Ask Chuck Kennedy

[AWSmith]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

The third item regarding broken branches came up today. One significant change from last year to this year is dealing with brush piles. Last year, it was difficult to take relief in a brush pile because you could not move any branches that projected in front of your lie, even if they were in your stance. In 2011, since the dead branches are defined as casual objects, you are now allowed to move them even if some of them project in front of your lie. But more importantly, you can take casual relief back off the brush pile with no penalty if it's not possible to move the brush (without a major effort).

there are several courses i have been to that use dead branches and logs as fairway and path liners. this new rule concerns me because a player could use to try and move these branches/logs out of their stance even though they are apart of the course. if the TD does not call out beforehand that these are apart of the course does that make it legal to move them? or because it is obviously apart of the course they can not be moved.

[cgkdisc]

I think some sort of designation is needed to raise a dead log from a casual obstacle to "part of the course" status (paint, being anchored in position). The TD would need to make it clear in some way that logs that are obviously placed as fairway liners can't be moved as they are "part of the course" structures.

However, there's a safety issue involved here. Course structures like trash cans, picnic tables and benches are typically anchored or not in the regular play area. It would seem that the best way to handle this situation would be for the TD to indicate dead branches and logs that have been carefully placed as fairway liners can be moved per the casual relief rule but should be returned to their original position if moved. That would seem to honor both the intent of the casual rule and maintaining "course structures."

[Martin_Bohn]

heres one for you chuck, and any other dgrz's out there.......
in a quasi-pdga tournament (non-sanctioned), the second round starts and cards are handed out with stipulated holes to start on for each card, shotgun start. the players are sorted by first round scores on the cards, 4 per card. the second card players, without consulting the td, changes a player on the second card to the third card, and brings their friend from the third card to play on their second card with them.
is there a penalty for this action? if so, what rule in the rule book do you follow?

[cgkdisc]

1.5 B(1) for Beginning of Play in Shotgun starts does not provide for changing the assigned groups (unless the TD would take action). Past that point, players could get par+4 on holes for not "showing up" to play in their assigned group. 3.3A for Professional Misconduct and Cheating 3.3B(5) could also come into play for later disciplinary action.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

1.5 B(1) for Beginning of Play in Shotgun starts does not provide for changing the assigned groups (unless the TD would take action). Past that point, players could get par+4 on holes for not "showing up" to play in their assigned group. 3.3A for Professional Misconduct and Cheating 3.3B(5) could also come into play for later disciplinary action.

ive interpreted this as violating 801.04 B1, wrong tee. and since it was after the whole round was completed, 801.04 D, where the offending player only gets a two stroke penalty.
i like your take on it better

[ERicJ]

Chuck,

The OB rule (803.09.B) allows the TD to restrict next throw options to say just the DZ using special conditions (804.01).

But restricting an OB next throw to just a DZ option conflicts with Optional Rethrow (803.06) which says a player can always re-throw from their last lie.

So is it now the case that anytime a TD wants to force players to use a DZ only it requires PDGA Tour Manager approval?

[cgkdisc]

That issue has already been tossed to the RC for resolution. At this point, the TD would need to get a waiver from the PDGA office if they wish to prevent the Optional Rethrow in lieu of the TD requiring either last point IB (more likely) or DZ exclusively.

[Kette_Master]

Scenario:
(The drop zone for a missed mando is the teepad.)
There is a mando 100ft in front of the teepad. A player tees, and for some reason the disc only goes 50ft and comes to rest - he hasn't missed the mando, just hasn't gotten there yet. On his next throw he misses the mando.

Does he go back to the teepad?

[cgkdisc]

He could go back to the tee pad which is the drop zone or he could call an Optional Rethrow and play from the lie where his first throw landed. He would be lying 3 in either case.

[chris]

Hey Chuck,
So I just finished playing the Leave It To Beaver II tourny and 2nd round ratings are pretty whack . . . Over the last several years I usually estimate what the round ratings I've shot were with crazy accuracy . . usually within 1 or 2 points and never more than 3 or 4 points off. I figured I shot 1022 and 987 for this tournament and for some reason ratings came in at 1025 and 968 . . . I've never been more than 6 points off so when the round comes in 19 points under it obviously raises some flags. This was also an almost full field of 86 people so the law of averages should have been in full swing . . . not sure why scores took such a dive for one round? The only reason I'm asking this question is simply because I played with a guy who shot great golf that round and has only 1 rated round over 1000 (1001). I got his hopes up by saying he shot 1010 golf, I was very suprised to see it didn't even break 1000!

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/66826

[cgkdisc]

A 20 point variance is not outside the norm even for that many players. And as usual, it's hard to comment on unofficial ratings.

[dobbins66]

Chuck, I thought that 13+ holes were required for a rating. Just saw that they posted ratings for the final 9 at BG Ams were rated. Why is this?

[cgkdisc]

The online unofficial software wasn't programmed to suppress calculating ratings for less than 13 holes. Those ratings won't be there when the official ratings are calculated.

[bruce_brakel]

Hey Chuck:

Kiralyn shot 80 points below her rating for a recent sanctioned round because she was unprepared for the extreme weather. 888 rating versus 808 rated round. I calculated her STDEVPA using Excel and all of her current rounds at 27.05666. So STDEVPA X 2.5 would = 67.64165. Is STDEVPA the right standard deviation function? Can she hope that this bad round will not count for her?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/67005

[cgkdisc]

Sounds like it would be out even if it's the other SD function in Excel. The SD function we use is in Access and I don't know if it has the same name as in Excel.

[Cyoda44]

Yep.. 1 bad round will ruin your ratings for a long long time.

Why can't ratings be updated prior to a qualification tournament when there is only 1 qualifier tournament available to a player.

Suggestion: Why not schedule a ratings update the week before a NT qualifier tournament that way everyone that has the minimum rating will be eligible to qualify!

[cgkdisc]

Not sure what an NT qualifier tournament is? Do you mean USDGC qualifier? The eight ratings updates are scheduled based on the normal cycle of events during the year and spaced a little closer when there are many events and not as close in the winter season. We try to schedule updates after big events and also before Worlds where the ratings are sometimes used for seeding pools. Our ratings schedule is usually set before all of the USDGC qualifiers are identified.

Note: One bad round cannot hurt your rating for more than 12 months and it can be even less time if you shoot well enough that it drops out for being too low compared to your newer rounds.

[edman]

Chuck I need you to please look at the ratings for the 2 events here in Texas over the weekend. TXMD and TWC needs to be tweaked. 25-30 mph winds all day Saturday need to be accounted for. I need you r email to discuss further.

[cgkdisc]

The wind is automatically accounted for since the ratings are based on the scores of the players. Unless you need help assigning the divisions to the correct layouts played, there's nothing I can do that will change the ratings. I'm at: ck34 at aol dot com.

[tanner]

Who qualified for USDGC from The Glass Blown?

[cgkdisc]

Haven't heard. All I know is that they asked me this morning about SSA values at the Atlanta Open so they must be working on it.

[junky]

Where can I find a list of who is suspended?

[krupicka]

http://www.pdga.com/documents/disciplinary-actions

[bruce_brakel]

Wow, big load of deadbeat TDs on the list. Ooo, ooo, take the money and run!

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

The wind is automatically accounted for since the ratings are based on the scores of the players. Unless you need help assigning the divisions to the correct layouts played, there's nothing I can do that will change the ratings. I'm at: ck34 at aol dot com.

For TXMD there were at least three different layouts:

OPEN played long tees and ALT 18.
ADV played long tees and REG 18 in Round 1, and long tees and ALT 18 in Round 2.
INT played short tees and REG 18... not counting those that teed from the long tees in Round 1 before they were told to use the shorts.

But is any of that really relevant? Are ratings kept for Alt Shot Doubles?

[cgkdisc]

No official ratings for doubles but the online software will calculate unofficial ratings for scores if it doesn't "know" those are doubles scores. Didn't realize TXMD was dubs.

[bruce_brakel]

Chuck,

I don't care what happens at the tournament where this happened, but I'm curious what you think should happen. At the end of the morning round of a 1-day 2-round C-tier a few players tell the TD they won't be back for the second round. He puts a DNF on their card. Normally, DNFs come in last and get 0 points.

On the lunch hour the weather gets outrageous. At the end of the lunch hour the course has become unplayable and non-navigable. Some of the bridges over the creek are under water. It's crazy. So the TD cancels the second round and submits the tournament based on the first round.

Should the players who DNFd get zero points and come in last, or should they be treated as having played just as much tournament as anyone else, and get points for where they finished? Fortunately none of them finished in the prizes.

Afterwards, Kelsey wanted me to narrate videos. It was unscripted. We were just goofing around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yShORavggJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40aQv-ldaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Q2Ckg8Umw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tijXoQoORWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ec_73-5gv0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW8E4wajGXM

[cgkdisc]

I think the players still get the DNF. It's sort of like a player who declares their disc is lost after looking. And as they're heading back to the tee, their disc is found before they throw. It's a still a lost disc penalty once the lost disc is declared.

[ERicJ]

Chuck, the rules for Alt Shot doubles posted on the PDGA site read a bit vague with respect to who throws a shot when 803.06-Optional Rethrow is invoked:

Originally Posted by PDGA

Alternate Shot
In Alternate Shot, only one sequence of throws is made on each hole. The team selects a player to throw the tee shot at the beginning of the round. The other player then throws from the subsequent lie, and play alternates in that fashion until the round is completed. Alternate Shot is closer to a singles format, where one partner can't bail the other out. If you miss a short putt, chances are good that you'll be driving the next hole.

If the wrong player on a team throws, another team must call it immediately, like a foot fault. The team receives a warning, and the correct player throws. Subsequent violations incur a one-throw penalty.

For any violation that requires a rethrow (stance violation, provisional throw), the same player throws.

--http://www.pdga.com/rules/rules-for-doubles

The Alt Shot rules specify "subsequent" lie for the next player, but 803.06-Optional Rethrows take place from the "previous" lie.

The Alt Shot rules also call out that "violations" are rethrown by the same player, but in the examples given a provisional throw is not really a violation. I can see where this clause could lead to the interpretation that an 803.06-Optional Rethrow should be taken by the same player.

Could/Should the verbiage for Alt Shot be updated to be more specific here?

[bruce_brakel]

Multiply the odds of ever taking an optional rethrow times the odds that any given tournament includes alternating shot doubles, and that explains why this issue has never arisen before!

I wonder what Houck thinks.