Rules Proficency Exam for 2010 NT Competitors

[Dana]

(Taken from http://memorialchampionship.com/)

Rules Proficiency Exam for NT Competitors - Starting in 2010, anyone wanting to compete in a PDGA National Tour event is required to pass a rules proficiency exam well before the start of the tournamanet. This test will be offered online and should be ready from the PDGA by January 1st. The deadline to pass this test before you are moved to the waiting list for the Memorial Championship is Wednesday, February 17th.

If you are an official or marshal will you need to still take the test?

[exczar]

The statement does not state that anyone that is an Official is exempt from this exam, so I would say that, the way it is currently written, you need to pass the exam if you want to compete, regardless of your status as an Official.

Many rules have been added, deleted and modified since one could first pass the Official's test, so I would not expect Officials to be exempt.

[GDL]

This is a good start. I always thought that it was odd that one could pass the officials test, and be certified for life. With the rules changing ever so slightly, and sometimes not so slightly, I think that there should be an update exam for officials as well, in order to maintain their status. Any professional designation requires updates, or continuing education. Why does the PDGA just life someone in as an official when the rules are being tweaked constantly? For example, lets look at the lost disc rule. When I became an official, a group decided where the lost disc was last seen and an appropriate spot would be given. Now, you go back to rethrow from the previous lie. The PDGA assumes way too much in that every certified official will do their homework in updating their knowledge of newly passed rules. I especially feel strongly that if officials are running tournaments every year, they should also be required to pass the officials test every year......Oh, and this should be included in the cost of renewing your PDGA membership, this isn't another revenue stream idea.

I like the idea of requiring players to pass a rules test. It's still a far cry from Q school if you want to try to get a PGA tour card, but it's a start. We need more people involved in the rules, so as some of these rule tweaks are discussed, we can entertain some more intelligent discussions among more people. There's a very small band of people making decisions with regards to the future of this sport. We have a choice, we can take the easy way out and just complain, or we can learn something meaningful, and get involved and offer valid, intelligent alternatives.

[cgkdisc]

Not sure but this new NT rules test requirement is likely a benefit from the PDGA website upgrade which has provided a better way to handle and manage online testing. I think the reason we haven't seen more wholesale (re)testing before was the inability to handle the numbers involved.

[exczar]

Rule 804.09A says, in part,

"Upon significant changes to the Rules of Play, the PDGA Board of Directors may require officials to pass an updated Official’s Exam to retain certification as an official."

[cgkdisc]

I'm saying the rules have changed enough since the 1997 version when I was last tested in comparison to changes that were made in some rules updates before that when people WERE retested, that the reason people haven't been retested for a long time is lack of resources for barely keeping up with certifying new officials let alone retesting previously certified officials. The upgrades to the website I believe have helped resolve the testing issue. It's sort of interesting we're are doing all of this testing on the current rulebook going into 2010. I thought the rulebook was planned to be significantly upgraded before 2011 so all of those people getting tested for NTs in 2010 I would think will have to do it again before 2011 with the new rules. Must mean the web system can handle the load or perhaps 2010 is being used to test its capability.

[Alacrity]

I think it would be a good idea to require officials to "refresh". Some of the worst rules calling I have ever seen is by officials during the tournament kick off meeting. As examples I have heard officials at several tournaments state that touching the OB line was now OB. When I tried to correct, that if any part of the disc was inbound the disc was inbounds, I was told I was wrong. I did not get a chance to discuss this again until after the first round at which point I showed the rule to the TD and was told I was wrong. The second tournament I heard this at, I went to the official and showed him the rule. Several of the local club members got into the discussion and I was "shouted" down.

I heard similar incorrect calls on lost disc stroke and distance. About the worst was when throwing over a pond, you see the disc go into the pond, the group sees the disc go into the pond, but because the player could not find the disc the TD stated it was a lost disc. I said that was fine, if the TD wanted to play the hole that way, but that was not really the way the rule read. I was told i was wrong, the disc was lost, not OB.

[Karl]

Jerry,

I agree fully with the situation in your 1st paragraph (and empathize with you), but in your second scenario you didn't mention if the TD had stated at the player's meeting, etc., such (disc in pond = lost disc) WHICH is the TDs perogative because, remember, water is NOT necessarily OB (as I think you're insinuating).

Just say'in...

Karl

[Alacrity]

What I said was that if the TD was calling it lost, that was fine, but if the TD was saying by rule it was lost because it could not be found, then it was an incorrect call. I just made sure I did not land in the pond. And I guess I did not make it clear, the pond was OB.

Originally Posted by Karl

Jerry,

I agree fully with the situation in your 1st paragraph (and empathize with you), but in your second scenario you didn't mention if the TD had stated at the player's meeting, etc., such (disc in pond = lost disc) WHICH is the TDs perogative because, remember, water is NOT necessarily OB (as I think you're insinuating).

Just say'in...

Karl

[bbotte]

This is funny. Will it be open book? I Think it is dumb and a waste of time. People break the rulles because they know they can get away with it. Climo has been on video stepping on his mini during a putt and nobody called him on it. Everyone can know the rules, but when everyone is too yellow to call an infraction what is the point. This could not be more of a waste of time. I'm gonna laugh when you top guys have to start getting jobs again because your test makes your already dwindling Open NT attendance even smaller. Maybe this should have been a personality test instead. We would benefit from excluding certain personalities more, but that will not happen.

In the end, Feldberg, grow a pair, and call a violation if one is committed. no need for a test. Every Open player knows this is the truth.

[exczar]

Knowing the Rules and Enforcing the Rules are, as I am sure you know, two completely different matters.

This exam is about Knowing the Rules, so that if someone attempts to Enforce the Rules, at least they will show, by passing this Exam, that they have some idea about what Rules to enforce.

[Alacrity]

I absolutely agree, people should call the rules. However, there is another problem that is rampant in the officials groups (TDs) and that is following the rule changes and understanding them. You need only read the threads to see that there are some misunderstanding and out and out incorrect understandings of the rules. Throw in a rule change and you add more misunderstandings. The rules committee started keeping the Q&A to help clarify, but even with that there are misunderstanding. Will a refresher help that? I suggest it will not hurt it any. And yes I expect it will be open book, but then at least the officials and players are forced to look at the book again or for the first time. It is amazing how many registered players have only opened one up because they were curious about a rule or two.

Do you know how far back you can stand from your mark? How close is easy, not touching. Do you know what happens if you mark your lie with a mini and then decide you want to replace your lie to get a better stance? If you do know these things, that is great, but I lot of players don't. Can you toss your disc to your bag if the bag is ahead or behind your lie? If you can, how far before it becomes a practice throw? If a TD utilizes the 2 meter rule, is the disc OB or just over two meters and what is the difference?

You probably know the answer to most of these, but a lot of competitive players do not.

Originally Posted by bbotte

This is funny. Will it be open book? I Think it is dumb and a waste of time. People break the rulles because they know they can get away with it. Climo has been on video stepping on his mini during a putt and nobody called him on it. Everyone can know the rules, but when everyone is too yellow to call an infraction what is the point. This could not be more of a waste of time. I'm gonna laugh when you top guys have to start getting jobs again because your test makes your already dwindling Open NT attendance even smaller. Maybe this should have been a personality test instead. We would benefit from excluding certain personalities more, but that will not happen.

In the end, Feldberg, grow a pair, and call a violation if one is committed. no need for a test. Every Open player knows this is the truth.

[gnduke]

The test should be an online version of a class that goes through the rules first, and then requires correct answers to all questions and gives explanations for the answers.

We need players that have been shown the rules and are familiar with them, not players that are able to find and apply the correct ruling.

[bbotte]

What happens to players that don't have access to the net. I know of a few.

[gnduke]

Maybe visit the nearest public library ?

http://www.plinternetsurvey.org/findings.html

[johnbiscoe]

Originally Posted by bbotte

What happens to players that don't have access to the net. I know of a few.

kevin already knows the rules and knows how to skirt every one of them!

i just recently heard the full story of his stance violation hullaballoo with joey at wvo a few years back- frigging hilarious!!

[bbotte]

Originally Posted by johnbiscoe

kevin already knows the rules and knows how to skirt every one of them!

i just recently heard the full story of his stance violation hullaballoo with joey at wvo a few years back- frigging hilarious!!

[Patrick P]

Originally Posted by gnduke

The test should be an online version of a class that goes through the rules first, and then requires correct answers to all questions and gives explanations for the answers.

We need players that have been shown the rules and are familiar with them, not players that are able to find and apply the correct ruling.

I concur. Matter of fact, I wish all players were required to pass some online test before even becoming a PDGA member. It truly is sad that every single competition I have played, players continue to state rules that they have no clue about. I even had a player on my card tell me that an official spotter at our course championship stated you couldn't use your knee behind your marker. This was after I drilled a 45 foot putt on my knees below a low tree canopy that was just slightly above the middle of the basket, saving a 3P. It was a great shot, but it was certainly a downer when the player didn't know what the heck he was talking about after he tells me I made an incorrect shot.

I had another player that didn't know what the heck a perpendicular line to the line of play for a proper stance was. This was after I witnessed him violate about 10 rules, not marking his disc within 2 feet, shooting out of turn every single time my putt was 5-10 ft from the basket, or even stepping on his mini constantly. It wasn't PDGA sanctioned, and I know I should of spanked him for all the rule vioations. But next year, I am going to call every single player out on every little thing. It's times to stop being passive and start enforcing the rules as I should, and educating these folks who have never picked up a rulebook. The only thing is, everytime I see someone call out a rule on someone, it starts an argument, and then sure enough, that player who calls out the rules seems to screw up his next shot, and I played the passive role cause I didn't want this to happen to me. Be forewarned folks, I'm coming out there with a 2meter ruler, and not to be used for measuring.

I like the phrase, " am I 30 ft out". I just want to slap the player and ask him, where in the rule book does it mention 30ft. It doesn't, the rule book is in the metric system. It's 10 meters.

My response to most of the ignorant calls I see, is simply, show me in the rulebook. Oh, you don't carry a rulebook? Oh, you never read the rulebook.

So I am in all favor for an online competency test and make it a requirement. I didn't become an official because I wanted to be a rule zealot. I just wanted to have a good understanding of the rules and know how to apply them when I play PDGA events. And yes, even officials should be required to take a yearly online test.

The test should be designed to teach, as do many online course exams.

[JohnLambert]

This year I had a self-proclaimed 'official' call me on a rule that I'd never heard of. He said I could not take a meter relief from an OB line because my disc did not go OB. My disc was sitting on the OB line but inbounds. I explained that you get the relief because you can not have a stance within an OB area. He explained again that he was an official. So I marked my disc, which game me about 7 inches of inbound area to make my stance. I balanced on one foot ad threw. Then I took my meter relief and threw a provisional.

I think I did the correct thing, but there was now a tension during the last dozen holes as I kept saying "he's an official" after everything he said. I am sure he really was an official too.

The officials test is a joke, hopefully we can develope some real tests.

[exczar]

Originally Posted by Patrick P

I didn't become an official becuase I wanted to be a rule zealot.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a rule(s) zealot, right?

[gnduke]

I had another player that didn't know what the heck a perpendicular line to the line of play for a proper stance was.

I don't think I know what a perpendicular line to LOP has to do with proper stance either.

[Patrick P]

Originally Posted by gnduke

I don't think I know what a perpendicular line to LOP has to do with proper stance either.

Well you are right, and I was using the wrong word there. I was trying to explain to him that my other foot not behind the line of play can reach up to a point that is up to the same distance as the rear edge of the marker.

One easy way (although not entirely correct) to determine this is to draw a perpendicular line from the rear edge of the marker, and depending on how wide your stance is, and how far out you are from the basket, you can bring your non-LOP foot (supporting point) slightly closer than this perpendicular line. Certainly is a judgment call, and sometimes drawing the perpendicular line is easier to see. The farther you are out from the basket, the less your foot can extend passed the perpendicular line.

the correct rule I should of stated was:

803.04(2)Stance. Have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc.

Have no supporting point closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker.

[ishkatbible]

Originally Posted by Patrick P

the correct rule I should of stated was:

803.04(2)Stance. Have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc.

Have no supporting pont closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker.

that put with your drawing...
why can't they just put pictures in the rule book? - not a real question to be answered.

[Patrick P]

It's been a while since I last did a trig calc, but by drawing a simple circle with a 10meter radius, a player would have to almost straddle out 2m to be able to move in the non LOP supporting point 1/6meter in. I'm sure there is some formula to calculate the arc distance of the circle dependent of the radius to find out the distance one can step in.

That's why in my previous explanation I use a perpendicular line, cause I don't think many people can straddle 2 meters, and you gain only 16.67cm.

(Okay, I'll convert to foot. If you are standing outside 32.8ft, you would need to straddle over 6.5ft to be able to step in approx 6.5 inches, or 1in in for every ft of straddle distance.)

Thus, I think using the perpendicular line is the best method to apply. The farther the radius, the more the perpendicular line is absolute.

[kkrasinski]

Originally Posted by Patrick P

Thus, I think using the perpendicular line is the best method to apply. The farther the radius, the more the perpendicular line is absolute.

Ridiculous. "Closer" is the best method to apply, just like the rule states.

[bcary93]

Originally Posted by JohnLambert

The officials test is a joke, hopefully we can develope some real tests.

How is the test a joke? It provides a number of possible tournament scenarios that require the sitter to use the rule book to come up with a decision using the applicable rules. Just like an official or player ought to do in a tournament setting.

What would a "real test" look like? Seriously, I'd like to read a solution to this 'problem'.

[gnduke]

The real official's test test should be open book (as it would be in real life).
It should have real life examples that have a solid resolution in the rules and examples that have no clear resolution in the rules. The answers should be judged not only by the final ruling, but also include which rules apply to the situation.

But in the end, if the rules are clear and understandable any open book test should be a "joke" since every player is expected to be able to make the same call if they are reading the book.

[bcary93]

Originally Posted by gnduke

The real official's test test should be open book (as it would be in real life).
It should have real life examples that have a solid resolution in the rules and examples that have no clear resolution in the rules. The answers should be judged not only by the final ruling, but also include which rules apply to the situation.

But in the end, if the rules are clear and understandable any open book test should be a "joke" since every player is expected to be able to make the same call if they are reading the book.

[...] every player is expected to be able to

[...] if they are reading the book.

I was taught somewhere by someone that today's expectation is tomorrow's resentment. In this case, it becomes my responsibility to learn the rules because far too often "they" aren't reading the book - "they" are just playing by the non-rules that were wrongly called on them years ago and never learned the rules as written.

Regardless, the current test is just as you describe and so it IS a "real test". It's absolutley true that it should be passed by anyone who is able to read and follow the rules of the test (i.e. read the rules of play and answer the test questions). Those who find great satisfaction in trying to find fault in the work of others will be able to butcher and twist the rules to make them unusable, but it's amazingly easy to reach a reasonable ruling on just about anything.

[JohnLambert]

Originally Posted by bcary93

I was taught somewhere by someone that today's expectation is tomorrow's resentment. In this case, it becomes my responsibility to learn the rules because far too often "they" aren't reading the book - "they" are just playing by the non-rules that were wrongly called on them years ago and never learned the rules as written.

Regardless, the current test is just as you describe and so it IS a "real test". It's absolutley true that it should be passed by anyone who is able to read and follow the rules of the test (i.e. read the rules of play and answer the test questions). Those who find great satisfaction in trying to find fault in the work of others will be able to butcher and twist the rules to make them unusable, but it's amazingly easy to reach a reasonable ruling on just about anything.

The "joke" of it is that anyone can become an "official" without even remembering a single rule. Then thus "official" goes and plays a round, doesn't bring a rule book, and therefore calls whatever rules he feels like calling, because he has an "official" status. Maybe I'm in the dark, but to me, an "official" should be able to quote rules he's retained by being certified, and they should be recertified any time a rule is changed.

Perhaps I'm taking the word "official" too seriously. I also realize that maybe the only thing the official title means is that you know how to read a rules book. I just relate it to other "officials". I've never seen a police officer take out a penal code book before making an arrest. He's been certified. He knows the laws, not as good as a lawyer or judge, but enough to call you on them.

[johnrock]

What's the cop getting paid?

Tax money collected by the city from the members of the town.

So let's do the tougher tests and have the pdga pony up some money for those willing to do the rules calling instead of playing the events.