Ask Chuck Kennedy

[cgkdisc]

Not sure what the big issue is here. People come in all sizes and have different positions, stride and arm reach on every throw. Most stance rules essentially impact players differently based on their size and reach. The RC didn't feel the need to specify an exact length where you get relief behind an object. Just whether you can take a stance. Argue with the RC if you feel the common sense application of this relief rule needs more precision because so many people are confused or taking advantage of it. To my knowledge it's never come up as an issue.

You asked if the 30cm had anything to do with relief when up against a solid object. I said 'no' it had to do with the max size of the disc. No contradiction in what I posted.

[bruce_brakel]

CHUCK! At the Global tournament this weekend, do we get PDGA points off all players in our division globally or just off the players at our venue? This matters to the Brakel girls who are in a life and giggles struggle for the Advanced Women's obelisk.

[cgkdisc]

Just B-tier points for your local event. Maybe we'll add global points as another carrot for next year's event.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Not sure what the big issue is here. People come in all sizes and have different positions, stride and arm reach on every throw. Most stance rules essentially impact players differently based on their size and reach.

If we have a rule in which the application of said rule results in a different outcome for the exact same scenario dependent on the physical attributes of the player then I think there's something that could be improved with that rule.

Say you and Shaquille O'Neal throw the same shot that lands in exactly the same place, then through your interpretation, by rule, you must play a more awkward lie while Shaq's big feet get him "relief" behind the solid obstacle. To me there's something wrong with that.

Appreciate the discourse Chuck. I'll pursue with the RC.

[cgkdisc]

Shaq can lean closer to the basket or straddle farther outside trees from the same lie. Is that fair? It is from the standpoint we're both taking a stance from the same location but our size changes our distance and angles to the pin. Likewise, I can fit in smaller spaces including placing my foot between the disc and tree if that's the case. You seem to think that it's an advantage moving behind a solid object. If I have my choice, I would usually prefer to throw from in front rather than behind in most cases I've encountered, especially since your arm movement might be constrained.

[26226]

Originally Posted by 26226

Hi Chuck,

My questions are in regards to membership renewals and packages for 2011.

When are the renewal membership packs usually delivered? If my membership pack fails to arrive, who should be notified? Do they get sent via the USMail, FedEx, UPS, or some other courier?

I did renew well before the end of the year, my magazine still makes it out here, I'd mostly like to see the 2011 card and whatever else might be included.. thank you,

Bowler
26226

UPDATE as of 8/19/11 nothing has changed, this note went out to Marcy/pdga today-

Hi Marcy,

I paid my dues before the beginning of the year, (multi-year renewal) and have yet to receive anything at all from the pdga regarding 2011, No card, no rules book, no key fob, no sticker, but I do continue to receive the magazine.

I contacted the pdga about this in February, March, April, and June or July, and now August.

What is wrong?

I haven't moved in over 20 years, my address and contact info have not changed.

I'd really like to see my 2011 Membership packet arrive in the mail before December, and then I'd like to see my 2012 packet arrive before 2012 gets here.

This is really quite unprofessional even for an organization as casual as the pdga.

Thank you for looking into this problem, and I look forward to a satisfactory solution.

Sincerely,
DC 'The Bowler' Stimmel 26226

[26226]

UPDATED Again-

Just got off the phone with Todd at Fulfillment- he says the package went out yesterday afternoon. Looks like the 2011 packet will arrive before 2012!

[johnrock]

Originally Posted by 26226

UPDATED Again-

Just got off the phone with Todd at Fulfillment- he says the package went out yesterday afternoon. Looks like the 2011 packet will arrive before 2012!

Did the pDGA HQ suggest you call him, or did he surprise you with the call?

[Caloch]

Chuck- any idea why all non GDGT tournament results pages are blank? Some of us are playing this weekend in PDGA. Non GDGT tournaments and not getting access to results and ratings.

[cgkdisc]

All GDGT events were also blank yesterday evening along with all events on future weekends. Gentry has been trying to track it down with the IT people. The reason you can see all of the GDGT events is once an event has scores uploaded, everyone can see it again. The uploading function does work for TDs who have their event passwords. So if you can't see the page, it's likely the TD for your event hasn't uploaded scores yet.

[JenniferB]

I can't see any prereg lists for future events. No way I'm using the PDGA signup to register for an event when I can't see the prereg list. How much are TDs loving that?

[cgkdisc]

Don't ask me. I have the same problems. However, note that PDGAsignUP is always fast and running on a separate server.

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

I would report it to the Tour Director. They do track issues with TDs and that will be happening more often as it relates to TDs getting to host an event or that high of a tier the following year. I would say this that if there are only 3 pros, that's less players than what the TD would be required to host a division. I could see a TD having grounds to withhold added cash in that scenario. On the other hand, if the TD has actually raised the $500 from sponsors, he would have cash in hand that sponsors would in theory expect to be going to the pros how ever many showed up.

Since cash can only be paid to pros, it's pretty clear that "added cash" means cash added to the pro purse because CTP and skins money doesn't count in payout. The only thing the guidelines don't indicate is how it's distributed among pro divisions.

Chuck - According to the tour manager you're incorrect. He says he spoke with Brian Graham on it and the $500 only needs to be invested in the tournament, not to the pro purse. This somewhat surprised me, as I had never heard that before.

Hell, my B Tier last year would have qualified as an A Tier if you're talking total money invested in the event. :P

[Kette_Master]

Originally Posted by ChrisWoj

...$500 only needs to be invested in the tournament, not to the pro purse.

Huh?

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by Kette_Master

Huh?

Comes from the Tour Manager, and he got it from Brian Graham. So: exactly what it says.

[cgkdisc]

ChrisWoj - Chuck - According to the tour manager you're incorrect. He says he spoke with Brian Graham on it and the $500 only needs to be invested in the tournament, not to the pro purse. This somewhat surprised me, as I had never heard that before.

Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only. BUT since my post you quoted and having run the global event, Brian and I discussed why TDs should be allowed more flexibility when either only the pro turnout is low or the overall turnout including Ams is low. We agreed it was inappropriate to pay an extra $500 to 4 pros who paid $240 total to enter unless the added cash was completely donated by a sponsor who specifically wanted the cash to go to pros (rare occurrence for a B-tier). Look for more clear guidelines to be provided in the 2012 Tour Standards on this topic.

In typical B-tiers where at least 20 pros show up, it's probably reasonable to expect that the $500 only be added to the pro purse. Below that maybe only $25 per pro is the proper amount to add to the pro purse, UNLESS as I said before, the added cash is already in hand from a sponsor expecting it to only go to the pros.

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only. BUT since my post you quoted and having run the global event, Brian and I discussed why TDs should be allowed more flexibility when either only the pro turnout is low or the overall turnout including Ams is low. We agreed it was inappropriate to pay an extra $500 to 4 pros who paid $240 total to enter unless the added cash was completely donated by a sponsor who specifically wanted the cash to go to pros (rare occurrence for a B-tier). Look for more clear guidelines to be provided in the 2012 Tour Standards on this topic.

In typical B-tiers where at least 20 pros show up, it's probably reasonable to expect that the $500 only be added to the pro purse. Below that maybe only $25 per pro is the proper amount to add to the pro purse, UNLESS as I said before, the added cash is already in hand from a sponsor expecting it to only go to the pros.

So, basically - less than 20 pros, you don't need the full 500. Great. I can already feel the pro field dwindling further around here for those events. :/

[evandmckee]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only. BUT since my post you quoted and having run the global event, Brian and I discussed why TDs should be allowed more flexibility when either only the pro turnout is low or the overall turnout including Ams is low. We agreed it was inappropriate to pay an extra $500 to 4 pros who paid $240 total to enter unless the added cash was completely donated by a sponsor who specifically wanted the cash to go to pros (rare occurrence for a B-tier). Look for more clear guidelines to be provided in the 2012 Tour Standards on this topic.

In typical B-tiers where at least 20 pros show up, it's probably reasonable to expect that the $500 only be added to the pro purse. Below that maybe only $25 per pro is the proper amount to add to the pro purse, UNLESS as I said before, the added cash is already in hand from a sponsor expecting it to only go to the pros.

Last year I encountered a situation where an event didn't add $500 to the pro purse as a B tier (but had added much more to "the event"),

When as State Coordinator I was asked by players to check it out and the Tour Manager said yes, had to be $500 cash added to the Pro Purse and the promoter made it right with the Pros after the fact

I feel this is a wrong move on the PDGA's behalf, what's the point in sanctioning as a particular tier if the PDGA leadership just changes their mind at some point mid-year? How can player's know what to expect as far as standards?

Shouldn't this be a BOD issue more than 1 employee's opinion?

[Patrick P]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only.

Not trying to beat a deadhorse here, but a simple and quick solution to this ambigious issue would be to update the TourStandards Table 1: PDGA Tier Standards Chart, under Added Cash, to read as Added Pro Cash.

Chuck, the reason why there is this ambiguity and some may draw the conclusion that the Added Cash can be misconstrued to be added to AM payout in the form of retail merchandise is that:
1) There is no clear set of definitions in the TD Documents
2) When reviewing all the TD Documents, the term "Added Cash" pops up in three places. Tour Standards, Table 1, The TD Report under Instructions Tab, and under Am.Jr.Payout tab.

When I reviewed the documents in its entirety over and over, it was not clear if this "Added Cash" was strictly for Pros, since I cross-referenced to the TD Report and it lists "Added Cash" where I specified above (2). It is reasonable for any person that is new to PDGA, that after reading all the TD Documents, one could draw the conclusion that the $500 Added Cash for a B-tier is not clearly defined as strictly to be added to the Pro Purse. That may be the intent, and for seasoned PDGA staff and TDs that may be well known. However per the previous posts, even the Tour Manager says the added cash is not strictly for the pro purse. I hope to see improvements made to the documents to clear this matter up.

[DSproAVIAR]

Originally Posted by evandmckee

I feel this is a wrong move on the PDGA's behalf, what's the point in sanctioning as a particular tier if the PDGA leadership just changes their mind at some point mid-year? How can player's know what to expect as far as standards?

Shouldn't this be a BOD issue more than 1 employee's opinion?

I agree! Wow.

[cgkdisc]

No one's saying the money shouldn't go to the pros if there's a decent turnout. But if the pros don't show, then simply cherry picking the TD who did the work to host a disappointing event, many times for reasons outside their control, isn't good policy. With Board members who ran and won indicating more support for TDs, I suspect you'll see support for TDs on this issue to set aside minimum cash requirements when turnouts are low.

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

No one's saying the money shouldn't go to the pros if there's a decent turnout. But if the pros don't show, then simply cherry picking the TD who did the work to host a disappointing event, many times for reasons outside their control, isn't good policy. With Board members who ran and won indicating more support for TDs, I suspect you'll see support for TDs on this issue to set aside minimum cash requirements when turnouts are low.

In my experience - if a tournament director is running a B Tier he needs to be expected to know what he is getting into ahead of time! I lost over $600 of my own personal money my first time. And I expected that to happen. I learned a ton of lessons. Number one of which is don't run a B Tier as your first sanctioned event. But number two is you need to get out word. DAILY. Make sure you're making sure that the pros are going to show.

Frankly this feels more like a loophole that'll allow TDs to completely forsake the pros at B Tiers. I could easily run a B Tier. Tell the pros I'm only adding $25 per pro that shows up, up to $500... the pros won't show at all, and I'll get to rake in the merch cash off of the Am field. This is a horrid precedent.

[DSproAVIAR]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

No one's saying the money shouldn't go to the pros if there's a decent turnout.

Chuck,

The PDGA's official stance on this issue at this time is that the added cash does not have to go to the pros. It just has to be "invested in the tournament".

You're right, no one is saying that the money shouldn't go to the pros. They are saying that it doesn't have to. I'm not sure what incentive there is for a TD to give money to the pro purse.

With this new decision, TD's can start counting tournament expenses like their own gas money as "added cash". Any cash that was "invested" (also not very clear) in the tournament is "added cash" now. Ring of fire prizes, lunch, minis, pencils (haha) can now be given away as "added cash".

Keep in mind that this change in the "added cash" requirement concept also applies to A-tiers and NT's.

Conclusion- TD's for any level of event are now not required to add any cash to the pro purse, ever.

[cgkdisc]

Frankly this feels more like a loophole that'll allow TDs to completely forsake the pros at B Tiers. I could easily run a B Tier. Tell the pros I'm only adding $25 per pro that shows up, up to $500... the pros won't show at all, and I'll get to rake in the merch cash off of the Am field. This is a horrid precedent.

TDs can already do this and a few have. I'm not sure why more don't do it - run events exclusively for Ams. The Pros currently contribute nothing toward the expenses of running of an event unless specific fees are called out in the flyer such as greens fees or series fees. And they have an expectation of 100% payback plus added cash in the case of higher tiers.

[cgkdisc]

DSproAVIAR - It just has to be "invested in the tournament".

You're taking Brian's words related to a specific case and extending them as his full blown policy. He and others simply believe that below some level of turnout, the cash can be spread around. Look for the policy to be clarified in the 2012 docs.

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

You're taking Brian's words related to a specific case and extending them as his full blown policy. He and others simply believe that below some level of turnout, the cash can be spread around. Look for the policy to be clarified in the 2012 docs.

You know what we call events like that around here? C Tiers. TDs around here already add $1.50 per amateur head to the pro purse for C Tiers. And frankly, thats fine. Its a C Tier, there is no expectation or requirement for added cash. As a matter of fact most events around here are B Am/C Pro events. You're letting TDs that FAIL TO DO THEIR JOB off the hook for adding cash to a B Tier. Like I said - I've run a few B Tiers. I've lost my fair share of cash running those events. I've even helped add cash to B Tiers out of my pocket that I'm not running to help the TD along.

If you want to run a B Tier you should know what you're getting into ahead of time, be ready for that $500 hit regardless of the turnout. If you want the responsibility of running a B Tier be ready for it.

[cgkdisc]

Look at it this way, if the TDs are less on the hook regarding B-tier cash, they are more likely to sanction at that level since we've reduced their risk in case of a low turnout event. If enough pros show, they get their $500 cash added to the purse. No one from PDGA HQ is suggesting anything different. If they don't show, then the TD has more flexibility. What that means and when it can be used is TBD.

[evandmckee]

Alot of us work really hard to put on quality events, if this is/becomes the status quo.......Then throw "tier" out, with this ideology we might as well run a C tier with 500+ guaranteed to the pro purse and save $100ish in "Added PDGA B Tier Expenses" which I know we can already do....however, B Tier is supposed to sound better and BE better

I'm all for Event/Club and PDGA fundraising/profits but.... imo, this waters down B Tier status

[cgkdisc]

So what is your solution for low turnout B-tiers?

[sammyshaheen]

Chuck low turnout B-tier tournaments should be an
advantage to the pros that show up. As other TD's have
said "be ready to take a hit if no one shows up"

It's obvious the Global should have been a C-tier.

This seems like an over site on the PDGA side/planning side

BTW I really like the concept of this Global event.