• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Proposed rule changes for 2024

This doesn't quite make sense to me.
If 4 players on a card are all using the PDGA app and player A enters everyone's score - don't those score show up on everyone's phone?

Are they going to change the PDGA scoring ap so that each player using the ap has to enter the scores after every hole?
 
This doesn't quite make sense to me.
If 4 players on a card are all using the PDGA app and player A enters everyone's score - don't those score show up on everyone's phone?
No, that's not how it works. Each scorecard is an independent scorecard.

The public PDGALive leaderboard is different. If one player enters a score on his scorecard, then anyone can indeed look at PDGALive to see what values were entered.

Are they going to change the PDGA scoring ap so that each player using the ap has to enter the scores after every hole?
That's the way it already works. Each person who is keeping score records score. If any player makes a mistake and enters a number that is different than any other player, the app will detect the mistake and alert the players that there is a scoring mismatch.
 
An article I wrote in Jan regarding all the positive features of digital scoring.

 
If a new player logs in mid-round, the first screen they see will have little tabs across the top of the scorecard for all the other players who have been keeping score. New guy clicks on the tab for the partial scorecard from the other player, then clicks the Copy button to the right of it. That scorecard gets copied over to their phone, and they can pick up where the previous person left off.
Thanks....I did not know about that ability. I'll have to note or remember those steps to follow.
 
No, that's not how it works. Each scorecard is an independent scorecard.

The public PDGALive leaderboard is different. If one player enters a score on his scorecard, then anyone can indeed look at PDGALive to see what values were entered.


That's the way it already works. Each person who is keeping score records score. If any player makes a mistake and enters a number that is different than any other player, the app will detect the mistake and alert the players that there is a scoring mismatch.
Gotcha!
Yeah, I was thinking it was like the Live scoring.
 
I don't understand the benefit of having more than two people keeping score on the app.

At the completion of every hole, each person is asked their score, and their score is entered. If there's a discrepancy between the two on the app, it appears immediately and is resolved - if necessary by querying all players to ensure the right scores are entered. End of story.

I guess it's statistically more likely to find errors when four people are recording scores instead of two - and easier to resolve where 3 cards say one thing, and one says something else.

But is it really worth it? Yeah, I roll my eyes a little at the guys 10 years younger than me saying they can't work the app. And the guys who "forget" their phones. But we used to be able to handle this with one piece of paper, a pencil, some basic arithmetic, and passing around the card at the end of the round. Digital scorekeeping has really improved the experience...but do we really need to push it out further?
 
Mandating a week of member only registration before it opens to non-members would solve that issue without killing one of the main gateways to people wanting to become members.
This would require every TD to set up tiered registration. I would guess 50% of TDs would either forget out of error or simply set it up in some way wrong. I'm sure there is a coding process that would make this automated, but it's not a simple as saying "just give a week"

Even if, other issues with C tiers not requiring membership:
- Many ams complain that a local non member is way too skilled for something like MA2 and MA3 and without a rating component to said player, there is no way to control this.
- The Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction over non-members and no way to prevent said person from doing something that is suspension worthy and then the next week playing again
- There is no validation of identity without membership. I could show up in an area of the country that doesn't know me and sign up as a non-member in MA3 and easily win claiming I'm John Doe non member. This also could happen with a 37 year old playing MA40, etc. End of the day, these events are about competition and this greatly helps control the integrity.

I get that what I'm actually doing is advocating for membership at all events because all this change does is move the issue down to D Tiers, but at least this is limiting it.

FWIW, I'm torn between the idea you mentioned (which I've seen mentioned a lot in various places) and requiring membership (for the reasons I mentioned). I'm just pointing out that the issue / conversation is much deeper with many more elements than people realize.
 
I don't understand the benefit of having more than two people keeping score on the app.

At the completion of every hole, each person is asked their score, and their score is entered. If there's a discrepancy between the two on the app, it appears immediately and is resolved - if necessary by querying all players to ensure the right scores are entered. End of story.

I guess it's statistically more likely to find errors when four people are recording scores instead of two - and easier to resolve where 3 cards say one thing, and one says something else.

But is it really worth it? Yeah, I roll my eyes a little at the guys 10 years younger than me saying they can't work the app. And the guys who "forget" their phones. But we used to be able to handle this with one piece of paper, a pencil, some basic arithmetic, and passing around the card at the end of the round. Digital scorekeeping has really improved the experience...but do we really need to push it out further?
The issue is the same people score every round. There is nothing worse than getting on a card with people that don't want to keep score. This takes all the awkwardness away and is fair across the board. Everyone has to do it. The only conversation a TD needs to have is "using your phone or need paper?"
 
This would require every TD to set up tiered registration. I would guess 50% of TDs would either forget out of error or simply set it up in some way wrong. I'm sure there is a coding process that would make this automated, but it's not a simple as saying "just give a week"

Even if, other issues with C tiers not requiring membership:
- Many ams complain that a local non member is way too skilled for something like MA2 and MA3 and without a rating component to said player, there is no way to control this.
- The Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction over non-members and no way to prevent said person from doing something that is suspension worthy and then the next week playing again
- There is no validation of identity without membership. I could show up in an area of the country that doesn't know me and sign up as a non-member in MA3 and easily win claiming I'm John Doe non member. This also could happen with a 37 year old playing MA40, etc. End of the day, these events are about competition and this greatly helps control the integrity.

I get that what I'm actually doing is advocating for membership at all events because all this change does is move the issue down to D Tiers, but at least this is limiting it.

FWIW, I'm torn between the idea you mentioned (which I've seen mentioned a lot in various places) and requiring membership (for the reasons I mentioned). I'm just pointing out that the issue / conversation is much deeper with many more elements than people realize.
I have been in favor of members only for years but only in combination with a lower cost membership option.
 
This would require every TD to set up tiered registration. I would guess 50% of TDs would either forget out of error or simply set it up in some way wrong. I'm sure there is a coding process that would make this automated, but it's not a simple as saying "just give a week"

Even if, other issues with C tiers not requiring membership:
- Many ams complain that a local non member is way too skilled for something like MA2 and MA3 and without a rating component to said player, there is no way to control this.
- The Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction over non-members and no way to prevent said person from doing something that is suspension worthy and then the next week playing again
- There is no validation of identity without membership. I could show up in an area of the country that doesn't know me and sign up as a non-member in MA3 and easily win claiming I'm John Doe non member. This also could happen with a 37 year old playing MA40, etc. End of the day, these events are about competition and this greatly helps control the integrity.

I get that what I'm actually doing is advocating for membership at all events because all this change does is move the issue down to D Tiers, but at least this is limiting it.

FWIW, I'm torn between the idea you mentioned (which I've seen mentioned a lot in various places) and requiring membership (for the reasons I mentioned). I'm just pointing out that the issue / conversation is much deeper with many more elements than people realize.
Is this actually an issue? Are there people going around taking wins in ma3 who should be ma1? That seems so not fun to do.

Back when there was only 35k pdga members it seemed like locals would bully anyone top 3 in their division to move up.
 
The issue is the same people score every round. There is nothing worse than getting on a card with people that don't want to keep score. This takes all the awkwardness away and is fair across the board. Everyone has to do it. The only conversation a TD needs to have is "using your phone or need paper?"
As a TD I have literally not had to count a scorecard in at least a year and a half. This change is going to ruin that and slow down event processes.
 
Mandating a week of member only registration before it opens to non-members would solve that issue without killing one of the main gateways to people wanting to become members.

This would require every TD to set up tiered registration. I would guess 50% of TDs would either forget out of error or simply set it up in some way wrong. I'm sure there is a coding process that would make this automated, but it's not a simple as saying "just give a week"

Even if, other issues with C tiers not requiring membership:
- Many ams complain that a local non member is way too skilled for something like MA2 and MA3 and without a rating component to said player, there is no way to control this.
- The Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction over non-members and no way to prevent said person from doing something that is suspension worthy and then the next week playing again
- There is no validation of identity without membership. I could show up in an area of the country that doesn't know me and sign up as a non-member in MA3 and easily win claiming I'm John Doe non member. This also could happen with a 37 year old playing MA40, etc. End of the day, these events are about competition and this greatly helps control the integrity.

I get that what I'm actually doing is advocating for membership at all events because all this change does is move the issue down to D Tiers, but at least this is limiting it.

FWIW, I'm torn between the idea you mentioned (which I've seen mentioned a lot in various places) and requiring membership (for the reasons I mentioned). I'm just pointing out that the issue / conversation is much deeper with many more elements than people realize.

I think both of these posts make really good points.

I'll push back on "TDs won't set it up correctly" and say that we perhaps shouldn't ascribe to TDs a bunch of conflicting narratives without realizing that some of these are "you can't solve multiple problems simultaneously." If you make X better, sometimes Y necessarily will be more of an issue.

- Too many local tournament participants complain about being members and not getting into tournaments
- Too many local tournament participants complain about sandbaggers
- Too many local participants complain about having to be a member to participate in a tournament and it not being "worth it".
- Being a TD is too hard because I don't know how to properly set up a tournament now because of rule.

I wonder whether creating some type of PDGA registration that allows you to participate in a small number of tournaments, doesn't confer benefits, and doesn't expire until that small number of tournaments have been registered for would make sense. For example, you'd pay $50, not get a discount on tournament entry, but could register for, say 5 events. Membership would still be required to register at all. This would satisfy the desire to prevent sandbagging while also allowing only occasional tournament participants to still play.

Not sure what the net effect on yearly memberships would be.
 
With regards to C-tier membership requirements, maybe it would better to give TDs options as the know their player base best:
1) add an unlimited exemption for early registrations for PDGA members to CM.1.02.c.2
2) In CM.1.01.B, add that TDs may choose to make C-tiers PDGA member only rather than require it.
That doesn't address all of the points MTL makes above about discipline and identity, but it gives TDs more flexibility to try the members only C tier if they want.
 
Is this actually an issue? Are there people going around taking wins in ma3 who should be ma1? That seems so not fun to do.

Back when there was only 35k pdga members it seemed like locals would bully anyone top 3 in their division to move up.
People always complain about it but when asked to present real life examples can seldom if ever do so.
 
With regards to C-tier membership requirements, maybe it would better to give TDs options as the know their player base best:
1) add an unlimited exemption for early registrations for PDGA members to CM.1.02.c.2
2) In CM.1.01.B, add that TDs may choose to make C-tiers PDGA member only rather than require it.
That doesn't address all of the points MTL makes above about discipline and identity, but it gives TDs more flexibility to try the members only C tier if they want.
Much better- solves the issue without tossing the baby out with the bath water.
 
People always complain about it but when asked to present real life examples can seldom if ever do so.
I only know of two who caught flak for allegedly playing below their capability and one was a really old guy who was an absolute monster at putting with one of those floppy dga discs but couldn't drive more than 200' he would demolish the rec division on short courses and take nearly dfl on longer courses, and Charlie goodpasture who I had many good battles with in intermediate.
 
803.01 Moving Obstacles
B. 1. A player may move casual obstacles that are on the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed when taking a stance farther from the target than the front edge of the lie.

Given that we saw the clarification last year at Champions Cup that people couldn't move pine cones in their run up, the PDGA has created a precedent that very minor unattached items, which have no impact on the flight line of the disc or swing of the arm, are still to be scrupulously considered casual obstacles. This isn't something that before this anyone had considered within the scope of the rules. This clarification does not fully resolve the issues with that precedent.

A potential problem immediately presents itself. When proceeding to a disc, one frequently will pass closer to the target than the lie. One frequent example is any throw which comes to rest past the target, such as putts or approach shots. Another is lies in the rough which cannot be gotten too easily.

This rule still means that if you move a pine cone, gum ball, small branch, twig, etc. as you approach the lie, you have committed a violation (unless you replace said pinecone, etc) . If someone kicks their toe into the ground in minor frustration after air balling a putt, and it moves a gum ball, it's a violation if the comeback putt is longer than the original one.

I would suggest that something be put in here regarding movement of casual obstacles which have no impact on play. Or inadvertent/unintentional moving of casual obstacles. I understand that people are reluctant to put anything into the rules about intent, but it's almost required here.

At the very least the rule should address casual obstacles which are farther from the lie than the target is from the lie (i.e the basket is between you and the lie). This would at least prevent the requirement that players circumnavigate the circle described by the distance of the lie from the target.
 

Latest posts

Top