would not be as easy as flipping a switch.

WTF

This happens? I feel stupider for even contemplating this scenario. I would feel ZERO sympathy for an am declining cash at a pro only event. Pro only means just that...PRO ONLY. Why can't it just be, you decline the prize then...thanks for playing - BUH BYE. And if the PDGA really did rule in favor of that Am then that's just asinine. Especially if its weeks after the event.

Maybe if this ever happens again the Am declining prizes has to sign a waiver admitting they declined cashing out so the TD isn't stuck with trying to cough up merch out of their posterior weeks later.

-Dave

 

[araytx]

I will tackle this part first.

The part that is not rare, is that an Am declined cash and expected prizes. The other part that is not rare, is that a Pro only event does not always have access to prizes and merchandise.


In the scenario I used, the cashing Am left before the awards ceremony so what happened next was completely rare. Had the Am stuck around the TD could have worked something out, but it would not be as easy as flipping a switch.

Sure. I understand that "parts" aren't rare; but taken en total the whole scenario has to be a rare occurrence . But then again, isn't miscommunication a huge problem in life, not just in disc golf?

 

[krupicka]

The PDGA Board has voted to revise the competition manual for 2018.

https://www.pdga.com/2018-pdga-competition-manual-updates-explanations

 

[roadtripstuff]

Very happy with their decision to revise those rules. I think it is a great compromise and will no longer hinder the smaller divisions at smaller local events. I really think the PDGA did a great job here listening to what we had to say and making changes for us. I definitely want to give them a huge thanks for making these changes.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I like the mixing of first round cards. We already do that for our local points series events that aren't sanctioned.

 

[sjberry2017]

Very happy with their decision to revise those rules. I think it is a great compromise and will no longer hinder the smaller divisions at smaller local events. I really think the PDGA did a great job here listening to what we had to say and making changes for us. I definitely want to give them a huge thanks for making these changes.

Agreed! IMHO this is how it needs to stay for the foreseeable future, with the small addition that Ams playing in Pro-only events must either sign up for pro, agree that they will become pros with some of their winnings should they cash, or decline cash. Leaving the NT, Major, and A-tiers on a different level than the B and C tiers is a great move as well, and should really help define the divisions between these levels even more fully.

 

[_MTL_]

The PDGA is our organization and they do listen. I hope people can see that in this example.

 

[bhadella]

I applaud them for the changes as they make sense.

From a logistics standpoint, why don't they post the Competition Manual online for 4 weeks for feedback prior to printing in out? Seems crazy for a member to receive a printed manual on Monday for renewing (as I did) and see the changes of it posted less than 3 days later.

 

[ScottyLove]

I like the mixing of first round cards. We already do that for our local points series events that aren't sanctioned.

I'm going to guess committee member Chuck Connelly helped push this one through as he already has been doing this in sanctioned tournaments for a while now. When he has only 3 or 4 age protected folks, he has been spreading them amongst the other divisions in round one. Then afterward we all regroup which is good.

 

[_MTL_]

I like the mixing of first round cards.

I could not disagree more.

I believe strongly, as a TD on the competition stand point, that my job is do everything I can to protect the integrity of that competition. Sometimes, you have to do things that don't make a lot of sense until they are explained.

For example, creeks should always be marked OB at the top of the creek, not playing water line. A player shouldn't have to take their meter on the side of the hill after throwing OB.

Another example is a water line that doesn't have a drop off should be marked because if the water level rises for things like rain, the exact same spot is in bounds / out of bounds for every group. Both situations result in people saying "I'm dry and in bounds" or "He's wet and out of bounds" but it protects inconsistent rulings of the same lie, which should never happen.

As a TD, I call this controlling the uncontrollables. I believe that if a TD can control things to a degree that he can't control, he / she is showing to be a very good and knowledgeable TD. Simply put, mixed divisions is not an example of controlling the uncontrollable.

A TD can't control if there will be a storm that passes through during an event, but she / he can control then when it does, players who are competing against each other are, in general, on the same part of the course. If a course is half open and half wooded, the players in the woods will have an advantage when the storm is blowing in (less wind) and when it's raining, the players in the open have an advantage (slippery discs / footing, less punishment for slipped drives without trees).

It's completely unfair for a player to compete directly with someone who is facing opposite conditions as them during the exact same round. You can't control certain aspects of this and there are tons of what if this or what if that, but a TD should control as much of this scenario as possible. This is a reason I'm against tee times, but that's another discussion.

I will never support this rule and hope that TD's choose not to do it.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I have mixed emotions on the mixing of divisions on cards. What incentive is there to enforce rules? So if I'm Ma3 and the Ma2 on my card has an infraction why would I call them on it other than the rules say I should? There are a lot of people who would just assume avoid conflict and say, "Meh, they aren't in my division therefore I don't care. I don't want them calling a bunch of stuff on me." However, if I am playing against other Ma3's then yes, I am VERY motivated to call the others on my card when rules are violated simply because I am competing directly against them.

 

[biscoe]

I am in favor of mixing cards in C tiers at this point. I used to be opposed to it but times have changed. Years ago players did not play pdga events until they (in general) were already acquainted with tournament structures and etiquette through non-pdga events. This is no longer the case. There are now numerous players getting their introductions through pdga play. Without mixing of cards these players are left to fare for themselves and a lot of stuff gets screwed up. IMO the C tier needs to become a venue for players to learn for the good of the system as a whole. I heartily oppose mixing cards at any higher tier level for the same reasons MTL states above.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I could not disagree more.

I believe strongly, as a TD on the competition stand point, that my job is do everything I can to protect the integrity of that competition. Sometimes, you have to do things that don't make a lot of sense until they are explained.

For example, creeks should always be marked OB at the top of the creek, not playing water line. A player shouldn't have to take their meter on the side of the hill after throwing OB.

Another example is a water line that doesn't have a drop off should be marked because if the water level rises for things like rain, the exact same spot is in bounds / out of bounds for every group. Both situations result in people saying "I'm dry and in bounds" or "He's wet and out of bounds" but it protects inconsistent rulings of the same lie, which should never happen.

As a TD, I call this controlling the uncontrollables. I believe that if a TD can control things to a degree that he can't control, he / she is showing to be a very good and knowledgeable TD. Simply put, mixed divisions is not an example of controlling the uncontrollable.

A TD can't control if there will be a storm that passes through during an event, but she / he can control then when it does, players who are competing against each other are, in general, on the same part of the course. If a course is half open and half wooded, the players in the woods will have an advantage when the storm is blowing in (less wind) and when it's raining, the players in the open have an advantage (slippery discs / footing, less punishment for slipped drives without trees).

It's completely unfair for a player to compete directly with someone who is facing opposite conditions as them during the exact same round. You can't control certain aspects of this and there are tons of what if this or what if that, but a TD should control as much of this scenario as possible. This is a reason I'm against tee times, but that's another discussion.

I will never support this rule and hope that TD's choose not to do it.

I think that this is a red herring argument. If you have a pro only event there are gonna be people on different parts of the course. Heck even a large division, within a normal event, can be on different parts of the course. In your example, what if you have three groups in open, after the first group tees off on hole3 a big tree falls and blocks off the preferred line? The next two groups that go thru will be playing a different course... Weather happens. Wind gusts happen...

 

[biscoe]

I agree that it is potentially unfair for experienced players to be forced to basically shepherd inexperienced ones through a round. I believe that this degree of unfairness is outweighed by the good of the whole however. If players do not want to be grouped with inexperienced players from a lower division they can simply refrain from playing C tiers.

 

[_MTL_]

I think that this is a red herring argument. If you have a pro only event there are gonna be people on different parts of the course. Heck even a large division, within a normal event, can be on different parts of the course. In your example, what if you have three groups in open, after the first group tees off on hole3 a big tree falls and blocks off the preferred line? The next two groups that go thru will be playing a different course... Weather happens. Wind gusts happen...

It's a very fair counter argument to my point.

It's impossible for a TD to control the uncontrollable. However, making attempts to is important.

They can't control a 72 person open field and my scenario just as they can't control a a tree falling on hole 3 as your suggested.

But they can limit the chances of these things by keeping players in the same division close to each other. That's the key.

 

[JC17393]

I agree that it is potentially unfair for experienced players to be forced to basically shepherd inexperienced ones through a round. I believe that this degree of unfairness is outweighed by the good of the whole however. If players do not want to be grouped with inexperienced players from a lower division they can simply refrain from playing C tiers.

The problem then becomes where do those players play if most/all of their local sanctioned tournaments are C-tiers?

I'm not in favor of mixing cards and won't ever be doing it at any of my events, sanctioned or not. The biggest reason is the one davetherocketguy alludes to. I know players that have explicitly stated that they do not bother to make calls if they're on a mixed card. Even if it's a situation where the mixed card is by necessity (say odd numbers in a couple divisions or something), they won't call a player not in their division for a violation because "it doesn't affect them". I have no doubt there are many players with that attitude who don't vocalize it, too.

As a player, I choose to play sanctioned events over non-sanctioned except in rare cases. One of the big reasons I do is because there are certain norms that come with sanctioned play that are not guaranteed to be found at non-sanctioned. One of those norms has always been the expectation that rules will be more consistently enforced, especially by the TD. Mixed cards does not really fit with that, IMO.

My only hope is that if TDs are going to mix divisions in their first round groupings, they should make that known in advance. Give the players the opportunity to not attend if it makes a difference to them. If the desire behind mixing groups is to give inexperienced players a chance to play with and learn from experienced players, then at least ensure that the experienced players you get aren't forced into something they don't want to do and thus make it a poor time for those inexperienced players that get stuck with them. I remember as a young am playing with guys in higher divisions who clearly wanted no part in playing with me or any other ams. Made for a miserable round for him and us.