ishkatbible
May 18 2012, 10:28 AM
i know this isn't supposed to happen but here is the story...

4 person card... 2 of them are late for the second round. (if i had been on the card, we would have waited and split up. it has happened to me on a few occasions in the past) the 2 players who are there go ahead and play. they were putting out on their first hole when the other 2 showed up. the other 2 who showed up late got par plus 4.

are there any reprocussions for the players who teed off with only a 2 person card? i know it's too late, but i couldn't find it in the rulebook.

bruce_brakel
May 18 2012, 11:09 AM
i know this isn't supposed to happen but here is the story...

4 person card... 2 of them are late for the second round. (if i had been on the card, we would have waited and split up. it has happened to me on a few occasions in the past) the 2 players who are there go ahead and play. they were putting out on their first hole when the other 2 showed up. the other 2 who showed up late got par plus 4.

are there any reprocussions for the players who teed off with only a 2 person card? i know it's too late, but i couldn't find it in the rulebook.There is half a rule for this in the competition manual but no penalty. The rule is directed more at the TD than the players.

ishkatbible
May 18 2012, 11:15 AM
In this particular event I was the td. I didn't find out about it untill I got a text half way through the second round. I went scouring through the rule and comp book and only found that cards should not have only two players. No penalty for playing without a third.

And by then the other two had shown up. They only missed the first hole

bruce_brakel
May 18 2012, 11:35 AM
There is nothing in the official Q&A so I think you've read all the rule that there is.

cgkdisc
May 18 2012, 12:06 PM
Interestingly, I believe the rule allows the TD to have a twosome as long as one is an official. All it says is that when less than three play in a group, an official needs to accompany the group and is allowed to play. Who better than the TD? The rule does not say non-playing official. It's part of the current lack of clarification in the rules where everyone who's passed the official's test and is current is an "official" at an event with no distinction made only for "officials" designated by the TD as their team for the event.

jconnell
May 18 2012, 02:00 PM
Interestingly, I believe the rule allows the TD to have a twosome as long as one is an official.
Got a citation for that one, Chuck? Because I don't believe there's anything in the rule about allowing a twosome to play without some sort of third observer (certified official or not, playing along or not). The whole point of requiring a minimum of three players to a group is so that there can be at least one mediator in a rules dispute. In the event of a twosome, that observer fills that role if needed. One of the two players being an official doesn't change that need, especially if both players are in the same division (Competition Manual Section 1.11 D).


As for the original question, I don't believe the players face or should face any penalties. It is not their fault that their groupmates were late and the rule puts the onus on the TD, and not the players, for making sure there are at least three players in each playing group.

That said, these two did go about the situation in the wrong way by beginning their round as a twosome rather than standing aside and alerting someone (another group, the TD, etc) of their situation. They were fortunate that the late players showed up when they did, and from there they proceeded appropriately (par+4 for the latecomers).

I'd chalk it up as a learning experience for all involved, and move on. It's also a very good idea as a TD to have a contingency plan for such an occurrence, whether it's having someone on hand to act as an observer for a twosome or just a preference for what the players should do (split up and go to neighboring cards or pull someone from a neighboring group). And whatever the plan is, be sure it is communicated to the players so they know exactly what they should do if they find themselves in a twosome when the start horn comes.

cgkdisc
May 18 2012, 02:25 PM
Got a citation for that one, Chuck?
Competition Manual 1.6C

jconnell
May 18 2012, 02:54 PM
Competition Manual 1.6C

C. To promote fairness, groups shall not be less than three players, except under extenuating circumstances, as deemed necessary by the director. In cases where fewer than three players are required to play together, an official is required to accompany the group and may play as long as this does not interfere with the competing players.
No where do I see that twosomes can go out without a third person accompanying them. And the only mention of an "official" says that they are required to accompany the group, which implies they aren't already a part of it (i.e. one of the competing players).

cgkdisc
May 18 2012, 03:30 PM
It does not say twosome anywhere in the text. It says less than three needs an official. A group of one player with a playing official meets that definition and happens to be a twosome.

jconnell
May 18 2012, 03:41 PM
It does not say twosome anywhere in the text. It says less than three needs an official. A group of one player with a playing official meets that definition and happens to be a twosome.

One player is not a "group". One player is one player.

I see what you are trying to say. One competing player + one non-competing but playing along official would be a twosome in the strictest sense. But I was interpreting all references to group size (twosome, threesome, foursome) as relating to the competing players only, and not including officials whether playing or not.

cgkdisc
May 18 2012, 05:54 PM
I know how you're trying to interpret it, I'm just saying we need to tighten up the meaning for "officials." Also, if they meant twosomes, say twosomes in the text, not just less than three which implies it also covers a onesome plus an official playing.

ishkatbible
May 18 2012, 08:15 PM
so... to sum it all up... in my next player's meeting, i need to mention what to do incase a third person is late/no-show?

cgkdisc
May 18 2012, 08:20 PM
For now, although I think the Competition Manual needs to address this directly on what to do once groups are set and a group ends up with only one or two players at the gun.

bruce_brakel
May 18 2012, 10:28 PM
so... to sum it all up... in my next player's meeting, i need to mention what to do incase a third person is late/no-show?The best thing to tell them is if they are a twosome and the 30 seconds has passed, one goes to the group ahead and one to the group behind, but this creates a problem figuring out when the late arriving player arrived when there was no group to arrive to that would represent his assigned group.

This all arises from disc golf trying to be more coddlesome than golf. In golf there's no par+4 for being late to tee at a tournament. You're DQed. Go home or wait around for the dinner, but you're done playing.

mus
Jun 06 2012, 11:39 AM
I would highly suggest telling groups to pull someone from another card. That way you have a threesome and retain the group in case the missing competitors show up late.

davidsauls
Jun 06 2012, 11:52 AM
There's never a good way to do it.

Pulling someone off another group is fine, but that group is probably several hundred feet away. At what point do you decide the players are missing? By the time you do, and hike off to them, the player you want to borrow may have already teed off. And you're still wondering whether the other two members of your group are 45 seconds late, or never coming back. Even splitting up and joining two other groups is cumbersome.

I have a seething contempt for players who don't return for a round without telling the TD. At least we get to penalize the late returnees.

TimJ51301
Jun 24 2012, 09:07 AM
What should happen if a 3-some loses a player in the middle of the round (for example, one player must leave due to a family emergency). Does the 2-some recruit someone from the group behind to make a 3-some? Or does the 2-some need to wait and get the TD or T official to declare how to proceed?

araydallas
Jun 26 2012, 04:49 PM
What should happen if a 3-some loses a player in the middle of the round (for example, one player must leave due to a family emergency). Does the 2-some recruit someone from the group behind to make a 3-some? Or does the 2-some need to wait and get the TD or T official to declare how to proceed?

Happened to me once. Luckily we were on 3-man cards that day, and one of us went to the group in front and one went to the group in back. It was a great feeling when I finished taking scores on the last hole, and then the other three guys reminded me that they still had one more hole to finish the round. I took a seat in the shade and watched them.

davidsauls
Jun 27 2012, 11:34 AM
What should happen if a 3-some loses a player in the middle of the round (for example, one player must leave due to a family emergency). Does the 2-some recruit someone from the group behind to make a 3-some? Or does the 2-some need to wait and get the TD or T official to declare how to proceed?

Among the options, as I understand it, are to continue as a 2-some.

The manual says TD should not assign a 2-some (without an accompanying official), but I don't believe there's a penalty for the players continuing to play as a 2-some.

Of course, it depends on the players. You have to be comfortable you can work out any "group decisions" that may come up.

airspuds
Jul 19 2012, 05:49 PM
This happened to me at pro worlds in 2010 , twice. The starter could not join us, as he didnt want to leave his post. We had an official walk with us til the other player showed up. Guy shows up on Gold 3 running up the fairway, throws his drive perfectly to Silver 3 basket. We get down there and I say , your out. I get a funny look and then I point Gold 3 is over there. Same thing happened 2 days later , but considering he was with Brian C stuck in INDiana traffic. We cut him some slack but still had to have someone come with us for a couple of holes.

PhattD
Jul 20 2012, 10:35 PM
One player is not a "group". One player is one player.

I see what you are trying to say. One competing player + one non-competing but playing along official would be a twosome in the strictest sense. But I was interpreting all references to group size (twosome, threesome, foursome) as relating to the competing players only, and not including officials whether playing or not.

group [gruːp]
n
1. a number of persons or things considered as a collective unit

Note that it does not say a number greater than 1. The reason for this is because so you can refer to a category that is normally plural without nessesarily excluding a category of one.

jconnell
Jul 21 2012, 11:51 AM
group [gruːp]
n
1. a number of persons or things considered as a collective unit

Note that it does not say a number greater than 1. The reason for this is because so you can refer to a category that is normally plural without nessesarily excluding a category of one.

It does pluralize "persons" and "things", however. If a singular person or thing could be considered a group, wouldn't the definition say "person(s) or thing(s)"?

I'll stand by the notion that a "group" can't, by definition, be one person.

PhattD
Jul 23 2012, 11:56 PM
It does pluralize "persons" and "things", however. If a singular person or thing could be considered a group, wouldn't the definition say "person(s) or thing(s)"?

I'll stand by the notion that a "group" can't, by definition, be one person.

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

Two reasons I disagree with your argument
a) Nothing in this description that mandates group. It specifically states "In cases where fewer than three players must play together". If the intention of the rule were to only allow officials to accomany a twosome it would have said so specifically instead of making us jump through pointless semantic hoops.
b) Your argument is akin to saying that if you were told you can invite as many people as you like to an event, that you would be precluded from inviting one person because people is plural. If you were told to evacuate all the people from a burning building and found one person inside would you leave him there because you were told yo evacuate people plural.

This whole argument is absurd. The point of the rule is to have enough players on a card to self adjudicate (3 minimum) or if this isn't possible have an official accompany the card in order insure the rules are properly followed. Seriously go ask an English teacher.