I recently played in a C-tier sanctioned tournament.

Entry fees were cheap so I decided to play up in Pro Masters. A miracle occurred, and I ended up winning the Pro Master division.

Organizers had added cash to all of the Pro pools, but it wasn't enough to tempt me into jumping into Pro ranks so I declined the cash.

We were all extrememly surprised when the organizer elected to keep the cash and not pass it down to the 2nd place finisher.

Is this legal? Has anyone ever heard of this being done before? (I've seen cash declined before, but it always trickled downward to the next lower player.)

In retrospect - I should've accepted the cash and then taken the amnesty, but I didn't know how the amnesty program was going to work so I decided not to take a chance.

Legal? That's for an attorney to answer.
Within PDGA rules? Heck, no. Declined $$ should always trickle down.

It is legal in Texas.

It used to be that there was a rule or standard somewhere requiring that declined cash be paid down. I've searched for it and cannot find it.

Based on what is left in the standards documents, I'd say that the TD cannot count that money as part of the pro purse because it was not awarded to anyone. It was offered and declined. If the TD met his tier standards without awarding that money, I cannot see anything in the documents prohibiting him from keeping it.

Can anyone find the pay-it-down standard anywhere? I looked. I cannot find it. I think it used to be in the now deleted format section of the rules book.

A miracle occurred, and I ended up winning the Pro Master division.




LOL! Congrats Larry!

You should have accepted the cash knowing that you could drop back down to AM for 2007 with no questions asked.

In retrospect - I should've accepted the cash and then taken the amnesty, but I didn't know how the amnesty program was going to work so I decided not to take a chance.



In retrospect, i should have read your last sentence. I was too excited for you. :D

I still think you should have taken the money since you would still be able to play advanced masters as long as your rating stays below 915.

Ouch!

I cannot find the rule/standard either and I know that I have read it. Does someone remember where it is located? Maybe in the documents sent out to TD's for a sanctioned tournament. I will go back and look at those when I get home.


I still think you should have taken the money since you would still be able to play advanced masters as long as your rating stays below 915.

I don't think it's there anymore but it will be inserted back in the 2007 tour docs according to Gentry.

It is even more likely to come up with an increase in trophy only participation.

It is even more likely to come up with an increase in trophy only participation.



Trophy only players do not decline cash, they just don't receive cash. I know it seems nit picky but in the "where does the declined cash go" question, trophy only players do not fall into the equation. When we are doing payouts and we get to a TO player who finished within the prizes, we skip the prizes and go to the next prize winning player. So, if a TO player finishes 2nd in a division we announce that he finished 2nd and played TO, here's your trophy (if applicable), thanks for playing. Then the next guy we say "finishing 3rd but taking 2nd place money thanks to the TO guy...". So, in my opinion even if this rule doesn't get added back in a TD should NEVER be pocketing the trophy only place payout because it wasn't declined.

I didn't see that in the payout rules either.

Could you point me to where a person finishing 3rd gets 2nd place money if the 2nd place finisher was trophy only ?

That rule would be the basis for the reasonable extension of a player declining cash.

Yeah, but I no longer say "Coming in 14th but getting 12th place prizes, etc." because it is too much to say and keep track of. Instead, now when I get to those trophy-only players I say, "Shooting a 128 and bumping prizes down for everyone below him..."

Meanwhile, who is offering a trophy-only option besides the Illinois Open Series? Is this happening in Texas now? I have not seen or heard of it in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin or Iowa, and beyond there I don't much pay attention. Wait, I heard someone was doing it in Michigan but not publicizing it. Kind of a closet trophy-only plan! :D

It's not happening in many places, but it is starting to happen in a few.

My point was, the bumping down of prizes was happening more because that's the way it had always been done when a player declined cash than because it was writen down anywhere official.

Or if it was written down somewhere official, it would be the nearest rule to extrapolate bumping down the prizes for a player declining cash.

I didn't see that in the payout rules either.

Could you point me to where a person finishing 3rd gets 2nd place money if the 2nd place finisher was trophy only ?

That rule would be the basis for the reasonable extension of a player declining cash.



Trophy only isn't a rule, it is a PDGA policy. Integral in the trophy only policy is that the player will NOT get prizes. If the player doesn't get prizes then the next person gets that prize. I realize there is some gray area there that I am filling in, but it is of my opinion that the intent of the trophy only policy was to give players the choice to not play for prizes, not to have that payout evaporate. If it is your contention that this should be specifically spelled out somewhere, then I agree.

maybe spell it out like this?

OH - EN - EL - WHY

Hey guys,

Here's a question that might go hand in hand with this discussion. What is wrong with tournament directors making money running events?

Or, to phrase it slightly differently, is it really necessary (or even good) that every penny that comes into a tournament is redistributed back to the players?

Thanks,

-Dave

I'm just saying that there is nothing I can find that makes a TD bump the money down around players that are playing trophy only or declining cash.

Of course it would be TD suicide to pull such a stunt, but stranger things have happened.

A TD might not make his tier minimums if he let trophy-only players negate payouts that way.

The drawbacks are many, the benefits few and shortsigted, but there is no clear guideline (other than common sense) that requires bumping the payout down.

nothing wrong at all. i feel a td should make oney. it'll help them want to run another one. love of the sport is a good motivator, but its a lot of hours and hard work. nothing wrong with a profit, imo.

second

Hey guys,

Here's a question that might go hand in hand with this discussion. What is wrong with tournament directors making money running events?

Or, to phrase it slightly differently, is it really necessary (or even good) that every penny that comes into a tournament is redistributed back to the players?

Thanks,

-Dave



Doesn't the PDGA let a club/TD take $$ for time spent? 10% of the total purse or something? And TD's do make a profit from amateurs. I think it is wrong to take back declined cash.

TDs (& crew) deserve compensation...but 'this' $$ is/was earmarked and should be paid down the line.

TDs (& crew) deserve compensation...but 'this' $$ is/was earmarked and should be paid down the line.



Ditto

Lots of good feedback here folks, thanks!

I guess the concesus is that none of us has ever seen declined cash NOT paid down to the next player.

Hmmmmm. I could've sworn that I'd seen an outline on payout procedures when one player declines cash and that it specified that cash pushed downward.

I wonder how it's going to get reported to the PDGA? It isn't up yet. I'll post back a link when/if I see the tourney results go up.

Larry,

I use to be in some of the documents, I just cannot remember where.


Lots of good feedback here folks, thanks!

I guess the concesus is that none of us has ever seen declined cash NOT paid down to the next player.

Hmmmmm. I could've sworn that I'd seen an outline on payout procedures when one player declines cash and that it specified that cash pushed downward.

I wonder how it's going to get reported to the PDGA? It isn't up yet. I'll post back a link when/if I see the tourney results go up.

It was in the old rule book:

804.08 Classification of Players

F. Amateur Status: A player .....(skip to the end because I'm not going to type all this crap).......Championships. Any prize money that is declined by an amateur player shall pass down to the next finishing position.

In the new rule book it just says to go here:

http://www.pdga.com/members (which dosn't exist)

So I went here:

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2006/06DivisionsGuide.pdf

nothing there.

So it looks like it got left out of the new rule book.

Good hunting Kyle. I did not think to look in the old rulebooks. I read the old sanctioning guides and TD information and couldn't find it.

Wow! Good research Kyle! Many thanks!

I knew that I had read it someplace, but not enough gray cells left to remember where I saw it at though!

By the sounds of Terry's post, it sounds like it was probably an oversight when the folks put the new rulebook together.

Although it may be difficult to tell based upon the results, here is an example of an event that did not pay down after an amateur declined cash.

3 Rivers Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5818)

Yeti should have gotten last cash after the am declined. Jay was quite vocal about the situation, but to no avail. This club is notorious for doing things that defy logic!!

With the three way tie for the 'last place' is it possible that one person declining cash didn't result in adding someone new as they were already splitting last place cash?

Let me try this again. Did they only intend to pay 8 out of 23 (1/3rd), and with the person declining, they still had 8 to pay (as opposed to 9 before the person a couple of places above declined)? Perhaps the person declining resulted in the last three splitting 6th, 7th and 8th place cash as opposed to 7th and 8th between three people, leaving Yeti out regardless.