PDGA's New Disciplinary Process

[_MTL_]

Yup that's why I put the + in there. I've never seen an MPO division that cost less than $30 to play in, plus the non member fee, so I should've said "$40+". My bad.

Guess we just don't agree. I personally have found no reasons to join the PDGA over the last 4-5 years I've competed. A rule change like this would make me never compete in local C tiers ever again which would be sad for me.

IMHO, membership benefits should grant access to PDGA events.

I also would not support membership required for competition endowment events.

 

[Plastic Thunder]

I would think a PDGA number would grant qualified members to apply to high end PDGA events.

For example, if I had a PDGA number I would not be granted to play USDGC based on the fact I had a number, I would also need to meet some point standard as well, correct?

Or at least I could apply to any event, but to be granted a position would be based on my ability to meet a minimum standard for NT type events. Lloyd comes to mind as a player who did not meet the standard but did play this past year in a number of high profile events. He's got stones that one.

IMHO, membership benefits should grant access to PDGA events.

I also would not support membership required for competition endowment events.

 

[_MTL_]

I would think a PDGA number would grant qualified members to apply to high end PDGA events.

It currently does this. You have to be current to play A tiers or higher. I would like to see it be C tiers or higher and only allow non-members to play leagues.

 

[biscoe]

It currently does this. You have to be current to play A tiers or higher. I would like to see it be C tiers or higher and only allow non-members to play leagues.

I used to think the PDGA should require membership for all events (leagues not counting as events- not sure I even believe they should sanction leagues). It would work fine in my area. Numbers don't really support it for everywhere though.

Spotsylvania County events 2019 had a total of 1178 players compete in PDGA events with 34 not being current members- just under 3%. Throw out the A Tier and the Major and the numbers are 870 and 34 which is just under 4%.

On the other hand the state of Mississippi had 1723 total players with 381 not being current which is 22%.

 

[DiscFifty]

Yup that's why I put the + in there. I've never seen an MPO division that cost less than $30 to play in, plus the non member fee, so I should've said "$40+". My bad.

Guess we just don't agree. I personally have found no reasons to join the PDGA over the last 4-5 years I've competed. A rule change like this would make me never compete in local C tiers ever again which would be sad for me.

How many PDGA events a year do you play in? If you are playing 5 or more PDGA events a year the membership pays for itself by eliminating the 10.00 fee per event.

 

[DiscFifty]

On the other hand the state of Mississippi had 1723 total players with 381 not being current which is 22%.

I also think the first year for all memberships should be free or extremely cheap. When you have a number attached to you, you might feel part of something. It could help build long term membership numbers as hopefully some of those 22% would renew their membership.

 

[robdeforge]

How many PDGA events a year do you play in? If you are playing 5 or more PDGA events a year the membership pays for itself by eliminating the 10.00 fee per event.

it's been 5 or less than 5 since I started playing. I appreciate the flexibility of being able to decide whether or not to play based on weather forecasts and how that will impact my enjoyment of an event, not "I should play 5 to make my membership fee worth it". thanks though

 

[ohtobediscing]

Isn't the point of the updates that it's the entire community's responsibility to administer discipline?

In that case:

Assume the position!

 

[DanJon]

It currently does this. You have to be current to play A tiers or higher. I would like to see it be C tiers or higher and only allow non-members to play leagues.

Ah yes, great way to grow the competitive side of the sport for beginners.

Force them to be members!

 

[Jay Dub]

Ah yes, great way to grow the competitive side of the sport for beginners.

Force them to be members!

Yep, that will turn more players away not create more PDGA members.

 

[_MTL_]

Ah yes, great way to grow the competitive side of the sport for beginners.

Force them to be members!

That's absolutely one of it not the only valid counter argument to this. It's the primary and maybe sole reason it's not in place already.

But I would counter that the local club scene with doubles monthlies, weeklies etc does this. I know hardly no one that didn't start the competitive journey in this fashion. This would also include sanctioned leagues which should not require membership.

If that person has the desire to continue to compete and that leads to the desire to play in PDGA events, I doubt the required membership fee would be so much of a deterrent. Almost every recreational organized sports league has a member fee due to insurance, liability, etc.

 

[Future_Primitive]

As much as I dislike agreeing with MTL I think he is on the right side of this issue. There are plenty of options for beginners be it casual rounds, local leagues and non-sanctioned events. That is generally the progression for a majority of players anyways and it places greater importance on an official PDGA event. I dont know a single person whose first time playing was at a PDGA sanctioned event. I waited a year before I joined and played my first sanctioned event, playing leagues and non-sanctioned events first before taking the plunge.

I do believe only active members should be allowed to join ratings protected divisions in a PDGA event. Non-members would have the option to play Pro, AM1 or any age protected division offered. Or you could offer a non-member division, low entry fee and trophy only for those truly interested in the tournament experience. There are ways to keep the rating protected divisions free of unrated players while still offering them the experience. Part of the perks of being a member is getting a rating and getting the chance to play with similar rated players. If you want to play ratings protected divisions than become a member, cough up that $1.00 per week for your membership.

 

[JC17393]

Oh, no, it's the mythical non-PDGA member out to lie, cheat, and steal his way to the tens of dollars worth of prizes that plagues 0.000000001% of tournaments throughout the world.

Another solution in search of a problem. Don't we have enough of these already?

Quoting myself because it can't be said enough.

I think people underestimate the necessity of sanctioning in some areas. As in, there's no such thing as non-sanctioned tournaments in some parks/areas because the event insurance obtained through the PDGA is necessary for the events to be allowed to take place. So there's no non-sanctioned events for new(er) players to get their feet wet before taking the PDGA plunge.

Non-members shouldn't be presumed to be predatory baggers just because they don't have ratings (every time this comes up, no one ever seems to be able to cite actual instances of these mythical baggers actually appearing). They don't need special divisions. They don't need to be forced to play specific divisions for which they most likely will be grossly overwhelmed skill-wise.

The simplest solution for a non-member suspected of playing a "protected" division below their skill level is to award them a membership as part of their winnings. These days, that's something the TD can do on his phone right there at the course. The only thing he might need if he didn't collect it in advance is the player's mailing address. At least this way, they can only pull off their skullduggery once.

 

[Karl]

"Can't have enough of that skullduggery, bamboozling, flimflamming, hoodwinking, hornswaggling...."
There's gotta be a song in there somewhere.

 

[cheesethin]

... There are plenty of options for beginners be it casual rounds, local leagues and non-sanctioned events...

Not true here in the UK. The scene is small here. Non-sanctioned events are uncommon, maybe only a few leagues.

And the casual round experience is very different from the competitive tourney experience. It isn't a substitute. I dipped my toe into competitive sanctioned tourney play 3 or 4 times before I signed up.

Mandatory membership for C Tiers would have a big dampening effect on nascent scenes like ours.

And echoing JC, the first response when someone offers a solution should always be "how big is the problem being solved"?





Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[ru4por]

Quoting myself because it can't be said enough.

I think people underestimate the necessity of sanctioning in some areas. As in, there's no such thing as non-sanctioned tournaments in some parks/areas because the event insurance obtained through the PDGA is necessary for the events to be allowed to take place. So there's no non-sanctioned events for new(er) players to get their feet wet before taking the PDGA plunge.

Non-members shouldn't be presumed to be predatory baggers just because they don't have ratings (every time this comes up, no one ever seems to be able to cite actual instances of these mythical baggers actually appearing). They don't need special divisions. They don't need to be forced to play specific divisions for which they most likely will be grossly overwhelmed skill-wise.

The simplest solution for a non-member suspected of playing a "protected" division below their skill level is to award them a membership as part of their winnings. These days, that's something the TD can do on his phone right there at the course. The only thing he might need if he didn't collect it in advance is the player's mailing address. At least this way, they can only pull off their skullduggery once.

This has nothing to do with sandbagging to me. You can be a card carrying PDGA member with no rating, and can still bag, if that is your thing.

If indeed, the only practical means of having a disc golf tournament in your area, is via PDGA sanctioning, why would it be outlandish to expect that all the participants are paying members of the body that allow for them to compete? And to benefit equally from the opportunity, as a contributing member.

 

[Future_Primitive]

Not true here in the UK. The scene is small here. Non-sanctioned events are uncommon, maybe only a few leagues.

And the casual round experience is very different from the competitive tourney experience. It isn't a substitute. I dipped my toe into competitive sanctioned tourney play 3 or 4 times before I signed up.

Mandatory membership for C Tiers would have a big dampening effect on nascent scenes like ours.

Fair enough, this is going to vary from region to region, so thank you for sharing your perspective. Just to be clear I never said the bolded part and offered two different scenarios for non-members to play in sanctioned events.

Non-members would have the option to play Pro, AM1 or any age protected division offered. Or you could offer a non-member division, low entry fee and trophy only for those truly interested in the tournament experience. There are ways to keep the rating protected divisions free of unrated players while still offering them the experience.

I just don't see how the PDGA can claim to have ratings protected divisions and turnaround and allow non-members with no rating to play in them. Its not that different from the Lloyd Weema rule and having members be 900 rated or higher to play in certain events. It's a qualifier, if you have a rating you qualify to play in a ratings protected division. No rating, you don't qualify for those divisions but here are some that are not ratings protected you can choose from.

 

[DanJon]

That's absolutely one of it not the only valid counter argument to this. It's the primary and maybe sole reason it's not in place already.

But I would counter that the local club scene with doubles monthlies, weeklies etc does this. I know hardly no one that didn't start the competitive journey in this fashion. This would also include sanctioned leagues which should not require membership.

If that person has the desire to continue to compete and that leads to the desire to play in PDGA events, I doubt the required membership fee would be so much of a deterrent. Almost every recreational organized sports league has a member fee due to insurance, liability, etc.

Fair enough, I'm biased as I will never get a PDGA Membership after they screwed me.

Injured as a spotter during a high profile event and the Executive Director of the PDGA at the time promised they would take care of my medical bills.

I sent in the appropriate paperwork and they denied it.

Didn't have the time or money to contest it.

The point is, I'm not the only person who likes to play in tournaments, but doesn't want to be a member of the PDGA.

 

[DanJon]

This has nothing to do with sandbagging to me. You can be a card carrying PDGA member with no rating, and can still bag, if that is your thing.

If indeed, the only practical means of having a disc golf tournament in your area, is via PDGA sanctioning, why would it be outlandish to expect that all the participants are paying members of the body that allow for them to compete? And to benefit equally from the opportunity, as a contributing member.

How does a person "bag" if they have a PDGA Membership?

 

[ru4por]

How does a person "bag" if they have a PDGA Membership?

Have paid for a membership and never playing a sanctioned tournament. I had a PDGA membership for a dozen years before I ever played a single sanctioned event.