Proposed rule changes for 2024

[txmxer]

It doesn't matter how we might see it. The rules cover this.

Thanks for supporting the lazy peeps. (Me).

 

[biscoe]

To clarify, in match play, if an opponent says "that's good " and the player proceeds to pitch the disc in the basket, is that an additional stroke?

Not sure how it would matter once the hole is conceded. Maybe a non-issue.

But then there are the practice throw rules and such.

Personally, in match play I would see each hole as its own standalone competition. You win/lose/draw and things like practice throws would be irrelevant, but maybe a courtesy issue.

In traditional golf match play player may practice putt between holes as long as they aren't delaying the competition. When they codified rules for dg match play they opted to not allow it- unsure why. I have run a (unsanctioned) match play event since prior to the PDGA having match play rules and have always allowed it.

 

[PastorofMuppets]

In traditional golf match play player may practice putt between holes as long as they aren't delaying the competition. When they codified rules for dg match play they opted to not allow it- unsure why. I have run a (unsanctioned) match play event since prior to the PDGA having match play rules and have always allowed it.

There's gamesmanship in not allowing a player a chance to putt for multiple holes, then when you need to win a hole, make them take a nervy putt from 20-25 feet that normally they would make, but now they haven't putted in 6-7 holes. I can definitely see both sides, but conceding putts can certainly be used to your advantage if practice putts aren't allowed.

 

[Steve West]

In traditional golf match play player may practice putt between holes as long as they aren't delaying the competition. When they codified rules for dg match play they opted to not allow it- unsure why. I have run a (unsanctioned) match play event since prior to the PDGA having match play rules and have always allowed it.

Since hardly anyone actually reads the rules, one concern was that "I heard the rules now allow practice throws" would be wrongly applied to medal/stroke play.

 

[Dcinmd]

There's gamesmanship in not allowing a player a chance to putt for multiple holes, then when you need to win a hole, make them take a nervy putt from 20-25 feet that normally they would make, but now they haven't putted in 6-7 holes. I can definitely see both sides, but conceding putts can certainly be used to your advantage if practice putts aren't allowed.

If one hasn't putt in 6 or 7 holes, it is not likely they will win no matter how they are putting. That is a long stretch of losing holes in match play.

 

[Frank Broughton]

Love the new rule that you can designate your caddy to be your score keeper.

 

[PastorofMuppets]

If one hasn't putt in 6 or 7 holes, it is not likely they will win no matter how they are putting. That is a long stretch of losing holes in match play.

That's not entirely true. I've seen multiple match play events where both players are routinely inside bullseye for tap ins and push the hole with the same score and neither makes the other putt it out. You could also be parked every hole and the guy losing the hole concedes the hole after he misses his putt. I won our AM matchplay championship match 2 and 1 and only putted 4 times the entire round (the 4 times I happened to be outside of 15 feet). In matchplay I don't make people putt 10 footers, some people make others putt everything including drop ins. Depends how you want to play your strategy out.

 

[_MTL_]

Love the new rule that you can designate your caddy to be your score keeper.

as 808B says now, "Players in the group keep score proportionally, unless a player or a scorekeeper volunteers to keep score more and that is acceptable to all players in the group." so that is already allowed.

This change says that to score you must be a caddie or a player. This gets rid of the buddy who is with a group scoring and causing issues or drinking etc and the player saying "well hes not my caddie, not my fault." By default, if you are scoring you are a caddie or player.

 

[Art Stryker]

So glad I don't play tournaments. My head hurts reading all this stuff. At least I do know some rules now.

 

[Skamanda]

as 808B says now, "Players in the group keep score proportionally, unless a player or a scorekeeper volunteers to keep score more and that is acceptable to all players in the group." so that is already allowed.

This change says that to score you must be a caddie or a player. This gets rid of the buddy who is with a group scoring and causing issues or drinking etc and the player saying "well hes not my caddie, not my fault." By default, if you are scoring you are a caddie or player.

That goes along with spectators only being allowed in specified areas, yeah? Only the players and caddies are allowed with the play group.

Frankly, that's a welcome change, to me. One of my friends husbands showed up mid way through every round, a couple tournaments ago. He wouldn't stop trying to be the center of every conversation, and was actively trash talking his wife for bad throws. If he's not allowed to do that anymore, we're all better off...

 

[_MTL_]

That goes along with spectators only being allowed in specified areas, yeah? Only the players and caddies are allowed with the play group.

Frankly, that's a welcome change, to me. One of my friends husbands showed up mid way through every round, a couple tournaments ago. He wouldn't stop trying to be the center of every conversation, and was actively trash talking his wife for bad throws. If he's not allowed to do that anymore, we're all better off...

Worth noting the group size rule is only in effect for Majors and elites.

 

[sandtiger]

Worth noting the group size rule is only in effect for Majors and elites.

The husband doesn't need to know that. Just casually mention to the friend that they changed the rules and he's not allowed to follow along in the group anymore.

 

[peabody]

On next year's c-tier ..
My local club has our annual two round tournament and it's kind of a big thing. We have sponsors that give a bunch of money and swag every year. They also pay the entry fee for their employees. Most of them aren't PDGA members. This year we had a dozen or so non-members enter. I'm afraid next year we lose multiple sponsors with only PDGA members able to sign up.



I'm thinking e starting a tournament here in my hometown. I will make it NON-PDGA and all PDGA members will not be allowed to participate.


I mean if Natalie can sue the PDGA over discrimination and non-inclusion why can't non members do the same on c-tier discrimination and non-inclusion?

 

[biscoe]

[email protected] is the place to send any issues you may have.

 

[roblee]

The Board approved these new rules at the June Spring Summit meeting. The minutes of that meeting were approved at the July meeting but they are still not published. Maybe someone with influence can speed the process of timely minutes reporting. I frequently send email reminders but it seldom gets results.

 

[uncle pennybags]

I play in rural areas a lot and they are rarely in danger of filling up a c-tier. Most are like 30-40 people. Most are also not pdga members. Forcing all c-tier to be members or making the event a single round d-tier will probably be the death knell for a lot of these events.

A lot of those kind of events have division mixing too. I play ma40 and have been mixed with older players, pro40+ players, and just about every other division. So how does this non-mixing rule work if there are not enough players to make a card? TD forces me to play ma3 or something?

I kind of get what the rule changes are trying to go for, but like many others have said the pdga had ways to address the 'issues' without taking such drastic changes.


ps. I'd like to see some real data from the pdga about tournament play. Put it in some nice charts with PowerBi or something that we can see things like members vs non-members in events, available slots in all tournaments, etc. Have that broken down by divisions and regions too.

 

[biscoe]

I play in rural areas a lot and they are rarely in danger of filling up a c-tier. Most are like 30-40 people. Most are also not pdga members. Forcing all c-tier to be members or making the event a single round d-tier will probably be the death knell for a lot of these events.

A lot of those kind of events have division mixing too. I play ma40 and have been mixed with older players, pro40+ players, and just about every other division. So how does this non-mixing rule work if there are not enough players to make a card? TD forces me to play ma3 or something?

I kind of get what the rule changes are trying to go for, but like many others have said the pdga had ways to address the 'issues' without taking such drastic changes.


ps. I'd like to see some real data from the pdga about tournament play. Put it in some nice charts with PowerBi or something that we can see things like members vs non-members in events, available slots in all tournaments, etc. Have that broken down by divisions and regions too.

The mixing divisions stuff applies to events where they are deliberately mixing all divisions, not to instances where there is a need for a few mixed cards for the event to function.

 

[Skamanda]

ps. I'd like to see some real data from the pdga about tournament play. Put it in some nice charts with PowerBi or something that we can see things like members vs non-members in events, available slots in all tournaments, etc. Have that broken down by divisions and regions too.

I'm a HUGE proponent of open data, and I'd LOVE to see this, but I doubt anyone in a decision making role at the PDGA is willing to release the data to the public.

 

[uncle pennybags]

The mixing divisions stuff applies to events where they are deliberately mixing all divisions, not to instances where there is a need for a few mixed cards for the event to function.

Ah. I may have missed something then, but that makes sense.

 

[uncle pennybags]

I'm a HUGE proponent of open data, and I'd LOVE to see this, but I doubt anyone in a decision making role at the PDGA is willing to release the data to the public.

If they don't look at this data right now, I'd be surprised. IT seems like it would be super easy to do internally, the data is there they just need to aggregate it. And then maybe publish some of it.