PDGA# tie breaker

[txmxer]

It really has generated alot if conversation though. I never thought about it really until now, lol.

I agree. I was watching coverage. Philo started the comments on it. I thought, "hmmm, tie breakers should be fair".

I created a post. I can certainly understand many see it as a non-issue. No sweat. But, apparently it is a big deal.

It could result in tournaments taking days, weeks, or longer to proceed. Everyone would be up all night because an arbitrary tie breaker would require every person in the tournament to participate.

There is NO reasonable arbitrary way to decide a tie breaker. The PDGA# us all we have.

And because I bothered to post on it, I'm personally flawed and somehow me and the subject are worthy of disdain.

It is a sport or a game. The whole thing is arbitrary. We create an arbitrary set of rules to govern the game. Why 30 seconds and not 31? Why can OB be a rope and not a natural barrier? Why does chalk dust on a disc matter? Has anyone proven it's an advantage ?

Who cares about par? The winner is determined by score, not par.

The baskets are the same for everyone on any given hole. They catch how they catch. Who cares if automatic is 15 feet or 30 feet?

Most rules debates are highly semantic. But the baseline concept for rules is they are fair and arbitrary. They don't bias towards any participant on the basis of anything other than play/performance in the event. At no point should the rules pick a favorite (ideally).

I can say for certain, this wasn't a big deal for me when I posted it and since I know it won't change, it's merely me standing my ground against the weak non-arguments if a few that I continue to respond.

Biscoe said early on that it was a convenience for those that run events. Okay. Good night. Beyond that it goes to three putt saying this a sport that is in fake it until you make it mode. Not that 3P has weighed in, but his take on the sport.

Here we have an elite + event talking about a decision on how it's played that is biased. It's minor. But it is still amateur hour.

So, the ~10 seconds it took for me to create this post in response to 2 minutes of coverage has 3+ pages of debate.

If everyone thought it nothing, there would have been zero response.

 

[uncle pennybags]

You must be thinking of the 2023 Champions Cup -- which, of course was NOT a DGPT event. It was PDGA Major, and, therefore, it was a regulars dgscene registration like local events. Which is why some tour pros didn't get registered timely like they do for DGPT events which go like this:


meaning, they were all pretty much simultaneous...

Every list that I deal with generates a unique id number for each entry. It doesn't matter if it came in at the exact same millisecond. And if we want to make it more complicated, a semi-random number generator could be programmed to dump a unique 6 digit number into a hidden column that's only used for tie breakers.

 

[ToddL]

As a minor side note, most of the attention here has been based on how to split ties when the tie straddles two cards - which player gets lead card and which player gets chase card when their previous rounds are equal. But it would also apply to order within a card. "Hey which one of us tees first? We both shot the same score in rounds 1 and 2. Oh right, it's the random number hidden in a non-public column of a database." Certainly, intra-card order is much less important than getting on lead card, but it would ideally still follow the same logic.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

They really need to do it similar to ball golf. First one to finish the round in is last one out in the next round.

 

[_MTL_]

They really need to do it similar to ball golf. First one to finish the round in is last one out in the next round.

Basically what we do already with hot round being the first tie breaker. Golf also doesn't re-sort until round 3 so truly apples and oranges.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The primary issue being discussed is having a fixed and unchanging sort order that always ranks lower PDGA numbers higher. The simple fix is to always sort in reverse after even numbered rounds are completed. After R1 sort 1,2,3. After R2 sort 3,2,1, After R3 sort 1,2,3. After R4 sort 3,2,1. It's a simple rule tweak that more closely balances forward & reverse sorts to where players, viewers and commentators know in advance the pairings for the next round.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Please feel free to keep your opinions directed to the subject and not me.

I do feel free. And, as a result, I don't feel constrained from commenting on the shrill nature of the first post.

 

[dmoore1998]

I love that!!!!!!. Start drawing numbers out of a hat for all who-knows-how-many-competitors before the tournament starts. ALL end of round tiebreakers will then broken by random draw number. Question -- would you then have to make every player draw? And then would you publicize every player's drawers, er, uh, draw number?

Again seems like extra/more work for TDs...

If you have 150 entrants, you generate 150 random numbers via a generator and assign them out. It would be equivalent to a "registration number" for the event.

 

[txmxer]

I do feel free. And, as a result, I don't feel constrained from commenting on the shrill nature of the first post.

Bless your heart.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

The primary issue being discussed is having a fixed and unchanging sort order that always ranks lower PDGA numbers higher. The simple fix is to always sort in reverse after even numbered rounds are completed. After R1 sort 1,2,3. After R2 sort 3,2,1, After R3 sort 1,2,3. After R4 sort 3,2,1. It's a simple rule tweak that more closely balances forward & reverse sorts to where players, viewers and commentators know in advance the pairings for the next round.

this is not a bad solution.

 

[DavidSauls]

The primary issue being discussed is having a fixed and unchanging sort order that always ranks lower PDGA numbers higher. The simple fix is to always sort in reverse after even numbered rounds are completed. After R1 sort 1,2,3. After R2 sort 3,2,1, After R3 sort 1,2,3. After R4 sort 3,2,1. It's a simple rule tweak that more closely balances forward & reverse sorts to where players, viewers and commentators know in advance the pairings for the next round.

Or odd and even days on the calendar.

Because this pretty much applies to Round 2. By round 3, it's less common for players to have had two identical prior-round scores.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Or odd and even days on the calendar.

Because this pretty much applies to Round 2. By round 3, it's less common for players to have had two identical prior-round scores.

Yes, that would be fine, too, but requires another step for people involved to remember whether odd days are forward or reverse. Think it would be better to simply fix the order based on round number as I proposed for global consistency.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes, that would be fine, too, but requires another step for people involved to remember whether odd days are forward or reverse. Think it would be better to simply fix the order based on round number as I proposed for global consistency.

True, but it's little different than the status quo, since it is far more likely to be used after R1 (same order as now) than after R2 (reversed).

I'm not in favor of odd-or-even-dates, either. Across disc golf, 99% of the time, the tie-breaker is pretty meaningless, and might as well stay as it is, for simplicity's sake. At elite events, for the top 2 or 3 cards, I'd grant a waiver rather than a wholesale rule change.

 

[Cgkdisc]

True, but it's little different than the status quo, since it is far more likely to be used after R1 (same order as now) than after R2 (reversed).

I'm not in favor of odd-or-even-dates, either. Across disc golf, 99% of the time, the tie-breaker is pretty meaningless, and might as well stay as it is, for simplicity's sake. At elite events, for the top 2 or 3 cards, I'd grant a waiver rather than a wholesale rule change.

The thing is, most events are 1 or 2 rounds so my proposal wouldn't involve a reverse sort for those TDs and players. B-tiers and higher, the reverse sort would happen after R2 going into the next day whether weekend A or B-tier or in an Elite event. Ties happen regularly even after 2 rounds if you've watched DGN this year and I believe that's what started this thread. And remember this sorting tweak would apply to all divisions in all tier levels where ties regularly occur throughout the fields. It could be hard coded into the Tournament Manager grouping process with no manual intervention ever required. Another benefit would be automatically setting up the play order for sudden death playoffs. No random method like a coin flip would be needed because the PDGA order flips half the time.

 

[DavidSauls]

Ties should be fairly rare after R2 (assuming you aren't ditching the "previous round" rule). They would require players to have 2 identical rounds, not just 1.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Ties should be fairly rare after R2 (assuming you aren't ditching the "previous round" rule). They would require players to have 2 identical rounds, not just 1.

It happens quite often which MTL indicated. However, I'm not sure what is done when tied players do not have PDGA numbers although they now have to have one for B-tiers and higher. I suspect the PDGA IT group could and probably would check to see how often the PDGA sort comes into play if that's possible before programming the change.

 

[araytx]

Every list that I deal with generates a unique id number for each entry. It doesn't matter if it came in at the exact same millisecond. And if we want to make it more complicated, a semi-random number generator could be programmed to dump a unique 6 digit number into a hidden column that's only used for tie breakers.

If you have 150 entrants, you generate 150 random numbers via a generator and assign them out. It would be equivalent to a "registration number" for the event.

Yes. Absolutely. We could. But that alone doesn't solve the inherent transparency issue. TDs would still be accused (again, rightly or wrongly) of bias or favoritism.

On top of the fact that generating more numbers seems like one of the least useful things a volunteer TD can do with his/her/their time...

 

[dmoore1998]

Yes. Absolutely. We could. But that alone doesn't solve the inherent transparency issue. TDs would still be accused (again, rightly or wrongly) of bias or favoritism.

On top of the fact that generating more numbers seems like one of the least useful things a volunteer TD can do with his/her/their time...

Who is a "volunteer" TD not getting paid at a DGPT event or major? It's probably the simplest thing a TD will ever do. It takes less than a minute.

IMO this only really matters for things like television coverage.

 

[araytx]

Who is a "volunteer" TD not getting paid at a DGPT event or major? It's probably the simplest thing a TD will ever do. It takes less than a minute.

IMO this only really matters for things like television coverage.

OK, I missed something. Was this conversation intended to ONLY apply to DGPT/televised events? If so, then we can discuss having different rules for them. (FYI, I don't think it should matter.) However, as it currently stands the Rule book is the same all the way up & down. Consequently, I was answering based upon the way the vast majority of events are TD'ed.

 

[txmxer]

OK, I missed something. Was this conversation intended to ONLY apply to DGPT/televised events? If so, then we can discuss having different rules for them. (FYI, I don't think it should matter.) However, as it currently stands the Rule book is the same all the way up & down. Consequently, I was answering based upon the way the vast majority of events are TD'ed.

My OP was in regards to the rule in general. But, the TDs here made it clear that changing the current system would be extra work that doesn't do anything.

I could see it impacting pros in coverage. Players get sponsored to be seen. Being on lead or chase card makes a difference in players exposure. So, figure out a fair way to decide the top 3 cards, good enough

Or don't. Obviously nobody wants to change it, so I'm happy to drop it.