This one is for the TD's and players out there that have experience with a filled field.

I am looking forward to playing the Big Arm next month. Most likely there will be 100 players on 20 holes. In the past, the 5-somes were completely mixed up in the first round, trying to ensure that a couple of pros play with a couple of ams, and that the novice or intermediate player is grouped with somebody who knows the rules.

According to 804.06, this should not be done. Instead pure pro. 5-somes, adv. am 5-somes, and int. am 5-somes should be created.

Now here is my concern: I believe that in the first scenario the speed of play is much faster, since you avoid creating a very slow group (e.g lost disc - they may look for it forever without enforcing the 3-minute rule), which may prolong the round unnecessarily. As it is, it will be a minimum of 3 hours a round.

Does this rule make sense for B- and C-tiers, for the first round? Talking to some pros, it seems some just hate playing with ams, while others enjoy it very much.

What do you think?

Maybe events that would like to mix divisions in the first round should just apply as X-tiers. No big deal. The points are the same. Usually, this mixing works better when the course isn't so challenging that Ams should play from different tees.

Make sure you advertise it on the flyer, too. The only complaints I've heard about mixing divisions in the first round is from the pros who paid the biggest entry fees and don't want to "babysit some newbie" when they think they can win the tourney. Put it in big letters so you can show it to them if they complain. Hopefully people that have a problem with it won't show up if they know the format.

I prefer following the rules at PDGAs. I get plenty of opportunities to play with amateurs at Tags and Doubles during the week. PDGAs should be special and it is in many cases my soul chance to play with players significantly better than me and learn from them.

Speed of play is not an issue when the fact remains that all tournament rounds take between 1.5 and 4 hours. PDGAs shouldn't be training grounds for newbies on the rules. If you're going to play in a PDGA then you should know the rules.

I can live with this either way, but when in doubt, I'd prefer we follow the standards provided.

I agree with Nick. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Me too. *shudder*

Why not group by player ratings? This would ensure great competition amongst groups, and would allow scratch golfers the comfort of playing with other scratch golfers.

Dylan, we don't do that for the same reason we don't hand out trophies to players in order of their PDGA PR before we've even played the first round. Everyone within a division should, optimistically speaking, have a shot at competing and placing. Also, people should have the opportunity to face those they are directly competing with.

There is a format that does something similar, and it is PDGA approved; it's called the R-Tier event (Ratings or Skill Based Competitive System).

Nick, isn't it completely and entirely annoying, when there are back-ups that could be somewhat lessened. Thinking of the Big Arm, Promptom Dam, there is always a back-up going down the 599 foot hole# 11.

Now my question is how to avoid a three or four group back-up; I don't enjoy sitting idle for 20 minutes.
I guess the best way to avoid it would have groups of "equal# of strokes on each hole". If you have a 5-some that gets 4's, 5's, and 6's on every hole, they will hold up everyone behind them.

"If you are going to play in a PDGA then you should know the rules"....wishful thinking! There will always be people that look for a lost disc for 10 minutes, until a group comes from behind, and tells them what to do. And it takes only one group out of 20 that can prolong a round unneccessary.

Also, wondering about R-tier tournaments that Nick mentined. Why aren't there more out there? The Jam is the only one I can think of in the Mid-Atlantic.

The true answer to you question is the staggered start. Contact Dave Moody on the COTO or Red Rock thread for details.

I've met some "take things out of context" people, but you take the cake...and eat it too/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

I like the mixing on a card, since Im a hacker, and dont usually have any other chance, at playing with a top level pro, in a tournament.

FIRST round only of course, because knowing who exactly you are shooting against, is important in a multi-round tournament.

Looking for lost discs and shooting 6 shots a hole is not confined to lower skill divisions. I've seen plenty of Advanced and pro wander around looking for lost discs while a crowd looks on. Large cards on difficult holes will probably always cause a back up. I don't think that mixing skill levels or not mixing skill levels changes anything.

In PDGA events, pros and am should be kept seperate as much as possible.

There are other R-Tiers in our region, Philly Open to mention one.

There is no way to completely avoid backups on holes at Multi-divisional PDGA events. You just have to get used to them, they're part of the game.

Dylan, reread my post, it was directly in context with your post. Nice cliche though...

I've run or helped run a lot of events and we keep everybody divided by division for the whole thing, with the exception of having to export the last place people out of their divisions to even the cards for full events and of course adding late registered people.

I find that the first round goes the fastest even when keeping divisional grouping pure. I think it is because there is a mix of who is playing poorly and who is playing well. When you redistribute the divisions by score you group the best playing with best and worst playing with worst. In my observations the lower skill levels see slow downs on the last cards while the higher skill levels see slow downs on the lead cards. That is, Rec and Intermediate will the guys playing lousy play slower than the rest because they are throwing more shots, yet Pro and Advanced will see slow-downs on the lead cards because....I don't know why. Maybe they are concentrating harder because they are in the hunt.

That's what I've noticed.

Mark,
Are you sitting down?
I agree with Nick too./msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif LOL
(kicking feet) (shaking head) (tears falling)

Nick,
just checked the 2003 schedule on madisc.org, and the only event I can find an "R", is the Jam.....

The Philadelphia Open and the Jersey Jam are 2 PDGA RB-Tier events. There are other non-PDGA ratings based events in our region as well; 3 Pro-Ams at Brandywine, Jam WarmUp and monthlies, Faux Leap, and so on.

All PDGA events with Amateur Class divisions are essentially Ratings Based.

Does this have something to do with this topic?

Not really, but since you brought the ratings-events up earlier, I thought I'd ask (OK, I'll start another thread some other time, asking why these R-tournaments are not marked "R" in the schedule).

Back to the thread then. So basically, the TD can group players either way, and rule 804.06 acts merely as a guideline, and not as a standing rule that has to be enforced. So, if the TD feels like mixing it up, nobody can complain and force them to change the groupings.

I believe you are required to mix the divisions as little as possible. Full fields and even numbers on every card (all 4-somes or all 5-somes) are the reasons to mix. The fact that you are allowed to mix is to enable you to do this, otherwise you'd have to go with an 89 person field if the 90th person on an 18 hole layout wasn't playing the same division as your lone 4-some.

Make it an XB event and call it the "Mix-n-Match Open." People expect the rules and guidelines to be followed. That's what sanctioning is all about.

"Mix-n-Match Open."

That actually sounds kind of fun � you would truly be playing the course instead of your competition. I bet there would not be many pros who would show up though�

The rule pertains mainly to "Classes" as in "Pro" and "Am" classes, more than divisions within those classes, though Rhett is right that that too should be considered.

I have played in tournaments where all divisions are mixed for the first round and where all divisions were segregated and have never noticed any differences in the number or length of back-ups. Some holes are just prone to back-ups. I have played tournaments where I have said, "Cool, we get to play holes x, y and z early so the back-up won't be too bad," and I have played in tournament where I've said, "Sh*t, we have to finish on holes x, y and z, the back-up is going to be horrible." I don't really think that it makes a whole lot of difference one way or the other.

I recently played in a C tier event which randomly mixed players in the first round, and then put all players in score order for the second round. This meant that they had the Pro Leader and runner up playing with the Master leader and the Advanced Leader. There were all sorts of mixtures of pro and advanced, and was made more complicated when there was only one pro player in a group, because on 2 holes there were different tees for the Pros and Ams. This meant the pro was off teeing off by himself. The tournament director was read the rule concerning grouping between the first and second rounds, but chose to ignore it and group the people the way he did anyways. The 3rd and 4th rounds were grouped correctly.

The grouping rule is violated regularly in the first round. It's become "more acceptable" in the first round of a 3 or 4 round event at a C maybe B-tier level. However, even those 'maverick' TDs who do the first round mix, usually get everyone in the right division by score for subsequent rounds. Report this to Dave Nesbitt, the Competition Director, and to Guru at PDGA HQ if you want comment or action of some sort.

That sounds whacked. Definitely let the PDGA know about this.

Nick, you played in a Delaware supertour this year with mixed groups. Your area is notorious for doing this. LL

I played in the same event as Larry, I hate when TDs mix the pros with the ams, and after reading the rules again I found out their not suppose to. I feel the atmosphere becomes more tense because the pro or pros in this case are playing for money. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just not as relaxed as playing with only am players.

Larry,

Not all TD's in MADC area mix, I do not since the rule was changed. Where's my Viper!

They don't mix them for the second round Mr. Leonard, that is what seems so whacked about that situation.

I don't mind mixed divisions within a class, I just would prefer for larger events not to mix classes of players.

I play open pro. I want to play with open pros. When I play masters, I want to play with masters. Since the rules say that is the way it is suppose to be, I would like TD's to follow the rules! Why do people feel the need to group differently in the first round?
Matt, Are yuz guys(all I know is ya'll)going to the worlds? LL

I agree with Larry, I hate playing with others that are not in my division. It immediately puts me in a bad frame of mind and we all know disc golf is a mental game.

Larry, No worlds again this year, but I'm going to USDGC! Hard to leave the family for a week in the summer. Good luck to ya'll in Flagstaff (Even you Walt)

While it is a rule - I think it's perhaps one of the worst ones we have (or at least I used to /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif)
When this rule was first implemented - I refused to follow it - and even wrote the PDGA with my sanctioning agreements as to why. With the growth we have seen in the # of sanctioned events - my attitude has changed a little over the years - and I now feel that for A-Tier and above, grouping by division is not inappropriate.

For Walt and Larry's sake (and I know you guys don't agree) my reasoning has always been that it's about providing an example. Giving amateur players the opportunity to play with pros in a competitive atmosphere is the only REAL way to teach them about the game. We're talking etiquette, we're talking proper adherence to the rules, and we're talking promoting an inclusive DG community (instead of the "us and them", "pro vs am" attitude that seems to be more and more prevalent these days.) Patience and professionalism are the trademarks of a true pro and a true sportsman. And if we can't promote ourselves during competition by sharing those traits, how can we expect anyone to join our ranks? Why would they want to?

Walt - you really surprise me by saying you hate playing with anybody. You are one of the most professional players I have had the pleasure of playing with - and I am confused as to why you would immediately be put in a bad frame of mind by having to play with someone who is not in your division. What's the difference between playing with a guy who's playing up, and a guy who's not? Neither has your skill level - but one ponied up a few extra bucks - does that really change the way you feel about playing a round of competitive golf with that person? If so, WHY?? Do you feel that competition is about posting a score only? Or does it include playing by the rules, and making sure that others in your group do also? Do you feel that you are going to have to make calls when playing w/ams? Do you not (or not have to) when playing with pros?

I think the attitude of "keep them away from us" because we're trying to compete - is basically selfish, divisive, and irresponsible, which is why I advocate (for predominantly lower tiers) mixing divisions FOR THE FIRST ROUND ONLY. I also have no problem in mixing divisions for pro only tournaments at higher tier levels.

The separation of PEOPLE instigated by the mandate of separating divisions during all competitive rounds - is a significant part of the divisive atmosphere in the overall DG community. I would even venture to say that the resulting attitudes from this separation is a significant part of why tournaments have become less enjoyable for me recently. I think it could be dealt with in a more appropriate fashion.

Craig....i knew there were some reasons i've continued mixing groups in the first round of my PDGA events. i don't think i could have expressed those reasons much better than you did. maybe i need to call a courtesy violation or sanctioning violation against myself for practicing my grouping tendencies. i guess i've always considered the "rule" against mixing divisions in the first round more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast enforceable rule. i can understand if this were made a rule in A-tier and higher events. But B-tier and lower i'd still like to mix. One reason i like to mix in the first round is to try and accomodate as much as possible player requests to be grouped with someone specific for the first round. as an example, when Steve and Joy Hartwell came down from Massachusetts for the NY States last year with their 2 kids, i was able to let each parent be in a foursome with one of their kids in the first round. that was great for both parent and child. otherwise they'd miss out on that opportunity. sometimes I get to put together husband and wife if they request (sometimes they request to NOT be put together). the last 3 rounds of our 4-round events give everyone an opportunity to play with players in their division, so why not have one round mixed? as long as i don't deliberately put players together that give that group some sort of unfair competitive advantage i feel as though i'm enhancing the tourney experience rather than making it just about the competition.

I agree that if a tournament is at least three rounds, it is a lot of fun to play the first round mixed. It provides an example for the ams by seeing how a pro plays and it gives everybody an opportunity to play with people they don't normally get to play with. My problem was that they did this for the second round. When I sign up to play a tournament, I look forward to playing with the people in my division. I have played Advanced Masters for a few years now, and have developed a lot of freindships within this division. Almost all of the golfers in this division in Colorado (with 1 or 2 exceptions) are a lot of fun to play with, and that is why I enjoy playing in these tournaments. When you mix players for 2 rounds, you have taken that away from me for half the tournament.

A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.

"Should" "Shall" - If the PDGA didn't want mixing they would have used the definitive word "Must".

What isn't nailed down is open to individual interpretation.

I don't mind playing with different divisions and classes of players, I do however, like Larry, prefer to play with Open Pro players, particularly in light of us having to pay incredibly high entry fees these days.

Ditto to Larry's last post!

Craig,

This is one of the reasons why RADL has monthlies and Summer Doubles events. To give the Ams, Women and Juniors a chance to play with and observe the Pros.

I don't think it should happen in a PDGA sanctioned event.

I can say from personal experience it is a long painful process to watch an Am shoot a 97 on a course when you are trying to concentrate on shooting a mediocre Pro score of 48. I have also been grouped in the first round of a PDGA with a woman that shot in the high 80's. You end up reaching a point where all you want to do is get the round over with. You lose your focus.

Casual rounds, Summer Doubles, Monthlies, Practice Rounds etc. I don't mind playing with other divisions as long as it is not a PDGA event.

Kirk

Nick,

"Shall" = must. Legal contracts say shall instead of should.

I appreciate the challenge of playing with lots of different skill levels and mindsets, it's part of what makes disc golf such a great sport. That being said, when I pay $60 to $200 in entry fee I'd like the opportunity to play against those I am competing against start to finish.

Kirk is right that there are, or should be more opportunities for local beginners to play with local pros and advanced players so that TDs are not stuck trying to make up for lost time at their premiere event.

I can live with it either way, but I can see both why the PDGA came up with that rule, and why it would serve its participants well.

PDGA events are not training grounds for rules and etiquette. You should have them to a high degree of proficiency by the time you enter a PDGA.

So would this fit the bill Mattlock?


A. Professional and Amateur players shall not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.

/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Kirk,

Perhaps you are just spoiled! /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif Not every place benefits from the type or volume of organized non sanctioned activities that RADL offers. I would even venture to say that your situation is more the exception than the rule. And in one sense puhlease /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif Casual rounds do not offer much benefit for rules and etiquette to the beginning player (most guys I know aren't too particular about that stuff in casual rounds) - and can you honestly tell me that guys that occupy the RADL pro ranks go out of their way to play casual rounds with new players and players they don't know? I think if they do - then they are again the exception, and not the rule.

And I sympathize and do not disagree with the examples you gave. Which is why my support for mixing divisions is more limited than it used to be.

When I said I thought it could be handled more appropriately, I was obliquely referring to my desire to see the entire sanctioning system revised.

This is but one issue that could be addressed by revamping how we offer tour sanctioning. Other issues include divisional overlap, use of ratings, entry fee structures, dress codes, purse requirements, rules enforcement, etc. All the problems (and perceived problems) we have in organized disc golf, all stem from the structure of the events we offer. Seems like all the changes we are trying to initiate - ignore that basic premise, which will inevitably make the process of change, slow and painful. /msgboard/images/clipart/sad.gif

Kirk nailed it. For those of you that don't know, it is neither my responsibility nor my desire to teach other people how to play during my competitive PDGA round. Please just follow the PDGA RULE. LL

Nick,
If all players entering PDGA sanctioned events are supposed to well versed in etiquette and the rules of play, then the PDGA should not offer anything less than the highest possible Amateur divisions. Saying that sanctioned events are not a training ground for such things is as opposite from reality as you can get.

I'm on Craig's side with this one. But for the first round only. It's about the only way that Ams can get to know the pros without joining their ranks. Who knows. One of you pros may end up playing with an Am who is impressed with you and wants to support your tour effort with $$$$$$. All because you were placed in the same group for the first round.

An example from another realm. When I was a student musician, local pros used to take the time to let me play a few tunes with them now and then. They would give me pointers on how to improve my playing. It is also a well established fact that teaching increases your knowledge of a subject.

So there you go. Play with an Am, make a friend, boost your public image as a cool guy, understand a little more about what you are doing.

And while we're on the subject, I would like to post a public "thank you" to my friend Mike Bonday. He befreinded me when it seemed like no one else was interested in what I had to offer. In return, he got a partner in designing and building the disc golf course in Charlottesville, VA. Mike has even requested that I be placed in his group for the first round of a sanctioned tournament. Just an example of how the Pros can extend a little comraderie to the Ams and benefit from it.

Larry,
It absolutely is your responsibility to make sure whoever you play with plays by the rules of play. And if that means you have to break out a rule book to make a ruling - and teach somebody that they are playing incorrectly, or misinterpreting a rule - you are obligated to do so (as are the rest of us). What I hear you saying is that if you have to play with an Am - you would have to do just that, and that it is a problem for you to have to do that. It shouldn't matter what division that player is in - it doesn't alter that responsibility.

Just for the sake of conversation - would you mind addressing some of what I and Dan have brought up and how you feel about those situations?

At what point does the Am learn proper etiquette?

Did you ever benefit from playing with pro players before playing as a pro yourself? (probably not - I know your PDGA # /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif )

Do you go out of your way to play casual rounds with Ams? Or is their exposure to your level of play limited to the types of venues that Kirk has referenced? Or do you even play those sorts of events?

Do you see as plausible or feasible or reasonable any sort of venue that would have mixed divisions (and we are just talking the first round here) be ok?

Your hard and fast "just follow the rules" line seems to speak to the things I personally don't like - the elitist - stay away from me because I'm trying to compete attitude. I am sure that there is more to your opinion than that - and I wouldn't want to come away thinking that IS all there is. So if you feel the inclination - please elaborate and share your opinion about the pros and cons.

It is definitely not Larry's responsibility to teach anyone. And that's been his image from my perspective. Say no more.

But it is everyone's responsibility to read and understand the rules. And the rules say "should". Nick nailed it as far as interpreting the wording. As long as it says "should not", then it's going to be up to the TD's discretion.

Wow Mike August, that was some happy story. Mike Bonday is one of my best friends. He won't play in my weekly tournament because he has to play with ams. Wawawa.

Yes, no and maybe. I think that in non PDGA events the TD can do as he pleases. The grouping and sectioning portion of the rulebook should always be followed in PDGA events. I run weekly events to teach the ams the rules of the game as well as proper etiquette. I play with ams all week long. I love ams as well as Craig and Nick. Wasn't that tricky. My am can beat up your am.

I don't know Chris, my am just shot a round of 1011 last week.

Blue! (OK Craig, now you can say Orange.)

Is it too much to ask that players know the rules of disc golf before they play in a PDGA event?

How about for the TDs to know and abide by the rules?

These are not unreasonable or unrealistic requests.

And for the guys that say that for them this is a rare chance for them to play with top golfers, consider this; it is equally rare for your local or regional pros to have a chance to play with these top golfers and they paid the higher entry fee and often never get to play with or directly against their fellow divisional competitors. Have you considered that? You pay less and get a lesson from the best, while they pay more and get a lesson from...well...less than best shall we say.

The rule was written for a reason, it just needs to be clarified with shall not rather than should not. Furthermore, for the Craiger, if the PDGA becomes this perfect tournament machine you invision but offer little guidance or detail, don't you think that they would absolutely require head to head competition within divisions?

If your local course doesn't run tags, doubles, or monthlies, maybe it's time you started. That is the training ground for rules and etiquette not PDGAs and certainly not A Tiers and National Tour Events.

I don't know Nick, most monthlies and leagues around here take the "it's not a PDGA so it doesn't matter" attitude towards marking, holing out, 804.05, etc etc. Not much "rules training" going on at all.

Craig,
I disagree with a lot of the rules that we have to play by. I just feel like it isn't fair to me when the divisions are mixed. And no, I'm not afraid of calliing anyone on a rule violation.
Maybe yuz guyz from up there are more tolerant than we southern folks. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

i can see where Walt and LArry would wanna play w/ only pros, but i think back to my early playing days and playing w/ Pro at even a monthly was thrill.....but in PDGA's I think its a little redicolous not to put everyone in there same division

Maybe the NC Pros I know are an exception, but this Am rarely has a problem getting to play a casual round with top NC pros. In fact, on five or six occasions in the past month I've been playing a casual round and a pro, who was practicing for an upcoming tournament, has asked to join me, and at least half a dozen occasions since the beginning of June when I've gone a course to play a casual round and had a couple of pros who were there practicing invite me to join them.

Dan and Craig, for the sake of discussion: what was your reaction to the LPGA pro player who chewed out Michelle Wie for etiquette violations at the LPGA's US Women's Open a couple of weeks ago? Was the US Women's Open a proper setting for an amateur and her caddy father to learn proper etiquette, or should they already have learned it before competing in the event?

> It is definitely not Larry's responsibility to teach anyone. And that's been his image from my perspective.

Base on my experience, I have a VERY different perspective than Mike. I've always found Larry more than willing to take time to help me with an aspect of my game and give me a pointers. But I don't expect him to interrupt his practice to do it or or to do it in the middle of a tournament.

Craig, What Kirk wrote earlier is the short version of how I feel. I played a tourney years ago(supertour)paired with two ams. It was their first tournament ever! They didn't know how to mark a disc or what a falling putt was. They knew nothing. I spent the whole round teaching them the basics, in a supertour. How fair or fun do you think that was for me. This is an extreme example, but it could happen again. Will someone from the PDGA speak up and tell everyone that this is a rule and not a suggestion. I am leaving for the beach for a week so this will be my last word on the subject for now.
Fly em straight everyone! LL

I tought Larry how to play.

Ha! No, really, I did.

And you guys wonder why there are so many events in the South that choose NOT to be PDGA sanctioned? I think many of the posts in this thread spelled it out.

I don't want any part of this... rWc

BTW, I have NO gripe with the grouping and sectioning rule. At least this way, if my kids were playing, they would not have to witness some "pro" throwing a tantrum and spewing profanity because his game is off.
>
And if you were ever forced to play with my two juniors, you'd find that they know the basic rules of disc golf and observe them. rWc

Russ,

I really don't understand where the heck you are coming from, except that you have some sort of hatred for the PDGA and that you will use any excuse to hammer on it.

Do you honestly think that being PDGA sanctioned causes this problem??? Gve me a break. How does the hallowed SN tour handle grouping? Are you trying to tell me that every single TD does every freaking thing exactly the same so that no player ever has to wonder how any possible situation will be handled?

Gimme a break.

So what most of yall are saying is that you all want more people to join the PDGA and pay their dues to support an organization where the Pros don't even want to play a round with them during tournaments?

All I see is a bunch of two-face people on this thread. You all are saying, "It's a rule, enforce it" But there is one certain rule that I can think of that you would rarely find a TD enforce (much less anybody else turning the rule breakers in), and I don't think I need to list the rule, cause I would hope you all would know what I'm talking about.

Why are you all about enforcing certain rules but not others. Is it just because you want things your way?

ps. This is for everyone who is all about enforcing this rule.

But to add to my last post, I believe ALL rules should be followed. Isn't that one of the things that come with joining an organizatin? But at the same time some of the rules can be very stupid. And this is one of them, but as you all are saying, if it is a rule, then it should be followed. I just hope the PDGA will look the rule over and reconsider it.

One can follow a rule, but not support it!!

Felix asked me to comment on my reaction to Danielle Ammacapane giving Michelle Wie a verbal spanking with regard to etiquette violations at the U.S. Open. Without knowing exactly what was said during their "discussion" i can only go by what i read in media accounts. If the verbal undressing was done in a constructive, non-humiliating manner in private i have no problem with whatever she said. if it was done publicly in front of others that is wrong. Especially given that Michelle Wie might do for the LPGA what Tiger has done for the men's tour. If she continues to progress she will focus so much attention on women's golf. that would help the entire tour. Ball Golf has so many more obscure rules that have developed over a much longer period of time than our sport. Michelle Wie is 13 years old. She's gonna' make a few mistakes. Part of being a Pro is learning to deal with indiscretions and distractions, whether from fellow players or spectators. I'm not saying it's OK for etiquette indiscretions. but i am saying that although we can't control other's behavior, we can take responsibility for our reactions to that behavior. we all started somewhere and probably made mistakes when we started out too. Larry made reference to having to deal with schooling AM's for an entire supertour round. As i said in my original post, i would handle groupings differently with A-tiers or supertours than i would with B-tiers and lower. I wouldn't have put AM's with Pros for a supertour, and if i was larry i wouldn't have been happy about the situation either. going forward i would still like to mix groups in the first round only if a B-tier event or lower. but i also believe in following rules, like them or not. so when i get my next sanctioning agreement my belief in following rules will probably win out over my personal preferences. otherwise as a TD i set a very bad example. i can't expect participants to follow rules they don't like if i pick the ones i want to abide by....

The Big Arm @ Prompton a few weeks ago mixed groups in the first round. It was a B-tier, and I don't see the problem with mixing. In case of Promton, there are a lot of local players, but no world class pros (aside from some Ams that can shoot with the pros). The point is, the TD would like to give local guys a chance to play with the top pros in the first round.

Question: Should the rules be modified to allow mixing in the first round for B-tiers and lower, but not for A-tiers and Supertour events?

Dan, to my way of thinking, the manner in which Ammacapanie (and there's a reason her nickname on the Tour is the "Queen of Mean") "educated" Michelle Wie issue is irrelevant to the issue than whether or not Ammacapane (or any LPGA Tour player) should be EXPECTED to teach an Am the rules or etiquette during tournament play.

Later this summer, Wie will be playing the Bay Mills Players Championship on the Canadian (Men's) Tour, which is, at best, the bolf equivalent of a B-tier. Is it right/fair to expect her playing partners to have to teach her BASIC etiquette (and, reportedly, the issues over which she was berated were pretty basic: don't stand in/walk across another player's line of play; don't walk ahead of the away player; don't talk with your caddy while your partner is preparing to hit) during tournament play?

Granted, some of bolf's rules of play and some finer points of etiquette--particulary tournament etiquette--can only be learned in "live ball" situations and by breaching them and then being taught the proper form, and, granted, should the need arise to educate her (or any of the five other Ams, all of whom also received sponsors' exemptions, who will be playing the event) on the finer points of golf etiquette, one would hope that her partners would take the time and have the class to do so in a gracious manner; to me, the issue is whether it is their responsibility to do so while trying to play a competitive round.

Rhett, read my post more closely. I said I had no problem with the grouping and sectioning rule.

What irritated me were some of the posts about ams and pros having to play with them.

My FIRST tournament was a PDGA event, as an am. We grouped divisions together until the PDGA changed the rule.

And for whatever reason, some SN TDs choose to mix first rounds but groups by division thereafter. Maybe not every TD does it, but the last one I played in I played with a pro and we had a good time, no complaints, and I played with one of the top SN pros, along with an AM (I played advanced).

So why not just hold pro only events and am only events across the board so no pro should have to endure a round with a lesser players or even share the d@*M course with them.

Apparently I'm not alone in this, so I'm not going to apologize.

And please quit saying I hate the PDGA, because I don't. It wasn't the organization I was complaining about, just certain players' attitudes. It speaks volumes, at least to us.
Peace, rWc

No, they shouldn't make this rule apply for only B Tier and below PDGA events. PDGAs are PDGA events, not Thursday night random draw doubles or Saturday morning tags. Worlds through C Tiers, rules standards should be uniform, otherwise the PDGA label loses some degree of significance.

I have read repeatedly that prize players feel that cash players who support this rule are being snobby or elitist. That is flat out ridiculous! Ask yourself this: In your home town does your high schools junior varsity football team play games against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? Do go karts race in NASCAR races?

HELL NO! It doesn�t have to do with elitism or snobbery, it has to do with fairness and providing a competitive environment where divisional players can play head to head to decide who is the best for that day or weekend.

All of the valid and good reasons for mixing divisions should be exercised at monthlies and local events. Heck, run clinics or hold random draw doubles with 2 pools the day before a major event. Either of which will create a far better environment for the mixing of classes and divisions of players.

I have played in events that follow the PDGA rule discussed here and the experience was superior. There are certain things that are associated with playing in a PDGA event; a higher level of competition, national attention, stricter adherence to the rules, attracting folks from farther off than just your local scene. If you have an issue with any of these things then perhaps PDGA events are not for you.

Note: If PDGA events do not intend to follow this rule they should have to apply for X Tier status and explain how and why they are ignoring this rule. Players should know what to expect.

> Should the rules be modified to allow mixing in the first round for B-tiers and lower, but not for A-tiers and Supertour events?

For the record, I like the idea of mixing groups for the first round, for many of the reasons stated by others. On the other hand, I understand why some (many?) pros (and some top Adv, for that matter) don't like it. A workable compromise might be for TDs give players the choice of playing the first round in a mixed group or only within their division, and grouping people accordingly. That way, if a husband and wife or parents and kids want to play together, they can, but if the wife says, "Play with him? Are you kidding me? I came out here to get away from that bozo!" she doesn't end up stuck with him. /clipart/happy.gif Is it more work for the TD? Yes; but if you're not going to run things according to Hoyle, you should expect to have to do more work. /clipart/happy.gif

OK Nick, then likewise, as an advanced player who knows the rules (former official) and usually has a chance to win in most events, I'd rather not play with any novices or juniors, or for that matter am women because they're so slow. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif
>
Actually, that's just a far out example, because I can focus on my game and not the people around me. rWc

Oh, and concerning NASCAR, there are no gokart drivers, but there are rookies who have never raced on certain tracks that ROUTINELY race in top events, such as the Daytona 500. They're racing side by side with seasoned veterans. So there. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Felix....good points...players should not be EXPECTED to TEACH. if you're playing in a Pro Ball Golf event you'd better know the rules. if a player breaches a rule of etiquette, i would expect other players to speak up / communicate their displeasure with the bad etiquette. maybe i'm getting too fine here and messing with words, but i think it's more just speaking up and reinforcing rather than teaching. i'm sure michelle wie knew those basic rules but maybe because of her age, inexperience, and the pressures associated with being a 13-year-old under such intense scrutiny, who the heck wouldn't mess up occasionally. it doesn't excuse the behavior but maybe just explains it. hopefully there is also some proper protocol that the ball golf tours have in place for the organization to address a specific player not knowing or not following etiquette rules so that the player can be taught and counseled by the organization rather than that responsibility falling into the laps of the players. the ball golf tours have officials and marshals on the course during events. maybe there is a protocol whereby ammacapane could have called an official over once etiquette had been breached to the point where her reminding Wie of her responsibilites wasn't doing any good anymore. how all of this directly relates to our concerns in the disc golf community i'm not exactly sure.

Zinger,

I am both a TD and a player. I can guarantee you that I have and do enforce ALL PDGA rules during ALL PDGA events that I either play in or run.

At this point in my Disc Golf future history I am so sick of dealing with idiots (yes, I said idiots) that can't or don't want to follow the rules that I am eager to give them a rules lesson or just simply DQ them.

Kirk

The first PDGA event I played was mostly motivated by the chance to play with a top pro from out of the area during the first round (until right now, I thought this was the norm everywhere). I was hoping to get on the card of Moser or Mela or someone I had never played with. It didn't happen, but I had a good time anyway.
BUT, at the same time, I can totally understand why someone that is competing for cash wouldn't want to be distracted by some inexperienced AM's. While I am surprised at how strong the Tarheel guys feelings are against playing with the AM's, I do understand where they are coming from. No wants to get 'jonesed' before they even tee off.

Why couldn't this rule differ between A-tier/Supertours and lower tier events? There are many differences between A-tier and B/C tier events listed in the Sanctioning Agreement already.

Just a couple of examples ... there are many more:
* Membership - required for Supertour, not required for B and C tiers

*Entry fee and payout requirements

*one non-playing certified official only required at Supertours.

*"agree to enforce the PDGA policy on use of illegal substances, and, if the course venue allows use of alcohol, to have in place a course or event rule making its use during play illegal. This policy is a requirement of SuperTour (A) Tier events and a goal for B and C Tier events."

has anyone considered that one of the reasons for this rule is to possibly curtail cheating?

when groups are mixed, the players in the groups are less likely to call any rules violations because the other players are not in their divisions. a pro can get away with a few rules violations when he is paired with ams who do not know the rules as well as pros. this is the reason behind this very good rule in my opinion.

Russ, my point was that their are no Go Kart drivers in NASCAR races. So there. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

I play in many more casual rounds, tags, and random doubles rounds than I do PDGA events, so I am well prepared to deal with the diversity of skill and mindset that is out there. I have said as much before. It is a unique challenge and one that should help your game.

That being said, PDGA events are Elite events. There is simply no reason to penalize some and not others when it is possible to be uniform. And if you don't think TDs get fancy with creating groupings then you obviously have never been a TD. It happens. You'll have one player playing in a group with 4 other highly skilled players, while another highly skilled player has to walk to the farthest hole and play with 4 players of first time to beginner skill levels, and there round takes twice as long and the player never has a chance of getting into his competitive zone. That is simply not fair, and more than that it is completely against the rules of our sport.

Events that plan on not following PDGA rules should have to file for X Tier status and disclose the specifics of what is different about their event. Events that do not do this should follow the rules as written.

There is nothing elitist about following the rules, or wanting to play head to head against those in you competitive division.

russ, you are way off base with your comments about the pros who posted here being elitist snobs who hate ams. if you turn pro you will understand /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

heh heh heh man that was a good one. anyway, the north carolina pros are among the coolest people to play with at supertours and they are speaking up because it is distracting when pros are expected to teach the game while competing against the best players in the world...it is hard enough to be competitive at the pro level without any distractions...take it from me (if you were a pro like me you would understand /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif )

also, some people play better when they have better players in their group..."rising to the challenge". don't blame pros for trying to gain a FAIR advantage in accordance with the rules!

Good point Mikey.

The reason this needs to be consistent throughout PDGA events is a simple one. Consistency. This is a rule, not a policy or goal.

This may be hard for some to understand, but not all events should be or need to be PDGA Sanctioned. There are plenty of options for mixing divisions and classes of players. If all you have are PDGA events, then you probably need to consider organizing other events, or milking the ones you have for more, such as running a clinic or random doubles the day before or after your event to get the top pros to play with your local amateur players.

One of the only negative things that ever happened to me at a Japan Open was in my very first one. In the first round, where they divide all of the foreign players up so that each group has one to play with the Japanese players, I managed to tie Ken Climo for the lead with a 7 under. I don't get to play with Ken very often and was looking forward to playing a round at a major event with him, but when the cards were called out, they did the same thing for the second round! (One foreigner per hole.) So there were 8 players who got the opportunity to play with Ken while other players from his division and whom more importantly had "earned" the right to shoot with him had zero chance of playing with him. That simply is not fair.

now for you zinger...i don't have a flippin clue what the F you are talikng about when you say that TD's never enforce a certain rule. SPELL IT OUT for those of us who are not mind readers.

and while you're at it, quit whining about PDGA pros not wanting to play with ams. it happens at SN tournaments too. this rule should be enforced at some of the SN tournaments because of cheating...no i can't prove anything, just let me say that when a pro shoots -15 with no bogeys playing with drunken ams then shoots -1 on the same course with pros the next round, it's a bit suspicious.

Nick,
I asked a few weeks ago if these rules are guidelines (since it says "should") or not. If they are more than just guidelines, then replace "should" with "must".
If that does not happen, leave it up to the TD for C-tiers and B-tiers. The mixing-up is so widespread, do you really make these events an X-tier? Should all TD's write it on the registration form what format will be played? - Yes, probably. But if you want the separation of the groups throughout all PDGA sanctioned tournaments, the language in the rules should, excuse me, "must" be changed, or this will go on forever!

I haven't read the whole thread, but there is one thing that can be said about mixing groups for the first round of tourny's.

If you put an am with adv or pro players in the first round, that am player can observe and pick up some new ideas on throwing techniques or how different discs fly. It gets old seeing the same throw from ams all the time.

For example, hole 11 at Zebulon(a lefty special). I was paired with Bert and a couple others in the first round of the Ching and Zing. I forearmed a Banshee to get to the hole, where Bert turned over a disc to acheive the same results. Plus it was good to see that pros have jst as hard as time on certain holes that I do.

Russ,

You can't judge the entire PDGA by the actions of a few hyper-competitive jerk-offs. Okay, maybe you can. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Seriously though. I agree with you about snobby Pro disc golfers. They sukk. They exist. If you ran all SN events in SoCal you would have some snobby jerk-off SN pros pissing everybody off. It's the people, not the PDGA. Just like it's the TDs. I'm sure you have some SN pros who hate babysitting ams, too. My favorite was when some Ams here followed the lead card and reported a cheating incident to me. The other pros on his card asked who the hell they were, were they certified officials, and then why the heck should what they say matter. And this was a guy who was just cheated against!

But that doesn't make the PDGA evil.

I just TD'ed my first sanctioned tournament, after running a few local events over the past couple of years. I read 804.06, especially the words "as much as practicable." I signed and filed my sanctioning agreement and filed it away and then turned to Carlton Howard's article, "How to run a PDGA Event," as my bible for the next few months. Most everything he says in the work helped me along. I'm sure lots of first-time (and even experienced) TD's use it as a checklist of what to do.

Here's a direct quote from Section 2, Day of the Event:

"6) Tee Assignments & Scorecards

"Begin to place the leaderboard cards that have been completed onto the leader board. They should be placed on the leader board in the order that they were registered. The first player to register will be the first player on hole 1 (I would suggest that this guy be you! Sure it's legit! Be the first one to pre-register!), the second player to register will be the first player on hole 2, the third player to register will be the first player on hole 3, the fourth player to register will be the first player on hole 4, etc. The nineteenth player to register will be the SECOND player on hole 1. Got it? This method is random and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together."

Now, I know that this isn't THE RULE, but considering who wrote it and it's availability to TD's as a reference work, maybe some slack should be cut on this practice. We had a fair number of pro's from around the country attend our event and not one of them objected to first round mixed groups. They welcomed the opportunity to showcase disc golf tournament behavior and the am's welcomed the chance to learn a bit from the pro's.

So, either Carlton's article needs to be revised or taken off the PDGA website, or the local TD needs to be given the latitude to group as s/he sees fit in the first round.

And, personally, I always thought that we were playing against the course. It shouldn't really matter who else is in our playing group. They aren't responsible for our good or bad play. If you are a pro, you should have the personal management skills to deal with distractions. What about cars driving by, or kids playing on a nearby playground? Just deal with it.

In the future, I'll follow the rule, AS MUCH AS PRACTICABLE. Don't want any pro's whining at my events. (Of course, they would have to be different pro's than the classy ones that came to this event.)

they grouped us at pro worlds,2002
I spent 170$ under the illusion I might get to play with a pro player. then low and behold the pools were split by player ratings. wish I would have known this before, I would have watched some real pros playing during that week and saved some cash.

no I know and won't be suprised.

Rhett, you are a Prize Class Elitist, face it. Anything remotely infringing on the privileges of the Prize Players and you are off on you highest of horses to defend the weak and oppressed.

HAH! LMMFAO!

Do you even know Larry Leonard or Walt? Hell, do you know me? Shaddap already and spare us your sanctimony.

Yes, Rob, I think your assessment it correct. I prefer simplicity and consistency over a jumble of exceptions. I'd like to see the "shoulds" in our rulebooks become "Shalls" or "Musts".

If we are forced to mix groups I can live with it, I just don't think that it is in harmony with the idea that our rules should promote "Fair Play".

matchu, sometimes I feel the same way, and I'm an Open Player!

me too just trapped in an am's body /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Thanks Rhett. I have to be more careful with what I say here because I'm not getting my point across very well. Not a good sign for someone who writes for a living. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

I promise to try and lay off anything that comes across as a comparison of SNDG and PDGA. That doesn't accomplish anything.

They can both survive and grow together.

It doesn't mean I won't be critical, as others who post here tend to be. I will just try and refrain interjecting any SNDG references. OK? /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

rWc

What's more distracting, playing with an inexperienced am or playing with a pro who throws an extended tantrum during your round (a reference to a past post by Kevin McCoy). Or maybe pros are entitled to throw tantrums.

Hey Mikey, I tried playing pro and master when I was younger and it was no fun. Plus I consistently got my ***** kicked. I'm regrouping now so maybe I'll actually get to play with you one day./msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif Missed talking to you at the Tax Tourney.

rWc

I've only had to give one warning this year for courtesy, and it was to an Advanced Player. This in no way proves that ALL prize class players are rude, selfish or looney bins. Just as Russ' experience does not prove that ALL cash class play in no fun for anyone.

In general, I don't think that it could be seriously argued that the level of courtesy in the prize class is anywhere near the level of what it is in the cash class. Knowing the rules probably has something to do with it.

russ, that question is so easy! i had to play with eric tracy for years so other players tantrums actually make me play better. playing with ams, you can have the box the whole round and getted lulled into thinking you are throwing well because you are beating your group. so it's not really a elitist thing with me. but as i said before i would prefer divisions play together so that rules violations will be enforced better...especially in bama. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Jon, I don't think Carlton's advice conflicts with the grouping rule: assuming 4 players per card and 24 pros registered, 1st pro registered goes on first card, second pro on second card, third pro on third card, ... seventh pro on first card, eighth on second, on down to 24th pro; first Adv registered goes first on seventh card, second Adv first on eighth card, and so on. Result: random grouping of players WITHIN THEIR OWN DIVISION. That's how I understood Carlton's advice.

It may be a good way to group players, and it mixes things up more than putting the first four registrants on the first card etc., but it is most definitely not random.

> how all of this directly relates to our concerns in the disc golf community i'm not exactly sure.

The relationship is analogous: if we don't expect professional ball golfers to teach amateurs the rules or basic etiquette during tournaments, neither should we expect pro disc golfers to do so, but that expectation is one of the primary rationales proffered by advocates of mixed grouping.

i bet if TD's asked some pros to do a clinic on Fridays before a tournament then the ams could learn from the pros that way. i know this used to work well, but i haven't seen anyone promoting a clinic by a pro at their tournament in a while.

surprising that gateway or discraft or innova don't seem to have an organized promotional tour for one or more of their sponsored disc golfers at this time. that would seem to be a great way to get the pros and ams together, hope they do more of it soon!

Felix...

Carlton's article clearly says "the first player registered" not "the first pro." And so on down to the 18th player. Then he says, "The nineteenth player to register will be the SECOND player on hole 1. Got it? This method is random and it splits up people that register in succession...many of whom will have ridden to your event together."

I started filling out score/leaderboard cards when registration opened, weeks before the event. I am currently playing MA2 and my wife is FW3. We were the first two to register. So by that advice, I was on card 1 and she on card 2. We had 6 am's and juniors registered before the first pro registration came in, so he went on card 7.

As I said, no one complained, everyone had a great time, the divisions were sorted out on the second round, and the tournament was a great success for the first time doing it.

As long as the rule says, AS MUCH AS PRACTICABLE, there seems to be some leeway. And if a pro had a problem with it, I'd certainly do what I could to accommodate him/her. It's really not that big of a deal to move cards around.

Next year, B-tier!!!

Jon, I interpret Carlton's advice IN LIGHT OF Rule 804.06, rather than in opposition to or in the absence of 804.06. Your interpretation begins with the assumption that Rule 804.06 is optional; mine begins with the assumption that it is mandatory, and applies the procedure in light of that fundamental "given." My point is that Carlton's advice does not NECESSARILY conflict with Rule 804.06. It does, however, require more than a wooden, mechanical application in order to conform to Rule 804.06.

Felix...

We have different understandings of the advice. Yours seems to come from the need of a pro player to be segregated from playing with amateurs. Mine comes from the standpoint of a TD trying to efficiently set up the first round order. I'm not going to wait until 3 minutes before the scheduled players meeting to start sorting out divisions. I'm going to do it as registrations come in. I went to the course that morning with 2/3 of the final field assigned to groups and tees. The last 1/3 were on-site registrants that were dropped into groups in order.

I interpreted Carlton's advice IN LIGHT OF the fact that he is a long time and senior member of the Rules Committee, and IN LIGHT OF the EXACT wording of his advice. It wasn't being wooden or mechanical. It was following the suggestion of a well respected member of the committee.

Now, Rule 804.06 may have been worded differently at the time that he wrote that article, and as often happens on this website, things just don't correlate to one another. (Ratings are still sorted by the OLD divisions, for example). It might be good to have a revision of the "How to run a PDGA Event" material posted, relevant to the current rules, so first-timers like me don't make such a grevious error.

All I know is that by following those directions and advice, I ran a quality tournament, that had a high payout, satisfied players, and a title sponsor that is already talking about next year and a higher level of support.

And next year I'll do better to follow the rule to the letter, even though it may cause extra groupings and time delays and drive away those families that want to play together for the first round so the juniors feel comfortable with the course and those pro/am friends that would like to play one round together.

Of all the rules we discuss on this board, this one really has very little impact on quality of play and quality of event. Like I said in a previous post, you are out there to play your best game and beat the course. It shouldn't matter who is in your group. If you don't bring your game, you don't deserve to win. Don't blame it on your playing partners or the TD.

Just a thought: What would happen if an amateur was in the top 4 at the USDGC? Would he have to be placed in a group of ONE, just so those poor pros wouldn't have to play with him? That would be the hard and fast interpretation of the rule, now, wouldn't it? Actually, when an amateur plays up to the Open division, he is STILL an amateur until he accepts prize money. So how could he possible compete, if he can't be grouped with pro's? So many interpretations, so little importance.

That's it! Sort them by ratings! Everyone who has a rating gets grouped, and people without rating get grouped.

Would this make the "few" pros happy that complain about baby-sitting? Or would they find yet another reason to complain when their rating is 960, and they were grouped with a 959 Am....

just wondering...

Plus, why isn't every event ratings based anyway???? The system was started more than 3 years ago, and the Jersey Jam has been doing it for the past 3 or 4 years. It doesn's say Advanced, Intermediate, Novice on my card anymore.

No Ace, I'd be happy with ratings based events, but around here, there are a lot of non PDGA members and non-current members which would make it difficult. I like the idea of ratings based events, no matter if I'm playing with people my age or younger. rWc

Maybe someone should write to the PDGA or Rules Committee to get a definitive answer on this.

> Yours seems to come from the need of a pro player to be segregated from playing with amateurs

No, mine comes from the desire to conform to the rulebook.

I don't deny that many quality tournaments have been, and are being run, that do not conform to Rule 804.06. As I stated previously, I like the idea of mixed groups. Nevertheless, since the rulebook mandates strict divisional segregation "as much as practicable"--which I understand to mean "except in those cases where mixing is necessary to complete a card," e.g., if 22 players register for a given division, assuming 4 people per card, it will be necessary EITHER to have 2 cards of 3 players each (804.06.C), one card of 2 players PLUS an official accompanying that card (804.06.C), or one mixed card--I think that mixed groups should be avoided.

> What would happen if an amateur was in the top 4 at the USDGC?

One division, on champion. Segregation by division cannot occur in an event in which only one division is offered.

Felix...

I desire to conform to the rulebook. But when several pro's, who have had access to preregistration for several weeks, walk up 20 minutes before the player's meeting and sign up, I am not going to reshuffle the groupings to suit their needs. And when a parent comes to me with a junior player and asks to play a round with them to orient them to the course and to the idea of tournament play, I'm not going to discourage the kid by saying, "Gee, I'm sorry, but the rules prohibit mixing of divisions."

I'll do whatever I can to make sure that everyone has a good experience at the event. That is what is practicable.

Folks,

Mixing groups does conform to the rules. I believe if you look at the rule book, it's the only rule where the words 'should' and 'shall' are used. If I remember correctly, the then rules committee member and author of this rule intentially chose that wording to a) convey the wishes of the PDGA rules committee in this area and b) allow folks who beleived in the benefits of mixing the groups to do so without infracting the rules.

I believe if this question was put to the rules committee, you would receive a similar reply.

On to Kansas City!!

Regards,

Pat Govang
PDGA Commissioner

Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present. 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

Players should take care not to produce any distracting noises or any potential visual distractions for other players who are throwing. Smokers should extinguish their cigarettes and carry their cigarette butts to a trash can.

Courtesy dictates that players who smoke should not allow their smoke to disturb other players.

The player shall be assessed one penalty throw for each subsequent courtesy violation of any type in the same round.

Throwing out of turn shall be considered a courtesy violation. See 801.01F

A player shall receive a warning for the first excessive time violation if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player shall be assessed one penalty throw for each subsequent excessive time violation in the same round if observed by two or more players of the group or an official.

Before play begins, players should ask about any special conditions that may exist on the course, including extra holes, alternate teeing areas, alternate hole placements, out-of-bounds areas, and mandatories.


And that's just the beginning. There are some rules which use the word "must". I suppose these rules are the ones which "must" be followed. The rest are simply there to encourage people to follow a certain standard which was deemed suitable by the rules writer. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Thank you for clarifying the issue, Pat. I would note, however, that while the current interpretation of the rule may permit mixed groups, the wording of the rule does not support that interpretation.

> I believe if you look at the rule book, it's the only rule where the words 'should' and 'shall' are used.

Actually, virtually every rule that assess a penalty for violation of that rule use the word "shall" and/or "should" to specify the penalty. Since all penalties "shall" rather than "must" be assessed, does that mean assessing penalty strokes for rules violations is optional? /clipart/wink.gif

> If I remember correctly, the then rules committee member and author of this rule intentially chose that wording to a) convey the wishes of the PDGA rules committee in this area and b) allow folks who beleived in the benefits of mixing the groups to do so without infracting the rules.

That may be the intention, but if it is, "shall" and "should" are the wrong words to convey that intention, both because it is at odds with the usage of "shall" and "should" elsewhere in the rulebook (for example, 804.06.B specifies that "All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter." Does the use of "shall" here mean that grouping by cumulative score is merely the Rules Committee's wish as well?), and because it is improper usage of the words "shall" and "should."

"Shall/should" is the language of contracts and covenants: the actions therein designated are binding and obligatory upon the parties to the contract/covenant.

"Shall, auxiliary verb 1. (generally used in second and third persons to denote authority or determination) will have to, is determined to, promises to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it." -- Oxford (Unabridged) English Dictionary

"Should, auxiliary verb 1. pt. of shall. 2. must, ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency.)" -- Oxford Unabridged English Dictionary

In light of the generaly confusion as to what precisely is permitted under the rules, as evidenced by the many discussions and various interpretations in the Rules topic on the board, perhaps it's time for the PDGA to put together a rules commentary similar to the USGA's "Decisions on the Rules of Golf," which would be updated periodically to reflect the Rules Committee's current interpretation of how the various rules are to be applied, and which would be distributed along with the Rulebook.

first felix and now pat govang are trying to steal my title of " mister misinformation"
i'm not going to stand for it,as it is the only thing the pdga has given me that i thought was my own and now everyone else is trying to steal MY title....what is this world coming to when a man can't even have his one claim to fame be his own /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

you can't expect the commissioner to know the rules or look them up when he is taking care of important matters for the pdga can you? /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif


i HOPE you know i'm giving you a hard time pat because it was very easy on this count as evidenced by randy's post /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Next membership renewal include a survey if players want mixing in the first round of PDGA sanctioned events or not. Make a distinction between Super Tours and A-tiers, B, and C-tiers.
If most members feel like mixing is ok in the first round of B- and C-tier, for example, change the wording in the rulebook to make it clear. If most people feel like it is not ok, then say that cearly in the rules as well.

As it is, talking about it open only up more questions than anything else, and it seems than this thread is no closer to a clarification than it was when I started it 7 weeks ago.

In addition, it should be stated on all event flyers what the format will be.

Des is was ich denk'

> Des is was ich denk'

Dieses ist nicht gut. Das sollte sein, "Das ist, was ich denke." Mindestens, das ist, was ich es denke, sollten sein. /clipart/happy.gif

Aber Herr Sung,
ich habe doch in meinem bayerischen Dialekt geschrieben.

Ach! Ich bin nicht mit diesem Dialekt vertraut.

Bitte entshculdigung, Ich hab nur was mine errinerung ware an deise thema gepostet. Am bestens die Leiter von die 'begrenzung gruppe' sol gefragt.

Tschuss.

(Tut mir leid, ob miene Deutsche schlect geworden ist)

Vielleicht soll ich 'mal zu discgolf.de oder discgolf.ch gehen, und dort nachfragen, wie diese Dinge in Europa geregelt sind (ich glaube es gibt weniger Proffessionelle in Europa??).

NO SPRECKENZEE DUETCHE.

Nihongo shabemasu ka?

NO SPELLENZEE DEUTCHE either.

Nick,
If I get grouped with you @ the Jam, I'll only speak German to you...

And I'll speak Japanese to you...

Deal!

Max von Sydow as Noacyet, Toshiro Mifune as Nick.

I'll bring the sushi, you can bring the struudle...

What's the movie?

Back to the debate...
What about ratings based events (with the Jam coming up). If you sort the cards according to their respective ratings classes, some mixing of Pros and Ams will still occur (people will still play up). Or would you mix the cards according to pros and ams, and disregard the ratings bracket?

As far as the actual event is concerned there is almost no differentiation between pro and am. Divisions as you know are set by ratings not by classification. The only place classification comes into play is in the payout, where prize class gets prize and cash gets cash.

The one remaining glitch is that prize players with the unfortunate situation of having a rating over 959 may not recieve prizes or cash unless they want to relinquish their class status. I'm not a fan of that policy.

I'd like to see 2 rounds with groups based on Ratings Divisions, but I recall Eddie mixing in the last few years competitions.

It's all good. I can't wait to see those pond holes!

Well, the official name for the pond, according to Rutgers, is the "Passion Puddle".

http://www.rutgers.edu/kiosk/maps/level2-douglass.html

Nick, look at the map.
Hole#1 plays from the right of Passion "N" to the 'r' in Service

Hole#2 plays probable from the "A" in LIPMAN DR to the left of the "E" in Extension

Hole#3 crosses the puddle from between Rad Oak Lane and the puddle to the vicinity of the "N" in Passion.

I should have said Christopher Lee (not Max von Sydow) and Toshiro Mifune. One speaks only Japanese, the other speaks only German, but they communicate with no problems.

That's a cool map Rob. If you click on some of the buildings you get photos of some of the fairways!

1941

Main argument against mixing divisions:

At the 2003 Tahoe Pro/Am, my 14 year old daughter tells me on Sunday that the men on her card for the mixed first round Saturday "must think I'm stupid or something" because they went about 15 feet away to smoke their pot and thought they were being sly "or something".

Come on you stupid fricking dill-holes, don't smoke pot when you are on a friggin' card with a kid!!!

I would definitely name names if I knew them.

Dont' mix groups. Period. There are too many dumb ***** out there with absolutely no sense at all.

so that means i won't be on a card with ams at next years san diego open right? /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

my guys put thier stuff away when i said "no as an official and non-smoker no thanks,and by the way this is a sanctioned event"

So they violated 804.05 in the presence of a PDGA official, a former Worlds TD no less, and there were no consequences. Possessing is illegal. Possessing is a violation of the rule. The certified official does nothing.

That's why the rule as currently formulated is so special.

Rhett,

I believe that you should try and find names. That sort of behavior is inexcusable. Heck, when I am grouped with juniors I don't even smoke cigarettes.

No matter what your opinion is on those sort of substances at PDGA events that is just wrong.

didn't actually "see" any stuff bruce....just hands going back in pockets...and i wasn't about to do a search or break out my chemical analysis equipment /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

Seems to me that they admitted to possessing it when they asked you if you minded, but I can understand you being a weasel on this issue. You're just following the lead of the PDGA.

THREAD DRIFT CORRECTION:

Rhett, does your 14 year old daughter often have enough players in her division not to play in a mixed group?

One consequence we are seeing from either the new format or the stupid MDGO bump rule is that more and more of our advanced women are choosing to compete in MA3. For a competitive advanced woman there are more similarly skilled competitors and better prizes for good play. If points ever matter for women, there are more points, too.

Two women who both played with MA3 groups last weekend had experiences similar to your daughter's and decided not to make an issue of it.

I promise you that I will make an issue of it if I see it at a PDGA during rounds.

I don't give a dam about socio-political issues concerning its morality; it is against our rules, and it is very harmful to our image as a sport.

Doing it around kids is pretty bad though, perhaps I'd work a little overtime trying to get them a nice suspension from PDGA events for being such selfish pigs.

I am VERY open-minded, but one should never put his/her personal preferences above the needs/rights of a child. If I were the TD, the entire group would be disqualified - and I'd personally kick their butts, no extra charge. I'd also petition the PDGA for their permanent expulsions. Rhett, Meghan must be pretty cool to have dealt with those guys so well.

If you play in an event and something like this happens, please hold the TD accountable.

I've only had to group Juniors with other divisions twice; once it was a mix of 5 players (1 Jr, 1 Am, 1 Am Woman, and 2 Recs) and once I asked a Pro to join the Jr group in order to chaperone and give the kids a thrill.

All Junior groups should be chaperoned. Mainly for rules clarifications, but also for protection against idiots.

Spotters should be asked to keep eyes open for rule infringements as well as for groups going exceptionally slowly. A spotter with a walkie-talkie to the TD can be a powerful tool.

She plays advanced because there are no Junior girls. This was actually an on-topic post in that the first round was mixed divisions.

Megan is pretty cool and has been playing touneys since she was 10, so she knows how to handle it. Too bad though, as she shouldn't have to.

By Bruce Brakel on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 07:26 am:
Seems to me that they admitted to possessing it when they asked you if you minded, but I can understand you being a weasel on this issue. You're just following the lead of the PDGA.


seems to me you are a lawyer and you SHOULD know what assuming means in a court of law...and besides i left my search warrants in arizona /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gifand us weasels have to stick together

Unfinished Business: This really needs to be standardized one way or the other. Either allow it or do something to make it clear that it is unacceptable TD behavior.

"as much as practicable" implies that it should only happen where it is completely unavoidable, like for divisions that do not have nice evenly dividable numbers into groups, but even here we're talking a maximum 2 or 4 players out of 90 who might have to play with 1 player not in their division, not the willy nilly mixing that goes on now.

This is not a concern for local events, mix all you want, this is a PDGA event concern. Let's get this thing decided.

As a matter of opinion as to whether you like the rule everyone has one. As a matter of current rule it is explicitly clear. NO MIXING, except in rare odd man/woman out scenarios. (Am I wrong?)

804.01 SPECIAL CONDITIONS
C. No rules may be stipulated which conflict with the PDGA Rules of Play, unless approved by the Competition Director of the PDGA.

804.06 GROUPING & SECTIONING
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.
B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.

You are correct sir.

This does go against traditions in some events, and the TDs have said "we have always mixed divisions in the first round".

I haven't noticed it happening since I have been state coordinator (that is not to say it hasn't happened, just that I wasn't looking for it, and don't remember it happening). Last year I did recommend that at least the separation of Pro and AM had to be observed. It really should be all divisions according to the rules, and only can't be avoided when a division has less than 3 players and the event is over full. Even then, with 18 or 36 holes of 5 man cards, making ghost cards of 3 or 4 players may help the flow more than holding to 5 man cards for the Rec divisions.

And Yes, all Jr cards should have a chaperone playing or walking with them to help with rules calls and other questions.

Of course, that rule was written before Ratings events and Pro 2 divisions which mix divisions and classes by definition. The top seeding of pools practiced at Worlds is also not supported by the current rule. However, the Competition Director has formally (or now by default) waived that rule for each Worlds it's been used.

Ratings based events do not "by definition" mix divisions since in that event divisions are deciced by ratings or signup.

Now if the TD at a ratings based event the mixes the "colors", then the divisions are mixed.

So Red & White mixed is Pink? :cool:

Not really up on what colors are offered, but mixing all of the players will probably end up with a muddy brown mix on all cards. :o

Besides the Pro/Am thing the rule still works for R-Tiers, just group by Skill-Based Divisions; Gold with Gold, Silver with Silver, and so on.

804.06 GROUPING & SECTIONING
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.
B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.

It is one more tool (entry fees, added cash) to create some separation for divisions: You want to shoot with the big boys? Then pony up some entry fee and see how you REALLY do head to head with them.

I agree with Nick - it should be a privilege to shoot with those in a higher div, and that priv. should be obtained by playing in that div.

Unfinished Business: This really needs to be standardized one way or the other. Either allow it or do something to make it clear that it is unacceptable TD behavior.
* * *

804.06 GROUPING & SECTIONING
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.
B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.


Jon, Brett and I follow the rule. I don't like the rule that much but we follow it.

I've played plenty of events this summer where the TD ignored the rule. Does the TD get a two-stroke penalty or something for breaking the rule? Do the players have to give him a warning first?

The few events I go to where the TD follows this rule I rank above the ones that don't, particularly one day events. It seems more fair to be able to face your divisional competition in all rounds.

Bruce, by that logic why should TDs follow any rules at all.

Either let's make an effort to educate TDs about it or let's just drop it. I favor standards for PDGAs (do what you like at minis) so folks know what to generally expect attending any PDGA anywhere.

Unfinished Business: This really needs to be standardized one way or the other. Either allow it or do something to make it clear that it is unacceptable TD behavior.
* * *

804.06 GROUPING & SECTIONING
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.
B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.


Jon, Brett and I follow the rule. I don't like the rule that much but we follow it.

I've played plenty of events this summer where the TD ignored the rule. Does the TD get a two-stroke penalty or something for breaking the rule? Do the players have to give him a warning first?



IOS #1 I had to break the Pros playing with Ams. I had natural groups for Open and Pro Masters. I only had one pro woman. I always run the women's divisions for only one person if that person shows up. As a kind donation, Kelsey played pro women also that day. I asked Barrett if she minded if she was grouped with Ams and she told me that she was just glad to be there. If she had said that she only wanted to play in pro groups then I would have done something funky to get Barrett and Kelsey with another pro instead. I also had an Am volunteer to play with them for the first round, which was nice. If you want to stroke me for that, go ahead. I follow the rule as much as possible, but when it comes down to it, I'll do something intelligent rather than just blindly follow the rule.

I follow the rule as much as possible, but when it comes down to it, I'll do something intelligent rather than just blindly follow the rule.



I believe that you ARE blindly following the rule then there Bruce.

Sent to PDGA Rules Committee:

Dear PDGA Rules Committee Members,

804.06 GROUPING & SECTIONING
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.
B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.

Are these rules merely �suggestions� or are they �Rules of Play�?

In general, over 15 years of playing PDGA events, I have found that neither of these rules is followed. That friends often arrange the groups so that they are able to play together in the first round, that TDs often arrange groupings to suit personal desires, certainly that groupings are made that intentionally mix classifications and divisions of players.

This results in specific cases of unfair situations for participants at PDGA events where specific players are placed in groups with other top golfers while another top golfer is placed in groups with newbies.

Again, is this, or is this not a rule? Consciously included in our rules to help ensure fair play at PDGA events?

What recourse does a PDGA Member have who shows up at a PDGA event and finds that this rule (if it is a rule) is being broken? (i.e. can the Member warn the TD that they are running their event in violation of our Rules of Play and may lose their right to sanction future events unless they comply?)

I�d appreciate an �Official Q & A� on this rule.

Thank you for your consideration,
Nick Kight
PDGA# 4861

Not sent:
If a rule is unsubstantiated, as far as insuring �fair play� then I am all for removing them as superfluous. If however they serve to secure �fair play� and standards at our PDGA events then they should not be disregarded, but followed to the best of our abilities as TDs and Players.

I believe that grouping players throughout an event by divisions, as best we can, DOES SERVE TO more fully ENSURE FAIR PLAY. Yes, golf is essentially a game where we compete against ourselves and the course, but with that being said, Open players are paying the highest entry fee, the toughest competition (accept for the sandbaggers in Masters and Advanced), and usually are the ones that travel and have the most expenses involved, and each stroke counts for more as far as shooting a competitive score when all of the scores are so low.

Don�t get me wrong; I enjoy playing with protected division players and newbies as much as anyone; just not at PDGA events where I am operating under a different situation. Now if it is the goal of PDGA Sanctioned events to promote top players playing with protected divisional players then let�s have at it and make it uniform, so that you don�t have 2 or 3 top players playing together while another plays with a newbie and a Rec player.

<This is not official, though Cartlon Howard is the Chairperson of the PDGA Rules Committee. He also said that a Q & A will likely be added within the next couple of weeks or so.>

Hello Nick,

It's a rule, of course.

One's options are the same as with any other rule. Report it to the TD and ask that he follow the PDGA rules, if she fails to do so then file a written complaint with the PDGA. Please bear in mind that some mixing of divisions is frequently required as players simply don't show up (and register) in "round group numbers", which sometimes forces the TD to group a pro Master with pro Open (for example). Such flexibility is allowed by the rules (see the phrase "as much as practicable.")

At most of the events I attend, I see TDs trying to adhere to this. I've never seen groups arranging themselves, and this rule is SPECIFICALLY in there to ensure that established pro players, regardless of abilities, are NOT grouped with newbies. (It is no pro's duty to travel to someone else's town and teach their AMs how to play!) Maybe it's a regional thing. Naturally, first round groupings should be determined randomly within segregated divisions. Of course, special attention should always be given to:

1) avoid grouping AMs with Pros,

and

2) group women in groups that MIGHT be courteous and amenable to having women in their group.

We'll see if we can't add a Q & A on this. Good idea.

thanks,

chh

2) group women in groups that MIGHT be courteous and amenable to having women in their group.



What the heck does that mean?

Believe it or not, Dan...

There are some players of the male persuassion who don't enjoy playing competitive golf with a woman in their group. They consider themselves "better players" who may or may not be able to throw farther and don't want to be "held up" by a female. I enjoy NOT playing with those sorts of people. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Girlie, I'll play with you any day. Don't forget to bring the "meat".

You are always welcome on my card. Come on down to Texas and we'll show you how much we appreciate the women that come out and play. Well I know that all of the Adv Masters I play with are more than happy to play on a card that includes women.

Girlie, we have a word for those types of guys in NY. We call them "homos". I just didn't think a special case needed to be made for them with regard to rule enforcement.

You guys are great! :D

Your welcome on my card ANYTIME! :D

I follow the rule as much as possible, but when it comes down to it, I'll do something intelligent rather than just blindly follow the rule.



I believe that you ARE blindly following the rule then there Bruce.



I don't even look that much like Jon...

Mikey--
I was going to say the same thing about mixed groups leading to more cheating, but I see you beat me to it. As an intermediate player who has often been put in mixed groups, I have seen many players take the attitude that if the others in the group are not playing in their division, they do not care if the others are cheating. Very few intermediate players know the rules. Fewer still have the guts to call a player out on them. Putting a novice player in a position where he may be called upon to make a decision that could affect the outcome of a pro division is not fair to anyone. In addition, the intermediate players may be affected by pros or advanced amateurs having neither the time, interest, nor energy to call intermediate violations, thus placing intermediates who follow the rules at a disadvantage. This also means that the intermediate players can get confirmed in bad habits or just remain ignorant.

It is impossible to make people enforce the rules regardless of how you divide them up. In my experience, though, mixing divisions increases the likelihood that different groups will enforce the rules inconsistently.

Don't get me wrong, I <font color="red">LOVE </font> playing with pros or advanced players. Most are knowledgeable and friendly. That is why I play blind draw doubles whenever I can or join groups when playing practice rounds.

Having said that, I acknowledge that there are times when small divisions or unequal number of players may make it impossible to avoid having one or more mixed groups. In those case, I think TDs should be allowed to use their discretion.

shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.

=

Having said that, I acknowledge that there are times when small divisions or unequal number of players may make it impossible to avoid having one or more mixed groups. In those case, I think TDs should be allowed to use their discretion.

If the TD creates a divisional priority list then mixing should be greatly minimized:
1) Women Open
2) Women Advanced
3) Open
4) Masters
5) Advanced
6) Adv Masters
7) Int
8) Rec
and so on.

There should be next to no chance of mixing in the top 4 or 5 divisions.

From reactions from PDGA RC Members this does not seem to be a big problem in most regions. It is a problem in our region though... That will hopefully be changing soon.

I follow the rule as much as possible, but when it comes down to it, I'll do something intelligent rather than just blindly follow the rule.



I believe that you ARE blindly following the rule then there Bruce.



I don't even look that much like Jon...



I had absolutely no idea what Nick meant there, and it was hurting my brain to figure it out. Did he think that was you that posted that or did he somehow use my post to say that Bruce was blindly following the rule? :confused:

We call them "homos"


I don't think that the "Fab Five" have a problem playing with women. :D

Here is a good one for you to translate....we would call the "Arsch mit Ohren" - see if you can visualize it. :D:D

Nice one, Rob! [*****] with ears?

FWIW, babelfish says your signature means:

Rather a specialized idiot than a complete idiot

Probably a bit more formal than necessary, but it does have character. :)

See ya at Rutgers....

I follow the rule as much as possible, but when it comes down to it, I'll do something intelligent rather than just blindly follow the rule.



I believe that you ARE blindly following the rule then there Bruce.



I don't even look that much like Jon...



I had absolutely no idea what Nick meant there, and it was hurting my brain to figure it out. Did he think that was you that posted that or did he somehow use my post to say that Bruce was blindly following the rule? :confused:



Brakel , if you do as you describe then you are following the rule, doing something intellegent I might add.

Whoops they did it again.

The issue is one of fairness. If you are going to mix groups, in violation of PDGA rules, then do so evenly for all. To absolutely fix a few groups so that certain players(3) all top pro division players play together in one group, while every other top pro division player is grouped with 2 or three other divisions players is clearly a step beyond just mixing divisions within groups.

Particularly when those 3 players finish 1,3 and 4 for the tournament in the top division.

This ruins the feel of an otherwise great event.

I will be calling TDs prior to events from now on to ask if they are going to do this practice, if they are, I will inform them that they are in violation with our PDGA Rules of Play and that I will not be attending their event.

I have been informed by members or the PDGA Rules Committee that this IS NOT a common practice around the country. Is that true? Does this happen in your region? In the first round do you often play with a random (or where open players are split onto different holes mixed with others purposefully) mixes of divisions and classes?

Gee, Nick, are you talking about Rutgers? If so, then you are off a bit, there were 2 non Pros (Gold division, whatever it's called) in the group you are talking about first round. True, the letter of the rule probably requires the entire gold division to be split evenly amongst the cards, likewise for the silver, bronze, etc., but it's not like you had an entire card of golds, there were just the 3.

Sorry you think it ruined the feel of a great event.

Oh, and tuck your shirt in next time. :D

The rule is clear that divisions are not to be mixed. I agree 100% with you, Nick, that this rule is blatantly broken and we need to either enforce the rule or remove it, if that is what the PDGA membership desires.

But your assertion that the top pro division players' 1,3,4 finish was BECAUSE of that grouping and the (presumably your's) worse finish because of a mixed grouping is pure poppycock. Do you know how silly that sounds?

No mixing here in sanctioned events, but in non-sanctioned we mix all the time the first round so that new players can learn the rules.

Rules are good. :D

Nick, I'd like to point out that there was an am (me, a rather low rated one at that) in that group you were referring to and I've got to figure that since I've only played one round ever with any of them they had no idea whether or not I was going to slow them down, ask them questions, foot fault, falling putt, or generally distract them when they picked me randomly to fill out the fivesome. Since the group had the 2 TD's, the former TD and the returning champion in it I just see it as they were exercising their right to end up at the closest hole to tournament central (so that they could start grouping the second round) and to play with who they wanted. Feel free to run your tournaments how you want, they did.

DH: Gee, Nick, are you talking about Rutgers? If so, then you are off a bit, there were 2 non Pros (Gold division, whatever it's called) in the group you are talking about first round.



Dan, I never said they were all Gold Division, so you are the one a bit off:
Gold Division:
1st Joe Mela
3rd Barry Noakes
4th Matt LaCourte
Silver
White

My Card: Gold, Silver, Bronze, Bronze, White


DH: True, the letter of the rule probably requires the entire gold division to be split evenly amongst the cards, likewise for the silver, bronze, etc., but it's not like you had an entire card of golds, there were just the 3.



Here you are 100% off in both accounts: 1) I didn�t say that rules require Open players to be separated 1 per hole per round as per the rules. The rules require no such thing; a higher sense of fairness perhaps, but even this practice is 100% against our current rules. 2) The rules �require� :

804.06 GROUPING &amp; SECTIONING
A. Professional and Amateur players should not be grouped together, and all players from different divisions shall be segregated from each other during play as much as practicable.

B. All players within a division shall be randomly grouped for the first round and grouped by cumulative score for each round thereafter.

Both of these rules were ignored or purposefully snubbed.


JL: But your assertion that the top pro division players' 1,3,4 finish was BECAUSE of that grouping and the (presumably your's) worse finish because of a mixed grouping is pure poppycock. Do you know how silly that sounds?



I did not claim that it caused my worse finish, only that it is clearly less fair and clearly and completely in violation of our rules of play.


JS: Since the group had the 2 TD's, the former TD and the returning champion in it I just see it as they were exercising their right to end up at the closest hole to tournament central (so that they could start grouping the second round) and to play with who they wanted.



Jim, no such rights exist at PDGA events according to our rules of play, and for good reason. Read the rules. If this is something they plan to do it should be oked by the PDGA Competition Director in advanced and advertised to potential participants so they can possibly play with folks they �want to play with�.


Feel free to run your tournaments how you want, they did.



No Jim, I run my events within the bounds of PDGA Rules of Play. No TD running a PDGA Event is �free to run� their event the way they want. There are plenty of freedoms, mixing divisions purposefully and creating groups in a nonrandom way are not one of them (without PDGA Competition Director approval).

This is not an attack on that tournament. I had a great time, as always. It is an attack on ignorance of or abuse of our PDGA Rules of Play.

I will communicate these concerns directly with the TDs in hopes that they will be corrected. I only relate some of the details here to illustrate that a challenge still does exist concerning non-compliance with this rule. The TD of this event is a great TD and has been for years now, I am extremely proud of him for taking a leading role in bringing high profile PDGA R-Tier events to our region for the past 4 years. I will present my concern and he, in turn, is free to ingnore it. Of course I hope he will not.

Nick,
I am sorry to tell you, but after this weekend I AGREE with you.

I did not enjoy the first round AT ALL. Our group was Gold - Silver - Silver - Bronze (me :D) - White.
And quite frankly I thought of giving a courtesy warning to the other players a few times. A lot of F-words were used by the "better" players. Many times the "better" players walked ahead, not even waiting for the Am to throw his second shot...I mean they just walked past his shot a bunch of times, and I had to remind them that they kindly wait.
The "Gold" player had to be reminded to take scores, had to be corrected when it came to the correct order.....

Second round was a hell of a lot more enjoyable.

I know that you can always have somebody in the group who has a "God-Complex", and just thinks he is above the rest, but when it's 'Gold" player??? I was quite disappointed.

Get your facts straight, Nick. Barry Noakes wasn't in that group first round. It was B.O.B., Eddie, Santoro, LaCourte, and Mela.


To absolutely fix a few groups so that certain players(3) all top pro division players play together in one group, while every other top pro division player is grouped with 2 or three other divisions players is clearly a step beyond just mixing divisions within groups.




Ok, Nick, you are right that you didn't say Gold division. I'm not sure what other division you could have meant, though, by 'top pro division'.



The TD of this event is a great TD and has been for years now, I am extremely proud of him for taking a leading role in bringing high profile PDGA R-Tier events to our region for the past 4 years. I will present my concern and he, in turn, is free to ingnore it. Of course I hope he will not.




Well, Nick, in your own words "why don't you stop grandstanding, send him an email directly and get down to brass tacks"?

The Jersey Jam is arguably the best tournament in the northeast. Low entry fees, incredible players pack and amenities, FUN prizes and 'gimmicks' like the ribbon hole, etc. If you want to denigrate the tourney in a public forum, with the audacity of suggesting that the grouping had something to do with the above-mentioned players' good finish (or your bad one) then that is unfortunate.

Nick,
are ratings-based events considered "X-tier" ?
If so, don't X-tiers have more liberties ?

Did you discuss this with a "Devil in Charge" before the tourney? It shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Jam has done this for years now, did you really think the traditional format would be changed?

I was at this event and would like to say I have sent an e-mail message to the TD of this event. I told him that he did a wonderful job running this event, I thanked him and everyone involved for such a well run event.

However, I also told him that I felt I got short changed by the mixing of the groups in the first round. I had a fun first round, everone in my group were nice people, but I did not have that "feel" of competition that I want to have when I am playing in a sanctioned PDGA tournament, and when the second round started, I felt that in my group. I play in tournaments to "compete", and I feel as though when groups are mixed, I am not getting my what I came for. :(

Rob,

PDGA R-Tiers are not actually PDGA X-Tiers. And even if they were X-Tiers it DOES NOT give TDs free reign to ignore PDGA Rules of Play. If the TD wants to do something in direct conflict with a rule they must FIRST petition the PDGA Competition Director and the CD will approve or nix the proposal. Only then may a TD do something not in compliance with the rules.

The very first thing listed in the Sanctioning Agreement is concerning this:


The TD agrees:
To follow the terms listed below as they apply to 2004 PDGA Tour sanctioned events and specific tiers:
Basic Requirements of Sanctioned Events:
All event TDs must be current dues-paid members of the PDGA and a Certified PDGA Officials, in advance of the event.
TDs further:
� agree to enforce the PDGA Rules of Play.




No, I did not ask if they would be following PDGA Rules prior to showing up for the event. Yes, I did expect that PDGA Rules would be followed. And yes, I do expect traditions that are in conflict with our rules of fair play to be trashed. That or change our rules so that TDs can arrange groupings to suit their wants.

Nick

PS: Nice to finally meet you Rob. And don�t get me wrong here. I loved the event as per usual, but I�d love it just that much more if it were in compliance with the rules.

Nick,
I imagined you to be a short, old, grumpy guy like Rumpelstitzchen. But you are not that old :DLOL

What good is a rule that has no consequences when broken?

DH,

I can understand to a degree your desire to "Defend" this event, but there really is no need. I did not mention the event by name for a reason: Namely because I am very pleased with it, the TD, and it's history.

What I want to discuss is the issue of non-compliance with a PDGA Rule of Play, specifically as it relates to the topic under discussion. The event was clearly in non-compliance.

I have said that I will email the TD and I will. I am not "denigrating" anything but the non-compliance of a PDGA Rule of Play. I simply want TDs to follow the rules as provided. If they or players want to change the rules then I encourage them to contact the PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA Board of Directors to get it done, not to just do what they want without going through proper channels.

The issue here is compliance (or the lack of it) with PDGA Rules of Play, NOT picking on a certain event or not.

Nick

There are consequences.

Consequences such as what?

This rule has been consistently broken at nearly every PDGA event I've attended for the last 8 years.

And why are you suddenly getting a hard-on about this rule now?

Consequences such as what?

This rule has been consistently broken at nearly every PDGA event I've attended for the last 8 years.

And why are you suddenly getting a hard-on about this rule now?



As much as I hate to agree with Jeff ( :D ), I agree with Jeff. Maybe that's why I also don't understand Nick's tilting at this one. I think I have been to 1 event in however many years I have been playing that sorted in the first round by division.

I think this is a legitimate reason to reconsider the rule's place in the Book. If a rule has been disregarded this blatantly for so long, then is it even a rule? Kind of like the states that have laws against adultery still on the books.

Where you have problems with this rule are events like the Jam. 100+ people and a huge Am field, with many first timers makes it tough to group by the letter of the law. Do you really want 4 fivesomes of newbies back to back in the first 22 hole round with potentially confusing OB issues? As it was that round took 4 1/2 hours. Total compliance with the rule as written would have been a disaster.

Is that entirely fair to the top division? Maybe not. But it's not as big a deal as some make it out to be. Consider that a small price to pay for the 'good of the game'. Otherwise, what's your option? Allow only PDGA members to play in PDGA events, assuming a PDGA member knows the rules better?

Maybe a better option is to drop the rule for C and B tier events and assume that players going to an A tier will have enough experience to know better. This could allow the smaller tourneys to attract and grow the player base (as I would assume the PDGA wants to do).

De jure, Nick, you have a point. De facto, however, is another story.

Dan,

I suggested that to Nick before
You can figure out his answer - can't you?

I also think that the rule should be rewritten, in order to clarify it - "should" suggests a recommendation, and MUST be replaced with "shall", IMHO

Btw, nice shooting in the second round....J must be scared now :D

I care about all of our rules Jeff.

I have my personal reasons for preferring grouping that follows the rules (namely fairness and following the rules), as I�m sure you an others have reasons for preferring grouping that does not follow the rules. All of these reasons are secondary so long as we have a rule to follow. We are not talking about some rule that is ethically wrong in need of social protest, it is a rule to promote a standardized fair competitive system at PDGA events (regardless of tier).

Thanks Rob. That was probably the best overall tournament round I have ever put together. 2 birds, 2 boges, one double (on pond 1, if you can believe that). Parred field 3 to finish, which got me to the tie (had I known the playoff was going to be hole 3 I would have missed the putt - that hole hates me with a passion).

The 2005 Jersey Jam will be in compliance with ALL PDGA Rules of Play.

Eddie is 100% Class. Just shows to remain the best you always got to find ways to be even better...

I care about all of our rules Jeff.

I have my personal reasons for preferring grouping that follows the rules (namely fairness and following the rules), as I’m sure you an others have reasons for preferring grouping that does not follow the rules. All of these reasons are secondary so long as we have a rule to follow. We are not talking about some rule that is ethically wrong in need of social protest, it is a rule to promote a standardized fair competitive system at PDGA events (regardless of tier).



Since when do I have a preference? I could care less whether I am grouped with those in my division or those in other divisions.

I'll reiterate, I'm all for following the PDGA rules, if that's what the membership desires. But with the exception of Am Worlds and Pro Worlds, possibly every PDGA tournament I've EVER played in since 1997 has not followed this rule. I also question why, after your 15 year involvement in the sport, this is suddenly such a gross travesty, and why you had to single out the Jersey Jam as an offender.

I can't wait to see Nick's group in the first round as they wait behind the 5 juniors that showed up for their first ever tourney that day. :D

I'll reiterate, I'm all for following the PDGA rules, if that's what the membership desires.




I could care less whether I am grouped with those in my division or those in other divisions.



So which is it Jeff, follow the rules, could care less or whatever the membership desires?


I also question why, after your 15 year involvement in the sport, this is suddenly such a gross travesty, and why you had to single out the Jersey Jam as an offender.



A. I never said it was a gross travesty, only that it was not in compliance with the PDGA Rules of Play and that I would not go to events that do this again.
B. I NEVER �singled out the Jersey Jam�. The post that describes what happen was purposefully left ambiguous because it was not intended as a critique of the Jam but a description of what is going on that relates to the topic under discussion.
*****It is the supposed �defenders� of the Jam that singled it out, not me.

By the way, communicating concerns with the TD worked. In this case he was not aware of this rule. It should be mentioned to his credit, that he never took offense to anyone bringing this to his attention (and I was not the first), he is a class act, and said thanks for the heads up and please offer more feedback bad or (equally important) good.

I thank the DG gods regularly for blessing our region with so many awesome TDs and organizers.

DH,

I've been a PDGA Event Disc Golfer for 15 years, back ups are just a chance to shoot the sh*t with friends in other groups and catch my breath. If you can't handle a back up or two at an event then PDGAs are not for you.

I really do want to know if the divisional mixing is a regular practice around the country though. From my experience, TDs that do not follow this rule basically didn't realize that it even was a rule!

Back-ups like we had @ the Jam are ok. Back-ups like there were in last year's MonkeyPaw sucked *****. About half an hour between the first and the last group to come in? People having to play holes in the dark?

That is not cool. And if you tell me that this problem could not be alleviated through mixing...

Well since you have asked 10 or 12 times now for feedback on how other regions do their first round groupings, I'll enlighten you with my exposure. I have played most PDGAs in Indiana over the last couple years and there has only been 1 tournament in that time that did not follow the PDGA rule (ie non-divisional groupings for the first round). The only other occasion I have encountered it was at an X-tier in Michigan. Even our unsanctioned events group by divisions.

Interesting, maybe this is a northeast thing and doesn't happen as regularly elsewhere.

Nick, I don't think Jeff, Jim, Rob and I would have jumped on you as much about this one if you hadn't made the insinuation that the grouping issue somehow affected the results.

Don't worry about Nick, he has thick skin.

Next year I am planning to play Gold anyway. I can move up from my White status without paying extra. This way I get to play with the best players in both rounds. See if their low scores rub off.
:D

Oooops,

that would make it a "legal" mixing of groups. Maybe we should close this loophole and let players only move up by one division :eek:

What do you think Nick? Wanna play with me next year? Maybe I can get some other sub-900 players to join as well?

Perhaps I should not have mentioned the "unfair" aspect of not following this rule. It happens to be a rule that lends itself to helping to maintain "fairness" but the main thing is that it is a rule and should be followed as best a TD can.

I do not mind playing with vastly inferior players (Rob, LOL :D ;)) I just prefer at PDGAs to play against players in my division. I don't know exactly why, but it just feels like a better day. The second round with Maertz, KMAC, Scott Howard, and Robin was fun and competitive with lots of exciting shots being made and lead changes and the like. You just can't get that feeling when you know you aren't competing with the players in your group.

If you guys really believe that this rule should be changed then by all means send a proposal to the PDGA Rules Committee. Even if they don't change it you might get a clearer idea of why it is there in the first place.

Nick,
Bottom line. We just think in B-tiers and C-tiers there should be an option for the TD's to mix. If that is not acceptable, then maybe just C-tiers. From my personal experience, over the last few years I brought a bunch of, let's call them "Rec" players to the game, and they were just wondering why they would pay to play in a tourney. As I recall, they played one tourney Rec last year. Both rounds against one another (I believe there were four guys playing Rec, and three of them were my friends), and they came to the conclusion "why should we pay to play? Those are my friends, and I can play against them for free".

I believe it would aid the sport and particularly the growth to have some flexibility in that matter. What's wrong with doing this practice @ C-tiers? There is not all that much money involved...and the Pros shouldn't be crying so much, they can give a little bit of a thrill to a newbie and show him what is possible.

Rob,

Sorry, I just don't agree. Doesn't mean you're wrong or that you're idea has no merit; just means that I think there is good reason for it and support it. Your job, if you choose it, is to convince the rules committee and PDGA BOD that your idea is better.

Mine is to convince TDs and players to follow the rules we have.

Nick

The second round with Maertz, KMAC, Scott Howard, and Robin was fun and competitive with lots of exciting shots being made and lead changes and the like. You just can't get that feeling when you know you aren't competing with the players in your group.




I most definitely agree with you on that, Nick. I know my 2nd round had a lot to do with the relative equality of everyone on the card, and knowing I had to play well to stay up on them. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I was with a bunch of Santoro-level guys bringing my game down, tho. :D

On the other hand, how do you handle a tourney like the Jam that often has a influx of casual players in their first or 2nd event? I don't think you can put them together for 2 rounds and not have problems. Maybe that's where we go with the tier of the tourney affecting the rule's relevance.

Fair enough....

This thread is dying....gotta go and see what other thread you're working on :D

Interesting, maybe this is a northeast thing and doesn't happen as regularly elsewhere.



Might be. We usually don't mix anymore in Az, even in our non-sanctioned events, and I'm pretty sure I have not played in a mixed group in a PDGA tournament in many years (including Champions Cup in 2000 which is in the Northeast).

Well, I hope to work at making it "NOT" a Northeast thing. PDGA TDs need to Know and Follow this rule.

From our 2004 PDGA Tour Event Sanctioning Agreement:


As Tournament Director, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and accept the terms of the 2004 PDGA Tour Event Sanctioning Agreement, including the Tier Standards, and reporting formats and deadlines. I hereby commit to enforce all aspects of this Agreement during my event, including but not limited to the PDGA Rules of Play and the PDGA policy on use of illegal substances.
Signature of Tournament Director Date

� agree that if any provision in this agreement or any Rule of Play is unacceptable the TD shall contact the PDGA Competition Director to seek a waiver. Specifically, clearance is required at the time of sanctioning for any local conditions which would restrict the enforcement of any PDGA rule or the participation of an otherwise eligible PDGA
Member. If no waiver is granted this agreement and the Rules of Play are binding.




No penalty or sanctions are included for non-compliance with this agreement. Seems like some "small" text might be in order describing consequences for breaking this agreement.

I guess it is implied that non-compliance will results in possible rejection of future sanctioning agreements.

You shall change the text in this aggreement.

You shall also change the wording of this rule while you're at it. There shall be no more misinterpretations of this rule. And there shall be consequences for everyone breaking this rule.

Huh? I shan�t do any of that. I will ask TDs to please follow the rules. Just as I ask players to...

Feel free to take a look at the flak I'm getting for this past weekends tournament at Crystal Lake, IL. And I followed the rules! Discontinuum Grouping discussion. (http://discontinuum.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1325&view=findpost&p=15286)

I'm only about halfway through reading that thread but the absolute funniest thing so far has been the method which Bruce uses to make tournament groupings:


1. What is the farthest hole? Put Jamie Mosier there.

2. Who most horked me off at the last tournament? They get to play with Jamie Mosier and walk that extra mile.



How perfect!

Seems like you did your best to follow the rule. The "as much as practicable" covers the questionable area in my, and obviously in your, opinion. TDs do the best that they can and if given a PDGA Committee and 1 year to discuss and come up with a better method I'm sure we could, but in the span of 20 seconds to 2 minutes permitted most TDs for this decision I think you did as well as 99.9% of TDs could.

This is a far cry from splitting up all the Open Players on to different holes, then the Masters, then the Advanced, then the ... and so on, then grouping some Open buddies together because you like them. That is a flat out and complete violation of our PDGA Rules of Play and the PDGA Event Sanctioning Agreement "signed" by the TD. Some mixing is inevitable, but TDs who know the rules and do their best to adhere to them, under the inherent pressures of running an event, should feel no regrets.

If all TDs adhered to their Sanctioning Agreements and our PDGA Rules of Play then players would become educated about the situation and baseless accusations would be dismissed not only by the TD but every player at the event in the know.

This is a far cry from splitting up all the Open Players on to different holes, then the Masters, then the Advanced, then the ... and so on, then grouping some Open buddies together because you like them.



I agree with that. What I'm curious to know is how are the TDs who do this kind of stuff getting away with it when I am getting so much flak for just following the rules? Is it a regional thing that TDs and players in other regions just have a disregard for the grouping and sectioning of players? Not accusing anyone of anything, just curious.

Jon,

My guess based on recent events is that it stems from pure ignorance of our rules on the part of the TDs and players. I do not, or do not want to believe, that they are purposefully breaking our rules.

In your case, sounds like the players "knew of" the rule, but didn't "know" the rule.

In both cases we, the players and the sport as a whole would benefit from a more full better understanding of this rule.

(not to mentional all of the other rules...)

Nick