Dana
Nov 02 2009, 07:18 PM
(Taken from http://memorialchampionship.com/)

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

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

exczar
Nov 03 2009, 01:53 PM
The statement does not state that anyone that is an Official is exempt from this exam, so I would say that, the way it is currently written, you need to pass the exam if you want to compete, regardless of your status as an Official.

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

GDL
Nov 03 2009, 03:17 PM
This is a good start. I always thought that it was odd that one could pass the officials test, and be certified for life. With the rules changing ever so slightly, and sometimes not so slightly, I think that there should be an update exam for officials as well, in order to maintain their status. Any professional designation requires updates, or continuing education. Why does the PDGA just life someone in as an official when the rules are being tweaked constantly? For example, lets look at the lost disc rule. When I became an official, a group decided where the lost disc was last seen and an appropriate spot would be given. Now, you go back to rethrow from the previous lie. The PDGA assumes way too much in that every certified official will do their homework in updating their knowledge of newly passed rules. I especially feel strongly that if officials are running tournaments every year, they should also be required to pass the officials test every year......Oh, and this should be included in the cost of renewing your PDGA membership, this isn't another revenue stream idea.

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

cgkdisc
Nov 03 2009, 05:20 PM
Not sure but this new NT rules test requirement is likely a benefit from the PDGA website upgrade which has provided a better way to handle and manage online testing. I think the reason we haven't seen more wholesale (re)testing before was the inability to handle the numbers involved.

exczar
Nov 03 2009, 06:14 PM
Rule 804.09A says, in part,

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

cgkdisc
Nov 03 2009, 06:29 PM
I'm saying the rules have changed enough since the 1997 version when I was last tested in comparison to changes that were made in some rules updates before that when people WERE retested, that the reason people haven't been retested for a long time is lack of resources for barely keeping up with certifying new officials let alone retesting previously certified officials. The upgrades to the website I believe have helped resolve the testing issue. It's sort of interesting we're are doing all of this testing on the current rulebook going into 2010. I thought the rulebook was planned to be significantly upgraded before 2011 so all of those people getting tested for NTs in 2010 I would think will have to do it again before 2011 with the new rules. Must mean the web system can handle the load or perhaps 2010 is being used to test its capability.

Alacrity
Nov 04 2009, 10:29 AM
I think it would be a good idea to require officials to "refresh". Some of the worst rules calling I have ever seen is by officials during the tournament kick off meeting. As examples I have heard officials at several tournaments state that touching the OB line was now OB. When I tried to correct, that if any part of the disc was inbound the disc was inbounds, I was told I was wrong. I did not get a chance to discuss this again until after the first round at which point I showed the rule to the TD and was told I was wrong. The second tournament I heard this at, I went to the official and showed him the rule. Several of the local club members got into the discussion and I was "shouted" down.

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

Karl
Nov 04 2009, 04:08 PM
Jerry,

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

Just say'in...

Karl

Alacrity
Nov 04 2009, 05:43 PM
What I said was that if the TD was calling it lost, that was fine, but if the TD was saying by rule it was lost because it could not be found, then it was an incorrect call. I just made sure I did not land in the pond. And I guess I did not make it clear, the pond was OB.


Jerry,

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

Just say'in...

Karl

bbotte
Nov 04 2009, 06:12 PM
This is funny. Will it be open book? I Think it is dumb and a waste of time. People break the rulles because they know they can get away with it. Climo has been on video stepping on his mini during a putt and nobody called him on it. Everyone can know the rules, but when everyone is too yellow to call an infraction what is the point. This could not be more of a waste of time. I'm gonna laugh when you top guys have to start getting jobs again because your test makes your already dwindling Open NT attendance even smaller. Maybe this should have been a personality test instead. We would benefit from excluding certain personalities more, but that will not happen.

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

exczar
Nov 05 2009, 02:13 PM
Knowing the Rules and Enforcing the Rules are, as I am sure you know, two completely different matters.

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

Alacrity
Nov 05 2009, 03:32 PM
I absolutely agree, people should call the rules. However, there is another problem that is rampant in the officials groups (TDs) and that is following the rule changes and understanding them. You need only read the threads to see that there are some misunderstanding and out and out incorrect understandings of the rules. Throw in a rule change and you add more misunderstandings. The rules committee started keeping the Q&A to help clarify, but even with that there are misunderstanding. Will a refresher help that? I suggest it will not hurt it any. And yes I expect it will be open book, but then at least the officials and players are forced to look at the book again or for the first time. It is amazing how many registered players have only opened one up because they were curious about a rule or two.

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

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


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

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

gnduke
Nov 05 2009, 06:25 PM
The test should be an online version of a class that goes through the rules first, and then requires correct answers to all questions and gives explanations for the answers.

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

bbotte
Nov 05 2009, 06:32 PM
What happens to players that don't have access to the net. I know of a few.

gnduke
Nov 05 2009, 06:38 PM
Maybe visit the nearest public library ?

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

johnbiscoe
Nov 05 2009, 06:50 PM
What happens to players that don't have access to the net. I know of a few.

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

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

bbotte
Nov 06 2009, 09:46 AM
kevin already knows the rules and knows how to skirt every one of them! :)

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

http://smiliesftw.com/x/bigbowrofl.gif

Patrick P
Nov 06 2009, 11:10 AM
The test should be an online version of a class that goes through the rules first, and then requires correct answers to all questions and gives explanations for the answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JohnLambert
Nov 06 2009, 12:25 PM
This year I had a self-proclaimed 'official' call me on a rule that I'd never heard of. He said I could not take a meter relief from an OB line because my disc did not go OB. My disc was sitting on the OB line but inbounds. I explained that you get the relief because you can not have a stance within an OB area. He explained again that he was an official. So I marked my disc, which game me about 7 inches of inbound area to make my stance. I balanced on one foot ad threw. Then I took my meter relief and threw a provisional.

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

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

exczar
Nov 06 2009, 01:54 PM
I didn't become an official becuase I wanted to be a rule zealot.

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

gnduke
Nov 06 2009, 02:08 PM
I had another player that didn't know what the heck a perpendicular line to the line of play for a proper stance was.
I don't think I know what a perpendicular line to LOP has to do with proper stance either.

Patrick P
Nov 06 2009, 08:27 PM
I don't think I know what a perpendicular line to LOP has to do with proper stance either. Well you are right, and I was using the wrong word there. I was trying to explain to him that my other foot not behind the line of play can reach up to a point that is up to the same distance as the rear edge of the marker.

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

the correct rule I should of stated was:

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

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

ishkatbible
Nov 06 2009, 09:27 PM
the correct rule I should of stated was:

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

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

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

Patrick P
Nov 07 2009, 01:06 AM
It's been a while since I last did a trig calc, but by drawing a simple circle with a 10meter radius, a player would have to almost straddle out 2m to be able to move in the non LOP supporting point 1/6meter in. I'm sure there is some formula to calculate the arc distance of the circle dependent of the radius to find out the distance one can step in.

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

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

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

kkrasinski
Nov 07 2009, 10:46 AM
Thus, I think using the perpendicular line is the best method to apply. The farther the radius, the more the perpendicular line is absolute.

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

bcary93
Nov 07 2009, 12:16 PM
The officials test is a joke, hopefully we can develope some real tests.

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

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

gnduke
Nov 07 2009, 04:13 PM
The real official's test test should be open book (as it would be in real life).
It should have real life examples that have a solid resolution in the rules and examples that have no clear resolution in the rules. The answers should be judged not only by the final ruling, but also include which rules apply to the situation.

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

bcary93
Nov 07 2009, 10:14 PM
The real official's test test should be open book (as it would be in real life).
It should have real life examples that have a solid resolution in the rules and examples that have no clear resolution in the rules. The answers should be judged not only by the final ruling, but also include which rules apply to the situation.

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

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

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

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

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

JohnLambert
Nov 09 2009, 04:22 PM
I was taught somewhere by someone that today's expectation is tomorrow's resentment. In this case, it becomes my responsibility to learn the rules because far too often "they" aren't reading the book - "they" are just playing by the non-rules that were wrongly called on them years ago and never learned the rules as written.

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

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

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

johnrock
Nov 09 2009, 07:01 PM
What's the cop getting paid?

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

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

johnrock
Nov 09 2009, 07:10 PM
Testing the players is a good idea to an extent. It would be silly to deny a true talent the opportunity to compete just because he/she has difficulty memorizing every rule (with rule number!) in the rule book, competition manual, rules Q&A......

I've noticed quite a few times the big boys playing golf on TV calling over an official to help with rules calls.

rickb
Nov 09 2009, 07:21 PM
I've noticed quite a few times the big boys playing golf on TV calling over an official to help with rules calls.

That could be due to the fact that the ball golf rule book is 260 pages long.

JohnLambert
Nov 09 2009, 07:36 PM
What's the cop getting paid?

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

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

Not the best example, I know.

bcary93
Nov 09 2009, 08:29 PM
The "joke" of it is that anyone can become an "official" without even remembering a single rule. Then thus "official" goes and plays a round, doesn't bring a rule book, and therefore calls whatever rules he feels like calling, because he has an "official" status. Maybe I'm in the dark, but to me, an "official" should be able to quote rules he's retained by being certified, and they should be recertified any time a rule is changed.

There's no reason to be in the dark - you got a copy of the rule book when you became a member. And there's a copy on the web site. A player should know the rules of the game! Why would a person try to play a sport without knowing the rules? I'm not going to repeat that, but ...

See section "804.09 Officials" in the rulebook.

If someone can pass the officials test it shows they have a basic familiarity with the rules and the ability to research them when called on to make a correct ruling. That's why one of the rules for officials is that they must carry a copy of the rules: to avoid a rules version of the Telephone Game.

PS. Anything can be made to look like a joke when taken to a ridiculous extreme.

gippy
Nov 09 2009, 08:32 PM
Well you are right, and I was using the wrong word there. I was trying to explain to him that my other foot not behind the line of play can reach up to a point that is up to the same distance as the rear edge of the marker.

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

the correct rule I should of stated was:

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

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

I am a bit confused with your drawing. From my knowledge where your other foot would be is ahead of the mark thus being a foot fault. Correct? Your no supporting foot can't be ahead of your lie or am I in the dark about somehting here?

davidsauls
Nov 10 2009, 10:21 AM
For those campaigning for more stringent rules testing---rules testing for PDGA membership, or closed-book testing for officials---the assumption seems to be that almost all players/officials will meet those standards if required. But in real life, the consequences might not be worth the benefits.

If all players must pass rules test to be PDGA members, or play PDGA tournaments, might that not just reduce our membership, or tournament participation? If required for Pros, might that not create one more incentive for "sandbagging", or high-rated Ams to stay Ams.

As for officials passing a closed-book test or showing greater competency other than just being able to look up a correct rule....I suspect many or most officials are only officials so they can host tournaments. I know I am. Do we want to discourage people from becoming officials, reducing the number of available TDs, reducing the number of tournaments, or driving tournaments to be non-sanctioned?

Marshalls, or others acting as on-the-course non-playing officials in major events, yes. Beyond that?

Disc golf, for TDs or players, is hardly lucrative enough for the PDGA to make things more difficult. The NT, maybe, if players think the value of NTs is worth getting certified to play. If Pro was a level which players aspired to qualify for, and was financially rewarding once they did, you could hold rules competency over their heads as a requirement. If being a TD were highly profitable, same thing.

Alacrity
Nov 10 2009, 11:45 AM
While officials should be present to assist in determining the applicable rules, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the players to know and follow the rules. From the rule book:

These rules have been designed to promote fair play for all disc golfers. In using these rules, players shall apply the rule that most directly addresses the situation in question. If in doubt, players shall consult an official.

Just my opinion, but let's make sure the players have a good working knowledge of the rules and the officials have a better one. Once we start drawing large spectator crowds and good sponsorship, we can worry about paid officials. However, your point about policemen being paid is a good one and with a little research you can find where many policemen also make bad calls.


What's the cop getting paid?

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

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

Patrick P
Nov 10 2009, 12:16 PM
I am a bit confused with your drawing. From my knowledge where your other foot would be is ahead of the mark thus being a foot fault. Correct? Your no supporting foot can't be ahead of your lie or am I in the dark about somehting here? As mentioned and quoted earlier, the correct rule is "no supporting unit closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker". The distance away from the basket is measured out in a circle (as illustrated in the pic). So yes, your other foot can move slightly forward dependent on the distance you are from the basket (radius) and how far the other supporting unit is away from the line of play (arc radius). As you move further away from the basket, the arc radius increases, and the distance a player's stance must step away from the line of play increases to a point that it is almost impossible to bring the other foot inward.

If you are closer to the basket, then yes you can start to bring in your other foot, but this becomes very subjective since no one is going to measure the exact distance from the basket, and the amount of arc radius to determine the few inches your other foot can be brought in.

I know there is a trig formula to determine this. You would have to measure the radius of the circle and the arc distance to determine the amount your other foot can be brought forward. Within 10 meters, this could be helpful, but outside 10 meters, the arc radius increases to a point that it becomes impossible for a player to take advantage of this. That's why I suggested to use a perpendicular line (although I know it's not entirely correct). The rule as written is very simple and easy to understand and I don't suggest changing it, but for applicable reasons, when you are outside 10 meters, you would only be able to bring in your other foot approx 1 inch closer for every 1 foot of stance. If you somehow were able to have a 6 foot wide stance, you could potentially bring in your other foot approx 6 inches from a perpendicular line from the rear edge of the marker.

august
Nov 10 2009, 03:19 PM
I've never seen a police officer take out a penal code book before making an arrest. He's been certified. He knows the laws, not as good as a lawyer or judge, but enough to call you on them.

...or so it is believed, by some at least. Fact is a full third of the people in these professions are way less than competent. If police were required to give you a cite when they charged you with something, then there would be a lot less BS arrests and charges filed against innocent people. Case in point; the officer who recently arested a woman for not speaking English.

Which brings me to my topical comment. I think it was a step backwards to relax the rule that officials must carry a rule book to officiate. Pulling the rule book out and reading the rule you are about to enforce goes a long way in educating golfers and officials alike. An official could read a rule and then realize he/she is wrong in interpreting it. Additionally, players could be shown a rule and correctly learn what they previously misunderstood, or perhaps even point out to the official that their interpretation is incorrect. Both of these scenarios help the game.

I don't think requiring pro rules tests is good. I would never turn away a talented musician just because they don't read music. We shouldn't deny talented golfers just because they have challenges with reading, understanding and knowing the rules. That is just another aspect of the game skill set. If you don't know the rules very well, you run the risk of penalties which directly effect your score and thus your success. That along with effective enforcement should be enough incentive to learn the rules. Requiring pros to pass a rules test is just avoidance of the larger problem that we currently don't have effective rules enforcement.

cgkdisc
Nov 10 2009, 03:47 PM
Probably ought to have a few basic math questions included with the new rules test so pros can handle those high scores on courses like Winthrop, Jackson or Idlewild. :)

johnbiscoe
Nov 10 2009, 03:49 PM
Requiring pros to pass a rules test is just avoidance of the larger problem that we currently don't have effective rules enforcement.


for emphasis.

Alacrity
Nov 12 2009, 12:14 PM
I believe I am misunderstanding something, who enforces the rules? I believe it is the player's themselves first and the other players on the card second. Officials should be third, unless it is a final and marshalls are present. Even then, it should be the player first. If there was a test required for players, AND a contract stating the players agree to enforce the rules, then you will see effective rule enforcement. This is because the players will have a better than vague knowledge of the rules and they have made a commitment to enforce said rules.

...That along with effective enforcement should be enough incentive to learn the rules. Requiring pros to pass a rules test is just avoidance of the larger problem that we currently don't have effective rules enforcement.

pterodactyl
Nov 12 2009, 01:49 PM
I think it was a step backwards to relax the rule that officials must carry a rule book to officiate.

I didn't see this anywhere. Where can I find this?

august
Nov 12 2009, 02:23 PM
I didn't see this anywhere. Where can I find this?

My mistake. I confused the rule book with the card. Officials no longer have to carry their card; book still required to officiate.

I'm skeptical that a test and a contract for players will result in effective rules enforcement. It's already an implied contract that PDGA rules are to be followed for tournaments. I think we should put more into education about the rules and erasing the stigma of enforcing them as well as having officials on as many holes as possible during tournaments.

Make it so that players WANT to enforce the rules. Have the officials there to keep everyone honest. Then you'll see more effective rules enforcement. I realize implementing this is not easy, but I feel a player rules test is not a strong enough step. Use those resources to begin the more difficult task at hand.

pdga3791
Nov 12 2009, 03:22 PM
FINALLY!!!! For years and years, people hated my guts for being a player who played by the rules. Even this last season I got into a huge fight about some people cheating and I got suspended for 2 months?????

And the pdga didn't even back me up.....

I think they should do a test for any MAJOR tournament.

keithjohnson
Nov 12 2009, 04:22 PM
I want to take my test in Japenese or even Dutch, that way I'm SURE I'll know the rules! :)

pdga3791
Nov 12 2009, 05:01 PM
I want to take my test in Japenese or even Dutch, that way I'm SURE I'll know the rules! :)

I think you picked the 2 hardest languages in the world to learn :O)

gOOD LUCK WITH THAT

exczar
Nov 12 2009, 05:42 PM
FINALLY!!!! For years and years, people hated my guts for being a player who played by the rules.

Arthur,

If I may amend your statement, I don't believe that people hated your guts for being a player who played by the rules, but they most likely hated your guts for being a player who MADE THEM play by the rules.

Is that statement more accurate?

veganray
Nov 12 2009, 05:45 PM
He didn't MAKE them play by the rules. He only applied the statutorily-prescribed consequences to those who didn't. Kudos to him!!! :D

exczar
Nov 12 2009, 05:51 PM
Yes, you are correct. It's like I tell my teenager, "I can't make you do something, but I can make you wish that you had!"

veganray
Nov 12 2009, 05:52 PM
"i can't make you do something, but i can make you wish that you had!"

n-i-c-e!

Patrick P
Nov 12 2009, 06:03 PM
Officials no longer have to carry their card; book still required to officiate. I don't even think PDGA sends out the Officials card anymore. I'm still waiting from August.

pdga3791
Nov 12 2009, 08:27 PM
Arthur,

If I may amend your statement, I don't believe that people hated your guts for being a player who played by the rules, but they most likely hated your guts for being a player who MADE THEM play by the rules.

Is that statement more accurate?

well hated is maybe a little bit to much but people do have a problemm when they mess up and somebody tells them....

But I am never in somebodies sight when they have to putt or make any noise....and then they get mad if I ask for the same....but why do I have to ask in the first place?

pdga3791
Nov 12 2009, 08:49 PM
I think the biggest problemm is, that players take it personal when somebody tells them they made a mistake. So a lot of players refrain from saying anything....

But this game has rules and it is not FAIR if I get beat by some guy who doesn't play by the rules....which happens.

Patrick P
Nov 13 2009, 12:18 PM
I think the biggest problemm is, that players take it personal when somebody tells them they made a mistake. So a lot of players refrain from saying anything.... After I stated I no longer will take a passive role on rule enforcement, on the very first hole in the Socal Championship last weekend, a player putted out from two feet without marking his disc (simply picked up his last thrown disc and putted away). Immediately after the putt, I explained to him " I know it seems a minor issue, but you need to make sure you mark your disc before you putt out. It's not a huge infraction, but it is part of the rules, and other cards could be watching your play". The guy thanked me for bringing this to his attention, he was happy that someone actually was enforcing the rules, and he explained this was his first PDGA event and he would ensure he marked his disc here on out, problem solved.

Now that is the type of attitude that all players should exhibit when someone enforces the rules. That's how I have always treated people when they explain a rule to me during my first few PDGA events. If anyone exhibits offense to rule enforcement that should be an automatic courtesy violation, and if the player continues to exhibit an attitude, then an official should be called over, and DQ the guy out of the event.

It is our responsibility as players to follow and enforce the rules. I am all in favor of mandatory online rules tests. Everyone needs to be on board with the rules.

Another thing that happened during the Socal event, a first for me, was another player on my card actually cheered out loud when I missed a putt, and he soon followed up with, "yes, I made two strokes on you, haha". Now, I could of gotten into an argument, but I just looked at him, shrugged it off, and answered back with a 50ft birdie putt on the very next hole. I used his discourteous attitude to fuel myself, and it was great to send him down to the bottom of the card. Question for all, has this ever happened to you in a PDGA event, and what did you do about it?

Guurn
Nov 13 2009, 12:47 PM
a player putted out from two feet without marking his disc (simply picked up his last thrown disc and putted away). Immediately after the putt, I explained to him " I know it seems a minor issue, but you need to make sure you mark your disc before you putt out. It's not a huge infraction, but it is part of the rules, and other cards could be watching your play". The guy thanked me for bringing this to his attention, he was happy that someone actually was enforcing the rules, and he explained this was his first PDGA event and he would ensure he marked his disc here on out, problem solved.

Now that is the type of attitude that all players should exhibit when someone enforces the rules. That's how I have always treated people when they explain a rule to me during my first few PDGA events. If anyone exhibits offense to rule enforcement that should be an automatic courtesy violation, and if the player continues to exhibit an attitude, then an official should be called over, and DQ the guy out of the event.

Another thing that happened during the Socal event, a first for me, was another player on my card actually cheered out loud when I missed a putt, and he soon followed up with, "yes, I made two strokes on you, haha". Now, I could of gotten into an argument, but I just looked at him, shrugged it off, and answered back with a 50ft birdie putt on the very next hole. I used his discourteous attitude to fuel myself, and it was great to send him down to the bottom of the card. Question for all, has this ever happened to you in a PDGA event, and what did you do about it?


He could have just used a different disc and dropped in instead of replacing right? I find that easier than bending down another time. Maybe I'm just old.

I don't think it should be a courtesy violating if they are disputing the violation unless they get too worked up. Make your case, get the best answer, move on.

I've never played with anyone actively against anyone in a group, even in casual rounds. I can't imagine why anyone would think that someone in their little group doing poorly is actually helping them in any way unless it is a playoff hole. Even then you would have to know that it is better to focus on your game rather than worrying about someone elses.

Patrick P
Nov 13 2009, 12:58 PM
He could have just used a different disc and dropped in instead of replacing right? I find that easier than bending down another time. Maybe I'm just old. You are exactly right, and I use another disc in this situation, and use my previous thrown disc as my marker. He picked up his last thrown disc, and thus never marked his lie.


I don't think it should be a courtesy violating if they are disputing the violation unless they get too worked up. Make your case, get the best answer, move on. I had a player who after committing a foot fault, I immediately called it, another player seconded it, and the player called us sore losers and refused to re-putt and proceeded to the next hole. I think there is a difference of disputing a rule, and then exhibiting childish inappropriate and discourteous behavior. Make the rule, have a discussion, come to an agreement, and then be professional and move on, Agreed.

I've never played with anyone actively against anyone in a group, even in casual rounds. I can't imagine why anyone would think that someone in their little group doing poorly is actually helping them in any way unless it is a playoff hole. Even then you would have to know that it is better to focus on your game rather than worrying about someone elses. True that. His response only gave me more motive to play better, and pick up my game. Many players tell me "it's just you and the basket", and that is a very true statement.

wsfaplau
Nov 13 2009, 02:09 PM
I am in favor of a rules exam for all pros and advanced divisions annually for any tournament. I could probably be convinced to make it a B tier or above requirement. I hear you about the bigger problem being enforcement. I can't see this hurting though.

As for the NT requirment, it is ridiculous. You need to pass an open rule book test with no time limit by getting 12 of 15 correct. Thats 80%. Is the PDGA saying being able to correctly interpret 80% of the rules is OK?

Is there anyone reading this who would be satisfied if players got 80% of the rules calls correct in a tournament round?

Is there anyone reading this would wouldn't be OUTRAGED if only 80% of rules calls during a round were correct?

I'm normally OK with small incremental steps leading to bigger changes but I think this bar has been set RIDICULOUSLY LOW

august
Nov 13 2009, 02:09 PM
The comment "I just made two strokes on you, haha" is taunting, unless the person is a very close friend perhaps, and constitutes a basis for a courtesy warning. Of course, you have to pick your battles as they say.

august
Nov 13 2009, 02:11 PM
I can't see this hurting though.

Not hurting necessarily, just delaying.

Patrick P
Nov 13 2009, 02:36 PM
I'm normally OK with small incremental steps leading to bigger changes but I think this bar has been set RIDICULOUSLY LOW You should take the officials test. The test is only 25 questions and only covers half of the rules. And then you only get a PASS/FAIL without knowing which questions are answered incorrectly. I personally would like to see an online rules review with either some diagrams or examples explaining the rules in more detail, and then have an online rules test that covers more than 50% of the rules for an officials exam. The FAQ for rules is a good start.

wsfaplau
Nov 17 2009, 01:54 PM
I have taken the officials test. Twice actually. There was something around the 1997 rules updates, or my membership not being renewed on time, something where I had to retake the officials exam again.

I think I got my officals test back graded though so I could see if I missed anything but its been awhile so I could be wrong.

I still think this bar has been set RIDICULOUSLY LOW.
I'm all for a re-testing at least every couple of years.

cgkdisc
Nov 17 2009, 03:31 PM
I suspect every pro going to NTs plus officials will need to be retested prior to/during 2011 on the assumption that the rulebook will be revised during 2010. I see this testing for pros before playing NTs in 2010 as a way to shake down the online testing procedure to make sure it's ready for the rulebook update where the test for officials would be maybe 25-30 questions instead of 15.

james_mccaine
Nov 17 2009, 04:14 PM
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but kudos to the PDGA for wanting to move forward. It would be easier to do nothing.

Vern
Nov 24 2009, 12:12 PM
"Rules Proficency Exam for 2010 NT Competitors"


I doubt if Tiger Woods had to pass a PGA exam to play in majors.

cgkdisc
Nov 24 2009, 12:42 PM
The USGA doesn't even certify their Officials that run events by taking a rules test. They just volunteer to be officials and are recommended by their regional association as "being good" when they need volunteer officials for a nearby event.

However, there's an incentive built into the rules of golf at the highest levels that makes it worthwhile for players to learn the rules. Several of our disc golf rules that only have a 2-throw penalty result in disqualification in ball golf, with even more significant sanctions for cheating in the event you're caught on video not calling a rule on yourself. Disc golf doesn't have the financial incentives for complying with the ruels like BG. So we are going to try a reasonable alternative by requiring the top players to attempt to learn the rules.

august
Nov 24 2009, 01:41 PM
Yes, our rules are too lienient. We need incentives to comply, not tests for pro level players. Replace the 2-stroke penalty with DQs. Get rid of the warnings provisions. Teach players that there are high-stakes consequences for not knowing the rules. Players will then learn the rules in an effort to avoid those consequences.

I embrace the counter-culture element and laid back nature of this sport, but that should not include ignorance of the rules and lax enforcement.

veganray
Nov 24 2009, 02:28 PM
Yes, our rules are too lienient. We need incentives to comply, not tests for pro level players. Replace the 2-stroke penalty with DQs. Get rid of the warnings provisions. Teach players that there are high-stakes consequences for not knowing the rules. Players will then learn the rules in an effort to avoid those consequences.

I embrace the counter-culture element and laid back nature of this sport, but that should not include ignorance of the rules and lax enforcement.

Right on! When a majority of players would score 100% in a rules profligacy exam, requiring the passing of a rules proficiency exam doesn't really do much.

Vern
Nov 24 2009, 09:58 PM
I was taught early in my Ball Golf life that it was a Gentleman's Game and to play by the rules. I have seen people Penalty Stroke themselves on the course even though it cost them. Those kind of actions earn alot of respect and I think that kind of mentality is something we can all strive for in life.

OSTERTIP
Dec 07 2009, 03:24 PM
Is the test available for people to start taking yet?

keithjohnson
Dec 08 2009, 01:36 AM
Is the test available for people to start taking yet?

The very first post answers your question.

OSTERTIP
Dec 08 2009, 11:13 AM
Right, thanks!

pterodactyl
Dec 09 2009, 05:51 PM
I just re-read the rules again.

wsfaplau
Dec 10 2009, 02:06 PM
Now that you have re-read the rules do you think you can get 80% on an open book test?
If so, you will be considered proficient in the rules.

This bar is set way too low

pterodactyl
Dec 10 2009, 02:37 PM
I think I can 'ace' a closed book test.

JerryChesterson
Dec 17 2009, 05:27 PM
Mebs

Dana
Dec 18 2009, 12:30 AM
Relax, there is bound to be a glitch or two.

I didn't even realize we could take the exam already. I didn't think that it was available till early Jan.

DOC65
Dec 18 2009, 10:40 AM
It looks to me that the code for the random question selection and counter of questions completed has a major bug. Since it was messing up on me I figured I'd just keep going and answer all the questions given.

After about 20+ questions it finally started tracking the total correctly and I finished the test with a score of 80 12/15. But at least two of the 3 questions I missed were ones that didn't get presented to me to answer. Go figure...at least I passed I guess. :confused:

kyle
Dec 18 2009, 11:37 AM
I took the test and it only asked 15 questions. One of the questions was asked twice and when the results were shown the only question I missed was one I didn't even get asked.

august
Dec 18 2009, 11:48 AM
I took the test and it only asked 15 questions. One of the questions was asked twice and when the results were shown the only question I missed was one I didn't even get asked.


But of course! You don't expect to get credit for a question that wasn't presented to you, do you?

This seems to be an attempt to eliminate perfect test scores by not revealing certain parts of the test. BRILLIANT! :)

veganray
Dec 18 2009, 12:02 PM
Apparently the calculation of Rules Proficiency Test scores is as mathematically sound as that of round ratings.

cgkdisc
Dec 18 2009, 12:17 PM
Johnny one note...

veganray
Dec 18 2009, 12:22 PM
SuperClass sux, too.

unclemercy
Dec 18 2009, 01:30 PM
oh, you must mean the suggested guidelines for play.

the_kid
Dec 18 2009, 01:45 PM
Some just don't have the skills. Good thing hi-tech discs came along, eh?

Pretty sure there are a lot of people out their with "Frisbee" skills that still haven't found a SC event anywhere in the region. MN is one of the few places promoting it.

cgkdisc
Dec 18 2009, 01:47 PM
We've been on the tip of the spear for disc golf advances in several areas over the years so that's not surprising.

unclemercy
Dec 18 2009, 01:59 PM
your efforts are to be applauded, chuck.

spamtown discgolfer
Dec 18 2009, 03:20 PM
Somebody might want to look into this.

The first time I tried taking the test I had the same question for #1 and #7. When I finished the test, the #1 question was different and it showed that I didn't answer the question. Subsequently, I failed the test, missing by one answer.:mad: I did a retake and passed the second time without any problems.:)

ishkatbible
Dec 19 2009, 02:50 PM
so before i go and take the test, is it available to everyone? i don't want to take it or try and then mess things up. i won't be playing in any nt events, probably ever. but just wanted to know how i fared against the rest in rules proficency.

sammyshaheen
Dec 19 2009, 03:06 PM
Just passed. Took two times.

Really makes you think about all the
scenarios that can happen while golfing.

I think this is a good thing.

Take care

davei
Dec 21 2009, 10:10 AM
no glitches with my test.

Jeff_LaG
Dec 21 2009, 06:14 PM
I got 100%, 15 of 15 correct, first time through woo-hoo! I only had to look up one rule in the rulebook.

I had two questions nearly identical, which were how to score/penalize an incorrect scorecard (actual score plus a two stroke penalty) It's kind of sad how often this comes into play; I really wish people would take more care in adding their scorecards correctly. :confused:

august
Dec 22 2009, 07:37 AM
I got 100%, 15 of 15 correct, first time through woo-hoo! I only had to look up one rule in the rulebook.

I had two questions nearly identical, which were how to score/penalize an incorrect scorecard (actual score plus a two stroke penalty) It's kind of sad how often this comes into play; I really wish people would take more care in adding their scorecards correctly. :confused:

I wish the rule was re-written to require a DQ for an incorrect score card. Then, a LOT more people would take the care you seek!

tanner
Dec 22 2009, 06:10 PM
Some just don't have the skills. Good thing hi-tech discs came along, eh?

Nice slap in the face to all the discers. LOL!

cgkdisc
Dec 22 2009, 06:20 PM
You said "all." I said "some" especially one. ;)

frogponddiver
Dec 23 2009, 12:28 AM
no glitches with my test.

Dave,

I missed one question on the test, but that question was not asked. In the final review, the question was not responded to by me, obviously because I never saw it. Don't know how you can miss something that was not asked. It's immaterial though I guess since I passed, but this is just for everyone's information.The number of questions that appeared were not numbered properly either on the screen. Other than that, the testing process was not bad.

J A B
Dec 23 2009, 10:26 AM
It looks to me that the code for the random question selection and counter of questions completed has a major bug. Since it was messing up on me I figured I'd just keep going and answer all the questions given.

After about 20+ questions it finally started tracking the total correctly and I finished the test with a score of 80 12/15. But at least two of the 3 questions I missed were ones that didn't get presented to me to answer. Go figure...at least I passed I guess. :confused:

Major Bug.
The counter is off, was on 14/15 (but went from 4of15 to 2of15 during first run through) when instead of question 15, I started over again at 2of15.

At the start over, the counter proceeded correctly 2 through 15. I missed one question (original #14) now shows no response as question #1, 15 questions total.

Holy carp, if it would have re-started a third time I might have blown a gasket. At least I passed, would have like to know if I answered all of my 20+ questions correctly.

Could this be error be FireFox specific?

krupicka
Dec 23 2009, 11:46 AM
I took it using FireFox and ran into no issues.

discette
Dec 23 2009, 12:11 PM
I passed the test on December 18 using Firefox and did not have any glitches.

mattdisc
Dec 23 2009, 01:08 PM
I just took the test and got 1 wrong, which did not even come up when I took it.

J A B
Dec 23 2009, 02:28 PM
Re-took the test, 1 through 15 questions, no error. 15 of 15 right. (though to be fair, all but two questions came up in my first attempt, 20+ question effort).

Given other's feed back, that they have used firefox without error and my recent re-test, I would assume the error is "question" related, one (or more) of the random questions, generates the counter error.

Doubt I will repeat, it is fun to test my rules knowledge, just not THAT fun.:)

rhett
Dec 23 2009, 05:24 PM
It went from question 13 to question 4 for me, then stalled out at question 12 after counting back up again from 4. At that point I closed the browser because I'm not planning on playing any NTs this year.

tkieffer
Dec 23 2009, 06:48 PM
I got circled through the questions a few times, got asked the same question on more than one occasion and also got flagged for getting a question wrong that was never presented. But in the end I finally got through it, probably answering about 40 or so questions (many repeats) in all. Using IE8 for a browser.

JerryChesterson
Dec 24 2009, 11:59 AM
I've noticed that if you navigate way from the page, by opening or moving to a different tab, that is when the test screws up. Could just be a coincidence but everytime I went to look up an answer that's when if it crapped out.

tkieffer
Dec 24 2009, 12:46 PM
I did it straight through (closed book) without leaving the browser window, so the repeats and so on weren't due to changing tabs. There may have been other tabs open in IE8, but once the test was started, I just kept on answering until the questions finally stopped.

DShelton
Dec 24 2009, 12:47 PM
I've noticed that if you navigate way from the page, by opening or moving to a different tab, that is when the test screws up. Could just be a coincidence but everytime I went to look up an answer that's when if it crapped out.

I did the same thing (used a different tab to look up rules) and had no troubles with the test.

discette
Dec 24 2009, 01:47 PM
I had the rules open in a separate window when I took the test in Firefox as well.

spudpicker
Dec 24 2009, 01:55 PM
After i took the test it said my name would be added to a list of players that passed and our eligible for NT play...where do you find this list...i only ask becuase i logged in and then had to back track to find the test...just want to make sure it got recorded.

JERMAN
Dec 24 2009, 07:38 PM
it would be a step in the right direction to help the higher tier tourneys move along a little quicker - everyone should at least read the rules once and ask questions when not sure

keithjohnson
Dec 24 2009, 10:22 PM
Passing this test will do NOTHING for the sport, as it isn't knowing the rules that causes the most issues - it's the CALLING part of the rules that causes problems - either by players NOT calling them, or by being the bad guy when you do call them.

Top players will still play from inside of marked hazardous and locked fenced in areas because no one will have the guts to say anything to them, and in 2010 we'll be right back arguing these same issues.

I want to see what is going to happen at the Memorial when all the pros who didn't take the test get told - Sorry you're out and this waitlist guy who passed is in.

If players don't even renew in time to play, what makes anyone think they will take a test in time?

I think it's great that at least most of the touring players will now have to have seen at least 12 rules out of the hundred plus in the rule book, and it is a step in the right direction, but again nothing will happen until the MAJORITY of the top/travelling/better players start CALLING rules - and that's what hasn't changed much at big Events in the 14 years I've been playing.


Thanks for reading and if you have read this far - MERRY CHRISTMAS - HAPPY HOLIDAYS, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Keith

newman
Dec 25 2009, 02:10 PM
The TEST IS and will be A GREAT IDEA for people to get reacquainted with the rule book.

There is plenty of time for everyone to take it. 15 minutes out of your day.
So there's really no excuse.
:)

Jeff_LaG
Dec 25 2009, 02:37 PM
Hello, Newman!

:D

chainmeister
Dec 25 2009, 03:55 PM
There seem to be some technical quirks with the exam. I will not play an NT event but took the exam to pass the time and keep my mind fresh. The first time I used IE and must have answered 30 questions. I kept having questions repeated and finally got to the point where I was annoyed and just kept marking answers quickly to see if it would end. I am sure I answered a few differently the second time as I was just trying to get the Kafka-ish experience to end. I still got 11/15. One question I never saw and never answered. That was strange. I took it again today with Firefox and passed. However, I still had a question that I never saw count against me. I had one unanswered question.

Sharky
Dec 26 2009, 09:18 AM
Well at least it is consistently inconsistent :)
I answered my 12 questions then about 15 more got a 12 out of 15 passing score, I did miss one question on my own ...

keithjohnson
Dec 26 2009, 10:05 PM
The TEST IS and will be A GREAT IDEA for people to get reacquainted with the rule book.


Yes it will, but if they don't CALL anything what difference does it make?

That is/was my point.

johnbiscoe
Dec 26 2009, 10:32 PM
keith is right- doesn't amount to a hill of beans and i feel sorry for the td's at early season nt's who have to deal with administering it.

Alacrity
Dec 28 2009, 10:10 AM
I also had a few issues with the test. It hickupped about 12 questions in and I restarted at 2. I finished the test without seeing 1 and therefore I missed question number 1. I missed one other question and reported the question as being poorly written. Still passed and overall I think the test is a good first attempt.;)

discchucker
Dec 28 2009, 12:46 PM
Tried to take it three times...and the thing blew up 3 times. First time I was on my last question and it redirected me to question 2. Second time I got to finish it, then found out I missed a few questions...odd thing is, some of those questions I missed weren't even asked to me. Third time I got to question 15 and got redirected again to question 2. What a joke?!

atreau3
Dec 28 2009, 11:35 PM
ok, that was easy.

johnrock
Dec 29 2009, 10:46 AM
Is this going to be an every year thing? Could the test be included with a player's membership package in case they have internet access problems?

seewhere
Jan 04 2010, 01:56 PM
"
Tried to take it three times...and the thing blew up 3 times. First time I was on my last question and it redirected me to question 2. Second time I got to finish it, then found out I missed a few questions...odd thing is, some of those questions I missed weren't even asked to me. Third time I got to question 15 and got redirected again to question 2. What a joke?! "


could not agree more.. same thing happened to me. it said I missed the 2M rule and I never even was asked the questions....

cwphish
Jan 04 2010, 02:31 PM
How many others had a vision of Al Birdie kicking his golf bag for the distance record after the player used his lie to finish the hole canned the putt, then Al missed his!?!?

pterodactyl
Jan 05 2010, 12:26 AM
I can play NT's now!!!

quickdisc
Jan 05 2010, 02:17 PM
I just passed the Exam and I'm NT ready for 2010 !!!

dischick
Jan 06 2010, 01:01 PM
The test was more difficult than I expected it to be.... however, I need some clarification on two questions....

(the names have been changed to protect identities :)

1. Edward accidentally plays his second shot from Jacobs lie. Edwards shot lands under the target. He makes the putt. What is his score on the hole?

the correct answer is 5- score + 2 stroke penalty. However, lets say the lie that was mistakenly played from was 100X better that their own shot. The person takes a 5- well, if their shot rolled into the schule, through a bunker, and then finished ob (assuming no one in the group saw this tragedy happen as the disc was out of sight), then the person would have potentially scored far worse then a five. It seems as if making this type of mistake would only benefit the player for not paying attention to things.

It seems as though the hole should be replayed from the original lie, and the rest of the shots would be considered practice shots- and the practice shots would in turn be the penalty strokes.

2. Ceasar throws from a lie that is near an out-of-bounds line, but is hidden from the view of the rest of his group. He throws before another member of the group can verify whether it was in bounds as Graham claims. How should the group proceed?

the correct answer is that lie is determined to be OB for which he receives a penalty and they play on.

Since when are players not given the benefit of the doubt? Just because no one physically walked over to scope out the situation, wouldn't that in part be the rest of the groups fault as well? It seems as though the player should be issued a warning- and if the situation happens again, then be issued the penalty.

Any thoughts or further explanations?

cgkdisc
Jan 06 2010, 01:09 PM
The player could be DQ'd for subverting the rules by attempting to get away with playing another player's lie when their shot was obviously in another poor location.

The rules simply do not allow the player to make an inbounds call on their own lie but can make an OB call on their lie. The benefit of the doubt only comes into play when the group is evenly split on a decision.

Patrick P
Jan 08 2010, 01:19 PM
Q1: Although it may not seem correct, once the hole is completed, and then group discovers the thrower threw from the incorrect lie, then the only action that can be taken is assessing a 2 penalty stroke. The group needs to insure players on the card are throwing from the correct lie. I can guarantee you that if a player throws from my lie and his disc is 100x worse off, I'm calling a practice throw penalty on him, and then directing him to re-throw from the correct lie.

Q2: If the thrower's disc is near OB or in a tree, the thrower should call over another player or official in the area (if available) to observe the lie to confirm the disc is not OB or above 2m prior to moving the thrown disc. Avoiding this step can result in a 2 penalty stroke.

exczar
Jan 08 2010, 01:33 PM
Chuck,

Your answer re: playing from another player's lie that was far better was what I thought as well, but, technically, the question was asking what the score should be on that hole, not what are the possible ramifications from playing another player's lie.

mcthumber
Jan 08 2010, 04:36 PM
Q1: I can guarantee you that if a player throws from my lie and his disc is 100x worse off, I'm calling a practice throw penalty on him, and then directing him to re-throw from the correct lie.

And on what basis will you make that call? Are you just going to ignore the current rule for that situation?

BaKDut
Jan 09 2010, 10:31 PM
The test was more difficult than I expected it to be.... however, I need some clarification on two questions....

(the names have been changed to protect identities :)

1. Edward accidentally plays his second shot from Jacobs lie. Edwards shot lands under the target. He makes the putt. What is his score on the hole?



Thinking of Twilight much? :D

exczar
Jan 11 2010, 11:58 AM
And on what basis will you make that call? Are you just going to ignore the current rule for that situation?

You can make that call, I believe, if the call is made before the player has thrown any subsequent shots.

cgkdisc
Jan 11 2010, 12:01 PM
You can make that call, I believe, if the call is made before the player has thrown any subsequent shots.
I don't think 803.10 allows that.

august
Jan 11 2010, 02:11 PM
I don't think 803.10 allows that.

You're right, it does not. But making a rules call based on rules that do not apply seems to be completely in line with common practice. :(

Patrick P
Jan 12 2010, 03:08 PM
I don't think 803.10 allows that. I read the rules and I know what 803.10 says, but this is just another part of the current rules that needs to be further elaborated.

So Bob looking at the view of 6,000 foot drop decides to throw his disc off the cliff for fun during a round. Okay, practice throw, 1 penalty stroke. But then Bob, happens to be standing next to another player's lie and throws the same shot, and is now assessed a 2 penalty stroke? I think the rule should be expanded such that, if the other player's lie marked by his disc or a marker and the marker was removed after another player threw from the lie, then I can see assessing the two penalty stroke. Too bad the rule book needs to be fixed in this scenario, and I believe this discussion has been re-hashed multiple times in other discussions.

august
Jan 12 2010, 03:25 PM
I believe this discussion has been re-hashed multiple times in other discussions.

It has indeed, ad infinitum.

discette
Jan 12 2010, 03:39 PM
It has indeed, ad infinitum.

...or ad nauseum. :o

dischick
Jan 12 2010, 04:33 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

mcthumber
Jan 15 2010, 02:23 PM
.....this is just another part of the current rules that needs to be further elaborated.

...... Too bad the rule book needs to be fixed in this scenario....
Well, until all these marvelous fixes are incorporated, let's play by the rule book we have, shall we?

Patrick P
Jan 15 2010, 03:29 PM
Well, until all these marvelous fixes are incorporated, let's play by the rule book we have, shall we? We can hammer down all the rules and have all the endless discussions in these forums, but it doesn't change the reality of the current application and knowledge of the rules when it counts, that's on the field.

ChrisWoj
Jan 16 2010, 02:27 AM
So, is this thing working without forcing people to redo it yet?

twoods14862
Jan 18 2010, 12:21 PM
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why 2 different books for pdga rules? competition manual & official rules of discgolf.

exczar
Jan 19 2010, 01:22 PM
There is only one rule book. The rules do not change, for medalist play, depending on what kind of competition is being held.

rizbee
Jan 19 2010, 07:23 PM
So, is this thing working without forcing people to redo it yet?

I took it last night (and passed) and it looped back several times, requiring me to answer some of the questions three times (or more).

chainedturtle
Jan 20 2010, 01:18 PM
Passed the test yesterday easy enough. Did it at school so I forgot my rule book. The only question I got wrong that I have an issue with is this.

Group and player disagree (question said they disagree vehemently). Do they use provisional or give benefit of the doubt to the player. The answer was both, but that is what I disagree with.

If you disagree, that is the point of having the provisional rule there. Especially if it is a vehement disagreement. If it's a disagreement, it should not just be, oh well, give the player the benefit of the doubt. Play provisional and take it to the TD.

johnbiscoe
Jan 20 2010, 03:32 PM
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why 2 different books for pdga rules? competition manual & official rules of discgolf.

actually 3- you left out the q&a.

ChrisWoj
Jan 21 2010, 12:20 AM
Q&A doesn't qualify in my opinion - it merely gives examples of complicated rules situations and how to apply the rules. It doesn't set down rules - it merely tells you how they work.

august
Jan 21 2010, 12:54 PM
Q&A doesn't qualify in my opinion - it merely gives examples of complicated rules situations and how to apply the rules. It doesn't set down rules - it merely tells you how they work.


......or not. Those Q & A's have been wrong in the past, but are revered by some as "case law", i.e setting a precedent to be followed in future similar situations.

gumbputt
Jan 21 2010, 05:51 PM
Finished the test a little while ago. 13 out of 15. It restarted when I was in the teens for questions. So I probably answered 22+ questions in all. It said I got number 1 wrong even though I was never asked that question (it showed that I didn't answer the question). I was using Firefox as a browser.

I have no issue with the testing. I think it is a good idea.

billmh
Jan 22 2010, 09:07 PM
Passed without any computer glitches at all.

my_hero
Jan 23 2010, 11:01 AM
No problems here either.

bbwrenn
Jan 24 2010, 12:24 AM
Got 15/15 in reality, but I was only given credit for 14/15 because the original question #1 was replaced on the "answer key" with a question I never saw and marked as wrong. Oh well, apparently that is "proficient."

I don't have a problem with this testing, although I think it's a bit pointless because of the ease of passing and open book nature.

jeffkaufmann
Jan 25 2010, 12:14 AM
Me too! Answered probably 20 questions before I realized I was back at Question 2.. What do we do?

pterodactyl
Jan 25 2010, 01:01 PM
I had to keep trying and re-trying to take the test. Finally it gave me only 15 Q's and all was good.

veganray
Jan 25 2010, 01:28 PM
I'm deeply disappointed & offended by the unreasonable criticism you haters are directing at my beloved PDGA for the "Rules Proficiency Exam". Please keep in mind that a 15-question multiple-choice test is straddling the bleeding edge of current internet technology, even moreso than displaying the correct time on the front page of a message board. Couple that with the PDGA's frugal expenditures of $55,000 of your money for "Internet Technology" and $357,800 of your money for "Personnel" & you'll see that the bugs in this groundbreaking feat of software engineering are merely par for the course (pun intended).

So back off of your unwarranted jabs at the flawless org (or risk revocation of one of the few tangible benefits of membership, posting privileges on this very board) & let BG & crew run it with no oversight, input, or criticism, just the way all successful organizations are administered. Remember:
derogatory posts about the PDGA and/or its members are prohibited, and will not be tolerated

bbwrenn
Jan 26 2010, 03:18 AM
I'm deeply disappointed & offended by the unreasonable criticism you haters are directing at my beloved PDGA for the "Rules Proficiency Exam". Please keep in mind that a 15-question multiple-choice test is straddling the bleeding edge of current internet technology, even moreso than displaying the correct time on the front page of a message board. Couple that with the PDGA's frugal expenditures of $55,000 of your money for "Internet Technology" and $357,800 of your money for "Personnel" & you'll see that the bugs in this groundbreaking feat of software engineering are merely par for the course (pun intended).

So back off of your unwarranted jabs at the flawless org (or risk revocation of one of the few tangible benefits of membership, posting privileges on this very board) & let BG & crew run it with no oversight, input, or criticism, just the way all successful organizations are administered. Remember:

bwuahahahaha.

reallybadputter
Jan 31 2010, 10:12 AM
The test was more difficult than I expected it to be.... however, I need some clarification on two questions....

2. Ceasar throws from a lie that is near an out-of-bounds line, but is hidden from the view of the rest of his group. He throws before another member of the group can verify whether it was in bounds as Graham claims. How should the group proceed?

the correct answer is that lie is determined to be OB for which he receives a penalty and they play on.

Since when are players not given the benefit of the doubt? Just because no one physically walked over to scope out the situation, wouldn't that in part be the rest of the groups fault as well? It seems as though the player should be issued a warning- and if the situation happens again, then be issued the penalty.


Dischick-

This is one of those exceptions to the benefit of the doubt. However I would challenge that this answer is potentially incorrect. Here's the appropriate snippet of the rules:

If the thrower moves the
disc before a determination has been
made, the disc shall be considered outof-
bounds,

If the thrower uses the previously thrown disc as the marker, then they can throw without moving the disc... you can come verify after I've thrown and before I pick up that disc and if I'm IB you can't stroke me per the rules... They haven't updated this question from the officials test that I took in 2007...

In fact if Caesar had just marked his lie and moved the disc, he would be subject to penalty.

<yes, I've been snowed in for the last day and a half>

dischick
Feb 01 2010, 10:29 AM
Dischick-

This is one of those exceptions to the benefit of the doubt. However I would challenge that this answer is potentially incorrect. Here's the appropriate snippet of the rules:

If the thrower moves the
disc before a determination has been
made, the disc shall be considered outof-
bounds,

If the thrower uses the previously thrown disc as the marker, then they can throw without moving the disc... you can come verify after I've thrown and before I pick up that disc and if I'm IB you can't stroke me per the rules... They haven't updated this question from the officials test that I took in 2007...

In fact if Caesar had just marked his lie and moved the disc, he would be subject to penalty.

<yes, I've been snowed in for the last day and a half>

thanks for the input :)

cgkdisc
Feb 01 2010, 10:43 AM
If the thrower uses the previously thrown disc as the marker, then they can throw without moving the disc... you can come verify after I've thrown and before I pick up that disc and if I'm IB you can't stroke me per the rules...
Incorrect. You can still apply the OB penalty because the group was not there to watch your throw for potential stance violations, especially when you are throwing from near OB. For example, the disc might be IB on or really near the OB line such that you took a stance with your plant foot OB upon release. Any time a player makes a throw without allowing the group the option to see their throw from close enough to watch for foot faults can be a courtesy violation at minimum. The rule that assigns the immediate OB penalty for not allowing the group to see the lie near OB is essentially a courtesy violation that is considered more severe and goes beyond just a warning for the first offense.

exczar
Feb 01 2010, 05:20 PM
Any time a player makes a throw without allowing the group the option to see their throw from close enough to watch for foot faults can be a courtesy violation at minimum.

Chuck,

I respectfully ask what rule you used or interpreted to come to the above conclusion. The closest rule to the above situation I could find is from 801.01C,

"Refusal to perform an action expected by the rules, such as assisting in the search for a lost disc, moving discs or equipment, or keeping score properly, etc., is a courtesy violation."

but, I could not find anything in the Rules specifying what a player must do in this situation, with a lie that is not near OB and is now away.

Let's say three players threw close to each other, and you threw slightly close to the target then any of them, but you are 50 yds away on the other side of the fairway. I could find no rule that manadated that, when it is your turn to throw, that you must wait for more than one person to walk over to be close enough to your lie in order to observe that the rules are followed. It has to be more than one, or there is really no sense in doing it, if it cannot be seconded by someone else in the group, since we do not expect the thrower to second.

I have tried, in vain, to argue something similar, but my conclusions were poo-poo'd. The example was this - My foursome is gathered around the teebox, preparing for the next hole. Moe throws, and I call a foot fault, which gets no second. I ask Larry and Curly what they saw, and they admitted that they were not paying attention to Moe's throw, something was in the way that prevented them from seeing Moe's stance at teeoff, etc.

I quoted from the last sentence of 801.01A,

"Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules."

and argued that Larry and Curly were not in compliance with the above sentence, so they should receive a courtesy violation warning, and I was loudly shouted down.

What is your take on the above?

cgkdisc
Feb 01 2010, 05:56 PM
You are correct in citing 801.01A. It's an example of a rule that is not followed closely but in fact can be called at any time as a courtesy violation by either calling it on the group for not watching or the player for getting ahead of the group so they can't reasonably fulfill their responsibility to watch. The auto-OB call is simply a more sever version of that courtesy violation that skips the warning. 801.01C indicates refusal to perform the functions required of you by the rules is a violation.

reallybadputter
Feb 01 2010, 11:49 PM
Incorrect. You can still apply the OB penalty because the group was not there to watch your throw for potential stance violations, especially when you are throwing from near OB. For example, the disc might be IB on or really near the OB line such that you took a stance with your plant foot OB upon release. Any time a player makes a throw without allowing the group the option to see their throw from close enough to watch for foot faults can be a courtesy violation at minimum. The rule that assigns the immediate OB penalty for not allowing the group to see the lie near OB is essentially a courtesy violation that is considered more severe and goes beyond just a warning for the first offense.

No you can't still apply the OB penalty. The rule says Move the disc without giving them a chance to look and it is OB. Nowhere does it say that "This is a special form of the courtesy rule."

You can be close enough to see a foot fault or other stance violation, but you might not be able to sight down the line between two stakes to see if the disc is inbounds.

Chuck, do you call your group over to watch you touch the mini to the edge of the previously thrown disc? If you don't wait for them to be able to see, isn't that AT A MINIMUM A COURTESY VIOLATION?

Fine, the first time I do this without moving the thrown disc, call your precious courtesy violation, then come look, see that I'm IB, note the courtesy violation on the card and continue play. You can't give me a stroke if it is my first CV... I would argue that to attempt to do so is willful circumvention of the rules and you should be DQed.

There are at least two good reasons the penalty is at moving the disc, not on the throw:
1. If it is close but IB and within 1 meter of OB and I mark it and then move the mark 1 meter IB, the marker is no longer representative of where the thrown disc was.
2. If you are about to mark and pick up you disc, I can say to you "Hey, wait, I want to see if that's OB" If I say that as you are about to thow, that could really distract you and mess up your throw.

cgkdisc
Feb 02 2010, 12:39 AM
I'm saying that if a player throws from a lie near OB without marking it before anyone in the group gets there to see it, the player can be penalized and expect that ruling to be upheld by the group, TD, Competition Director and RC. The player would be wise to take the OB penalty because the infraction could be considered unsportsmanlike conduct or an attempt to circumvent the rules for a potential DQ. There's an appearance of trying to get away with something, especially experienced players, if it looks like they are rushing their throw before the group gets there. Players in general should be careful when getting to their disc near OB because even accidental kicking of the player's disc can be penalized under the OB rule.

If the player goes ahead and throws before the group gets to their lie anywhere on the course to see a foot fault the thrower could get a warning but only would it rarely be given (never seen it) by anyone in the group unless maybe they were obviously taking advantage with a tricky stance on a steep bank where they "conveniently" threw on purpose before someone could see if it was legal.

reallybadputter
Feb 02 2010, 07:27 AM
Ok, now I understand... to you want to use the Hugo Chavez rulebook. I don't get why... On its face, the rule appears to be written to prevent you from moving a disc before an IB/OB determination can be made. If the disc hasn't been moved, you can check and no blood/no foul. You don't like the way the rule is written, and you interpret it with twisted logic.

Most of the time the rules trust the player at least a little bit, but at some time between 2002 and the current rule book, something happened that got this rule added. Can you provide the details of what caused this to be added to the rules? Were you the author of this rule change?

cgkdisc
Feb 02 2010, 08:20 AM
The rule penalizing the player for moving the disc before the group determines whether it's OB or not has been in the rulebook in the OB section from the beginning of the PDGA starting with the 1982 rulebook. No change from 2002 to 2006 rulebook in this area. The fact that the rules changed between 1997 and 2002 to allow the player to use the originally thrown disc as their marker instead of always marking with a mini should probably have triggered an update of this OB rule to be more clear that throwing before the group gets to a lie near OB was also not allowed in addition to picking up the disc. But it's apparent that the RC has never wavered from the idea that players not make a judgment about their lie being IB when it's near OB before the group has the chance to see it.

exczar
Feb 02 2010, 02:24 PM
Chuck,

I am fine with someone using their lie as the mark and then throwing from it, even if they are near OB, but they better not pick that disc up before the group has decided its IB/OB status, per 803.09D. If the group decides that the disc was indeed OB, then play proceeds according to the Rules: If the player threw from a stance that was valid according to the lie, but the player was OB, then use the appropriate rule(s), and if the player threw from IB, and did not have a stance that would have been valid using the rule regarding how to mark the next lie for a disc that went OB, then use the appropriate rule(s). If the player threw from an IB spot that was consistent with how to select a lie from an OB throw, then, guess what. The player in effect declared the disc OB, then took a valid stance, and played on. If the player argues otherwise, then the group discussed whether or not the in-bounds status of the disc was uncertain.

cgkdisc
Feb 02 2010, 03:24 PM
I'm simply saying if the player throws using their previously thrown disc before the group gets there, especially when it's near OB, they risk having an unsportsmanlike action call. If the group goes to look at the disc and it's right on or near the OB line within a foot or so, I'm going to draw the conclusion they may have had part of their stance in OB for an illegal stance. The most fair resolution would seem to be to penalize the player as if the disc were OB, especially when the more severe unsportsmanlike action or even cheating could be applied.

reallybadputter
Feb 02 2010, 06:39 PM
Ok, so re-looking at the 2002 rules, it is in there. The structure of the 2002 rules where the words Out of Bounds are all over the document messed up my reading. Sorry about that.

Still, your speculation that I might have foot faulted or stepped out of bounds on the throw seems like you are stretching for a way to convict.

How close is close to OB? What is another member of the group's responsibility to inform a player that they want to check the IB/OB status of a disc? Now you are saying in your statement within 1 foot. But what if I'm half in half out of the water and the water is between me and the pin? What if I'm 4 feet inbounds, I clearly see it is in bounds and I have no clue that you don't realize it is that far in bounds? You throw your shot, and I walk over and make my throw. You can see me, my feet, and even the previously thrown disc... I don't know there's doubt in your mind...

Perhaps in the rules update the rule should have a spec on what is "uncertain." Within 1 meter might make sense. Although if I'm 2 feet from a water hazard and not in it, do I really need to make sure everyone sees it before I mark it?


Now the problem would be do you have to verbally offer? If I say, "I'm good" if nobody says "Let me see..."

Honestly, I've never been affected by this rule, other than being annoyed by it when I took the officials test. (Not the rule, but that the answer depended on actions that were not described in the question.) I actually thought it was a trick question in the rules test because it was such a little "gottcha!" nitpick...

cgkdisc
Feb 02 2010, 06:52 PM
We're discussing hypotheticals, not what actually is done in practice. I'm not likely to call this infraction, just that I can call it. It's unlikely I would do it to "game" someone who was courteous and following the rules. However, if the player appears to be taking advantage of situations or being difficult working with the group, I might be more inclined to jump in if the situation arose where they deliberately went ahead and threw near OB.

Luke Butch
Feb 03 2010, 05:11 AM
pretty sure I could have written code for a properly working multiple choice test after 1 computer class in high school. And I wasn't even close to the best in the class!


I went @ it 6 times and made it is far as #12 before it reset back to a earlier question. decided to quit and will have to try again later as I'm playing the Memorial

MTL21676
Feb 05 2010, 06:45 PM
That thing is a joke.

I just took it in about 5 min and clicked the wrong answer for a question accidentally and knew the correct answer and only missed 3, including that.

I also did not use any rules, all from memory.

Anyone who thinks they are going to compete in an NT and can't pass this thing...then wow. I hope I'm not in your group.

jeffkaufmann
Feb 05 2010, 07:51 PM
I want to know when this will be fixed...just TRIED to take it for the 5th time and was sent packing back to question 3 of 15 after answering 11 questions....Really, really frustrating...

johnrock
Feb 06 2010, 10:46 AM
2 questions:

Is this test going to be required of each player every year?

Is there any way a player can get this test mailed to him/her in physical form, to be completed and mailed back to pdga HQ?

Luke Butch
Feb 06 2010, 11:01 AM
I found that if you answer really fast it helps increase your chances of getting all the way through. This means you don't have time to look up any answers in the rule book, but if your familiar with the rules you should be able to pass it without.

cgkdisc
Feb 06 2010, 11:01 AM
It likely will be for 2011 since the rules will be updated with a new rulebook starting January 2011.

quickdisc
Feb 06 2010, 04:08 PM
It likely will be for 2011 since the rules will be updated with a new rulebook starting January 2011.

Thank you for the Update.

I had no problems taking the PDGA Exam for NT events.

As a Certified Official , will I be required to take the Officials test in 2011 ?

Will it be a Online Test or a Mail in Test ?

Thanks in Advance.

Donny Olow # 2656
[email protected]

cgkdisc
Feb 06 2010, 05:09 PM
No actual decision has been made that I'm aware of. However, I suspect that this will be a big enough rules update that it's time for certified officials to retest. By then, they'll hopefully have the online testing bugs worked out. I don't think we'll see printed and mailed tests in the future just like no TD has mailed a printed tournament report for a few years now.

MTL21676
Feb 06 2010, 07:31 PM
Will the new rules be a combination of the rule book and the competition manual?

I hope so - b/c the blatant contradictions with the two is laughable.

nez
Feb 10 2010, 09:09 PM
I know I am not the only one questioning the wording of this question, but I wasn't about to go search the discussion board, until it ****** me off enough. The question that remains is if the in-bounds status of the disc is uncertain by the wording of the question. Before the status can be considered uncertain, someone has to question whether the disc is out-of-bounds, which has not been stated in the question. The converse is, “must I have each player verify that my disc is in-bounds before I throw every shot?”. The answer is “only if the position of the disc is in question.” The question does not state that the disc’s position is in question, only that it is near the ob line. Under your scenario, any player’s disc could be considered OB after the fact if a majority of the group questioned it after the fact. I would refer back to 801.04A.

If you are going to continue to use this question, I highly suggest putting more detail in the question to determine whether the disc’s position is in fact uncertain or not by others in the group.


The other one is about playing through . . .

Ok, under 801.02D, the question here is whether the Group A is REQUIRED to stand aside. The question does not state that the official has directed the group to stand aside. Under what rule is the group REQUIRED to stand aside? If Group A does not want Group B to play through, they do not have to let them. The correct answer is probably to play the provisional rule and answer the question after the round. Yes, Group A can stand aside and call for the official and allow Group B to play through, but they do not HAVE to. Group B can not play through unless Group A lets them, or Group A is required to under the rules.

MTL21676
Feb 10 2010, 09:28 PM
Will the new rules be a combination of the rule book and the competition manual?

I hope so - b/c the blatant contradictions with the two is laughable.

well?

cgkdisc
Feb 10 2010, 09:33 PM
I believe the goal being discussed will be to have a rulebook focused only on the rules of play that anyone can use for casual play. Then, the Competition Manual with the added rules needed to handle PDGA tournament play. All current Rules Q&As would be wiped out and rolled into the wording of the new update for 2011. As rules issues come up after January 1, 2011 that need action, any new Q&As would be written up and made official until the next rules update. At the next rules update, the Q&As would again be rolled into the new update and start over with no Rules Q&As until needed.

wsfaplau
Feb 11 2010, 01:00 PM
What do you mean by the rules q&a will be made official?

Will them being official mean crazy rulings like kneeling on a towel at the Memorial a couple years ago not occur anymore?

Don't recall what I am refering to? The Q&As clearly stated you can't kneel on a towel. Feldberg nail a big putt while kneeling on a towel, some folks pointed it out, and the ED said that is ridiculous, it isn't in the rules, people can't be expected to be held to those interpretations.

That kind of "official"?

cgkdisc
Feb 11 2010, 01:09 PM
If it comes together as proposed, it will be stated that any future Rules Q&As are official extensions or clarifications to the rulebook until the next full rulebook update. The problem right now is that there are Rules Q&As that are not really rules but simply information like women's divisions for example. In the future, the idea would be that if something shows up in the future Rules Q&A section (which would be empty starting Jan 1, 2011), it's official at that point or the date specified in the text of the Q&A.

august
Feb 11 2010, 03:41 PM
If it comes together as proposed, it will be stated that any future Rules Q&As are official extensions or clarifications to the rulebook until the next full rulebook update. The problem right now is that there are Rules Q&As that are not really rules but simply information like women's divisions for example. In the future, the idea would be that if something shows up in the future Rules Q&A section (which would be empty starting Jan 1, 2011), it's official at that point or the date specified in the text of the Q&A.

This sounds like a really good idea and as long as there is some statement in the prologue of the rules book that Q & A answers are to be considered "case law", then I would support such a move. I also think that there should be a second, independent (of the RC) review of the Q & A responses to avoid the "building a lie" response of late that temporarily authorized players to build their lie before it was realised that the response was contrary to the rules.

wsfaplau
Feb 14 2010, 06:51 PM
If it comes together as proposed, it will be stated that any future Rules Q&As are official extensions or clarifications to the rulebook until the next full rulebook update. The problem right now is that there are Rules Q&As that are not really rules but simply information like women's divisions for example. In the future, the idea would be that if something shows up in the future Rules Q&A section (which would be empty starting Jan 1, 2011), it's official at that point or the date specified in the text of the Q&A.

Thanks. I hope it comes together as planned to resolve this once and for all.
I think a rule change, or clarification, would need to be communicated a little better than just posting it on the web page rules Q&A though. That was the EDs point at the Memorial, nobody even knows these Q&As are there and can't be expected to know about them.

bazkitcase5
Apr 19 2010, 08:51 PM
so I intentionally waited on taking the exam until it was time to play my first NT event of the season, hoping that all the bugs that have been talked about would have been worked out

I am disappointed to report that the same bugs still exist and I think it is a shame that they have not been corrected - yes, I realize that its possible that the designers could be busy or something, but considering this is something we are REQUIRED to do before we are able to compete in NT events, you would think there would be a little bit of a priority in fixing these issues

I don't want to be lumped in with the usual PDGA complainer, but at this risk, the issue will likely never be resolved if people do not point out the flaws and at this point, they surely know these flaws exist?

bbotte
May 22 2010, 12:30 PM
So I decided to take this thing this morning, after More than an hour I could not complete it. First I answered 5 questions, it restarted at question 2 when I was supposed to go to question 6, I kept going, got to question 10-11 and then answered that question and it took me to Question 2 again, kept going got to question 13 answered it and went back to question 2. I then just closed the browser. SO frustrating. This took me over an hour of my time. At no time did it ever say I completed the test getting a pass or Fail result, just a never ending test. I'm not puting more time into this, I am calling and having my name added to the passed list. David Gentry Expect my call Monday AM.

This question is bogus in the test BTW:

Josh Rilo's tee shot just skips out of bounds. He walks to his lie, picks up his disc, takes his 1 meter relief, puts his disc back down and throws his next shot. Steve Action tells Josh he marked his lie incorrectly by not putting down a mini. What is the ruling?

A) You do not need to use a mini to mark your lie.

B) If you need to reposition your lie you must use a mini. Josh receives a warning the first time and a stroke each time after.

C) If you need to reposition your lie you must use a mini. Josh receives a one stroke penalty.

D) If you need to reposition your lie you must use a mini. Josh must re-throw from the last place he was inbounds and his first throw is a practice stroke.

E) If you go out of bounds you must re-tee.


803.3
B. A player is only required to mark the lie with a mini marker disc when repositioning the lie under the rules. This includes the following rules: out-of-bounds, disc above the playing surface, lost disc, unplayable lie, relocated for relief, interference, or repositioning the lie within 1 meter of the out-of-bounds line.

G. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a marking rule if observed by
two or more players of the group or an official. One penalty throw shall be assessed for each
subsequent violation of any marking rule during the round if observed by two or more players of
the group or an official.

None of these answers are correct, it wasn’t called by two or more players, and Steve Action is not designated as an Offical.

What a Joke.

cgkdisc
May 23 2010, 12:36 AM
Steve notified Josh of the infraction. Josh would be the second person to confirm the infraction by looking down and seeing he did not use a mini.

bbotte
May 23 2010, 09:48 AM
Steve notified Josh of the infraction. Josh would be the second person to confirm the infraction by looking down and seeing he did not use a mini.

Does not work that way in the real world. You need two people in the group besides the player unless the call would benefit him, and in that case I have seen aN offending player 2nd my call. However the player said "I second your call". I don't see that. Looking at your disc does not declare anything. You as a player do not have to 2nd any infraction, I have seen many people get called and nobody says a thing because they don't want to ruin their "karma/round" or don't want to get involved.

cgkdisc
May 23 2010, 10:06 AM
The rules test is about how it should work. If a player calls out another player on something that they did and it can be proven as in this case with the disc on the ground, they should follow up with the TD for a potential DQ if that thrower refused to second the call.

exczar
May 23 2010, 11:11 AM
Chuck,

re: your last sentence - I tried sending up a similar flag, that there should be some consequence if others did not bother to observe an easily observable action, and therefore could not second a call (which is of course, different from someone not seconding because they observed the action and disagreed with the call), and did not receive any support.

In this case, Josh could immediately put his marker disc in his bag, and then claim that he can't remember if he used a disc or a mini to mark with, and for some people, these types of actions are so automatic, that they truly couldn't remember.

I'm not saying that what you propose (a possible DQ) could not happen, but in this particular case, I would think it unlikely.

cgkdisc
May 23 2010, 11:28 AM
I believe the assumption in the question is that Steve saw the disc on the ground and called it at that point. One would think that's normally how that call would go down especially from a player with the last name, "Action."

bbotte
May 24 2010, 09:41 AM
Bottom line, it's a poorly worded question.

I am really laughing that I am supposed to "read into" the players last name "action". I didn't know when I'm on the course I am supposed to judge a persons character by their last name. Are you Chuck "Math"?

cgkdisc
May 24 2010, 09:52 AM
Perhaps you were just trying to find fault in the question when you were frustrated with how the test itself behaved which seems to have been a problem for several people. That's understandable. Hopefully, Dave can get these testing problems resolved. Not sure if the browser version has something to do with it.

Several hundred have now taken the test and not seemed confused by the wording. The bigger problem with the question is using the incorrect term "stroke" versus "throw" which is the case in many of the questions. The word "stroke" is never used in the rulebook.

bbotte
May 24 2010, 10:10 AM
I found fault in the question because the answers I had to choose from were incorrect for the situation that was given to me. I have seen that that exact infraction called on Kevin Stewart and no body seconded the call. Guess what happened?

I talked to David this morning and he agrees it's a "poorly worded" question and needs re-written. I'm not fully happy about having to retake the test and put more time into it, it's not my error, I should not be inconvenienced because the amount of people having problems are 5%. If it's only 5%, those 5% should be allowed to play and not waste anymore time because it's not their fault. There needs to be some better customer service there. But, I guess have to live with it since I am over a barrel wanting to play in the BHMO in July. At least I don't have to take it on the website again. Pretty frustrating when you sit down to do it, and think it's gonna be 15-20 minutes and almost 2 hrs later there is no end to it. You put the 2 hrs in and can't even get a fail result let alone a pass result. Just wasted time on my end only.

cgkdisc
May 24 2010, 10:32 AM
I have seen that that exact infraction called on Kevin Stewart and nobody seconded the call. Guess what happened?
Whoever called it could simply report to the TD. TD asks Kevin what happened. Kevin may have his moments but I doubt would directly lie to the TD. This sport attempts to have rules that are self called with honor like ball golf.

readysetstab
May 24 2010, 12:39 PM
in case it hasn't been suggested yet, speeding up a little bit gets you through the test. it only took me backward to a previous question whenever I took a little bit of time to answer (if i had to look it up or something). i realize that there shouldn't be an issue like that, because you're supposed to be allowed to look up answers, but the test is easy enough to get to the end by just answering the questions with the most logical option.

anyway, kinda lame that you need to speed through it, but you might want to give it a shot.

bbotte
May 24 2010, 01:08 PM
Took the one David E-mailed me, and passed. I hope this is fixed next year.

rhett
May 25 2010, 03:12 AM
in case it hasn't been suggested yet, speeding up a little bit gets you through the test.

Nope. Just tried to take it again and was hurrying. After about nine questions it went to question 3. I stopped then as it's not worth an hour messing with it yet again.

the_kid
May 25 2010, 02:19 PM
I am not planning on taking this until the last possible moment.

This is partially due to the problems with the test along with the fact that it allows you to take it as many times as needed until you pass the test.

When I do take it I will be blindfolded and will just click until I get lucky enough to pass.

bbotte
May 25 2010, 04:12 PM
I am not planning on taking this until the last possible moment.

This is partially due to the problems with the test along with the fact that it allows you to take it as many times as needed until you pass the test.

When I do take it I will be blindfolded and will just click until I get lucky enough to pass.

LOL

Just answer C until you pass.

veganray
May 25 2010, 04:32 PM
If a task as simple as an online multiple-choice test cannot be perfected, how possibly can the pass/fail/not taken status of each & every potential NT competitor be seamlessly & correctly communicated to the NT TDs?