Older Players

[Major Tomahawk]

When you TD, you'll understand better where JC is coming from.

......or perhaps you do, and it's a foolish assumption on my part. Then again, I hit 50 a good while back, and am about to hit 60, and though I understand Iver's disappointment, I agree with JC.

(With a touch of surprise that none of the TDs he contacted will offer Seniors. I'm not surprised that some won't, but around here there are tournaments eager for participants, who'll accommodate just about anything.)

Ya, that was foolish. I've run more than my share of tourneys. I've answered the litany of stupid questions. I've dealt with the red tape from the parks dept. One thing I've always done was allow divisions without discriminating. That's the easy part of TDing.

 

[DavidSauls]

I've offered all divisions without discriminating. And limited divisions, without discrimination, because it's not discrimination. There are always divisions available for everybody, even if not the ones they want most.

The decision depends on what type of event I'm running, and sometimes where.

Nowadays we only run a team play, ratings-capped, single division event, so anyone who can play the course is welcome. Assuming they can find teammates who will take them.

 

[biscoe]

Assuming they can find teammates who will take them.

skill discrimination

 

[Major Tomahawk]

While not a complete geezer like David i too am over 50. In the past year I have played both Open and Masters in events where Grandmasters was not offered for one reason or another. In the past year I have also run events where we had a sizable field of Senior Grandmasters and events where no age based divisions were offered at all- again, for one reason or another.

The idea that the offering/not offering of a division constitutes "ageism" or "discrimination" on the part of a TD is absurd. Calling it such just undermines the entire conversation.

So, if I call it ignorance, is that OK? Who knows what a TD is thinking when they put out a flyer that ignores older division participants? Let's just ignore the pioneers of the sport. I asked the TD of the Otter Open (held this past weekend) why there was no Pro SR. GM division. I received no answer. This is my future, for whatever reason.

 

[biscoe]

If you don't know what a TD is thinking why would you call it ignorance? No one is ignoring anyone- at least not around here. If you asked me the same question about one of my events you can rest assured you would receive an answer- whether or not you like that answer is another issue entirely.

 

[Karl]

While I SOMEWHAT empathize with the O.P., if one reads with objectivity (and a little less emotion) the posts by J.C., David, John, etc., you'll see there are other trains-of-thoughts...thoughts that are both born out of practicality and zero-malice. For nearly 2 decades I've played in well over 100 PDGA events...and over 3/4th of these while "playing up" (playing in younger age groups than my own - because my 'home division' either wasn't offered or on my own volition).
Have fun! Throw discs! Get better! It's kind of interesting seeing guys 2 generations removed looking at you with that look of "I think I just got beat by my grandfather..."
Ps: I'm in my 60's
Pps: CRAP!

 

[DavidSauls]

I certainly sympathize with the O.P.'s frustration---particularly if it's normal for TDs in his area to decline to offer divisions, even when asked, as he states it is.

Around here there are some events that limit divisions---for good reasons---and others that will make room for anyone.

 

[corin_brown]

Until the wording is changed in the document to include age related discrimination, the pdga's hands are tied on this issue. TDs don't have to offer divisions if they don't want to. The pdga is not going to tell a TD to include any division to any tournament.

If you're experiencing ageism or discrimination at a particular tournament, you might not get an immediate ad hoc resolution for that particular tournament by contacting the PDGA, but by communicating your experiences to the sanctioning body regarding this issue may result in future policy changes around this issue and may result in a change in requirements for future tournament sanctioning.

How else does the PDGA decide to change policy other than by listening to what their membership tells them?

 

[Lazerface]

From earlier in the thread....

J.A Tournament Director may, by giving adequate public notice, restrict the divisions offered. Absent such notice, the Tournament Director shall offer for competition any division which has four or more players that are eligible and wishing to compete. Tournament Directors may offer divisions with less than four players at their discretion.

OK, so the rule above has some ambiguity (define adequate public notice and "restriction") but seems to cover the issue.

QUESTION
If a TD does not list every possible division on a flyer does that mean he/she is "restricting" divisions and is that "adequate public notice"? So, if 4 legends show up and they refuse to offer a division, because the flyer did not have Legends on it, will the PDGA rule that acceptable?

If by restrict the PDGA guidelines are expecting the TD to specifically mention the restricted division(s) - exp: "The following divisions will be offered and no other divisions will be opened for the event" or a name like "US Women's championship" then I'm good with that.

In other words I think the rule someone posted above pretty much covers it as long as my hypothetical refusal to open a division situation is against the rules as designed by the PDGA. This allows TDs to run restricted events, while requiring a divisions to 4 or more players at a non-restricted event. I don't think their should be a division for less than 4 players.

If the argument is that every TD who is not running a "restricted" event should be required to list every potential division at time of registration and on advertising, then I disagree.

Am I missing something?

 

[corin_brown]

The idea that the offering/not offering of a division constitutes "ageism" or "discrimination" on the part of a TD is absurd. Calling it such just undermines the entire conversation.

Lol! IOW, "the grievance you've experienced is not, in fact, a grievance and cannot be described as 'ageism' or 'discrimination.' And by claiming that it is, you have disqualified yourself from any further participation in this conversation, a conversation which you began."

 

[gdub58]

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to be a TD?

No, and to be clear, I do not support the OP's position that all divisions should be offered at any tournament outside Worlds. In general, I think there are currently too many divisions in general and that TDs are already overly generous in what they offer in most tournaments. Around here, for most of the non-sanctioned events (and many sanctioned ones) TDs will create a division if they get four or more players who request it - not sure what more anyone could ask for.

I was hoping to get some specifics from Iver to get an idea of just how accommodating he thought TDs should be instead of just him grousing about the situation in general.

FWIW, I will be eligible for Sr. Grandmasters next year, but I will certainly not start looking for TDs to offer that division just because I qualify for it. I like playing in larger divisions and am fortunate to live in an area with a great group of MPG guys to play and compete with.

 

[JC17393]

QUESTION
If a TD does not list every possible division on a flyer does that mean he/she is "restricting" divisions and is that "adequate public notice"? So, if 4 legends show up and they refuse to offer a division, because the flyer did not have Legends on it, will the PDGA rule that acceptable?

If by restrict the PDGA guidelines are expecting the TD to specifically mention the restricted division(s) - exp: "The following divisions will be offered and no other divisions will be opened for the event" or a name like "US Women's championship" then I'm good with that.

In other words I think the rule someone posted above pretty much covers it as long as my hypothetical refusal to open a division situation is against the rules as designed by the PDGA. This allows TDs to run restricted events, while requiring a divisions to 4 or more players at a non-restricted event. I don't think their should be a division for less than 4 players.

If the argument is that every TD who is not running a "restricted" event should be required to list every potential division at time of registration and on advertising, then I disagree.

Am I missing something?

Adequate public notice would be specifically stating (typically on the flyer or in the name of the event) that only certain divisions will be offered. You bring up a couple really good examples. Another example would be declaring the event "Pro only" or "Am only". Absent such notice of restriction, if four legends show up at a tournament and wish to compete in the Legends division, they can't really be denied that by the TD...they might have to forego any trophies if the TD doesn't have them prepared, but that's about it. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that these players should be denied their request.

My read is that, yes, the argument being posited in this thread is that TDs should always list every potential division on any and all registration forms and flyers even if there's never been a single player who has ever shown interest in playing that division at a given event. And then the onus is on the TD to shift players around at a late date should there not be enough players to form a division. This TD says no thank you to that.

 

[IVER]

World AM Doubles is about to add Legend Division. So we need to sign up.

 

[biscoe]

Lol! IOW, "the grievance you've experienced is not, in fact, a grievance and cannot be described as 'ageism' or 'discrimination.' And by claiming that it is, you have disqualified yourself from any further participation in this conversation, a conversation which you began."

Thanks for the translation. You seem to be inserting some stuff I did not say but, hey, that's the nature of translation I suppose.

I am done. Good luck to you older fellows on satisfying your desires. Come to the Mid-Atlantic to play and you will likely find TD's more receptive.

 

[Major Tomahawk]

World AM Doubles is about to add Legend Division. So we need to sign up.

Good news for you old Ams.

More good news: My brother talked to HB Clarke and HB was very receptive to the idea and has agreed to add Am Legends to Bowling Green. Congrats, you old farts!! :clap::thmbup:

 

[IVER]

Get it up

I of course mean "keep it up" with regard to contacting TDs about Legends and above. We need each state to include Disc in Senior Olympic Trials.

 

[simpletwist]

I meant to respond to this a month ago. OP, I completely understand and I'm only a whippersnapper Senior Grandmaster. So a couple of decided to hold our own Grandmaster and older Invitational. Although we considered doing a sanctioned event ultimately we decided not to.

Over the Hill and Threw the Woods

I know some folks get all bent when I refer to ball golf as an example, but I think it couldn't hurt to have a Senior. PETA tour of events.

Since 2011 (I think) NY has included disc golf to its events. Most fun as well as competitive event I play.