Here is the scenario: at a tournament there was a grouping of three. One of the players did not show and instead of breaking the two up, the group played with only two players. They did not alert a tournament official, but started play at the tournament start. I was not playing with the pool and when I saw them playing I called out to them. I told them that they could not play with only two on a card without an official walking with them or unless the TD had determined a special situation and allowed them to play with only two. I then called the TD over and he assigned someone to walk with them. One of the players was upset that I had called out to them before they had finished the hole. I told them that by playing without a sanctioned official they could be penalized, but when I got into the rule book I could not determine a correct ruling except for possibly cheating since they were not following the rules. I don't believe they were intentionally cheating though, just unfamiliar with the rules.

Any suggestions?

My suggestion is to let it slide. It doesn't seem like cheating anymore than not calling out everyone's name when keeping score is cheating. Both would technically be "not following the rules," but neither seems like cheating.

IMO, This rule is too restrictive and is a pain in the arse. The common example is the one you gave and the two player's get the shaft. It is possible that they both might have already teed off, then realize the third isn't going to show. Legally, they have to wait for the group behind them or get the TD. Alternatively, one can wait for the group coming up (hopefully they are only one hole back) while the other can rush forward to the group ahead (hopefully, they are only one hole ahead).

All of these scenarios unnecessarily delay the round and stress out the two helpless people in the twosome. And for what? I trust most everyone, let em play as a twosome until it is convenient to split up.

Rules involve personal judgment calls. They just do. But it would of great use to get our rules worded so that we don't ever have to say,"I know, follow and call this rule, but not that one."

This, unfortunately, is never going to be 100% possible, sometimes we will be required to do something that seems superficially uncomfortable, but on greater consideration is necessary to protect our sport from those who through ignorance or plotting would do injury to the principles of fair play and our sport.

No, I don't think they should have been DQ'd, but one of the players was upset because I did not let them finish the hole. I don't believe they were aware of the rule and the player was upset because of an incorrect belief that I was accusing them of 'cheating'. I never said they were cheating, but the question came up that since there was no obvious penality, what did it matter. I backed off and let the TD handle it, but my response would have been that it was a mistake to play without three or an official with them, and that once they knew the rule, they were now cheating by NOT following the rule.


My suggestion is to let it slide. It doesn't seem like cheating anymore than not calling out everyone's name when keeping score is cheating. Both would technically be "not following the rules," but neither seems like cheating.

IMO, This rule is too restrictive and is a pain in the arse. The common example is the one you gave and the two player's get the shaft. It is possible that they both might have already teed off, then realize the third isn't going to show. Legally, they have to wait for the group behind them or get the TD. Alternatively, one can wait for the group coming up (hopefully they are only one hole back) while the other can rush forward to the group ahead (hopefully, they are only one hole ahead).

All of these scenarios unnecessarily delay the round and stress out the two helpless people in the twosome. And for what? I trust most everyone, let em play as a twosome until it is convenient to split up.

804.06C Specifically addresses this situation.


C. Groups shall not be less than three players, except under extenuating circumstances, as deemed necessary by the director, to promote fairness. In cases where fewer than three players are required to play together, an official is required to accompany the group and may play as long as this does not interfere with the competing players.





Tournament directors should make players aware of this potential situation during the player's meeting before the last round(s) of an event. Players need to be made aware that some people may not show up. When they grab the cards, players should let the TD know that so-and-so isn't here. This way the TD can send someone with the card, just in case. If they get to the two minute warning and the third player has not shown up, they can pull a player from the card in front of them, or they can split with one player going to the hole in front, and one going to the hole behind. If they are not able to solve the problem, the official can walk with the card. This is not an unusal situation, it happens routinely. If players are to meet on holes for subsequent rounds with no players' meetings, this potential situation should be explained during the intitial players' meeting.


I have no problem sending out the only two players in a division. (ie Senior Grands, Pro Women, etc.) There is no appearance of impropriety, and these divisions rarely have rules squabbles. I would probably not send out a twosome of rec players or juniors without an escort.

Once, I had a player quit halfway through the final round leaving a twosome of top pros. An offical walked with the group for the last holes. Both players ended up cashing, and while they were genuinely honest people, having someone walk with the group prevented any question as to the integrity of the scores.

If you are unable to return for the next round, for whatever reason, please let someone know so the cards can be adjusted prior to the round. Also, don't be a poor sport and quit in the middle of a round.

I've always found buses or crowded elevators to be good places...oh I'm sorry this is grouping. My bad.

I was wondering how long that would take. :cool:

But I have the same question as Jerry, If a 2 some started or finished a round without an official, what would the penalty be ?

Would they be forced to withdraw ?

Doesn't appear to be any penalty assigned to this transgression. The director can allow it as an extenuating circumstance. Seems the only thing that was not complied with was having an official walk with them.

I think this is one of those cases that are not clear cut and dry. Probably would require some investigation into the circumstances of the particular situation to make a fair call on whether to leave them in the tournament or DQ them for not following the rules.

I will add some info, first it was a three person division, so the two playing alone only effected them since the third player had dropped. Secondly, I don't think they even knew about the rule. I did not want to bring up the point that it was only a three person division, because I wanted to see if a ruling applied first.

The question I was raising though, was that this is a rule with no penality. The only applicable rule I can see was cheating and I do not believe that was their intent.


Doesn't appear to be any penalty assigned to this transgression. The director can allow it as an extenuating circumstance. Seems the only thing that was not complied with was having an official walk with them.

I think this is one of those cases that are not clear cut and dry. Probably would require some investigation into the circumstances of the particular situation to make a fair call on whether to leave them in the tournament or DQ them for not following the rules.

Just a thought, isn't this a rule aimed at those running the tournament and not at the players? Obviously you need three, so that rule infractions can be seconded, but all the other rules in this section (804.06) apply to the way a tournament is run, not the way the players play.

If so, then the penalty should be against the TD, not the players. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Just a thought, isn't this a rule aimed at those running the tournament and not at the players? Obviously you need three, so that rule infractions can be seconded, but all the other rules in this section (804.06) apply to the way a tournament is run, not the way the players play.

If so, then the penalty should be against the TD, not the players.



It is the player's responsibility to KNOW, FOLLOW & CALL the rules. And when the player is in doubt it is her responsibility to locate a certified offical and determine the proper course of action.

I thought it was a rule, but I couldn't find it: prior to the start of a round, the TD calls out the groupings and the lead card must ensure that all members of the group are present prior to leaving tournament central. I realize this is not always the case--someone finds out where they are teeing off in round 2 and goes there after lunch, skipping the player's meeting prior to that round. Hopefully they were courteous enough to inform the lead card of their intent. But if everyone showed up as cards were called out, this would immediately bring to the attention of the TD the possibility of twosomes.

While reading 804.06:

"A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable."

I was surprised to read this. In some tournaments, they intentionally mix pros and ams, across age divisions, during the very first round. I really enjoy this since it is an opportunity to play with people I never interact with. It's also a great learning experience. I assume the TD has latitude to not follow this rule? Or are these TDs breaking the rule?

Thanks,
Steve

Those TDs are breaking the rule, unless of course it was necessary.

I thought it was a rule, but I couldn't find it: prior to the start of a round, the TD calls out the groupings and the lead card must ensure that all members of the group are present prior to leaving tournament central. I realize this is not always the case--someone finds out where they are teeing off in round 2 and goes there after lunch, skipping the player's meeting prior to that round. Hopefully they were courteous enough to inform the lead card of their intent. But if everyone showed up as cards were called out, this would immediately bring to the attention of the TD the possibility of twosomes.


I may not be in the majority on this, but I strongly dislike it when TDs begin rounds by reading off cards one-by-one. I'd much rather there be a scoreport used and the players can SEE for themselves where they are supposed to go, and the scorecards can be taken by the top player on each hole directly from the scoreport. That way there isn't a NEED to be right at tourney central to find out where to go to start the round. If there is a players' meeting (esp. before round 1), you are there for it, then you can head off as soon as it's over (assuming you aren't the one responsible for getting the scorecards).

So often, as the TD reads the cards off, people are chatting, players already called are lingering or calling out names again trying to find their groupmates, and it all gets quite loud and confusing. The effort it takes to listen for your name, your hole number, and then find your card-mates to head off is unnecessary and annoying, in my opinion. And there's the ever-present problem that you don't hear your name, even when you're present to listen, and you have to keep asking around for your group or ask the TD (if you're lucky enough for him to remember where you are supposed to be).

In the cases where a scoreport is unavailable, obviously one has to tolerate the reading of the cards one-by-one. But that's when my second pet peeve often comes up. The TD will often start with hole 1 and read down in order to hole 18. Pain in the butt and very inefficient most of the time. It is far wiser to start with the hole furthest from tourney central and work back towards it. That way, those with the longest walk can start on it sooner and not feel as rushed, and those that have the shortest walk don't have to wait as long on the walking players to arrive at their holes.

Maybe it's just my own experiences and other places operate differently, but I rarely have encountered reading cards off in any way other than 1 thru 18 (or 24 or 27). The exceptions pretty much have been the tournaments I've been involved with running where a scoreport was unavailable and I had the influence to order the cards appropriately.

As far as it being a method to prevent a no-show from causing a two-some on the course, I don't feel it's worth the hassle. I've only had a no-show create a problem once in my 7 years of tournament play, and we just split up and went to adjoining cards during the two-minute warning. Not fun, but not difficult to do either. Players should be responsible for knowing the rules and knowing what to do when situations like that arise. To make all the players wait at tourney central for all the groups to identify themselves and find no-shows is wasted effort, IMO.

--Josh

Josh,

I think most people would prefer a posted list, but depending on how you start the tournament this can sometimes be difficult if you are trying to get the people out on time. With players trying to enter up until the last minute, it is easier to just make the cards and group them in fours. If the TD uses a scoring spreadsheet, this can be somewhat alliviated.



I thought it was a rule, but I couldn't find it: prior to the start of a round, the TD calls out the groupings and the lead card must ensure that all members of the group are present prior to leaving tournament central. I realize this is not always the case--someone finds out where they are teeing off in round 2 and goes there after lunch, skipping the player's meeting prior to that round. Hopefully they were courteous enough to inform the lead card of their intent. But if everyone showed up as cards were called out, this would immediately bring to the attention of the TD the possibility of twosomes.


I may not be in the majority on this, but I strongly dislike it when TDs begin rounds by reading off cards one-by-one. I'd much rather there be a scoreport used and the players can SEE for themselves where they are supposed to go, and the scorecards can be taken by the top player on each hole directly from the scoreport. That way there isn't a NEED to be right at tourney central to find out where to go to start the round. If there is a players' meeting (esp. before round 1), you are there for it, then you can head off as soon as it's over (assuming you aren't the one responsible for getting the scorecards).

So often, as the TD reads the cards off, people are chatting, players already called are lingering or calling out names again trying to find their groupmates, and it all gets quite loud and confusing. The effort it takes to listen for your name, your hole number, and then find your card-mates to head off is unnecessary and annoying, in my opinion. And there's the ever-present problem that you don't hear your name, even when you're present to listen, and you have to keep asking around for your group or ask the TD (if you're lucky enough for him to remember where you are supposed to be).

In the cases where a scoreport is unavailable, obviously one has to tolerate the reading of the cards one-by-one. But that's when my second pet peeve often comes up. The TD will often start with hole 1 and read down in order to hole 18. Pain in the butt and very inefficient most of the time. It is far wiser to start with the hole furthest from tourney central and work back towards it. That way, those with the longest walk can start on it sooner and not feel as rushed, and those that have the shortest walk don't have to wait as long on the walking players to arrive at their holes.

Maybe it's just my own experiences and other places operate differently, but I rarely have encountered reading cards off in any way other than 1 thru 18 (or 24 or 27). The exceptions pretty much have been the tournaments I've been involved with running where a scoreport was unavailable and I had the influence to order the cards appropriately.

As far as it being a method to prevent a no-show from causing a two-some on the course, I don't feel it's worth the hassle. I've only had a no-show create a problem once in my 7 years of tournament play, and we just split up and went to adjoining cards during the two-minute warning. Not fun, but not difficult to do either. Players should be responsible for knowing the rules and knowing what to do when situations like that arise. To make all the players wait at tourney central for all the groups to identify themselves and find no-shows is wasted effort, IMO.

--Josh

If I knew in advance that the TD was planning on running the event without a leaderboard, I would not attend. That is such a red flag for indicating that the tournament is being run by someone who has no idea how to run a tournament.

Hi Bruce,

At least here in CA, most of the PDGA sanctioned tournaments I've attended over the past 3 yr have not had a leaderboard or the card holders referred to above. I think the scorekeepers are cool--they were used at AM worlds last year and very effective. But I've only seen them twice here in CA. And the TDs that do not use them include 2 Hall of Famers, so the red flag issue of rookie TDs is perhaps not as ubiquitous as you suggest.

And most TDs here in CA call out furthest holes, or go by divisions (Pros first, then AMs, etc.) rather than straight order 1-18. In fact, I would say that is the rarest of all.

Interestingly, there is usually a player's meeting prior to each round, and TDs ask everyone to attend, in case of rule clarifications, etc. Not having them between rounds is rare in my experience.

Cheers,
Steve

When they grab the cards, players should let the TD know that so-and-so isn't here.



So-and-so should have done the right thing and told the TD that they weren't going to play the next round.

It's not difficult to take the last player on the foursome card in front or back of you to join your twosome.

Dohhhhhhhh...........Grouping question , not Gropeing question.......I wish they would keep their hands to themselves !!!! :eek:

I don't understand why players do not return for final rounds. I don't think being "out of the cash" is a good reason. Also, having other plans is suspect. I mean if you know your cousin's wedding is Sunday, then you have plans already and shouldn't start the tournament. IMHO, the only reason a player should withdraw from a tournament is for injury or emergencies. And of course they should let the TD know so they don't create grouping problems. Players should never quit during the middle of a round, except for injury or emergency.

Players should never quit during the middle of a round, except for injury or emergency.


While I agree with this statement...I can think of a few folks who I wish 'would have' withdrawn, as they were on the verge of blowing a 'head-gasket'...and they then did do a meltdown the next round...coupled with a childish tantrum that was quite a sight...! :o:mad:

I've withdrawn twice, once for injury, and once for a planned event. The second had a scheduled time that could have allowed the tournament to finish, but I ended up having to leave with 9 holes to go in the last round 2 strokes out of first. The TDs were aware of the situation in both cases.

I was in a threesome when our third person didn't show up for the third round. Luckily the holes were pretty close to each other, so we split up. We were last card advanced so I ended up going to lead card Women. :)

Question:

You are in a threesone starting on hole 10. One of the guys doesn't show up and it is too late to split up. Is it legal to wait until the group on hole 9 catches up and join their group then at the end have someone stay and walk hole 9 while the 2 people that started on hole 10 play it?

I think not having a scoreboard takes a lot away from the tournament experience. I like to see how my friends and family are doing in their divisions. I like to see how round ratings are likely to shake out. I like to see where the players are in my division. As a TD it is useful to have a half a dozen players watching scores go up because if you make a mistake they will catch it. Also, the guys who will hawk scores going up are the same guys who otherwise are going to touch, pick up and flex back and forth every disc in the bins, if there is nothing else to do. :D

Considering how cheap a push scoreboard is, I think it is pennywise and pound foolish to try to get by without one.

I agree with you Bruce. I really like having a posting (either score pockets/boards) or print-out that shows the latest results. The former is easier than the latter, but the gap is closing. My guess as to why score keepers/pockets are not very common in central and northern CA is the bulk. Although score pockets need not be bulky (e.g., the great ones at Worlds 2004, a triptych), the ones I've seen here in CA typically use an old folding door, and as Mike R. pointed out in the scoreboard thread, these can be damaged during transport, use, etc. But this should not preclude them from being used, for all the reasons you list.

Actually, at the last tournament I attended, the TD printed out scores and standings, but not hole assignments. But I personally prefer seeing the cards in the score keeper "slots" at the appropriate holes (Worlds made me a believer).

Cheers!
Steve

Almost every PDGA sanctioned tournament in SoCal for at least the past 6 years has used a leader board. We had the difficult to use shutters for a while and then several years ago switched to the cloth scoreports.

Any event that chooses to be a part of the SoCal Series can use the cloth scoreports that belong to the organization.

While reading 804.06:

"A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable."

I was surprised to read this. In some tournaments, they intentionally mix pros and ams, across age divisions, during the very first round. I really enjoy this since it is an opportunity to play with people I never interact with. It's also a great learning experience. I assume the TD has latitude to not follow this rule? Or are these TDs breaking the rule?

Thanks,
Steve



Hi Steve.....

In the NorCal Series we "encourage" TD's that have events with "Large & Diverse Entry Pools" to mix ALL players during the first round.
Though the rules state that a TD "SHOULD" try to keep ALL divisions grouped within themselves, we feel that it is benificial to the players to be able to play with people of ALL skill levels ONCE IN A WHILE.

With the size of the events in the NorCal Series this only comes up at Pro/Am events (not that many) ;)

Besides "We" just make up our own rules.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

We are "NorCal" :D

Between a tournament that blatantly violates the anti-mixing rule, and a tournament that tries to slide by without a scoreboard, other things being equal, I'd much rather play the rule breakers' tournament. But I would worry that maybe I'd tie for first and the playoff procedure would be a guts competition.

While reading 804.06:

"A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable."

I was surprised to read this. In some tournaments, they intentionally mix pros and ams, across age divisions, during the very first round. I really enjoy this since it is an opportunity to play with people I never interact with. It's also a great learning experience. I assume the TD has latitude to not follow this rule? Or are these TDs breaking the rule?

Thanks,
Steve



Hi Steve.....

In the NorCal Series we "encourage" TD's that have events with "Large & Diverse Entry Pools" to mix ALL players during the first round.
Though the rules state that a TD "SHOULD" try to keep ALL divisions grouped within themselves, we feel that it is benificial to the players to be able to play with people of ALL skill levels ONCE IN A WHILE.

With the size of the events in the NorCal Series this only comes up at Pro/Am events (not that many) ;)

Besides "We" just make up our own rules.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

We are "NorCal" :D



YEA , DUDE !!!!!!!!

That's how to put it : We are "NorCal"

:D

So Mike, let me get this straight:

You openly admit that you are directly and purposefully violating the rules of our rulebook as concern groupings, is that right?

Furthermore you are admitting that though you sign and submit a PDGA Event Sanctioning Agreement with your signature on it, promising to follow the guidelines and requirements of that agreement, that you purposefully and directly voilate that Agreement, is that also right?

And that the sole reason for this is that you are NorCal, is that right?

So NorCal means what?

What other rules can we expect to be ignored at NorCal events?

What other parts of the Sanctioning Agreement can we expect to be ignored?

In short, why do you bother sanctioning any events or following any rules?

NorCal: Let's Do What We Like! We're Cool!

(Yes I am kidding, kind of...)

I like the idea of mixing the groups for the first round(if everyone is playing the same course). Like someone said, it gives you someone new to meet, and you can see new shots thrown by different people.

My first PDGA event, the groups were mixed for the first round and even though i shot horribly I still had fun because I got to see some good shots.

But I can also see why it is against PDGA rules

Practice rounds are for playing with your buddies and meeting new folks, PDGA Sanctioned Competition is for PDGA Sanctioned Competition. Some folks are not cut out for PDGA Sanctioned Competition. Doesn't mean they are bad guys, that they don't love disc golf, or that they stink; it just means that they don't like PDGA Sanctioned Competition.

Thankfully they don't have to. They, like NorCal, can do whatever they want to do... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You are a funny guy :p

Bottom line.... YES ;)

If promoting comraderie among fellow golfers is SOOO wrong then "spank us"
It really comes into play very little. Most events are of such a size, that Pros & Ams rarly are in the same pool.

We definatly DO NOT mandate how the TD makes his/her groupings. Its only an option, and it only applies to the FIRST ROUND. After that ALL groupings are as per the "PDGA Rules"

When I say "We" I typically mean "the NorCal commitee" which is a group of VOLUNTEERS who maintain & guide the "NorCal Series". The "NorCal Series" is a group of events (17 in '05) which MUST maintain a MINIMUM of "B TEIR" status within the PDGA.
We maintain OVER 2000 entries every year, All earning points for the OVERALL Championship in September.

All events are run by INDIVIDUAL TD's who agree to be a part of the "NorCal Series" This Series IS THE MOST COMPETITIVE SERIES in the WORLD. No where (except the NT) will you find a field this strong. If you think Im crazy then go ahead and do some research. Just for giggles, check the averages of player ratings in the top half of Open fields /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
:D

And YES "WE" are "NorCal"

Just ask Guru --"Its just NorCal" :eek:
:D

But I would worry that maybe I'd tie for first and the playoff procedure would be a guts competition.



Your only half right.....Blind-folded GUTS :D

Promoting camaraderie and having a strong series of events with lots of good players is a decent goal. But does it follow that you only have to meet the part of the obligation you �agreed to� or follow the parts of the rules you like?

As a regional organization, what would you do if an event only met part of their obligation to you because they thought �it wasn�t cool, dude�? Like not sending in results, or paying into the overall fund? They only want the NorCal name on the event to get more and better players, but they aren�t going to follow your guidelines and might even joke publicly about it and how cool they are and what a bunch of tight-wads the rest of the NorCal series events and tds are?

How cool would that be, DUDE?

The thing is Mike, that is all unnecessary. All you need to do is be open and truthful with the rest of the PDGA organizers and players. When you sign your name to the PDGA Sanctioning Agreement, just make sure you detail what obligations and rules you intend to ignore! Then it is up to the PDGA Competition Director to decide if you will be sanctioned or not. Likely you will be, but as XB-Tiers rather than B-Tiers.

It�s only fair right? I mean do you want folks showing up to an event advertised as a NorCal Series Event and PDGA B tier and then the payout is less than C-Tier standards and players only follow the rules they feel like, because, � Hey man, it�s only disc golf dude. Relax��?

Nor Cal has 17 PDGA Sanctioned B-tier events this year alone. The PDGA collects a lot of money for sanctioning and player fees. Only two or three events want to change the first round grouping guidelines. What would the PDGA lose if Nor Cal decided NOT to sanction any of it's events? I think the PDGA will allow Nor Cal to do this for select events because the PDGA can see the value that the Nor Cal Series brings to the PDGA as a whole. I think the PDGA sanctioning agreement allows some flexibility for local customs.

"Scoreports". :cool:

The PDGA would lose $500 - $700 based on a random sampling of four California B-tiers that did not have identifiable SoCal names to a SoMich guy. So maybe ten grand, which Lorrie needs to make the payments on the Prowler [PDGA office transportation]. So if it comes down to mixed groups or returning the Prowler, I think NorCal gets mixed groups.

Footnote: Some of this post may be in jest.

I think the point is that you should advertise on the entry form when you are not going to follow PDGA rules/guidelines. You are also supposed to get approval from the Competition Director in order to disregard those PDGA rules/guidelines.

I can't imagine that the Comp Director would turn that down.

It's all about the expectations of the players when they go to a PDGA event. If you are a local and you know that The Whatever Tourney always mixes divisions and classifications in the first round, then you know that and decide to go or not if it bugs you. If you are not a local and you see that there is a PDGA sanctioned tourney somewhere that you'd like to visit and then you travel and incur the expense of that only to find that certain PDGA rules that you hold dear are blatantly violated by the tourney, it's not such a good thing.

Most people don't feel that strongly about mixing divisions and classifications, but I'm sure some might. Information is good to have when you are planning tourneys to attend.

Is that $500 to $700 per event or for all 17?

I agree with Rhett that permission to mix divisions be requested in the sanctioning agreement and don't see any reason the PDGA would decline sanctioning the event based on that exception. It should get an X-B rating because of this, but that should not effect whether the rounds are rated or not since the exemption is not for a rule that directly effects the individual players scores. Well, not much anyway.

I know it is dificult to maintain a 1000+ rated round on a unfamiliar course when you are playing with 750-900 rated players. Nothing against the 750-900 rated players, but it is easier to keep up a good round when you are playing with players of similar skills. Not to mention the routes the local Pros are using on some of the holes that you might not see from the mixed division players.

I have nothing against random mixing of divisions in the first round except that it is against the rules to do so. If I were a competitive touring pro playing a course for the first time, I think it would be to my disadvantage to be in a mised card the first round. I personally would be glad to play a casual round with whoever you wanted to group me with, but not while I was conducting business.

I think the point is that you should advertise on the entry form when you are not going to follow PDGA rules/guidelines. You are also supposed to get approval from the Competition Director in order to disregard those PDGA rules/guidelines.

I can't imagine that the Comp Director would turn that down.

It's all about the expectations of the players when they go to a PDGA event. If you are a local and you know that The Whatever Tourney always mixes divisions and classifications in the first round, then you know that and decide to go or not if it bugs you. If you are not a local and you see that there is a PDGA sanctioned tourney somewhere that you'd like to visit and then you travel and incur the expense of that only to find that certain PDGA rules that you hold dear are blatantly violated by the tourney, it's not such a good thing.

Most people don't feel that strongly about mixing divisions and classifications, but I'm sure some might. Information is good to have when you are planning tourneys to attend.



Precisely.

Is that $500 to $700 per event or for all 17?


That would be Each :D

Here in New England, some of the NEFA TDs mix groups the first round and most players love it, with the possible exception of the Pro Open players. One way to avoid this kind of conflict is to stop seeking PDGA sanctioning until the PDGA realizes they're not really promoting the sport anymore, but rather itself. Some day competent leadership will emerge in the PDGA and all of a sudden PDGA TDs will be able to run their own events again. Now all they do is the work, and the PDGA lays a bunch of unnecessary format rules on them and charge them fairly outrageous fees for the privilege. I mean c'mon people.

I find that more and more tournament directors and regional organizations are realizing that they're better off not being sanctioned by the PDGA. Hey, it's just my opinion, but shouldn't we strive to loosen the chains? At least that way Nick's list of violations will be shorter.

Who am I, you ask? Well, not a PDGA member anymore. Occasionally I remember that the PDGA never did tell me how long I'm banned from running PDGA tournaments, but then again, I shouldn't care. We did pack up 150 Marshall Street Koozies for Mid-Nationals players and staff. So support from us is there. It's easy; you just have to ask. Prost.

We did pack up 150 Marshall Street Koozies for Mid-Nationals players and staff.



Thanks, Jason. Appreciate the support and the CTP prizes, too.

You openly admit that you are directly and purposefully violating the rules of our rulebook as concern groupings, is that right?

Furthermore you are admitting that though you sign and submit a PDGA Event Sanctioning Agreement with your signature on it, promising to follow the guidelines and requirements of that agreement, that you purposefully and directly voilate that Agreement, is that also right?


Quite apart from the interpretive issue of whether the "should" in 804.06.A is imperative or merely hortatory, the Rules Committee Chairman (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part1.php) has, at the very least, specifically advised, if not instructed, TDs to mix divisions for the first round (see Part 2, point 6, Tee Assignments and Scorecards (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part2.php)). In light of that, it may be argued that because the grouping procedure is detailed by the Rules Committee Chairman in his capacity as RC Chairman, and because it is published on the PDGA website and was disseminated by the PDGA as part of the Y2K Tour Planning Package, a TD may, in good faith, adopt the recommended procedure, until such time as the advice is retracted, a TD may adopt it in good faith, whether or not that procedure actually complies with requirements and intent of 804.06.A.

You openly admit that you are directly and purposefully violating the rules of our rulebook as concern groupings, is that right?

Furthermore you are admitting that though you sign and submit a PDGA Event Sanctioning Agreement with your signature on it, promising to follow the guidelines and requirements of that agreement, that you purposefully and directly voilate that Agreement, is that also right?


Quite apart from the interpretive issue of whether the "should" in 804.06.A is imperative or merely hortatory, the Rules Committee Chairman (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part1.php) has, at the very least, specifically advised, if not instructed, TDs to mix divisions for the first round (see Part 2, point 6, Tee Assignments and Scorecards (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part2.php)). In light of that, it may be argued that because the grouping procedure is detailed by the Rules Committee Chairman in his capacity as RC Chairman, and because it is published on the PDGA website and was disseminated by the PDGA as part of the Y2K Tour Planning Package, a TD may, in good faith, adopt the recommended procedure, until such time as the advice is retracted, a TD may adopt it in good faith, whether or not that procedure actually complies with requirements and intent of 804.06.A.



/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :D :D

Quite apart from the interpretive issue of whether the "should" in 804.06.A is imperative or merely hortatory, the Rules Committee Chairman (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part1.php) has, at the very least, specifically advised, if not instructed, TDs to mix divisions for the first round (see Part 2, point 6, Tee Assignments and Scorecards (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part2.php)).


Touch�

Quite apart from the interpretive issue of whether the "should" in 804.06.A is imperative or merely hortatory, the Rules Committee Chairman (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part1.php) has, at the very least, specifically advised, if not instructed, TDs to mix divisions for the first round (see Part 2, point 6, Tee Assignments and Scorecards (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part2.php)).


Touch�



The word "Should" appears WAY TO OFTEN in the rule book.

If rules were "CLEARLY" defined then most issues wouldnt be issues at all. :p

Never use "should".

Only use "shall".

Not to be a stickler but can you highlight exactly where it says that mixing classifications and divisions is ok? Thanks.

Here it is for you so you don't have to go to another link:

6) Tee Assignments & Scorecards

Begin to place the leaderboard cards that have been completed onto the leader board. They should be placed on the leader board in the order that they were registered. The first player to register will be the first player on hole 1 (I would suggest that this guy be you! Sure it's legit! Be the first one to pre-register!), the second player to register will be the first player on hole 2, the third player to register will be the first player on hole 3, the fourth player to register will be the first player on hole 4, etc. The nineteenth player to register will be the SECOND player on hole 1. Got it? This method is random and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together.

Place the box of pencils in front of the leader board. Announce where they are.

After all players are checked in and the leader board has been filled, you will want to distribute the scorecards to each group. Place the scorecards behind the first player on each hole. Be certain to announce early and often that the first player (in each group) is responsible for picking up the scorecards. Again, the recommended method is to have one scorecard per player sorted in order of tee-off, the alternative is to prepare scorecards for each group listing the names of all players in tee-off order on the one card.



Seems to me that there is no mention of classifications nor divisions so the rules in the rulebook still hold.

In addition, I have had direct discussions with sited Chairman and there is no way he would say it is ok for tds to just randomly mix divisions and certainly not classifications of players at a PDGAs.

(And people say I have reading comprehension issues�)

Hi Jason,


Here in New England, some of the NEFA TDs mix groups the first round and most players love it, with the possible exception of the Pro Open players.


Some like it some don�t, and TD�s are free to do whatever they like at unsanctioned events. That�s the point of sanctioning. To know what you are getting when you show up at an event, rather than leave it up to chance.

One way to avoid this kind of conflict is to stop seeking PDGA sanctioning until the PDGA realizes they're not really promoting the sport anymore, but rather itself.


And how does that avoid the conflict for folks that prefer to play start to finish against their actual competition? Seems like it is just asking for another �kind� of conflict. The PDGA sets standards, that�s what they do, that is why they were formed and when you disparage their standards and policies you DIRECTLY disparage the best efforts of all who have sacrificed to move our sport forward and out of the feudal days of little emperors just �doin� their own thing�.


Some day competent leadership will emerge in the PDGA and all of a sudden PDGA TDs will be able to run their own events again. Now all they do is the work, and the PDGA lays a bunch of unnecessary format rules on them and charge them fairly outrageous fees for the privilege. I mean c'mon people.


No, you c�mon Jason. Think man! If you as a TD or player don�t like the rules or fees then don�t run or play in a PDGA. That is entirely your own choice, isn�t it?


I find that more and more tournament directors and regional organizations are realizing that they're better off not being sanctioned by the PDGA. Hey, it's just my opinion, but shouldn't we strive to loosen the chains? At least that way Nick's list of violations will be shorter.


I�m not sure why you talk of chains and then insult all those who have done their very best to serve and set standards, usually such behavior is because you feel like the community at large has slighted you in some way, but I don�t know. But if you were really interested in promoting disc golf you would work with the PDGA and all that serve her and stop being such a sulky sour puss.


Who am I, you ask? Well, not a PDGA member anymore. Occasionally I remember that the PDGA never did tell me how long I'm banned from running PDGA tournaments, but then again, I shouldn't care. We did pack up 150 Marshall Street Koozies for Mid-Nationals players and staff. So support from us is there. It's easy; you just have to ask. Prost.


OK, I am asking Jason: Can you please start being a responsible part of moving our sport forward? Please, can you work with others around the country and world VOLUNTEERING there time, hard earned money, and efforts to move our sport forward? Can you agree to work with them (not the PDGA BOD or Brian per se but other TDs such as yourself) and set best practices standards?

Can you agree to follow the standards as agreed upon by the majority of organizers around the world? Can you refrain from insulting those you disagree with and be a "part of it"?

So far you have not, that is why I am asking. If you just relish the outsider role to greatly then there really is no point to discussing anything with you, since what you do then has no relation to anyone or anything else.

Regards,
Nick Kight

Not to be a stickler but can you highlight exactly where it says that mixing classifications and divisions is ok?



Right here:


<font color="red"> This method is random </font> and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together.



While it doesn't SAY it is ok, the fact that it is in the directions for how to run an event implies such.

Not to be a stickler but can you highlight exactly where it says that mixing classifications and divisions is ok?



Right here:


<font color="red"> This method is random </font> and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together.



While it doesn't SAY it is ok, the fact that it is in the directions for how to run an event implies such.



So, implication, which I do not see, supercedes clearly stated rules within our actual rulebook?

Look, I am fine with mixing divisions and classifications, let's just change our rules. Until then, let's play be the rules.

Until then, let's play be the rules.



doesn't playing by the rules mean CALLING rules violations mr. mighty rules man???

or just when you FEEL like calling them???

every time i read your back and forth "arguements" with people i constantly wonder what the HELLL you are reading in the other person's post that i don't see.......
everyone must go back and edit their posts because i read them all and see very FEW times where it looks like you read past the first sentence.....

give it up and let's move forward! :p

see very FEW times where it looks like you read past the first sentence



Do you have an example in mind mr. reading-comprehension?

Like someone pointing out, incorrectly, that our competition director said that we can mix divisions/classifications for the first round of PDGAs, when he did nothing of the sort. Or using that "mis"-interpretation to usurp the clearly written rules concerning groupings in our rulebook.

What did I not comprehend?

If you don't like my points, then discuss them, when you just haul off and attack me or the manner of my discussion you may fool the ninkumpoops here, but I'm sure the rest of us can correctly detect a "misdirection" tactic when we see one.

We can argue whether or not we want our grouping rules changed, that is fine and healthy. But to argue that we don't have grouping rules is a disservice to this discussion and to our sport, because that clearly is not the case. It only furthers the confusion of those ignorant of the rules to begin with.

Do you have an example in mind mr. reading-comprehension?

nick, NEVER again accuse anyone on this board of "name-calling". this is a blatant example of the craft.

you may fool the ninkumpoops here

um... ditto.

but I'm sure the rest of us can correctly detect a "misdirection" tactic when we see one

yes, us stoopid people sure can. we have had to endure so many from you we have become rather skilled at recognizing them.

The referenced article does clearly suggest random allocation of players to holes 1-18 based on the order in which they sign-up. He makes no mention of restricting divisions or even pro/am to certain holes. The way I read that was in support of completey random hole assignment. I also read it as having been written while that was still in accordance with the rules, and that it has never been revised.

Pat, I know that your feelings are easily hurt and that is why I don't have any fun with you here. But Keith and I have a well documented history of clever and witty banter which often include clever name-sakes such as:

1) "mr. mighty rules man"
2) "mr. reading-comprehension"

Both attributes, dare I say it, we have some pride concerning.

BTW, did you have anything to say about this topic?

The referenced article does clearly suggest random allocation of players to holes 1-18 based on the order in which they sign-up. He makes no mention of restricting divisions or even pro/am to certain holes. The way I read that was in support of completey random hole assignment. I also read it as having been written while that was still in accordance with the rules, and that it has never been revised.


So Gary, in your opinion does the PDGA officially support completely random groupings in the first or any subsequent rounds of a PDGA event?

yes i do. inter-division grouping is against the rules. even if it wasnt i would still dislike it. i love playing with people of other skill levels but i want to play against my division's competition at a sanctioned event.

you are a sanctimonious [I'm a potty-mouth!].

yes i do. inter-division grouping is against the rules. even if it wasnt i would still dislike it. i love playing with people of other skill levels but i want to play against my division's competition at a sanctioned event.

you are a sanctimonious [I'm a potty-mouth!].



I agree with you about the rule, the second part is hilarious considering the source. LOL! :D

You openly admit that you are directly and purposefully violating the rules of our rulebook as concern groupings, is that right?

Furthermore you are admitting that though you sign and submit a PDGA Event Sanctioning Agreement with your signature on it, promising to follow the guidelines and requirements of that agreement, that you purposefully and directly voilate that Agreement, is that also right?


Quite apart from the interpretive issue of whether the "should" in 804.06.A is imperative or merely hortatory, the Rules Committee Chairman (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part1.php) has, at the very least, specifically advised, if not instructed, TDs to mix divisions for the first round (see Part 2, point 6, Tee Assignments and Scorecards (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part2.php)). In light of that, it may be argued that because the grouping procedure is detailed by the Rules Committee Chairman in his capacity as RC Chairman, and because it is published on the PDGA website and was disseminated by the PDGA as part of the Y2K Tour Planning Package, a TD may, in good faith, adopt the recommended procedure, until such time as the advice is retracted, a TD may adopt it in good faith, whether or not that procedure actually complies with requirements and intent of 804.06.A.



Shan't, can't, should, would, shall etc. Is this really so hard to understand? The PDGA feels you should place players of similar skill together. They realize that isn't always possible so they didn't say shall. As for the "how to run an event" interpretation, isn't it likely that the RC assumed we would be smart enough to interpret that within the context of our existing rules structure?

If there was ever a sign that the apocalypse is here, it is the observation that we all want to be lawyers and play at word interpretation. Some things just take a little common sense.

As for whether the rule is a good one, for ease of play, common goals amoungst those on a card and hence less stress, yes it is a very good rule. If you want to be exposed to those of a different skill set than you have, invite the local pro out for a round, play a mixed doubles round with a high low format or find a non-sanctioned event like Jason's, but for logical play in an important event, you should want to be matched with the players you are competing against.

IMO, hanging your hat on the posted procedure is tenuous as it seems a misapplication of the procedure. IMO, the procedure seems like it is simply describing/giving advice for one way to achieve the requirement of 804.06(b).

I'm not sure why you would want to interpret it in a way that directly contradicts 804.06(a). Also, in infering the intent of the author, I assume that the author would not intend to contradict a rule by penning a procedure.

I have posted previously that random groupings that include Am and Pro players are against the current rules. I have also posted my arguments against such mixing of divisions within the Am or Pro divisions.

I do believe that the other players on your card effect your score especially on an unfamiliar course. I feel that random mixing of players is best left to non-competitve environments.

I think it is a great format to use in events like the World's Biggest DG weekend, DG Marathon, Good Times picnics, or One Day Ace Races.

The referenced article does clearly suggest random allocation of players to holes 1-18 based on the order in which they sign-up. He makes no mention of restricting divisions or even pro/am to certain holes. The way I read that was in support of completey random hole assignment. I also read it as having been written while that was still in accordance with the rules, and that it has never been revised.


This post seems to have been missed.

The rules say "no mixing of ams and pros" and they also say "mix divisions as little as possible."

The official PDGA provided "How To Run A Tourney" cook-book says to violate the "no mixing" rules and put people on the cards in the order they check in, with absolutely no consideration of division.

This is a major inconsistency. It should be addressed because PDGA tournaments currently have rich heritage of not having PDGA rules called during play, and every instance like this that validates ignoring the PDGA rules just makes it more difficult to ever get to a place where we can expect a level playing field where everyone is held to tha same standard of play during an event.

The official PDGA provided "How To Run A Tourney" cook-book says to violate the "no mixing" rules and put people on the cards in the order they check in, with absolutely no consideration of division.




Actually, it doesn't. Y'all simply assume it does, probably because y'all assume that with 18 holes, there must be more than one division. While your assumptions seem reasonable enough, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just accept the rules as written and presume they would not be overwritten by some guidance document. Then interpret this document as a "how to" example when faced with one division that needs 18 holes. Everything is consistent that way.

Actually....it is y'all who can't seem to admit that there is problem here and that the two documents are in disagreement with each other.

Since many PDGA sanctioned events do mix divisions and classifications on purpose during the first round, it should be addressed. Either update the cook book or else change the rules to allow mixing.

1) the guidebook should agree with the rules, and/or be more clear

2) the guidebook, which hardly anyone has, should never be considered to overrule the rule book, which all members(should) have.

OK, I don't see. Point it out more clearly for me. Where does that cook book STATE that they are mixing divisions?

6) Tee Assignments & Scorecards

Begin to place the leaderboard cards that have been completed onto the leader board. They should be placed on the leader board in the order that they were registered. The first player to register will be the first player on hole 1 (I would suggest that this guy be you! Sure it's legit! Be the first one to pre-register!), the second player to register will be the first player on hole 2, the third player to register will be the first player on hole 3, the fourth player to register will be the first player on hole 4, etc. The nineteenth player to register will be the SECOND player on hole 1. Got it? This method is random and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together.

Okay, I'm convinced now. :confused:

Since I'm a little slow, could you highlight it for me? "It" refers to the important words within your quote. Please don't highlight the whole quote. ;)

6) Tee Assignments & Scorecards

Begin to place the leaderboard cards that have been completed onto the leader board. They should be placed on the leader board in the order that they were registered. The first player to register will be the first player on hole 1 (I would suggest that this guy be you! Sure it's legit! Be the first one to pre-register!), the second player to register will be the first player on hole 2, the third player to register will be the first player on hole 3, the fourth player to register will be the first player on hole 4, etc. The nineteenth player to register will be the SECOND player on hole 1. Got it? This method is random and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together.

Nevermind. I hope this isn't a question on a test, cause I will surely fail it?

James,

What is the problem? The rules say "don't mix ams and pros. mix divisions as little as possible." The cook book says "put them on the board (duh, make groups) in the order that they register."

Unless there is some tremendous fluke of happenstance, the cook book version will mix classificiations and divisions.

Why is that so hard to understand? Do you think that just because the cook book doesn't explicitly say "mix all divisions" that the result will be any different if you follow what the cook-book says to do?

You've run a tourney, right? If if you haven't, surely you don't think the pre-regs will arrive in the mail and the late regs will line up at the table such that when they are arranged per the cookbook that the PDGA rules will be enforced? Do you?

The document suggests to enter the first person on hole 1 (the TD in the example which is another topic entirely). The next registrant is put on hole 2, then hole 3, so forth with no regard to division or classification (Am or Pro) until you reach hole 18 after which you start over on hole 1.

Unless you are fortunate enough to have the registrations to come with just the right number of Pro and Am players in just the right order, it is impossible to keep divisions separate with this method.

The rule should override this document, but the document should be updated so that it clearly follows the rules and recommends a procedure that is in compliance and helps with the problem of dealing with small divisions and situations where a division does not fit evenly on the cards (there are 1 or 2 players left over after the division has been put on cards). Do you mix them with other divisions on new cards, or slide them up into the division by adding players to the cards above them ?

IMO, hanging your hat on the posted procedure is tenuous as it seems a misapplication of the procedure. IMO, the procedure seems like it is simply describing/giving advice for one way to achieve the requirement of 804.06(b).

I'm not sure why you would want to interpret it in a way that directly contradicts 804.06(a).

It's not a question of wanting to interpret it to contradict with 804.06.A, it's a question of how and whether to follow the advice/guidance/instruction provided by the PDGA in light of the facts that:

a) b) if one interprets "should" in 804.06.A imperativally, the advice/guidance/instruction necessarily directly contradicts 804.06.A;

b) the advice/guidance/instruction was contained in the Y2K PDGA Tour Planning Package, which was itself part of the Tour Sanctioning Agreement; and

c) since TDs of sanctioned tournaments were required to follow the guidelines and requirements of that Agreement, a TD who accepted sanctioning in 2000 obligated him-/herself to follow that procedure.


Also, in infering the intent of the author, I assume that the author would not intend to contradict a rule by penning a procedure.

The problem is that the advice/guidance/instruction was penned by the chairman of the Rules Committee who, presumably, knew the requirements of the Grouping and Sectioning Rule at the time he wrote it and believed that the recommended procedure complied with those requirements.

Prima facie, the fact that the PDGA incorporated the procedure into the Y2K PDGA Tour Planning package without demur is evidence that none of those who reviewed the document prior to its inclusion in the planning package considered the procedure to necessarily conflict with 804.06.A. (It might be the case, however, that no one actually reviewed the document prior to its incorporation in the package.)

That being the case, the only way in which the recommended procedure can, in fact, be consistent with 804.06.A is if one interprets the "should" in 804.06.A subjunctively rather than an imperativally, i.e., as preferred or recommended, as opposed to strictly mandated.

Rhett, Gary, and Fore. Can you imagine the following scenario: one division for the tournament. If so, the guidance does not violate 894.06(a). (This scenario may not be probable, but it is surely possible).

I also read the rule as the foundation or basic "truth" and interpret everything else in that light.

Why, because it makes the rule and guidebook consistent rather than conflicting.

Is the guidance confusing? I suppose, if you assume multiple divisions are offered.

Otherwise, why not give the author the benefit of the doubt and there are no conflicts.

If people wish to run tourneys with mixed divisions as the rule rather than the exception, then the previous advice about getting a waiver, making it an X tier (or whatever they are called) or changing the rule seems helpful. But why hang your argument on some secondary guidebook that does not explicitly recommend (nor state, in my apparently convoluted mind at least) that it is OK to mix divisions?

Mainly because your reasoning for the recommendation not being against the rules involves a rare circumstance. The document seems to be aimed at new TDs or those with little experience that might not see the potential rule conflict and blindly follow the recommendation.

Though the guide might confuse some of us, and I can understand why to a degree, I think that most of us are on the same page as far as mixing classifications and divisions is not in compliance with the PDGA Rulebook.

I agree with Rhett and Gary that the guide ought to be updated post haste. Grouping randomly according to the suggested guide method, but doing ones best to separate divisions and certainly classifications first and foremost is fine and within current rules (this is what I believe the guide was actually trying to say, just not emphatically enough).

What kind of stinks is when TDs group up their buddies and newbies and out of towners are grouped, and it is as plain as day that that is what they did. I don't even think this is fine at a pro-am. Random is the only fair way, anything short, though preferrable to a few, is unfair to the majority.

Do you have an example in mind mr. reading-comprehension?

<font color="blue"> most of your posts :D</font>


It only furthers the confusion of those ignorant of the rules to begin with.

<font color="blue"> sorry i wasn't referring to ONLY this thread when making the comment..i had just read some of the 2 meter thread(i know,i know...bad move on my part)and other rules threads that i hadn't seen since friday and i thought back to the good old days when you used to talk about rules during the week and then come on the board monday saying you HADN'T called somebody on such and such rules...

i just needed to vent a little :D
</font>

Pat, I know that your feelings are easily hurt and that is why I don't have any fun with you here. But Keith and I have a well documented history of clever and witty banter which often include clever name-sakes such as:

1) "mr. mighty rules man"
2) "mr. reading-comprehension"

Both attributes, dare I say it, we have some pride concerning.





<font color="blue"> you left out my old favorite.... mr.pdga :eek:</font>

Pat, I know that your feelings are easily hurt and that is why I don't have any fun with you here. But Keith and I have a well documented history of clever and witty banter which often include clever name-sakes such as:

1) "mr. mighty rules man"
2) "mr. reading-comprehension"

Both attributes, dare I say it, we have some pride concerning.





<font color="blue"> you left out my old favorite.... mr.pdga :eek:</font>



Mine too... :eek: :p

Rhett, Gary, and Fore. Can you imagine the following scenario: one division for the tournament. If so, the guidance does not violate 894.06(a). (This scenario may not be probable, but it is surely possible).


Golly gee, James. There really are one or two tournaments out of the hundreds of sanctioned tournaments that could end up not violating the grouping rule.

I guess since 2 tourneys out of several hundred will be in compliance if they follow the cook-book, the rest of us are just a bunch doo-doo heads for even pointing out this not-inconsistency. Sorry for wasting your time.

Rhett, Gary, and Fore. Can you imagine the following scenario: one division for the tournament. If so, the guidance does not violate 894.06(a). (This scenario may not be probable, but it is surely possible).


Golly gee, James. There really are one or two tournaments out of the hundreds of sanctioned tournaments that could end up not violating the grouping rule.

I guess since 2 tourneys out of several hundred will be in compliance if they follow the cook-book, the rest of us are just a bunch doo-doo heads for even pointing out this not-inconsistency. Sorry for wasting your time.



Note to Self: Rhett doesn't like to be called wrong. :o:D :D

I did not call you a doodoo head, or anything else. I was just suggesting that there is a way to interpret the cookbook that it does not conflict with the rules.

I suspect that part of our inability to see eye to eye may result on how we view the cookbook. One may view the "How-to" anywhere from what a TD shall do, should do, or might do. In other words a quasi or secondary set of rules.

I view it as nothing really, just a little guidance to first-time TDs. I would never assume that it would take precedence over the rules.

At any rate, I thought I agreed that it could be more clearly written. It just seems like the whole essence of this discussion is: There are numerous ways to view the cookbook, neither of them are right, nor wrong. Why choose an interpretation that creates problems?

Merely in an attempt to bring the wording to light and hopefully get it written more clearly to avoid the situation where a new TD follows the guidelines in good faith and unwittingly breaks the grouping rules.

I am viewing the cook book versus the actual PDGA rules of play in the light of the real world, where right here and right now TDs with more experience that you and I and Gary combined purposefully and intentionally mix classifications and divisions in the first round of PDGA sanctioned tournaments that they run.

I believe that the rules should be followed. If rules such as grouping and sanctioning are not being followed then something should be done. Whether it is to change the rules or change the guidelines or whatever, something should be done to bring our rulebook and reality closer to the same thing.

Why is it so hard to apply a little common sense. James is correct. There is no doubt that the "how to run a tourney" document has a flaw. But this assumption that somehow that document is meant to contradict the basic rules structure seems to be a reach. While it isn't written in the document, my guess is that when someone asks the person who generated that document what their intent was, they are going to be asked to insert the following:

"If the first signee is an Advanced Master, but him on card one Advanced Master, if the second player is Pro, put him on card one Pro etc."

I believe that the rules should be followed. If rules such as grouping and sanctioning are not being followed then something should be done. Whether it is to change the rules or change the guidelines or whatever, something should be done to bring our rulebook and reality closer to the same thing.



Well, we are in complete agreement there.

If it is working for them, I suppose they can make a convincing argument to the PDGA to change the rule and we can devote numerous threads to the pros and cons. :p

I am viewing the cook book versus the actual PDGA rules of play in the light of the real world, where right here and right now TDs with more experience that you and I and Gary combined purposefully and intentionally mix classifications and divisions in the first round of PDGA sanctioned tournaments that they run.

I believe that the rules should be followed. If rules such as grouping and sanctioning are not being followed then something should be done. Whether it is to change the rules or change the guidelines or whatever, something should be done to bring our rulebook and reality closer to the same thing.



Is this really such a problem? I'm not a 20 tourney a year player but I've yet to play in a tourney at any level that mixed cards, other than at the edges or when there were too few players to fill. That's why the rule says should, not shall. Perhaps players in them other states aren't as rigorous as us Texans?

In those tournaments where TDs mix, what is their stated intent?

I think it was written prior to the rules change that encourages divisions be kept separate. When I first started, mixed first rounds were commonplace. It just looks like the document was not edited after that change was put in the rule book.

Then again, the rule may have always been that way and everyone was ignoring it before. It was a long time ago, and I wasn't a PDGA member or frequent tournament player then.

Lyle, you'd better watch your step. It's not wise to mess with Mother Rhett.

I am viewing the cook book versus the actual PDGA rules of play in the light of the real world, where right here and right now TDs with more experience that you and I and Gary combined purposefully and intentionally mix classifications and divisions in the first round of PDGA sanctioned tournaments that they run.

I believe that the rules should be followed. If rules such as grouping and sanctioning are not being followed then something should be done. Whether it is to change the rules or change the guidelines or whatever, something should be done to bring our rulebook and reality closer to the same thing.



Is this really such a problem? I'm not a 20 tourney a year player but I've yet to play in a tourney at any level that mixed cards, other than at the edges or when there were too few players to fill. That's why the rule says should, not shall. Perhaps players in them other states aren't as rigorous as us Texans?

In those tournaments where TDs mix, what is their stated intent?



Bla...............I was asked to play my first round , with three women players.

No problem. They were all cool and I played well !!!!!!!

The only time it becomes tough , is when your the Only person , in the foursome , that know's , and abides by the Rules !!!!!! :eek:

From an earlier thread:

Re: 804.06 Grouping and Sectioning
* * * #21064 - 07/20/03 08:52 AM

Folks,

Mixing groups does conform to the rules. I believe if you look at the rule book, it's the only rule where the words 'should' and 'shall' are used. If I remember correctly, the then rules committee member and author of this rule intentially chose that wording to a) convey the wishes of the PDGA rules committee in this area and b) allow folks who beleived in the benefits of mixing the groups to do so without infracting the rules.

I believe if this question was put to the rules committee, you would receive a similar reply.

On to Kansas City!!

Regards,

Pat Govang
PDGA Commissioner



Note: regarding Pat stated that 804.06.A is the only rule that uses the words "should" and "shall," he probably meant that it is the only rule that uses both "should" and "shall." (He's mistaken on that particular point�see, e.g., 803.06.A, 804.04.B�but the error does not invalidate his point regarding the RC's and the author's intent.

Nice search job!

The PDGA Commissioner is not the PDGA Competition Director and certainly not the PDGA Rules Committee, and though I appreciate his attempt to shed light on this question of grouping rules, I view this as an opinion not an official statement. And even if it is an official statement, the Commissioner does not have the authority to make new rules or even new interpretations of the rules, only the PDGA Rules Committee and the PDGA Competition Director (and on an individual basis) can do those things.

Here is the rule undoctored, the meaning seems pretty clear to me, with little if any room for interpretation:


804.06 GROUPING & SECTIONING
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.

B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.

C. Groups shall not be less than three players, except under extenuating circumstances, as deemed necessary by the director, to promote fairness. In cases where fewer than three players are required to play together, an official is required to accompany the group and may play as long as this does not interfere with the competing players.

D. When there are more entrants than can play together in one round, the field of competitors may be split into sections. These sections shall be seeded, i.e., each section should have an equal number of top players and lesser players.

E. If conditions differentially affect play among seeded sections, the director may consider using a sectioning procedure for cut and advancement. Under this procedure, a proportionate number of advancing players are taken from each section by score and the scores are not carried forward.

F. If a cut is made, it shall be done to a number that allows all advancing players to play at the same time.



The PDGA Rules Committee has expressed on more than one occasion that "shall" and "should" are to be read essentially as "must". They do provide for conditions that demand mixing of extra folks within other groups, as a last resort.

Shenandoah Shag this past weekend grouped Pros, Advanced, Intermediate, Rec, Juniors, & Women together in the 1st round. I think (for the 1st round) it's great; you meet more people & are exposed to more diverse levels of play.

I (Intermediate) felt like a champ when I had the low round on my card over a Pro & 2 Adv players!

While I dislike mixed groups during a round, even the first round, because you do not know how you are doing compared to your competition. I am "not as bothered" about it during 4 round competitions as I am during 2 round competitions. Because at a 4 round event, you have the opportunity to play catch up. This is more of a problem at the unsanctioned events down here where it is more of a tradition to mix groups first round. Of course, non-PDGA events count for 90% of the tournaments within a 4 hour drive of here. But what can you do at unsanctioned events, not attending is my answer.

That some people like it and some don't is a question worth discussion, but what we need to determine is whether it is permitted by our PDGA rules of play during PDGA events where an exemption has not been granted by the PDGA Competition Director (and whether tha exemption is needed).

From discussion I've had with Carlton, Chair of the PDGA Rules Committee, it is not permitted, except where the director has no other choice, after following the rules there are a few stragglers from different divisions that must be grouped together. This is not something new, most directors understand what is involved from grouping folks in subsequent rounds.

The idea of random grouping in the first round is not, I suspect, related to randomly grouping between divisions and classifications, but within divisions. So that unfair groupings are avoided.

I have a question into the PDGA Rules Committee so we should get an answer within a week or two.

I hate to agree with Nick, but on this topic I do.

It doesn't matter if Joe Intermediate likes mixed divisions and John Pro doesn't. What matters is that the PDGA rules of play say "don't mix divisions". (Yes, of course you can mix the last overflow players from divisions. That is not the same as purposefully mixing all divisions.) What also matters is that right now experienced PDGA TDs mix divisions in the first round, violating the rules of play.

We need to either follow the rules or change the rules. It doesn't matter whuch way you or I like it, as that is only relevant in the discussion as to whether or not to change the rule. What everyone should be able to agree on is that mixing divisions (in the manner we have been discussing, which is to intentionally put players from different divisions on each card for the first round) is currently illegal. And that we should also be able to agree that either all PDGA tournaments should follow the rule, or that the rule should be changed.

Sorry,

I will restate my reasons. I do not like mixed divisions because;

1) It seperates you from your competition.
2) It is against the rules.


Sorry for the non-clarity of my prior post.

Nice search job!

The PDGA Commissioner is not the PDGA Competition Director and certainly not the PDGA Rules Committee, and though I appreciate his attempt to shed light on this question of grouping rules, I view this as an opinion not an official statement. And even if it is an official statement, the Commissioner does not have the authority to make new rules or even new interpretations of the rules, only the PDGA Rules Committee and the PDGA Competition Director (and on an individual basis) can do those things.

The issue is not the power of the Commissioner vis-�-vis the Competition Director or the Rules Committee: it is about the underlying intention of a rule and the importance of that intention to current interpretation and application of that rule. If Pat is correct about the intention of the author and the Rules Committee that framed the rule, to what extent does and/or should current application reflect that intention?


Here is the rule undoctored, the meaning seems pretty clear to me, with little if any room for interpretation:

The problem with simply quoting a rule as if its meaning were clear and self-evident is that finding "meaning" in a string of phonemes/lexemes/graphemes is itself an act of interpretation, and every interpretation reflects the biases, assumptions, and presuppositions of the interpreter or interpretive community; consequently, agreement on what a rule "means" presupposes a set of shared assumptions. If one begins with the assumption that "should" and "shall" are exact synonyms for "must," one arrives at one conclusion; if one begins with the assumption that "shall" is imperative but "should" merely permissive, one arrives at a different conclusion. Since the Rulebook itself does not explicitly equate the terms, it is simply not legitimate to claim that one or the other assumption is correct; rather, the relationship between "should" and "shall" must be determined based on how they are used elsewhere in the Rulebook, how the original RC intended the words to be construed, and how those rules have been applied and interpreted over time. But unless that evidence is unanimous in one direction or the other, even that evidence would only establish a balance of probability for one assumption and against the other.

That the presuppositions brought to rules interpretation CANNOT be assumed to be self-evident and unchanging is amply illustrated by Dave Dunipace's comments in the thread, What is a throw, or practice throw, or extra throw? (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=18079&Searchpage=0&Main=18079&Search=true&#Post18079), as well as his comments and the responses to his comments in the thread "Is this a practice throw" here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=17973&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1).

I have in the past suggested, and continue believe, that there is a need for an authoritative companion volume to the Rulebook, similar to ball golf's "Decisions on the Rules of Golf," which includes a brief explanation of the rationale for each rule ("Why is this rule necessary?") and two or three examples of what does and what does not constitute a violation of the rule. Whlle such a volume would not, by any stretch of the imagination, eliminate rules controversies or conflicting interpretations, it would potentially serve to narrow the scope of debate surrounding a point of interpretation.


The PDGA Rules Committee has expressed on more than one occasion that "shall" and "should" are to be read essentially as "must". They do provide for conditions that demand mixing of extra folks within other groups, as a last resort.

I have heard this claimed on occasion, but I have never been able to document the declaration. Can you provide a citation?

The PDGA Rules Committee has expressed on more than one occasion that "shall" and "should" are to be read essentially as "must". They do provide for conditions that demand mixing of extra folks within other groups, as a last resort.

I have heard this claimed on occasion, but I have never been able to document the declaration. Can you provide a citation?



Where is the venerable Jim Garnett when you need him?

At any rate we should have a definitive answer soon from the PDGA Rules Committee.

I nominate Mr. Sung for the newly-conceived Companion Volume to the Rulebook Chairperson. ;)

Well written post. I like the idea of a companion doc for the rules book.

Excellent idea, where do I order my copy ?

As soon as Felix can be convinced to write it, we should be able to go to press. :D

This question might be slightly off-topic, but seems to fit in here. In 804.06 B. it states "All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter."

What are TDs using to randomly group players in the first round? Sort by: PDGA number, or Last Name, or date/time they entered, or something else? I'm writing a tournament scoring program in MS Access and would like to build in a random grouping generator of some sort. Is there a preferred method out there?

For single event it doesn't seem to be that important, but for a series of events I noticed that any consistent sorting method put the same players together at every event. I added a random number generator to the TX10 scoring application to better randomize the first round.

Thanks, Gary, good point. I could probably do a random number generator in access. Just didn't know if there were any other preferred methods. Maybe group by rating?

Sorting by rating is seeding, and most likely to occur once the tournament starts. It seems that the purpose of random assignment is to allow players to play with and meet new players. For TD's without access to a random number generator, I would suggest the order of signup with some effort to mix up players that are traveling together.

Even at worlds, (after the first round when things were sorted by score) I played almost every round with someone from TX/OK.

Even at worlds, (after the first round when things were sorted by score) I played almost every round with someone from TX/OK.



I really feel for you Gary. :D

For last years SoCal Championships I followed the rule by getting all the pre-reg leaderboard cards, and then I piled them up by division. Then I took each pile and threw them down the stairs to shuffle and then picked them up as I went down the stairs. That was the order I stuffed them into the leaderboard.

I did that for each division. It helped that the event was sold out early so could do that at home. :)

Thank you for providing me with that mental image.

The unofficial gist from the Rules Committee is that divisions and classifications should not be mixed during the first or subsequent rounds unless, due to varying division sizes and to make even hole groupings divisions can be mixed on a few holes to fill out the hole groupings. The guide was intended to illustrate one method of randomly mixing �within divisions� for hole assignments, not to mix divisions and certainly NEVER classifications (AM/PRO).

If tournament directors are interested in mixing divisions and classifications at a PDGA event they are welcome to do so after detailing the mixture guidelines, submitting it in their sanctioning agreement and getting approval from the PDGA Competition Director. The events would need to be marked as �X�tier and all promotional and registration materials would need to announce those details.

This is already a part of our existing rules.

There is discussion of allowing C and D Tiers able to mix divisions and classifications without prior approval of the PDGA Competition Director, but that would be more of a policy change than an actual rules change.

Hopefully something official will be put out to clarify all of this soon.

For last years SoCal Championships I followed the rule by getting all the pre-reg leaderboard cards, and then I piled them up by division. Then I took each pile and threw them down the stairs to shuffle and then picked them up as I went down the stairs. That was the order I stuffed them into the leaderboard.

I did that for each division. It helped that the event was sold out early so could do that at home. :)



then how come every year i end up playing with guys in alphabetical order except at this years golden state where i ended up being randomly thrown in and end up on the same card as reese for the first round :p......thereby ruining any chance for cashing or sanity for the rest of the event :D

i still have nightmares to this day :eek:

I like to get a local, or at least someone who is familiar with the tournament layout in each group for round one, then reward pre entrants with a shorter walk to their first tee. Also like to mix by geography and give folks a chance to play with others they may not yet know. (All within their division when possible).
Before it was prohibited I used to mix pro divisions (open, masters, women) with each other and separately am divisions (adv, intermediate, etc.) the first round. In earlier days often the small divisions of women or masters would request playing in mixed divisions for round one since they would be playing with 'the same people' the rest of the event.

There will be a new Q & A clarification on this shortly. At this time the correct ruling is to not mix divisions and certainly not mix classifications at PDGA events without prior approval of the PDGA Competition Director, marking your event as an "X" Tier and advertising the planned grouping set up to participants well in advance of the event.

I wish all the TDs would follow this rule because at the Brent Hambrick Memorial. Mind you this is a SuperTour A Tier event. I got paired with 2 Intermediate Men and an Intermediate women!!! I mean come on now. This is a SuperTour event and your going to pair the Advanced men with Intermediate men and then to top it all off your going to throw an Intermediate WOMEN in the mix. Not even an advanced women. This was first of all a complete distration because none of the 3 Intermediates had any etiquette or knowledge of the rules. IE they were all talking while I was trying to throw and while I was trying to putt and walking around while I was putting and all that other nonsense. Im not using this as an excuse for my poor performance. All I am saying is that I never should have been put in that situation in the first place. I can see maybe at a local C Tier or something of that nature but mixing divisions and GENDERS at a SuperTour event, I think that is completely rediculous. The best part was that not ALL male groups had to play with WOMEN. Only a select few got them thrown into their groups and I know for a fact that Im not the only one who was affected by it. I talked to many other advanced players who were none to happy that they got grouped up with WOMEN at a SuperTour event in which they were supposed to be playing against other Advanced men.

I agree with you.

NOW IF the TD of this Super Tour event wanted to group like that and still have an A Tier event, then they should have asked for and received permission from the PDGA Competition Director, the event marked XA-Tier and it advertised that mixing of divisions and classifications would happen during the first round. I'd be fine with that, though I probably would not go to the event, at least folks would know what they are in for when they see the scoreboard groupings.

Worse than any of that is the ever present TD "Favoritism" towards their buddies. This is even more an assault on fairness than randomly mixing divisions and classifications.

It may sound harsh, but perhaps we really need to start sending in formal complaints to the PDGA when we see these sorts of TD rules infractions.

Note: Not all TDs do this on purpose, some really don't know that they are supposed to keep divisions and classifications separate when grouping. If you inform them nicely, they may regroup properly, especially if you offer to help with that process...

When u move up u don't have that "problem".....

When u move up u don't have that "problem".....



Thats exactly why I will be moving up after USADGC :D

See you in the Open division in 2 months :D

NICE...

When u move up u don't have that "problem".....



Man, I wish that was true. Within the last calendar year I have been grouped with; Advanced men, Int men, and Pro masters.

But I'm just a mullet...

I did enjoy myself each round, but it would have been nice to play against my competition.

NICE...



So hopefully Ill see you in the Open division at Sneeky Pete and Fall Finale if I can make it to both :D

And depending on how Am Nationals goes I may even see you at USDGC :D

OH YEAH....almost forget....
I hope you'll be following the rule on moving up to the OPEN division....Within two months of going pro you are expected to turn on atleast 1 person to the sport and or tell 4 poeple how great the sport is....And alwways listen closely for sponsorship possibilities

OH YEAH....almost forget....
I hope you'll be following the rule on moving up to the OPEN division....Within two months of going pro you are expected to turn on atleast 1 person to the sport and or tell 4 poeple how great the sport is....And alwways listen closely for sponsorship possibilities



Ive been doing that since I started playing tournaments so Im all set :D I just want to move up and play against people who are actually better then me so I can learn something and improve my game :D

The clarification is in:

From How To Run An Event (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part2.php)

No interpretation is left. If you want to mix divisions you need to ask the PDGA Competition Director. I for one will inform TDs that break this rule that they are in violation of their Tour Agreement and our Rulebook and report it to that Officer as well as request the return of my entry fee. I will also likely never play in their event again. It's one thing to do at a mini, another to do it at a PDGA.

Now if they get approval and advertise the mixing, fine, then it is on the competitor to decide if they are going to come or not.

6) Tee Assignments & Scorecards

Begin to place the leader board cards that have been completed onto the leader board. They should be placed on the leader board in the order that they were registered. The first player to register will be the first player on hole 1 (I would suggest that this guy be you! Sure it�s legit! Be the first one to pre-register!), the second player to register will be the first player on hole 2, the third player to register will be the first player on hole 3, the fourth player to register will be the first player on hole 4, etc. The nineteenth player to register will be the SECOND player on hole 1. Got it?


This method is random and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together.


Of course, you�ll have to keep in mind that players must be segregated by division (where possible), even in the first round. If you�re using different colored leader board cards this will be easier. Since players don�t register in neat, perfect numbers, you do have some leeway in filling out a group or two.


Remember, professional players from out of town shouldn�t have to teach YOUR local Ams how to play the game.

If you'd like to violate PDGA rules and mix divisions, you'll need to apply for a waiver from the PDGA Competition Director. Also, you might wish to consider X tier status.


You openly admit that you are directly and purposefully violating the rules of our rulebook as concern groupings, is that right?

Furthermore you are admitting that though you sign and submit a PDGA Event Sanctioning Agreement with your signature on it, promising to follow the guidelines and requirements of that agreement, that you purposefully and directly voilate that Agreement, is that also right?


Quite apart from the interpretive issue of whether the "should" in 804.06.A is imperative or merely hortatory, the Rules Committee Chairman (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part1.php) has, at the very least, specifically advised, if not instructed, TDs to mix divisions for the first round (see Part 2, point 6, Tee Assignments and Scorecards (http://www.pdga.com/how_to_run_event_part2.php)). In light of that, it may be argued that because the grouping procedure is detailed by the Rules Committee Chairman in his capacity as RC Chairman, and because it is published on the PDGA website and was disseminated by the PDGA as part of the Y2K Tour Planning Package, a TD may, in good faith, adopt the recommended procedure, until such time as the advice is retracted, a TD may adopt it in good faith, whether or not that procedure actually complies with requirements and intent of 804.06.A.

this happens all too often. its disappointing and a little frustrating. three of the five tourneys i went to this year had mixed divisions first round. at b-tier level. when you only play three or four rounds all weekend at a tourney, and one of them is with other people than in your division, then the 6 to 8 hour drive just to get there makes it less than desirable. i can stay home and play fun rounds at home any time. :(

To further clarify the PDGA Rules Committee has just created a new Rules Q&A concerning this.

PDGA Rules Q & A (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php)

Rule Question: Mixing divisions
Question: Can a TD put players from different divisions in the same group?
Response: Only if absolutely necessary. A TD must strive to place players into groups with players from the same division insofar as is possible. That is especially true with regard to the border between pro and am divisions. Pros should play with pros, and ams should play with ams.

A TD may need to mix divisions in order to fill a group, because divisions are rarely evenly divisible by the group size. That is fine. (For example, there may be three senior grandmasters and two women masters at a tournament with groups of five; they may be placed within the same group.)

Exceptions to the grouping constraints may also be obtained by the TD by petitioning the Competition Director.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Dr. Rick Voakes
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
Jim Garnett
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Carlton Howard

For The Skylands Classic at warwick 2 weeks ago, here is how I created groups in the First Round:

Within divisions, I put the scorecards in order of PDGA Player Rating. The top-rated player (Ken Climo) started on Hole #1; the 2nd highest player started on #2, the next on #3 etc.
I knew i'd have MPO players on the first 11 holes, so the 11th rated player started on #11, along with rated player #12. The 13th rated player then started on #10 and i worked my way back towards Hole #1, and then wound back again etc until all MPO players assigned.

This was therefore somewhat random. I'm glad I had witnesses when i did this because there some incredibly amazing group assignments that appeared to be not at all random. The cast of interesting names and personalities that got paired together was too amazing to be coincidence, but it was.

This method also helped insure that a totally random assignment didn't result in a foursome of all-stars or a four-some of the 4 pros at the bottom of the MPO list. It also allowed for players of varying ratings levels to play together since they probably wouldn't get to play together in later rounds. There were Pros that thanked me for however i did my assignments for the privilege of playing with feldbergs, climos, brinsters, melas, leonards, mcdaniels, etc...

dd

Though interesting I'm not sure that it falls within the rules of play Dan. Consider:

<font color="green"> 804.06 GROUPING & SECTIONING
B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter. </font>

Your method, though not without benefits, could not be properly called "random". Random would mean that the cards per division would be completely shuffled then set out in groupings.

Yes, this might well end up making groupings of Ken, Brian, Stevie and Kevin, but it would give all the other players ponying up the big entry fee to play in those guys division at least a chance to shoot a round with them as well.

Once you put some system to the groupings it is no longer random and it opens whoever did the cards up to questions of fixing certain groupings to suit certain players needs.

TDs that want to do that, or any system other than what our rules allow need to check them out with the PDGA Competition Director and make sure to announce such non-standard aspects of their events in any event announcements and ads.

I was fine with it at the event Dan. This is a purely "getting our rules right" discussion.

That was a great idea Dan.

And Nick, you are wrong. His method is as random as any other. He had no idea who would show up to the event. He assigned each player a number after putting those numbers on specific cards.

Drawing names out of a hat or puting cards in order of arrival/registration is no more random than his technique. In fact, his technique is more random as friends/travel buddies often register together or arrive together. Drawing names out of a hat, or random number generators are no better than blindly assigning numbers and ordering those numbers.

Dan, don't listen to Nick. I think he is over analyzing the rule and reading too much into grouping. By the rule, I believe your technique is completely appropriate and fitting.

Dan, don't listen to Nick. I think he is over analyzing the rule and reading too much into grouping. By the rule, I believe your technique is completely appropriate and fitting.



Unfortunately it is also not "random" and therefore not legal.

"Ordering by..." makes it non-random and not within our rules of play.

Personally, I don't have anything against his method and said so. That is a different topic from whether it is also within our rules of play to do so...

Didn't the PDGA suggested method require "ordering by" registration times. No matter what system you use, at some point in time you are "ordering by" something, either the order the players registered or the order I picked the cards up off the stairs. The trick is to make sure the method gives no preference to certain players.

Basing it upon ratings and spreading it through all cards, probably does as good a job of randomly grouping players on cards as any other, while ensuring all players get a chance to play with players they don't normally get to play with in a tournament.

Random would mean that the cards per division would be completely shuffled then set out in groupings.

Once you put some system to the groupings it is no longer random and it opens whoever did the cards up to questions of fixing certain groupings to suit certain players needs.




Wouldn't shuffling be considered a system then?

Happy Birthday !!!!!!
http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/nefertiti0501/hypocrit.gif
http://www.centxdglove.com/putterman.gif

Gary,

They have recently altered that document so that is no longer suggested.

"Ordered randomly" is an oxymoron. �Random� means not by any set order, or lack of conscious ordering. So shuffling is the only random way to do it.

Hey! Don�t think you can fool me about such stuff, I�ve run and been around enough TDs to know the stuff that goes on�

Random is random, not �ordered by�.

Nick

That method is random in that the postions are assigned to players based on ratings, not individual players. Much the same as the players are arranged by division. It is unlikely that the same players will end up on the same cards in any two events that use that method.

Isn't that the real point of randomization ? To help insure that the same players are not playing with each other every event ?

That method is random in that the postions are assigned to players based on ratings, not individual players. Much the same as the players are arranged by division. It is unlikely that the same players will end up on the same cards in any two events that use that method.

Isn't that the real point of randomization ? To help insure that the same players are not playing with each other every event ?



No it is not. In fact, to have that as a goal makes it not "random". The reason I believe the rule is the way it is (requiring total randomness) is to avoid "purposefully" or "consciously" giving one player an advantage over another within a division by purposefully catering to their individual needs, which would be default infringe on another players needs and so forth around the circle.

Random is random. It is the only method fair to "everyone" with favoritism towards "no one". No question.

"Hey man! Why did I get stuck with Nick!?!"

"Sorry dude, I ordered them randomly by people I like..."

Random does not mean fair groupings, random just means no one is to blame for the groupings.

I believe the other method is fairly random since the card assignments are decided on well before hand (highest rated player is spot 1, lowest rated player is slot 44) and the real players fill in the spots as they sign up. Though the assigned spots are not random, the players that take those spots are random. No one, including the TD can pre-determine who will be grouped with whom, they just have a pretty good idea who will not be grouped together.

To perform root-canal work with a hand grenade, or not to perform root-canal work with a hand grenade, that is the question!

Random does not mean fair groupings, random just means no one is to blame for the groupings.

I believe the other method is fairly random since the card assignments are decided on well before hand (highest rated player is spot 1, lowest rated player is slot 44) and the real players fill in the spots as they sign up. Though the assigned spots are not random, the players that take those spots are random. No one, including the TD can pre-determine who will be grouped with whom, they just have a pretty good idea who will not be grouped together.



There is no provision in our rules Gary for "fairly random" only "random". Shuffle the suckers and be done with it. Any questions then can be easily and clearly answered with, "The groupings were COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY random. End of discussion (at the event that is, we will likely misunderstand each other here until doomsday...) (I'm paranoid about using smilies now, but you know I'm only half serious Gary)

The lizards - they operate on me!

The lizards - they operate on me!



Understood , also A friend in the pyramid is worth two in the packing crate. Boye !!!!!! :D

Oh , Is this an orang-utan which I see before me, the carrot toward my dressing gown? Come, let me actually barbecue thee.

and , Ponds of the world - perform dubious acts upon table-tennis tables and caress leopards! :eek:

:DYou silent disc jockey! :cool:

But , Roundhouse-kick my frock and tell me that you kick the ground out from underneath me.

To arse around with a shirt, or not to arse around with a shirt, that is the pole-vaulter! :)

Question : Would you like a white monkey? :eek:

On the fifth day of Christmas, my pointy love sent to me; five spangly gryphons! Four funny molotov tails, three vegetarian foreheads, two baby fedoras and a horse in a comic. :eek:

On the fifth day of Christmas, my shiny love sent to me; five skeletal power cables! Four blessed +4 gargoyles, three infirm bones, two buxom kidneys and a shopkeeper in a waiter. :D

On the fifth day of Christmas, my Green-clearance love sent to me; five buried demons! Four pan-galactic shopping trolleys, three dynamic lampshades, two caffeine-free helium balloons and a scorpion in a sperm whale. :D

And the last one is , I've proof that you can't stir drinks with hydrogen bombs! :eek:

I know that, but having done electronic entries for so long, it is tough to do rancom assignments unless you are on Excel 2000 or above (where the random function is available).

I have built in a randomizer that assigns each player in a division a random number and then sorts by that, but it comes up some really interesting card assignments.

More than just interesting Gary, random.

And legal.

Is there some reason all 4 of the PDGAs I've been to this year have not adhered to either of the following rules found in our current rule book?


804.06 Grouping and Sectioning

A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.

B. All players within a division should be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.



Is there somewhere that allows TDs or volunteers to group buddies together or to mix divisions and classifications of players during the first round of play? Is it in the event agreement the TD signs? I seem to recall the agreement saying that they will adhere to all PDGA rules of play, not just the ones they like...

the key words, Nick--"should not" and "as much as practicable."

That leaves a great big out. And, obviously, some take advantage of it even when it's not within the spirit of the rule.

--steve

actually the rules commitee has ruled that mixing pro and am groups can't happen unless it has to(not enough people to fill up a whole card)