2018 Competition Rules Changes

[brutalbrutus]

Yea, an advanced warning of this rule should be mandatory. @JC I've followed Open cards where people didn't like the grouping they got. Some people are just incapable of being satisfied...

 

[DavidSauls]

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.

This. I've played in a few events with mixed cards for round 1, and had mixed views of it. I got to play with some people I never would otherwise, both good (a local pro I'd met before) and bad (I signed up for Am Masters because I wanted to play with my regular tournament friends).

But my first event, 21 years ago, did this. I was woefully shy of tournament etiquette, and one experienced player was very clear in his derision of it.

I've since been in the middle of the talent stack---with a pro and a beginner on my card---and noticed that the newer, weaker player seemed very intimidated. Even if he threw well for him, it was much worse than anyone else in the group.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but think of it this way...You're playing in your first PDGA tourney as a Ma3 or Ma4. You're on a card with a super serious McBeth-Wanna-Be Ma1. Intimidated? Most people would be. You think the Ma1 is going to get called on a falling putt inside the circle? Haha not likely. At least for most people.

 

[JC17393]

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but think of it this way...You're playing in your first PDGA tourney as a Ma3 or Ma4. You're on a card with a super serious McBeth-Wanna-Be Ma1. Intimidated? Most people would be. You think the Ma1 is going to get called on a falling putt inside the circle? Haha not likely. At least for most people.

I don't know how many times I've had a conversation with a casual player whose biggest reason for not trying out a tournament was "I'm not good enough, I don't want to get my butt kicked". My response is usually to point out that there are divisions for his/her skill level and they wouldn't have to worry about keeping up with the better, more experienced players at all. If that player decided to try a tournament on that advice and ended up in a mixed group with an MPO, MPM, and MA1, they might not be so appreciative of the advice. Even if not competing directly, it's still intimidating and a bit demoralizing (see David's last paragraph above).

 

[BCDan]

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.

I think mixed is good. Mixed is not necessarily random keep in mind.

A tourney that I run has had the first round as mixed the last two years. Why? A lot of wives wanted to play with their husbands, and a lot of and newer players wanted to play with their experienced friends who got them to join the tournament. This meant that players who were new to competition or had anxiety about the rules and layout have kind of an icebreaker the first round and can pick the brain of their friend or spouse. If they couldn't play with their friend or spouse the first round, they wouldn't have joined the tournament.

I didn`t have my tournament as a PDGA tournament because we would lose at least 10 people if we got rid of the mixed 1st round. Players had the option to not being mixed, just playing in their division too, so I don`t think too many people minded at all.

Now with the rule change, our 3rd anual tournament will be a PDGA c-tier.

Oh yeah, i really like the disc golf cart rule, it shouldn't be ALL or nothing, just division specific. This change is also why I'll be having our tournament become a PDGA tourney as well, since it's run on a golf course.

 

[DavidSauls]

Mixed does necessarily mean random. The random rule isn't waived.

But you make a good point. There may be situations where mixed cards are a good idea, and your example may be one of them.

I favor the PDGA doing what it did---allowing mixed divisions, for round 1, in C-tiers. But I think TDs should publish that plan before registration, as a caution to players who might not like it, to either not sign up, or sign up knowing what to expect.

And if the goal is to put spouses or friends together on the card, it should have a waiver (and that be published, too).

One caution would be that a group has to make a rules determination. Now, it's always a danger that someone will have a friend on the card who will side with them even when they're wrong. How much greater danger if one of the votes in a rules determination is a spouse---or an inexperienced player, ruling against the experienced friend who brought them?

 

[DavidSauls]

.....some events are better off remaining unsanctioned.

I'm a PDGA supporter, but I've run sanctioned and non-sanctioned events. Sometimes it's not a good fit; and being non-sanctioned alerts players that things might be done a bit differently than the PDGA standards.

 

[brutalbrutus]

This crap about people not calling the rules because people aren't in their division or because its a friend is bogus. People don't call rule violations all the time against people IN their own division...How many times does Nikko or Philo have calls against them for time? How bout Ricky falling on his face earlier this year? This is an argument about applying the rules properly and until people do that, using it for an argument against mixed cards is a red herring...

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm not thinking of things like stance violations and taking too much time---things that go routinely uncalled, regardless of who's in the group.

I'm thinking of times when a group actually has to discuss and make a call; often whether a disc is OB, but sometimes other issues (threw from someone else's lie, etc.). Mostly, in groups I've been in, these are resolved reasonably well; sometimes someone pleads for greater leniency than the rules allow, but that argument fails.

 

[JC17393]

This crap about people not calling the rules because people aren't in their division or because its a friend is bogus. People don't call rule violations all the time against people IN their own division...How many times does Nikko or Philo have calls against them for time? How bout Ricky falling on his face earlier this year? This is an argument about applying the rules properly and until people do that, using it for an argument against mixed cards is a red herring...

If one of the arguments for mixing cards is that the inexperienced players get a chance to watch and learn from experienced players, what kind of lessons are they learning if the experienced players are indifferent to whether or not everyone knows, follows and/or calls the rules properly? Isn't that just perpetuating the problem that needs to be corrected? I certainly don't see where it adds any value to the event.

And even that isn't the main thrust of the issue. It's that instead of a division of 12 players being in three groups of four where the variance of how the rules are followed/enforced is less, those 12 players are spread out over 12 groups playing with players who may not be indifferent to the rules but may be completely ignorant of the rules. It's not just whether or not people are calling foot faults or excessive time violations properly...it's about judging the correct position for a player after going OB, or calling disc searches after 3 minutes, or simply observing proper etiquette (walking ahead, talking while throwing, throwing out of turn, etc). I know I have a certain expectation for how players will act in my chosen division. I have no idea what to expect out of players in other divisions.

I prefer to look at tournaments this way...each division is its own individual tournament. It should be treated as such unless extenuating circumstances require adjustment. Having to put the thirteenth player of a division in a separate group from his division peers because everyone is playing in foursomes is an extenuating circumstance. Spreading all thirteen players in that division over thirteen playing groups is not an extenuating circumstance.

Save that sort of stuff for unsanctioned play, or make it known before registration even begins that mixing first round cards will be done.

 

[brutalbrutus]

If one of the arguments for mixing cards is that the inexperienced players get a chance to watch and learn from experienced players, what kind of lessons are they learning if the experienced players are indifferent to whether or not everyone knows, follows and/or calls the rules properly? Isn't that just perpetuating the problem that needs to be corrected? I certainly don't see where it adds any value to the event.

.

...smh Like I said, fix the problem with people not calling rules violations. Don't shift blame to something on a rule that hasn't even been used yet.


I miss playing amateur golf events... You know a sport where people are expected to call rules violations on themselves... and for the vast majority of situations, they did. The others... well... Karma has a way to even that out...

 

[brutalbrutus]

I seem to be saying this a lot lately...


"FIX THE PROBLEM NOT THE BLAME" Sean Connery Rising Sun

 

[kenjiac]

I agree with most of the points on not mixing cards but one factor that makes me lean towards mixing of cards is pace of play. Pace of play is much more important 1st round than it is 2nd. A full card of MA3 players will take much longer than a mixed card and hold up all the groups getting in in a timely manner to have lunch and get ready for round 2. That being said my club does try to mix cards with consideration. We don't mix ams and pros unless we have to then if we have to it'd be advanced player playing with pros or pro with advanced players. I also try not to make a mixed card of totally separate divisions. Having at least one other player in your division on the card helps with rule infraction calling.

 

[JC17393]

In my experience, the first round always takes the longest (assuming each round is played on the same course/layout). I think a lot of that has to do with the random groupings. Even when groupings are within division, you typically still get a wide range of score/pace within the groups. In later rounds, with players all grouped by score, pace seems to be a lot smoother. There is something about players all throwing roughly the same number of times within a group that keeps things moving, and that's regardless of whether they're all taking 3 throws per hole or 6.

 

[roadtripstuff]

Yeah I am not a huge fan of mixed cards either. in my experience people want to play with those in their divisions. Let's face it if you are sticking AMs on Pro cards, most of those pro player's aren't going to appreciate it, not going to lie I am one of those. I mean I don't care to play with advanced or even intermediate player's but nothing irritates me more than when a TD puts novice division player's on the card with the FPO player's. I won't be back to your event if that happens and I guarantee I'm not the only "open" player that feels that way. Also mixing player's that aren't playing the same tees is a horrible idea, so basically that leaves INT and below being mixed as a lot of times ADV plays a longer layout as well. If that's all your doing most of those player's would prob prefer to play within their division if possible for a variety of reasons, you most likely are familiar with the players in your division, you can see how others in your division are doing, and rule calls all being reasons. I don't see a lot of benefit from pairing Novice and Intermediate player's together just because.

 

[ru4por]

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.

I don't really agree with you here, dave. I don't call infractions for a competitive advantage to myself, but out of fairness to the game and the tournament in general. I would be just as likely to call an infraction if it did not benefit me directly.

I am not a big fan of mixed cards. I play GM for several reasons, beyond competition. I understand at a full tournament, there are times mixed cards are going to be needed, but mixing for the sake of doing so seems counterintuitive to the idea of age protected divisioning.

 

[sidewinder22]

I agree with most of the points on not mixing cards but one factor that makes me lean towards mixing of cards is pace of play. Pace of play is much more important 1st round than it is 2nd. A full card of MA3 players will take much longer than a mixed card and hold up all the groups getting in in a timely manner to have lunch and get ready for round 2. That being said my club does try to mix cards with consideration. We don't mix ams and pros unless we have to then if we have to it'd be advanced player playing with pros or pro with advanced players. I also try not to make a mixed card of totally separate divisions. Having at least one other player in your division on the card helps with rule infraction calling.

I didn't mix cards at our tourney last week and was surprised that all the Pro cards finished 1 hour ahead of the Ams.

 

[kenjiac]

I didn't mix cards at our tourney last week and was surprised that all the Pro cards finished 1 hour ahead of the Ams.

Exactly my point. I agree more with not mixing cards but tournament logistics have shown mixing cards 1st round to be better in my experience.

 

[DavidSauls]

I agree with most of the points on not mixing cards but one factor that makes me lean towards mixing of cards is pace of play. Pace of play is much more important 1st round than it is 2nd. A full card of MA3 players will take much longer than a mixed card and hold up all the groups getting in in a timely manner to have lunch and get ready for round 2.

This is an interesting point. In my experience, the slow cards vary by event, perhaps by course; I've seen the older divisions be the last in, and seen the women be the last in. As well as the lowest Am division, particularly on really challenging courses.

It's probable that, regardless of who the slow group might be, spreading them out will even out finishing times. I'm not sure that's enough reason to overcome to the drawbacks, though.

One other complaint you're sure to get, if you spread a division all over the course, is that some competitors will get a favorable or disfavorable starting hole. Some will start next to HQ, some have a 3/4-mile walk. Some will catch the open holes in good weather, some get caught by weather changes. Some will lose their discs to the water holes early; some hit them at the end of the round. Not a big deal to me; you get this to some degree no matter what, and certainly in big events where an entire division fills a course. But if you deliberately spread competitors out more than necessary, you can count on complaints.

 

[brutalbrutus]

But if you run a disc golf event, you can count on complaints.

FTFY

The problem is people. People need to lighten up and just be thankful someone put in the effort...