Back in the stone age when I ran tourneys, I grouped DGers as follows:

Start of tourney: Random

After Round 1: Sort by Round 1 score, then by last name (or firstname/nickname, like "Prince")

After Round 2: Sort by total score, then best Round 2 score, then best R1 score, then by last name.

I think I said that correctly.

This made perfect sense to me, and everyone I knew did it almost exactly the same way.

The reason I bring this up is I was doing the pro groupings for Round 3 last Sunday. Dave Feldberg comes up to the scoring table and wanted to confirm that he moved up to the leader group for R3, because he had the tiebreaker of a hotter R2 and I said "of course, why wouldn't I follow the rules?" Then Dave said "no, that's not a rule, it's just one of those 'assumed rules' and that a significant number of TDs group otherwise."

I was a little shocked about that, and it made me wonder: how else WOULD you group Round 3 and up? Just last name? PDGA number? Random? I'd like to hear from other TDs that group differently and their reasoning.

Also, should there be a tiebreaking rule added to save TDs from accusations of favoritism or unfairness? Probably only add 20? words to the rulebook?

----------------------

A related topic: In the NW there are more and more situations developing where Player A can't stand Player B. So much so, that it seems that Player A might add strokes to his card if it means he can avoid playing in Player B's group, because Player A knows that his round with Player B is gonna be really bad and unpleasant and possibly DQable. Certainly this is a problem elsewhere.

Keeping this in mind: If I was TDing a PDGA, I would follow the random grouping rule for R1, and I am somewhat contemptous of DGers that want the TD to group their pals together for R1, partly for fun and partly for comfort zone and partly to help their scoring.

However, I would be less zealous about the purity of randomness if Player A and mortal enemy Player B happened to be randomly paired in R1, and I would be sorely tempted to separate them in R1, even if Player A says that he won't let Player B "get to him" this time.

My reasoning is that it would help eliminate Jerry Springer incidents from the TD's plate, keep Player A and B's scoring from exploding, as well as unfortunates Players C and D.

On the other hand, Players E thru Z could say -hey, getting along with your fellow competitors, keeping your emotions in check, being polite, etc is also a part of the DG game, and Players A and B shouldn't be getting preferential treatment to avoid that particular weak point of their game, and Players C and D need to toughen up too-.

----------------------

One other hypothetical scenario: Player A is +2 after R2. He holds on to his scorecard and waits for all other players to finish the round. Then he notes that Player B is also +2 after R2 and will play with Player A for R2.

Option 1: Player A BEGS the TD to go down to the next card and switch with another DGer that has +2. That's against the 'best round' 'assumed rule'. Would you, the TD, allow that? Keeping in mind that players in both groups are cool with this, wanting to avoid a bruhaha.

Option 2: You, as a fair-minded (yet cruel) TD, disallow switch-out of Player A. So then Player A, who has not actually turned in his card, deliberately mis-adds his card so that he will get a +4 after R2, theorizing that he will still be better off after R3 playing without Player B. Would you as a TD allow this? I would, but would like to hear any dissenting opinions.

Ciao

I am not an official, but I would prefer and hope that all TD's would group by score. And ties would be sorted back by the last hole(s) played to break order in ties.

Sure you may not play with someone you like, but tough. This is golf, it is a game of mental challenges and that includes other players and distractions. The two worst rounds I have ever shot I played with really annoying people. One of those being the finals of World Doubles so that made it worse.

Let the scores do the talking, leave your squabbles off the course.

There is no formal way to determine order beyond full round scores. Players who are tied after R2 are placed in order based on lower R2 scores, but that isn't actually specified in the rulebook. When R1 & R2 are the same, the rulebook is still silent. At PDGA majors, it's been tradition to break identical round ties using lower PDGA numbers since every player must have one. This always breaks ties quickly.

In the MFA, before more events were PDGA sanctioned, we would start looking at scores on hole 18 in the most recent round and work backwards to break ties. But that takes more effort than PDGA number. I've seen many TDs not use any system other than whatever happens by accident on the leaderboard as cards are moved around. Sometimes alphabetical by last name is used. It probably should bespecified in the next rules update.

Pseudo-Random for round one. (Only once have I thrown the whole pile of leaderboard cards down the stairs for a better random distribution.)

All following rounds: Hot round for previous round(s), then previous order on the board. Meaning if it is round 2 and two players tied in round one, whoever was higher on the board stays higher on the board. Same thing in round 3 if they tied for rounds 1 and 2.

No deviations at all after round 1. You go on the cards according to the process, and that's that. I find that if you allow one exception, then you really need to allow all exceptions or else it isn't fair. I like to try and make it as cut and dried as possible so that whether I like you or not has no bearing on the decision. True friends won't work you for a decision against the system, and true enemies won't have that as a legitimate complaint.

In round one where it is sort of random, I don't really have a problem being "not random" and avoiding super-conflicts, or even grouping people who have done a lot for disc golf together if they request it. Fortunately we don't have any super-conflicts that I'm aware of. Some people prefer not to play with some others, but it's not a huge ordeal if they end up together.

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

To break scoring ties after a given round, if the hottest score of the prior round doesn't break the tie, I've always used the "most number of 2's (birdies on Par 3 holes)" shot in the round as the tie-breaker. If still tied, then I see who had the highest score on any of the 18 holes and that person isn't the best of the tied scores. After those tie-breakers I base it on who I believe deserves to play with the better card, which probably isn't a very objective method. Fortunately it rarely goes that far thru the tie-breakers.

But all of this is in the rules already.

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.

<font color="blue">This is a change from the past where the first round was a random distribution of divisions most of the time.</font>

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

<font color="blue">Grouped by Cumulative score after the first round.</font>

804.07 TIES
B. Between rounds when the groups are being reset, tied positions shall be broken. The player with the lowest score in the most recent round shall have the highest ranking when the scorecards/positions are reset. In the event of low score ties, the ties shall be broken by the director through any consistently applied manner.

<font color="blue">Ties are ordered onthe scorecards by the lowest scores on the latest rounds.</font>

And by logical extension of the nearest rule:
801.02 ORDER OF PLAY
A. Teeing order on the first teeing area is determined by the order in which the scorecards were filled out or by the order the players were listed or arranged on the scoreboard.

B. Teeing order on all subsequent tees is determined by the scores on the previous hole, with the lowest score throwing first, and so on. If the previous hole was a tie, the scores are to be counted back until the order is resolved.

<font color="blue">By logical extension, the order cards were listed originally on the board is the order used to break ties when all other things are euqal.</font>

<font color="green">So it is like Rhett said:
1) Random distribution within division (except computers want to sort by something so it is seldom random) for the first round.
2) Sorted by cumulative score with lowest/latest rounds taking precedence after that. When all rounds are the same, the original posting is the correct manner to settle ties.</font>

When pools are brought together, you still need a rule to break those who had tied rounds since there's no "original" position. PDGA number.

True, unless you consider the "A" pool higher than the "B" pool for positioning. That probably wouldn't go over very well though.

In theory, the current rulebook specifies that pools be random, even though we've gravitated toward seeding by ratings and other things like top International players for the A pool.

Not totally random groups but equally rated.

In theory, the current rulebook specifies that pools be random, even though we've gravitated toward seeding by ratings and other things like top International players for the A pool.


How that reads: We choose to ignore our own published rules at our top competive events.

No wonder it's so hard to get a foot fault called!

As to the issue of avoiding Jerry Springer incidents, Parkntwoputt has it right when he says "Sure you may not play with someone you like, but tough. This is golf, it is a game of mental challenges and that includes other players and distractions."

I strongly agree with that sentiment and would hate to see anything but a random pairing for the first round.

I'm done playing Open now, but one of the most irksome things about it was that being an Open player I had less chance of shooting with top players in the first rounds than did Masters, Women, Advanced or Grandmasters.

If you want to play with the best, then you should have to pay the entry fee of their division to have the opportunity. That or try catching up with them at the course.

As I understand it any mixing of divisions should be avoided at all costs, yes, even with the potential slow play of some groups (make shorter tees for these folks!).

I agree with Rhett about the Worlds seperating by ratings. If ratings were that important or accurate, then why even play? It should be random. If top players are afraid of getting hosed by bad whether, then why offer spots to players that might equally get hosed? It should be completely random.

I'll tell you why? Because without all those other pools entry fees a Pro Worlds would be impossible. Well, then, don't these sponsors, in essense, deserve even the "possibility of getting to shoot with the folks that will undoubtedly be winning "their" money?

This is irksome!

I have to assume that what you are saying, Nick, is that tournaments in your area ignore the grouping and sectioning rules quoted above and go with the "mixed divisions" thing for round #1.

Have you tried informing those TDs of the PDGA rules? :D

Everytime. And they are getting better at it. Mostly it is larger events where shinanigans go on?!?

Do you think it would be possible to get a refund of my entry fee at such events?

You could file a complaint with the PDGA, and ask if the TD got clearance from the Comp Director to break the rules for the first round.

I know it is tough, though. You have a lot of "old timers" out that way, right? For whatever reason, the old timers of disc golf feel like they know better than whatever the PDGA Rules of Play might say, and you can't tell them differently. I have had Senior Grands out here flat out ignore safety mandys (that were supposed to prevent you from thrwoing a drive right down the middle of a walking path) because they knew better how the course should play. With the whole division on one card, what can you do?

What I'm reading from this is that most DGers would want consistant/fair/cruel rules for groupings. So:

1. Divisions stay separate if possible.

2. Totally random R1 so Joe Blow gets a chance to play with Climo, buddies don't play together, and enemies play together if that's how it pans out. Same with pools and flights.

3. After round one, sort by hot R2 or some other consistant manner, then by other consistant manner like PDGA#, lastname, etc.

4. TD's resist bending the rules and therefore take the heat in the name of the holy fairness of the rules.

That sound about right? I can live with that I guess.

I forgot to mention:

Thanks gnduke for showing the tie rule. I THOUGHT there was a rule on that.

Then it sounds like the rules don't need to be changed at all, right? As long as the TD mentions how ties will be broken beforehand.

Or do we want a rule change on pools/flights? It would be nice if any JoeBlow at Worlds would have a chance to play with Climo. But on the other hand, it's nice to be able to say that You and YourFriend can start in the same pool to make carpool/hotel/restaurant arrangements, etc, less complicated.

The only requirement for a 'random' grouping is that no consistant method be used to group players. I think that allows enough wiggle room for a TD to group players with travel needs together and keep enemies apart.

Of course it is up to the individual TD how much attention they want to devote to that.

4. TD's resist bending the rules and therefore take the heat in the name of the holy fairness of the rules.


In practice, I find that not to be the case. If I weather the initial storm and stick to my rules-based guns, it is far easier down the road. Because once I bend one little rule, then everybody and his brother jumps on and wants something else bent. It starts with something innocent enough that surely couldn't matter, but then there you find yourself defending that little move while trying to resist something else that is far more sinister.

It's actually easier, in my experience, to stick with the rules as written. :)

I have to assume that what you are saying, Nick, is that tournaments in your area ignore the grouping and sectioning rules quoted above and go with the "mixed divisions" thing for round #1.

Have you tried informing those TDs of the PDGA rules? :D

As I recall, there was a discussion on the permissibility of mixed grouping about a year ago, in which both Pat Govang and John Lyskett argued that not only was it permissible to group players without regard to divisions for the first round (so, e.g.,, you could end up with an MPO, an FAM, an SGM, and an MJR on the same card), but that that sort of random grouping was the Rules Committee's intention when the rule was written.

I have to assume that what you are saying, Nick, is that tournaments in your area ignore the grouping and sectioning rules quoted above and go with the "mixed divisions" thing for round #1.

Have you tried informing those TDs of the PDGA rules? :D

As I recall, there was a discussion on the permissibility of mixed grouping about a year ago, in which both Pat Govang and John Lyskett argued that not only was it permissible to group players without regard to divisions for the first round (so, e.g.,, you could end up with an MPO, an FAM, an SGM, and an MJR on the same card), but that that sort of random grouping was the Rules Committee's intention when the rule was written.



If they did say that then they would be dead wrong. From Carlton Howard I asked and was answered that mixing of divisions should be a "last resort", i.e. there are 90 players and the breakdown of divisions forces a mix of divisions in a single group or 2, so that there are 5 players per hole, or in subsequent rounds the tail ends of different divisions must play together to avoid groups larger than 5.

Mixing of classifications should be the absolute final and last option breached.

(To clarify, I don't mind playing with other divisions or classifications, just not during competitive disc golf events, PDGA or otherwise.)

I have to assume that what you are saying, Nick, is that tournaments in your area ignore the grouping and sectioning rules quoted above and go with the "mixed divisions" thing for round #1.

Have you tried informing those TDs of the PDGA rules? :D

As I recall, there was a discussion on the permissibility of mixed grouping about a year ago, in which both Pat Govang and John Lyskett argued that not only was it permissible to group players without regard to divisions for the first round (so, e.g.,, you could end up with an MPO, an FAM, an SGM, and an MJR on the same card), but that that sort of random grouping was the Rules Committee's intention when the rule was written.



If they did say that then they would be dead wrong. From Carlton Howard I asked and was answered that mixing of divisions should be a "last resort", i.e. there are 90 players and the breakdown of divisions forces a mix of divisions in a single group or 2, so that there are 5 players per hole, or in subsequent rounds the tail ends of different divisions must play together to avoid groups larger than 5.

Mixing of classifications should be the absolute final and last option breached.

Broached.

I don't disagree with you; in fact, I argued at the time (and still hold) that 804.06.A mandates divisional segregation, that the random grouping mandated for the first round in 804.06.B applies exclusively to intradivisional grouping, and that interdivisonal grouping was permissible only as a last resort, and only when it is necessary to conform to 804.06.C. I was simply noting that the issue has been discussed previously, and that at least two highly regarded personages in the PDGA took the contrary view.

If you play IOS #1 this weekend, Nick, you will have the same chance to shoot with Chris Heeren as anyone! ;) :D

If you play IOS #1 this weekend, Nick, you will have the same chance to shoot with Chris Heeren as anyone! ;) :D



Great! TDs flaunting a disregard for our PDGA Rules right here on the PDGA Message Board!?! Fantastic! Bravo!

I earned the right to shoot with him at last years PDFO Super Tour in the second round. The first round as I recall was a complete mix of divisions (pro only at least). As a Master Player now, having played 16 years of competitive Open division golf, I have no desire to play with him or any Open players again. It was fun, I paid for the right to shoot with them, now I pay for the right to play with the Masters players. Not the Advanced, Intermediate, Juniors, Open Women, Grandmasters, etc, but the Masters.

Unlike the rest of the world, I've been actually looking forward to turning 40!

If you play IOS #1 this weekend, Nick, you will have the same chance to shoot with Chris Heeren as anyone! ;) :D



Great! TDs flaunting a disregard for our PDGA Rules right here on the PDGA Message Board!?! Fantastic! Bravo!

I earned the right to shoot with him at last years PDFO Super Tour in the second round. The first round as I recall was a complete mix of divisions (pro only at least). As a Master Player now, having played 16 years of competitive Open division golf, I have no desire to play with him or any Open players again. It was fun, I paid for the right to shoot with them, now I pay for the right to play with the Masters players. Not the Advanced, Intermediate, Juniors, Open Women, Grandmasters, etc, but the Masters.

Unlike the rest of the world, I've been actually looking forward to turning 40!



Since I do the leader board for the IOS if Bruce wants to do some kind of illegal shift, he will have to bribe with a nice cold cola beverage first! But depending on how many pro masters I have, some of them might play with the open division. I'll do that before I have them play with ams (oops, sorry. I'm talking to Nick here. When I say "ams" I mean WWCCA!).

.I have had Senior Grands out here flat out ignore safety mandys (that were supposed to prevent you from thrwoing a drive right down the middle of a walking path) because they knew better how the course should play. With the whole division on one card, what can you do?



C'mon Rhett, stick by your guns!

DQ every darn one of them for willful intent to circumvent the rules. That's within your authority as TD, clearly. The old codgers should know better.

That "we're all on one card so we do as we please" attitude is a pain.

9 Hole Event
2 Rounds
45 Players


This OK Groupings:
<table border="1"><tr><td> 1</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>FPO</td><td>FPO</td><td>FPO
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA2</td><td>MA2</td><td>MA2</td><td>MA2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

This is NOT OK Groupings:
<table border="1"><tr><td> 1</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>FPO</td><td>MA1
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>FPO</td><td>MA1
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>FPO</td><td>MA1
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA1
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA2
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA2
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA2
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>MPO</td><td>MPM</td><td>MPM</td><td>MA1</td><td>MA2
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

C'mon Rhett, stick by your guns!

DQ every darn one of them for willful intent to circumvent the rules. That's within your authority as TD, clearly. The old codgers should know better.

That "we're all on one card so we do as we please" attitude is a pain.


I was tempted. :)

The problem is, now that we have ratings and stuff, what they do really does affect everyone who is playing the tournament. If someone on a different card hadn't told me about it, their scores would've been included in the ratings and that would mess up the the whole thing for everyone.

Yup, even though the whole division was on one card, their actions affect everybody playing the tourney.

Old men are a pain in the askerisk!

Yes you are! or will be soon. :cool::cool::cool:

I just wish your avatar would let that dange disc into the basket just one time!!!

Speaking of askerisks

Just for you Nick.

YAY!!! :D