In the Competion Manual, Section 2.1 (I) it states:


I. A Tournament Director may, by giving adequate public
notice, restrict the divisions offered. Absent such notice,
the director shall offer for competition any division which
has four or more players that are eligible and wishing to
compete. Tournament Directors may offer divisions with
less than four players at their discretion.




A couple of questions:

1) What entails "Adequate Public Notice" and how is this information communicated to the public.

2) Has anyone ever got a division added in a tournament?

3) If you are a TD, have you ever added a division because 4 players asked? If so how did it work out?

What makes me ask this is that I am a Novice player, but many tournaments I go to do not offer Novice/AM4 divisions so I have to play up in Rec/AM3. I was wondering if I got 3 other players to go with it, how would I go about getting the division added and to do so, I need to know what is considered "Adequate Public Notice" that a division isn't being offered.

If listing the division being offered on the flyer is a defacto listing of division NOT being offered, how does a division ever get added?

Call the TD and ask.

Not including a division in the tourney flyer is not sufficient notice. All divisions are presumed to be offered unless stated that they won't be offered. Without stating a division will not be offered, the TD is obligated to offer the PDGA division if four players in that division show up and wish to enter it. Online pre-reg can make it difficult for a division not listed in the online reg form to be added without contacting the TD, especially if the event sells out to only the divisions offered in the pre-reg process.

When I do contact the TD, how do I know if I am the 1st, 4th or 40th player requesting? Maybe e-mailing the request and a CC to someone at the PDGA (David Gentry maybe) would help?

The TD will say that they will offer it if 4 show up or will not offer it. Unless you already have three other people lined up, the TD can't guarantee they will offer a division even it's part of the pre-registration. If only two players are signed up for a division during pre-registration, the TD has the right not to offer it if there are other divisions those players could legally enter, even if not their preference. Usually the TD will not force players into divisions they don't want to enter and offer the 2-person division that players have entered. It's usually an optional choice for those 2 players to enter other divisions.

Not including a division in the tourney flyer is not sufficient notice. All divisions are presumed to be offered unless stated that they won't be offered. Without stating a division will not be offered, the TD is obligated to offer the PDGA division if four players in that division show up and wish to enter it. Online pre-reg can make it difficult for a division not listed in the online reg form to be added without contacting the TD, especially if the event sells out to only the divisions offered in the pre-reg process.



This is a bad assumption to make - and it is certainly not "policy" that I have ever seen in writing (and I have been running tournaments since 1988). Many TD's post their notices with the specific intent of showing which divisions are being offered.
Now - that being said - many TD's WILL accommodate extra divisions when asked, and indeed do not intend to exclude any players when listing divisions and entry fees on their tournament flyers. Best practice is to contact the TD in advance, especially in todays environment of events filling fast.

Recruit your own division. Find 3 others who are eligible and get them to play.

For the last few years, we've noted on our flyer that any division not listed in the entry fees will be allowed if it gets critical mass by a certain date (3-4 weeks ahead of the event).

This is a bad assumption to make - and it is certainly not "policy" that I have ever seen in writing (and I have been running tournaments since 1988).


Then you need to read the policy stated in the first post. It's a negative opt out policy. Unless a division is specifically restricted, it's de facto available if enough players enter it. Lack of including it in the list of divisions offered on the flyer is insufficient notice per the Competition Manual. TDs commonly do not explicitly list all of the divisions they will accept because up to 25 or more might be possible (8 junior divisions) even though only 6 or 7 commonly have players in an area.

This is a bad assumption to make - and it is certainly not "policy" that I have ever seen in writing (and I have been running tournaments since 1988).


Then you need to read the policy stated in the first post. It's a negative opt out policy. Unless a division is specifically restricted, it's de facto available if enough players enter it. Lack of including it in the list of divisions offered on the flyer is insufficient notice per the Competition Manual. TDs commonly do not explicitly list all of the divisions they will accept because up to 25 or more might be possible (8 junior divisions) even though only 6 or 7 commonly have players in an area.



From the competition manual:
Divisions Offered 2.1 "I", says nothing as to whether listing divisions on a tournament flyer is adequate as "sufficient public notice" for excluding divisions - only that said notice needs to be given. The notion that it is insufficient is just your interpretation Chucky. The proper thing to do as a TD (if your intent is to NOT offer a specific division) is to be very clear in your published information. The proper thing to do as a player is to call and ask the question - neither is particularly difficult.

Sorry Craig, the default is to include divisions that have four players EVEN IF not listed on the flyer. You know that to be true. Unless expressly stated to exclude divisions, TD is obligated to offer them if space is available and at least four show up for it. Maybe you haven't followed that guideline, but that's what it says. Only explicit statement to exclude would prevent all of the unlisted divisions on the flyer from being offered.

I agree that since even some veteran TDs might not understand the guidelines, it's good for players to contact them for clarification of their intended policy on divisions.

I agree that since even some veteran TDs might not understand the guidelines, it's good for players to contact them for clarification of their intended policy on divisions.



Actually Chuck - it's not the veteran TD's who have difficulty being clear - usually it's the folks that are new at the TD game - and that's when misunderstandings occur - which is all I was getting at. You can skip the condescending remarks though if you please. I understand the guidelines perfectly well - and do not need to impart my opinion on them as you have. What sort of public notice could be more clear than a specific list of divisions offered? What I normally do when all divisions are offered is to state entry fees for specific categories, and other fees for "all other". If I am offering only specific divisions, I list them as the only ones available. I have however seen less experienced TD's not include that caveat - which "could" (but seldom does) lead to misunderstandings.

I don't disagree that some communications need to be more clear. You initiated this interchange with the comment that you've never seen it in any written policy. But the policy has been there for the past several years once the Competition Manual became an official document.

But the policy has been there for the past several years once the Competition Manual became an official document.



References, please.

I can't find what policy you're talking about, Chuck. It's certainly not stated that way in the Competition Manual. Seems to me a flyer with divisions that are being offered on it is the TD's way of saying what divisions are being offered. All other divisions are therefore NOT offered, since they are not on the list of OFFERED divisions. But perhaps I'm missing something in the Competition Manual that clearly confirms your assertion.

Chap

i believe the listing of divisions with prices on advertising materials implicitly specifies that divisions not listed are not included- calling the lawyers!!!

when i produce my hawk hollow open flyer and it says "advanced divisions - $45 " and mentions other amateur divisions in no way whatsoever i am obligated to open advanced divisions with 4 or more entrants- i am not obligated to offer anything beyond that imo, any more than mcdonalds is obligated to sell you a whopper. (not that it matters, i'm going invitational after this year.)

There's no reason for the phrase in the Competition Manual posted above (about restricting), if the act of listing the offered divisions automatically excludes divisions that aren't listed. That phrase was added sometime in the past few years to the Comp Manual. Simple as that.

For simplicity, events have not listed every division that would be offered. The policy has been around for as long as I can remember. I just checked the rules from 1993 and the written policy was that all divisions would be offered unless fewer than 5 entered and TD decided it wouldn't be offered.

i disagree- this is once again all semantic interpretation on your part. it is my interpretation of the same semantics that announcing which divisions are included is also a de facto announcement of those which are not. where's bruce when you need him?

It's not the case. A primary reason the new wording was added in the Comp Manual had to do with situations where members contacted Dave regarding TDs refusing to offer a division when they had four players who wanted to play it. In some cases, other divisions had been added that were not explicitly listed. I would wager every one of you posting has been involved in events where a division not listed on the flyer was added when enough showed up for the event.

i remain unconvinced.

At least I'm not the only one - and my point is made. Whether or not a TD is "obligated" to offer an unadvertised division - a player wishing to enter in one (that is unadvertised on published tournament info) will serve themselves well by contacting the TD in advance to avoid disappointment for themselves, and unnecessary hassles for the TD.

Yet another example of how our bloated divisional offerings yield undesirable circumstances.

Veteran TDs may not pay close attention to minor tweaks in policies that don't go against what they've always done even if not in writing. You probably have done the right thing over the years regardless what wording was changed or added for situations that needed more clarification. And it looks like the wording needs to be even more explicit for 2009.

The wording is fine - it's the divisional structure that needs changing :)

With the new wording, you have a wide range of ways to structure them how you want.

With the new wording, you have a wide range of ways to structure them how you want.



Apparently, like restricting offering divisions to the ones you advertise as being offered.

And Chuck, you haven't shown me exactly what in the Comp. Manual supports your assertion. Still seems to me that by printing the divisions offered in a flyer, that the TD has given advance notice of what divisions he's planning on holding, which satisfies the requirements in Comp. Manual Section 2.1 (I) Savvy players could always ask for an unlisted division, and a TD could still grant their request if there's enough players to hold that division, but he's not required to do so if he's given public notice of the divisions he's planning on holding.

Chap

Run your own tournament. Offer Am 4. Don't offer the TD's division. Let him know how it feels.

As the originator of the post, I must admit that I did not think that the divisions listed on the flyer was ALL the divisions being offered anymore than the items listed in an add are all the items available at Wal-Mart.

If it is your opinion that all the divisions listed on a flyer are in fact adequate public notice that the other divisions are not being offered then answer this.....

How would anyone use the rule to get a division added? Clearly the rule is there so enough players could get a division added that they fit in better but by the flyer notification theory, a division could never be added EXCEPT by the whim of the TD. I can see why this would be a popular opinion for TDs to have.

Now I'm sure most TDs would add the division if they could, but they wouldn't HAVE too, which leaves no recourse for the player but to be disenfranchised with the sport. If we want this sport to grow, there needs to be some voice the beginning player can have that will be heard.

This is why I asked my first question, what constitutes "Adequate Public Notice". Some people think that by listing the division that you are having by inference is also listing the division that you are not having. I do not believe that an "inference" is the same as a "notice". Being implied or infered and stated are two different things and as I believe they do not fall under the correct qualification as "notice".

But from the tone of many of the posts, there does seem to be a difference of opinion.

And also from the tone of some posters, it is clear that some think the Novice division is a mistake to begin with.

If people are forced to compete against people rated 100 points higher and are contiuosly beaten by 10+ strokes, they might be discouraged and go try something else. If the Novice division isn't embraced and accepted, the sport will not be able to grow at its best potential.

I, too, interpret a flyer listing divisions offered to mean those are the divisions offered---period. I've seen TDs add a division by request but if my division were not listed on the flyer I might ask the TD to add it....but never demand it. Think of pro-only or am-only events that don't specifically have the wording "No Am (or Pro) divisions" on their flyer; if the flyer only mentioned Pro divisions and Pro entry fees, could 4 Ams claim a loophole and demand a division of their own?

That's different. The tournaments are actually classified as Pro, Am or Pro/Am on the tournament listings which is direct and adequate notice that the tourney is limited to a class of divisions.

I'm not sure what the resistance to the adding a division to a tournament is. It doesn't say you have to offer prizes or even recognize the winner at the end. Other than entering the scores in a different column and sorting the cards into one more pile, how much trouble is it really? Just take a minute and think about it, how hard is it to add a division at the last moment? There are no other requirments at all other than just the division. I know some TDs are thinking, "This is MY tournament and I will have what division I d*med well please and no group of players are going to tell ME I have to add a division!".

But under the rules of the santioning body, it seems that the players MAY have a voice and that clearly bothers some people.

If not, then the rule doesn't make any sense, does it?

There are sometimes legitimate reasons for restricting divisions.

I run a match play tournament at Earlewood Park that is a series of one-on-one matches in a single elimination bracket. We have one Pro bracket and one Am (Advanced) bracket, no masters, no women, etc. You really need to fill to 32 to fill the brackets evenly and make it work smoothly...less than that, we get into byes and people sitting out....if you ony had 4 in a division, it would be silly, AND would keep one of the divisions we offer from filling to 32.

I just held a tournament at our private course, where we offered no divisions below Intermediate or ages above Masters. The course is unsuitable for lower divisions---because it is challenging, and the rough is very rough, and there are places where you simply must clear a certain distance with some control....or else.

Our club runs a tournament at Earlewood Park that is limited to Pros & Advanced, but offers women and age-protected divisions among those. This year it filled (90 players) in 3 days. It's already a registration problem without the lower divisions....but we hold other tournaments at other times in which we welcome them. In this case it's not absolutely necessary to limit divisions, but deemed desirable.

In MOST cases, I favor opening up to as many divisions as there are participants for. But there are times when restricting divisions is appropriate.

P.S. In the above-mentioned tournaments I run, I do indicate on the flyers that these are the only divisions offered. While I disagree that a TD must do so to limit divisions....it is always a good idea.

Right, I'm not against limiting divisions per se as there may be justifiable reasons for doing so as you just listed several very good reasons for specific tournaments. I'm just saying , in general run of the mill tournaments, that by listing divisions that will be held in a flyer is NOT adequate public notice that the division not listed will not be offered. Infered and implied are NOT the same as giving notice.

You can alway put "Only listed division will be offered" on your flyer and tada, no problem at all.

BTW, I just sent a request to have Novice added to a tournament I will be playing in the next month. I was turned down.



Ken,

I appreciate you signing up to compete in the [name removed].

Unfortunately we will not be offering the Novice division this year. I will consider opening that division up next year if I have enough entries.

If you look at those who have signed up for the recreational division, your rating is actually higher than a bunch of those already signed up.

[Name removed] is rated below you and [Name removed] has only played 2 tournaments (his rating is about the same as [Name Removed]) so I think you have a really good chance of taking home some merchandise.

Also we will be doing all kinds of CTP's and other events to give everyone a chance of taking something home with them.

I look forward to meeting you at the tournament.


Later,

[Name Removed]

I was just answering your:

"I'm not sure what the resistance to the adding a division to a tournament is."

I agree that in a run-of-the-mill tournament, I'm unsure why a TD wouldn't want to offer every division. Heck, in tournaments other than those I cited, we've held 1-person divisions when asked. (Likewise, I don't understand why someone wants to play in such a small division---the same group every round---but that's the players' decision). The response you got to your request surprises me. Ultimately, though, I tend to give TDs a lot of slack, recognizing all the work they're putting into it. They're the ones we really don't want to run off.

As to whether listing divisions offered, without specifying that they are the only divisions offered, is sufficient....I see your point but still disagree. I compare it to advertising....if an ad for a house doesn't mention central air, or a fenced yard, or a fireplace, you can bet the house doesn't have these.

If the default is that a PDGA tournament offers all divisions, and if the flyer goes to the trouble of listing certain divisions, I assume these are the divisions offered. Otherwise, why list divisions all all? (If it's just a matter of listing entry fees and it says "$xx for Am Divisions", I would read that as all Am Divisions.)

In the end, all TDs who wish to limit divisions, regardless of the merits of their reasons, would be well advised to be clearer in the wording of their flyers.

Thanks for your input David, I appreciate the view point from someone who has the experience of running a tournament.

I fear this discussion may limit the number of tournaments that I will be able to compeat in. Probably any TD reading this thread will be sure to specify on the flyer that no other divisions will be offered, so I and others like me will have no choice but to "play up" if we want to play in a tournament.

I'm really disappointed in the way the thread has went, I had no idea that there was so much indifference and disregard to the beginning player (Not you personaly David, just the general tone of the thread). From here on out, I will ask the TD to add the Novice division and if it isn't added, I just wont go to that tournament. No need for me to go when I don't have a chance. I got a feeling I will be traveling North most of the time to play in tournaments as this "play up" attitude seems to be quite prevelent in the South.

Thanks for everyone's input and opening this players eyes.

I'd hope more TDs would offer the lower divisions.

When in doubt, (1) ask if the TD intends to offer Novice (his interpretion of the flyer may be the same as yours), then (2) ask if he's willing to. Perhaps if there are enough requests, there'll be more events offering Novice & Recreational.

By the way, my examples were reasons for limited divisions....we have other tournaments around here that offer recreational, women, juniors, and would surely offer novice if asked. This is definitely "play up" territory, where Intermediate division is mostly populated by players with "Recreational" ratings, and Advanced by players with "Intermediate" ratings, and plenty of Open Pros with ratings around 950.

I know some TDs are thinking, "This is MY tournament and I will have what division I d*med well please and no group of players are going to tell ME I have to add a division!".




that is PRECISELY what i think as a matter of fact.

as far as the lack of a novice division restricting the growth of the game- it doesn't seem to have done so thus far. my suggestion for those who are not competitive in the recreational division is to practice.

as for the contention that my attitudes make me indifferent to the beginning player- that is your inference- i'm pretty sure those who actually know me know better. it's likely at this point that i have introduced more people to the game than will play in the novice division at every pdga event this year combined.

One more of the myriad reasons to make top-quality pro/am events (such as <u>any</u> event at Hawk Hollow) "invitation only".

i think the pdga should just do away with keeping score entirely. apparently it's the only way someone's feelings won't get hurt. ratings too. lord knows the pdga and it's many volunteers can't be hurting feelings! the growth of the sport is at stake.

Some people just want to play the game with people they can be competitve with. No need to be butt-hurt about it md.

i think the pdga should just do away with keeping score entirely. apparently it's the only way someone's feelings won't get hurt. ratings too. lord knows the pdga and it's many volunteers can't be hurting feelings! the growth of the sport is at stake.


Great point, Paul, but you're thinking too narrowly. Even without a quantitative metric to use to compare performance, the sight of a player throwing so much better than the seer could definitely cause some deep shame &amp; sorrow. So, on top of not keeping score, all PDGA events should be played blindfolded.

Some people just want to play the game with people they can be competitve with.



nobody is arguing against that. what is bothersome is the sense of entitlement.

some people actually want to be challenged in true competition. some people just want to be coddled.

Tru dat!! This coming from a 928-rated schmoe (no offense intended from this 902-rated superschmoe) who went head-to-head and balls-to-the-wall against Schweb, JG, &amp; Feldberg (among others) in a tournament a month ago.

Kudos for reminding us what "being competitive" <u>really</u> means, md21954!

I do feel entitled to play the division I am rated for in any sanctioned tournament unless it is adequately and publicly stated that that division will not be offered. I feel this way because it is a rule in the Competition Manual that tournament directors agree to abide by! Well in my interpretation of the rule anyway, others have differing opinion which is why this forum is so great for debating these things out. If it wasn't there, then I'd play where ever I thought I wouldn't embarass myself too badly and hopefully pickup a few pointers to improve my game. Look, I have no delusions of grandeur, I'm never going to play pro, but I might make it to Intermediate but that is just because I'm stubborn.

I like everyone here so I don't want there to be any hurt feelings just because my opinion is different than yours. That is what makes a good set of rules, differing interpitations coming together and working out logicly what is the intent of the rule and how to express the rule so there are no misinterpritaions.

With the new wording, you have a wide range of ways to structure them how you want.



Apparently, like restricting offering divisions to the ones you advertise as being offered.

And Chuck, you haven't shown me exactly what in the Comp. Manual supports your assertion. Still seems to me that by printing the divisions offered in a flyer, that the TD has given advance notice of what divisions he's planning on holding, which satisfies the requirements in Comp. Manual Section 2.1 (I) Savvy players could always ask for an unlisted division, and a TD could still grant their request if there's enough players to hold that division, but he's not required to do so if he's given public notice of the divisions he's planning on holding.

Chap


Much like Chap, I don't see how a tournament flyer with divisions offered does not qualify as a public notice that the excluded divisions are not offered. That meets the requirement of restricting the divisions offered in a public notice found in the Competition Manual.

On the flip side, there are other tournaments that list divisions and prices for those divisions, but will happily offer any division requested. Same text, different intent. If a TD wants to limit to only divisions listed, then text should be added to state that. The default is that all divisions (with sufficient players) will be offered. If a TD wants something other than the default, they should be clear about it. I would bet that some TDs will bend over backwards to add a int women's division that was not advertised, but would bristle at the thought of adding a novice division... Food for thought.

If that were the case, there would have been no reason to add the wording for public notice to restrict divisions. Older rulebooks required divisions to be offered if the minimum number of players entered it and players in many locations believed that to be true. Probably a regional thing because in the Upper Midwest, it was commonly accepted that we would host a division if enough players showed up, even if we didn't list all of the smaller ones on event flyers.

even if we didn't list all of the smaller ones on event flyers.



got a point there. if we had to list ALL of the pdga divisions on our event flyers, we wouldn't have any forests left to play disc golf in.

Ken -
I don't know if this will help at all with understanding where some of the other respondents are coming from ... but I don't think the comments from those who are dissatisfied with the divisional structure were meant to apply to new players like you. Those respondents tend to have strong opinions about age-protected divisions and even the definition of am vs. pro, and they also long-standing and publically voiced disagreements with each other on the topic. I don't believe that they meant to make you feel that you were not a welcomed new player!!

Something else to consider, which David Sauls alluded to, is that when playing in a very small division, you spend the entire weekend with the same folks. Nothing against those folks -- but it's almost always fun to mix it up, meet a wider variety of players, see some other techniques, etc.

As to whether the division is automatically offered .... speaking as someone who plays mostly in SC, NC, GA, and TN, I will say I don't think I've seen more than a handful of events in those states with a Novice division (one notable exception: Sayde's in Chapin, SC this weekend!), though I noticed in Michigan last summer that there were LARGE Novice divisions. Maybe its a cultural thing of some kind. But when my kids were starting to play and wanted to play in a Jrs division as opposed to Intermediate (usually the lowest division otherwise), I found that TDs were always open to that. I also find that when I'm the only Pro Woman at the event, they tend to assume that I will be in a division of one ... though I often opt out since I personally enjoy playing in all of the wide number of divisions for which I qualify.

But (for most events not run by Sauls), I believe that thinking about offering any given division often comes down to habit and convention. Flyers are re-used from year to to year (just the dates and rates change!) so there's a tendency for events to assume a shape based on a flyer that may be several years old. Which leads me to my last point. I know, as a female player and therefore by default in an often-forgotten division, it takes a bit of time and persistence to change habits. (Of course, by the time you've gotten all the local TDs used to your request to offer Novice, you'll have moved up a division or two ... :D)

i've operated for years under the assumption that the divisions i intend to offer at my events are the ones we list on flyers and registration forms. by extension my intention was that this implied that any division not listed on my flyer or registration form was probably not going to be offered.

i've also operated under the principle that if a "non-offered division" as defined as above was requested by at least 4 players i almost always would offer that division. my decision was usually based on the kind or tier of event. for an NT event i have been less likely to add non-offered divisions than i would at a c-tier or non-sanctioned event, since the higher the tier normally the greater the hassles for last-minute format changes.

it's a 2-way communications street. the TD needs to impart as much accurate information as possible, while players need to ask questions and communicate concerns.

i often find when planning an event that on a number of issues there isn't a best or clear-cut choice. for a number of issues (formats, divisions, player packs, prizes, deadlines, division caps, etc) i can make equal arguments for or against making a specific decision. getting feedback and communication from players allows me to tailor an event as closest to consensus as possible. the more democratic the better. the event is for the players; it's not about what i want.

Krupicka and Dan, I don't disagree that a TD can later add a division not originally listed. I think it's great that TD's are responsive to the requests of their players.

It was Chuck's assertion that a TD must allow Division X if 4 players request it and if the tournament advertising does not say "Division X will not be offered." This even though the tournament ad does say,
"Divisions offered
Div A
Div B
Div C
Div D
Div E
Div F"

The TD can definitely change his/her mind and offer the Division X in response to the players but I don't see how the language in the Competition Manual would obligate the TD to offer the division in this case.

It's always been similar logic that applies with our rules, if the rules do not specifically say it's disallowed (in addition to local laws), then it's allowed. That's why the Compeition Manual wording was updated to specifically require the TD to state that certain divisions would not be offered regardless how many enter. Certainly the flyer doesn't have to list them one by one. Stating No Juniors or No Ams would cover all divisions in that category.

OK Chuck,
Lets' revisit a topic I brought up last fall - one that was intended to highlight the inequity associated with rewards for age protected divisions. I suggested that because it is not specifically disallowed, that a player should be able to enter multiple divisions in an event (as long as they are eligible) - and reap the rewards for their finish in each. The competition manual does not specifically disallow this practice - and yet you were very vocal at the time - that it should not be allowed (or that the player would need to post multiple scores - which is impossible - but the manual makes no reference to such a requirement). So which is it? Is it the "generally accepted practice as you you understand it"? Or is it what is written in the competition manual? You can't have it both ways.

I don't have any problem with players entering more than one division in an event. We do it all the time in the midwest where players play in one division on Saturday and another on Sunday in the same event with different divisions offered on each day. I think the only problem has to do with the PDGA database which can't handle the same PDGA number in two different divisions on the same day. The TD would likely have to sanction two separate events on the same day for the software to pull it off. I'd ask Dave if you want to try it. I remember back in the 90s before online ratings when Masters Cup had the Master and older divisions playing after the Open on the same day and a few diehards like Ron Russell entered both.

One question, what does the competition manual actually say ?

A Tournament Director may, by giving adequate public
notice, restrict the divisions offered. Absent such notice,
the director shall offer for competition any division which
has four or more players that are eligible and wishing to
compete. Tournament Directors may offer divisions with
less than four players at their discretion.

What exactly must be made adequately clear in this statement ?
The divisions that he expects to offer, or the divisions that he intends to restrict ?

The way I read it, the rule states that the restrictions are what must be made clear in the public notice if restrictions are intended.

This also comes from the rights of a player (dues paid member of the PDGA since no one else has a rating) to play in the division their rating places them in at any PDGA sanctioned event unless adequate notice has been given that the division will not be offered.

In the 1997 and 2002 versions of the rules, rule 804.08 C did not allow a player to play in more than one division at the same time. In the 2006 revision, the competition related rules were moved from the rule book to the competition manual.

I think this was merely an omission when the rules were transferred to the competition manual.

I do feel that it is unfair for a single round to be counted in more than one place since so much is made of the atmosphere in which a score is made. Being on the leader card versus the middle of the pack effects how well one plays.

This is how you handle it if you qare a good TD - it leaves NO questions about it. :D<font color="red">

With the new division changes for 2008 and the advantage of amateurs being able to play in the pro divisions and accept merchandise instead of cash and still retain their amateur status,
The ONLY divisions being offered are:


Pro Open - Men
Pro Open - Women (any women can receive merchandise instead of cash if they wish to retain amateur status)
Pro Masters - Men (MUST have at least 4 players to have this division)
Pro Grandmaster Men (MUST have at least 4 players to have this division)
Advanced Men (any player rated 935+)
Intermediate Men (rated 900-934) (old Advanced Division)
Advanced Masters Men (MUST have at least 4 players to have this division)
Recreational Men &amp; Women (rated under - 899) (old Intermediate Division) </font>

Better make that "Recreational Men (rated under 900) and all Amateur Women's divisions except Junior

It looks like you were only offering Rec Women.

http://redeagle1.homestead.com/files/fora/worst_thread_ever.jpg

Don't be butt-hurt Vegan just because not everyone agrees with you! Cheer up buddy, it will be OK :D

Just checked the reports being prepared for ratings and Novice MA4 had fields in 26 out of 142 events (about 1 in 5) in 2008. That's more common than many other divisions that are regularly offered like Adv or Pro GM or Int Women.

And what substantive information can be garnered from that alone? It is certainly not unexpected that there are beginning level players who play in sanctioned events. Is there an average field size? Do the scores overlap other divisions?

Ken - I don't want to come off as one who would discourage a newbie from entering and enjoying competitive events. I have introduced and mentored many players in my 25 years of playing. As a TD - when deciding what divisions to offer - some of the things factoring into that decision are geared towards providing a more all inclusive environment (i.e. the more people playing together - the better). There is unfortunately an element in the PDGA divisional structure that would rather divide us all up into smaller and smaller groups - which I feel is both unhealthy to the tournament environment, as well as to player development, and to the basic tenets of "competition".

So - Chuck - I don't expect that in your preliminary review of events that have offered a novice division - that you were able to notice or gather the sort of info I mentioned above . But if you are so inclined - please share if you can. It might provide some insight.

But how many players are in Adv or Pro GM or Int Women vs players who could play in Novice. I think the numbers of events vs. the number of players available in the pool might provide a more insitefull statistic rather than just an event breakdown. I mean if Novice is offered 1 in 5 and Int women is offered in 1 in 6 but there are 3500 in the Novice pool and only 400 in the Int Women, you could see how even though the division is offered more often, the population of the novice division is being less represented than the other divisions. Just something to think about. Thanks for the info Chuck!

I wasn't looking for anything in particular but since it was a new division, I had to flag it for Roger since it was not in the ratings database yet. So I counted how many events had the division. My data file only counts propagators by division so I can't provide total field sizes. I guarantee that there were many more events that could have had the division based on the ratings of the players who had no choice but play higher. Here is the breakdown where it's been hosted so far with Alabama hosting one quarter of them: AL 7, OK 4, OH 3, TX 3, CA 2, AR, GA, IA, IL, KS, MI, NC

Since we're talking events in Jan thru Mar, it's not surprising there are many more events in the south overall than the north so far. We'll have to see how it bereaks out for a whole year.

Lucky for me I play a lot in Alabama!

Craig, you type faster than I do. I can understand your point on the divisions, but even before the new divisions, there were few local tournaments that offered Rec. My very first tournament I played, I had to play Int and I finished 52nd because the division size was so huge. And at that time having never played in a tournament before, I actualy considered playing in one of the Advanced divisions since I thought I was actually good at it. I almost quit then, finishing that badly but I stuck it out and played Rec in a couple of events (in Alabama no less), still finishing near or at the bottom but at least then I felt I could compete. If my next tournament had only offered Int, I'm pretty sure I would have quit the sport.

Not many people will stay in the novice division very long. I don't plan to be in here more than a year. But it should be offered so that people will not be beaten so badly that they may leave. Just consider it like a Junior division for people to old to get into those divisions.

Anyway, thanks for everyones input. It seems there may be a few changes in the manuals in the next years addition, either to verify this or remove it. I just want everyone to understand that I didn't bring this up to form a rift, I honestly just wanted to compete in a division that I stood a chance in if me and some other players wanted to and what recourse we had at our disposal.

BTW, I played in Rec division yesterday and cashed. Down here we may not offer a division, but the TD's pay deep, like down to 15th place in a 28 player division. I finished 14th :D

However, I'm not going to be getting a 1099 anytime soon.

Thanks again for everyones constructive input!

Better make that "Recreational Men (rated under 900) and all Amateur Women's divisions except Junior

It looks like you were only offering Rec Women.



It looks like it because I AM only offering pro women and REC women - I've been doing this for over 12 years and know how to make a flyer by now. :p

http://redeagle1.homestead.com/files/fora/worst_thread_ever.jpg



How about I offer a 150 class only division in the Georgia's Super Six Series next year Ray, would you be OK with that? :D

I'm only about as competitive as Mr. McKinney :p, so hopefully (and probably) by then, the PDGA will have invented a "150-class intermediate masters magazine opt-out longhair vegan 5 knee surgery tattooed-hands" division, in which case I will definitely be in with at least a small chance of ca$hing. :D