Rule 2.2 states, "(2) Players who have become ineligible for a division due to a ratings update may participate for two weeks following the update, provided they are pre-registered for the event in question, at the discretion of the TD."

My question is whether the player has to be preregistered for the the event before the ratings update occurs in order to be eligible to stay in that division at the TD's discretion.

If not, what is the reason for the preregistration requirement? Why take the TD's discretion away if the player registers morning of the event instead of the night before?

The intention of the rule was to cover scenarios where players were pre-registered for an event prior to a ratings update. So that if a ratings update occurred between their pre-registration and the event, the TD has the option of not bumping them if their rating changes their eligibility for the event during the time between pre-registration and the event itself.

Presuming the TD will not want to correct it mid tournament, what are the options available to other players in the division?

So what you're asking is if a TD can allow a player to walk up on the day of a tournament and register in a division for which they are not eligible? Absolutely no they can't. The TD discretion allowed in the rule quoted is in regard to whether to bump a pre-registered player or not. Basically the TD has the power to force the player into the higher division even if the rule allows leeway for the pre-registered player to stay in the lower division, but he does not have the power to allow a player to register for a division for which they know they are ineligible. The timing of the most recent ratings update has no effect on that. That's the whole reason the updates are done at the beginning of the week...so that there's plenty of time for the players and TDs to be aware of them by the following weekend.

As for what to do mid-tournament, I think the TD has to make the player change divisions. According to Section 2.1 B, a "player is solely responsible for knowing what division(s) they are eligible to compete in. Entry into an ineligible division may result in disqualification from the event and/or suspension from PDGA events."

The TD made an error if he allowed the player to play, but the player did as well. Should be reasonable to correct the error provided the player has already been playing the same course/layout as his correct division.

If neither the TD or the player agree to correcting the error, the recourse is to report both to the PDGA.

Once the event has started and a player is determined to be in too low of a division, I believe the TD can change their division at the latest before the start of the last round. However, if not discovered until the event is over, their incorrect division should stand. They would then be subject to possible disciplinary action depending on the nature of how they ended up in too low of a division. I'm not stating published PDGA policy but what I believe the Tour Manager would support as the appropriate actions by the TD.

The players potentially impacted by the player playing in too low of a division have no recourse in this other than notifying the TD of the problem and potentially providing testimony to the Disciplinary Committee if it goes that far and their feedback is requested. The division results would simply stand unless the player is later DQ'd.

Something else that comes to mind now that I've looked at the event in question (at least, I made a reasonable guess and found a player in the results that fits the description)...

Did the event identify itself to the PDGA as a part of a Point Series? On the Sanctioning Agreement, there is a yes/no question which asks if the event is part of a series in which players were allowed to stay in a division for the sake of the series even if they were ineligible ratings-wise. The example cited in the question was a 940 rated player in Intermediate.

If this tournament is part of such a series, and a cursory glance at the series site doesn't state anything explicitly but does require a minimum number of events to qualify for the series finals, then the player and TD may be in the clear with regard to allowing the player in question to play Intermediate despite having a rating of 936 as of the last update.

But if the event didn't check yes on that particular question on the sanctioning agreement, all bets are off.

Sorry, jconnell. You guessed wrong. Our local points series is on top of that issue. The tournament this weekend was an annual stand alone event. The TD made the player move up and he cashed in the higher division for nearly as much payout as he would have received for winning the lower division. Sometimes, things work out for everyone.

This rule needs tweaking. There needs to be some leeway given to TDs regarding this rule.

I had a situation with the Beaver State Fling where one of the women used to play FPO, but since she hadn't played many events recently, she registered for Advanced Women. At the time of her registration she was well within the rules, however, the latest update put her over the 850 threshold. My problem was that the event was completely full, so I wrote the PDGA asking for an exemption for her. My request was denied. I was extremely disappointed that the PDGA would not allow me any leeway in this unusual situation. The Beaver State Fling is a popular event that fills months ahead of time. Did the PDGA really expect me to kick this woman out of the event?

I fully understand wanting to maintain a fair playing field, but at least give TDs the leeway they need to allow someone who is already registered for an event to compete. In my eyes, there is simply no excuse for expecting a TD to toss player out of a completely full event due to a ratings update.

This rule needs tweaking. There needs to be some leeway given to TDs regarding this rule.

I had a situation with the Beaver State Fling where one of the women used to play FPO, but since she hadn't played many events recently, she registered for Advanced Women. At the time of her registration she was well within the rules, however, the latest update put her over the 850 threshold. My problem was that the event was completely full, so I wrote the PDGA asking for an exemption for her. My request was denied. I was extremely disappointed that the PDGA would not allow me any leeway in this unusual situation. The Beaver State Fling is a popular event that fills months ahead of time. Did the PDGA really expect me to kick this woman out of the event?

I fully understand wanting to maintain a fair playing field, but at least give TDs the leeway they need to allow someone who is already registered for an event to compete. In my eyes, there is simply no excuse for expecting a TD to toss player out of a completely full event due to a ratings update.

I understand that that particular event was probably one in which FPO and FA1 were playing different courses at different times, which presents a unique case that the rules probably should account for. But was the only alternative following the PDGA's denial to boot the woman from the event? I'd bet no.

Couldn't you have shifted the affected player to the very top of the waitlist for the FPO pool and gotten her into the proper division once there was a withdrawal (which always happens when an event fills so quickly)? Or perhaps you could have just added her into that pool with the understanding that it would take two drop outs to create a spot for the next waitlister? And if it resulted in having one extra player in the pool, so be it. I suppose a pool of 90 players would make that a bit problematic, but I'm sure adding one sixsome or a ghost card would be better than kicking a player out.

I understand that that particular event was probably one in which FPO and FA1 were playing different courses at different times, which presents a unique case that the rules probably should account for. But was the only alternative following the PDGA's denial to boot the woman from the event? I'd bet no.

Couldn't you have shifted the affected player to the very top of the waitlist for the FPO pool and gotten her into the proper division once there was a withdrawal (which always happens when an event fills so quickly)? Or perhaps you could have just added her into that pool with the understanding that it would take two drop outs to create a spot for the next waitlister? And if it resulted in having one extra player in the pool, so be it. I suppose a pool of 90 players would make that a bit problematic, but I'm sure adding one sixsome or a ghost card would be better than kicking a player out.

With that in mind, I just overbooked the FPO field. Yes, the problem has since been resolved by a drop in that pool, but I still think the initial response to my problem should have been a little more considerate of the unique situation. Perhaps the proper response might have been something along the lines of "Please add her to the FPO wait list, and move her if you have a drop. Otherwise she can stay in FA1 for this one event since she was already registered and the event is full."

If I had not received a drop from the event, I would still have had to deal with the problem of overbooking. Having to deal with overbooking in an event that already deals with 4 flights that include 304 players is quite problematic. I already have 2 ghost cards in the pro pools, so I couldn't do that.

Again, I understand the BSF is a unique situation, and all is well now. I'd just hate to see another TD put in that same, uncomfortable position.

Let's say there were no alternatives other than waitlisting her in FPO. Isn't it better to have her not play rather than subject a much bigger field of players in FA1 to a "bagger" who would be one of if not the highest rated in the field?

I understand why you want flexibility for the TD to make the decision. But it's a little like the psychology test where the train is coming down the track and you're in control of the switch. If you don't switch, then five people are in peril to get run over. If you do move the switch, one person on the other branch will get killed for sure. Even though only one person dies if you make the switch, most people faced with this choice can't bring themselves to do it and would rather not take action and let the five die since they technically wouldn't be directly involved.

This moral dilemma is constantly played out in a much milder form in tournament disc golf (with no deaths fortunately) when TDs would rather let a player register late and hold everyone up or let a known "bagger" in some cases play in a lower division impacting all of those players, rather than just say "No." The PDGA rules at least provide cover for the TDs to make an appropriate decision even if it's not what seems to be the "right" decision from the TDs perspective.

Chuck,

With all due respect... No, I don't think it is better to ask a player who is a mere 3 points above the minimum requirements to not play. This isn't a case of a lifelong sandbagger or even someone trying to game the system. This is someone tripped up by circumstance. A few weeks earlier and she could have and would have simply registered in FPO.

I'm not pushing hard here, I'm just suggesting we allow ourselves the flexibility to make some decisions based on the circumstances.

Peace,

Jeff

And having been a TD who has had to make similar decisions in the past, I'm not being hard nosed either but simply pointing out that it's not the fault of the PDGA rules, or any rules for that matter, but human nature that creates the urge to tweak them.

One concern might be how much flexibility, and where does it lead?

3 ratings points over the line---OK. 10 points? 25 points? Where is the line for exceptions? What if the player had just come in 3 points over THAT line?

The rules do give TDs cover from all kinds of requests that players may make.

Also protects from the rest of the field complaining about competing against a player who should be ineligible.

Or, after you've made that reasonable exception, other players chiming in with their own reasonable rules exceptions they'd like you to make. (I got myself burned with a version of this one time).

Not saying it's wrong to be flexible here,, just wondering where it leads.

Perhaps it could be solved with one small tweak...

A player whose rating increases above the minimum threshhold may not REGISTER for any division for which they are not eligible. This moves the time of the ratings check to the time of registration, not the event date.

This also takes the TDs and the PDGA out of the decision making process. If you were legal at the time of registration, then you're legal until you play.

I think that's reasonable. What about new PDGA members who register before they have a rating but then get one before the event? Currently, they must play in whatever division they qualify for at the time of the event and not when they register.

Contact Andrew at PDGA HQ with your recommendation. He won't see it here.

I always know what my rating is likely to be at the next update, at least a month in advance. I can imagine potentially getting tripped up if I had to register months in advance for a tourney like the fling in order to reserve a spot, but I'd be aware of the risk when I signed up.

Over the last 11 or 12 years I have moved from Intermediate to Advanced and back about 12 times. I had to change my Bowling Green division two days before leaving for the tournament.

I don't think there should be any exceptions for players whose rating has moved them out of their preferred division. If you've been playing at that higher rating and you register for your current lower rating, that's a risk you take for trying to game the system.

Over the last 11 or 12 years I have moved from Intermediate to Advanced and back about 12 times. I had to change my Bowling Green division two days before leaving for the tournament.

I don't think there should be any exceptions for players whose rating has moved them out of their preferred division. If you've been playing at that higher rating and you register for your current lower rating, that's a risk you take for trying to game the system.


There were two major differences here:

1) No one was trying to game the system in this case.
2) The pool I would have had to move her to was completely full.

I'd imagine your opinion might be a little different if you had been thrown out of an event because your rating changed, because that is what I was expected to do.