It seems like this is on the rise around here and elsewhere: unrated players who are not PDGA members enter ratings-protected divisions and win or "win by landslide". It seems to be happening more often. What should be done?

The "standard answer" is always the same: the TD has the power to place these players in the appropriate division and the player has no choice. The TD should know how this player plays yadda yadda yadda. This isn't a reasonable thing to do anymore since the sport is growing some of these players aren't "reasonable" themselves, intentionally not joining the PDGA just so that they don't receive a rating.

I have a proposed solution: Bearing in mind that "no rating" does not equal "rating of zero", these ratings-less ronin do not qualify for the lower am divisions. That is because "no rating" is not less than 935/900/850.

Therefore, a ratings-less player shall only be eligible for payout if s/he plays in a Pro or Advanced division. This is less restrictive than "can only play in pro or adv" and allows the true beginner who wishes to join the PDGA an opportunity to play in the right place until a rating is established. The sandbagger will either play Advanced or join to get that sub-935 rating so they can win stuff, and the true Int/Rec/Nov players will have the protection that the ratings cutoffs are supposed to afford them.

It's a fairly simple thing to do and as long as you have a PDGA roster with you at check-in, even "trunk of the car" organizers can check before the event. A simple star or "NR" on the leaderboard card would quickly identify who is not eligible for payout.

Please comment or tear this idea apart. :)

New PDGA members without ratings yet should be allowed to play for prizes. I would think these non-members would be offered "trophy only" entry fees if entering divisions below where they could cash. There are places where there are more non-members than members in some of the lower divisions and the PDGA members with ratings are playing up. So it's not surprising that the winner of the division might dominate even though they actually shot at the level they should be shooting for that division. It's just that the players with ratings were already playing up and couldn't hang.

What the Illinois Open Series has done for the past several years is totally unreasonable, but it works well. We have a volunteer with the necessary computer skills who calculates ratings on non-members. What I always find amusing is the non-member who thinks he has a right to play in the division of his choice by virtue of being an unrated non-member. That is actually a right of membership, but not of non-membership.

It might be a California thing, Rhett. I've been watching and have not seen that much of what you're talking about in the states where my MA2, 3 and 4 rated wife and daughters play, which would be most of the Great Lakes states plus Kentucky and sometimes Alabama.

What I do see is non-members winning a lower division by five or ten throws, and playing 20 ratings points over the cap, but still finishing behind a lot of the players who are playing up a division instead of playing in the division indicated by their rating. At the tournaments where you are seeing non-members winning, you might re-sort the data by putting the Intermediates back in Intermediate and the Recs back in Rec. It is not the non-member's fault if most of the players who belong in his division have chosen to donate to a higher division. Generally to win in any ratings capped division, if the players that have ratings for that division play in that division, you have to play 20 or 30 points over the cap, sometimes more.

I think we're going to have difficulty bringing in new players if the deal is, (A) you pay $10 more and (B) you aren't eligible for prizes, unless the deal is also (C) you can pay a deeply discounted trophy-only entry fee instead.

If non-member bagging becomes a serious problem, your suggestion, or something like it may be necessary. I'll go look at California recent tournaments to see what you might be talking about. I appreciate you not naming tournaments since that is tantamount to yelling "Bagger" at someone in this public forum.

However much time elapsed from that post to this post, I looked at 2010 California tournaments results, seven or eight tournaments. I'm really not seeing it. I saw a new member who won a couple of times in Rec before his rating came out at 903, which is nothing much, four points over the cap, and a new member who won at least once in Intermediate until his rating came out at 950. But you pretty much have to play 950 to win in Intermediate when the Intermediates play Intermediate.

Playing in a lot of states, I've seen a lot of TDs dealing with the issue locally. In Illinois it was players who belonged in the lower divisions who stepped up to provide a fair way to bump unrated non-members who did not belong there. That has really worked well.

I'm not seeing it either. Can you point out an example or three?

Not advocating such, just throwing out "other suggestions / remedies" (some of which might seem 'rather harsh' a/o cumbersome - but have worked in other sports / games)...


Anyone without a rating MUST play in the highest division offered to them...in order of gender, status, age. Therefore a 42yo male, unrated, would have to play in Men's Advanced (if that category were available), etc.

Anyone without a rating MUST play for trophy-only (paying a less-than-full entry fee).

Anyone playing in their not-first-tournament (but still unrated) would've had to have paid their 'sanctioning fee' to the PDGA...and thus would have a "provisional rating". The PDGA would have to agree to do such leg-work and the TD would have to have 'access' to such data.


Karl

...just throwing out "other suggestions / remedies"

How about simply "non-PDGA members can only accept merchandise payout in the Advanced divisions. If a non-member plays in a ratings-protected division in a PDGA sanctioned tournament they shall pay full price (unless there is a trophy only option [which there almost never is]) and be ineligible to receive payout."

If you just joined the PDGA and you don't have a rating, you'll get one soon enough. This type of change should only be instituted for non-members.

A quick survey on the 2009 results for California only shows the following tournament where a non-PDGA member won one or more of the following divisions with a score that averaged higher that the rating cutoff for that division: MA2/Int, MA3/Rev, MA4/Nov. Sometimes it was a little higher than the cutoff and sometimes it was a lot higher.

Tournaments where a non-member won but the scores "were about the cutoff" were skipped.

Also not considered were events where 2nd/3rd/4th went to a non-member shooting above the cutoff. This also drains the protected division of payout value, but I didn't count them because the tourney list was already long with just non-member division winners!

Otter Open
EIO
Higher Flyer/HB
Jelly Jam
Motherlode
Morley Spring Fling
El Dorado
Evergreen
Frying Pan
San Fran Safari
Feather River
Tahoe
Sunrise
Shark Tooth
Chuck Freedlun
Hula Bowl
SoCal Champs

Keep in mind that there are areas where this is no problem at all---my area, for example---and the proposed solutions would be a detriment. When we're trying to encourage non-tournament players to give tournament play a try, restricting payouts or forcing them into a division where they can't compete doesn't help. Especially on top of the $10 non-member fee. Most of the non-rated players around here are beginners.

I'd also tighten your criteria for identifying problem tournaments. If a player shoots above the cut-off for that tournament, well, that's what winners tend to do. Rated players often shoot above their rating, and the cut-off, to win Am divisions. And I'd only think it a real problem if the same un-rated players were doing it in multiple tournaments; not the once-shot wonders.

Finally, since a solution to this problem must be applied universally, think of the areas with low PDGA membership. Sanctioned tournaments are rare enough in, say, Southern Nationals land. Additional restrictions on non-members would only make it tougher.

I think I'll look at those tournaments later. It may very well be that the guy who won Rec shooting 930 golf one weekend finished out of the prizes shooting 850 golf the next. In which case, that's what you'd see from PDGA rec rated members also.

It is just my opinion, but most of the suggestions I see here are restricting many, for a few abusing the system. This topic comes up every year and it really depends on the TD.

How about the PDGA calculates ALL players ratings and passes ALL of the ratings to TD's in the TD regional report. The TD's can then use this to determine if a player is playing below their rating.

I believe they do send ratings now for noncurrent members if they have a number that's either non-current or a new one under the $10 "membership" used for tracking.

I'm working my way through that list and not seeing much actual bagging. The winning lower division non-members are typically shooting about 20 points over the ratings cap, which is what members typically shoot to win capped divisions. In the tournaments you listed that i've looked at so far, one non-member shot more than 30 points over the cap to win his division, but so did a member, so they are even on that score too. Also, the non-member winners are averaging winning by about 1 throw per round. I've looked at six of your tournaments so far. I'm taking notes.

Finally, since a solution to this problem must be applied universally, think of the areas with low PDGA membership. Sanctioned tournaments are rare enough in, say, Southern Nationals land. Additional restrictions on non-members would only make it tougher.

David
Again, you are spot on with your observation.
Restricting new players to playing trophy only or the most skilled division would eliminate all events in low membership areas.
My single paid-up membership strongly votes against any such restriction.

steve timm

non members who pay to play in a sanctioned event should have criteria to be met.
their 10$ gets them the opportunity to compete with members for a single event,
there is no reason to treat them softly to entice them to join.
if a regular player hasnt joined but still plays in local non sanctioned events there may be a history that could be part of the criteria.
the 10$ doesnt in my oppinion gaurantee their right to cash, if the criteria is such for an event then maybe.
trophy only is a great option for non member amatures.
the moneys raised off the non members(less the trophy's)could go to the tourney in other places than payout or increase payout.
if the non member dosnt like playing for trophies because he expects to take merchandise then they should join for the benifit of merch payout.
pretty simple .
some members may play trophy only given the chance.