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.

We all agreed about the first part.

We disagreed on the second part as the hole has a creek running from the tee to the basket with the first 250-300 feet being parallel to the fairway and the last 75-100 feet meandering in front of and to the left of the basket. The TD wanted to give unlimited relief - and it was argued relief could in theory with the right angles be carried all the way back to the teeing area - which seems to be counter to the spirit of the rules. At that point you might as well declare the entire fairway as casual, so that skill is eliminated and the luckiest person wins - since the new rulebook allows it. :(

We said if it was a small puddle or something else a little relief would be ok, but since most of the creek is only 1-2 feet wide and 6-12 INCHES deep within 100 feet of the basket, we came to the agreement to take the first LEGAL stance if they didn't want to stick their toes over the flowing part of the water to make thier approach or putt.

Of course I spent both rounds playing from out of the creek, and the bad play on that one hole cost me over $150.

I call beyond the creek OB when I run my yearly Event there, so that there is more risk/ reward to the hole as you have to think more on your upshot and whether to go 100% at the putt and risk another stroke if you missleft and at high speed.

Let me know how you see it interpreted to where I couldn't just call anywhere on the course casual the way the rule is written now - I'm gonna say now that you can't. :(




I copied it this time to be safe and of course it will go through with no issues. :)

Yep!

We all agreed about the first part.

We disagreed on the second part as the hole has a creek running from the tee to the basket with the first 250-300 feet being parallel to the fairway and the last 75-100 feet meandering in front of and to the left of the basket. The TD wanted to give unlimited relief - and it was argued relief could in theory with the right angles be carried all the way back to the teeing area - which seems to be counter to the spirit of the rules. At that point you might as well declare the entire fairway as casual, so that skill is eliminated and the luckiest person wins - since the new rulebook allows it. :(

We said if it was a small puddle or something else a little relief would be ok, but since most of the creek is only 1-2 feet wide and 6-12 INCHES deep within 100 feet of the basket, we came to the agreement to take the first LEGAL stance if they didn't want to stick their toes over the flowing part of the water to make thier approach or putt.

Of course I spent both rounds playing from out of the creek, and the bad play on that one hole cost me over $150.

I call beyond the creek OB when I run my yearly Event there, so that there is more risk/ reward to the hole as you have to think more on your upshot and whether to go 100% at the putt and risk another stroke if you missleft and at high speed.

Let me know how you see it interpreted to where I couldn't just call anywhere on the course casual the way the rule is written now - I'm gonna say now that you can't. :(




I copied it this time to be safe and of course it will go through with no issues. :)

Yep!
It should be noted that the "old" rulebook allowed the TD to grant the same greater casual relief as the "new" rulebook. The text of the rule didn't change with the revision, just the placement [old book rule 803.05C(2), new book rule 803.05B]

Regarding the line I underlined, why would you need to agree to that? That's the way the rule reads already. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director).
By rule, casual relief is taking the nearest lie on the line of play. In other words, if a dry playable lie exists 3m behind the original lie, you don't get to go to a spot 4m back, you have to take the lie at 3m back.

I interpret greater relief to mean granting more than 5m on the line of play (so as to not incur a penalty), but not to mean eliminating the "nearest lie" component. So by default, the agreement you all came to was redundant.

I'm not sure I see the problem if extended casual relief under certain angles goes 100 feet back or even to the tee in order to get out of the casual area? No player wants to play from 100 feet back or retee even with no penalty if that's how far back they have to go on the line of play to get out of the casual relief area. This would require a waiver but we've been discussing the option for a TD to declare a dynamic drop zone where if a player goes back up to 5m on the LOP and is still not out of the casual area, the dynamic "drop zone" would be 90 degrees to the left or right side of the casual area and no closer to the hole until you can mark out of it.

I thought BunCRs used the "or greater relief" portion to be able to declare drop zones for CR areas.

I thought BunCRs used the "or greater relief" portion to be able to declare drop zones for CR areas.
I always thought BunCRs were declared utilizing 804.01 Special Conditions: 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.

There are three types of buncrs. One type uses extended relief under the Casual Relief rule where the player is supposed to mark on the edge of the buncr going back on the line of play. The other two types of buncrs use the Special Conditions rule where the player throws from a drop zone which is either marked or it's defined as the previous lie in the way they were played at the 2008 & 2009 USDGC.

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.

And I agree with this I'm just saying that trying to get the rules absolutely air tight is a fools errand. I think we need to get as close as we can and then try to explain the intent of the rule so that when a situation occurs that isn't explicitly addressed we are comfortable with letting the people on scene come up with a reasonable ruling and not fret too much if there is some variance in interpretation.

It should be noted that the "old" rulebook allowed the TD to grant the same greater casual relief as the "new" rulebook. The text of the rule didn't change with the revision, just the placement [old book rule 803.05C(2), new book rule 803.05B]

Regarding the line I underlined, why would you need to agree to that? That's the way the rule reads already.
By rule, casual relief is taking the nearest lie on the line of play. In other words, if a dry playable lie exists 3m behind the original lie, you don't get to go to a spot 4m back, you have to take the lie at 3m back.

I interpret greater relief to mean granting more than 5m on the line of play (so as to not incur a penalty), but not to mean eliminating the "nearest lie" component. So by default, the agreement you all came to was redundant.

Referencing the underlined part: You missed the part about going back towards the tee unlimited where the creek was straight and first dry spot was back over 200 feet depending on angle. He agreed to just leave it at 5 Meters, No extra - sorry if that wasn't clear.

We know how the nearest lie worked - that's the part you underlined. :)

I'm not sure I see the problem if extended casual relief under certain angles goes 100 feet back or even to the tee in order to get out of the casual area? No player wants to play from 100 feet back or retee even with no penalty if that's how far back they have to go on the line of play to get out of the casual relief area. This would require a waiver but we've been discussing the option for a TD to declare a dynamic drop zone where if a player goes back up to 5m on the LOP and is still not out of the casual area, the dynamic "drop zone" would be 90 degrees to the left or right side of the casual area and no closer to the hole until you can mark out of it.

I personally don't care - I've waded into mud up to my knees to play shots, but there are players who won't even think to go near water or damp dirt to play shots who can throw over 100 feet. :)

I'm gonna declare the entire course as a casual relief area at my next Event, so people can just play wherever they feel the most comfortable, or maybe I'll just make every tree and a 5 foot circle around it a casual obstacle since the rule book allows me to. :)

You see where this could go?
What happened to the old days where you actually got penalized for a bad shot and the person with the best skills usually won - instead of who is the luckiest?

First of all, you would need to specify extended relief with no penalty. Even then, players could only move back on the line of play. Yes, that would probably give players better stances in several cases. But you wouldn't do that since it goes against the unwritten TD "code" to make it tougher on players in tournaments as much as possible. That format would be way too easy, sort of the antidote to "throw and distance" penalties at USDGC. Maybe persuade Harold to do two rounds of T&D and two rounds of this BC (buncr city) format at USDGC to balance it out? Knowing players though, they would probably still find some reason to complain about some unfairness in your CR Max format. ;)

I want Harold to still like me :)

It does seem silly that I could actually legally pull it off if I wanted to though. :(

I'm gonna have to smack Garnett around if I see him in Texas for allowing this to be. :)

Let's say I land in a tree above 2m. Rather than taking a penalty and placing my lie underneath the tree, could I call Optional Relief (803.05C), take a penalty stroke and move back as far as I want on the line of play from the tree? If I do this would I still be penalized on the 2m stroke?

We're waiting for the RC to clarify their position on when Optional Relief can be used. If you take what's currently written, you would have to first mark your lie below the disc above 2m and accept that penalty and then decide to use the Optional Relief rule. The wording of the Optional Relief rule specifies you need to move a "lie" back and you don't have a lie until you bring the disc down out of the tree. On the other hand, the Optional Rethrow rule specifically removed the word "lie" from the old Unplayable Lie rule and allows you to move your disc from any location and play from the previous lie with just a one throw penalty, even if your disc is above 2m in a tree.

Let's say I land in a tree above 2m. Rather than taking a penalty and placing my lie underneath the tree, could I call Optional Relief (803.05C), take a penalty stroke and move back as far as I want on the line of play from the tree? If I do this would I still be penalized on the 2m stroke?I've actually done this already this year, thinking it was allowed under the new rules. Now I'm thinking maybe I took advantage of everyone's confusion, my own included.

It was just to save me from having to crawl around in mud and thorns to get to my lie -- for the sake of the laundry more than for an advantage on my next throw. Either way, I was going to be down in two.

It's a longstanding tradition in our PDGA to make rule changes in secret and spring them on the membership half-baked and poorly worded. Let's hear it for tradition! :D

I've actually done this already this year, thinking it was allowed under the new rules. Now I'm thinking maybe I took advantage of everyone's confusion, my own included.

It was just to save me from having to crawl around in mud and thorns to get to my lie -- for the sake of the laundry more than for an advantage on my next throw. Either way, I was going to be down in two.

It's a longstanding tradition in our PDGA to make rule changes in secret and spring them on the membership half-baked and poorly worded. Let's hear it for tradition! :D The scenario I was thinking is this: I threw a drive and it went 250 feet landing above 2m in a tree half way down the fairway. If I take my lie directly underneath this tree, I have a poor lie to shoot from and would probably have to throw out to the side to get a better position to throw from. However, I'm not sure if I could take optional relief backing me up with enough room to have a better approach shot, say a thumber over the tree line, and just take the optional relief penalty rather than taking a 2m penalty stroke with the bad lie. The rules are somewhat confusing as to the assessment of the correct penalty(s). I would think I would have to either throw underneath the tree with a 2m stroke, or throw from my previous lie (tee-pad) with optional rethrow penalty stroke.

Yep. That's how it reads for the moment.

"The most recent 25% of your rounds get double weighted"

I noticed that since rounds of a tournament are listed 1,2,3,4 instead of 4,3,2,1 a player rating can be higher or lower.

In my case I am rated about 934 since it took round 1 & 2 instead of 2 & 3 for double weighting which would give me about a 921.

I don't have that many rounds for rating, it is just something I noticed.

We don't double weight until a player has at least 10 rounds. We always take the highest rated rounds a player has in an event for double weighting regardless of the order they were played.

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?

Patrick,
from reading both "Optional Relief" and "Optional Re-throw"... IF the 2 meter rule is in effect, you would avoid the one throw (2 meter) penalty only if you Chose "Re-throw" from previous lie.

If you take "Optional Relief" from under the tree, you have already accepted the throw in the tree as valid, incurred the penalty stroke for 2 meters and are now seeking to position your lie some where other than directly below the disc, an additional penalty stroke.

You have that option for relief, but at the cost of an additional stroke.

To avoid the 2 meter, you have to Optional Re-throw. Previous lie now shooting 3 and risking the same tree/2 meter situation.

The un-quoted ramblings are my opinion/interpretation only and is not intended as a definitive ruling.

JAB

Patrick,
from reading both "Optional Relief" and "Optional Re-throw"... IF the 2 meter rule is in effect, you would avoid the one throw (2 meter) penalty only if you Chose "Re-throw" from previous lie.

If you take "Optional Relief" from under the tree, you have already accepted the throw in the tree as valid, incurred the penalty stroke for 2 meters and are now seeking to position your lie some where other than directly below the disc, an additional penalty stroke.

You have that option for relief, but at the cost of an additional stroke.

To avoid the 2 meter, you have to Optional Re-throw. Previous lie now shooting 3 and risking the same tree/2 meter situation. JAB

That's what I was thinking, thanks.

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).

there are several courses i have been to that use dead branches and logs as fairway and path liners. this new rule concerns me because a player could use to try and move these branches/logs out of their stance even though they are apart of the course. if the TD does not call out beforehand that these are apart of the course does that make it legal to move them? or because it is obviously apart of the course they can not be moved.

I think some sort of designation is needed to raise a dead log from a casual obstacle to "part of the course" status (paint, being anchored in position). The TD would need to make it clear in some way that logs that are obviously placed as fairway liners can't be moved as they are "part of the course" structures.

However, there's a safety issue involved here. Course structures like trash cans, picnic tables and benches are typically anchored or not in the regular play area. It would seem that the best way to handle this situation would be for the TD to indicate dead branches and logs that have been carefully placed as fairway liners can be moved per the casual relief rule but should be returned to their original position if moved. That would seem to honor both the intent of the casual rule and maintaining "course structures."

heres one for you chuck, and any other dgrz's out there.......
in a quasi-pdga tournament (non-sanctioned), the second round starts and cards are handed out with stipulated holes to start on for each card, shotgun start. the players are sorted by first round scores on the cards, 4 per card. the second card players, without consulting the td, changes a player on the second card to the third card, and brings their friend from the third card to play on their second card with them.
is there a penalty for this action? if so, what rule in the rule book do you follow?

1.5 B(1) for Beginning of Play in Shotgun starts does not provide for changing the assigned groups (unless the TD would take action). Past that point, players could get par+4 on holes for not "showing up" to play in their assigned group. 3.3A for Professional Misconduct and Cheating 3.3B(5) could also come into play for later disciplinary action.

1.5 B(1) for Beginning of Play in Shotgun starts does not provide for changing the assigned groups (unless the TD would take action). Past that point, players could get par+4 on holes for not "showing up" to play in their assigned group. 3.3A for Professional Misconduct and Cheating 3.3B(5) could also come into play for later disciplinary action.

ive interpreted this as violating 801.04 B1, wrong tee. and since it was after the whole round was completed, 801.04 D, where the offending player only gets a two stroke penalty.
i like your take on it better :)

Chuck,

The OB rule (803.09.B) allows the TD to restrict next throw options to say just the DZ using special conditions (804.01).

But restricting an OB next throw to just a DZ option conflicts with Optional Rethrow (803.06) which says a player can always re-throw from their last lie.

So is it now the case that anytime a TD wants to force players to use a DZ only it requires PDGA Tour Manager approval?

That issue has already been tossed to the RC for resolution. At this point, the TD would need to get a waiver from the PDGA office if they wish to prevent the Optional Rethrow in lieu of the TD requiring either last point IB (more likely) or DZ exclusively.

Scenario:
(The drop zone for a missed mando is the teepad.)
There is a mando 100ft in front of the teepad. A player tees, and for some reason the disc only goes 50ft and comes to rest - he hasn't missed the mando, just hasn't gotten there yet. On his next throw he misses the mando.

Does he go back to the teepad?

He could go back to the tee pad which is the drop zone or he could call an Optional Rethrow and play from the lie where his first throw landed. He would be lying 3 in either case.

Hey Chuck,
So I just finished playing the Leave It To Beaver II tourny and 2nd round ratings are pretty whack . . . Over the last several years I usually estimate what the round ratings I've shot were with crazy accuracy . . usually within 1 or 2 points and never more than 3 or 4 points off. I figured I shot 1022 and 987 for this tournament and for some reason ratings came in at 1025 and 968 . . . I've never been more than 6 points off so when the round comes in 19 points under it obviously raises some flags. This was also an almost full field of 86 people so the law of averages should have been in full swing . . . not sure why scores took such a dive for one round? The only reason I'm asking this question is simply because I played with a guy who shot great golf that round and has only 1 rated round over 1000 (1001). I got his hopes up by saying he shot 1010 golf, I was very suprised to see it didn't even break 1000!

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/66826

A 20 point variance is not outside the norm even for that many players. And as usual, it's hard to comment on unofficial ratings.

Chuck, I thought that 13+ holes were required for a rating. Just saw that they posted ratings for the final 9 at BG Ams were rated. Why is this?

The online unofficial software wasn't programmed to suppress calculating ratings for less than 13 holes. Those ratings won't be there when the official ratings are calculated.

Hey Chuck:

Kiralyn shot 80 points below her rating for a recent sanctioned round because she was unprepared for the extreme weather. 888 rating versus 808 rated round. I calculated her STDEVPA using Excel and all of her current rounds at 27.05666. So STDEVPA X 2.5 would = 67.64165. Is STDEVPA the right standard deviation function? Can she hope that this bad round will not count for her?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/67005

Sounds like it would be out even if it's the other SD function in Excel. The SD function we use is in Access and I don't know if it has the same name as in Excel.

Yep.. 1 bad round will ruin your ratings for a long long time.

Why can't ratings be updated prior to a qualification tournament when there is only 1 qualifier tournament available to a player.

Suggestion: Why not schedule a ratings update the week before a NT qualifier tournament that way everyone that has the minimum rating will be eligible to qualify!

Not sure what an NT qualifier tournament is? Do you mean USDGC qualifier? The eight ratings updates are scheduled based on the normal cycle of events during the year and spaced a little closer when there are many events and not as close in the winter season. We try to schedule updates after big events and also before Worlds where the ratings are sometimes used for seeding pools. Our ratings schedule is usually set before all of the USDGC qualifiers are identified.

Note: One bad round cannot hurt your rating for more than 12 months and it can be even less time if you shoot well enough that it drops out for being too low compared to your newer rounds.

Chuck I need you to please look at the ratings for the 2 events here in Texas over the weekend. TXMD and TWC needs to be tweaked. 25-30 mph winds all day Saturday need to be accounted for. I need you r email to discuss further.

The wind is automatically accounted for since the ratings are based on the scores of the players. Unless you need help assigning the divisions to the correct layouts played, there's nothing I can do that will change the ratings. I'm at: ck34 at aol dot com.

Who qualified for USDGC from The Glass Blown?

Haven't heard. All I know is that they asked me this morning about SSA values at the Atlanta Open so they must be working on it.

Where can I find a list of who is suspended?

http://www.pdga.com/documents/disciplinary-actions

Wow, big load of deadbeat TDs on the list. Ooo, ooo, take the money and run!

Chuck I need you to please look at the ratings for the 2 events here in Texas over the weekend. TXMD and TWC needs to be tweaked. 25-30 mph winds all day Saturday need to be accounted for. I need you r email to discuss further.The wind is automatically accounted for since the ratings are based on the scores of the players. Unless you need help assigning the divisions to the correct layouts played, there's nothing I can do that will change the ratings. I'm at: ck34 at aol dot com.
For TXMD there were at least three different layouts:

OPEN played long tees and ALT 18.
ADV played long tees and REG 18 in Round 1, and long tees and ALT 18 in Round 2.
INT played short tees and REG 18... not counting those that teed from the long tees in Round 1 before they were told to use the shorts.

But is any of that really relevant? Are ratings kept for Alt Shot Doubles?

No official ratings for doubles but the online software will calculate unofficial ratings for scores if it doesn't "know" those are doubles scores. Didn't realize TXMD was dubs.

Chuck,

I don't care what happens at the tournament where this happened, but I'm curious what you think should happen. At the end of the morning round of a 1-day 2-round C-tier a few players tell the TD they won't be back for the second round. He puts a DNF on their card. Normally, DNFs come in last and get 0 points.

On the lunch hour the weather gets outrageous. At the end of the lunch hour the course has become unplayable and non-navigable. Some of the bridges over the creek are under water. It's crazy. So the TD cancels the second round and submits the tournament based on the first round.

Should the players who DNFd get zero points and come in last, or should they be treated as having played just as much tournament as anyone else, and get points for where they finished? Fortunately none of them finished in the prizes.

Afterwards, Kelsey wanted me to narrate videos. It was unscripted. We were just goofing around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yShORavggJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40aQv-ldaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Q2Ckg8Umw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tijXoQoORWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ec_73-5gv0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW8E4wajGXM

I think the players still get the DNF. It's sort of like a player who declares their disc is lost after looking. And as they're heading back to the tee, their disc is found before they throw. It's a still a lost disc penalty once the lost disc is declared.

Chuck, the rules for Alt Shot doubles posted on the PDGA site read a bit vague with respect to who throws a shot when 803.06-Optional Rethrow is invoked:Alternate Shot
In Alternate Shot, only one sequence of throws is made on each hole. The team selects a player to throw the tee shot at the beginning of the round. The other player then throws from the subsequent lie, and play alternates in that fashion until the round is completed. Alternate Shot is closer to a singles format, where one partner can't bail the other out. If you miss a short putt, chances are good that you'll be driving the next hole.

If the wrong player on a team throws, another team must call it immediately, like a foot fault. The team receives a warning, and the correct player throws. Subsequent violations incur a one-throw penalty.

For any violation that requires a rethrow (stance violation, provisional throw), the same player throws.--http://www.pdga.com/rules/rules-for-doubles (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../rules/rules-for-doubles)

The Alt Shot rules specify "subsequent" lie for the next player, but 803.06-Optional Rethrows take place from the "previous" lie.

The Alt Shot rules also call out that "violations" are rethrown by the same player, but in the examples given a provisional throw is not really a violation. I can see where this clause could lead to the interpretation that an 803.06-Optional Rethrow should be taken by the same player.

Could/Should the verbiage for Alt Shot be updated to be more specific here?

Multiply the odds of ever taking an optional rethrow times the odds that any given tournament includes alternating shot doubles, and that explains why this issue has never arisen before! :D

I wonder what Houck thinks.

Hi Chuck,

A numbers question for you- Approximately how many people who early renewed prior to January 1st (2011) are still waiting for the 2011 membership packet, rule book, etc.?

curious I am.

I try to remember to ask Breiner in the morning at the Summit meeting.

Chuck, the rules for Alt Shot doubles posted on the PDGA site read a bit vague with respect to who throws a shot when 803.06-Optional Rethrow is invoked:
Seems clear to me. Optional Rethrow is chosen as the next (subsequent) lie which is no different from a team deciding whether the next player should play the next throw from the original lie or where the disc was last inbounds after a player throws OB.

Hi Chuck,

A numbers question for you- Approximately how many people who early renewed prior to January 1st (2011) are still waiting for the 2011 membership packet, rule book, etc.?

curious I am.

I'd call the office as something is not right. I renewed well into January and got everything within a couple of weeks.

A quick question...

Scenario - I'm a 903 rated player. Let's say I shoot a 800 rated round in a recent tournament. That's 100 points below my rating, so for the next ratings update that round should get dropped. Now let's say in the next year or so, I don't play to well and my rating falls down to around 890 or so...now that 800 rated round I shot is no longer 100 pts. lower than my rating. Does that round come back into effect and average in with the rest of my rounds or is the theory, "Once dropped always dropped" the case? Also...how do the rounds get re-figured between unofficial and official? Usually there's an increase or decrease between the unofficial and official? I was just wondering how that's figured or why it changes? Thanks for any info you can give.

Don't assume that when you shoot a round more than 100 points below your current rating it will be dropped for the next update. Your next rating may have dropped enough from other rounds that the 800 is not more than 100 points lower. No round is permanently dropped except DNFs. If your rating drops, a previously dropped round may come back into play.

The unofficial ratings process does not use the same calculations as the official process primarily because the unofficial ratings only look at the current round of scores and the official process uses all of the scores shot on the same layout if the weather is similar. It's also unofficial because sometimes the TDs will not set up the course layouts properly online to produce the appropriate ratings even though most TDs get the course layouts done correctly in their Excel tournament report sent to PDGA.

Hi Chuck,

A numbers question for you- Approximately how many people who early renewed prior to January 1st (2011) are still waiting for the 2011 membership packet, rule book, etc.?

curious I am.

I'm curious as well. I don't think I ever recieved mine for 2011 either.

No idea. Here's the membership hotline: 1-888-840-7342

"Hi Chuck,
A numbers question for you- Approximately how many people who early renewed prior to January 1st (2011) are still waiting for the 2011 membership packet, rule book, etc.?
curious I am."

Hate to stray too far off topic, but I also renewed before Jan 1 and never recieved the correct membership packet (I got 2010 stuff). I had called and emailed and never heard back. I did finally talk to Brian G. at The Memorial about it. Strange coincidence being my PDGA # is just about the same as yours (mines 26228).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck- any chance ratings will come early? Because this new ratings update was pushed back, will that push back the next rating update?

Thanks

No earlier than this coming Monday.

Hey Chuck, it looks like one of the rounds from April's tournament at Highland Park (http://www.pdga.com/course_ratings_by_course/3779) was put in as a blue tee round. Both rounds were played from the whites by all divisions.

The TD report shows that the Advanced played the Blue tees in R1. If that's not correct, the TD needs to contact asweeton@pdga.com to confirm the change to white tees. Thanks for the heads up.

Cool, I'll double check with the td, thanks Chuck.

Don't assume that when you shoot a round more than 100 points below your current rating it will be dropped for the next update. Your next rating may have dropped enough from other rounds that the 800 is not more than 100 points lower. No round is permanently dropped except DNFs. If your rating drops, a previously dropped round may come back into play.

Chuck can you help to explain this scenario:

My past rating was 928 before the May'11 update (21 rounds used). I had an 829 round that was not included. My rating now went up to 933 (8 rounds used) however the 829 round is now included. I understand PDGA has to obtain 8 rounds to calculate the new rating. The 8 rounds used in the rating update range from Mar20,2010 - Apr16,2011. I played in an event Mar12-14,2010. Shouldn't the 829 rated round still be excluded and then PDGA would go back one more week to the Mar12-14 event to capture the 8+ rounds for the rating?

If the 829 round is dropped, 7 rounds are left, and so all three rounds from the prior event (Mar12-14) would then be used for 10 rated rounds to calculate my new rating. If this were the case, my rating would be 943, 10 points higher than what it is now.

I'm just trying to understand how exactly the ratings are calculated and if the 829 round now included is in error. Thanks for your help.

PDGA #38001

Your 2.5SD is calculated first based on those 8 rounds and it maxed at 100 points this time meaning any round higher than 825 would be included. Since your most recent 25% were good rounds that were double weighted, your rating ended up more than 100 points above the 829 that was included this time.

Your 2.5SD is calculated first based on those 8 rounds and it maxed at 100 points this time meaning any round higher than 825 would be included. Since your most recent 25% were good rounds that were double weighted, your rating ended up more than 100 points above the 829 that was included this time. Okay after running the SD calcs I see it now.

Chuck,
Is the standard deviation calculated before or after the weighting of the most recent 25%?

Chuck,
Is the standard deviation calculated before or after the weighting of the most recent 25%? It's before.

The standard deviation I've come up with is 33.08. My rating (972) - 2.5 * 33.08 = 889.3 Anything below this should not be included correct? why do I have an 889 included in my rating?

You have to take into account the number of holes for a given round as that weights the round ratings.

The standard deviation I've come up with is 33.08. My rating (972) - 2.5 * 33.08 = 889.3 Anything below this should not be included correct? why do I have an 889 included in my rating?
It's 2.5 * 33.08 below the straight average of your rounds not your rating which includes your 25% double weighted rounds.

gotcha, thanks chuck.

Chuck, I was anticipating a slight rating drop this update, but not the 9 point drop it turned out to be. My most recent event averaged slightly above my rating which I thought would make up for the poor rounds. Could you look at my numbers again and maybe break down what caused the drop. Thanks
John Moncrief
pdga 21433

If you have new events, different rounds will be double weighted and some older rounds will have dropped out. If the older rounds were higher ratings or the new set of double weighted rounds averages less than before, it might cause a larger drop than you thought might happen.

Dear Chuck,

Please define "base of the hole," especially in regard to:

Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc
to the base of the hole, is considered a putt.

How about in this situation?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYpdbJVhNeq6NjC2Q2fSMVTis1rPCSm 24xAvR24IhpOXOA1LB96g

This one?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuVVuMIG37PHJiYs3dCRKijH33NvA7F KgdsMqbmWl8yFeNRqpO

Imagine I had a tape measure with me, or a 30 foot string. would I measure from the pole or the basket or what? Would I follow the rule of verticality or measure a straight line to the playing surface?

I imagine you've encountered all of these questions a zillion times, but my googling skills are not up to the task of finding your answers. So thanks in advance for your patience.

Measure the same way you would if you were measuring a CTP. Measure the route a taut string would follow to the rear of the marker disc if you attached it to the base of the pole. In the case of elevated baskets in the picture, sometimes the string might be suspended in the air for much of the route if the disc is on the ground and not on the base. You would not form fit the string into the contour of the base or steps, for example, or first run the string to the base where it meets the ground and then run it along the ground.

You would think it might be handled more like the rule of verticality where it's the horizontal distance that matters. But tradition and common sense rule in this case where using a taut string is the functional way a distance can be measured after the experience of thousands of CTPs being measured this way.

Chuck's solution is the best practical solution. The rules have never really answered the question.

I'm playing open at a tournament that has a "skins match" tomorrow in lieu of a fourth round, with the top 4 finishing pro men and women being paired up to play mixed doubles in the skins match. I'm playing WAAAAYYYYY up just to fill the card so that the skins match will have the usual 4 mixed doubles teams. Another normally am player is doing the same. The TD has told us that the payout for the skins match is considered part of the payout for the 3 round tournament, and that we should take merchandise in lieu of cash for the skins match (even if we don't cash in open for the 3 "qualifying" rounds) if we want to preserve our amateur status for playing am worlds, majors, and NTs, but that we can still play ams in A, B, and C tier tournaments if our rating allows it, and that we will still be allowed to take payouts in those divisions in the form of merchandise, so long as we pay the full price charged to amateurs playing in those divisions.

My question arises in regards to rule 2.5, B-D as follows:

B. At the option of the TD, Pro or Am players may compete for trophies only in any Amateur division offered by an event that their player rating, age and sex qualifies them for, by paying a reduced entry fee.

C. Players competing under “Trophy Only” are not allowed to accept cash or prizes based upon finish but are allowed to accept trophies.

D. Players paying full price should have priority over players paying the reduced rate. If an event or division is full, a TD may require trophy only players to pay the full price in order to maintain their position in the tournament.

I just want to confirm that pro players playing am at A, B, and C tournaments are permitted to accept merchandise in lieu of cash, and are not required to play for trophy only, unless they pay a reduced entry fee.

Additionally, regarding the petition to be reclassified from pro to am, is it typically granted for players of low rating? What if they make a donation to charity in the amount of cash accepted? Does the donation have to be in the same year? What if they accept the cash and give it to their skins match doubles partner?

Ams may win skins money without losing amateur status. It's considered the same as winning ace pots, CTP or side games cash. See Distribution of Prizes in Competition Manual: 1.10B. The usage of skins (and other similar formats) is permitted at PDGA events but scores are not allowed to determine a player�s overall standing in the event and prizes are not credited towards a player�s winnings.


Pros entering Am divisions receive the same merch prizes as if they were an Am.

Trophy Only can be offered by the TD and means the player pays a lower entry fee but can't win cash or prizes based on their final score. It does not prevent them from winning CTP, side games or skins cash/merch.

JenniferB, tell us the rest of the story. Did you play the skins? Win any cash? Take the cash?

It looks to me that if you took the cash and the TD reports you as having accepted "pro cash" you can tell the Competition Director, whoever that is these days, that it was post-tournament skins cash, and clearly not going-pro tournament cash.

I would hope that the PDGA would apply the published rule to your situation, but you never know. You just never know. :D

Hey, Bruce! Actually, Chuck called the TD and let him know about the skins not counting as prize money. Thanks, Chuck! You're awesome!

I did play skins and we won $500. I'm trying to figure out what to do with my half. I want to put it back into the game in some way. I've contacted a local player about helping to sponsor her for am worlds, and if she can't make it, I'm sure there are plenty of other options. :) Maybe I'll donate it as added cash for the ladies pro payout at next year's tournament, so they can attract some real talent for the skins match next year.

Chuck, the ratings for Disc'o de Mayo (http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/67389) are incorrect due to layout differences. I've contacted the TD multiple times, and his responses, dating back to May 8 or so, was "the PDGA is working on it". Any idea what the status is on this?

Advanced: played long-long
Intermediate: played short-long
Rec & Adv Women: played short-short

As it stands, all the scores are showing up against the same layout, bumping up ratings for Ints in round 1, and Rec & Adv Women, while bumping down ratings for Advanced.

Those ratings are unofficial based on what the TD posted. The official ratings will likely be correct because the TD will send the report to the PDGA with the proper course layouts so the ratings can be done properly. The TD is the only one who can correct those unofficial ratings.

Ck fellow Minnesota frisbee association member. Sorry gotta plug my Club. My 1st post on the pdga board here hope that it doesn't get me in trouble. I'd like to ask you a question. When I search my player statistics I'm only showing 1 event played yet I have 5. Do events only show after they are included in the players rating update? Or after the td submits them to the pdga? Thanks chuck.

Mfa#1836
Pdga 43862
Go Westside mider cup 2011

A player's events will show on the site if the TD posts them and you'll see unofficial ratings. These scores and ratings will not show up in your player stats. Once the TD sends the report into the PDGA, your official scores will be posted but not ratings. Then, the official ratings will show up at the next ratings update. So if you have four events without stats, the TDs have either not yet sent the reports to the PDGA or the PDGA has them and hasn't posted them yet.

Chuck,
Will the Aspens Sports Treebash Open (June 4 & 5) be included in the next update?
Thanks

I don't know. I haven't gotten the reports from PDGA HQ for processing the course layouts yet. Once you see the results online posted as "Official" you know it will be processed.

Hey Chuck,

Do you know where I can find that picture of all the discs hanging on the basket, that explains what is "good" or "no good"?

Thanks,

Chris

Try the search function at the top and enter Rules School. It's the Interference story: http://www.pdga.com/interference-rule (http://www.pdga.com/interference-rule)

Chuck,

I can't find info on course ssa's. This doesn't seem to work.

http://www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course

Thank you.

Not available on the website for the moment.

Try the search function at the top and enter Rules School. It's the Interference story: http://www.pdga.com/interference-rule (http://www.pdga.com/interference-rule)
One more example in real life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5-SEEUS-Z4

curious why ratings are the same for all 3 days when the weather/scores were worse on day 1? thanks.

If the daily SSAs do not deviate more than what would be expected from normal statistical variance, all of the rounds are averaged so everyone gets the same rating for the same score in all rounds. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter because a player's overall average rating for the three rounds will be the same whether each round is rated separately or combined the way it's normally done.

That being said, having been at the event, I'll take a look because I expected R1 to be rated separately.

Chuck,

I recall that you indicated the PDGA stores ratings on a per hole basis (i.e., 18 ratings of 1000 for a 1000 rated round on an 18 hole course). Do I have that correct?

Additionally, when the most recent 25% of rounds are counted twice, does the process retrieve the most recent 25% of holes, or does it select whole rounds only? If whole rounds, how is the number of rounds to be used determined if there are an odd number of holes? For example, if there are 14 rounds total, do you double the most recent 4 rounds or the most recent 5 rounds?

For tournaments of multiple rounds, are these are all considered played on the same day, and the highest ratings taken first to fulfill the 25% allotment?

If the average comes out to a decimal value, does it get rounded off, or is there a ceiling or floor function?

Are you still throwing out the lowest round when determining SD? If so, is the whole round worth of hole ratings ignored, regardless of the number of holes? If not, how is SD calculated and lower ratings dropped?

Thanks :)

Yes, on the per hole basis. Whole rounds only and your better rated rounds are used if only some will be doubled. Ratings are truncated so you have to actually hit 1000 rating not just 999.5 and get rounded up. That's all I'll answer. Some of the details are kept under wraps in a moderate effort to reduce ratings manipulation which is being attempted by some players unfortunately.

Yes, on the per hole basis. Whole rounds only and your better rated rounds are used if only some will be doubled. Ratings are truncated so you have to actually hit 1000 rating not just 999.5 and get rounded up. That's all I'll answer. Some of the details are kept under wraps in a moderate effort to reduce ratings manipulation which is being attempted by some players unfortunately.

Thanks.

Regarding: "if there are 14 rounds total, do you double the most recent 3 rounds or the most recent 4 rounds?"

... is that one of the details you mean to keep under wraps, or did you overlook that one?

Yes.

D-Board hiatus. Rather than post your questions here for the next several weeks, please contact me at my PDGA email: ratings@pdga.com and I'll try to answer them.

So how does someone's rating go down without any new rounds entered? I know you have covered this before just don't remember the answer.

i have played in four tournaments since the last rating updates. why didn't they show up after the most recent update (6/21/11)

So how does someone's rating go down without any new rounds entered? I know you have covered this before just don't remember the answer.
One way is if you had highly rated rounds that are now older than the 12 month cutoff as of the most recent update, so they fall off your average calculation.

Not true. If you don't have any new rounds, you won't drop old rounds. The 12 month cut-off is based off your most recent officially rated round, not the date of the ratings cutoff.

The more likely explanation is either a) a rating correction to an existing event, or b) an old event finally going official (you might not notice it if it is not recent).

I know you've answered this before, but I can't find it and don't get it. Which rounds are excluded from your ratings and why. In the past year I have had rounds as high as 950 excluded and rounds as low as 923 included. I've had as many as three rounds excluded and as few as one excluded while my rounds played pretty much remained the same. My rating remains consistently in the 980's even when I think it would go up or down.

Here is my question regarding 7/12 update.

Why is an event that was played on 6/25-26 not included in this most recent update? (Evansville Open)

It was a B-Tier and scores were inputted in real-time.

Thanks

@ jimimc - The process is automated and simply makes decisions based on how consistent your rounds were that are in your current rating. If they fall outside 2.5 standard deviations below your straight rating average, they are excluded for that update.

@ jobwilson - Seeing results online is separate from the PDGA receiving the official TD report. TDs can post your scores even during the event and you'll see unofficial ratings. But that doesn't mean the PDGA has the TD report yet which includes important information needed to process the ratings such as correct course layouts and membership information for renewals and new members. The TD did not get the report to the PDGA by the June 28th deadline for this 7/12 update.

Chuck, for the past ten years Kelsey's rating http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings_detail/30778/2011/16007 has been lower than mine http://www.pdga.com/player_stats/26655/2011 and I've always paid her entry fees. Starting with the next ratings update, do you think it would be fair if she started paying my entry fee?

Stumped for the clever rejoinder? More seriously then, is a World Rankings update coming out shortly? I've been trying to get Kelsey to B-tiers and A-tiers so she can get in enough rounds to stay on the list.

Also, can you comment on the POY controversy or would that be impolitic? I understand if it is the latter. I was just curious where the ambiguity krept up in the objective standards. The minutes make it sound like maybe it was an (A + B) / C does not equal A + (B / C) thing.

There will be a World Ranking update by next week based on the latest rating update. I don't know what is going on with POY. The Board is discussing which "objective standards" should be used. We likely won't post any 2011 POY/ROY standings until after Worlds when there will be enough events in the books.

One last question for now --this came up

this weekend at a tournament: at a split

weekend tournament where some

divisions play Saturday and some play

Sunday, and all play the same course

configurations, are the two days

combined for calculating ratings? Type

your answer really big because Keith

Aten is legally blind. :D

It's a good question. Because they are separate events and imported independently for ratings, I suspect they are rated separately. I'm checking with Roger to confirm.

Assuming a TD error has resulted in my new rating being slightly higher than deserved, should I contact the TD (again, because I already got it corrected once, but it seems to have gotten changed back in the update) or should I bug you, or go away, or what?

I'm not the one who corrects the errors. Contact the TD who then works it out with the Tour Director for the next update.

1.ok for a td to call the 2meter rule to be in effect ONLY inside each and every putting circle...?
2.sunflower shells are litter or not?
3.are non alcoholic cans of beer too controversial to be seen drinking during a tourney?

None of these are official. Contact Tour Manager for official answers:

- Yes, but gimmicky and likely hard to call when disc suspended near 10m out.

- Yes, unless sunflowers are either growing in the park or there are birdfeeders in the park that provide sunflower seeds.

- Maybe not a good idea but not against the rules.

(Note: talked with Tour Manager and he agreed with these answers)

When is the course ratings page coming back?

www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course

No current plans. You can still see the Course Stats for each event that's been rated.

Is there a way to search events by course? I'm playing a tournament at a course I have never played, so I just need to find all of the events that were ever played on that course and find one with a similar layout to figure out the SSA.

No search like that I'm aware of. You can do advanced searches to narrow down by state and the cities of those events will be shown in that list. And it's pretty common that the same event will be run about the same dates each year.

Is there a way to search events by course? I'm playing a tournament at a course I have never played, so I just need to find all of the events that were ever played on that course and find one with a similar layout to figure out the SSA.

Jen

You can do a search tath will actually provide you with all the SSA's of all the previous events - it just takes a few steps.

First, you must know the name and date of a previous event on the course.

Go to the "official results" for the event.

At the top of the event results page it gives you a choice of EVENT INFO/COURSE STATISTICS. Click on Course Statistics.

You are then taken to a page that will show the course(s) used for the event. You can find further information on a specific course by clicking that course name.

You end up at a page showing all the various layouts for that course for the past years including SSA's:
http://www.pdga.com/course_ratings_by_course/114 (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../course_ratings_by_course/114)

Link is to the results for El Dorado DGC SSA's - as getting there through the the above procedure.

(TD's are supposed to enter courses on TD reports as listed in the PDGA Directory. If they don't, this method doesn't work so well. )

Is there a way to search events by course? I'm playing a tournament at a course I have never played, so I just need to find all of the events that were ever played on that course and find one with a similar layout to figure out the SSA.
Use a google site limited search. In the google search box enter "site:http://www.pdga.com/course_ratings_by_course/" and the name of the course you want.

E.g.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdga.com%2Fcourse_ratin gs_by_course%2F+moffitt (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdga.com%2Fcourse_ratin gs_by_course%2F+moffitt)
or
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdga.com%2Fcourse_ratin gs_by_course%2F+%22El+Dorado%22 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdga.com%2Fcourse_ratin gs_by_course%2F+%22El+Dorado%22)

1.ok for a td to call the 2meter rule to be in effect ONLY inside each and every putting circle...?
2.sunflower shells are litter or not?
3.are non alcoholic cans of beer too controversial to be seen drinking during a tourney?
Candy cigarettes at Pro Worlds? :)

Thanks for the help with finding the SSAs!

I keep wondering why the tool was permanently removed to search by course name feature. Was it fear of people trying to sandbag and runup their handicaps for the USDGC?

More likely it is to prevent other web sites from scraping the data and providing rating services.

When is the course ratings page coming back?

www.pdga.com/course-ratings-by-course

its called DGCR

More likely it is to prevent other web sites from scraping the data and providing rating services.

Do you mean DGU? Have there been any sites other than PDGA and DGU that do any kind of ratings?

its called DGCR

The DGCR reported average score and SSA do not correlate well in my experience. For example, DFW courses ranked by DGCR reported average round score (score/par) for the most difficult permanent and commonly played tees, I get the order below (Bicentennial's data are normalized to 18 holes):

Gateway---------DGCR info: 73.60/62----No Tournament info Available
Harry Myers-----DGCR info: 68.40/60----Mean 60.07--Samples 1--SD N/A
Turner Park------DGCR info: 64.78/58----Mean 53.98--Samples 3--SD 2.74
Z-Boaz-----------DGCR info: 62.99/54----Mean 54.44--Samples 29-SD 2.05
Lorch-Beaver----DGCR info: 62.89/54----Mean 51.69--Samples 7--SD 0.34
Veteran’s---------DGCR info: 62.75/54----Mean 49.77--Samples 37-SD 2.17
Audubon----------DGCR info: 61.46/54----Mean 50.57--Samples 5--SD 1.20
Lorch-Coyote----DCRG info: 61.31/54----Mean 51.36--Samples 7--SD 0.81
Greenbriar-------DGCR info: 60.70/54----No Tournament Info Available
Towne Lake------DGCR info: 60.63/59----Mean 55.36--Samples 5--SD 2.28
Paschall----------DGCR info: 58.86/56----Mean 52.74--Samples 1--SD N/A
BB Owen---------DGCR info: 58.27/54----Mean 46.04--Samples 4--SD 1.06
Bicentennial------DGCR info: 57.85/54----Mean 54.50--Samples 1--SD N/A
Lake Lewisville---DGCR info: 57.27/54----Mean 48.53--Samples 3--SD 0.39
LL Woods---------DGCR info: 55.99/54----Mean 46.92--Samples 3--SD 0.80
Jimmy Porter-----DGCR info: 55.63/54----Mean 48.52--Samples 1--SD N/A
Alex Clark--------DGCR info: 51.35/54----Mean 47.45--Samples 1--SD N/A

I tried to duplicate the results by picking out PDGA tournament round SSAs for 18 holes and averaging them (18+ holes normalized to 18 holes for certain courses). I didn't take rounds from short, temp, or championship tees, and I avoided rounds with temp holes. The ranking is very different.

Harry Myers------Samples 1----Mean 60.07----SD N/A---DGCR info: 68.40/60
Towne Lake------Samples 5----Mean 55.36----SD 2.28---DGCR info: 60.63/59
Bicentennial------Samples 1----Mean 54.50----SD N/A----DGCR info: 57.85/54
Z-Boaz-----------Samples 29---Mean 54.44----SD 2.05---DGCR info: 62.99/54
Turner Park------Samples 3----Mean 53.98----SD 2.74---DGCR info: 64.78/58
Paschall----------Samples 1----Mean 52.74----SD N/A----DGCR info: 58.86/56
Lorch-Beaver----Samples 7----Mean 51.69----SD 0.34---DGCR info: 62.89/54
Lorch-Coyote----Samples 7----Mean 51.36----SD 0.81---DCRG info: 61.31/54
Audubon---------Samples 5----Mean 50.57----SD 1.20---DGCR info: 61.46/54
Veteran’s--------Samples 37---Mean 49.77----SD 2.17---DGCR info: 62.75/54
Lake Lewisville--Samples 3----Mean 48.53----SD 0.39---DGCR info: 57.27/54
Jimmy Porter----Samples 1----Mean 48.52----SD N/A----DGCR info: 55.63/54
Alex Clark-------Samples 1----Mean 47.45----SD N/A----DGCR info: 51.35/54
LL Woods--------Samples 3----Mean 46.92----SD 0.80---DGCR info: 55.99/54
BB Owen--------Samples 4----Mean 46.04----SD 1.06---DGCR info: 58.27/54

There is a DGCR thread about this topic at http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=920105

Chuck, serious question this time.

Jaybird Mount Pleasant Open Day 2

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/73731

The novice men and intermediate women played short tees, which was an appropriate call for the course and their skills. However, there were not enough gators to produce unofficial ratings. There are some sub-800 players with quite a few rounds in their database. Do you think they might get ratings by some manual process like has happened sometimes at other tournaments where Intermediate and Rec women get short tees?

Just eyeballing the data, the players' ratings correlate strongly with their order of finish. Diana felt like her rounds were consistent with her current rating and she shot similar scores to two men with a similar rating, so ratings generated off the best non-gators here would be likely to be as valid as if there had been sufficient gators.

We've been able to rate rounds manually when there aren't enough propagators so it shouldn't be a problem. Roger is close to allowing players with established ratings down to 750 to be gators anyway so this will be a good test.

If you use people rated less than 800, they should be called impropagators. :D

Chuck,

In the interview on the front page, Jonathan led me to believe throw and distance will be used this year. Do you have any info regarding how Winthrop will be played? My league partner qualified and is really hoping I can help him prepare. Any info is appreciated. Thanks.

Some of us tried to persuade them not to use throw and distance for 2011 (or ever again for that matter). Far as I know their plan is to use T&D again. I think you just have to ask them.

Some of us tried to persuade them not to use throw and distance for 2011 (or ever again for that matter). Far as I know their plan is to use T&D again. I think you just have to ask them.

Why never again?

After 6 years of playing the event I really felt they finally got it right last year...other then the 2 days notice. No corny buncr rule, no arbitrary spots, no lobbying for position, no burden on the spotters....just seemed to work and play really well.

Buncr rule played better statistically than any previous year or last year which was actually just buncr+1. Buncr+1 is a statistically different game than disc golf, not just statistically tougher. Although I don't see it as a better version, if it's going to be done, then it should be done officially at minimum on every course played in A-tiers and higher with similarly tough OB lines and areas added on most holes. If that's the game, then that's what we all should be playing so that ratings and stats are based on that new form of game. Otherwise, it's like playing an alternative version of DG different from what all the players were playing to qualify for the US Championships, sort of like springing a different format like Super Class or buying mulligans on the players at the last second.

Chuck,

As a "B" tier event, how does the world tournament fit into the poy and roy picture. Are there two tournaments, i.e. the world tournament and the local tournament? If so the round rating, if good, might be counted twice towards poy/roy. Also, how is the finish position calculated for the "world" portion?

A player's ranking within each global event division is simply based on the sum of each player's three round ratings. A player shoots a 990, 1000 and 1010 rated rounds and their score for the global standings is 3000.

Each B-tier (British is A-tier) result will be just like any other B-tier in terms of POY and ROY. The Global rankings won't be used for POY/ROY/World rankings at least this year. Some events will have more than three 18-hole rounds like a Final 9 and those scores will only count for the local event standings.

Thanks, So in other words, for POY/ROY purposes, it is as if it is just a local tournament - round ratings (rounds over 13 holes) and finish position of the "local" portion are used.

Yep.

Chuck,

I was trying to find qualifying requirements for the 2012 Amateur world championships (charlotte). Could only find them for 2011 - I'll assume for now they will apply in '12.

Let's focus on criteria 2 - "Other players who finished in the the Top 25% of Points earners within their State/Province/Country..."

Q1) How does one determine (or more precisely, access the information) for the top 25% of points earners in their state?

edit - I think I found the answer here: http://www.pdga.com/player_search_addition_results

Q2) Does it matter what level points are earned? (say 100 points at REC, 200 points at INT and 150 at Masters are earned) Do all 450 points count for world's qualification purposes?

Thanks for your help.
H4B

Q1) No way at the moment. By the time the new website update is completed by end of summer, they will be working on ways for you to select and filter data to see things like that.

Q2) All points you earn in Amateur divisions count toward your total for a potential invite.

Chuck, can you please tell us a little more about how round ratings change when made official due to being averaged in with previous SSAs for the same layout?

For example, if the previous SSAs for a course layout were 50, and then the next tournament had unofficial ratings indicating the SSA on the same layout at 46, would it be reasonable to expect the ratings at the second event to go up by 15-20 points upon being made official due to the averaging?

No old tournament data is ever used for averaging, only scores from different rounds in the same event on the same layout get averaged in the official process, but not in the unofficial process when scores are posted by the TD.

It's surprising how prevalent this misperception about ratings is. There was a former Masters world champion a few weeks ago who asked a question at a tournament about round ratings for that day's rounds being yielded by averaging them with previous ratings from events long passed, and we had to explain that this was not how ratings were calculated.

Round ratings are yielded solely from the scores and the current player ratings of propagators playing that specific round. The only times that data from another round would be used would be in the case that the exact same layout is used during that same event, all rounds would get averaged in the official process. The only exception to that rule is if the tournament director notes that there were severe weather conditions for one of the rounds...it would then not be used for the averages and would be rated independantly.

Buncr rule played better statistically than any previous year or last year which was actually just buncr+1. Buncr+1 is a statistically different game than disc golf, not just statistically tougher. Although I don't see it as a better version, if it's going to be done, then it should be done officially at minimum on every course played in A-tiers and higher with similarly tough OB lines and areas added on most holes. If that's the game, then that's what we all should be playing so that ratings and stats are based on that new form of game. Otherwise, it's like playing an alternative version of DG different from what all the players were playing to qualify for the US Championships, sort of like springing a different format like Super Class or buying mulligans on the players at the last second.

I’m glad we’re playing Disc golf rather than statistics golf. :) And I agree it should be used more often.

Another question…I played a three course tournament this weekend, 2 of the courses offered very little score separation, the entire open division was with 4 strokes of each other, with half the advanced division shooting virtually the same scores as open. This is going to make the ratings look rather poor for MPO correct? Scores won’t be posted for awhile and I’m getting curious what it’s going to look like.

If the scoring spread is only 4 throws and the ratings spread from top to bottom among those players is greater than 40 points, then the ratings range will be narrower than ideal. The average of ratings produced will still be equal to the average ratings of the propagators which is always true.

I can only get on the soapbox so often. Hole design does matter but very few take the effort to actually gather and look at data and tweak the designs to produce better scoring spreads. Granted, many don't know how to do that which is why having some of the more experienced course designers involved can assist with that.

Is distance the biggest factor for separation?

Do things like elevation or elevated baskets have a similar impact as distance?

Is there a document providing guidelines for different skill levels?

I'm working on getting a tournament on a 9-hole executive golf course that also has a ski hill. I realize I'll need 2 sets of tees. Also there will be a flat wide open transition hole, possibly 2 where I'd like to put an elevated basket. I'd like to make it fun for everyone. Thanks for your response.

Join the Disc Golf Course Designers group or talk with Kenton. The Hole Forecaster tool we use helps you figure out appropriate distances (most important) and adjust for foliage and hazards. Elevated pins might not add more than 0.1 to the scoring average unless it's windy. Then maybe 0.2. In comparison, the rule of thumb is 0.1 added to the hole scoring average for every 30 feet added (gold level).

Thanks Chuck.

You can still see the Course Stats for each event that's been rated.
Um, not anymore:
We apologize for any inconvenience but course ratings are no longer available.
Is that a permanent change?

The "Event Info" link on each tourney page now just redirects back to itself vs. showing you what the SSA was.

I think this is related to the current website upgrade. In the short term, you can still determine SSAs by looking at where the 1000 rated round falls. I'm pressing for the next version of the results display to indicate which course was played by various divisions each round.

I'm working on a spreadsheet to use at tournaments and minis and would like to be able to figure an estimated round rating.
Is there a formula I can use?

You can buy the PDGA iPhone app and use it to get estimated ratings. You could also look online at past events on those courses to see what the ratings were for various scores.

You can buy the PDGA iPhone app and use it to get estimated ratings. You could also look online at past events on those courses to see what the ratings were for various scores.

I don't want to manually figure the estimated round rating but rather have the spreadsheet do it for me.

That info is not available. Providing ratings thru tournament play is an important PDGA member benefit. I provided some ways you can figure out similar information.

How do some folks have ratings, but no rounds played (e.g., steady ed)?

Don't know for sure, but at one point there was a request to retain deceased members' stats like Steady Ed online. Perhaps that has happened so his last rating is shown. At each ratings update, the current records if any of everyone with a PDGA number are 'processed' whether current or not including deceased members. If no new events, their rating remains the same indefinitely.

In the recent Santa Maria Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/66169) when uploading the TD report, the Rating Course Layout for round 2 somehow converts to round 1 layout.

Round 1 & 3 is played at Waller Park, par is 82. Round 2 is played at Preisker, par is 54. Under tournament administration, round 2 would be deleted and re-selected as course 2, Preisker Park, par 54. Then the TD report would be removed and then re-uploaded. Each time though the 2nd rd kept changing back to Waller Park, par 82. The TD report is correct. Under the 'Event Info' tab, the two course layouts are listed, and Course Layout code is correct. On the tournament results, rating for round 2 seems correct, however overall 'To Par' score is calculated using par 82 for all three rounds. Why is this happening and how can it be corrected?

In the TD admin page, click Ratings and update which divisions played which layouts for a given round. That should fix it.

Yes, the course layout settings on the Event Info page of the TD Report are not uploaded to the TD Admin page, just the players and scores. No connection. You have to do as Krupicka said and manually assign the courses to each division by round under the Ratings menu.

If I have an event where every division plays rd 1 at one course, and plays rd 2 at a 2nd course, then under the admin page where it allows you to select course and round, shouldn't it be a default to apply those settings to all divisions? If I mixed it up, then that would make sense to manually go in and assign rounds/courses to each division.

All divisions in each round are assigned to the "Default" course listed with 18 holes and par of 54 regardless if you add other courses. If everyone plays the same course in R1 and a different one in R2, the ratings will calculate properly if the second course is also 18 holes and the same par. Par doesn't matter for ratings, just the over/under values on the score results page. If different divisions play different courses in the same round, that's when it's important to make sure to do the course assignments properly.

I don't have the TD admin page in front of me, but when I was trying to figure this out with the TD, there was a selection that allowed us to choose which course was used for a round. So we chose round 1 as Waller. Then we chose Preisker as round 2. When we went to upload the TD report, the course on round 2 on the admin page was changed back to Waller.

1) Why does round 2 course keep switching back to round 1 course?

2) I'm not understanding what you mean "default" course. There is the selection to choose which course is used for each round.

There's a default course there when you first start that TDs rename and also add new ones. The most likely thing that happened is you forgot to tap the Update button after doing the course assignments for that round on the Ratings page so it didn't lock in your choices.

We did hit the update button. We even deleted the upload, added the courses in, selected which course were for each round, hit the update button, and uploaded the TD report. We did this several times and it kept changing the round 2 course back to Waller. We didn't however choose the course for each division, as each played the same course each round.

I got Preskier to stick in Round 2 and update ratings. In the future, you don't need to enter hole-by-hole information unless you did live scoring.

I got Preskier to stick in Round 2 and update ratings. In the future, you don't need to enter hole-by-hole information unless you are did live scoring.

Thanks Chuck for your help.

When TDs choose to use the online PDGA signup, and we sign up though it, why are we not automatically added to the prereg list?

That's been in the works and should be linked up soon after the Drupal upgrade is completed.

OK.

I'm curious about average standard deviation in ratings of pros, intermediates, rec players, and novices. Have you formed an impression you can share regarding what kind of SD the top pros have, and how that compares to players in other ratings categories?

I haven't broken it down in detail but the SD is around 28 +/- 8 for those over 950, 32 +8/-5 for 850-950 and 37 +3/-5 for under 850. Since we cap it at 40, I don't know how much over 40 the real numbers might be for many players under 850.

Thanks, Chuck. That's some pretty awesome detail. As a player, I think it would be interesting to see SDs on ratings details pages, so that we can get an idea of our own and other player's consistency, and potential to score much higher or lower than the listed rating. Do you think this information might be added in the future, so that we don't have to plug the round ratings into an SD calculator?

Yes. SD and several other player stats are in the plans. I've been champing at the bit for years now to get the website updated so this additional player information can be added.

Chuck - I've been explaining the ratings to people in this way, as a quick and dirty explanation for those that just know they get a rating and have no real idea what they mean other than 1000 is good, 950 is decent, etc... And I'm curious as to whether or not it is even close to correct...

I tell them the following: Take a round of tournament golf, and grab all of the ratings of competitors with at least 8 rated rounds. Average those out. Lets say you get an average of 920 out of them. Now take all of their scores for that round. Lets say that over the 18 hole round they average out to 52. So for that round a 52 would be 920 rated. With 10 points per stroke that means 54 is 900, and 44 is 1000 (which would give you the SSA of the course at 44), and so on. Is this even remotely accurate? I'm sure that a lot more goes into the calculation, but this is what I came up to as a quick-and-dirty way to get some understanding into the heads of golfers I meet that have questions.


-Chris.

That works in general primarily since most courses played in events range from 48-53 SSA where the points per throw is close to 10. But if the course is from the short tees where beginners sometimes play or the course is one of our handful of true Championship courses, then that quick estimate might be off either way from 10 points per throw.

Oh of course - I do explain that if asked. 21 holes I usually say 8 points. 24 holes I say 7. 27 holes I say 6. It isn't (again) exact, but its a general guideline that seems to be accurate when I glance over the results. Thanks for the confirmation Chuck. I like being able to explain the system when people badmouth it because they don't understand it.


-Chris.

Even if everyone had perfect understanding of the ratings system, they would still find something wrong with it because ratings highlight the lack of playing excellence in almost all of us. For me, it's shooting a sub-900 round that bugs me. I must have missed something in the ratings formula for that round...:) So discounting the 'measuring stick' becomes a popular past-time.

Haha. I've learned to trust it. Whether or not I know a course I've found that I can look at the ratings and scores of all the players involved and come up with the ratings for the round to within 10-15 points. :P

Am I the only one whose rating is a function of the course designer?

Chuck, will you please take a look at these results http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/66192 and offer whatever insights you have on why the masters age women got hit so hard on round ratings comapred to the young ladies? Is this just one of those courses that separates the girls from the women?

Did everyone play the same layouts each round? Their website says only the Pros played the Jr tees in the second round presumably so the girls would get ratings?

I just changed the course setting so only the pros played the Jr tees in R2. That gave everyone else a nice boost in R2.

As far as I recall, it was the same for everyone, even though it was an A/B tier.

Howdy Chuck,

I have a question. Take a look at the sanctioning requirements below, specifically Table 1. It is clear that a Btier must have $500 added cash. Does that cash have to go to the pro purse?

Hypothetically, could a Btier just add the $500 cash to, for instance, a CTP or the ace pool?

I can't find any specific mention of "Added cash to the pro purse", it just says "Added cash".


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



I ask because at a recent Btier, there was only $360 added to pro divisions, and the TD claims that he added much more than a total of $500 to the tournament through jumbo toss, donated basket to the Am winner, etc.

Any help would be appreciated!

Maybe it needs to be more clear but the $500 is to be added to the pro payout which does not include CTPs or Skins. Of course, sometimes you have to look closely at what the base entry fee turns out to be to determine the added cash. If the entry fee is $60 after taking away the $3 PDGA fee, there could also be a deduction for ace, lunch, series fee, greens fee, course development fund or charitable contribution. All of these are allowed to reduce the base fee for calculating how much was added to the payouts.

For said tournament: I paid ace pool separately, lunch was not a part of entries that was clear, there was no series, greens fees were paid separately with the park office, there was no mention of a course development nor charitable contribution coming from entry fees.

Chuck,

This is the response from the TD-

"it does not say anything about $500 in added cash to the PRO purse, just $500 in added cash.

oh and by the way i spoke with the PDGA on wednesday before (said tournament) and they told me about the $500 is added to the purse, not the PRO purse. With no PRO's signed up we were not going to put $500 into 2 or 3 pros if they showed up."

11 pros ended up playing btw. What would you do about this? Submit a report to the PDGA? I don't have much faith that the PDGA will be taking any type of action about this. If someone wants to pay the PDGA B-tier fees, I'm sure they will accept the fees without complaint.

It's not like I can set up a conference call with him, me and the PDGA office to make sure that they explain it properly to him. Even if he does end up realizing that he was short on added cash, the "B-tier" is in the books. Not much to be done here. There's just no accountability.

What would you do?

I would report it to the Tour Director. They do track issues with TDs and that will be happening more often as it relates to TDs getting to host an event or that high of a tier the following year. I would say this that if there are only 3 pros, that's less players than what the TD would be required to host a division. I could see a TD having grounds to withhold added cash in that scenario. On the other hand, if the TD has actually raised the $500 from sponsors, he would have cash in hand that sponsors would in theory expect to be going to the pros how ever many showed up.

Since cash can only be paid to pros, it's pretty clear that "added cash" means cash added to the pro purse because CTP and skins money doesn't count in payout. The only thing the guidelines don't indicate is how it's distributed among pro divisions.

Chuck,

I appreciate the time that you take to answer questions here. I'm not going to report it. The real problem is that the local club is run by casual players who do not play tournaments. It's kind of funny. Tournament players see "added cash" and assume it means that the cash is going to the pros. To a non-tournament player, it's not at all clear on the Tier Standards page. I got an email from Sweeton saying that they would be fixing the language to make it more clear.

Thank you.

Well, I'm glad your post helped produce some clarity.

Howdy Chucker

Could you please explain how the ratings were done for the 27 hole courses at the Worlds? A conversion factor of three points per shot seems ridiculously low, and compresses everyone towards the middle of the distribution. If you compare the GM scores for round 4 (27 holes at DeLa) and the semi-finals (18 holes at DeLa), you will see a dramatic difference in ratings as you move away from par. Scores near even (par 3) have about the same ratings (1014 vs 1008), but things change dramatically as you move away from par due to the wildly different conversion factors (3 pts per shot vs 9 pts per shot).

This is related to an old complaint of mine, namely that the use of a single conversion factor (3-10 points per stroke) does not make sense as you move further away from average. My guess is that the linear approximation breaks down as you move away from par. Maybe a similar thing happens as you go from 18 to 27 holes.

Based on my experiences this week, there is a tremendous difference between 18 and 27 hole rounds, due primarily to the difficulty of maintaining focus over the course of a 5-6 hour round. These types of properties are difficult to capture in an equation, especially a linear one that has a fixed points per shot conversion.

Cheers, David

The ratings are always done on a per hole basis and then expanded to the number of holes on the course. The impact of one throw on the ratings is related to the total number of holes in the same way it's done with any statistics. Think of it this way. Consider that you played two 18-hole rounds and shot 50 on each one rated at 1000 each. If you shot one better in the first round, your rating would have been 1010 for that 18-hole round. But your average for 36 holes would only have gone up 5 points to 1005. So one throw affected your 18-hole rating by 10 points but your average rating for 36 by only 5 points. The more holes, the less points per throw for the same SSA caliber course.

Your idea that a throw value should change as it moves away from average makes sense from a probablity standpoint for a specific player but which player? Your average round is 1000 rated but for me I might hit a 1000 rated round one in 30 rounds. Should I get a better rating for shooting the same score that you average regularly? No. That's why the rating points per throw for a specific SSA course with a specific number of holes is a constant. Every score is "average" for some player even those who may not exist yet (1060 average player).

Howdy Chucker

I agree with your relative scaling factor per holes played, however that does not appear to be what is going on. One stroke on a 27 hole course should count 2/3 as much as one stroke on an 18 hole course, not 1/3 as much (the current ratings are based on 3 pts per stroke for 27 vs 9 pts per stroke for 18).

Up to now the ratings have been based on averages, with no use of standard deviations that would be correlated with the non-linear scaling. Given a large enough number of participants, the standard deviation of the scores for players with ratings near 1000 could be used as a measure for non-linear corrections, just like the averages are now used for the linear scaling factor. This would not work in general due to the relatively small number of 1000 rated players at most events.

Cheers, David

If you're looking at the unofficial ratings for Worlds, look away and don't look back until you see the official ratings on August 30th.

If you're looking at the unofficial ratings for Worlds...

You can find an archived copy of each round's results with accurate unofficial ratings at http://2011pdga.com/results

Since cash can only be paid to pros, it's pretty clear that "added cash" means cash added to the pro purse because CTP and skins money doesn't count in payout. The only thing the guidelines don't indicate is how it's distributed among pro divisions. Jeez, no it's not clear, where does it say in any single TD document that added cash is to go to the pro purse? Please reference this for me. I'll beat ya to it. The only document that defines added cash per say is the Electronic TD report.

And what does it say, under the 'Instructions' tab, ProPayout AmJrPayout:
For Am divisions, the dollar amounts and "added cash" for the payouts are based on retail merchandise values.

Furthermore, if you review the 'Am.Jr.Payout' tab, under each division it says <font color="red">Enter Added Cash (or deduction) here*> </font>

This argument that the term "added cash" is explicitly coined as cash to be added to pro purse, is not supported in not one single PDGA document. I've given you two examples above where the term "added cash" is not cash only to be added to the pro purse.

My argument here is not necessarily directed at you Chuck, but the loosely defined TD documents that are written by the Flintstones. So if 98 Ams sign up in a B-tier and only 2 Pros sign up, you really think that the $500 has to go all to those two "Pros"? I implore the PDGA to provide TD instructions that clearly define added cash as you suggest.

The relevant lines of the Tour Guidelines table goes in order:
Added Cash
Pro Payout Percentage
Amateur Payout Percentage
Estimated Amateur Attendance
Minimum Retail Value of Amateurs Players Package

Even the Flintstones understood the top two rows pertain to Pros and the following rows to Ams when it was written.

The relevant lines of the Tour Guidelines table goes in order:
Added Cash
Pro Payout Percentage
Amateur Payout Percentage
Estimated Amateur Attendance
Minimum Retail Value of Amateurs Players Package

Even the Flintstones understood the top two rows pertain to Pros and the following rows to Ams when it was written.The problem is that the Flintstones quit running tournaments and have not even renewed their memberships. There's stuff that "everybody knows" but everybody isn't here anymore. I agree with Chuck that the $500 added for a B-tier is cash for the pros, and that used to be clear in the documents. It isn't anymore and every year there is a fresh crop of more Rons running tournaments.

The relevant lines of the Tour Guidelines table goes in order:
Added Cash
Pro Payout Percentage
Amateur Payout Percentage
Estimated Amateur Attendance
Minimum Retail Value of Amateurs Players Package

Even the Flintstones understood the top two rows pertain to Pros and the following rows to Ams when it was written. Again, you unequivocally prove my point, thank you.

803.04.E If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.(1) Say I have a large solid obstacle 25cm behind my mini. Technically, I could probably take a legal stance, albeit a lousy one. But since in this situation I am prohibited from taking a legal stance 30cm behind my mini, as the rule says, can I play from behind the solid object instead?

(2) What happens in that situation if I say "I can't take a legal stance and want to play behind the solid obstacle", but another player on the card says "No, you can get your foot behind the mini, you have to play there."?

(3) When playing "immediately" behind the solid obstacle, what does "immediately" mean? Must I have the toe of my supporting point foot touching the solid obstacle, or do I get 30cm behind the solid obstacle?

(1) & (2) If you can physically take a stance behind the mark you must do so per the rule. However, had you made this claim before marking your disc with a mini, there wouldn't have been room for you to take a stance. So make the call before marking if you might want to play from behind the object.

(3) The back edge of the solid obstacle becomes the "back edge of your mark" and you have the usual 30 cm on the LOP.

(1) Say I have a large solid obstacle 25cm behind my mini. Technically, I could probably take a legal stance, albeit a lousy one. But since in this situation I am prohibited from taking a legal stance 30cm behind my mini, as the rule says, can I play from behind the solid object instead?

(2) What happens in that situation if I say "I can't take a legal stance and want to play behind the solid obstacle", but another player on the card says "No, you can get your foot behind the mini, you have to play there."?
(1) & (2) If you can physically take a stance behind the mark you must do so per the rule.

Okay, how far can you push that interpretation?

If there's 3cm between the back edge of my marker (be it mini or thrown disc) and the solid object and my cardmates say: "take a knee, put one finger on the ground between the marker and the solid obstacle for a supporting point, and make the throw"... that's what I have to do?
Or "that's what I have to do" to avoid taking an Optional Relief or Rethrow penalty stroke....

It seems like in your interpretation the 30cm number is unnecessary. The rule would be the same if written: "If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance directly behind the marker disc [...]"

Is not the 30cm part of the rule intended to ensure that the player has a reasonable area in which to take a stance? I.e. if your marker is within 30cm of the solid object you may optionally play immediately behind the solid object.

While a finger can technically be a stance, it's always been interpreted since I started the sport as meaning the ability to place your foot behind the mark even if it has to be sideways. The 30cm rule was never related to providing a 30cm gap behind your mark. It was the maximum diameter of the early discs and still is the max spec. Originally, players were allowed to take a stance that touched a 30cm circle behind the front edge of where your disc landed. That allowed a little more left-right leeway than currently allowed.

While a finger can technically be a stance, it's always been interpreted since I started the sport as meaning the ability to place your foot behind the mark even if it has to be sideways.
But there's no written rule about using a foot, right?

So if I understand your interpretation of the situation it goes like this:

If there's more than 11cm (the width of my shoe) between the solid obstacle and my marker I have to play the marker lie.

If there's 10cm I can play immediately behind the solid object. But if my wife (with 8cm wide shoes) had thrown that same shot she would be required to play the marker lie, not behind the solid obstacle as I would.

To me that seems silly that this rule would apply differently to different players.


The 30cm rule was never related to providing a 30cm gap behind your mark.
Originally, players were allowed to take a stance that touched a 30cm circle behind the front edge of where your disc landed.
Don't those two statements contradict themselves?

Not sure what the big issue is here. People come in all sizes and have different positions, stride and arm reach on every throw. Most stance rules essentially impact players differently based on their size and reach. The RC didn't feel the need to specify an exact length where you get relief behind an object. Just whether you can take a stance. Argue with the RC if you feel the common sense application of this relief rule needs more precision because so many people are confused or taking advantage of it. To my knowledge it's never come up as an issue.

You asked if the 30cm had anything to do with relief when up against a solid object. I said 'no' it had to do with the max size of the disc. No contradiction in what I posted.

CHUCK! At the Global tournament this weekend, do we get PDGA points off all players in our division globally or just off the players at our venue? This matters to the Brakel girls who are in a life and giggles struggle for the Advanced Women's obelisk. :D

Just B-tier points for your local event. Maybe we'll add global points as another carrot for next year's event.

Not sure what the big issue is here. People come in all sizes and have different positions, stride and arm reach on every throw. Most stance rules essentially impact players differently based on their size and reach.

If we have a rule in which the application of said rule results in a different outcome for the exact same scenario dependent on the physical attributes of the player then I think there's something that could be improved with that rule.

Say you and Shaquille O'Neal throw the same shot that lands in exactly the same place, then through your interpretation, by rule, you must play a more awkward lie while Shaq's big feet get him "relief" behind the solid obstacle. To me there's something wrong with that.

Appreciate the discourse Chuck. I'll pursue with the RC.

Shaq can lean closer to the basket or straddle farther outside trees from the same lie. Is that fair? It is from the standpoint we're both taking a stance from the same location but our size changes our distance and angles to the pin. Likewise, I can fit in smaller spaces including placing my foot between the disc and tree if that's the case. You seem to think that it's an advantage moving behind a solid object. If I have my choice, I would usually prefer to throw from in front rather than behind in most cases I've encountered, especially since your arm movement might be constrained.

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


UPDATE as of 8/19/11 nothing has changed, this note went out to Marcy/pdga today-

Hi Marcy,

I paid my dues before the beginning of the year, (multi-year renewal) and have yet to receive anything at all from the pdga regarding 2011, No card, no rules book, no key fob, no sticker, but I do continue to receive the magazine.

I contacted the pdga about this in February, March, April, and June or July, and now August.

What is wrong?

I haven't moved in over 20 years, my address and contact info have not changed.

I'd really like to see my 2011 Membership packet arrive in the mail before December, and then I'd like to see my 2012 packet arrive before 2012 gets here.

This is really quite unprofessional even for an organization as casual as the pdga.

Thank you for looking into this problem, and I look forward to a satisfactory solution.

Sincerely,
DC 'The Bowler' Stimmel 26226

UPDATED Again-

Just got off the phone with Todd at Fulfillment- he says the package went out yesterday afternoon. Looks like the 2011 packet will arrive before 2012!

UPDATED Again-

Just got off the phone with Todd at Fulfillment- he says the package went out yesterday afternoon. Looks like the 2011 packet will arrive before 2012!

Did the pDGA HQ suggest you call him, or did he surprise you with the call?

Chuck- any idea why all non GDGT tournament results pages are blank? Some of us are playing this weekend in PDGA. Non GDGT tournaments and not getting access to results and ratings.

All GDGT events were also blank yesterday evening along with all events on future weekends. Gentry has been trying to track it down with the IT people. The reason you can see all of the GDGT events is once an event has scores uploaded, everyone can see it again. The uploading function does work for TDs who have their event passwords. So if you can't see the page, it's likely the TD for your event hasn't uploaded scores yet.

I can't see any prereg lists for future events. No way I'm using the PDGA signup to register for an event when I can't see the prereg list. How much are TDs loving that?

Don't ask me. I have the same problems. However, note that PDGAsignUP is always fast and running on a separate server.

I would report it to the Tour Director. They do track issues with TDs and that will be happening more often as it relates to TDs getting to host an event or that high of a tier the following year. I would say this that if there are only 3 pros, that's less players than what the TD would be required to host a division. I could see a TD having grounds to withhold added cash in that scenario. On the other hand, if the TD has actually raised the $500 from sponsors, he would have cash in hand that sponsors would in theory expect to be going to the pros how ever many showed up.

Since cash can only be paid to pros, it's pretty clear that "added cash" means cash added to the pro purse because CTP and skins money doesn't count in payout. The only thing the guidelines don't indicate is how it's distributed among pro divisions.
Chuck - According to the tour manager you're incorrect. He says he spoke with Brian Graham on it and the $500 only needs to be invested in the tournament, not to the pro purse. This somewhat surprised me, as I had never heard that before.

Hell, my B Tier last year would have qualified as an A Tier if you're talking total money invested in the event. :P

...$500 only needs to be invested in the tournament, not to the pro purse.

Huh?

Huh?
Comes from the Tour Manager, and he got it from Brian Graham. So: exactly what it says.

ChrisWoj - Chuck - According to the tour manager you're incorrect. He says he spoke with Brian Graham on it and the $500 only needs to be invested in the tournament, not to the pro purse. This somewhat surprised me, as I had never heard that before.
Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only. BUT since my post you quoted and having run the global event, Brian and I discussed why TDs should be allowed more flexibility when either only the pro turnout is low or the overall turnout including Ams is low. We agreed it was inappropriate to pay an extra $500 to 4 pros who paid $240 total to enter unless the added cash was completely donated by a sponsor who specifically wanted the cash to go to pros (rare occurrence for a B-tier). Look for more clear guidelines to be provided in the 2012 Tour Standards on this topic.

In typical B-tiers where at least 20 pros show up, it's probably reasonable to expect that the $500 only be added to the pro purse. Below that maybe only $25 per pro is the proper amount to add to the pro purse, UNLESS as I said before, the added cash is already in hand from a sponsor expecting it to only go to the pros.

Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only. BUT since my post you quoted and having run the global event, Brian and I discussed why TDs should be allowed more flexibility when either only the pro turnout is low or the overall turnout including Ams is low. We agreed it was inappropriate to pay an extra $500 to 4 pros who paid $240 total to enter unless the added cash was completely donated by a sponsor who specifically wanted the cash to go to pros (rare occurrence for a B-tier). Look for more clear guidelines to be provided in the 2012 Tour Standards on this topic.

In typical B-tiers where at least 20 pros show up, it's probably reasonable to expect that the $500 only be added to the pro purse. Below that maybe only $25 per pro is the proper amount to add to the pro purse, UNLESS as I said before, the added cash is already in hand from a sponsor expecting it to only go to the pros.
So, basically - less than 20 pros, you don't need the full 500. Great. I can already feel the pro field dwindling further around here for those events. :/

Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only. BUT since my post you quoted and having run the global event, Brian and I discussed why TDs should be allowed more flexibility when either only the pro turnout is low or the overall turnout including Ams is low. We agreed it was inappropriate to pay an extra $500 to 4 pros who paid $240 total to enter unless the added cash was completely donated by a sponsor who specifically wanted the cash to go to pros (rare occurrence for a B-tier). Look for more clear guidelines to be provided in the 2012 Tour Standards on this topic.

In typical B-tiers where at least 20 pros show up, it's probably reasonable to expect that the $500 only be added to the pro purse. Below that maybe only $25 per pro is the proper amount to add to the pro purse, UNLESS as I said before, the added cash is already in hand from a sponsor expecting it to only go to the pros.


Last year I encountered a situation where an event didn't add $500 to the pro purse as a B tier (but had added much more to "the event"),

When as State Coordinator I was asked by players to check it out and the Tour Manager said yes, had to be $500 cash added to the Pro Purse and the promoter made it right with the Pros after the fact

I feel this is a wrong move on the PDGA's behalf, what's the point in sanctioning as a particular tier if the PDGA leadership just changes their mind at some point mid-year? How can player's know what to expect as far as standards?

Shouldn't this be a BOD issue more than 1 employee's opinion?

Not incorrect. It's always been intended to be $500 added to the pro purse only. Not trying to beat a deadhorse here, but a simple and quick solution to this ambigious issue would be to update the TourStandards Table 1: PDGA Tier Standards Chart, under Added Cash, to read as Added Pro Cash.

Chuck, the reason why there is this ambiguity and some may draw the conclusion that the Added Cash can be misconstrued to be added to AM payout in the form of retail merchandise is that:
1) There is no clear set of definitions in the TD Documents
2) When reviewing all the TD Documents, the term "Added Cash" pops up in three places. Tour Standards, Table 1, The TD Report under Instructions Tab, and under Am.Jr.Payout tab.

When I reviewed the documents in its entirety over and over, it was not clear if this "Added Cash" was strictly for Pros, since I cross-referenced to the TD Report and it lists "Added Cash" where I specified above (2). It is reasonable for any person that is new to PDGA, that after reading all the TD Documents, one could draw the conclusion that the $500 Added Cash for a B-tier is not clearly defined as strictly to be added to the Pro Purse. That may be the intent, and for seasoned PDGA staff and TDs that may be well known. However per the previous posts, even the Tour Manager says the added cash is not strictly for the pro purse. I hope to see improvements made to the documents to clear this matter up.

I feel this is a wrong move on the PDGA's behalf, what's the point in sanctioning as a particular tier if the PDGA leadership just changes their mind at some point mid-year? How can player's know what to expect as far as standards?

Shouldn't this be a BOD issue more than 1 employee's opinion?


I agree! Wow.

No one's saying the money shouldn't go to the pros if there's a decent turnout. But if the pros don't show, then simply cherry picking the TD who did the work to host a disappointing event, many times for reasons outside their control, isn't good policy. With Board members who ran and won indicating more support for TDs, I suspect you'll see support for TDs on this issue to set aside minimum cash requirements when turnouts are low.

No one's saying the money shouldn't go to the pros if there's a decent turnout. But if the pros don't show, then simply cherry picking the TD who did the work to host a disappointing event, many times for reasons outside their control, isn't good policy. With Board members who ran and won indicating more support for TDs, I suspect you'll see support for TDs on this issue to set aside minimum cash requirements when turnouts are low.
In my experience - if a tournament director is running a B Tier he needs to be expected to know what he is getting into ahead of time! I lost over $600 of my own personal money my first time. And I expected that to happen. I learned a ton of lessons. Number one of which is don't run a B Tier as your first sanctioned event. But number two is you need to get out word. DAILY. Make sure you're making sure that the pros are going to show.

Frankly this feels more like a loophole that'll allow TDs to completely forsake the pros at B Tiers. I could easily run a B Tier. Tell the pros I'm only adding $25 per pro that shows up, up to $500... the pros won't show at all, and I'll get to rake in the merch cash off of the Am field. This is a horrid precedent.

No one's saying the money shouldn't go to the pros if there's a decent turnout.

Chuck,

The PDGA's official stance on this issue at this time is that the added cash does not have to go to the pros. It just has to be "invested in the tournament".

You're right, no one is saying that the money shouldn't go to the pros. They are saying that it doesn't have to. I'm not sure what incentive there is for a TD to give money to the pro purse.

With this new decision, TD's can start counting tournament expenses like their own gas money as "added cash". Any cash that was "invested" (also not very clear) in the tournament is "added cash" now. Ring of fire prizes, lunch, minis, pencils (haha) can now be given away as "added cash".

Keep in mind that this change in the "added cash" requirement concept also applies to A-tiers and NT's.

Conclusion- TD's for any level of event are now not required to add any cash to the pro purse, ever.

Frankly this feels more like a loophole that'll allow TDs to completely forsake the pros at B Tiers. I could easily run a B Tier. Tell the pros I'm only adding $25 per pro that shows up, up to $500... the pros won't show at all, and I'll get to rake in the merch cash off of the Am field. This is a horrid precedent.
TDs can already do this and a few have. I'm not sure why more don't do it - run events exclusively for Ams. The Pros currently contribute nothing toward the expenses of running of an event unless specific fees are called out in the flyer such as greens fees or series fees. And they have an expectation of 100% payback plus added cash in the case of higher tiers.

DSproAVIAR - It just has to be "invested in the tournament".
You're taking Brian's words related to a specific case and extending them as his full blown policy. He and others simply believe that below some level of turnout, the cash can be spread around. Look for the policy to be clarified in the 2012 docs.

You're taking Brian's words related to a specific case and extending them as his full blown policy. He and others simply believe that below some level of turnout, the cash can be spread around. Look for the policy to be clarified in the 2012 docs.
You know what we call events like that around here? C Tiers. TDs around here already add $1.50 per amateur head to the pro purse for C Tiers. And frankly, thats fine. Its a C Tier, there is no expectation or requirement for added cash. As a matter of fact most events around here are B Am/C Pro events. You're letting TDs that FAIL TO DO THEIR JOB off the hook for adding cash to a B Tier. Like I said - I've run a few B Tiers. I've lost my fair share of cash running those events. I've even helped add cash to B Tiers out of my pocket that I'm not running to help the TD along.

If you want to run a B Tier you should know what you're getting into ahead of time, be ready for that $500 hit regardless of the turnout. If you want the responsibility of running a B Tier be ready for it.

Look at it this way, if the TDs are less on the hook regarding B-tier cash, they are more likely to sanction at that level since we've reduced their risk in case of a low turnout event. If enough pros show, they get their $500 cash added to the purse. No one from PDGA HQ is suggesting anything different. If they don't show, then the TD has more flexibility. What that means and when it can be used is TBD.

Alot of us work really hard to put on quality events, if this is/becomes the status quo.......Then throw "tier" out, with this ideology we might as well run a C tier with 500+ guaranteed to the pro purse and save $100ish in "Added PDGA B Tier Expenses" which I know we can already do....however, B Tier is supposed to sound better and BE better

I'm all for Event/Club and PDGA fundraising/profits but.... imo, this waters down B Tier status

So what is your solution for low turnout B-tiers?

Chuck low turnout B-tier tournaments should be an
advantage to the pros that show up. As other TD's have
said "be ready to take a hit if no one shows up"

It's obvious the Global should have been a C-tier.

This seems like an over site on the PDGA side/planning side

BTW I really like the concept of this Global event.

Much of the success of the Global was requiring B-tiers. We wanted experienced TDs this first time and got them so we could count on good score uploading and well run events otherwise. There were enough behind the scenes challenges as it was with this new format even with experienced TDs.

Sorry Sammy, if few pros show up they don't necessarily deserve anything more than the ams who show up do they? No one's saying the TDs should get to "keep" sponsor money if sponsors expected it to be paid to pros. But those kind of restrictions are few and far between. Sponsors care about eyeballs and it really doesn't matter who provides them - players, staff and spectators.

So what is your solution for low turnout B-tiers?

1. Be prepared for a minimum of $500 added to the pro purse, this is usually done by some sort of outside of the event sponsorship

2. Be prepared to sell alot of merchandise to recoup the investment for amateur prizes

Don't run a B Tier if you can't do the above, that's what C Tiers or unsanctioned events are for

Didn't answer the question. Why are primarily volunteer TDs the only ones that should suffer the risk if turnout is low? It's not like TDs make much if anything and certainly lose with low turnouts. Course rental was $400 for a recent low turnout event for example. Bad weather forecasts scare away pre-registration or players wanting refunds.

Didn't answer the question. Why are primarily volunteer TDs the only ones that should suffer the risk if turnout is low? It's not like TDs make much if anything and certainly lose with low turnouts. Course rental was $400 for a recent low turnout event for example. Bad weather forecasts scare away pre-registration or players wanting refunds.
As I already said: If you have no turnout, its your own fault. I've run multiple B Tiers and I can honestly say that 100% of the difference in my turnout for the first Stateline Classic (2009) vs the second Stateline Classic (2010) was prep-work by myself and my staff. I spent the necessary time getting out word, making people knew why it would be worth it to play my event. I drew about 90 golfers despite half of my possible players (if not more) already being committed to the much more established AJ Open on the other side of the state... because I was committed to it and I did the proper prep-work.

What you're describing:
Look at it this way, if the TDs are less on the hook regarding B-tier cash, they are more likely to sanction at that level since we've reduced their risk in case of a low turnout event. If enough pros show, they get their $500 cash added to the purse. No one from PDGA HQ is suggesting anything different. If they don't show, then the TD has more flexibility. What that means and when it can be used is TBD
Pretty much takes away any prestige of a B Tier. What is the difference, in this case, between a B Tier and a C Tier? An added percentage of merch value guaranteed to the Ams, and thats it? Hell, 90% of the TDs I have encountered overprice their merch to the point that the Ams don't get anything whether its a B Tier or a C Tier. So they're not really getting much in the way of added value.

If a TD doesn't want to be on the hook for the cash RUN A C TIER. We don't need more B Tiers if the events that are going to happen are crap. Quality over quantity.

Didn't answer the question. Why are primarily volunteer TDs the only ones that should suffer the risk if turnout is low? It's not like TDs make much if anything and certainly lose with low turnouts. Course rental was $400 for a recent low turnout event for example. Bad weather forecasts scare away pre-registration or players wanting refunds.
I valued discs at below MSRP for a C Tier this year that drew 30 golfers, and I still made over $150, and it would have been more had I not added $100 in cash to the Open purse. Think about that: I valued my merch under MSRP and STILL could have come out $250+ dollars ahead had I not added cash to the pro purse. Any tournament director that is losing money is outsourcing his merch/payouts to a vendor that is going to be doing nothing but profiting from the event. (the mistake I made for both of my B Tiers mentioned above where I lost tons of money)


edit: Thinking on it even more, could have made even more had my two biggest am payouts not chosen to get their payouts online via the Dynamic Discs store (which is an option I offered).

Chris, you're using your experience as the basis for making broad generalizations about how it is or should be everywhere. Have you had to pay $700 course fees like in Los Angeles? Do you live in an area with few PDGA members? Do we want to discourage TDs from trying to run B-tiers because the risk is too high? That policy would not be in the best interest of the players overall. No potential TD is going to sanction a B-tier with low turnout in mind. It's more upfront cost with sanctioning for one and they still have to do the work to gather sponsorship. Why would TDs choose to do a low turnout B-tier when they could reduce their risk sanctioning as a C-tier?

Chris, you're using your experience as the basis for making broad generalizations about how it is or should be everywhere. Have you had to pay $700 course fees like in Los Angeles? Do you live in an area with few PDGA members? Do we want to discourage TDs from trying to run B-tiers because the risk is too high? That policy would not be in the best interest of the players overall. No potential TD is going to sanction a B-tier with low turnout in mind. It's more upfront cost with sanctioning for one and they still have to do the work to gather sponsorship. Why would TDs choose to do a low turnout B-tier when they could reduce their risk sanctioning as a C-tier?
They wouldn't, and shouldn't. If your community isn't ready for a B Tier. If you can't gather proper sponsorship. If you are not prepared to take a hit. If you are not going to do the leg work for it... you should not run a higher tiered event. Simply put. So yes - we do want to discourage Tournament Directors from doing things that they are not ready nor capable of doing. C Tiers are for building communities and tournament fields. There is an inherent risk involved with running a B Tier, but guess what: Once you have the experience, the field, the sponsorship lined up - and you feel you're ready - go to it.

Otherwise: Run a C Tier.

In response to your other question: No, I have not experienced $700 course fees. But I did pay $150 - using profit from merch vending at the tournament - to use the course in Georgia this year for my C Tier at the private facility at Honey Creek Episcopal Center, so I understand course fees.

Experienced TD. Paid B-tier sanctioning and insurance. Gathered sponsorship. Had pre-registration up two months in advance. Paid course and shelter reservation fees. Ordered disc stock to handle player packs and prizes. Hurricane Irene now barreling down on the coastline. Only 10 local guys show up including one pro with maybe 20 asking for refunds 5 days before. Hand the pro $500 plus entry fee?

Experienced TD. Paid B-tier sanctioning and insurance. Gathered sponsorship. Had pre-registration up two months in advance. Paid course and shelter reservation fees. Ordered disc stock to handle player packs and prizes. Hurricane Irene now barreling down on the coastline. Only 10 local guys show up including one pro with maybe 20 asking for refunds 5 days before. Hand the pro $500 plus entry fee?
Now what you're doing is you're taking a special case scenario, above and beyond anything you posted above, simply to be contrary. You and I both know that this is a super-rare scenario. This is an event that could EASILY receive special consideration - you know the weather situation DAYS in advance, if not a week in advance. You contact the PDGA. You ask for some sort of waiver. You call the players and tell them that it'll be a special case, we need X, Y, Z from the PDGA, the players will have to accept X, Y, and Z changes.

That does NOT mean you go changing entire sanctioning rules for a special situation.

That is one of several "special" situations that arise on occasion, not rarely. The policy for B-tiers should be written so the contingencies are built-in if possible.

That is one of several "special" situations that arise on occasion, not rarely. The policy for B-tiers should be written so the contingencies are built-in if possible.
Then get it in writing that $500 is required - and if there is a special circumstance like dire weather, etc. you are required to contact the PDGA **AHEAD OF TIME** and you need to contact the pre-registered players and alter advertising **AHEAD OF TIME** - You can't allow a loophole to exist for every underhanded tournament director to pocket money saying "Well there was added cash value here, here, here, and here." pointing to his gas costs, purchase of some signage, etc.

So what you're saying is I could have looked at this tournament field:
http://www.discgolfscene.com/tournaments/The_Stateline_Classic_2009
Saw that I was only getting six pros (my name is in there, but I paid in trophy-only money and just golfed the two rounds at the course I was the official at)... and told them "Well hey guys, you're actually only getting $150 added cash. Sorry, only six golfers. I can't go blowing all my money on your field. But I did spend money reserving space for our players party, transporting everything to the location of the awards/party, set up at both courses, this was spent on leg work... and so on.

If I do that to the players, do I wind up with:
http://www.discgolfscene.com/tournaments/The_Stateline_Classic_2010 ?
Your answer, in a word: NO. Not a chance! Word is going to get out that there might not even be $500 in cash added. And if you lose those guys, you lose the guys they convince to travel with them. Which means smaller preregistered am field, which discourages other players. Trickle down effect and suddenly the second Stateline looks just like the first.


On another note: I lived in Georgia. CLEARLY people know better than to run events during hurricane season, I experienced the lack of sanctioned events in southeast GA throughout the season. If you're dumb enough to run an event near the coast during hurricane season, that is your fault.

Unlikely to happen. Now that the issue has been raised, it's pretty clear a more flexible policy is going to be written and not just for B-tiers. The TDs have been on the bottom in terms of considerations in events (pros, ams, sponsors, PDGA, TDs) and I see that balance changing.

Unlikely to happen. Now that the issue has been raised, it's pretty clear a more flexible policy is going to be written and not just for B-tiers. The TDs have been on the bottom in terms of considerations in events (pros, ams, sponsors, PDGA, TDs) and I see that balance changing.
Wow. Just wow. I suddenly don't see much of a difference between a C Tier and a B Tier. If the pros are no longer assured of the $500 added cash just by seeing the "B" next to the event name to draw them in, I may as well just run C Tiers in the future - and advertise like mad that I have the $500 added just like B Tiers used to have.

Personally - I'm going to stand by my stance that you're giving in to people that failed as TDs and are looking for excuses.

You're implying that a TD is a failure if they don't have sufficient turnout? With that perspective, maybe TDs should have the right to cancel an event if not enough players sign up by maybe 10 days before the event? Only 50% refund for the players who pre-reged to help the TD cover sanctioning and other pre-event expenses fees so the players share the TDs risk. Would that be more fair? Despite the fact that you wish to make TDs into small business operators who take business risks, the reality is that most TDs are still breaking even or losing money and that's before counting their time and the time of other volunteers because they like doing it for the players.

If you wish to change to running C-tiers under some as yet to be redefined policy, that's still in the best interest of the players so go for it. However, I suspect there will be a few more TDs risking B-tiers in developing areas to make up for it and happier TDs overall knowing the PDGA has their backs perhaps a little more than before.

You're implying that a TD is a failure if they don't have sufficient turnout? With that perspective, maybe TDs should have the right to cancel an event if not enough players sign up by maybe 10 days before the event? Only 50% refund for the players who pre-reged to help the TD cover sanctioning and other pre-event expenses fees so the players share the TDs risk. Would that be more fair? Despite the fact that you wish to make TDs into small business operators who take business risks, the reality is that most TDs are still breaking even or losing money and that's before counting their time and the time of other volunteers because they like doing it for the players.

If you wish to change to running C-tiers under some as yet to be redefined policy, that's still in the best interest of the players so go for it. However, I suspect there will be a few more TDs risking B-tiers in developing areas to make up for it and happier TDs overall knowing the PDGA has their backs perhaps a little more than before.
What does the TD get out of running a B Tier versus running a C Tier? What are his/her bonuses?

It sounds like to me as long as the pdga gets it's cut they don't care about how the event is paid out. Maybe the pdga can do more to help those tournament directors out. Otherwise I feel more and more events will start to be un-sactioned. The pro fields seem to be getting smaller at all events.

Just my 2 cents.

On another note: I lived in Georgia. CLEARLY people know better than to run events during hurricane season, I experienced the lack of sanctioned events in southeast GA throughout the season. If you're dumb enough to run an event near the coast during hurricane season, that is your fault.

FYI, the Atlantic Hurricane season is defined as from June 1st to November 30th. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season) Are you saying that PDGA sanctioned events should not be run during this entire six month period in most of eastern Georgia & South Carolina? Are you saying that all the folks who have run events over the last 20 years in Savannah, Charleston, or even Augusta or Rock Hill are "dumb?"

If so, that's a fairly offensive accusation. http://www.pdga.com/discussion/images/icons/icon13.gif

Let's get at what is at the root of this issue, what's the answer to the question, "What is the benefit to the TD for offering pro divisions at a B or C-tier?" Not saying I can't think of a few but I'm interested to hear other's thoughts on this.

FYI, the Atlantic Hurricane season is defined as from June 1st to November 30th. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season) Are you saying that PDGA sanctioned events should not be run during this entire six month period in most of eastern Georgia & South Carolina? Are you saying that all the folks who have run events over the last 20 years in Savannah, Charleston, or even Augusta or Rock Hill are "dumb?"

If so, that's a fairly offensive accusation. http://www.pdga.com/discussion/images/icons/icon13.gif
Agreed - Hurricane season is long. I'm an environmental educator, I've taught out on the barrier islands - I know this. And I stand by my comment. The start and end dates of hurricane season have fluctuated throughout the years. At one point in time it only lasted through mid-October and started in almost July. Frankly, aside from a few occurrences though, you don't see hurricanes hitting near the coast throughout that entire period. The seasonal definition is more of a case of "better safe than sorry."

Since the mid-1500s we have on record only 7 hurricanes hitting the east coast outside of the period of Aug 10-Oct 10. If anyone is dumb enough to host a big tournament on the coast within that 2 months stretch - well... yeah, dumb idea. Very much so. And out of those 7 only 4 have occurred outside of August-October (in the June-July/November period you included in your post).

And frankly, judging by how few tournaments I saw out there when I was living there: not too many TDs are dumb enough or willing to take the risk to run events during that period. So really, seeing as how most avoid that period along the southeast part of the coast... No, I'm not really insulting anybody. (and c'mon, ROCK HILL? Do you know how few hurricanes see their actual eye hit the coast that far south along the eastern seaboard? C'mon now, I can't think of any other than Hugo.)

Let's get at what is at the root of this issue, what's the answer to the question, "What is the benefit to the TD for offering pro divisions at a B or C-tier?" Not saying I can't think of a few but I'm interested to hear other's thoughts on this.
Well, at a tournament in general... the main one is that they tend to bring friends. I rarely travel with other pros (mostly because of how bereft Toledo is of tournament playing pros), so I'm usually riding with 3-4 amateurs.

As for the benefits overall of offering a pro division, period, there really isn't one. Maybe we should just say screw it and save the TDs the trouble and eliminate the Open Division entirely? They're the only lames at the tournament that the TD isn't profiting off of at a typical C/B Tier event.