How I Would Change the PDGA

[jenb]

Eliminate what is mistakenly called the jump putt. In the 60s and 70s we considered it an illegal shot. Its a touch and go shot. Most players are not releasing their disc with the support foot planted behind the lie. The sport is not pro basketball.

I was truly surprised, when I started playing more this year with the pro women, that most or maybe all of them are clearly jumping in the air to putt, like a basketball player throwing a 3 pointer. But how do you change the rule to stop this type of jump putting without making a run up, drive, and follow through on the fairway illegal?

As far as "official review," how do you propose to do that? During or after the round? Allow video evidence? Just at majors and NTs that are being filmed, and just for the filmed card?

 

[mashnut]

I was truly surprised, when I started playing more this year with the pro women, that most or maybe all of them are clearly jumping in the air to putt, like a basketball player throwing a 3 pointer. But how do you change the rule to stop this type of jump putting without making a run up, drive, and follow through on the fairway illegal?

That's already against the rules. The issue isn't with the rules it's with people who won't enforce them. The current rule states that you must have a supporting point in contact with the playing surface when the disc is released.

Also, if they're actually in the air they're missing the whole point of a "jump putt". You lose the extra propulsion of pushing yourself forward and probably lose some accuracy too if you just throw mid-air.

 

[scarpfish]

I want to know how players feel about official review at tournaments. All professional sports have official review to legitimize the game.

They also have the money to pay for the equipment to make official review practical.

I also think a limit should be put on the number of discs on a bag to speed game and to show athleticism.

I don't. Ball golfers don't potentially lose their clubs into water hazards like we do, and most of the time I see consumed in a round doesn't involve whether the player has 15 discs or 50.

Eliminate what is mistakenly called the jump putt. In the 60s and 70s we considered it an illegal shot. Its a touch and go shot. Most players are not releasing their disc with the support foot planted behind the lie. The sport is not pro basketball.

If their foot is not planted behind the lie it already is an illegal shot.

Decorum goes a long way toward attracting paying viewers

Since when? You haven't watched much TV in the last ten years have you?

 

[Dave242]

Also, if they're actually in the air they're missing the whole point of a "jump putt". You lose the extra propulsion of pushing yourself forward and probably lose some accuracy too if you just throw mid-air.

Totally off topic, but that is not correct. p=mv, not p=ma

 

[michael bacon]

official review

I've played in a tournament with voluntary officials. They made ruled on mandatory and out-of-bound shots. We could spend money on officials instead of vanity TV. Talk of Olympics and making the sport legitimate starts with rules and officiating. Thanks for the decorum on your reply.

 

[michael bacon]

touch and go shots

Jump putters-I prefer touch and go shooters - all claim they release the disc when their foot is behind the lie. Most do not. Players should be allowed to pivot on support foot. Not fly through the air. Some people will find loop holes in rules and whenever I call someone on this foot fault a violent argument ensues. Another reason for official review. This is what I like to see civilized debate on the issues. Though a couple of people are trying to be snotty.

 

[Toro71]

I personally don't see the jump putt thing as a big deal. One guy's opinion. Players who can't jump putt correctly are probably missing more than they're making anyway, and would probably putt better without jumping/stepping through. It's not like leaving the ground a bit early gives them some accuracy advantage.

Having volunteers help with mando/OB calls is one thing. Having an official to follow every card, and know the rules well enough to call stance violations, make time limit calls, the guts to make courtesy violation calls etc. is another. I just think it would be hard to find enough DG knowlegeable people in a local/regional setting that aren't already playing in the tourney in question. And, as somebody already mentioned, if you have them just for the lead cards or what have you, that essentially means the lower cards have something of an advantage, considering the high number of no-calls either from lack of desire to call violations, or just from the lack of attentiveness to them since they're players first, officials second. I think this is a needed change, but not particularly practical at this point.

I think it's debatable whether behavior influences spectator interest one way or the other. But, further, this is the biggest 'gap' caused by the "self-officiating" aspect of DG. Calling someone for intentionally distracting another player is one thing. But, expecting a player to put themselves in the position of making a call strictly for the purpose of defending the PDGA's, or whoever's, idea of "decorum" is wishful thinking, IMO. As I see it, I'd just as soon let someone melt down, which is it's own multi-stroke penalty usually anyway, rather than get involved in the meltdown by trying to officiate it, and thus possibly sacrifice my own focus level. I can block out a tantrum, generally, but not so much a direct confrontation that I'm involved in.

 

[Dieno]

The PDGA could have a lower membership fee for college students like many other organizations have.

All this navel gazing gets us nowheres. You need bold strokes... a big plan to deliver the battle to the masses ... see below

There is a serious lack of focus for sure on what DG is supposed to deliver in tournament mode. MLS Soccer clubs seem to have a good idea in that they develop team focused fans ... rabid for sure. If that kind of focus could be developed for disc golf then we'd have something. I say we split up the USA into 6 regions NE, MID East, SE NW, SW, & MID Lands also Canada West and Canada East. Hold yearly super team tournaments with all the best Ams and Pros that each region can muster. Winner takes the super title, N American TEAM Championship. Only way to qualify for your region is to win your way in by way of points. Fans and players could join their teams and their dues could help those short of funds get to the super tourneys. Watch the fans build and go rabid. Just like soccer......

 

[michael bacon]

officiating

Ball golf has officiating. Sports have to have rules enforced by impartial officials otherwise its an illegal gambling game like pickup basketball. A movement does exist to shutdown disc golf for decorum issues which prevents new course construction. Issues like drug and alcohol use. Littering vandalism as well as safety concerns. A societal problem does exist where people don't care for others. It even happens on ball golf courses. Conflict in multi use parks is common. Courses are being closed because of complaints. Maybe we need another dictatorship as with Steady Ed or MLB to move forward. This players organization has become stagnant and conservative with democracy. Growth slow and stagnant as it really is comes from motivated individuals in local areas that quit the PDGA because of no support which is a fact.

 

[nolangherity]

wish jump putts went away.. every one i see is a foot foul i swear. saw some guy do a downhill walking putt at the mn majestic and he released between the 2nd/ 3rd step after the marker. it was super dirty.

 

[Halcón]

wish jump putts went away.. every one i see is a foot foul i swear. saw some guy do a downhill walking putt at the mn majestic and he released between the 2nd/ 3rd step after the marker. it was super dirty.

Call it. We the players have been given the power to officiate. If we don't use that power, the cheaters will continue to prosper.

 

[shive]

Delinquent TD's

TD's who are delinquent in payments to the PDGA are placed on the disciplinary list and prevented from running future tournaments, right? Not always. Some, who may be thousands of dollars delinquent, are not placed on the list and may still run events. These are judged by the Office as making a "good faith" effort to repay, and the idea is that they can make up the money they owe by running more events. Their names are concealed, and all this is regarded as good for the membership. I disagree.

The members most affected by this practice are those who enter a delinquent TD's next event. As far as they know, the TD is all square with the PDGA. They are prevented from knowing that the TD is running this event to repay fees owing from previous events. But that knowledge might be an important factor in their decision whether to enter the event or not.

I can understand why the PDGA might want to work with certain delinquent TD's, and give them a break. At the same time I have the same edgy feeling I have about government bailout programs extended to those who are considered "too big" or "too important" to fail. I wonder about the justification for extending special favors to some, while others end up being suspended. Although I wonder about those things, I do not protest them. I am content to leave them as an "Office decision", rather than a matter for the Board.

I only protest the secrecy. Partly this is because I very strongly favor maximum transparency on principle. But there is even more here. The secrecy in this case is deliberate. Its intent is to prevent PDGA members from making informed decisions, and for that reason I consider it to be particularly objectionable.

 

[turbosteve]

TD's who are delinquent in payments to the PDGA are placed on the disciplinary list and prevented from running future tournaments, right? Not always. Some, who may be thousands of dollars delinquent, are not placed on the list and may still run events. These are judged by the Office as making a "good faith" effort to repay, and the idea is that they can make up the money they owe by running more events. Their names are concealed, and all this is regarded as good for the membership. I disagree.

The members most affected by this practice are those who enter a delinquent TD's next event. As far as they know, the TD is all square with the PDGA. They are prevented from knowing that the TD is running this event to repay fees owing from previous events. But that knowledge might be an important factor in their decision whether to enter the event or not.

I can understand why the PDGA might want to work with certain delinquent TD's, and give them a break. At the same time I have the same edgy feeling I have about government bailout programs extended to those who are considered "too big" or "too important" to fail. I wonder about the justification for extending special favors to some, while others end up being suspended. Although I wonder about those things, I do not protest them. I am content to leave them as an "Office decision", rather than a matter for the Board.

I only protest the secrecy. Partly this is because I very strongly favor maximum transparency on principle. But there is even more here. The secrecy in this case is deliberate. Its intent is to prevent PDGA members from making informed decisions, and for that reason I consider it to be particularly objectionable.

That's pretty messed up and not fair to the TDs that were suspended.

 

[Emoney]

TD's who are delinquent in payments to the PDGA are placed on the disciplinary list and prevented from running future tournaments, right? Not always. Some, who may be thousands of dollars delinquent, are not placed on the list and may still run events. These are judged by the Office as making a "good faith" effort to repay, and the idea is that they can make up the money they owe by running more events. Their names are concealed, and all this is regarded as good for the membership. I disagree.

The members most affected by this practice are those who enter a delinquent TD's next event. As far as they know, the TD is all square with the PDGA. They are prevented from knowing that the TD is running this event to repay fees owing from previous events. But that knowledge might be an important factor in their decision whether to enter the event or not.

I can understand why the PDGA might want to work with certain delinquent TD's, and give them a break. At the same time I have the same edgy feeling I have about government bailout programs extended to those who are considered "too big" or "too important" to fail. I wonder about the justification for extending special favors to some, while others end up being suspended. Although I wonder about those things, I do not protest them. I am content to leave them as an "Office decision", rather than a matter for the Board.

I only protest the secrecy. Partly this is because I very strongly favor maximum transparency on principle. But there is even more here. The secrecy in this case is deliberate. Its intent is to prevent PDGA members from making informed decisions, and for that reason I consider it to be particularly objectionable.

AMEN!

 

[shive]

Exorbitant payments

Ken Franks, writing on Facebook, criticized item 13 of my platform. I should explain my position.

TD's used to have an option, in events with fewer than 20 pros, of lowering the added cash requirement on a proportional basis. The Board rescinded that option. So, for example, the TD would now have to pay the full amount, even if only one pro registered for the event. I oppose this requirement. Let me explain why, using a B-Tier (with its $500 added cash requirement) as an example.

1) If the event has more than 20 pros (as is customary) the added cash works out to less than $25 per pro. It seemed absurd to me to require a TD to pay as much as $500 added cash to just one pro. And that pro wouldn't even have to compete for it.
2) Most TD's who requested flexibility wanted to be able to do more for Amateurs when the Pro enrollment was small. I felt that was reasonable.
3) I worried about the burden on the TD's, who generally depend on Amateur entry fees to come up with some of the added cash for the Pros. Events with only a few Pros may also have only a few Amateurs (for example because of bad weather). In that case the TD might have to pay some of the $500 out of his or her pocket.
4) Removing the option means that more TD's will probably choose to sanction at the C-Tier level to avoid the above problems. I felt that this was not in the PDGA's best interest.

The main argument in favor of the requirement was that the $500 was in the nature of a "sacred contract" that protects pros, sort of like it was one of the Ten Commandments. I wondered why, in cases like this, there aren't any sacred contracts that protect TD's and amateurs.

 

[_MTL_]

Ken Franks, writing on Facebook, criticized item 13 of my platform. I should explain my position.

TD's used to have an option, in events with fewer than 20 pros, of lowering the added cash requirement on a proportional basis. The Board rescinded that option. So, for example, the TD would now have to pay the full amount, even if only one pro registered for the event. I oppose this requirement. Let me explain why, using a B-Tier (with its $500 added cash requirement) as an example.

1) If the event has more than 20 pros (as is customary) the added cash works out to less than $25 per pro. It seemed absurd to me to require a TD to pay as much as $500 added cash to just one pro. And that pro wouldn't even have to compete for it.
2) Most TD's who requested flexibility wanted to be able to do more for Amateurs when the Pro enrollment was small. I felt that was reasonable.
3) I worried about the burden on the TD's, who generally depend on Amateur entry fees to come up with some of the added cash for the Pros. Events with only a few Pros may also have only a few Amateurs (for example because of bad weather). In that case the TD might have to pay some of the $500 out of his or her pocket.
4) Removing the option means that more TD's will probably choose to sanction at the C-Tier level to avoid the above problems. I felt that this was not in the PDGA's best interest.

The main argument in favor of the requirement was that the $500 was in the nature of a "sacred contract" that protects pros, sort of like it was one of the Ten Commandments. I wondered why, in cases like this, there aren't any sacred contracts that protect TD's and amateurs.

I understand the theory of the per player rule in the added cash rule in principal. It makes sense.

On the other hand, however, the TD should have that cash available because they are choosing to run a B tier or A Tier or whatnot and then should have the amount of money they say they have.

So what happens if you the players in the field don't meet that standard? Where does that money go? Does anyone really think it's ok for a TD or a club to pocket money that was donated by a business or individual or raised with the promise of going to the event instead of going to that event?

Now in a perfect world, the TD would use it as a "head start" for the next event. And I really think that at least 50% of the time, that's what would happen. But we all know it wouldn't be 100% and that is a problem.

I like the rule as is because it doesn't penalize anyone (as stated, the TD should have that money in advance) and lessens some risk associated with money.

 

[DavidSauls]

"Sacred Contract"? A little hyperbole?

I, too, favor the rule allowing TDs to pro-rate the added cash when less than 20 pros enter. But the argument against it is more a "truth in advertising" one. TDs aren't forced to sanction as a B-tier; if they do, they should honor the commitment. If a TD sanctions as a B-tier and has, not just a low pro turnout but a low am turnout, and was depending on the am turnout instead of sponsorships, you have to wonder why he sanctioned as a B-tier in the first place.

He could always sanction as a C-tier and advertise "$500 added cash (minimum 20 pros)".

 

[_MTL_]

"Sacred Contract"? A little hyperbole?

I, too, favor the rule allowing TDs to pro-rate the added cash when less than 20 pros enter. But the argument against it is more a "truth in advertising" one. TDs aren't forced to sanction as a B-tier; if they do, they should honor the commitment. If a TD sanctions as a B-tier and has, not just a low pro turnout but a low am turnout, and was depending on the am turnout instead of sponsorships, you have to wonder why he sanctioned as a B-tier in the first place.

He could always sanction as a C-tier and advertise "$500 added cash (minimum 20 pros)".

Exactly.

 

[sprintermatt]

how about "up to $500 added cash but no less than 100% added if there are not enough pros to hit the $500 barrier." If there are less than the amount to hit 500, then double the entry fees. so, if it's $75 to play, and there are only 4 pros, then there's $300 added.

I could see that as protecting both TDs and pros. I feel a B-Tier should not have to kill itself for a division that doesn't come together, but there should be a guarantee to give players that DO commit something tangible to ensure their interest in attending.

 

[DavidSauls]

Among the possible options would be having the pro-rate rule, but reducing the threshhold to 10. 10 pros, add the full $500. Fewer, add $50 per pro.

I haven't done the math, but it seems the pros who show up are coming out about as well under the "proportion of 20" rule whether there are 10 pros, or 30. Well, except for the handful who almost always compete for first.