TD changing a players division mid tournament

[coupe]

Comp Manual in 2.01 seems imho to clearly differentiate between "members" and "players".

[snip]

To me that clarifies that any age-protected or ratings-protected division means only members are eligible to play those. For the sake of argument I'll even go ahead and give you that maybe perhaps we can't stop a non-member from entering MPO, FPO, MA1, or FA1. But all other divisions require an eligibility based upon either age or rating (or both), and that means (as I read it and interpret 2.01.L) that only members meet that qualification. Again, if you don't agree, then yes, we're done.

Quite apart from 45 years of precedent of permitting non-members to compete in age-, gender-, and rating-protected divisions, CM 2.02 explicitly permits "players" to enter ratings-based divisions that they would otherwise be ineligible to participate in with the approval of the Tour Manager: a stipulation that would be completely unnecessary if non-member players weren't eligible to compete in ratings-based divisions.

Furthermore, restricting non-members to competing in MPO, FPO, MA1, or FA1 explicitly violates 2.01.I which specifically stipulates that amateur "player" the opportunity to compete

in any Professional division for which they are eligible based on age, gender, and event format:

another meaningless stipulation if non-member players are ineligible to compete in age-based divisions in the first place.

Moreover, 2.01.A only prohibits "players"1, or FA1 explicitly violates 2.01.I which specifically grants amateur "player" from entering divisions they're NOT eligble for; it does NOT prohibit them from entering any age- or rating-protected division that they ARE eligible for.

Player eligibility is addressed in CM 1.01, which explicitly grants non-members eligibility to compete in sanctioned events by paying the non-member fee, without imposing on them any restrictions on their divisional qualification beyond those that apply to members.

2.01.L preserves PDGA members' right to compete in any division they're deemed by the PDGA to be eligible to compete in, regardless of any local bump rules. Period. While no such commensurate right is granted to non-members, nothing in 2.01.L addresses, nor can any good faith reading of the language of 2.01.L be construed as addressing the eligibility or non-eligibility of non-members to compete in age-, rating-, player class, or gender-protected divisions.

 

[araytx]

Quite apart from 45 years of precedent of permitting non-members to compete in age-, gender-, and rating-protected divisions, CM 2.02 explicitly permits "players" to enter ratings-based divisions that they would otherwise be ineligible to participate in with the approval of the Tour Manager: a stipulation that would be completely unnecessary if non-member players weren't eligible to compete in ratings-based divisions.

Furthermore, restricting non-members to competing in MPO, FPO, MA1, or FA1 explicitly violates 2.01.I which specifically stipulates that amateur "player" the opportunity to compete

another meaningless stipulation if non-member players are ineligible to compete in age-based divisions in the first place.

Moreover, 2.01.A only prohibits "players"1, or FA1 explicitly violates 2.01.I which specifically grants amateur "player" from entering divisions they're NOT eligble for; it does NOT prohibit them from entering any age- or rating-protected division that they ARE eligible for.

Player eligibility is addressed in CM 1.01, which explicitly grants non-members eligibility to compete in sanctioned events by paying the non-member fee, without imposing on them any restrictions on their divisional qualification beyond those that apply to members.

2.01.L preserves PDGA members' right to compete in any division they're deemed by the PDGA to be eligible to compete in, regardless of any local bump rules. Period. While no such commensurate right is granted to non-members, nothing in 2.01.L addresses, nor can any good faith reading of the language of 2.01.L be construed as addressing the eligibility or non-eligibility of non-members to compete in age-, rating-, player class, or gender-protected divisions.

Like I said.
No convincing anyone who's heels are dug in. I'm out.

 

[Chains Bailey]

Like I said.
No convincing anyone who's heels are dug in. I'm out.

Because you are simply wrong.

A non-PDGA player who registers for a PDGA event can choose whatever division they like (Excluding gender and age based where applicable), period.

It really is simple and has been done this way since the beginning of time - at least the 20+ years I have been involved in the sport.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Because you are simply wrong.

A non-PDGA player who registers for a PDGA event can choose whatever division they like (Excluding gender and age based where applicable), period.

It really is simple and has been done this way since the beginning of time - at least the 20+ years I have been involved in the sport.

True, the non-member may choose but the TD can redirect to allow participation since the beginning of PDGA. Most TDs are not PDGA employees but contractors. They need to follow the specific rules for sanctioning but do not need to follow unwritten ones even if traditional or expected by potential entrants who are not members.

 

[Chains Bailey]

True, the non-member may choose but the TD can redirect to allow participation since the beginning of PDGA. Most TDs are not PDGA employees but contractors. They need to follow the specific rules for sanctioning but do not need to follow unwritten ones even if traditional or expected by potential entrants who are not members.

You would have to expand on this for me to respond - "TD can redirect to allow participation".

If you are saying a TD can simply exclude non-PDGA members to play at all - I agree.

If you are saying a TD can arbitrarily mandate which division a non-PDGA member can play in - I disagree.

Unless we are back to the "since it is unwritten, I can do it" fallacy. Again, I could as a TD make all the players throw with their off hands in a PDGA event because it is not prohibited (Written) and just because "I said so".

Can anyone just admit that the PDGA rules allow a non-PDGA member to choose their division and that there is nothing a TD can do, by the rules, to force them to change their choice.

It is almost absurd to support such a stance.

I am running an event - John Q. signs up for MA2 - John Q. is not a PDGA member.

What justifies me to force John Q. to play in any division? (Gender and age protected given).

Again - do I just say:

"Well you look healthy and strong, I am moving you to MA1"
"I saw you throw over 400FT in warm-ups, you are in MPO"

Is the above "redirecting participation"?

 

[biscoe]

You would have to expand on this for me to respond - "TD can redirect to allow participation".

If you are saying a TD can simply exclude non-PDGA members to play at all - I agree.

If you are saying a TD can arbitrarily mandate which division a non-PDGA member can play in - I disagree.

Unless we are back to the "since it is unwritten, I can do it" fallacy. Again, I could as a TD make all the players throw with their off hands in a PDGA event because it is not prohibited (Written) and just because "I said so".

Pretty sure you could do the bolded but it wouldn't be rated, similar to the event where overhand shots were outlawed that was run by the chairman of the Competition Committee.

Nulla poena sine lege is not a fallacy. To quote from the link provided earlier by Coupe (which you apparently didn't read) it is "a legal principle which states that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held value-judgement in the entire history of human thought'".

 

[Cgkdisc]

The TD can simply say my policy is, "Non-PDGA members have to at least enter MA1/FA1 if they wish to play. However, the local pro "baggers" I'm aware of have to play Open if they wish to participate." Perfectly legal. Why have few TDs done it? Because it's a potential confrontation hassle at the reg table (pre pre-reg era) and many of these nonmembers are buddies, or complete newbies these days.

Note: The TD cannot say players must play with their off-hand unless they get a waiver (unlikely approved) or sanction as an X-tier (likely approved like several other experimental formats).

 

[araytx]

...
Can anyone just admit that the PDGA rules allow a non-PDGA member to choose their division and that there is nothing a TD can do, by the rules, to force them to change their choice.

It is almost absurd to support such a stance.

I am running an event - John Q. signs up for MA2 - John Q. is not a PDGA member.

What justifies me to force John Q. to play in any division? (Gender and age protected given).

Again - do I just say:

"Well you look healthy and strong, I am moving you to MA1"
"I saw you throw over 400FT in warm-ups, you are in MPO"

Is the above "redirecting participation"?

No Chains, you simply do not agree. And that's OK btw. Agreements/disagreements during healthy discussion are good for our country today. However, saying "I'm wrong" doesn't make it so, particularly when you're basing it upon your opinion and/or your interpretation.

When John Q non-member comes to me as TD and says, "I wish to sign up for MA2, here's my entry fee." My reply could be, "Oh, I am sorry. MA2 is a ratings-protected division and those ratings-protected divisions are permitted for PDGA members. I can show you where it is written in the PDGA Competition Manual, Section 2.01.L. if you'd like. Now, would you like to join the organization and get a rating for future events or join online for this one?" for me personally, I'd only do that if I did it for all non-members at my tournament, but yes I interpret that as being in accordance with the Comp Manual.

FYI, I didn't follow "redirecting participation" did someone else say that?

 

[Chains Bailey]

Pretty sure you could do the bolded but it wouldn't be rated, similar to the event where overhand shots were outlawed that was run by the chairman of the Competition Committee.

Nulla poena sine lege is not a fallacy. To quote from the link provided earlier by Coupe (which you apparently didn't read) it is "a legal principle which states that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held value-judgement in the entire history of human thought'".

Pretty sure you could do the bolded but it wouldn't be rated, similar to the event where overhand shots were outlawed that was run by the chairman of the Competition Committee.

Nulla poena sine lege is not a fallacy. To quote from the link provided earlier by Coupe (which you apparently didn't read) it is "a legal principle which states that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held value-judgement in the entire history of human thought'".

I did read it, but do not see the piece "one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law" fit in here. I am not discussing punishing the TD, or anyone. I am objecting to inventing rules that do not exist and/or random interpretations of non existing rules.

Simply put - I do not see anywhere in the rules that allow a TD to arbitrarily mandate a non-PDGA players division choice. The lack of that rule should not default to the TD being allocated abilities that will vary from one to another.

There is no consistency for the non-PDGA member. It would be left up to TD personality, mood and a lot of other random factors. *If event information stated that non-PDGA members will be placed in divisions at the TDs discretion - OK, still random and arbitrary by the nature of the varying TDs ultimate choices.

I have not been shown any rules that allow this practice, only opinion of interpreting unwritten rules.

Do I want to expand the rules in general? No. At the same time, I do think the ability of a TD to arbitrarily select a non-PDGA members division needs to be backed up in writing.

The fact that PDGA members do have division requirements is irrelevant. That only applies to them and can not be used as a reason to invent standards that do not exist.

If I am John Q. and the TD moves me from MA3 to MA1 or requires me to play MPO - I would expect a reasonable explanation of why they are making this choice. If given any of the reasons in this thread, I would question their validity and motives.

I have been a TD for a few events and advocate giving TDs more choices and powers overall, but in this circumstance I would not think it is fair for me to mandate non-PDGA members divisions without a reasonable way of explaining my decision - like, oh I do not know, a RULE.

If I am the only person who believes there needs to be a consistent, fair and documented standard of what divisions non-PDGA members are eligible to play in a PDGA sanctioned event, then so be it - I will be the only one.

 

[Chains Bailey]

I may have pissed off the Disc Golf Gods on this one, or DGCR is running a PsyOp' on me.

Tried to edit out my double quote of Biscoe and DGCR/PsyOp' Central kicked me off the site for like an hour.

Message heard! I will not continue in this thread....thank you for allowing me to exist great DGCR Gods.

(This only counts for this thread - I will continue to argue in all others....pffft I will argue in a mirror given the chance)

 

[BillFleming]

The way I see it....

The rules state you have to play in a proper division based on your rating.

If you choose to not be a member of PDGA and, therefore, not have a rating.....the choice of division isn't yours. It is always up to the TD as to what division you should be in and the majority of TDs just accept the division you (the unrated player) enters. But the TD ALWAYS has the ability/responsibility to put a player in the appropriate division based on their rating. Just because a player chooses to HIDE their rating (which, bottom line, an unrated player is basically doing), doesn't mean they can just play in whatever division they choose.

A 1000 rated player COULD sign up for MA3 (recreational), but the TD would be within their rights (and required) to move them to a more appropriate division. An unrated player, which the TD knows plays more as a 1000 rated player, would also be able to sign up as MA3....should the TD be required to let them stay in that division just because they don't have a rating?

As far as the comments about the rules are for PDGA members and not non-members...so non-members can be treated differently - let's refer to 2.01.E of the competition manual:

A player must properly identify themselves by name and PDGA number when competing in a PDGA-sanctioned event.

If you argue that the competition rules apply to non-members....then non-members are not allowed to play in PDGA Sanctioned events based on the rule above as they cannot 'identity themselves by name and PDGA number'.

The playing rules apply to all (members/non-members) because the TD says they do for the tournament (along with any tournament specific rules). The competition rules apply for non-members where the TD says they do (including any tournament specific rules - such as division eligibility).

 

[BillFleming]

I may have pissed off the Disc Golf Gods on this one, or DGCR is running a PsyOp' on me.

Tried to edit out my double quote of Biscoe and DGCR/PsyOp' Central kicked me off the site for like an hour.

Message heard! I will not continue in this thread....thank you for allowing me to exist great DGCR Gods.

(This only counts for this thread - I will continue to argue in all others....pffft I will argue in a mirror given the chance)

That's not you Chains. DGCR only allows a post to be edited shortly after the post was made. It DGCR thinks you are double posting, it doesn't allow it and I've been 'kicked off' by accidentally double-posting when I didn't think the first post when through.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think some confusion here is whether the TD can manually change a non-member's division AFTER they have registered without notifying the player. That's not what the TD is "allowed" to do. The TD can indicate in advance of registration that a nonmember cannot register to play in certain divisions they might otherwise qualify to enter if they had a rating, even if not current. Or if the nonmember has already registered, notify them that they can either choose to get moved up to Advanced or Open (possibly needing to transmit more money, or they can get their entry fee refunded and not play.

 

[coupe]

I did read it, but do not see the piece "one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law" fit in here. I am not discussing punishing the TD, or anyone. I am objecting to inventing rules that do not exist and/or random interpretations of non existing rules.

The relevance is that Nulla poena sine lege entitles a person to anything that the law/rules do not expressly prohibit, and not to do anything that the law/rules do not expessly mandate, so in principle a TD is free to restrict the division(s) that non-PDGA membes may compete in.

In practice, however, the Competition Manual does impose some limits a TD's freedom.

CM 1.01's definition of the term "players" encompasses current PDGA members in good standing, non-current PDGA members, and non-members.

Competition Manual 1.01. Player Eligibility
1.01 Player Eligibility
A. All members in good standing of the PDGA are eligible to compete in any division for which they qualify based upon class (Professional or Amateur), age, gender, and player rating. Exceptions must be approved in advance by the PDGA Tour Manager. Please see Section 2: Division Qualifications for more specific information on division eligibility.

B. Current PDGA Membership is required to compete in any Major, Elite Series/National Tour, or SuperTour (A Tier) event.

C. In all other PDGA-sanctioned events, players who are not current members may compete by paying a non-member fee. This fee is required for all players except players competing in a Junior division.

Consequently, subsequent use of the term "players" in the CM admits no distinction between PDGA members (whether current or not) and non-members.

CM 2.01 and 2.02, as currently written, presume that non-members are eligible to compete in age-, gender-, and rating-protected divisions. To wit:

Competition Manual 2.01.A. Players [NB: "Players," not "PDGA members," therefore, all players, whether PDGA members or not] are not allowed to enter a division for which they are ineligible due to their membership status, player class, gender, age, or player rating. Please see the online Divisions, Ratings, and Point Factors table for specifics.

It is implicit in the prohibition against "players," whether PDGA members or not, entering divisions for which they are ineligible, that said "players" are eligible to enter a division for which their player class, gender, age, or player rating makes them eligible.

CM 2.01.I explicitly mandates that amateur "players" are eligible to register for any professional age-, gender-, or event format-protected division they qualify for:

Competition Manual 2.01.I An Amateur player [NB.: "players," not "PDGA members," therefore, whether PDGA members or not] may [N.B.: "may," not "shall," "must," or "is required/limited to] compete in any Professional division for which they are eligible based on age, gender, and event format.

By declining to mandate that amateur players who are not PDGA members compete in professional age-, gender-, and event format-protected divisions, CM 2.01.I implicitly presumes that they are eligible to compete in amateur age, gender, and event format-protected dividions.

Furthermore:

Competition Manual 2.02.A: Players [NB.: "players," not "PDGA members," therefore, all players whether PDGA members or not] are are allowed to enter a ratings-based division they would otherwise be ineligible to participate in only under the following circumstances:
1. If approved before the event by the PDGA Tour Manager.
2. Players who have become ineligible for a division due to a ratings update may participate for two weeks following the update, provided they are pre-registered for the event in question, at the discretion of the Tournament Director.
3. If competing in an applicable points Series (see Section 2.02 B for specifics)

By employing the word "players," as opposed to "PDGA members" (see 2.01.L), the CM presumes that all players, regardless of PDGA membership status, who meet any one of the three specified criteria are permitted to compete in a rating division they would not othewise be eligible to compete in, provided they satisfy at least one of the three criteria spelled out in 2.02.A.1, 2, and 3. Necessarily, then, the CM presumes that non-member players are eligible to enter rating-based divisions. [Araytx is flat-out wrong in maintaining that non-member players aren't eligible to enter ratings (and age: see 2.01.I above) protected divisions. It's more than a little ironic that he's arguing that TDs have the right to restrict the divisions non-members can enter, which isn't prohibited by the rules, since he claimed earlier that he DOESN'T subscribe to the rules philosophy that "anything not prohibited by the rules is allowed."]

From the Competition Manual 2.01 General:
"A. Players are not allowed to enter a division for which they are ineligible due to their (ed: lack of) membership status, player class, gender, age, or player rating."

"OR" not "AND." Unless and until the Competition Manual is revised to restrict eligibility to enter PDGA-sanctioned tournaments to current members in good standing, 1.01.C, which explicitly defines player eligibility as including non-PDGA members, trumps 2.01.A.

 

[araytx]

By declining to mandate that amateur players who are not PDGA members compete in professional age-, gender-, and event format-protected divisions, CM 2.01.I implicitly presumes that they are eligible to compete in amateur age, gender, and event format-protected dividions.

Furthermore:

Competition Manual 2.02.A: Players [NB.: "players," not "PDGA members," therefore, all players whether PDGA members or not] are are allowed to enter a ratings-based division they would otherwise be ineligible to participate in only under the following circumstances:
1. If approved before the event by the PDGA Tour Manager.
2. Players who have become ineligible for a division due to a ratings update may participate for two weeks following the update, provided they are pre-registered for the event in question, at the discretion of the Tournament Director.
3. If competing in an applicable points Series (see Section 2.02 B for specifics)

By employing the word "players," as opposed to "PDGA members" (see 2.01.L), the CM presumes that all players, regardless of PDGA membership status, who meet any one of the three specified criteria are permitted to compete in a rating division they would not othewise be eligible to compete in, provided they satisfy at least one of the three criteria spelled out in 2.02.A.1, 2, and 3. Necessarily, then, the CM presumes that non-member players are eligible to enter rating-based divisions. [Araytx is flat-out wrong in maintaining that non-member players aren't eligible to enter ratings (and age: see 2.01.I above) protected divisions. It's more than a little ironic that he's arguing that TDs have the right to restrict the divisions non-members can enter, which isn't prohibited by the rules, since he claimed earlier that he DOESN'T subscribe to the rules philosophy that "anything not prohibited by the rules is allowed."]



"OR" not "AND." Unless and until the Competition Manual is revised to restrict eligibility to enter PDGA-sanctioned tournaments to current members in good standing, 1.01.C, which explicitly defines player eligibility as including non-PDGA members, trumps 2.01.A.

Don't you see you're making a circular argument. RATINGS are something that only members have. Non-members have no rating at all. And it's not ironic because it is in the rules -- 2.01.L. as I've stated before. In order to qualify for a ratings-protected division you must first have a rating. Without one how would you qualify???? :doh:

2.02 (all sections) are for exceptions, those aren't the general rule Mr. coupe. Those wouldn't be labeled "exceptions" (to the rules) if they weren't. Those exceptions in 2.02, as I interpret them, all have to do with something a member had upon registration (back when he/she qualified) that they may not currently have. They would have been a member at the time of registration for the event or first beginning in the series, and they may not be currently. That causes the need for those exceptions.

 

[jenb]

Don't you see you're making a circular argument. RATINGS are something that only members have. Non-members have no rating at all. And it's not ironic because it is in the rules -- 2.01.L. as I've stated before. In order to qualify for a ratings-protected division you must first have a rating. Without one how would you qualify???? :doh:

2.02 (all sections) are for exceptions, those aren't the general rule Mr. coupe. Those wouldn't be labeled "exceptions" (to the rules) if they weren't. Those exceptions in 2.02, as I interpret them, all have to do with something a member had upon registration (back when he/she qualified) that they may not currently have. They would have been a member at the time of registration for the event or first beginning in the series, and they may not be currently. That causes the need for those exceptions.

The ratings protected division excludes players who have ratings above a given threshold. They are not exclusive to players who have ratings below that threshold. Thus, a player with no rating may play a ratings protected division. That's how it's always been and so that's how the rules will be construed absent an explicit rule change to the contrary.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The ratings protected division excludes players who have ratings above a given threshold. They are not exclusive to players who have ratings below that threshold. Thus, a player with no rating may play a ratings protected division. That's how it's always been and so that's how the rules will be construed absent an explicit rule change to the contrary.

That's correct as long as they are a member whether current or lapsed and never go a rating. I don't believe John Houck ever got a rating. So he could enter Novice if he wished since he has a PDGA number but not if he didn't.

 

[johnrhouck]

Yes, I quit playing tournaments before the ratings were created. I also never played as anything other than a pro, so any comeback will not be as an amateur. Please tell the Novices they have nothing to worry about.

 

[Steve West]

The ratings protected division excludes players who have ratings above a given threshold. They are not exclusive to players who have ratings below that threshold. Thus, a player with no rating may play a ratings protected division. That's how it's always been and so that's how the rules will be construed absent an explicit rule change to the contrary.

I don't think that's right. In the Divisions Ratings and Points Factors document it says, as an example:

Amateur Mixed, Intermediate, Ratings Requirement < 935

To me, that explicitly says you are required to have a rating that is less than 935.

If you don't have a rating, you don't have a rating below 935.

 

[jenb]

I don't think that's right. In the Divisions Ratings and Points Factors document it says, as an example:



To me, that explicitly says you are required to have a rating that is less than 935.

If you don't have a rating, you don't have a rating below 935.

It would be nice if the rules were applied that way but I don't think it's ever happened in the history of disc golf.