I don't think "profit" is necessary, just help covering tournament expenses. How do pros help in that regard?

I don't think "profit" is necessary, just help covering tournament expenses. How do pros help in that regard?
How do the pros help cover tournament expenses... Other than using them as an advertising ticket "We're looking for sponsors, we have an event that is going to draw the top pros from the region..." things like that, I'm not sure if I can think of anything. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I make sure to thank the TD anytime I'm at a well run event, because I know I'm not doing a lot for them other than drawing in some friends to play. I see the Open Division more as a way of growing the talent in the sport at most smaller tournaments, it is a goal to strive for - to be able to compete in open - and drives players to move up. In some cases this can help the TD: Higher amateur divisions usually have higher entry fees, so players attempting to improve and become pros one day are providing a nice aid to the profit margin via the merch they're paying for with their entry fees.

But thats all very roundabout - directly I can't think of much the pros do at smaller events for the TD.

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.

Chuck,

Take a look at Table 1 here-

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

It's easy to see that "added cash" has the same definition no matter what tier or amount of money it applies to.

Brian Graham is defining "added cash" as money that is "invested into the tournament".

So yes that is a full blown policy for any event, and to clarify the conclusion that we have reached here-

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

Brian's interpretation is not in writing yet. The 2012 policy words are unlikely to be as simple as you are currently interpreting his words that were in reference to low turnout B-tiers. At the moment, all it means is the Tour Manager isn't likely to scold a TD with low turnout if $500 wasn't added to the pro purse as indicated in the TD report.

I don't think "profit" is necessary, just help covering tournament expenses. How do pros help in that regard?
Let's see posted 8 hours (chirp) ago and no pro nor anyone for (chirp) that matter has provided (chirp) some ideas. I'll post a few in the morning (chirp) if we don't see any to keep these crickets company...

Many of the pros around here have been playing (and organizing events) for a long time and they understand about event expenses. These are the dudes who usually run weed eaters, paint lines, trim rogue branches, fill water jugs, hunt for sponsors, or bring some extra cash to put into the pot. Well, maybe that's just me, but you get the idea.

Nice John. Those are on my list.

Nice John. Those are on my list.
Those aren't necessarily on my list - because those aren't things that only the pros can do. I've done more course cleanup and clearing in the Toledo area over the past two years (despite spending only 4 months of that time living here) than anyone - and I don't consider that anything to put next to my name as a pro. That is something that one should simply do as a dedicated community member.

The question is what do the pros do for B and C Tiers, and thats simply a what can the community do?


-Chris.

The direct question was how do pros help a TD with tournament expenses and the related question is why would a TD host pro divisions. Here's what I've got on my list and these aren't necessarily unique to pros but also not a reason to exclude them either:

1. Those who helped the TD prepare or build the courses or prep for the tournament in other ways may be pros (per John's post) and the TD throws them a bone by hosting their pro division.
2. Related to that is the TD is a pro and wants to play in their own event.
3. Pros could have brought in sponsor money or merch for the event.
4. Pro divisions are easier to handle with cash payouts versus needing to buy merch to cover Am prizes or deal with a local merchant if the TD isn't in the business of selling disc merch other than events.
5. More Ams might enter if first round mixes pros with ams in groups.
6. In C-tiers, pro payout only has to be 85%, so they can contribute to event expenses if the TD actually does pay out 85% and not 100% or more without sponsorship.
7. If tournament expense fees are built into the entry fees, which is allowed, pros can help cover fixed event expenses like shelter and course fees if the event is unlikely to fill with only Ams.

The point is it takes a little more work for both the pros and the TD to "justify" their inclusion in events in comparison with Ams. We should be looking for ways to support the TDs efforts so there's a better balance in the reasons they would want to host pro divisions in the lower tiers.

The direct question was how do pros help a TD with tournament expenses and the related question is why would a TD host pro divisions. Here's what I've got on my list and these aren't necessarily unique to pros but also not a reason to exclude them either:

1. Those who helped the TD prepare or build the courses or prep for the tournament in other ways may be pros (per John's post) and the TD throws them a bone by hosting their pro division.
2. Related to that is the TD is a pro and wants to play in their own event.
3. Pros could have brought in sponsor money or merch for the event.
4. Pro divisions are easier to handle with cash payouts versus needing to buy merch to cover Am prizes or deal with a local merchant if the TD isn't in the business of selling disc merch other than events.
5. More Ams might enter if first round mixes pros with ams in groups.
6. In C-tiers, pro payout only has to be 85%, so they can contribute to event expenses if the TD actually does pay out 85% and not 100% or more without sponsorship.
7. If tournament expense fees are built into the entry fees, which is allowed, pros can help cover fixed event expenses like shelter and course fees if the event is unlikely to fill with only Ams.

The point is it takes a little more work for both the pros and the TD to "justify" their inclusion in events in comparison with Ams. We should be looking for ways to support the TDs efforts so there's a better balance in the reasons they would want to host pro divisions in the lower tiers.
I can see all of your points here. I suppose I misread the initial question. It seemed to me that you wanted things that only the pro players could do for an event. Yes, everything you described is something a pro can do, although many of the things you brought up are things that anybody in the community could do (and in some cases, things they SHOULD do if they're dedicated to their community).

Maybe its just my view as a pro - but I just have never seen the need to take from the purse (for any division) to pay for expenses. As I said before - a huge chunk of the money can come from the profit on the merchandise that a tournament director "sells" to all of the amateurs at the tournament. What cripples a tournament far worse, IMHO, is a small amateur field - not a small pro field. I value at below MSRP for the purpose of payouts, and still make a nice profit. Virtually all tournament directors value at well over MSRP. And only a few have overhead to deal with (like the IDGC). Honestly the only people I can see that should have trouble financing a decent B Tier are people that outsource their merch to a local dealer.

(discounting, of course, the people in Los Angeles that apparently pay parks $700 to use their facilities, which I think is COMPLETELY absurd, but hell if its out there, its out there, yikes)

As I see on the Tour Event Report, the PDGA fee, greens fees, series and regional fees can be deducted to calculate Net Entry Fees. Is it permittable for a TD to reduce Payout by any of the following fees/costs:

a. sanctioning fee
b. insurance
c. event management fee
d. am player package
e. park permits
f. any other fees (lunch)

I'm trying to clarify when payout of 85%, 100%, or 110% is required, what that percentage is calculated against. Is it simply Gross Entry Fees - permittable fees + plus added cash = payout?

No: a, b, c, e
Yes: d counts as Am payout, not for Pros
f: includes ace, lunch, greens fees, series fees, charitable contributions, late fees, course development & admin fees.
You could apply the same admin fee, say $4, to every entry which could technically be used cover shelter or other park fees that are fixed rather than per player.

I'll be proposing that event management fees be deductible for 2012 where the TD gets credit for the same amount as the PDGA. In other words, at a B-tier, the event mangement fee would be $3 per player, at a C-tier $2 per player. The TD gets to do what they want with the fee as they do now. The difference is the amount reduces the base entry fee from which payout percentages are calculated unlike the existing approach to management fees. If the TD doesn't want to keep it and donates it to the pro purse, the TD would get credit as a sponsor.

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.(added red above to reply to those points).

My concern is this: it seems that what you say is the common interpretation of 803.04.E results in different players playing different lies, by rule - not by choice, following the exact same shot depending on the physical attributes of the players.

In my opinion it would be a more fair rule applied equally to everybody if the essence of the rule was: if your marker is within 30cm of a solid obstacle on the line of play you may optionally play from immediately behind the solid obstacle.

In my opinion it would be a more fair rule applied equally to everybody if the essence of the rule was: if your marker is within 30cm of a solid obstacle on the line of play you may optionally play from immediately behind the solid obstacle. You have 30cm of room to put your foot/heel/hand sideways behind your lie.
We all come in different sizes and that's going to give some players a benefit in certain situations over another. A low ceiling shot maybe great for a shorter guy while a tall player in a bush can stretch out further.

In my opinion it would be a more fair rule applied equally to everybody if the essence of the rule was: if your marker is within 30cm of a solid obstacle on the line of play you may optionally play from immediately behind the solid obstacle.
Suggest it to the RC. It's not unreasonable. Although I would say the default approach in the rules is to require players to play from where it lies as much as possible unless it's not feasible. And thus the current rule.

[...]We all come in different sizes and that's going to give some players a benefit in certain situations over another. A low ceiling shot maybe great for a shorter guy while a tall player in a bush can stretch out further.The difference between the examples you gave and the interpretation posted here for 803.04.E is that in your examples both players are playing from the same lie - by rule. In 803.04.E they might be playing a different lie, potentially many feet apart, from the exact same shot - by rule.

It'd be like saying in your bush example that one player has to climb into the bush while another has to play from behind the bush.

Suggest it to the RC.Already done.

That's still a red herring because there are other instances where two players will get different lies from essentially the same throw based on what the group or spotters see. So it's not like it doesn't happen in other areas of the game. The biggest issue I see with the solid object rule is you don't place a mini down behind the solid object so everyone can actually see your lie behind the object.

Is it August 30th yet?

The key is it's not August 31st yet...

The key is it's not August 31st yet...

You're a victim of your own success here Chuck, because frequently they are posted the day before! :)

SSA is calculated for each round regardless if all three rounds of an event are played on the same layout, correct?

You're a victim of your own success here Chuck, because frequently they are posted the day before!
I'm a victim alright since I got to see my pending 17 point drop before they get posted...:(

Patrick P - SSA is calculated for each round regardless if all three rounds of an event are played on the same layout, correct?
Yes, in the data file. but they are compared and unless one falls way out of line with the others, probably due to high wind, they'll all be combined so there will only be one SSA for that layout and everyone will get the same rating for the same score regardless what round it was thrown on that layout.

This past weekend played 3rds at the Sun Valley Open in La Mesa (San Diego, CA), par 55.
Day 1 tee-off 11:00am, high afternoon winds, 51 is a 1,010 rated round
Day 2 tee-off 8:15am, calm morning, 51 is a 1,000 rated round
Day 2 tee-off 2:00pm, late mild afternoon winds, 51 is a 1,005 rated round

All rounds played from same tee-pads and baskets. I see that your saying that if there is a high discrepancy in the scores, then the SSA for each round will be calculated seperately.

I understand that 5 propagators are used to come up with the SSA. Are the propagators selected randomly or is there a formula that can be provided for knowing who the propagators are?

All players with ratings over 799 based on at least 8 rounds are propagators and all are used, not just 5.

So let's say the average of these propagators is 930. How does that calculate the SSA?

This past weekend played 3rds at the Sun Valley Open in La Mesa (San Diego, CA), par 55.
Day 1 tee-off 11:00am, high afternoon winds, 51 is a 1,010 rated round
Day 2 tee-off 8:15am, calm morning, 51 is a 1,000 rated round
Day 2 tee-off 2:00pm, late mild afternoon winds, 51 is a 1,005 rated round

I've been jobbed out of 5 unofficial ratings points!!! I shot my 51 during my second round, which for my flight was around 2:30 PM on Saturday, but appears to lumped with you 8:00 AM no-wind second round people.

The official ratings typically end up lower than the unofficial, so I don't expect the quadruple digits to stand after it's all said and done. Would be nice, though.

So let's say the average of these propagators is 930. How does that calculate the SSA?

Obviously it depends on what scores those propagators posted.

I've been jobbed out of 5 unofficial ratings points!!! I shot my 51 during my second round, which for my flight was around 2:30 PM on Saturday, but appears to lumped with you 8:00 AM no-wind second round people.

The official ratings typically end up lower than the unofficial, so I don't expect the quadruple digits to stand after it's all said and done. Would be nice, though.

This certainly brings up a topic for discussion. When the scores were first uploaded, a 51 was listed as such:


For Pro/MA1 flight<<<----inserted
Day 1 tee-off 11:00am, high afternoon winds, 51 is a 1,010 rated round
Day 2 tee-off 8:15am, calm morning, 51 is a 1,000 rated round
Day 2 tee-off 2:00pm, late mild afternoon winds, 51 is a 1,005 rated round

It appears there has been some changes, and now the following is shown for all flights:

Round 1 a 51 is a 1,011 rated round
Round 2 a 51 is a 1,003 rated round
Round 3 a 51 is a 1,002 rated round

There were two flights, Pros/MA1 (Flight 1), and all others (Flight 2).

On Saturday Pros/MA1 played round 1 from 11-2pm, during high windy conditions, while all others played round 1 from 8-11am, low windy conditions. All others played round 2 on Saturday 2-5pm, mild windy conditions. Sunday the flights played opposite.

What Rhett is saying is correct, his entire flight was indeed lumped together with the other flight, that doesn't seem right.

This is how it should be:
Flight 1 rd1 = Flight 2 rd3
Flight 1 rd2 = Flight 2 rd1
Flight 1 rd3 = Flight 2 rd2

I hope this is making sense. At the end of the day, I think since all rounds were played on the same layout, then maybe grouping them all together and averaging them, a 51 would hold the same for all rounds and all flights? Don't get me wrong, I think shooting a 51 in high windy conditions certainly deserves a higher rating than a 51 in the morning with low windy conditions.

Interested to hear other opinions and thoughts.
1) Will the ratings change again?
2) Should the round ratings coincide with the information in bold above?
3) How is the SSA calculated when there are two flights playing at different times in different conditions?
4) Shouldn't the SSA be calculated for each flight and each round?
5) Can I pay someone to keep my first 1,000 rated round to stand as official?

A 2-shot difference in SSA is statistically normal by the same pool of players playing the same layout under the same conditions. Increasing wind can increase the SSA up to 5 shots. If the amount of wind increases the SSA less than 2 shots, it can be indistinguishable from normal variance so those round ratings are not kept separate. The numbers produced in your above example fall below that threshold and will be combined because it's statistically unclear whether the variance was normal or due to wind even though you observed the wind differences.

In other words, the ratings process is automated regardless of any weather observations by the TD. The SSAs are actually calculated separately by round on each layout. If the SSA difference is big enough on the same layout, the numbers will be kept separate. If not, they are combined. We cannot rely on anecdotal weather observations of the TD to determine the proper way to do the calculations because even perfect observations would not necessarily indicate what to do. The actual calculations are the bottom line to prove whether the weather was a significant factor between rounds.

For example, a 25mph wind from the east may not have the same effect as a 25mph wind from the west depending on the specific hole designs on the course. Obvious example might be a hole with a big water (or OB) carry where a 25mph wind from one direction might raise the scoring average by 0.5 throw compared to another direction.

Tee time rounds are problematic when the weather changes over the day, especially when there's a very large division like at USDCG. For the Memorial and Gentlemans, we typically calculate ratings for the larger divisions separately to see if there was a difference. If the differences are high enough, we will rate them separately. If not, then everyone is combined for the whole day. As a side note, that's why we recommend that the division schedule be switched up so the same division isn't always playing last or first in the day to somewhat average out common wind increases and decreases in a day for that climate.

But there's really no easy way to break up the calculations for a giant division like the USDGC unless we had the TD provide the tee time groupings for each round. Even then, there's a lot of overlap no matter where you break up the field into two groups by time where some people in one group would have played their last 4 holes with wind and some played 6 and some played 8, etc. I would be fine not doing ratings for some tee time rounds but you know how popular that would be. So we do what we can when we can to break out tee time info.

Let me see if I can put this another way.

SSA is calculated for each round. When you have two flights that play their first round at different times or even different days, will the SSA be calculated pooling all players (eligible to be used as propagators) from both flights together for that one round?

A 2-shot difference in SSA is statistically normal by the same pool of players playing the same layout under the same conditions. What do you mean when you say a 2-shot difference? I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the SSA for say round 1 is a 53 and round 2 is a 51, is that what you mean by a 2-shot difference?

The SSAs are actually calculated separately by round on each layout. If the SSA difference is big enough on the same layout, the numbers will be kept separate. If not, they are combined. It appears that the SSA is calculated separately for now. It seems the SSA is quite close for all three rounds. So does that mean when the event results are official will we see one SSA for all three rounds?

Par is 55.
Round 1 a 52 is a 1,001 rated round
Round 2 a 51 is a 1,003 rated round
Round 3 a 51 is a 1,002 rated round

Lastly, I know that SSA event page has been removed, as this has been discussed in previous posts. How again do I find the SSA for the 2010 Sun Valley Open?

Hey Chuck, the Intermediates are submitted playing the same tees as Advanced, therefore the ratings are quite off. Can you fix this or do you need the TD to send another report?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/72634

A 2-shot difference in SSA is statistically normal by the same pool of players playing the same layout under the same conditions. [...] If the amount of wind increases the SSA less than 2 shots, it can be indistinguishable from normal variance so those round ratings are not kept separate.

In other words, the ratings process is automated regardless of any weather observations by the TD. The SSAs are actually calculated separately by round on each layout. If the SSA difference is big enough on the same layout, the numbers will be kept separate. If not, they are combined. We cannot rely on anecdotal weather observations of the TD to determine the proper way to do the calculations because even perfect observations would not necessarily indicate what to do. The actual calculations are the bottom line to prove whether the weather was a significant factor between rounds.

2011 AM Worlds: http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/16465/Open

Junior pool played Churchville twice (http://2011amworlds.com/?l=t&pageStewardLink=7036). First time in Round 4 in perfect conditions. Second time in Round 6 in wind and rain, the second half of the round in pouring rain. Anecdotally, there's no way those rounds should have been combined for ratings (and yet that is what's on the PDGA webpage right now).

Can you divulge what the SSAs were for Round 4 and Round 6 separately?

A 52 in Round 6 was far more impressive than a 52 in Round 4, yet both are rated 1004.

I don't get the individual round stats. Roger has them in the database. The process to combine SSAs is automated. So if the rounds got combined, then the SSA difference fell below the threshold for keeping them separate. Overall it doesn't matter because the players end up with the same total rating for both rounds whether round scores are combined or kept separate.

Ian Liddell - Hey Chuck, the Intermediates are submitted playing the same tees as Advanced, therefore the ratings are quite off. Can you fix this or do you need the TD to send another report?
The PDGA doesn't even have a report. Those are unofficial results that the TD controls for proper course assignments. Contact TD to correct them or just wait for official results. Usually the TD gets the course assignments correct on the official report to the PDGA. And some TDs don't know how to do course assignments for unofficial results they post.

How again do I find the SSA for the 2010 Sun Valley Open?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/16227/Open A 52 was a 1000 rated round on all three rounds, so the SSA is a 52.

How did I find the tournament page? Under PDGA TOUR link at the top, I clicked event schedule. From that page, I clicked advanced search. On the advanced search page, I entered the tournament name in the name field and changed the "filter by date" start date to before 2010. Then I scrolled down to the bottom and clicked search.

Note that the name filter is very primitive. Simply entering "sun valley" will return the "sun valley open 2011", but not the "2010 sun valley open". The part of the name entered must exactly match the first part of the tournament name. If you know the state and/or approximate tournament date, you may find it more effective to filter by state and/or date range.

I've seen some sign that ratings have been updated, but when I do my state search, nobody has changed. Will this take a while?

A tournament result page which had no round ratings (pending updates) now has round ratings and updated player ratings--but those same players found in the state search have not had their ratings updated.

I've been working on local player ratings and I want to see how those numbers compare to current PDGA player ratings.

What event are you talking about?

After some more poking, my question is why would this tourney http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/73739/Open
be included (July 30th) but not this one
http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/69427 (July 17th)

Those were apparently the only two events folks in my parts played between updates.

Thanks

An event gets included because the TD sends the official event report to the PDGA before the ratings update deadline, not just because it's on the calendar. The July 17th event shows the results are "Unofficial" meaning the report has not been submitted to the PDGA yet.

Many thanks.

Overall it doesn't matter because the players end up with the same total rating for both rounds whether round scores are combined or kept separate.
"Doesn't matter" depends on what you're looking for....

If all you're concerned with is a single rating number to tag onto a player at the end of the month, then yeah it doesn't matter.

But often players are interested in looking at a rating for a particular round they played. E.g. Kaj Larsson shot 52 both rounds and the one in the pouring rain should have been higher than the one in good conditions. Or... Steven Jacobs tore up the first round with a 46 and got a 1062 rating out of it probably because he benefited from being combined with scores from the rainy conditions that made the course look tougher than it was on the nice day that 46 was thrown.

PDGA ratings are touted as one of the benefits of membership, and definitely one of the benefits of sanctioned play. It's disappointing when some of that benefit is obscured.

It's not obscured when the precision of the process doesn't provide the precision you might like to see. If the rounds are combined, it means the values done separately are statistically the same meaning we don't have the ability to tell which number is more accurate. There is no absolute measuring stick out there as a reference to check validity so we have to rely on using as many data points as possible to get the precision we do have. Averaging the two rounds gets closer to whatever the "true" number might be versus using either one separately despite the fact you anecdotally observed different playing conditions.

can you look into this tournament... http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/65226/Open

while i appreciate seeing a 1020 next to my name i don't think it's correct. my pool (intermediate and some others) played our round 1 the same course as the pro round 2 but we played a couple shorter tees.

all advanced and higher played long tees and intermediate and lower played shorter tees on some holes. and just to confuse things even more, i think pool a was open men, masters men and advanced men. i think everyone else was in b-pool (advanced women, advanced masters men and so on) although the seperate tees were played. i don't remember what pool open women were in.

i talked to the td and he said he would look into it (and i know him, he will do it, not a concern there), but i was wondering if you can look at it as well, maybe help it along.

I looked at the TD report and it shows everyone playing the same tees on each course even though different rounds. The TD needs to add some additional shorter tee layouts to the grid on the Event Info page of the TD report for which divisions played those shorter layouts.

thanks

Im currently a 933 rated player and my rating didn't move in the latest update. Why was a 870 rated round not excluded from my new rating update. All of my other rounds were 960 and higher that tournament. Calling BS, especially with how long Ive been playing and contributing to disc golf everywhere Ive lived....thanks a lot chuck...

Sorry but your rating is correct based on the same automated calculations we've used for 15,000 other members who were updated. It just happened to come out as 933 again and the 870 wasn't low enough to drop. If years playing and disc golf contributions were actually included in the ratings calculation, I expect there would be many hundreds more players with 1000 plus ratings.

Cool..thanks man, I just dont understand how it wasn't low enough...what is the criteria for that? I notice many friends who have closer rounds dropped than that...

Cool..thanks man, I just dont understand how it wasn't low enough...what is the criteria for that? I notice many friends who have closer rounds dropped than that...

It's because those lower rounds from last year are making the standard deviation high enough to pull all those rounds in. A player with one low round can have that round dropped, but if a couple more are thrown in, then they all get included. Even some really high rounds can increase the deviation and bring low rounds back in that were previously dropped. If you play even one round, all those rounds from last july will get dropped and you'll see a big increase.

Chuck-

I have a question for you. I am a 993 rated player. I have been over 1000 in the past, then had to deal with some injuries. My rating has slowly been crawling back to where it needs to be.

This last weekend I had the round from HELL! You know the one. If there is OB, I was in it. Roll away putts, kicks into the crap, always something in the line of my putt on the close ones.

I really felt like either laying in the middle of the course and crying or dropping out. I did neither, just kept fighting until the end. Made a 40 foot straddle on the last hole even. Round rated 929! Do you think this round will figure into my next PDGA rating?


Thanks

Smitty

I can't really do the calculations in advance until all of your rounds that might be included have been officially rated. We do know it's not more than 100 points below your rating so it's not excluded automatically. I would say based on typical players near 1000 rating that rounds don't get excluded unless they are more than 75 points below their rating. I'm thinking there's an 80% chance it will be included.

Hi Chuck,
I'm pretty sure I know the answer to the question that I am about to ask but I would like to confirm my suspisions. For the event that I posted the link below, there are no ratings for Int, Adv women, and juniors. These three divisions played the same layout. Is it because there are so many non-members without a rating in these divisons that there was not enough of a sample size to create the ratings? Thanks!!

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/67780

I do see unofficial ratings there now. Maybe the TD just updated the course assignments since you posted? As a general comment, even when players see unofficial results where some divisions don't have ratings, we always produce official ratings for those players even though we might need to work with the TD to use an alternative process.

I was surprised to see an int rated player moved down into a rec division at a recent tournament where she was the only int player and there were not enough rec players to support a rec division: http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/71067

I presume the Tour Manager OKd it, and I don't see how it makes much difference if the int player played rec and got a small refund or if the two rec players were required to move up a division and pay the additional entry fees. It just looks odd on the results page because it is the first time that I've seen it happen. Is this sort of thing common?

I can't really do the calculations in advance until all of your rounds that might be included have been officially rated. We do know it's not more than 100 points below your rating so it's not excluded automatically. I would say based on typical players near 1000 rating that rounds don't get excluded unless they are more than 75 points below their rating. I'm thinking there's an 80% chance it will be included.


Guess I should have dropped out or tossed a few more OB.

Now I am going to be stuck with a 929 rated round for over a year.

"Creative" choices have always been needed to deal with small divisions over the years. But I agree it would have looked better and made more sense to just call that the Intermediate Womens division, especially since the two "Rec" women didn't have ratings, and they would have earned more points as a bonus.

Smitty2004 - Now I am going to be stuck with a 929 rated round for over a year.
Not necessarily. You have a 20% shot to have that round dropped in a future update if you continue to consistently play up near 990-1000 so your standard deviation drops. From a practical standpoint, the round is as legit as all of your other rounds because many players have the "round from hell" every once in a while that is a proportional part of their current rating.

I do see unofficial ratings there now. Maybe the TD just updated the course assignments since you posted? As a general comment, even when players see unofficial results where some divisions don't have ratings, we always produce official ratings for those players even though we might need to work with the TD to use an alternative process.

I was the one who uploaded the scores. I made a few changes to the report today. I guess I should of looked at it this time after I uploaded it! Thanks Chuck!

Chuck, now that the ratings for the Global events are official will there be any reconciliation for spots that moved?

E.g., originally it was posted:
<table class="results" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="divisionHeader"><td style="text-align:left;" colspan="10">Open</td></tr><tr class="divisionHeader"><td style="text-align:left;">Rank</td><td style="text-align:left;">Name</td><td style="text-align:left;">PDGA</td><td style="text-align:left;">Location</td><td style="text-align:center;">Rating</td><td style="text-align:center;">Rd 1</td><td style="text-align:center;">Rd 2</td><td style="text-align:right;">Rd 3</td><td style="text-align:right;">Total</td><td style="text-align:right;">Average</td></tr><tr class="odd"><td align="left">9</td><td style="text-align: left" nowrap="nowrap"> Juho Rantalaiho (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../player-stats?PDGANum=27554) </td><td align="left">27554</td><td align="left">Colchester (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../tournament-results?TournID=11200)</td><td align="center">1002</td><td align="center">1000</td><td align="center">1039</td><td align="right">1010</td><td align="right">3049</td><td align="right">1016.3</td></tr><tr class="even"><td align="left">10</td><td style="text-align: left" nowrap="nowrap"> Robby Wildt (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../player-stats?PDGANum=38585) </td><td align="left">38585</td><td align="left">Louisville (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/../tournament-results?TournID=12247)</td><td align="center">974</td><td align="center">1039</td><td align="center">985</td><td align="right">1024</td><td align="right">3048</td><td align="right">1016.0</td></tr></tbody></table>
But upon official results:

Rantalaiho: 996 + 1037 + 1012 = 3045
Wildt: 1038 + 981 + 1038 = 3057

It didn't happen this year but what if 1st and 2nd place had flip-flopped when the official ratings were released?

It's just like when a missed penalty is discovered an hour after the TD has given out awards and officially closed the event. The results stand. The unofficial ratings process is being updated to more closely match the official ratings process. In theory, the sum of the three ratings should be the same between unofficial and official rounds even if individual round ratings shift.

One issue at some sites was DNFs where the same pool of players didn't complete all rounds. Typically, the DNFs are players not throwing well. So when they drop, the SSA will tend to go down and the ratings go down in R2 and especially R3 in some locations. What we may need to do is go back and recalculate earlier round ratings before finalizing global event results by only using the props who actually played all three rounds. These are some considerations to improve what already worked pretty well.

Does the unofficial rating process currently know who are props and who aren't?

Yes. That's why you won't see unofficial ratings for some divisions even in some rounds where it looks like there are at least enough players with ratings.

question...

a lady played 2 events in july, paid the $10 non-member fee... joined the pdga in september to be able to play us women's... somehow her first event in july was added to her pdga number and she was rated for that event.

how is that? i don't promote bagging but that rating puts her in a higher division that she was expecting to play. i do agree that she should be playing intermediate but she is fussing about wanting to play rec, since she shouldn't have had a rating at that time.

The PDGA regularly goes back and produces ratings for new members who played events earlier in the year if the TD or PDGA catches it or the new member lets the PDGA know what events they played before getting a PDGA number. If she just got the rating in yesterday's update, there's a two week grace period (at the discretion of the TD, see 2.2(2) in Competition Manual) that allows a player who is pre-registered to remain in the division they entered even if a ratings update just before the event should move them up a division. So any amateur that was pre-registered before yesterday for an event on the weekends of Sep 17 or Sep 24 can remain in that division even if their rating went to the next higher division in yesterday's update.

Chuck- At The Vibram Open, The FPO played the short pads on 3 holes at Maple Hill, yet they still have the same ratings as MPO. Can the ratings be the same, even though they played 3 dif. teepads?

I also noticed that the ratings are the same for the Pittsburgh Flying Disc Open R3 when the MPO played Moraine Golds and the FPO played Moraine Blues.

I'll pass this along to the Tour Director who was there. The TD report for PFDO shows the MPO and FPO playing Moraine Golds in R3. I didn't see the Vibram report.

The ratings layouts for both the PFDO and the Vibram NT events were correctly entered for the online unofficial ratings to reflect that Open Women played a different layout. I don't understand how the official TD report for both tournaments could be wrong.

I guess that helps explain the big ratings drop for Pittsburgh R3 and all 3 Vibram rounds. Although I fully expected them to drop once they go official anyways...
Will this be fixed prior to the next ratings update, or not until then?

PFDO may be the only fix in the Oct update. The Vibram layouts were entered correctly but the women generated the same SSA for their layout as the men. I'm assuming that the three shorter pads for women were on water crossings? If so, they may have landed in about the same spots off the tee as the guys so the holes played about the same for each group.

The SSAs are actually calculated separately by round on each layout. If the SSA difference is big enough on the same layout, the numbers will be kept separate. If not, they are combined.

So basically all three rounds below will be combined for one SSA. If everything that is used to calculate SSA remains constant then would a 51 for the 3 rounds below be rated 1,005? (1011+1003+1002 / 3)

Round 1 a 51 is a 1,011 rated round
Round 2 a 51 is a 1,003 rated round
Round 3 a 51 is a 1,002 rated round

I've read somewhere but for the life of me I can't find. I think it was said that a rated player whose round rating is 60 points below their current rating are not used as a propagator in calculating SSA?

Yes for both posts.

I know you aren't allowed to throw from OB, but I thought that meant that all support points must be IB at time of disc release. But my cardmates today insisted that I can't start my runup from OB, even though all support points would be IB at time of release. Is that correct?

I know you aren't allowed to throw from OB, but I thought that meant that all support points must be IB at time of disc release. But my cardmates today insisted that I can't start my runup from OB, even though all support points would be IB at time of release. Is that correct?

803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off:
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is
in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.04 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

Supporting Point: Any part of a player’s body that is in contact with the playing surface or some other object capable of providing support, at the time of release.

If your doing a runup you got to make sure your supporting point(s) are IB at time of release.

Say if a player is at a standstill and their back foot is in OB, I think "normally" it would still be touching the ground at time of release even though they lift their leg up (unless they pull a one legged crane move just before they release their shot and the leg in the air then would not be a supporting point).

JenniferB - But my cardmates today insisted that I can't start my runup from OB, even though all support points would be IB at time of release. Is that correct?
You can run up thru OB as long as your supporting points are IB at the time of release.

What is going on with scores today? I see results going unofficial, then when you click on them all players are at even.


Must be some kind of "glitch" in the system today.

Which event?

Dynamic Discs Lewisville
Chuck Freedlun Memorial
SD State Championships

All three of these have the Trophy Icon, and no results.

Trophy icon doesn't necessarily mean there are results. I believe once today's date is the same as the event start date and the TD uploads the final list of players from the morning check-in, you'll see the trophy icon even if there are no scores uploaded yet. If the open book icon is there, it just means there are pre-registered players but the TD hasn't uploaded any players who registed "day of" or scores yet.

Do final 9s get round ratings? I was told a round has to be at least 13 holes to get ratings.

What would happen if a basket was destroyed or
damaged during a round? For example a tree limb falls
on a basket and destroys it after half the field has played the hole.

What is the call here Chuck?

Final 9s don't get official ratings but sometimes get unofficial ratings.

If I were the TD and a basket got destroyed part way thru the round, I would probably just eliminate all scores on that hole.

Back in '93 or '94, we were playing a PDGA event on an 18-hole course and one of the holes utilized a portable Mach II or III (I believe the permanent basket had been damaged or stolen prior to the event). Well, we were just about to tee off on that particular hole when a pick-up truck came screaming onto the course and skidded to a stop on the green of the hole we were about to play. The driver of the truck jumped out of the vehicle, picked up the portable basket, raised it above his head.....and then SLAMMED it into the back of his truck. He then sped off the course and out of the park at a high rate of speed.

We just looked at each other and someone in the group said "I guess we're not playing this hole." The TD ended up calculating scores for that round by eliminating that one hole.

Which disc golf complex do you prefer and why? I'm talking about either Crown Point or Highbridge.

I was surprised not to see you at this year's worlds. KL

Are we experiencing ratings inflation? I've just noticed that ratings seem to be going up. Also, the ratings for division qualifications went up not long ago. Was that to adjust for ratings inflation?

It seems like ratings inflation is inevitable so long as low rounds are dropped and the points per stroke for high SSA courses are set as low as they are. With tournaments overfilling we get more temp holes added and the SSAs go up just because of the greater number of holes. That seems to inflate the ratings of players of lower skill, leading to new propagators with 800ish ratings who then inflate the ratings of the scratch golfers in follow on tournaments, and so on. It seems like the ratings inflation will accelerate if something isn't done. Is it a problem, or can we just keep adjusting the boundaries for divisions and not worry about it?

Which disc golf complex do you prefer and why? I'm talking about either Crown Point or Highbridge.

I was surprised not to see you at this year's worlds. KL

I think I prefer Crown Point for functional reasons in terms of its location, facilities, club scene, maintenance and decent variety. Highbridge is my favorite for course design and variety. The IDGC is close behind with the best facilities but suffers from similarity of wooded terrain.

I was surprised too regarding Worlds but they wanted to train in the new PDGA staffers this year.

Are we experiencing ratings inflation? I've just noticed that ratings seem to be going up. Also, the ratings for division qualifications went up not long ago. Was that to adjust for ratings inflation?
No ratings inflation. Divison qualification changes had to do with evaluating the numbers of players in those brackets to somewhat level out divisions sizes plus getting the Advanced division ratings range to not be as large before the jump into pro at 970.

Never underestimate the power of the club scene, eh Chuck?

Will you please clarify whether I, having never cashed in open, can play in both of these tournaments? Different weekends. Same course. Same name except for the designation at the end that one is am and the other pro.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/75048

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/62852

We run one day tournaments with divisions split between Saturday and Sunday here all of the time. There are a lot of people that play one division on Saturday and a different division on Sunday. As long as you otherwise qualify, you can play both.

Will you please clarify whether I, having never cashed in open, can play in both of these tournaments? Different weekends. Same course. Same name except for the designation at the end that one is am and the other pro.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/75048

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/62852
From the Competition Manual (http://www.pdga.com/rules/2-1-general):
2.1 General

C. Players are allowed to compete in only one division per event unless the event has divisions competing on a different day or weekend and is listed as two distinct entries in the PDGA calendar.

I had a tournament this last Saturday at a local course. I've played their multiple times and at best shot -3. I'm a 900+ rated Int. player and it was windy so it effected most everyones scores. I shot +2 first round +3 second round and tied for second in Int. I wasn't happy with my scores but didn't figure the unofficial ratings for both rounds would be THAT bad. One was a 837 the other a 846. Those seem awfully low for a windier than normal day? Now then we also only had 25 people for the ctier and the guy who won advanced shot -12 first round? I mean those who won rec and other divisions their 2 rounds were rated lower than their rating. It just doesn't seem likely you win a tournament and both your rounds are rated lower than your own rating? Is it possible this is a mistake and can the wind be taken into effect?

The wind is always taken into effect. The player's scores are used to determine the ratings each round. If they shoot higher scores due to wind then the course rating will increase automatically. Since you are looking at unofficial scores, I would wait until the scores are processed officially for ratings since it's possible those unofficial online numbers may not be correct.

I want to start off saying I love the ratings and I'm convinced they're pretty accurate. I'm also not a math whiz and I don't even play one on TV, but wouldn't the rating system be even more accurate if you took out the top and bottom 10% of scores based on ratings. If 3 players in a field of say 30 just shoot lights out, say 40+ points above their rating, doesn't that have a huge effect on the rest of the field compared to those same 3 players having a really off day and shooting 40+ points below their rating.

My current rating is from 4 years ago, I just renewed my membership and plan on playing a tournament at the end of the month. Does that mean that my new rating will only include the rounds from the tournament I am playing in?

My current rating is from 4 years ago, I just renewed my membership and plan on playing a tournament at the end of the month. Does that mean that my new rating will only include the rounds from the tournament I am playing in?
Yes.

I want to start off saying I love the ratings and I'm convinced they're pretty accurate. I'm also not a math whiz and I don't even play one on TV, but wouldn't the rating system be even more accurate if you took out the top and bottom 10% of scores based on ratings. If 3 players in a field of say 30 just shoot lights out, say 40+ points above their rating, doesn't that have a huge effect on the rest of the field compared to those same 3 players having a really off day and shooting 40+ points below their rating.
Actually, we would prefer to not drop any rounds. However, the problem is that players can control whether they shoot a really poor round but not whether they shoot a really good round. So we have to drop some low rated rounds to account for players giving up or forcibly tanking a round. Only 1 in 50 rounds gets dropped which amounts to about one round every 3 years for the average PDGA member.

I don't mean drop them all together, I think you should get credit for all your rounds. I just mean don't use them for the SSA calculation, and add them back in after the SSA has been calculated. I've seen courses were the SSA has changed as much as 1.5 strokes between tournaments due to how a few people played, when 80% of the scores remained the same.

I was wondering who gets the national title in women's masters divisions when you have U.S. Masters Championships and also U.S. Womens. For example, Ms. L won women's advanced masters at the U.S Masters Championship, and a couple of months later, Ms. S won advanced masters at US womens. Do they both get to claim the title?

Seems like the US Master title is the first one and the second one is the Master winner at the US Womens Championship.

Hi Chuck,
The Parma Open just concluded yesterday, Oct 8. We played two rounds on a 21 hole layout (par 63 with 3 temp holes). I noticed that the unofficial results show "to par" numbers based on an 18 hole, par 54 layout. Is this something that gets worked out with the TD as results move toward "Final?" Thanks!

Yes. The TD didn't update the default 18 hole value in the score upload area to 21 holes. However, TDs usually get the hole count right when they submit the official TD report to the PDGA to process official ratings.

Hey Chuck,

Will last week's USDGC rounds be rated?

I played in my first tournament at the end of July, with 2 rounds. When the original results of the tournament were posted, each round had a rating for all players. I have been waiting and expecting to receive a rating with the last couple ratings updates but have not up to this point. I hadn't checked in a while, but now the tournament results have no round ratings. This was the Three Rivers Open in Fort Wayne, on July 24. Is there a reason I am not getting a rating now, and if so, how come?

Thanks!!

I played in my first tournament at the end of July, with 2 rounds. When the original results of the tournament were posted, each round had a rating for all players. I have been waiting and expecting to receive a rating with the last couple ratings updates but have not up to this point. I hadn't checked in a while, but now the tournament results have no round ratings. This was the Three Rivers Open in Fort Wayne, on July 24. Is there a reason I am not getting a rating now, and if so, how come?

Thanks!!

The ratings you saw before were the Unofficial round ratings that are generated when the scores are posted. The ratings do not become official until the TD report is completed & turned in. Then there is a period where no ratings are shown until the next update. You should get an official rating at the next update and the Official round ratings will return to the event results page.

lisle - Will last week's USDGC rounds be rated?
TBD. They will not be in the Oct 25th update. We want to evaluate the results compared with the T&D rounds in the 2010 USDGC and PDGA rounds with regular rules. If we recommend they not be rated, we'll ask the Board to discuss and make a determination one way or the other in their November meeting.

Why would they not be rated?

Sufficient statistical indicators that T&D applied on most holes is a "different" game where using players who have ratings in our regular game to produce T&D ratings is statistically skewed, sort of like using our player ratings to produce SSA and ratings for rounds of ball golf.

Hiya Chuck.... Do you think the smoking ban will hold up if someone decides to challenge it? As a smoker, I don't think it is a good rule. What happens when a person, that is allergic to bees, argues that sweetened drinks attract bees and are also a health risk? And lets not forget honey, peanuts, chocolate, raw fruits, cologne/perfume, Tide laundry detergent, latex, Tylenol, pets(SMELL AND HAIR LEFT BY ANIMALS), other dairy products, etc..... I think the PDGA better think twice about the smoking ban. Unless they are also banning every drink except water.....I'm guessing the PDGA won't have a leg to sand on. If people don't like the smoke, go somewhere else. 100% of the tournaments are held outdoors, deal with the smoke or move away. I could understand if each tournament was inside a 30x30 indoor shed. Drop this RULE and move on to something important. Otherwise, sit and wait for the lawsuits to pile up.....

PhillyDogg
It's hard to simply move away from smokers second hand
smoke sometimes. Some tee boxes are cramped quarters. Many areas
are tight and we walk single file sometimes. Second hand smoke is
bad and the public is on a witch hunt against it. This battle the smokers
will not win.

There will be no lawsuits against this. The PDGA has standards that we
and you agree to when playing in their sanctioned events. A dress code will
also fall into these guidelines.

I am sure Southern Nationals will not be implementing a smoking ban anytime
soon. The SN numbers will certainly grow with some of the changes being made
at PDGA headquarters.

Hiya Chuck.... Do you think the smoking ban will hold up if someone decides to challenge it? As a smoker, I don't think it is a good rule. What happens when a person, that is allergic to bees, argues that sweetened drinks attract bees and are also a health risk? And lets not forget honey, peanuts, chocolate, raw fruits, cologne/perfume, Tide laundry detergent, latex, Tylenol, pets(SMELL AND HAIR LEFT BY ANIMALS), other dairy products, etc..... I think the PDGA better think twice about the smoking ban. Unless they are also banning every drink except water.....I'm guessing the PDGA won't have a leg to sand on. If people don't like the smoke, go somewhere else. 100% of the tournaments are held outdoors, deal with the smoke or move away. I could understand if each tournament was inside a 30x30 indoor shed. Drop this RULE and move on to something important. Otherwise, sit and wait for the lawsuits to pile up.....

It has nothing to do with a health issue...its an image issue..somehow the PDGA has decided that all its members that play in its "elite events" should be transformed into rolemodels for all the viewing public and younger members.

I personaly think this is a mistake but the board has spoken..join the 10-15 in my area that have decided not to renew next year.not to mention the 3-4 tourneys that a smoker has ran the last few years that will not be sanctioned in 2012.to me this is the smokers way of letting the board know that there decision has a negative effect.If every smoker chose not to renew in 2012 the pdga might see its first decline in membership and review its decision.

Also another question about the e-cig that was banned.does the Pdga understand that these devices can be perscribed by a physician and gotten through a pharmacy.What will the Pdga do when someone shows up at a elite tourny with one and gets booted for following a doctors written orders?

PhillyDog - The non-smoking policy for Majors has to do with whether a sport's ruling body can make rules regarding how the sport is played in sanctioned competition, regardless of the reason for the rule, whether it makes sense, is stupid or ill-advised in some players' opinions. Unless the rule requires players to do something illegal in that municipality, a sport does have the right to restrict even legal behaviors as specified in their rules.

For example, even though we have the constitutional right for freedom of speech, disc golf has a warning/penalty for speaking at the time another player is making their throw. No one is likely to take that temporary restriction in disc or ball golf regarding freedom of speech to court.

There's no written constitutional right to smoke. However, wafting second hand smoke on other people is apparently covered under battery laws in some states from what I understand and that's been upheld when tested. If any suit might be filed, it could potentially be a player suing another player for exposure to their second hand smoke and the PDGA could even be included for not having a rule against it.

I'm a non-smoker and appreciate the new restriction as a player. However, had I been on the Board, I'm not sure which way I would have voted. Fortunately, I didn't have to. To me, using the blanket Throw & Distance penalty at a Major (USDGC) is a much bigger rule issue that I would vote against for the future.

So what is the SSA looking like from the "USDGC"? Are you going to reccomend that the rounds not be rated?

Don't have all the information processed yet. Might not be until next week after the ratings update is posted.

I personally would like to see the rounds count. I understand the reasons for not doing so and it is hard to argue otherwise, but I do not think those who played the course intelligently and properly, with the hopes of the rounds counting towards their rating, should be penalized.

Players came into the tournament knowing what course was to be played and what the course rules were and those who made the better decisions and played the best should be rewarded with their ratings.

Maybe in the future, a tournament like this could be required to have X tier status, like mulligan tournaments do, but as it was set up, some of us went into the tournament expecting our rounds to be rated.

I personaly think this is a mistake but the board has spoken..join the 10-15 in my area that have decided not to renew next year.not to mention the 3-4 tourneys that a smoker has ran the last few years that will not be sanctioned in 2012.to me this is the smokers way of letting the board know that there decision has a negative effect.If every smoker chose not to renew in 2012 the pdga might see its first decline in membership and review its decision. Ah, we really are going to miss the inconsiderate self-centered people like you...not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksSPZTZES0

PhillyDog - The non-smoking policy for Majors has to do with whether a sport's ruling body can make rules regarding how the sport is played in sanctioned competition, regardless of the reason for the rule, whether it makes sense, is stupid or ill-advised in some players' opinions. Unless the rule requires players to do something illegal in that municipality, a sport does have the right to restrict even legal behaviors as specified in their rules.

For example, even though we have the constitutional right for freedom of speech, disc golf has a warning/penalty for speaking at the time another player is making their throw. No one is likely to take that temporary restriction in disc or ball golf regarding freedom of speech to court.

There's no written constitutional right to smoke. However, wafting second hand smoke on other people is apparently covered under battery laws in some states from what I understand and that's been upheld when tested. If any suit might be filed, it could potentially be a player suing another player for exposure to their second hand smoke and the PDGA could even be included for not having a rule against it.

I'm a non-smoker and appreciate the new restriction as a player. However, had I been on the Board, I'm not sure which way I would have voted. Fortunately, I didn't have to. To me, using the blanket Throw & Distance penalty at a Major (USDGC) is a much bigger rule issue that I would vote against for the future.

You never addressed the sweetened drink issue though. But anyway....

Lets pose this this question....How would the PDGA feel about mandatory drug testing before and after any tournament?? I'm guessing there is no way the PDGA Board would ever approve this. The membership would drop by 50% in a heartbeat. If this is smoking ban is about the "IMAGE", lets institute the drug testing. Major sports do it, why not us? We need a good image and don't want to be known as "potheads". I think the Boards decision is more of a personal choice rather than an image choice. If not, bring on the drug tests. Don't tell me that it wouldn't be cost effective either. Anyone who cashes can forfeit their prize if they fail to pay for the tests.

And by the way, I am one of the smokers that will stay 50 ft behind my group when I smoke. Anyone that knows me will verify that. I purposely stay away from non smokers. I know it bothers people. If we are in a tight area, I will not light up. So don't think that I'm some sort of ******* that stands next to another golfer and blows smoke towards a player that is driving or putting.

Regarding drug testing, the World Flying Disc Federation has already agreed to abide by the WADA drug testing rules. The PDGA has discussed it at the Summit meeting. Looks like drug testing would only be pursued by necessity if the PDGA gets invited to participate in World level events where it's required such as World Games or Olympics way down the road.

I did address the sweetened drink issue if you re-read my first paragraph. A sport's ruling body can establish rules of play that don't violate local laws at their choice. They haven't chosen to deal with sweetened drinks. The insurance policy covers such issues should a court feel the PDGA was negligent for not addressing it. But that's highly unlikely.

i know that drug testing is not going to happen for everyone..but why not just drug test all the board members?I really want to know that the people that are making decisions arent "high"lets put that in the next "survey" if 90% agree with that im guessing it would go through. anyone disagree?

It would only seem fair that those who want to vote whether to drug test the Board members must also pass a drug test before being allowed to cast their vote. I know I wouldn't pass it since I'm on beta blocker heart medication which is illegal on the WADA list for several precision type sports including golf. Disc golf would likely be added to that list if we participated in WADA drug testing.

Chuck, I'm bored and the message board isn't helping much. So I was wondering about your signature "rater of the tossed arc"; it doesn't make sense to me. You don't toss the arc. The arc is the resulting shape of tossing the disc. Please explain.

Rating the results of another player's tossed arc.


(posted just so you had bit of excitement on this D-Board today)

http://www.pdga.com/announcements/2012-smoking-policy

Rating the results of another player's tossed arc.


(posted just so you had bit of excitement on this D-Board today)

But are you/they actually throwing an arc? It seems like a grammatical reference problem to me.

If you prefer, it could be short for Archon...

Why is throwing an arc or arcing shot any different from throwing a hyzer which is the shape of a throw not an object?

any word on when the 4th round ratings for uswdgc will be fixed/entered for intermediate and rec?

If you prefer, it could be short for Archon...

Why is throwing an arc or arcing shot any different from throwing a hyzer which is the shape of a throw not an object?

Raiders of the lost ark! Duh!+Doh!

<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d1d1e1; COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
ishkatbible - any word on when the 4th round ratings for uswdgc will be fixed/entered for intermediate and rec?
Checking on it.

Checking on it.

thanks

Ah, we really are going to miss the inconsiderate self-centered people like you...not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksSPZTZES0

try this one, for better music at least.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwXPueu-RM)

Seems like the US Master title is the first one and the second one is the Master winner at the US Womens Championship.

Thanks for your answer. What if I provide the additional information in bold below:

I was wondering who gets the national title in women's masters divisions when you have U.S. Masters Championships and also U.S. Womens. For example, Ms. L won women's advanced masters at the U.S Masters Championship (only 2 people played), and a couple of months later, Ms. S won advanced masters at US womens (7 people played, including Ms. L, and Ms. L finished 5th). Do they both get to claim the title?

Does that change your answer?

I noticed that the USDGC does not allow age protected divisions, and that avoids ambiguity in the men's masters national titles. Why does the USWDGC allow age protected divisions?

No change in my Master answer. But then, I don't get to decide that. Contact PDGA HQ for their take.

US Womens started in the 90s as a gathering for women players whether Am or Pro since there were so few. I'm not sure the Intermediate and lower divisions were added until sometime after 2000 when ratings better identified the skill levels. So, it's been tradition as much as any reason regarding offering all divisions. Plus, I don't believe the event has ever topped 100 players so excluding divisions hasn't been considered at this point.

Thanks for your answer. What if I provide the additional information in bold below:



Does that change your answer?

I noticed that the USDGC does not allow age protected divisions, and that avoids ambiguity in the men's masters national titles. Why does the USWDGC allow age protected divisions?

Jennifer

You both are US Champions. One holds the title as Tim Selinske United States Masters Champion - Advanced Master Women and the other as United States Women's Disc Golf Champion - Advanced Masters.

For the purposed of determining PDGA Tour Card eligibility, both count as US titles.

Hey Chuck, How long will 2010 rounds be counted for 2011 ratings?

I've got 20 rounds for the year and I still have rounds from August 2010 included with the last update. Makes no sense if the ratings are to be accurate for this year.

Thanks!
Matt

2010 rounds will be counted forever if you don't play any more. Rounds drop off once you have rated rounds more than 365 days newer than older rounds. Many active players always have rounds from the previous year in their stats until just after each yearend.

Jennifer

You both are US Champions. One holds the title as Tim Selinske United States Masters Champion - Advanced Master Women and the other as United States Women's Disc Golf Champion - Advanced Masters.

For the purposed of determining PDGA Tour Card eligibility, both count as US titles.

Not me. I'm "Vice Champion." I thought about calling second place "Assistant Champion," but I decided that "Vice Champion" is funnier. ;-)

Not me. I'm "Vice Champion." I thought about calling second place "Assistant Champion," but I decided that "Vice Champion" is funnier. ;-)

Assistant TO the regional champion.

/officejoke

What happens when a TD fails to get official results in by the end of the year, or ever. Do those rounds never get used in ratings? What are the repercussions to the TD?

You can see the delinquent TD list here:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/disciplinary-actions

For the past 6 years, only 1 event out of 6000 did not get reported in time to be included in the yearend ratings and it was added a month later.

You can see the delinquent TD list here:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/disciplinary-actions

Who are the members of the disciplinary committee? Do they change each year?

They don't change on an annual cycle but simply when someone drops out and they replace them. I believe Shawn Sinclair and Robert Leonard are currently two members on there.

That poor guy from Belgium. All he did was offer outstanding event payout, and he got suspended for it! :D

A TD told me that he can enter info about wind and water for a round and it will be takeninto account when the official ratings are calculated to produce higher ratings. Is this information really used that way, or is it only used to decide whether to avarage round ratings together of rounds on the same layout in the same tournament? If all the rounds are already on different layouts becaseu of different tees, does entering info about weather and water have any affect at all?

If a TD enters info on wind and rain, it will raise our awareness to take a closer look. But deciding whether or not rounds on the same layout are combined or rated separately has become a mostly automated process using the actual numbers produced. Where it can come into play is on tee time rounds where we might not break out different time segments during the day to check the numbers unless we hear that the winds were significantly different between morning and afternoon.

BTW, adding rain alone without wind has not been shown to impact SSA. The theory is that players throw more conservatively and their average scores don't seem to change.

Chuck,

Got another one for you. Here's 803.13.B-

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to
hole out, the thrower must release the disc
and it must come to rest supported by the
chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray. It may be additionally
supported by the pole. A disc observed by two
or more players of the group or an official to
have entered the target below the top of the
tray or above the bottom of the chain support
is not holed out.

Attached is an "ace" that i threw yesterday in a casual round. I call it ace because it is supported by "the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray".

It is obviously not exclusively supported by "the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray", but it is definitely supported.

They way the current rules are written, if this happened in a tournament, I would feel obligated to demand ace pool money and I would mark it a 1 on the card.

The rule needs to be fixed. The wording should be "....it must come to rest supported EXCLUSIVELY by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray."

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this. Please share.

PS That is hole #15 at Cass Benton in Northville, MI.

I guess I don't see the problem with calling your shot an ace and why the rule wording needs to be changed. The only way your shot wouldn't have been an ace is if the group saw your shot get to that position from a skip shot coming into the basket from under it. Because we allow baskets sunk in the ground (like your example here) and nestled in trees, we'll have scenarios where another surface like the ground or a tree trunk may also be providing some support. Note that if the disc is wedged on the outside of the basket up against a tree trunk, the shot wouldn't be holed out because it wasn't touching the inner side of the cylinder.

Thanks! The irony of the shot is that if had somehow bounced into the basket off the ground (edit --through the bottom of the cage --) and it was actually sitting in the basket, it would definitely not have been an ace. But since it's not in the bucket, it's an ace. That is a pretty obvious flaw in the rules if you ask me.

The drive landed about 20' left of the bucket, (edit -- was presumed to have --) rolled towards the cage and that's where it came to rest. Now to try and collect $5 from the witnesses...

Thanks! The irony of the shot is that if had somehow bounced into the basket off the ground and it was actually sitting in the basket, it would definitely not have been an ace. But since it's not in the bucket, it's an ace. That is a pretty obvious flaw in the rules if you ask me.

The drive landed about 20' left of the bucket, rolled towards the cage and that's where it came to rest. Now to try and collect $5 from the witnesses...
If it rolled to that position, I'd say no ace to that shot based on the current rules. Here's the key line of the rule:
A disc observed by two or more players of the group or an official to have entered the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out.

By your description, it did not enter the target over the top of the tray. It rolled under the basket to its final position. A year ago, you might have had an argument for it being an ace. Now, unless you didn't see it get to where it was, and since you say it rolled, I'm assuming you saw it, it's not holed out yet.

Ok, wondering what the correct call would be on this.
-Player throws drive OB.
-Player throws following shot from OB (didn't realize it was OB).
-Player then throws in OB Creek from there and instead of going to the drop zone* (which player should have done after throwing the tee shot), plays it from the last spot it was in bounds (right by the basket).

*On this hole, shots from tee side of creek that go OB, must go to drop zone. Shots that go OB from basket side of Creek, play normal OB rules.

From the picture, you can see the OB line/rope. Players tee shot was dry, but on the OB side of the yellow rope.

Player scored the hole as a 4 with an OB Penalty.

Ok, wondering what the correct call would be on this.
-Player throws drive OB.
-Player throws following shot from OB (didn't realize it was OB).
-Player then throws in OB Creek from there and instead of going to the drop zone* (which player should have done after throwing the tee shot), plays it from the last spot it was in bounds (right by the basket).

*On this hole, shots from tee side of creek that go OB, must go to drop zone. Shots that go OB from basket side of Creek, play normal OB rules.

From the picture, you can see the OB line/rope. Players tee shot was dry, but on the OB side of the yellow rope.

Player scored the hole as a 4 with an OB Penalty.
I'd say the player should get a 2-throw penalty for misplaying the stipulated course.
801.04 D:
In instances where a misplay is discovered after the pertinent hole or holes have been completed (holed out), the misplay shall not be replayed and the player shall receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay.

Thanks for the input! To be clear, I'm not raising the discussion to justify calling it an ace. I marked it a deuce. My point is the rule wording needs to be changed.

If it rolled to that position, I'd say no ace to that shot based on the current rules. Here's the key line of the rule:


By your description, it did not enter the target over the top of the tray. It rolled under the basket to its final position. A year ago, you might have had an argument for it being an ace. Now, unless you didn't see it get to where it was, and since you say it rolled, I'm assuming you saw it, it's not holed out yet.

OK, I read that. Here's the funny thing though- It never entered the target, and that's fine. The rules don't say that you must "enter the target" to be holed out. When the disc came to rest, it was supported by the inside of the basket. Thoughts?

To clarify further, we all saw my drive and we all saw it hyzer out. We figured it would have landed about 20' left, and I assumed that's where I was going to find the disc. The first time we realized it came to rest in that position was when we were halfway to the bucket. That doesn't really matter, but just to clarify, it was an assumption when I said it rolled. A squirrel could've picked it up and dropped it there, for all we know.

Dana,

What course is that? Temp course?

OK, I read that. Here's the funny thing though- It never entered the target, and that's fine. The rules don't say that you must "enter the target" to be holed out. When the disc came to rest, it was supported by the inside of the basket. Thoughts?
I don't think you read it, because by saying a disc that doesn't enter the target above the rim of the tray and below the bottom of the chain assembly is not holed out, it is saying that the disc must enter the target above the rim of the tray and below the bottom of the chain assembly in order to be legally holed out.

The exception being, of course, if no one saw the disc arrive at its location. So if you say you didn't see it and the rest of your group didn't see it, then I guess you can argue that it's holed out. I think I'd disagree with that argument because if the disc did as you describe, there's no way it could have legally entered the target and wound up where it was. So calling it a two is 100% the correct call.

As for the wording of the rule, I don't think anything needs to be added. For the disc to be supported by the "inner cylinder", it would have to be inside the cylinder to begin with. The disc pictured is not inside the cylinder.

Ok, wondering what the correct call would be on this.
-Player throws drive OB.
-Player throws following shot from OB (didn't realize it was OB).
-Player then throws in OB Creek from there and instead of going to the drop zone* (which player should have done after throwing the tee shot), plays it from the last spot it was in bounds (right by the basket).

*On this hole, shots from tee side of creek that go OB, must go to drop zone. Shots that go OB from basket side of Creek, play normal OB rules.

From the picture, you can see the OB line/rope. Players tee shot was dry, but on the OB side of the yellow rope.

Player scored the hole as a 4 with an OB Penalty.

Since Chuck seems to have lost his mind in another thread and may no longer be qualified to answer rules questions, I'll take a swing at this scenario, although it's a bit confusing as described.

Rule 801.04.B(4) describes what to do about the player's second throw from OB:

"Out-Of-Bounds Play: Playing an out-of-bounds disc as if it were in-bounds. If the misplay is discovered after the throw from out-of-bounds, but before a subsequent throw has been made, the player shall throw from the correct lie and treat the throw from out-of-bounds as a practice throw (one throw added to the player's score). If the misplay is discovered after a subsequent throw, the player shall proceed to complete the hole and receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay."

So the player would get two throws added for that. As for not throwing from the drop zone on the next throw, that would fall under Rule 801.04.E:

"E. In instances where a misplay is discovered after the player has turned in his or her scorecard, the misplay shall not be replayed and the player shall receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay."

So the player should get another two-throw penalty for not playing from the drop zone.

So, it looks to me like the "correct call" should be a score of 8 on this hole for this player.

it is saying that the disc must enter the target above the rim of the tray and below the bottom of the chain assembly in order to be legally holed out.


Where? The rule does not mention that.

You just made that up. There is only one requirement for a throw to be legally holed out. That only requirement is -

"In order to
hole out, the thrower must release the disc
and it must come to rest supported by the
chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray."

There is no requirement that a disc has to enter the target. It only says that if the disc enters the target in certain ways, it is not holed out.

For the disc to be supported by the "inner cylinder", it would have to be inside the cylinder to begin with. The disc pictured is not inside the cylinder.

It is supported by the bottom of the tray. The rule does not state that the disc must be inside the cylinder.

Daemon- Its a temp course on a golf course in IL.

Mike- Sorry for the confusing description, its somewhat of a confusing situation. An 8 does seem like the right call. Although, it seems pretty rough tacking on 4 penalty strokes.

Thanks! The irony of the shot is that if had somehow bounced into the basket off the ground and it was actually sitting in the basket, it would definitely not have been an ace.

Why wouldn't that be an ace?

Sorry UPM, I misspoke.


The irony of the shot is that if it had somehow bounced into the basket off the ground --through the bottom of the cage -- and it was actually sitting in the basket, it would definitely not have been an ace.

DSproAVIAR - There is no requirement that a disc has to enter the target. It only says that if the disc enters the target in certain ways, it is not holed out.
However, that means it must enter the basket from above the basket rim and below the chain support.

I did, like 40 times today. There is no requirement that the disc must enter the target to be holed out. It just must be supported by a certain part of the target. Is this incorrect?

While it doesn't say how the disc gets into the basket, how could it get there other than going in below the chain support and above the basket rim? Beamed in like Star Trek?

I agree with UPM's call of 8 on Dana's example.

xxx

While it doesn't say how the disc gets into the basket, how could it get there other than going in below the chain support and above the basket rim? Beamed in like Star Trek?



Get where? Into the basket? It doesn't need to "get into the basket". It just needs to be supported by the bottom and inside wall of the tray after I release the disc and after it comes to rest.

That was the picture I posted. That picture (plus my description) shows how a disc can be supported by the bottom and inside wall of the tray without having entered the basket. No?

Did it enter over the rim of the tray? No. The rule says if it doesn't enter over the top of the tray then it's not holed out.

The rule says if it doesn't enter over the top of the tray then it's not holed out.

Not true at all. The rule says that if a disc enters from under the top of the tray or from above the chain hangers, then it's not holed out.

"Entering the basket" is not a requirement for the disc to be holed out. The only requirement for holing out is for the disc to be supported by the bottom and inside wall of the tray.

Did it enter over the rim of the tray? No. The rule says if it doesn't enter over the top of the tray then it's not holed out.

There you go again Chuck. The rule does not say that!

I think DSPro hit an ace.

It depends on whether players or officials observe it. You're correct it exactly says it's not holed out if it's observed to enter below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support. Which means it's not holed unless it enters the target above the top of the tray and below the chain support. All of this is subject to observation however.

Which means it's not holed unless it enters the target above the top of the tray and below the chain support.

Chuck, this is false! Show me where I can read this in the rulebook. I'll repeat myself for the last time. There is only one requirement a disc needs to meet to be holed out-

"In order to
hole out, the thrower must release the disc
and it must come to rest supported by the
chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray."

Tell me how my disc did not "come to rest supported by the
chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray" and I will tell you that you are right and that the wording of this rule does not need to be changed.

The only case in which a disc would not be holed out if it meets that ONE SINGLE requirement is-

"if it's observed to enter below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support."

That didn't happen in this case.

The first two sentences of 803.13B are not the complete rule. The throw also has to meet the third sentence which declares when a disc is not holed out and inversely is an additional requirement for when a disc is holed out. The first two sentences for holing out are true alone if no one observes the shot. But if players or an official observe the shot then the other conditions must also be met. In logic terms, the three sentences together constitute AND logic where all need to be true.

Chuck, this is false! Show me where I can read this in the rulebook. I'll repeat myself for the last time. There is only one requirement a disc needs to meet to be holed out-

"In order to
hole out, the thrower must release the disc
and it must come to rest supported by the
chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray."

Tell me how my disc did not "come to rest supported by the
chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray" and I will tell you that you are right and that the wording of this rule does not need to be changed.
Holy Christ, can you be more obtuse? You are completely ignoring the next line of the rule, which is also pretty important and is a condition of considering the disc holed out.

The rule specifically excludes all shots that enter the target in any way other than below the chain assembly and above the rim. Therefore, the only way a shot can enter the target and be considered holed out is below the chain assembly and above the rim. The exception being only if the disc's path is not witnessed, and in those cases the benefit of the doubt goes to the player and the disc is assumed to have passed over the rim and below the chain assembly (even if it is unlikely or impossible for the disc to have done so). And it's that exception that gives your shot any argument for being considered holed out at all here.

His point is that the rule is written to exclude discs that have entered the target through the top or through the tray. The rule does not explicitly say that a disc must enter the space between the top and the tray. A disc supported by the bottom of the tray that never entered through the bottom of the tray meets the strict reading of the rules.

Even so, I don't think that was the intention of the cumbersome holing out rule. IMO discs should be solely supported by the basket.

maybe im missunderstanding this rule-lets say im putting from 30 ft with my 11 year old omega ss [that is soft as warm butta] and i putt a little low it hits the side of the basket and it flexes and goes completly through the basket settling completly inside [not stuck at all] are you telling me this is not good?i thought the rule was only for a disc stuck or wedged into the basket

Not good.

You are completely ignoring the next line of the rule, which is also pretty important and is a condition of considering the disc holed out.

FALSE!



"B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to
hole out, the thrower must release the disc
and it must come to rest supported by the
chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray. It may be additionally
supported by the pole. "

^^^This part of the rule sets the 1 single requirement for where a disc must come to rest to be considered hole out.


"A disc observed by two
or more players of the group or an official to
have entered the target below the top of the
tray or above the bottom of the chain support
is not holed out."

^^^This part of the rule excludes certain cases in which a disc had already met that requirement.

The second part of the rule does not set a requirement for what a disc must do to be considered holed out. Chuck and Josh, you guys are imagining the second part of the rule to read "A DISC MUST HAVE entered the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support to be considered holed out." It is in your imagination, and is your interpretation of a poorly written rule.


Also obtuse? Call the mods! Personal attack!!! lol

Krupicka, you get it! Thanks.

The only reason the third sentence is written in the negative is it's the only condition that requires observers. The first two sentences describe holing out whether it's observed or not. Not holing out requires observers who don't see the disc enter the target properly. The first two sentences do not stand separate from the third.

Here's a similar example to the same logic as the holing out rule. You can't just use the first sentence without the second one to determine if the player has scored.

A baseball player running the base path must step on home plate to score a run. A player is declared "out" and doesn't score if a player from the opposing team tags him either with the ball or the ball in his mitt just before he steps on the plate.

Ummmmm. Here let me give it a shot.

"The disc must have entered the target above the top of the tray or below the bottom of the chain support to be considered holed out. A disc observed by two or more players of the group or an official to have entered the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out."

I reject your assertion that the PDGA did the best they could to make sure this rule could not be interpreted in more than one way.

DSproAVIAR,

I don't think your disc is supported by "the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray". I take the inner cylinder to mean the inner most part of the wires. Your disc appears to be resting against the outer half of the wires. Obviously, not all of the wire counts, or else there would not be a need for the word "inner".

One might even interpret "inner cylinder" as the parts a disc would touch only if came to rest in the tray. If so, then there is no gap in the rules.

I applaud the intent to write a rule that avoids the phrase "entered the basket" � because that would need to be observed, and I prefer rules that only depend on where the disc is as it lies, not how it got there.

I'm going to have to say I agree with stevenpwest, and that this is not an ace after all, because the disc is not supported by the inner cylinder. If dspro's disc was legally holed out, then discs hanging off the side of the tray would also have to be considered holed out, and we know they are not.

This in no way changes my opinion that Rule 803.13 is the most poorly written and confusing rule in the rulebook.

Rules are written to avoid duplication if possible when there are only two options involved: good/bad, in/out, etc. If you write a rule that this is the "only" way you can do something to be good, you don't need to add the redundant statement that says if you don't do this then the shot is bad.

If you write a rule that this is the "only" way you can do something to be good,

I agree. But the rule is not written that way.

It reads that if you do something "this way or this way", then it doesn't count.

Why is making something more clear by writing an extra sentence in the rulebook a bad thing? To avoid duplication? You don't want to use 1 specific word or phrase too many times in a rulebook?

DSproAVIAR,

I don't think your disc is supported by "the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray". I take the inner cylinder to mean the inner most part of the wires. Your disc appears to be resting against the outer half of the wires.

Surprised no one brought that up before! Thank you Steven.

It was not standing up straight. It was resting on an angle. Imagine a disc resting on an angle on a round wire. The disc was definitely touching (and therefore supported by) a part of the wire that would be touching a disc that was resting inside the bucket.

Also, if you want to use the term "outer half of the wire", it was most definitely also touching part of the inner half of the wire.

But then again, it seems that "bottom and inside wall of the tray" is up for interpretation as well. Where does the inside wall stop and the outside wall begin?

I applaud the intent to write a rule that avoids the phrase "entered the basket"

Yes, they did their best, apparently. They "gave it the ol' PDGA try"!

Chuck- Whats the word on getting ratings from the "USDGC" this year?

Thanks

Ummmmm. Here let me give it a shot.

"The disc must have entered the target above the top of the tray and below the bottom of the chain support to be considered holed out. A disc observed by two or more players of the group or an official to have entered the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out."
Fixed that for ya.

If the disc came to rest supported by the inner wall of the basket, then it must have at least partially entered the basket. The issue then is whether it partially entered from above or below the rim. But I think some folks are too invested in this whole argument now to recognize that the disc must have at least partially entered the basket in order to be in contact with the inner wall.

Chuck- Whats the word on getting ratings from the "USDGC" this year?
There will be unofficial ratings calculated for fun but they will not be used for players' official ratings. There will be a story posted on the Home page by next week with what problems we found and why no official ratings.

Fixed that for ya.

Agreed! Thank you sir!

If the disc came to rest supported by the inner wall of the basket, then it must have at least partially entered the basket. The issue then is whether it partially entered from above or below the rim. But I think some folks are too invested in this whole argument now to recognize that the disc must have at least partially entered the basket in order to be in contact with the inner wall.

Jennifer,

Interesting point! I was thinking that a disc could only either enter or not enter the basket.

Hey Chuck...quick question. Could you tell me if a couple tournaments have been turned in for the ratings update next week. I was looking at the Raindrop Festival on 10.8 the Rocket City Amateur Open on 10.15 and then the 37th Alabama Flying Disc Championship on 11.5. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

You can check yourself. If it says "Official" results on their scores page and you don't see ratings, then they're being processed. If it says Unofficial Results or you don't see any results, their reports haven't been received by the PDGA yet.

There will be unofficial ratings calculated for fun but they will not be used for players' official ratings. There will be a story posted on the Home page by next week with what problems we found and why no official ratings.

Chuck,

Could you elaborate a bit on why the ratings from the USDGC will not be used? Will last year's USDGC results also be disallowed?

Some thoughts I have been having about this event not being rated...

It seems to me the PDGA should be consistent no matter what the field strength. If 'throw and distance' is causing ratings inflation or deflation, skew, or a statistical anomaly that is undesirable an executive decision needs to be made BEFORE the event and the fact that the tourney will not be rated, communicated to players. As a competitor in the event, part of the value I get from competing in a tourney is to see the results of progression as a disc golfer. I am very disappointed that 6 hours of mental grinding, perhaps one of the best tourneys I have played, will be for 'fun'. While I did, 'have fun', I feel in some way by this event not being officially rated my experience has been marginalized. Perhaps this is just a philosophical dilemma with which I need to deal, but something does feels a bit cheapened about the experience.

Every player had a gross score. That, and every player's rating, is all one needs to rate a tourney. The handicaps are an afterthought. I am not sure I understand the hesitancy to count these scores. Again, the scores were rated last year.

Thanks again, Chuck, for all the hard work you put into developing our sport, and I eagerly look forward to hearing your response.

A story will be posted in the next day or two explaining why official ratings could not be done this year. The performance format and much lower rated propagator field provided the key negative tipping points in combination with Throw & Distance which also skewed results last year but not enough to exclude official ratings.

Is there any way for the PDGA to do Team Events like at Texas Teams? We had 468 players this weekend at $100 each for trophy only, and it was amazing. Pools on day 1. Sweet 16 on day 2. I can only imagine how awesome it would be for states to have team events like this and then have a national teams event where the winning teams play off, but there would have to be a standardized format for that to take place.

Typically events like this are spearheaded by someone or company with big dreams like Steve Dodge with his Players Cup Match Play tourney and the Collegiate Championships initiated and cultivated by Pete May. The PDGA can provide support but at the moment wouldn't have the staff to initiate it.

Hey Chuck, in regards to the $10 non-PDGA-member fee for sanctioned events... does it violate any PDGA policy if you could get an event sponsor to cover that fee for an event?

No problem. I'm guessing many people other than players have paid their entry fees before including the $10. I've seen clubs cover all of the $10 nonmember fees before, for example, to encourage local participation in an area with low PDGA membership.

Chuck, according to the Ratings Challenges article (http://www.pdga.com/ratings-challenges) recently posted on the website, the maximum SSA which is acceptable for the rating system is now apparently 71.

The article does a very good job of explaining why there is a minimum SSA cutoff of 41.4 to be included in the ratings system. The problem is that a course can be so short that the scores may not differentiate very well between expert and average players. Intuitively, this always made sense as average players often shoot very well on very short courses. A perfect example is that a hack like me once shot a 44, set the course record, and beat a lot of talented local competition on a short & very wooded course. Since then I've never even come close to -10 on any other course anywhere.

What is the underlying theory and principle behind the maximum cutoff, however? A high SSA course obviously separates expert and average players well, so that can't be the issue. And surely when the rating system was first developed, wasn't data from high SSA courses tested to validate the rating system? What new issue has come up since then to now invalidate data in the range?

We don't have any standard singles sanctioned event data on courses with SSAs over 71 or so. So we can't confirm how well the system works above 71. No reason to believe it doesn't work. There's just no data. The last 2 USDGC events included other format elements so those scores can't be used as part of any validation data for just standard singles on higher SSA courses.

Chuck, thanks for the speedy reply. I'm guess I'm still at a loss however that since there's no reason to believe that standard singles sanctioned event data on courses with SSAs over 71 won't work in our ratings system, why was a decision made on this maximum cutoff? Who decided to make that cutoff, and why was it (semingly arbitrarily) set at 71?

There is no cutoff at SSA 71, just no usable data above that level at this point.

I believe the Delaware Disc Golf Challenge in 2010 had the highest average SSA of any standard singles event in history right at 71 SSA with the first two rounds at Iron Hill and the last two at Carousel. There was no problem with the ratings: http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/15392

Hey chuck, is there anything that can be done in the case that a td has not turned in tournament scores for an official rating. I got a couple tournaments at least 2 months old that are yet to be turned in yet for official ratings. I hate to have tournaments that old and them not getting figured in on ratings updates.

The PDGA office is working hard to get all of the reports in the house ASAP. We've only lost one event in the past 7 years that didn't get rated by yearend.

Its not on yalls end it's on the td I believe. They are yet to turn in the report for official ratings. Unless they have been turned in and the pdga is yet to figure them. But as of right now on the tourney results it still shows unofficial. Anyway to press the td to turn in his report by next Tuesday?

I'm not the presser. Like I said, the PDGA office is on it to get all reports submitted ASAP.

There is no cutoff at SSA 71, just no usable data above that level at this point.

The ratings system has proven to be pretty flexible considering the variety of course configurations and formats it's been able to handle over the years. It can handle 13 to 30 hole courses over a 30-shot SSA range from 41 to 71 for 18 holes.

Ok, Chuck but just realize that based on the above statement and especially the bolded & underlined part, it appeared to me that a maximum had been set. Sorry for the poor assumption on what exactly "it can handle" entails, but consider that if I had that misunderstanding, then perhaps others may have as well.

I can see the misunderstanding but I was just stating what we've handled for sure in terms of SSA range. Having played in that Delaware Challenge, I'm hoping no one is pondering a course with an SSA more than 71, especially for a multi-round event even if we can handle the ratings.

just finished an event, last round today december 4th. provided the report is turned in in time, will the same event from last year (december 4th and 5th) go away?

No. If an event is held on the same weekend the following year, it will still be within 12 months (365/366 days) assuming it's your most recent event in your current set of round ratings.

thanks

since the PDGA has removed the course SSA page, and also the course SSA doesn't appear on tournament result pages anymore, how can the SSA for a course be obtained? I ran a C tier on my home course (it's first pdga event since being installed 8 or 9 years ago) and was wanting to establish a SSA but can't get the information.

Look at your C-tier results and figure out the SSA by looking for the score nearest 1000 rating. If a 49 is 1005 and 50 is 995, then the SSA is 49.5. If you didn't have anyone shooting a round rating near or over 1000, then you have a little more math to do. If a 53 is 965 and a 56 is 935, then there are 10 points per throw (30 pts/3 throws). 35 points added to 965 is 3.5 throws less than the 53 so you end up with the same SSA of 49.5. This works for any tournament results to determine SSA for a round.

Chuck, what's planned for the Global Tournament? This year again, or alternating years with the "real" USDGC, or what?

steve

Plans still being made for 2012 global. At least one event and possibly attempting a global "league" month. No more details at this point other than it won't be in August. Likely timing being discussed is a weekend within 2 weeks either side of Halloween.

Look at your C-tier results and figure out the SSA by looking for the score nearest 1000 rating. If a 49 is 1005 and 50 is 995, then the SSA is 49.5. If you didn't have anyone shooting a round rating near or over 1000, then you have a little more math to do. If a 53 is 965 and a 56 is 935, then there are 10 points per throw (30 pts/3 throws). 35 points added to 965 is 3.5 throws less than the 53 so you end up with the same SSA of 49.5. This works for any tournament results to determine SSA for a round.

Thanks for your quick response, it's greatly appreciated.

I read in a forum (another site) about PDGA leagues and league scores/round ratings being used for player ratings. can you enlighten me? is this something new, already in use or in an experimental stage?

A story about the new league program will be posted on the PDGA site soon and will also be in the DiscGolfer mag that is or will soon be in the mail. Leagues can start just after Daylight Saving time change in March. Rated rounds will be generated and be equally weighted in your rating with your tournament rounds.

Plans still being made for 2012 global. At least one event and possibly attempting a global "league" month. No more details at this point other than it won't be in August. Likely timing being discussed is a weekend within 2 weeks either side of Halloween.

Thanks, Chuck. I'm not sure what that will mean for St Louis, but we'll work on it.

steve

I'd like to request a clarification about players competing in points series who go up in rating during the series to a degree that they would appear no longer to be eligible to play the division in which thay have points in the series.

2.2 Exceptions
A. Players are allowed to enter a ratings based division they would otherwise be ineligible to participate only under the following circumstances

...

(3) If competing in an applicable points series (see Section 2.2 B for specifics)

B. Players may be allowed to enter a ratings based division they would otherwise be ineligible to participate in as part of a points Series provided that

(1) The Series Director has contacted the PDGA prior and received approval from the PDGA Tour Manager.

(2) The Series allows players to stay in the division for the entire Series.

(3) The player has not competed in a higher division at any time during the Series.

(4) The player’s rating does not exceed 20 points above the rating ceiling for the division they wish to compete in.

I have points in int women in a series, and I just played a tournament that was not part of the series in which I played rec men. Is rec men considered a "higher division" than int women? Does playing a higher division in a tournament that is not part of the Series count for competing in a higher division "during the Series" if it occurred after the first series event and before the final series event?

Does the TD have to advertise before the start of the series that players can stay in the same division, or can it be decided later, such as during the series? Does the Tour Manager have to approve before the series or before the event in which the player continues to participate in the "lower division?"

Looks like your email to the Tour Director is in order.

In a recent tournament, three ladies and the juniors were instructed to tee off from a drop zone on one hole having a largish kind of forced water carry. We thought for sure these players would get no ratings, but the unofficial ratings are up. TD said that the info about the different layout was included in the report, and it wouldn't affect the ratings. How does that work?

Unofficial ratings are not connected to official ratings. If you see unofficial ratings there either were at least five propagators among the juniors and women playing that layout or the online course assignments were not done properly by the TD such that they were rated on the regular layout. That doesn't mean the official ratings will be done incorrectly at PDGA HQ.

Chuck,
On Oct 14 @ the Lodge in Pawhuska I competed in the
Dynamic Discs One Round Challenge @ the Lodge, Blue Tees
Preliminary rating showed 1020 plus, would like to have that one on the books,
My results show cash and points but the round is missing from the ratings."
Why would that be ???
Thanks
Kennith Dale Patterson
PDGA # 4121

Not sure. You should have them so I'm having Roger check it out.

Great...
Thanks for the followup !!!

That report was just received yesterday and the official results with points and cash got posted. But official ratings can't be done until the final yearend update in late January. The report had to be received by Dec 6th to have made it in the ratings update posted on Monday.

That report was just received yesterday and the official results with points and cash got posted. But official ratings can't be done until the final yearend update in late January. The report had to be received by Dec 6th to have made it in the ratings update posted on Monday.

Mucho Thanks CK

Have a Great Christmas :D

Will new World Rankings be out soon?

Jan 2nd

I pre-ordered the 2011 Worlds DVD and I can not get a answer of when it will be shipped.

PDGA says Dec.11 ?

Jan 2ndKelsey is up to 928 so I'm hoping she makes the top 20, but she always gets punished for not playing the Majors.

I pre-ordered the 2011 Worlds DVD and I can not get a answer of when it will be shipped.

PDGA says Dec.11 ?

Don't know. I wasn't involved with the DVD.

Regarding am women going pro, it appears that there are provisions in the rules to allow pro men to play men's advanced masters or men's advanced grandmasters, but no provisions to allow pro women to play women's advanced masters or women's advanced grandmasters, etc.

Is that correct?

A. Pros rated less than 970 may now compete in Amateur divisions offered at PDGA A, B, and C Tier events, for which they qualify based on player rating, age, and sex.

(1) Pro Men and Women
< 970 can play Advanced (MA1)
< 935 can play Intermediate (MA2)
< 900 can play Recreational (MA3)
< 850 can play Novice (MA4)

< 935 can also play Advanced Master (MM1) if they are of Masters age
< 900 can also play Advanced Grandmaster (MG1) if they are of Grandmasters age

(2) Pro Women only
< 850 can play Advanced Women (FW1)
< 800 can play Intermediate Women (FW2)
< 750 can play Recreational Women (FW3)

B. Players are awarded Amateur points for their performance but these points are not eligible for year-end awards or Worlds invitations.

That's correct. Two reasons: (1) probably never requested due to lack of these older women's am divisions existing at non-majors and (2) the older men's am divisions are unisex and could include older women pros below the proper rating.

Also, we have am men's divisions available to us.

Still, a men's advanced masters player can play pro masters and take cash and still play am masters if their rating is below 935. Yet, a women's advanced master's player is faced with a different choice if she ever plays women's pro masters. Her rating can never be low enough to automatically allow her to play am in a gender and age protected division again. She must go through the process of getting reclassified.

Note that the current women's pro masters champion is rated below 935. Thus, the ability of a pro masters woman to play men's am masters division offers little over her ability to play men's intermediate division.

All division rules have been established over the years based on sufficient numbers of players wishing to have the options. I doubt there are enough women in those circumstances yet to initiate new rules since the am (unisex) divisions are available. You can always submit a request to Sweeton at PDGA HQ to consider a change.

All division rules have been established over the years based on sufficient numbers of players wishing to have the options. I doubt there are enough women in those circumstances yet to initiate new rules since the am (unisex) divisions are available. You can always submit a request to Sweeton at PDGA HQ to consider a change.

I did not submit such a request, so this comes as a surprise :eek::

A summary of changes for this year include:

* The standardization of Female Amateur division codes from FW to FA (FA1, FA2, FA3)

* The addition of a men�s senior division - Pro Grand Legend (MPR) � 80+ during the calendar year

* Addition to PROS PLAYING AM to include the Advanced Master Women�s division

* Clarification that Minimum Added Cash means �Minimum Added Cash to Pro Purse� with
the added caveat that if less than 20 Pros attend the event, the TD has the option to
only add the �Per Pro Minimum Added $� (1/20th) times the number of Pro Players
in attendance to the Pro Purse.

* Increase of SuperTour (A-Tier) �Minimum Added $ to Pro Purse� from $1500 to $1800.


Any idea what the rating will be set at for playing am? I noticed the pro men's rating has to be uner 935 (Int rated) to play advanced masters. If the pro women's rating has to be 800 (Int rated) to play women's advanced masters, I doubt anyone will qualify. 935 is about 100 points below the top rated male pros, while 800 is 150+ points below the top rated female pros. Maybe 850 then?

Women's Am division breaks are 50 points below the equivalent for Men's Am divisions primarily due to the lack of women between 850 and 899 to have even 2-player Advanced divisions in many places. So the Adv/Int break was set at 800. Advanced women should probably be about 850 as you point out rather than 800. But it looks like below 800 was set for the crossover point for Pro Master Women to enter Intermediate Am Women so it was consistent with the crossover point for Pro Master Men to enter Am.

I had forgotten that the Pro Master Women playing Am was added this year. Apparently, some Pro Master Women may have contacted PDGA HQ to request the option to parallel that for Pro Men.

Yo Chuck what would you suggest for rubber tee pads these days?

Price isn't all that important, safety is very important. We need something that will provide a safe tee even in heavy Louisiana rain.

Any info you can share will help. Thanks

Yo Mike,

I've never gotten rubber pads and am not sure if there's an alternative to the Fly Pads from Fly18. Disc Concepts in S. Carolina was doing pads for a while so you might want to check that out. I know some people have tried the mats they use for cows but you need to find a supplier who will get you a roll because the regular size for those is something like 4x6 and you have to put two together to make a 4x12 pad which can cause a gap once the ground gets less level underneath after working them in.

Innova was doing pads for a while but then Russell was testing some new plastic grid pads. You might want to check what they're up to.

Innova was doing pads for a while but then Russell was testing some new plastic grid pads. You might want to check what they're up to.

Russel's honeycomb mats are working well here on the sandy soil of eastern NC. They have been on the Kure Beach course for a year & a new area course is supposed to use them as well. They require more maintenence because the sand pushes around so much but they are safe and functional IMO.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pics/4364/825b00ba.jpg?rand=1883

Any idea on the price of the honeycombs?

Any idea on the price of the honeycombs?

No idea. I would contact Innova for details on availability.

Chuck, the homepage article for the Jan 24 Ratings update says:The next update to the PDGA Player Ratings will take place on January 24, 2012. The deadline for submissions for events to be included will be Tuesday January 10th.Does that mean it will include events from the first week of 2012? Or is this a 2011 year-end update only?

Yearend update only. Apparently the PDGA office still has 11 events outstanding where reports have not yet been received from 2011. These did not make it in the ratings update being posted next week. So we'll have to have a final yearend update in early February to hopefully get those final 11 reports from 2011 rated.

First update that will include any 2012 events will be late March as usual.

I know this is old, but I still do not like the lack of ratings for the 2011 USDGC. I feel like the players who went and played with the expectations of getting ratings based on their actual play of the stipulated course, before the performance scoring was applied, should be not be robbed.

I read the article and it is completely understandable if you want to make these special conditions for future events, but throwing out results that have already been completed by participants who were expecting ratings while playing their rounds is not fair in my opinion.

It's more unfair to incorporate four flawed round ratings in 120 players' ratings don't you think? Those flawed values then get propagated all over the world. The ratings system relies on the players themselves to be the "measuring sticks" to help produce ratings for every sanctioned round. Anything we can do to only use the best information for ratings helps everyone, not just the players at each event.

is there a reason this event isn't included in our ratings?

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/64550/Open

it has been official since late december and is on our player profile pages.