what is wrong with seperate par lables for seperated rated players???

the link that Chuck posted already has par guidelines for the 4 major skill levels, depending on what skill set you are designing a particular course for

I guess we could come up with par guideline for 1025+ rated players only for tournaments such as worlds and NTs?

on an already built course.
if a par of 54 is considered scratch golf for a 1000 rated golfer then what is the expected score for a 1030 rated golfer?
the expected score aught to be the par for that skill leval.
some times when i play as a 926 golfer i can shoot well below par 54 and have never recorded a 1000 rated round.
so in sercumstances like this is the par to high?
or is the course to easy?
when the par is based on drive and twoputts because it cant be birdied if par is two,
why is it neccessary to allow two puts to achieve par?
i cant wrap my mind around that therory.

Official Par 2s were part of the courses used in the 2001 and 2002 Pro Worlds to get the course par to closely match the SSA. But that experiment bugged several top players and administrators so no official par 2s have been listed (that I'm aware of) since then. It's not hard to find courses with legit par 3s produce scores where the SSA is 46-49. If the scoring average on each hole is 2.5 to 2.7 (or lower) for 1000 rated players, the course SSA is under 50.

So, for big events, why not just show how the players did vs. the Course SSA?

If Joe shot a 48 and the course SSA is 50, then he shot a -2 for the round.

For this circumstance, and not for penalizing a late player, just disregard what the hole pars are after the round is completed. If someone wants to use hole pars to show "Net to Par" scores for real-time scoring, that's fine.

If we're going abstract on Par/SSA, we might as well just refer to the round rating the player shot which might be more meaningful over time. A score of -2 to SSA doesn't tell as much as 1013 for -2 on an SSA 68 course versus 1020 for -2 on a 50 SSA course.

Chuck, I was wondering how one can challenge the ratings given for a particular event. This particular event is the Lemmon drop (az) from last weekend. The second round ratings are grossly low.

There is no way a 75 is only a 1004. Absolutely no way. Last year a 77 was a 1000 with perfect weather. The layout was harder this year with torrential rains making natural tees very challenging and the course plays easier according to the system. Hmmmm

Thanks and I appreciate your response

Ryan

I can't really comment on unofficial ratings because the TD may not have set the courses properly in the scoring upload. See FAQ: http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/unofficial-versus-official-ratings-and-results

I've had this discussion with Chuck at the Delaware Disc Golf Challenge and I strongly support a Gold Par equaling the SSA. It doesn't stop the 10 down on a really big course, but it does give you a true reading of the difficulty of the course. A Gold Par of 72 that has a SSA of 72 is a real par 72. You don't have to play the course to get an idea of how hard the course is. A par 65 that has an SSA of 60 is very misleading.

I know par doesn't matter. The low score wins etc. The idea of a true par is not to see who wins, it's to standardize scoring. I think a true par is actually needed more in Disc Golf then Ball Golf. With so many different sizes of courses, 200' averages to 400' averages, it would be nice to have a way to compare scores from different courses. A 54 on one course is not a 54 on another course, but an even on a course with a true par is an even no matter what size the course is.

Do we as disc golfers see a perfect round as being all pars or all birdies?

Ball golf courses have par set so that you can always achieve a birdie if you hit your ball exactly where you want to. It's human error (or bad bounces) that cause top level pros to get par.

So in my mind, birdie golf is perfect golf. Which would mean -18 through 18 holes should be attainable.

I fail to see why making Par represent perfect golf would give us any more cred in the non-players opinion. If I see that the best golfer in the state shoots 3 up in the biggest tournament of the year I start to think that maybe these guys aren't all that skilled.

(if anything should be changed it's probably what we consider the "green" or a putt. 30' might be selling our top pros a little short.)

Lowelife,

You "hit the nail on the head" when you started mentioning the dg 'green'.

For dg to be analogous to bg (in the way par is set) AND for par to be the "expected score obtained by expert play", our (dg) greens will HAVE to be expanded WAY past 10m. Probably ~30m is a more practical distance.

A lot would be determined by the "density" of obsticles within that 30m green, but if dg par was set by "the number of strokes of expert play it takes to get onto (into) the green plus 2" it would come closer to both "legitamacy" (of NOT having ludicrously low scores) and having par as a harder-to-obtain number.
Example:
A wide-open field where Sandstrom can throw 500'. His drive lands. He is now faced with 100' to the sparse tree line and another 100' past the tree line amongst some other trees. If he can "find a hole" to get his second shot near the basket, he'll putt for birdie. If his approach hits the tree line, he'll be forced to "make a long approach putt" (of 100') and then a drop-in putt. This hole would be a par 4 (birdiable - but you'd better be good!).

Note that 2007 PGA stats had the average touring pro (just not Tiger on Sundays) "make / miss" putt length was 5.48feet. But PGA greens average ~6000sqft (60'x100') so putts CAN be a lot longer than that. DG analogous putts would be ~30' (=s the 5-6'er in bg) and outward to 100' or so.

In summary:

There are MANY ways to think of how to assign par - none right / wrong...just options (via differing opinions).

Karl

Hello Chuck,

Tyson Harton here, TD of the Lake's Edge Open this past weekend. This is our 3rd PDGA event and the first one we have hosted in the summer.

I wanted to check with you to make sure the ratings from the long positions (the 2nd and 4th rounds) will be adjusted, because they seem about 15-20 points low. The ratings from the shorts seemed pretty close.

The last tournament we played at our course prior to this past weekend was from the same layouts, and was held in the early winter months (when trees arent in full bloom). We were hoping the summer tourney ratings would reflect the foilage the players had to navigate, but it seems the opposite. The course no doubtly plays tougher in the summer. The course par from the longs is 66 this past weekend it is unoffically rated 910, while the winter (easier) tourney the same score was rated 923. We played the longs both the 1st and 3rd round this weekend, as well as last Nov. 14th and 15th. I know the ratings are unofficial, but if I wasnt making someone aware of what I believe to be low ratings, I wouldnt be doing my job as the TD.

My question is, will these ratings be adjusted and do you take into consideration foilage when rating a winter vs. summer tourney at the same course?

And so you can comment on the unofficial ratings, I entered everything correctly.

Thanks,
Tyson

Ratings are based on the scores of the players who played the event. Nothing else. The only difference between unofficial and official ratings will be that scores from R1 & R3 will be combined and R2 & R4 will be combined to produce the official ratings so that players will get the same ratings for the same score on the same layout. Discs do not fly as far in the winter (colder temps) as the summer so essentially the course plays longer in the winter despite the foliage. That may be the simple difference of approximately one throw in the SSA if that's how it comes out. Remember, one shot is only about a 2% difference in SSA.

Hey chuck, Do you know why there arent any ratings available for this tournament http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10729

The tournament was this weekend and just updated.

Yep. The TD was so fast turning in the report that the PDGA office posted the results as Official today. That means we need to wait until the Aug 31st update to see the ratings. That's why some TDs hold off a few days after events before sending the results to the PDGA so players can see unofficial ratings. Not recommending the practice, just saying...

Chuck,

Whats the deadline for submissions of TD reports that will go on the August 31st ratings update?

Thanks,

Chris

Chuck,

Whats the deadline for submissions of TD reports that will go on the August 31st ratings update?

Thanks,

Chris

Found it, thanks.

Tuesday August 17, 2010

Chuck,

Can you explain how a players rating changes when they are not current?

Thanks
Lance

http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/rating-change-with-no-new-events
Also, your round ratings continue to be calculated even when you are not current if the TDs have your PDGA number entered in tournament reports. You can't see the ratings updates, but they are there.

Thank you that is how I explained it to a friend almost verbatim.

how come the Ratings for the Pros at the Oak Hollow Open are higher then the AMs? they played the same courses but different days. Each round the Pro rating was higher for the score. It couldnt be the weather because we had the same rain the third round

Unofficial Ratings are always based on the group of players playing the courses that round. However, we combine the scores from rounds on the same layout if the weather was similar so everyone will get the same rating for the same score when the official ratings get posted.

You're slacking Chuck. :)

Should have just linked the FAQ answer.

We are building a number of new courses here in charlotte, nc. I would like to know the mathematical steps required to calculate course SSA. This summer we hosted the Charlotte Amateur Championship using two of our new course, Nevin and Elon. I have the scores and would like to calculate SSA for each course. I know I can just look at the official results, but I would like to know how to do the calculations based on the scores. Thanks.

That process is not directly available. However, if you talk with one of the local members of the Disc Golf Course Designers group such as Stan, Russell, Harold or Jonathon, they have access to the Hole Forecaster used for course design which can estimate SSA and analyze hole scoring spreads by entering hole by hole tournament scores.

will do. thanks.

I just wanted to make sure that a player playing AM2 with a 941 rating is ok in an A tier event because he just passed the 935 rating in May of this year AND he is involved in a series. The TD has already ok'd it, but he asked me to make sure this isn't a problem. Thanks Chuck.

The A-tier must be part of the series AND the exemption for players who rise above a ratings threshold had to be approved by Gentry before the series started. See section 2.2B in Competition Manual: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGARulesofPlayandCompetitionManual.pdf

Hi Chuck,
Im a bit curious about the ratings for round 3 of Falkoping open 2010 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10559&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Open) The weather was a lot worse during the third round compared to rounds 1 and 2 and as a result most players shot several throws worse. However in the official ratings round 3 is rated in the same manner as the previous rounds (same score gives the same rating). It says in the PDGA FAQ If the SSAs are significantly different, likely due to varying wind conditions, the round ratings will be calculated separately. Shouldnt the SSAs be significantly different in this event? When I calculate the average round ratings for all players completing all 3 rounds I get 939, 938 and 898. I guess there ought to be a small difference since the average rating of the field differs a bit between rounds due to players DNFing ( if I understand things correctly) but to me this difference seems huge.

Best regards
/Tobbe

Each round SSA is calculated separately. If any round is enough different (over 3.5 throws) from the others, it will be rated separately. Otherwise, the rounds are averaged together. The difference here was 3.0 higher in the third round compared to R1 & R2, under 6% different.

I see, thanks a lot :)

Howdy Chuck,
I'm sure this is covered somewhere, but to whom should i direct an email about a mistake in an already-official tournament results (the payout starts a spot below where it should, so the prize $ attributed to everyone is off...looks like 1st won $0, 2nd won the top $ amount, etc.) I'm guessing it's either Mr. Gentry or the TD...

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10465#Open

Thanks for any help.

Christian

Gentry is the one to contact. dgentry at pdga.com

Chuck- I've noticed that nearly all of my rounds this past year were rated higher when unofficial, am I imagining things or are most or all official round ratings dropping a few points?

Imagining things overall. Unofficial ratings only use the current rounds scores. Official ratings combine the rounds on the same layout. Sometimes the average rating of the props also drops when rounds are combined which can cause the ratings to go down a little.

Interesting.....I still think that 9/10 of my ratings have dropped from unofficial to official. For instance, the unofficial Vibram results had me AVG'ing 995 but once it went official the AVG dropped to 985.

Hi Chuck,

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10591&year=2010&include_ratings=1#Open

I think that this td report may not have been correctly filled in to show that all am groups (including advanced) played a different layout. It wasn't much different, but they played two shorter tees on a couple of big over the water shots. But the ams have the same rating for the same score as the pros. Is that possible, given that they played an easier (albeit only slightly) layout?

Thanks

According to the TD report, all divisions played the same layout each round but each round was a different layout. If that's not correct, the TD needs to contact, Dave Gentry for a correction.

Interesting.....I still think that 9/10 of my ratings have dropped from unofficial to official. For instance, the unofficial Vibram results had me AVG'ing 995 but once it went official the AVG dropped to 985.

This system works on averages so players that play in tournaments that have tee times most likely don't have a true reflection of their round. Chuck doesn't believe that wind, morning dew, air coolness affects the outcome if enough scores are averaged together. You and other players know the difference when the wind picks up in the afternoon, the grass skips or discs grip better when grass dries etc. These little factors may only add up to one rating point or throw/stroke like you point out in your 995 to 985, but those strokes do make differences. If you were off by one stroke each round after four rounds you may have very well went from 1st to 4th. That boils down to quite a bit of disparage when you look at losing 10 rating points each round over the span of 30-110 rounds that many serious players are rated on in any given period.:confused:

Another impact for you is that the more players play a course track the better they get at it. This makes a negative impact on the player that rocks the first round or two, but then loses ratings points because by round 3 and 4 most players (especially lower rated players) are playing the track smarter. When averaged, those first couple hot rounds are bound to come down a bit.:(

In the end there is not enough reflection of round conditions by tournament directors so the ratings team is forced to just average everything out in hopes of reducing the negative impact. Rounds with tee times should never be averaged all together even based on perfect conditions. There is even a psychological difference between an early morning round and waiting all day long for a 3:00 pm tee off. :eek:

While all of those effects are valid, they never mean players will get lower ratings overall. All of those effects are included in the average official ratings. For example, if dew and wind boost the unofficial ratings by 16 points in the morning versus playing the same layout in the afternoon, the player gets maybe an unofficial 1016 in the morning and a 1000 in the afternoon for the same score. When the event is processed officially, the player gets two 1008 rounds. No rating points are lost.

Imagining things overall. Unofficial ratings only use the current rounds scores. Official ratings combine the rounds on the same layout. Sometimes the average rating of the props also drops when rounds are combined which can cause the ratings to go down a little.

Dana was talking about Vibram and tee times. So yeah, your explanation makes sense. The guy that plays well in the wind gets deducted from a 1016 round to a 1008 round when the days am and pm rounds from 8:00am---3:00pm all get averaged out. Enough of these over the long haul tends to make a difference. Dana loses a stroke a round over the course of a three round tournament.

We wouldn't feel right about adding three strokes onto his final tournament tally just because he didn't fall within the average by artificially shooting better in worse conditions.

How about the ratings comments over on the Skylands threads? What is a perfect rated round and how do we even compare SSA 60 courses with 66 SSA let alone a 60-66 to an SSA 70+:confused:

The ratings process is not accurate enough to differentiate between round SSAs that are less than about 2 shots apart. In other words, we don't know if an SSA of 56 in the morning and 54 in the afternoon on the same layout among the same pool of players is due to more wind in the morning or just normal stats variance. As a player you might feel the difference but we have to go with the known stats accuracy and average the numbers.

Regarding tee time rounds, I'd prefer to just never provide ratings at all due to the issues you bring up regarding differences from morning to evening. But players want them so we do what we can and sometimes see situations where split round SSAs are generated. Note that the ball golfers are affected just as much with unbalanced weather factors. Their world rankings depend on finish position which can be significantly affected by their draw and whether they get the wind, rain, soft greens, etc.

How about the ratings comments over on the Skylands threads? What is a perfect rated round and how do we even compare SSA 60 courses with 66 SSA let alone a 60-66 to an SSA 70+
We don't compare the record rounds. They are compared within their SSA categories: 60-65.99 and 66+

Check out End of the Trail 2010 results (http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=10487). Although the results are in order, for some reason the "Place" column is wrong on many divisions. I've tried many variations of uploading to try and find what I am doing wrong but for the life of me I can't find the problem. Hope you've seen this before and have some idea what I'm forgetting to do. Thanks.

P.S. I've created all the layouts online and assigned each round and divisions to their layouts.

Since the volunteer programmer who did the scoring display hasn't been involved with the PDGA for quite a while now, we don't know some of the inner workings. However, two things that we've noticed is you sometimes get weird results if you don't Edit and use the Default Layout as one of your courses. Also, if you use the Finals check box, it can be good to also have a Semi-Final by just calling Round 3 your Semi even though everyone plays it.

Since the volunteer programmer who did the scoring display hasn't been involved with the PDGA for quite a while now, we don't know some of the inner workings. However, two things that we've noticed is you sometimes get weird results if you don't Edit and use the Default Layout as one of your courses. Also, if you use the Finals check box, it can be good to also have a Semi-Final by just calling Round 3 your Semi even though everyone plays it.

I think I've tried everything, including all your suggestions. Maybe I should rewrite the scripts for posting unofficial results.

The time is coming up soon to be able to do that. The next phase of behind the scenes database work is almost ready so that some updates like improving uploading scores and display process will be possible.

Any other TD's have any suggestions I might try? I see the other tournaments posted results with a finals round and their results seem to be posted normally which makes me think it could be something I'm doing.

Did youi have pool assignments at some point during the event? Sometimes that will create funky Place values. Now that the event is shown as "Complete" the program also may not act the same.

Did youi have pool assignments at some point during the event? Sometimes that will create funky Place values. Now that the event is shown as "Complete" the program also may not act the same.

No, no pools or anything fishy. I want to say I uploaded the results exactly the same I have been for the last few years. Just went funky this time.

When I upload and it gets to the tiebreaker screen it says 7 people are tied for 1st in the open division. The people range from the actual first place winner, Pal McBeth, to the last place finisher. It makes no sense, the total scores don't match each other, except in the instances of actual ties.

I'll probably have to wait until the results become official, hopefully they'll get cleared up then.

Quick questions for clarification.

I am registered as an Am currently and just cashed in an open event at my home course's C-tier. There is an A-tier coming up in the area and I'm interested in playing but can't afford the open fee and honestly probably stand a better chance in advanced. My rating currently stands at 958. Am I allowed to sign up and play advanced? From some of the documents that I've seen that is the impression that I get but I'm just trying to figure out some of my options. Thanks!

Yes, you can continue to win cash and still occasionally enter Advanced as long as your rating stays under 970.

BUT.......what happens on Jan 1st, 2011 that WILL change for him?

I'll let you answer as it is the ask Chuck thread :)

You mean he will need to renew at the Pro PDGA member rate of $75 rather than the Am rate of $50?

looks like a tournament i was in back in april was finally turned in... even thuogh it missed a couple of ratings updates, would it be included in the next one?

i did very well, for me, and am one of those who is concerned about ratings. i'm currently allowed to play rec and keep kicking myself in the butt for "i would have won rec, but don't want to be a bagger" i'm just trying to get to a point where i "can't" play rec anymore. that way i don't have a choice

Yes, once the tournament results get turned in, they will be in the next update. The ratings will also be inserted in the correct date sequence. In other words, those ratings will be "older" than any newer rounds you might have that have been rated since then in terms of which ones might get double weighted.

Had a few email questions sent to the PDGA Ratings Contact in the past day that ended up in my spam folder and got deleted. If that might have been your question, please resend it and I'll check the spam folder.

Can one use a Super Class disc (eg. Zephyr) in a "regular" PDGA sanctioned event?

Click link to see list of PDGA approved golf discs:

http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGA_approved_discs_090310.pdf

Can one use a Super Class disc (eg. Zephyr) in a "regular" PDGA sanctioned event?

Yes. All Super Class discs meet the standards for use in regular beveled disc events.

Hi Chuck,

When I began playing tournaments in 2001, I seem to recall there were relatively few players rated over 1000. Shooting 1000-rated rounds was for the top 10% of players, and the rest of us were down in the 960s or so.

Now the top 10% are well over 1000 rated, and regular Joe's can score an occasional 1000-rated round, or even higher.

I believe part of this is due to old courses being passed up by disc improvements, more players, and improved skills among those players.

Hypothetically, let's say you have an 18 hole course that has not changed one iota since 2000. Back then, if you shot a 52 that won the round. In 2010 you need to shoot a 44 to win the round. The 52 in 2000 was rated just around 1016. In 2010 the 44 was rated 1065. Maybe the numbers are a little off, but I hope you get the point.

My question is this: why is the round in 2010 not still around 1016? Clearly the course became "easier" over time, so shouldn't the best pro score still be just a little over 1000 rather than creeping up towards 1100?

Thanks!
Steve

The percentage of members over 1000 is still about the same. Course SSAs for those that have been in the ground and layouts haven't changed are still stable. Yes, players have gotten better but there's no rating inflation we can find. Note that Kenny is still at about the same rating but several others have just gotten better and joined him. The cash line in NTs is still about the same in terms of what average rating a player needs to shoot.

Chuck,
In a tournament this weekend the following scenario occurred.

Player threw his second throw and it landed partially in the creek, with one side on the far bank. The creek was not OB and the disc was not OB as it was not surrounded by water (since it was leaning on the far bank). The player placed his marker one meter from the front of the resting disc. He proceeded to hole out on the third throw.

The next player had a similar lie and correctly marked his disc one meter behind the resting disc. The first player, noticing the lie, realized he had holed out from an incorrect lie.

What is the correct score for the player holing out from the incorrect lie? There is nothing in the rule book that we can find directly dealing with this situation.

It's a 2-throw penalty based on the Misplay rules 801.04 even though that specific misplay isn't highlighted. Essentially, if you play a hole improperly in some way and discover it after the hole is "completed" you get a 2-throw penalty added to that hole score.

Hi Chuck,

I did not realize Climo has been so stable at about 1030 over the last 20 yr. That is an amazing accomplishment! And I appreciate the database managers allowing folks to see the history of a player going back that far.

What do you think will be the upper limit for a round rating over the next 5-10 yr? I assume if you plotted the frequency distribution of cumulative round ratings (yielding an S-shaped curve), you'd currently hit the asymptote at 1100 or just slightly above it. I wonder where the point of inflection would be? Has anyone done that for a subset of the data?

Thanks,
Steve

Hey Chuck, I just played the Daviess County Open, and noticed my round score from Round 3 is the same as the winner from Advanced, and yet his round rating is higher, even though we played the exact same course and layout. So why is his round rating higher??

Results aren't official yet.

What do you think will be the upper limit for a round rating over the next 5-10 yr? I assume if you plotted the frequency distribution of cumulative round ratings (yielding an S-shaped curve), you'd currently hit the asymptote at 1100 or just slightly above it. I wonder where the point of inflection would be? Has anyone done that for a subset of the data?

No reason to believe the ratings will drift upward. Since the ratings process is a zero sum game, it will retain the numbers around SSA. SSA may go down a little bit on a course but the highest ratings over 1100 should occur at the same frequency in the future.

Chuck,
In a tournament this weekend the following scenario occurred.

Player threw his second throw and it landed partially in the creek, with one side on the far bank. The creek was not OB and the disc was not OB as it was not surrounded by water (since it was leaning on the far bank). The player placed his marker one meter from the front of the resting disc. He proceeded to hole out on the third throw.

The next player had a similar lie and correctly marked his disc one meter behind the resting disc. The first player, noticing the lie, realized he had holed out from an incorrect lie.

What is the correct score for the player holing out from the incorrect lie? There is nothing in the rule book that we can find directly dealing with this situation.

While Chuck is correct in what he stated - he didn't actually read what you said because in your post BOTH PLAYERS played incorrectly as you said the creek was NOT OB - therefore the mark needs to be the leading edge of the disc or they could use the disc as a mini and play from there.

I've got a question about the Shawshank tournament's scoring procedures.

We were told by the TD that the "island hole" should be scored in a new way, per some new rule called the "bunker rule." I looked all over this site for it, but couldn't find any reference to it.

Basically, if a player tees off and misses the island green, they re-tee again shooting thier second throw. This scoring procedure contradicts the rule 803.09.B - B. A player whose disc is considered
out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty
throw.

Since the rule we were instructed to play under contradicts 803.09.B this would have to be specifically approved by the PDGA in advance under 804.01.D - D. No rules may be stipulated which
confl ict with the PDGA Rules of Play,
unless approved by the Tour Manager
of the PDGA.

Was this variance from the rules granted by the PDGA before the tournament? I'm curious about that because I sought this variance for Texas States about 3-4 years ago and was denied the variance by the Competition Director. It seems unlikely that he would change his mind based on the arguments I received when I applied for it.

Larry

I've got a question about the Shawshank tournament's scoring procedures.

We were told by the TD that the "island hole" should be scored in a new way, per some new rule called the "bunker rule." I looked all over this site for it, but couldn't find any reference to it.

Basically, if a player tees off and misses the island green, they re-tee again shooting thier second throw. This scoring procedure contradicts the rule 803.09.B - B. A player whose disc is considered
out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty
throw.

Since the rule we were instructed to play under contradicts 803.09.B this would have to be specifically approved by the PDGA in advance under 804.01.D - D. No rules may be stipulated which
confl ict with the PDGA Rules of Play,
unless approved by the Tour Manager
of the PDGA.

Was this variance from the rules granted by the PDGA before the tournament? I'm curious about that because I sought this variance for Texas States about 3-4 years ago and was denied the variance by the Competition Director. It seems unlikely that he would change his mind based on the arguments I received when I applied for it.

Larry
The bunCR rule is a creation utilized at the USDGC. I believe it should require a waiver for use, but I suppose it could be categorized as very liberal use of rule 803.05 C (the clause which allows TDs to grant greater relief than the standard 5M on the line of play). Liberal use of casual relief because it is forced when casual relief is generally at the discretion of the player.

One thing it isn't in conflict with is rule 803.09, because you're assuming that the way the island should be played is out of bounds and that's not the case. The TD sets what is and isn't OB and the area around the island isn't OB, it's a forced Casual Relief area.

Thanks for the response Mr. Connell.

I'm not sure that I would agree with it being a casual interpretation of casual relief however...

The Rule manual says this about relief:

Relief: A change made to the player�s lie
or surrounding area, such that an obstacle
is removed from the vicinity, or when
that is impractical, the lie is relocated
away from the obstacle in accordance
with section 803.05C. Obstacles may not
be moved if any part of the obstacle is
between the lie and the hole

All 3 sentences of this definition of relief mention an obstacle. In the case of this "island hole" there isn't any obstacle, so it's hard to see how someone can take relief from something if there isn't anything there except for a two-dimensional line delineated by edge of the driveway surrounding the circle of grass.

Does anyone know if the USDGC applied for, or applies every year for this variance from the published PDGA rules?

bunCR is spelled the way it is because CR is supposed to stand for casual relief. The area designated as a bunCR hazard IS considered an obstacle. It's an "imaginary" obstacle the way a roped off OB area can be viewed as an "imaginary" body of water (or road or parking lot or whatever). Like I said, it is a very liberal and loose interpretation of the casual relief rule. Enough of one that arguing that it doesn't require a waiver is a weak argument at best.

I'm positive that the USDGC is granted waivers for the bunCR rule and any other variance from the published rules that they experiment with. I'm also positive that any other tournament in which such variances are used must obtain their own waiver, as "they use it in the USDGC" isn't enough to justify its use without a waiver.

As posted above, a bunCR is a forced casual relief area which is allowed under the Special Conditions rule 804.01:

A. Rules governing special conditions that may exist on the course shall be clearly defined and disseminated to all players prior to the start of the tournament. All special conditions shall be covered in the players' meeting. Each player is responsible for adhering to all points covered in the player's meeting.
B. The drop zone may be utilized in special conditions. The director must announce prior to the tournament how it is to be used and if a penalty throw is to be assessed. If no penalty is announced prior to the tournament, none will be assessed for use of the drop zone in special conditions.

We just named this course element a bunCR. A bunCR can be established with three types of relief: a rethrow like USDGC, a drop zone, or extended relief on line of play to back side of bunCR with no penalty applied in any of these cases other than the lie relocation.

Many thanks for the clarification Chuck!

This is a surprising interpretation of the rules. It sure seems like it opens up a lot of stuff for similar interpretations in many different circumstances.

I've got to mull that one over for a while.

So am I correct in interpreting your response to indicate that it isn't necessary then to submit a request for a rules variance in advance?

Thank you.

Larry

The only time a waiver is really needed is if you want to do something that appears to not be in sync with the rules. However, I suggest that those using buncrs ask for a waiver, simply because the PDGA office can track how often it's being used so it gets more specifically called out and defined as a feature in future rulebooks.

Hi chuck, I was talking to another am grandmaster, he was explaining to me that he plays pro gm when the field is bigger,which is the same thing I do, but when he accepted cash, because his rating was over 900 he couldn't go back to ams is this true?

Yes. If you want to play in both Am & Pro in an age based division, you cannot accept cash unless your rating is below the limit for pros playing in am for that age division. I'm at 935 rating and play Pro GM if there's enough for a division but can currently only play in Advanced, not Adv Master unless my rating drops below 935 or 900 to play Adv GM.

so if i dont accept cash how high can my rating be to play am gm

There is no ratings cap for anyone classed as an Am, only pros playing Am.

so as soon as i accept cash I'm no longer classed as an am

Yes.

Would taking cash in the open division at a super class event effect someones ametuer status? Would they still be able to play in am majors(USADGC/Am Worlds)?

It is my understanding that you get a seperate rating for super class, so it stands to reason that you should be able to take cash in super class and still maintain Am status in normal disc golf.

Amateurs lose their am status as soon as they accept cash in any PDGA sanctioned event including Super Class. It's no different from accepting cash in sanctioned doubles or match play events which reclassifies a player as a pro and excludes them from Am Majors.

Thanks Chuck

I can't say I'm surprised that nearly every single unnoficial rating was higher than what the actual turned out to be....does that surprise you, Chuck?

On what event? If more than one round is played on a course, half the official ratings will be higher and half lower because of averaging. For example at the USDGC, R1 & R2 scores were averaged to produce their official ratings then the R3 SSA was used for R4 due to the cut so R4 official ratings were all higher than what was posted as unofficial during the event.

Is there any chance we'll see SuperClass ratings updated? Our players from last year's NC SuperClassic aren't showing up as the event was held after the last rating update. I'd like to see it updated before this year's event, if possible. (Yes. There's still a SuperClass event this year.) If it's not, what's the status of SuperClass?

I just checked with Dave and Roger to see if they got reports from recent events. I think we'll be pumping an update out soon.

I know that the Capitol City Challenge and Eric C. Yetter Champions unofficial ratings were both higher. Yetter dropped considerably.

I can't say that I understand why R1 and R2 ratings from USDGC dropped so much after being AVG'd together.

Yeah, it looks like the R1/R2 ratings dropped more than I would have expected. Unfortunately, I can't confirm that the unofficial ratings process matches what we currently do officially even on a per round basis. No one who wrote the software free has been involved with PDGA IT for maybe 8 years now. For example, I'm not sure that propagators who shoot more than 60 points below their rating (which many did at the USDGC at least one round) get dropped in the calculation like they do in the official process. This will artificially boost the SSA for unofficial ratings if this isn't done. However, the new web interface for events which is underway will address this issue and should produce ratings more consistent with the official process since we'll know for sure how they are being calculated.

Chuck,

I'm thinking something's goofy in the Yetter Cup ratings (official - that just came out). I base this on the following:

a. The tentative ratings were QUITE a bit higher (like 10 rating points per round average) than the "official", and

b. The REAL reason I say this - that a score of X in, say, round 5 for a Pro equates to the same rating as a round 5 X for an Am...and they played totally different courses with totally different OBs (even if they DID play the same course - which they didn't).

What's the scoop?

Karl

Thanks for pointing this out. I looked at the TD report and I think the course assignments were accidentally shifted one round. The TD assigned courses for the Advanced divisions in R1 thru R4. However, all of the Advanced scores were entered in columns R2 thru R5 so there's a mismatch. We'll add it to our corrections for the next update.

Chuck,

Hope the following helps (if any doubt, better check with the TDs)...

It's my belief that the sections (AMs and Pros) / rounds went this way:

Round 1 =
only Pros played a 27-hole round.

Round 2 =
Pros played 1 x 18-hole round on course "A" with V OBs in place.
AMs played 1 x 18-hole round on course "B" with X OBs in place.

Round 3 =
Pros played 1 x 18-hole round on course "B" with Y OBs in place.
AMs played 1 x 18-hole round on course "A" with Z OBs in place.

Round 4 =
Pros played 1 x 18-hole round on course "A-" with V OBs in place.
AMs played 1 x 18-hole round on course "B-" with X OBs in place.

Round 5 =
Pros played 1 x 18-hole round on course "B-" with Y OBs in place.
AMs played 1 x 18-hole round on course "A-" with Z OBs in place.

Because of this, I believe all 9 rounds (5 for Pros and 4 for AMs) were ALL played on different courses (from any other round)...and thus should be rated "independently".

Karl

I think all of the info is on the report although there are only six different 18-hole layouts besides the 27 played by pros. It was just shifted by round messing it up for everyone. If you think there are eight 18-hole layouts, then contact Andrew to voice your concerns because we don't know what happened other than what we see on the report. He has Adv in R3 playing the same as pros in R2 and Adv in R5 playing the same as pros in R4.

Well I guess that explains why the Yetter ratings were so low. Those won't get fixed until the December update then?

Thanks, Chuck

Yep. We're doing regular updates so often now that we haven't been doing correction runs in-between them.

I think all of the info is on the report although there are only six different 18-hole layouts besides the 27 played by pros. It was just shifted by round messing it up for everyone. If you think there are eight 18-hole layouts, then contact Andrew to voice your concerns because we don't know what happened other than what we see on the report. He has Adv in R3 playing the same as pros in R2 and Adv in R5 playing the same as pros in R4.
You and the TD report have it correct, Chuck. Six layouts used for the collective 8 rounds.

A. 1 through 18, C-pins (Pro R2, Am R3)
B. 19 through 36, C-pins, long tee 32, OB on 36 (Pro R3)
C. 19 through 36, C-pins, short tee 32, no OB on 36 (Am R2)
D. 1 through 18, mixed pins (Pro R4, Am R5)
E. 19 through 36, mixed pins, long tee 32, OB on 36 (Pro R5)
F. 19 through 36, mixed pins, short tee 32, OB on 36 (Am R4)

So the rounds that should have been rated together were both played on the front 18 course. That course was laid out identically for the pro pool and the am pool on both Sat and Sun. The only extenuating circumstances regarding use of that course was on Sunday, when the pro pool played it in the morning in sometimes heavy rain, while the ams played it in the afternoon in drier conditions. I'd argue the difference might be enough to rate the rounds separately anyway. But Pro R2 & Am R3 can be rated together with no issues...weather was same for both.

Perhaps surprisingly, rain alone doesn't seem to affect scores. However, many times rain also involves windier conditions. Apparently, players play a little safer in the rain and it seems to produce similar scores as when it's dry. Either way, we always calculate ratings by round in the first pass and only combine them on the same layout for the final official ratings pass if they are close enough to combine.

Hey Chuck,

When you stopped in W PA and paid us a visit you showed me a LED light that was very thin and bright...Remember??? I think you said it was a prototype, are they for sale yet?

Apparently they are not shipping at this point. I tried to set up a distributor and they couldn't meet his order.

Chuck is there a simple or complicated mathmatical formula that would relate the difference in two players' ratings to the odds of the higher rated player beating the lower rated player in a single round?

It's somewhat complicated and you have to know each player's standard deviation in their ratings. There's probably a direct calculation in the stats book. But I've built a simulator that generates 1000 random scores on a bell curve for 1 to 30 people using their SD values. Then just looks at the scores and figures who won. For example, a player with a 1033 rating and an SD of 23.7 will beat a player with a 1013 rating and SD of 29.5 72% of the time if they are playing head-to-head. Can't help beyond that.

It's somewhat complicated and you have to know each player's standard deviation in their ratings. There's probably a direct calculation in the stats book. But I've built a simulator that generates 1000 random scores on a bell curve for 1 to 30 people using their SD values. Then just looks at the scores and figures who won. For example, a player with a 1033 rating and an SD of 23.7 will beat a player with a 1013 rating and SD of 29.5 72% of the time if they are playing head-to-head. Can't help beyond that.

The distribution of the difference in round ratings has a mean equal to the difference in ratings, and a variance equal to the sum of the variances (square of the standard deviations). So, just use the normal distribution function to get the probability of the difference being greater than zero. (Like 70.1433% in your example.)

For general interest purposes, it wouldn't be hard to make a table of probabilities (of one rating beating another) using "typical" standard deviations.

I have 21 rounds rated. I have two rounds dropped. a 734 and like a 780something. The rest of mine are from 860- 933. I had two god awful rounds this weekend at 808 and 811. I had to good rounds at like 950 and 912. The two rounds that are dropped are going to be over a year old now. I was wondering if you think those rounds this weekend would be dropped or not. thanks a lot. I also have like 4 other rounds not in the update from like 879- 899.

Can't tell for sure. I don't have the individual data for players to calculate it. My ratings partner Roger has that database. You can always try to do it yourself by calculating your standard deviation using Excel and see whether those rounds are far enough below your average. However, looking at the ratings range of the rounds you just mentioned, it's apparent that rounds more than 100 points below your average will be dropped.

Can rounds at a sanctioned PDGA tournament I played in before I became a PDGA member count towards my rating? If so, how do I get these rounds added to my "record"? Thanks.

Send an email to: dgentry at pdga.com indicating which events you played before you got your PDGA number. Only events played in 2010 will be added, not in years before.

Got a quick question for you Chuck. I just played in a tournament on 11.27.2010. I know ratings get calculated in a whole year back. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this so I'll just give you the details and you let me know. If I don't have a tournament on that date a year ago does it go back to the last tournament I had which would have been on 11.21.09 or is everything from 11.27.09 and on figured in and everything before that date dropped? I guess what I'm asking is...is it from 11.27.09-11.27.10 or what? Thanks for clearing the confusion!

It's 12 months prior to the date of your (and each player's) most recently rated round. However, if that's less than 8 rounds, we go back farther until we get at least 8 rounds. That 11.27.10 event may not make it in this next ratings update unless the TD files the report in the next few days.

If I can see the results and it says "unofficial tournament results" does that mean they were turned in for the ratings or does the td have to do something else by Tuesday? I hope I'm asking that right....

The answer is in the Ratings FAQ: http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/unofficial-versus-official-ratings-and-results

I guess it would be easier to ask this...could you tell me if the Belch'n Turkey in Chattanooga has been turned in for this Tuesday's deadline?

Can't tell you because I don't receive the reports. They go to PDGA HQ. You'll be able to tell if it came in and was processed if the results become Official by Thursday. If not, then it didn't come in in time for this update.

Ok...thanks

Has there been any thought on "weighting" rounds based on the number of holes played during a round? If somebody shoots 2 rounds of 27 holes and averages 1050 it should really count the same as someone who shot 3 1050 rated rounds of 18 holes. (The 27 hole round should be weighted with a 1.5 factor, 24 hole round with a 1.33 factor) Right now you could have a situation where 2 people play the same 2 tournaments (1st round 27 holes, 2nd round 18 holes), player A wins both events however ends up with a lower average rating than player B who took 2nd in both events simply because he shot better on the 27 hole layout.

The ratings have been weighted by the number of holes in each round for years now. Players' round ratings are maintained in the database on a "per hole" basis. That is multiplied by the number of holes in each of the rounds being used to produce the new rating at each update. That's why someone trying to use their published round ratings to calculate their new rating might not get exactly the same number due to rounding errors.

So here's an interesting putting style that my brother asked me about. I think I know the ruling, but thought I should ask the expert.

Say your lie sits at 29 ft. You get up to the disc and mark it. You place your right foot so that your toe is just inside the 30 cm allowable space directly behind the lie. Your left foot is then placed behind and to the left, as in a "normal" putting stance.

Ok, so here's the question. You putt and use your left foot to push off and step through. Your left foot lands behind the "no-cross" line created by the marking of your lie. Therefore, it is further forward than your right foot. After your left foot has landed, you are in a set position showing balance and remaining behind the "no-cross" line.

Is it legal?

I think so.

Legal. The reference distance for making the call is the distance from the pin to the back edge of your marker. As long as the following foot ends up farther from the pin than that reference distance, you're still good.

Now, let's say this player pushes off with his left foot and has it in the air at the time the disc is released. The player sort of freezes that position holding the left foot in the air for say 3 seconds and then swings it forward past the marker before touching the ground. The RC is pondering whether that visible pause will be enough "proof" of balance to meet the way the rule is currently written and not be considered a foot fault.

If they are going to review the ruling, would it not be easier to just completely vacate the 10M rule? If we were to leave this rule behind, it would mostly only affect shots from the 6M-10M range and could definitely pick up speed of play (no measuring, asking, or walking off putts). Then, all stance violations are the same on every throw any where on the course.

Does enforcing this rule really add anything to the game? Would not enforcing it really take anything away from it?

I assume this rule was created to kind of create a 'green'. It doesn't though.

The 10m rule was not created to produce a green but to prevent deadfall putting and leaping slam dunks. The RC still hasn't figured out how to eliminate the 10m line (or pick the distance) without forcing stand & deliver throws everywhere but the tee. That would work but not be popular.

"or more than 2.5 standard deviations below your rating"

Can you explain that to me...I'm not sure I know what that means. I understand the 100 points below you're rating. Thanks!

Calculate the Standard Deviation (SD) of your round ratings and multiply that by 2.5. If that number is smaller than 100, then rounds rated more than that amount below your average rating will be dropped that update. Your Standard Deviation indicates how consistent you have played - the smaller your SD the more consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

You'll have to excuse my lack of intelligence. I guess this is the best way to explain, I had an unofficial 844 and a 922 this past weekend? So the difference being 78. Do I need to figure up the average deviation for every tournament for the past year or is it per event?

"then rounds rated more than that amount below your average rating will be dropped that update"

I guess that is what I'm not comprehending? Thanks for the info so far Chuck!

*Note - I went back and figured the difference per each tournament round. So for example I took round 1 and round 2, figured the difference for that tournament and wrote it down. I continued to do that for every tournament. Totaled it up and divided by the amount of tournaments I played in. Came up with the number 45. That's my average standard deviation for the year. So...times 2.5 was 112.5. Where do I go form here?

Unofficial ratings are not used. We calculate your standard deviation using the official round ratings in your most recent update to figure out if any rounds should be excluded/dropped. Here are your rounds that were used to calculate your standard deviation using the formula shown at the Wiki link in my previous post which is the STDEV function in Excel: http://www.pdga.com/player-ratings-detail?PDGANum=31954&year=2010

On this latest update I have a tourney on my record that was played November 7th 2009 Why was this not dropped off?
I thought all material had to be turned in on Nov 14th so it shouldnt have been concluded right??

On this latest update I have a tourney on my record that was played November 7th 2009 Why was this not dropped off?
I thought all material had to be turned in on Nov 14th so it shouldnt have been concluded right??

The one year back is dated from the most recent tournament included in your rating, not the date of the update. Obviously, your most recent included tournament was played before Nov 7, 2010.

Chuck,

Why hasn't a tourney I played in Oct being used for my rating? It has gone through two updates.

We can't force the TD to turn in the report. But for the last update of the year in January, every TD in the past several years has finally turned in all reports. I think sending the "ghost of tournaments past" to visit their dreams on Christmas eve might have helped...

mekes no sense, i go from 8th to out of the top 20 in world rankings!!!!! how after finishing 5th at USDGC and my rating went down a point. just wondering

Look at the story on the home page. A mistake was made in the October rankings which was corrected. You get penaiized for not having another Major, Worlds being second most valuable after USDGC. John E McCray right above you has a similar situation with no Worlds or other Major.

ok so you can have have 2 majors and nothing else and that doesnt penalize you at all?

The weighting depends on how many World Ranked players enter a Major. Playing at least four NTs and/or ETs also counts as a Major. Currently, if all someone did was play USDGC and the min NTs there would be no penalty. USDGC and Worlds only would have a slight penalty. This is the World Rankings so the idea is that players actually play against World Ranked players, not just get there based on their rating. But we don't want to exclude top rated players so there are proportional penalties for not playing enough Majors or NTs.

so 3 nts and a major, with no worse than a 6th place finish and i get penalized? i'm just trying to sort it out chuck, not trying to jump down your throat or anything. i appreciate what you guys do but you do baffle me on occasions.

The minimum number of NTs and/or ETs to get this counted as a Major is at least 4 for men (3 for women). No credit for just 1, 2 or 3 other than they hopefully help your rating. All of this info has been in the World Ranking section here: http://www.pdga.com/WorldRankings Download the documents and take a look.

Hey Chuck: As far as you know, ratings limits for the amateur divisions are not changing for 2011?

I know they are not changing.

The minimum number of NTs and/or ETs to get this counted as a Major is at least 4 for men (3 for women). No credit for just 1, 2 or 3 other than they hopefully help your rating. All of this info has been in the World Ranking section here: http://www.pdga.com/WorldRankings Download the documents and take a look.

the no credit for less nt/et events seems like it punishes way too much! should be a sliding scale or something in there, it would still punish those who dont get the min. events and not throw everything out the window

either way it works whatever.

The NT/ET factor was added new for 2010 at the request of some top players rather than just use the Memorial results only which was done for 2009. It seemed like 4 NT/ET events was the appropriate minimum for men who were striving for a better World Ranking versus regional pros who might play just a few NTs in their area. And you get to use your best 4 so playing even more might help your ranking. There were 18 NTs/ETs so playing at least 4 is not an unreasonable expectation for a World ranked player and 27 players did that in 2010. Now you know for 2011. Good luck.

Chuck,

Any possibility that the course directory include an Average SSA statistic. I know there would be some logistics to work out such as tournaments playing different layouts. If there were a way for the course contact to submit permanent layout(s) as a standard for that course and then TDs to be able to select one of the "standard" layouts for the course or whether they were using a custom layout when they submit their results and report, that could be a way.

I think it would be really cool for someone to be able to travel somewhere, play a course and be able to get an idea of what that round would have been rated.

The first order of business will be to link the existing SSA data for each course to the directory listing so you can click on the SSA data link when you visit the course in the directory. If you haven't seen it, this is the link to look up every SSA ever produced in the last 10 years ratings were being calculated: http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course We hope to have that link in place during 2011. Down the road, I hope to have an app where you could enter the layout you plan to use on a course when you look it up and it would produce an estimated SSA for it. This is already being done for the Disc Golf United handicapping system.

Cool Link Chuck!!

I noticed under Arkansas, 2 incorrect listings

showing a Moose Pretzel Course out of Homer, Arkansas - this course is in Alaska not Arkansas

also showing Gulley Park (no longer exists from Fayetteville, Arkansas - never had a PDGA event played) with info from a Gulley Park Open out of Ohio

Once the links are made to the Course Directory, then we'll have the ability to go thru and make those corrections. There are many entries in there that are from TDs not entering the proper information or when we were doing course layouts manually for ratings 5 or 6 years ago.

Chuck got a quick question,

With the new format change, I was looking at my ratings and I swear my two 808 rated rounds were dropped. When the new format changed it has them counting. I hope they counted in my rating. Did i look at it wrong the first time or not? my rating stayed the same. thanks.

Not sure what you mean by format changed? Do you mean the Oct update versus Dec update? If so, then it's possible rounds that get dropped in one update might be included in the next one if your rating goes down or your standard deviation increases between updates.

Not sure what you mean by format changed? Do you mean the Oct update versus Dec update? If so, then it's possible rounds that get dropped in one update might be included in the next one if your rating goes down or your standard deviation increases between updates.

the format change, all the tournaments look a little different. just go to a tournament anyone and see if they look just a tad bit different. It might just be my computer. I must have looked at it wrong, but I swear i thought they was a no next to them. My rating went up so, that's not the problem.

Ah, I haven't looked until now. Gentry updated the backend of the PDGA website today and some displays have changed somewhat plus there's a new search function to rank people in your state by rating. However, that shouldn't have changed whether a round was included or not. That Yes/No value is assigned in our separate ratings database and those values are directly passed to the PDGA database for display.

Got my Christmas gift from Innova for this year, I'm not sure what mold it is. The markings look to be "P-MD2" Looks like some type of mid-range. What is it?

2 Questions: *You may not be able to help with either but I don't know who else to ask.

1 - On my most recent tournament results, the results themselves show up but usually there is a button that I can click on that says SHOW ROUND RATINGS and that's not showing up. It's from the tournament in Athens, AL on December 18th.

2 - I noticed on my own personal page with my results for the year, that it used to be seperated for each division. For example if I played in Rec it showed those tournaments and if I played in Intermediate it showed those seperate. Now they're all jumbled up together. Do you know if that's just temporary or if they're planning on going back to the way it was. My opinion is I like it the old way! Just my $.02. No sense in fixing something if it ain't broken.

thanks Chuck for whatever info you have. Hope you have a Merry Christmas!

The markings look to be "P-MD2"
Check the equipment link below for info on this disc. The disc is a mid-range sold under the European Discmania brand and molded by Innova. http://www.discgolfreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20184

1 - On my most recent tournament results, the results themselves show up but usually there is a button that I can click on that says SHOW ROUND RATINGS and that's not showing up. It's from the tournament in Athens, AL on December 18th.

2 - I noticed on my own personal page with my results for the year, that it used to be separated for each division.

1. See Ratings FAQ on Official vs Unofficial results: http://www.pdga.com/faq/ratings/unofficial-versus-official-ratings-and-results
2. Upgrades were made to the website Friday with some new functionality in the player search and personal records display. I suspect we'll hear from Gentry regarding the changes and what they will provide.

No...my first question was not the difference in official and unofficial but that the unofficial ratings aren't even showing up for the event. Is there any reason for that? You answered my second question though...thanks.

Can't answer your Q1 since the website changed Friday. I'll have to find out Monday from Gentry what's happening with unofficial ratings. Maybe not everything got reset yet from the upgrade.

Check the Dec 18th Alabama event now. Gentry fixed the Show Ratings function.

I seen it...thanks! Have a Merry Christmas!

Sorry...I have another question. When our ratings are figured up for the year, it says the past 25% get counted twice and everything before that is counted once. I was always under the belief that it was every tournament that was played between the previous update and the newest cutoff date for the new update. For example...we received our new update on the 12th. I have played in two tournaments since then so I figure those are the only 2 that will be counted twice. Or is it...for 2010: January-August is counted once and then September through present is counted twice. Because that would be 25% of the ratings period? Hope you can clear that up. Thanks Chuck!

It's the most recent 25% of your round ratings, not a number of months.

Sorry...I have another question. When our ratings are figured up for the year, it says the past 25% get counted twice and everything before that is counted once. I was always under the belief that it was every tournament that was played between the previous update and the newest cutoff date for the new update. For example...we received our new update on the 12th. I have played in two tournaments since then so I figure those are the only 2 that will be counted twice. Or is it...for 2010: January-August is counted once and then September through present is counted twice. Because that would be 25% of the ratings period? Hope you can clear that up. Thanks Chuck!


in the simplest of terms if u have 12 rounds total then your last 3 will be counted twice. 20 rounds then last 5 . etc. :rolleyes:

A Quick Question for you.

I'm a PDGA Affiliate Club member of multiple Clubs. I am currently a PDGA Official and have renewed my Aces Club membership for 2011 already.

Do I still have to pay the $ 10.00 to take the Officials Test ? Or is that Free for being a Affiliate Club member ?

Thanks ,
Donny Olow PDGA # 2656
donnyotime@yahoo.com

Contact PDGA HQ. I don't know.

I'll do that.

Thanks !

Chuck, where can I find course ratings for Oklahoma?

Thanks!!

Chuck, where can I find course ratings for Oklahoma?

Thanks!!

Not Chuck, but I recently went thru this

http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../course-ratings-by-course)

Hello Chuck.

I know the age limit to play Masters is turning 40 in that calendar year. But on the home page I saw where SEVERAL people have proposed to raise that by 5-10 more years. Do you think that is going to happen before 2012 Worlds in N. Carolina

No. Read my response on the other thread.

thank you

Chuck,

Regarding the ROY criteria:

It appears that "A" tier events are treated the same a "B" tier events in that "event ratings" for 4 events "B tier or higher" are included. Is this correct?

tia,

Dave W

Yes. You get your best four B-tier or higher events along with your best Major/NT/ET event rating (excluding Worlds). In theory, you could have USDGC and four NTs with no As or Bs as your best five or one NT and four Bs.

Would this disc be holed out in tourney play?
(according to PDGA 2011 update)

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs076.snc6/168596_486553276783_574946783_6661443_184059_n.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs079.snc6/168968_486547796783_574946783_6661344_6171011_n.jp g

I would say "yes." Of course, if no one saw it land there, it would be good. If people saw it, it looks like it could only come from a trajectory that properly went over the top wire of the basket and wedged touching the inside wall of the basket.

It definitely was an ace, just scares me that it could even come into question.
:D

Good Afternoon Chuck,

I was wondering what are the effective dates of events included in this upcoming New Ratings?

We got word from PDGA headquarters that our event on the 8th of January would not be included even though we got our TD report in by the 11th of January deadline. We were told no 2011 rounds would be included in this update but would be included in the March 2011 update. Can you expand as to why this would be true.

Are we really doing an update to catch the remainder of 2010 even with the last update coming from December 14th!

Is there a good place to look for this information regarding rating updates and effective dates for the updates?

The January update has always been the last update for the previous year and only those events are included. There are 60-70 events in this last batch which also has stragglers from much earlier in the year. It's necessary to have a final update with all events only from the previous year so those final ratings can be used for Player of the Year, World Rankings and Points awards.

We pushed back the first update for 2011 by a week this year since so few events were reported last year by mid-March. There will still likely be less than 100 events this year when all of the other updates after March have around 200 events.

The Ratings FAQ "When are ratings updated" always has the dates for the ratings updates in each year.

The ratings for this event are WRONG. Advanced played the same layout as the Pros for both rounds.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/16103/Open

The tournament report indicated only the Pros played the long layout and all Ams played short. I just sent an email to the TD to clarify.

Thanks Chuck.

Hey Chuck, just a quick question on disc weights. I'm wondering if there is any allowance on max weight, and how this is verified. For example, I have a champion whippet that weighs 178g on my scale, but does not have a weight marked on the bottom. I also weighed several of my other "max" weight discs, and they seem to be 1-2grams over as well. What kind of penalty would be incurred for using said discs in PDGA play, if any? Are TD's going to weigh discs in the future? Thanks for your time!!

Officially, there's no tolerance on weight except when a tournament specifies one such as the Japan Open. They allowed 2 grams over 150 in earlier years. We used their standard of 1.5% tolerance for Super Class discs where technically a disc that maxes at 200g on the PDGA chart could be up to 203g allowing 1.5% tolerance. The competition Manual is silent on any tolerances for regular disc play. So for the moment, the max weights listed in the PDGA Approved disc list must be followed if a player or TD asks for a measurement.

The ratings for this event are WRONG. Advanced played the same layout as the Pros for both rounds.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/16103/Open

Will the ratings for this event be changed during the next update?

Yes. The correction will be done sometime this month to finalize 2010 data.

Hey Chuck -

Not sure if you noticed, but late last year (actually, the last day of the year) I ran a SuperClass tournament. Nate and I shredded by our standards and averaged 1022 for the event. There were a group of folks down from Seattle with SC ratings of their own in the field as well. It was Nate and I's first SC event...here is what I am wondering: When do the SC Ratings get published, and to your knowledge, are we the top rated SC players in the world now? Oh, Nate beat me in a playoff...and on my birthday!

Also, we personally felt that we should have gotten higher ratings for the event (based on our knowledge of the course, and what we shoot with our regular equipment), but we aren't complaining, we're just happy we played well.

D

October was the last Super Class update. I'll check with Gentry so we can complete 2010 SC ratings. Your unofficial ratings were based on players' regular PDGA ratings. When they are done officially, the SC ratings of players who have enough SC ratings to be propagators will be used which may change the result. SC ratings in general are more compressed than regular PDGA ratings because the Super Class SSA will always be higher on any course than the regular SSA.

Any plans to fix the "player stats" page? The tournaments aren't listed in order by date and it is really confusing.

Also are results from pre-2003 now lost forever?

Thanks

It's probably just something with the database functions that have to be activated again since they did the server upgrade yesterday. They are continuing to add more older events online so the pre-2003 items that are missing should reappear.

Hi Chuck,

My questions are in regards to membership renewals and packages for 2011.

When are the renewal membership packs usually delivered? If my membership pack fails to arrive, who should be notified? Do they get sent via the USMail, FedEx, UPS, or some other courier?

I did renew well before the end of the year, my magazine still makes it out here, I'd mostly like to see the 2011 card and whatever else might be included.. thank you,

Bowler
26226

You should have gotten your packet within 10-12 days max. I got mine, I think US Mail, in maybe 5 days and it was among a club affiliate multiple set of renewals done online. If you didn't do it online and mailed it in, contact PDGA office. If you did it online, then call: 1-888-840-7342 to find out what happened to delay your pack.

within 10-12 days of what? Jan 1.? 3rd year in a row that it has been 6+ weeks for me if Jan 1. is the key. If people actually got their packs before 2010 was out, that really makes me wonder what the problem is. thanks again.

10-12 days after when you renewed. Not sure what might have caused your delay. I've seen few posts from members about delays receiving renewal packs compared with some past years. Good luck getting it resolved.

Talked with Kieth, he seems to be on top of the situation. Thanks for the contact info.
Mutli-year renewals take a little longer.......

It's probably just something with the database functions that have to be activated again since they did the server upgrade yesterday. They are continuing to add more older events online so the pre-2003 items that are missing should reappear.

What about placing events back in chronological order?

You should be able to sort by date but it looks like that function hasn't been reactivated yet since they switched servers.

All I want for my birthday is a 950 or greater rating... :)

Chuck...can someone please call me at (702) 249-0387. The tee-times will not post for the Gentlemen's Club Challenge Am weekend. When I load everything, it say OK, but the times will not display. HELP!!! I have 100 ams looks for the tee times now!!!

Jeff Jacquart

Hi,
I have tried searching this forum for an answer to this but havnt been able to find it so my apologies if this is a reoccuring question but:

We are arranging an annual series of off season (cold winter around here) tournaments which we are getting PDGA rated for the first time. Some of the players do not feel they perform well in the winter conditions and might be afraid it will hurt their rating. Furthermore, having a decent rating could be important in order to be allowed to play at a lot of the major events later this year. Do players who feel this way have an option to play non-rated by "forgetting" to supply their pdga number or do they have to risk their rating or refrain from playing at all?

I.e what happens if a player who is a pdga member (current or not current) omits supplying his/her pdga number when signing up for one of these tournaments (pdga membership not mandatory). Would it be the TD:s responsibility to find the pdga number anyway? Does the round update his/her rating?

Best regards
/Tobbe

I realize some people will consider going beyond actually playing better to maintain a higher rating. But there are only a few people where it really matters from a practical standpoint because they need to maintain a 4-digit rating to retain sponsorship. Otherwise, no other PDGA events (except Am Nationals if you haven't qualified) have a minimum rating to enter the event. If anything, players might want a lower rating so they qualify to enter a lower division in these bigger events, and you always have the option to play up.

Other than these few sponsored players around 1000 rating, it usually doesn't matter if members do things they think will retain a higher rating like tanking rounds so they don't get included in their rating or not reporting their membership number so they don't get ratings (which of course will cost them the extra $10 non-member fee). Is the chance to maybe keep a higher rating really worth that extra $10?

These stunts that keep a player's rating propped up at a level higher than their current skill level mostly helps other players. The only way a few other players might be impacted negatively by a player tanking or not completing a round is if their behavior during that round is poor or they drop from a 3-some in the middle of a round so there are only 2 left in the group.

Something to consider is that most players do not shoot lower ratings in the winter even if their scores are higher because the ratings are based on how well everyone plays. When everyone's scores are higher on average, it means the course is playing tougher. A 50-60 degree drop in temperature can reduce everyone's max distance around 30-50 feet due to higher air density (plus more restrictive clothes). It's likely if a 55 rates 950 in the summer, a 60 might also rate 950 in windy, wintry weather on that course. Many players can actually shoot better rated rounds in winter even if their scores are the same or higher than summer on the same course.

Arguably, signing up without providing your current PDGA number would violate the Competition Manual 2.1(D): "A player must properly identify themselves when competing in a PDGA sanctioned event."

The TD would probably be violating the sanctioning agreement if he were to knowingly permit this. The sanctioning agreement used to require the TD to collect the non-member fee from non-members and get the PDGA number from members.

You ought to tell those guys, "Look, were all Swedes here, except the occasional Norg or Finn or Lapp who makes the drive. We all know how to put on and take off mittens. The cold affects us all the same, so it won't affect ratings at all."

Chuck,

If one where to click on the "PDGA Tour / Statistics" and select say "Am Master", some of the players listed within are Pros (as they have accepted cashed - and it's even listed that way in their bio's).
Apparently, those Pros that have (at least once) played in an Am section that year (which of course they're allowed to do) are also pooled into the Ams.

Any thoughts about how these Pro (that have played Am) can be just listed in the Pro pool?

Karl

It looks like there are still other issues to be resolved with the stats listing since the label on top of an amateur selection like Am Master says they are Pro Masters and the column sorting doesn't work in IE although it does work in Chrome, at least for the page of players you are looking at.

Karl, regarding separating or eliminating the Pros from Ams within a listing, I can see how that might be helpful for final point standings since the pro members can't get invites to Am Worlds even if they have enough am points that year. I'll check with Gentry and see if that's possible as they re-establish the proper reporting and sorting issues mentioned above.

First, just to clarify why it is an issue to not drop your ratings in Sweden this year... We have now begun to use a three-stage registration process for the national events. You have to be 975+ MPO to be able to sign up at stage one, a week later registration opens for 950+ MPO etc. There is a risk that the 90-player field is filled after stage 1 or 2, hence the fear for having your rating to drop below the stage limits.

However, I fully agree that rounds can be equally or better rated in winter depending on how the rest of the field plays.

I have two questions though, will ratings be the same even if the field contains some non-PDGA members? i.e. does non-PDGA members rounds contribute to SSA calculations etc?
The other question is, since I have suffered from a "frozen shoulder" for two years, there is no way to freeze your rating due to "sick leave"? I have still played in PDGA competitions, knowing that I will get a lower rating due to my injury.

Ratings are calculated only from scores of PDGA members who have established ratings based on at least 8 rounds. This does include PDGA members who may not be current at the time of the event. Non-members who play will not change the ratings.

No way to freeze your rating other than not playing sanctioned events. Ratings track your historical performance. If you do not play as well while impaired, your scores and resulting ratings are still historical reflections of those performances, even if your rating doesn't indicate your potential scores once your frozen shoulder goes away. It might not help you get into a national event this year, but the good news is that your rating is only based on rounds 12 months prior to your most recent event. So, your old higher rating should return within 12 months after your shoulder heals.

Chuck,

Under the "Finalist Factors" of POY and ROY detail procedures is the sentence,

"Once the POY finalists have been determined, the following factors are calculated. The Event Rating each player threw prior to the semifinals is calculated."

Is this calculation the exact same number as the "Best Event Rating Average" used to determine the finalists for these awards? I.E. is it the best B-tiers + best "Major, NT or ET" double weighted, or are all the events equally weighted, or is it some other combination of events and weightings? Sorry if this seems like a dumb question, but it is not clear to me as written.

Dave

This sentence: "The Event Rating each player threw prior to the semifinals is calculated." only refers to the Worlds Event Rating which only averages round ratings thru the semifinals since there are no ratings in the 9-hole finals. The Average Event Rating of a player's best seven events (the two Major/NT/ETs are double weighted) that is used to determine the POY finalists doesn't change for the final calculations. That value is currently weighted at 35% in the final calculations and the Worlds Event Rating has a 20% weight.

Chuck, my 2010 stats are missing from my stats page. It doesn't seem to be the same for everyone. Is this because of the server upgrade or just the 2011 header switch.
thanks John Moncrief #21433

I'll check into it. My 2010 stats aren't there either.

Looks like it's fixed. You should be able to pull up your 2010 stats now.

Chuck, Will the round rating from The Memorial be included in the next player ratings update and, if so, will last years Memorial ratings drop off at this next update for those who played it last year?

The plan is for The Memorial to be included in the upcoming ratings update. Last year's Memorial ratings will not drop off even if this year's Memorial is a player's most recent event because the starting date for last year (March 3) is less than 365 days before the starting date for this year (March 2).

Ok, I’ve played in tourneys since 1996 and have only dropped out 2 times in as many years, both from injuries (back related). 2010 was my second time and that was at the Stafford Lake last year in September. First round played ok sitting in 8th place. Second round while walking on hole sixteen to my lie I slipped on the dry grass, caught myself and pulled my lower back out. (very steep grade) When I got to the tee on 17 I realized I was done for the day and called it quits. I walked to the td and told him I could not finish. So I had one round done and done. I never quit, and this was not something I was doing to save my rating as I have seen many top players do, this was real. My rating was at a low 970, not bad, so I figured nothing should change being that I did not finish my second round on the first day. So until the last update my score was still 970, mind you this was in September, and now Im getting ready for Saint Pats in Sacramento and the rating changed did I realize the gave me a 4 point change down from this tourney. So I emailed the PDGA thinking something must be wrong and Kennedy answered back, stating "The Stafford Lake ProAm event at the end of August was not reported to the PDGA until January just in time for the 2010 yearend ratings update. So finally including that event brought down your rating 4 points even though you haven't played since September." "I'm sure both of those round ratings got double weighted since, from a date standpoint, they were your 3rd and 4th most recent rounds out of 24 rounds in your current rating. Your 25% most recent rounds (for you that's six) are double weighted." and finally "I looked at the tournament report and only one round was rated from that event, not two like I thought. If you complete a round and the score gets posted it gets rated regardless of what happened in the round. That's been the policy since the beginning of ratings in 1999.

The player decides whether a round should be rated or not by deciding whether to complete the round. The choice was yours. How could you expect the TD or PDGA to judge whether to include a round or not? The player has that power by putting out or not before the last hole of a round.

Here are the rounds in your rating. I can't see the PDGA display for you since you apparently haven't renewed yet or it hasn't been processed. The rounds with a Weight Factor of 2 get double weighted for your rating.

- Chuck
Sorry for the long post but it is incredible that after a real injury I am docked anything much less 4 points. Please let me know what you think of this situation as I think it is unfair for me to get punished when others get away.

I am just an outsider commenting on this but after looking at your ratings it wasnt the round you quit that hurt. it was the poor round( based on your rating) before and the first two rounds of your next tourney. Freedlun Memorial or something. those 3 rds all being double weighted is what brought your rating down.

Sorry for the long post but it is incredible that after a real injury I am docked anything much less 4 points. Please let me know what you think of this situation as I think it is unfair for me to get punished when others get away.
If you quit during a round, that round isn't counted but any others you completed in the tournament up to that point DO COUNT. The ratings aren't calculated on a tournament by tournament basis, they are based on individual rounds. So there's nothing unfair about it at all. Your rating dropped not because you're being punished for the DNF, your rating dropped because you played poorly in your most recent completed rounds.

As Tourneyplayer points out, it's your play in the round preceding the DNF AND the following tournament that caused the drop in your rating. That has nothing whatsoever to do with your DNF.

Chuck some questions, from the Rule School link you posted on another Thread:

1. I can only take "causal relief"(back 5mm along line of play) from defined "Casual Obstacles"?

I throw my tee shot into a Cedar Tree, I can use optional re-throw (back to tee box) and throw shot #2 from the tee, (Tee, re-tee, penalty= lying 3).

2. IF the TD had declared this group of trees a "casual obstacle" I would have the additional option of pulling back along the line of play up to 5mm, shooting #2 from there, no penalty?

3. Optional re-throw is always a penalty stroke in addition to the number of actual throws?

" OBSTACLES AND RELIEF: 803.05
Significant changes here. A player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course with the exception of casual obstacles to a stance listed below. A player is allowed to request that other people remove themselves and/or their belongings from the player's stance or line of play. This includes spectators, umbrellas, golf bags, chairs, etc� Casual obstacles as in current rules � casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round � can be moved if they are in the player�s stance or run-up, even if part of the item like a branch is in front of the lie.
If the casual item can�t be moved, like water or a bee hive, the player may take free relief up to 5m back on the line of play like before. If players require additional relief beyond 5m, they may invoke either the new Optional Relief rule (803.05C) and go back on the line of play as far as they desire with a one-throw penalty. Or, decide to declare the Optional Rethrow discussed previously and return to their original lie and throw again with a one-throw penalty."

Thank you for your consideration,

JAB

JAB: 1. I can only take "causal relief"(back 5m along line of play) from defined "Casual Obstacles"? I throw my tee shot into a Cedar Tree, I can use optional re-throw (back to tee box) and throw shot #2 from the tee, (Tee, re-tee, penalty= lying 3).

CGK: Yes.

JAB: 2. IF the TD had declared this group of trees a "casual obstacle" I would have the additional option of pulling back along the line of play up to 5m, shooting #2 from there, no penalty?

CGK: Yes. And you could go back even farther than 5m on the line of play by adding a 1-throw penalty using the new Optional Relief rule.

JAB: 3. Optional re-throw is always a 1-throw penalty in addition to the number of actual throws?

CGK: Yes.

so casual relief of 5m or less is not a penalty stroke? onle a stroke when the relief is more than 5m?

Correct.

oh wow. didn't realise that before. does the td HAVE TO DECLARE certain obstacles as casual? or just regular stuff like cactus, bees and such?

Look at post 2462 above where it lists the casual obstacles in the rule. Then, TD can specify additional obstacles or areas as casual. Cactus ( and poison ivy) is not automatically casual. Only if TD specifies.

ah thanks... sorry

I played one round and a half, that does not constitute a whole round. I have seen many players not show up on the second day because their rounds were not good and nothing happened to their player rating. Please tell me what makes you a person who actually knows what your typing about. This has been a soar subject for years and I got into it because I actually was injured, not quiting.

I played one round and a half, that does not constitute a whole round.

Your first round was rated, your half round was not. What can't you understand about that? Jconnells post was clear and should make perfect sense, read it again.

I played one round and a half, that does not constitute a whole round. I have seen many players not show up on the second day because their rounds were not good and nothing happened to their player rating. Please tell me what makes you a person who actually knows what your typing about. This has been a soar subject for years and I got into it because I actually was injured, not quiting.
Can you please try to explain how the first bolded part jives with the second bolded part? How can you have played more than a round ("one round and a half"), but not have played a "whole" round?

Let's clarify something here, because it appears to be a matter of semantics: a "round" is a completed circuit of holes in which the total score is tabulated and recorded. If there is a score to report, YOU HAVE PLAYED A WHOLE ROUND. A "tournament" is a collection of rounds for which awards are given for the best cumulative scores.

So in the tournament in question, you played the first round to completion and reported your score. You then commenced the second round, during which you sustained your injury and withdrew from competition. Your second round was incomplete, and thus your tournament was incomplete.

In any tournament, every completed round (a round with a score) is going to be rated. There are never exceptions made for individual players. If there is a reason that an individual round isn't going to be rated, that round will be excluded for everyone who played the round, not just selected individuals amongst the group.

It seems you believe that because you withdrew from the tournament, the whole tournament should be excluded. That's not the case, and it has never been the case. Ratings are done on a round-by-round basis. So any round you have a score for, you get rated on it, even if you do not finish the tournament (for whatever reason).

This really isn't that complex. Either something's getting lost in the semantics here, or you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Though I think pretty much any hand-wringing about a point here or there in one's rating is making a mountain out of a molehill anyway.

Hi Chuck

Quick question on membership and ratings, when does your membership need to clear by in order to get a round rated? Is it before the event, before the report is submitted, or before the official ratings update is completed?

I only ask as the various Europe country coordinators have been asked to submit our memberships in groups of 10+ where possible, but I want to make sure we get folks rounds rated where they've paid us up front...

If they have a PDGA number included by their name in event reports, they will get ratings processed for those events regardless whether they are current. They just won't be able to see their player profile on the PDGA site if they aren't current by the time new ratings are posted. If they are new members without a PDGA number entered on TD reports, then they'll have to let the PDGA office know what event(s) they played where they didn't have a number yet. Then, they'll get ratings for those earlier events at the next official ratings update in May.

Great, thanks

Chuck, let's say on a course all water is casual.

1. If your disc is completely submerged by casual water, do you get a penalty stroke?

2. If your disc lands in casual water, it so happens to be a stream, and your disc carries downstream, where would your lie be? At the point of entry or where the disc comes to rest?

Rule pertaining to 803.05B. (Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are in the stance or run-up area: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle.)

1. I throw a drive and it lands in the middle of broken branches from a tree. Let's say it's about 5-10ft in length with limbs and leaves. Does 803.05B allow me to remove this obstacle from my lie?

Chuck, let's say on a course all water is casual.

1. If your disc is completely submerged by casual water, do you get a penalty stroke?

2. If your disc lands in casual water, it so happens to be a stream, and your disc carries downstream, where would your lie be? At the point of entry or where the disc comes to rest?

1. Read Rule 803.05B

2. Read Rule 803.03F

Rule pertaining to 803.05B. (Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are in the stance or run-up area: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle.)

1. I throw a drive and it lands in the middle of broken branches from a tree. Let's say it's about 5-10ft in length with limbs and leaves. Does 803.05B allow me to remove this obstacle from my lie?

1. Read Rule 803.05B again, the answer is right there.


Are you asking these questions to make some kind of point? And if so, what is it? Or do really not know the answers? There are points in the rule book that leave something for interpretation, but I don't think any of these do. They're pretty clear.

Are you asking these questions to make some kind of point? And if so, what is it? Or do really not know the answers? There are points in the rule book that leave something for interpretation, but I don't think any of these do. They're pretty clear. I'm asking these questions for clarification. I think I have a good understanding of the rules, however I just finished a round where these three scenarios came into question on our card.

I'm asking these questions for clarification. I think I have a good understanding of the rules, however I just finished a round where these three scenarios came into question on our card.
Apologies if I came off a little snarky, but I'm surprised that the questions you posed couldn't be answered simply by looking at the rule book because there really isn't a grey area for any of them.

Casual water is casual water. There's never a penalty involved simply for landing in casual water. The player can either throw from where the disc lies in the water or take up to 5 meters of free line-of-play relief behind the original lie. Unless the player wants or needs to take more than 5m of relief, in which case he/she can utilize the optional relief (803.05C) and take a lie anywhere on the line of play behind the original lie with a one-throw penalty.

803.03F says a "disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water." So the lie in your scenario is approximately where it entered the stream and began floating on the current of the water rather than of its own momentum.

A broken branch no longer attached to a tree is on the list of designated casual obstacles in rule 803.05B. If a disc lands under or near such a branch, then the branch can be removed if it impedes the player's stance or run-up. From your description, it probably would impede a stance, thus it can be removed.

Apologies if I came off a little snarky, but I'm surprised that the questions you posed couldn't be answered simply by looking at the rule book because there really isn't a grey area for any of them.

Casual water is casual water. There's never a penalty involved simply for landing in casual water. The player can either throw from where the disc lies in the water or take up to 5 meters of free line-of-play relief behind the original lie. Unless the player wants or needs to take more than 5m of relief, in which case he/she can utilize the optional relief (803.05C) and take a lie anywhere on the line of play behind the original lie with a one-throw penalty.

803.03F says a "disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water." So the lie in your scenario is approximately where it entered the stream and began floating on the current of the water rather than of its own momentum.

A broken branch no longer attached to a tree is on the list of designated casual obstacles in rule 803.05B. If a disc lands under or near such a branch, then the branch can be removed if it impedes the player's stance or run-up. From your description, it probably would impede a stance, thus it can be removed. No worries, it just came up into discussion during our round. We called the rulings as you mention. Sometimes other players on the card have different intrepretations of the rulings or are not up-to-date on the 2011 rules. Thanks for clarifying.

There are two elements that may not be clear just by reading the rulebook regarding the questions posed. If the group feels the player's disc landed in casual water but it could not be found, you still treat it as if the disc was in casual water, not lost. The group makes a judgment on approximately where the disc "should be" in the casual water and player goes back up to 5m of free relief from that location to the shore.

The third item regarding broken branches came up today. One significant change from last year to this year is dealing with brush piles. Last year, it was difficult to take relief in a brush pile because you could not move any branches that projected in front of your lie, even if they were in your stance. In 2011, since the dead branches are defined as casual objects, you are now allowed to move them even if some of them project in front of your lie. But more importantly, you can take casual relief back off the brush pile with no penalty if it's not possible to move the brush (without a major effort).

Quick question -

Tee off, don't like my lie - take optional rethrow, it goes in the basket - what is score?

Optional rethrow rule says one thing, optional rethrow description in the clarification section at the back of the rule book states something that makes it seem like there is no double jeopardy, meaning possibly no stroke added.

This clarification needs to be clarified as 7 officials looked at it yesterday and said it definately seems ambiguous even though the actual rule seems clear.

A liitle help please when you have the time.

Thanks in advance,
Keith

The score is 3. The Optional Rethrow always includes a 1-throw penalty. Double jeopardy means you don't get two 1-throw penalties in situations like landing above 2m when that's in effect and you decide to take an Optional Rethrow rather than mark below the tree. Now it's only a 1-throw penalty.

Under the old Unplayable Lie rule, you could not call the Unplayable Lie until you had a lie to call unplayable. So, you first had to take the 2m penalty to bring the disc to the ground to create a lie. Then, take another penalty for Unplayable Lie if you didn't like your spot under the giant pine tree with low limbs. That double jeopardy penalty doesn't exist with Optional Rethrow because you can call it while the disc is still in the tree above 2m. You avoid the 2m penalty but still get the Optional Rethrow penalty instead. Hopefully this makes sense?

After I re-read Chuck's response with my glasses on, it's clear now. Thanks for the clarification.

The score is 3. The Optional Rethrow always includes a 1-throw penalty. Double jeopardy means you don't get two 1-throw penalties in situations like landing above 2m when that's in effect and you decide to take an Optional Rethrow rather than mark below the tree. Now it's only a 1-throw penalty.

Under the old Unplayable Lie rule, you could not call the Unplayable Lie until you had a lie to call unplayable. So, you first had to take the 2m penalty to bring the disc to the ground to create a lie. Then, take another penalty for Unplayable Lie if you didn't like your spot under the giant pine tree with low limbs. That double jeopardy penalty doesn't exist with Optional Rethrow because you can call it while the disc is still in the tree above 2m. You avoid the 2m penalty but still get the Optional Rethrow penalty instead. Hopefully this makes sense?

That's the conclusion we all eventually came to - just seemed to be a tad unclear in definition area after being pretty clear in rule area.

thanks!

Oh, you just threw me for a loop. I understand last year if you have a branch that was in your stance but also in front of your lie, you could not move it. I thought the 2011 rules are saying you now can move it. But your saying you can't move it, however you treat it as a casual obstable and can move back up to 5 meters. I'm confused. It's been demonstrated at several TD meetings that you can move say a twig in your stance that extends forward of your lie. Please clarify.
You can move dead branches in your stance that are partly in front of your lie. I'm just saying if it's a big brush pile of dead branches, it's probably impractical to be removing all of that brush all the way down to the playing surface. So, you're allowed to take relief back off the brush pile on the line of play using the casual relief rule that allows you to move back if it's impractical to move the casual obstacles. (Second half of 803.05B)

Anyone in any of these new rules situations should be reminded that if the group cannot reach Chuck's conclusion as to how the rules ought to apply, then you ought to take a provisional. Play it both ways. Record both scores. Ask the TD afterwards.

I don't dispute any of Chuck's conclusions regarding the intent of the drafters of the rules, but there is no guarantee that any TD, myself included, would reach the same result, if all they had to guide them was the rulebook itself.

But you realize that all TDs have "Chuck's Conclusions" as required reading in the sanctioning doc so they would end up with the same answers? ;) Seriously, if you think someone would come to a different conclusion from reading the rule, then I'll make sure to get it to the RC for the Q&As which will be official at some point.

Ok - Today's Question:

Casual relief rule now allows (in parenthesis) td's to "allow" more relief -
Is this for distance after 5 meters for free, or allowing them to make other things/objects casual as has been posited on this thread to cover poison ivy, cactus and other items not listed.

3 officials were unclear so we just let it be - TD wanted to allow any distance from casual water stream instead of just 5 meters based on rule, but my point is that you could grant relief back to the tee pad (or other area) for free which seems to be against spirit of the game.

How do you (point) and Mr. Brakel (counterpoint) see this rule reading?

So long as the Q&As are not in the rule book, they really don't help that much. My brother might bring the Q&As to a tournament, but I never have.

Nonetheless,

The rule that a TD cannot limit the players to only using the drop zone for o.b. is not in rule book. Unfortunately, the rule book still says that the TD can limit the players' options.

The rule that you do not take the 2-meter penalty if you also take an optional rethrow is not in the rule book. It is hinted at in the commentary after the rules, but even there it is not explicit.

The rule that you do or do not take the two meter penalty if you take line-of-play relief is not in the rule book, and given the situation with the 2-meter penalty and the optional rethrow, I would not know which way to guess at the answer.

I'm not being argumentative. I'm just trying to figure out what the new rules are, and it is not obvious as to those three rules just from reading the rule book.

I would agree that the first two are not explicit. But then when there are multiple examples that could be explained in the rules, the wording can get unwieldy and not all examples may be covered. I think in a future rewrite, adding that when Optional Rethrow is used, it's the only penalty applied would be helpful. The problem with the current rule regarding TDs restricting OB options is that it should probably be in the Competition manual and not the rulebook. The Competition rules supersede the rulebook so the hierarchy would be clearer.

The third one is definitely a problem since it is not clear whether the Optional Relief rule can be used anytime, including before the disc above 2m penalty is applied, or only when taking extended relief from a casual area. I already addressed this with the RC when the rules came out.

Didn't know if it got missed in the Brakel barrage. :)

Casual relief rule allows the TD to specify objects other than those listed for casual relief such as cactus or poison ivy without a PDGA waiver. The amount of free relief can be extended beyond 5m by the TD. Usually this is done when the casual area is either larger than 5m or a decent width waterway runs parallel to the fairway such that the line of play can sometimes remain in the water for longer than 5m due to the LOP angles. Extended relief doesn't mean the player can go indefinitely back with no penalty, but just to the edge of the casual area. The player needs to take the Optional Relief penalty 803.05C to go back farther if desired.

I would agree that the first two are not explicit. * * *
The third one is definitely a problem since it is not clear * * *.

Well, at least I'm glad for the reality check. :rolleyes:

The rule that a TD cannot limit the players to only using the drop zone for o.b. is not in rule book. Unfortunately, the rule book still says that the TD can limit the players' options.


The way I read the rules is that the normal options for OB are previous lie, drop zone, or last inbounds and that the TD can limit these options to a subset. The optional rethrow always gives the player the option of the previous lie which would imply that the TD can effectively only remove the option for using a DZ or the last place in bounds for OB.

But even so, the TD can put on the course routing sheet that the only relief for a certain OB under 803.09.B is a drop zone and still be in agreement with the rules. The devious TD would put the DZ in a penalty box and only those players who really know the rules would figure out that they can still throw from the previous lie.

The problem with preventing TDs from overriding the Optional Rethrow rule is speed of play situations. On big downhill holes with a significant OB area far down the hill, I can see where TDs would want to have a required drop zone for the OB area for speed of play. Should the right of the TD to speed play with a drop zone override a player's option to trudge back up the hill for an Optional Rethrow? Or maybe the Optional Rethrow would have to be declared while the player is still on the tee and it cannot be a provisional based on whether the first throw turned out to not be OB. It would be the player's next throw with penalty no matter where the first throw landed.

Cosmic Encounters!

Provisional Optional Rethrow.

The problem with preventing TDs from overriding the Optional Rethrow rule is speed of play situations. On big downhill holes with a significant OB area far down the hill, I can see where TDs would want to have a required drop zone for the OB area for speed of play. Should the right of the TD to speed play with a drop zone override a player's option to trudge back up the hill for an Optional Rethrow? Or maybe the Optional Rethrow would have to be declared while the player is still on the tee and it cannot be a provisional based on whether the first throw turned out to not be OB. It would be the player's next throw with penalty no matter where the first throw landed.

It seems to me that this is, or should be, a non issue. All the TD has to do is make sure the OB drop zone is such that no one in their right mind would trudge back up the hill to use the previous lie option. I think people are trying too hard to make sure the rules explicitely cover every imaginable situation regardless of plausability. I have rarely had situations where we couldn't come up with a reasonable interpretation of the rules on the spot and whenever there was a disagreement it was easy to take a provisional and ask the TD later. I also don't think that having different TD's make different rulings in similar situations is the end of the world catastrophe some people think it is. There are significant differences in the way different reffing crews call fouls in the NFL, NBA. and NHL and those sports seem to do just fine. And they have far more resources for not only writing the rules but training and paying refs.

While the reffing crews may call the rules slightly differently, the different outcomes that might occur are due to human judgment and not confusion in how the rules are supposed to be applied. We shoud at least attempt to write our rules as clearly as possible even if a few TDs might not interpret them in the same way.

Casual relief rule allows the TD to specify objects other than those listed for casual relief such as cactus or poison ivy without a PDGA waiver. The amount of free relief can be extended beyond 5m by the TD. Usually this is done when the casual area is either larger than 5m or a decent width waterway runs parallel to the fairway such that the line of play can sometimes remain in the water for longer than 5m due to the LOP angles. Extended relief doesn't mean the player can go indefinitely back with no penalty, but just to the edge of the casual area. The player needs to take the Optional Relief penalty 803.05C to go back farther if desired.

I typed for 15 minutes to respond why this didn't apply to the situation, but being an idiot i forgot to copy it first knowing that if you type for more than 30 seconds, you get logged out and therefore lose everything - I'l try again tomorrow when I reassmble my desk.