I know there is a thread about this but its a different type question.


In the tournament the other day I went a hyzer route over some trees and clipped them as I went by. I looked for my disc but my group only helped for 1 minute. The group behind us helped me look more than my group did. I decided to call it lost so we wouldn't hold the group up since my group wasn't helping. After I finished the hole a guy found my disc so I played from there. I got a 4 from my previous lie. When I decided it was lost I took a 6. Was I supposed to take the 4 or 6?

The td said it was the 4 and the group got warned for not helping was that the right thing?

Never had this happen so want to know for future.

Declaring a disc lost and claiming a courtesy violation for not helping are two separate rules. If you read the lost disc rule 803.11A, you know you should have taken a 6 regardless whether the group helps or not. It's your responsibility to find it. If the group doesn't help, you have the option to call a courtesy violation but it doesn't remove the lost disc penalty.

Chuck Chuck Chuck, my dear old friend. Wrong answer!!!

The correct answer is: since the rest of the group only searched for one minute, not 3 minutes as required by the rules, the other players were in violation of the rules. They should have been given a warning first---before Justin's disc was declared lost. So, then they would have to search for another two minutes for Justin's disc or they would each get a stroke penalty for a second courtesy violation---refusing to look the full three minutes.

On technical grounds, Justin should have carded a 6, since he did not actually call the others in his group for a courtesy violation.

If other players in a group flat out refuse to look for a disc for even one second, it does not negate the lost disc penalty. The rule does not even say what should be done but a courtesy warning is the obvious option. It would make no difference if the warning were given before or after the 3-minute search was up.

If they aren't going to help look, I doubt they would participate in noting when the 3 minute timer starts (two players are needed). Sounds like he could have looked all day until someone actually started the 3 minute timer. On my card when a disc needs to be sought for, I don't start the timer until all are ready to look.

Sad that I would have to explain the rules to the TD of the Pro Worlds this year, but, can't say that it's surprising:

Rule 801.01.C:

C. Refusal to perform an action expected by the rules, such as assisting in the search for a lost disc, moving discs or equipment, or keeping score properly, etc., is a courtesy violation.

803.11 Lost Disc
A. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official. Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins. All players of the group must, upon request, assist in searching for the disc for the full three minutes before the disc is declared lost. The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit.

Krupicka is right---since the actual timing of the 3 minutes never started, the disc could not be declared lost. In light of this clarification, Justin should have recieved a 4 not a 6.

I decided to call it lost so we wouldn't hold the group up since my group wasn't helping.



Here's the key point you are missing. Justin gets a 6. If the clock wasn't started, he could have continued looking on his own. Nothing in the rules limits the looking if no one calls the start time. Usually the group following a card will request that the clock start if no one in the group does, or the player acquieces like Justin did and calls it lost.

Agreed-since Justin declared his own disc lost then he would have to record a 6.

However, the lost disc rule in no way states that it is the player's responsibility to find it.

Interesting, Chuck, that you would first claim it is the players' responsibility to find the disc within 3 minutes, then you would claim "Nothing in the rules limits the looking if no one calls the start time". Is this the usual random application of PDGA rules that we can expect at the Pro Worlds? Are you going to continue this tired PDGA tradition Chuck? May I suggest the TD of Pro Worlds actually study the rules?

Justin took the responsibility to call the lost disc but the amount of time was undetermined since neither he nor the players in the group timed it. If you read closer than you have so far, the rule does not require the disc to be declared lost until after the three minutes have officially started or three minutes after the player has arrived at the point the group or official last saw it. If the group (or official) never told Justin here's where we last saw it then even that three minutes will never start until someone in the group finally says 'let's time it' or someone in the following group initiates it.

The rules do not actually require that players carry a timepiece which is perhaps something that should be added. My experience has been that maybe 1 in 10 or more disc golfers wears a watch.

Finding the lost disc or making the call that it's lost still resides with the player. The others in the group can be penalized separately for a courtesy violation. You're failing miserably on this UPM.

i know a pro who firmly believes that it is discourteous to help looking for a lost disc until he is specifically asked to. his reasoning is that it will give the loser more time to find his/her disc until they suggest timing it with the groups help.

If you read closer than you have so far, the rule does not require the disc to be declared lost until after the three minutes have officially started or three minutes after the player has arrived at the point the group or official last saw it.





I see we can expect the usual random interpretation of the rules at the PDGA's allegedly premiere event. Do you not realize that the rule clearly states that:

"Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins"

Please note the use of the word "MUST" Chuck. It does not say "OR" as you have just stated, again incorrectly.

What will it take for the PDGA to actually find a qualified TD to run its Pro Worlds? Is it any wonder our sport continues to be mocked because our leaders can't even find a qualified official to run the Pro Worlds? Is the PDGA stating that it prefers blind sycophants to TD the Worlds over qualified officials?

Give it up UPM. Players can see for themselves the fallacy of your logic. Getting back to the original post, the rules indicate that Justin should have gotten a 6 and the players in the group gotten a courtesy warning. No reading of the rule would provide any other answer including a 4 which is what the TD awarded. Contact Carlton at the Rules Committee if you feel otherwise. The head official for Am & Pro Worlds and some other major championships has been Dave Gentry for the past few years. So no one should fear any "random" rules interpretations since the same person has been making the final calls and will continue this year.

Ah yes, the old tired PDGA official line...it's correct because we say it's correct! Never mind what it actually says! Never mind that man behind the curtain Dorothy!

I find it curious that even Carlton won't defend you on this one, Chuck. I'll just plan on playing the USDGC this year instead of wasting a week of my life at the Worlds where the rules are so grey. Thanks! :D

I find it curious that even Carlton won't defend you on this one, Chuck.



If Carlton says I'm wrong then I'm wrong. But he doesn't visit this board. Chapman is the only RC guy that posts regularly so maybe he'll chime in. It could be tough getting into PW this year anyway and I didn't see your name on the invite list. Maybe next year, but Gentry will likely still be the head official.

You don't have to apologize for the RC Chuck. They don't post specifically because they don't want their incompetence displayed---but thanks for having the courage to try and defend their wishy-washy rule book. Glad I could help the TD of Pro Worlds!

BTW if I really wanted to get in to Worlds, I could. You really think you'll have a sellout? I mean other than the sellouts who will be playing?

However, the lost disc rule in no way states that it is the player's responsibility to find it.



True, it does not say that verbatim, but once the entire rule has been read, a reasonable person would be able to deduce that such is the case.

It's a real shame that you can't disagree with others and express yourself without being rude.

You don't have to apologize for the RC Chuck. They don't post specifically because they don't want their incompetence displayed---



Do you have any evidence that this is the case or is this just your belief? Could be libel without any supporting evidence. Saying that to someone's face in a disagreement is one thing, but publishing it is going too far.

I disagree with you Mike. I believe in a strict interpretation of the rule book, not a bunch of implied assumptions. You are assuming that the average disc golfer is not a high-school loser who never made it with a lady. In fact, the average disc golfer is far too stoned to interpret the lost disc rule as you perceive they would be able.

So, who's responsibility is it to find a lost disc? It has to be someone's responsibility. The group is only required to assist in looking for it after being asked to do so; they are not responsible for finding it.

The PDGA should start a "NO DISC LEFT BEHIND" program! That way, theoretically, there will be no lost discs. All discs will be properly found and accounted for.

If you follow the rule, it is the group's responsibility to search for, not find, the disc within three minutes, if the group has been asked by the player to help search for his lost disc.

If the player does not ask, it is his responsibility, and he has inifnite time to find the lost disc, until someone in the group announces they're going to start the three minute clock. Then it would be the group's responsibilty to search for the disc for three minutes.

Again, the rules state nothing about anyone having the "responsibility" to find a lost disc. So, Chuck's leap to a statement of the player having a responsibility to find his disc is clearly a wishy-washy judgement call that is unfortunately very pervasive at PDGA Worlds events.

Maybe the RC will quit counting its Innova sponsorship money long enough to correct this unfortunate flaw in how the Pro Worlds are run, but then, why should they? The longer the Pro Worlds are run completely unprofessionally, the more money Innova makes, and the more money the RC makes from being the willful disciples of Innova's quest to keep its stranglehold on the disc market.

Think that doesn't make sense? Neither does having a RC with several sponsored Innova members on the RC. It reeks of unprofessionalism for one, and gives the world the impression that the PDGA doesn't care that their RC is percieved as being partial. The RC should not have any members of any manufacturer making the rules. But why should anyone care? Let's just keep this sport a complete joke, just like the enforcement of the rules of Discussion!

I can understand you have problems with the PDGA, PDGA Pro Worlds, the RC, Obviously Chuck and Innova but if you can't just answer the question without going off on some conspiracy tangent then get your own thread, let Justin have his thread and get his question answered.

For everyones sake: If you have a rebuttle to someone elses answer then just say that, don't turn this into a pissing match!

Jerry Springers probably on channel 13 or something!



:eek: Some people!

If you follow the rule, it is the group's responsibility to search for, not find, the disc within three minutes, if the group has been asked by the player to help search for his lost disc.

If the player does not ask, it is his responsibility, and he has inifnite time to find the lost disc, until someone in the group announces they're going to start the three minute clock. Then it would be the group's responsibilty to search for the disc for three minutes.

Again, the rules state nothing about anyone having the "responsibility" to find a lost disc. So, Chuck's leap to a statement of the player having a responsibility to find his disc is clearly a wishy-washy judgement call that is unfortunately very pervasive at PDGA Worlds events.

Maybe the RC will quit counting its Innova sponsorship money long enough to correct this unfortunate flaw in how the Pro Worlds are run, but then, why should they? The longer the Pro Worlds are run completely unprofessionally, the more money Innova makes, and the more money the RC makes from being the willful disciples of Innova's quest to keep its stranglehold on the disc market.

Think that doesn't make sense? Neither does having a RC with several sponsored Innova members on the RC. It reeks of unprofessionalism for one, and gives the world the impression that the PDGA doesn't care that their RC is percieved as being partial. The RC should not have any members of any manufacturer making the rules. But why should anyone care? Let's just keep this sport a complete joke, just like the enforcement of the rules of Discussion!



Doesn't answer the question, but it is the answer I expected. Incoherent ramblings that are entertaining, but nonetheless provide no basis for continued discussion.

I appreciate the confirmation of my prediction, however unintended.

If losing an Innova disc didn't get penalized (other than having to buy a new one), then you might have something to your conspiracy theory. What if 100% of the Rules Committee was made up with manufacturer reps? I'd be real confident that no manufacturer would have an advantage on any rule if that were the case. What rule is biased toward a specific manufacturer currently?

I don't believe there are any manufacturer sponsored players or workers among the marshals assigned at Pro Worlds nor is Dave Gentry sponsored.

I'll be sponsored in part by August Pottery (my wife), a manufacturer of utilitarian stoneware :D

I'll be sponsored in part by August Pottery (my wife), a manufacturer of utilitarian stoneware :D


That's where I get ALL my putters!

If you follow the rule, it is the group's responsibility to search for, not find, the disc within three minutes, if the group has been asked by the player to help search for his lost disc.

If the player does not ask, it is his responsibility, and he has inifnite time to find the lost disc, until someone in the group announces they're going to start the three minute clock. Then it would be the group's responsibilty to search for the disc for three minutes.

Again, the rules state nothing about anyone having the "responsibility" to find a lost disc. So, Chuck's leap to a statement of the player having a responsibility to find his disc is clearly a wishy-washy judgement call that is unfortunately very pervasive at PDGA Worlds events.

Maybe the RC will quit counting its Innova sponsorship money long enough to correct this unfortunate flaw in how the Pro Worlds are run, but then, why should they? The longer the Pro Worlds are run completely unprofessionally, the more money Innova makes, and the more money the RC makes from being the willful disciples of Innova's quest to keep its stranglehold on the disc market.

Think that doesn't make sense? Neither does having a RC with several sponsored Innova members on the RC. It reeks of unprofessionalism for one, and gives the world the impression that the PDGA doesn't care that their RC is percieved as being partial. The RC should not have any members of any manufacturer making the rules. But why should anyone care? Let's just keep this sport a complete joke, just like the enforcement of the rules of Discussion!


I tried to report that post to the moderators, but it "post already reported". I just wanted the moderators to know that more than one person is offended by this psychotic rambling of mikey.

I am not sponsored by Innova, Discraft, or any other disc manufacturer, and if I counted my sponsorship dollars, it would add up to zero (or maybe they're just lost dollars...or are they unplayable?). :) Mikey, if you can cite an example of a PDGA Rule, ruling, or RC Interpretation/Q&A that favors any manufacturer over another, I'm all ears. Of course, I'm betting you won't be able to find such a thing, because it doesn't really exist, but more power to you. Happy windmill tilting!

The proper way to ask for an RC interpretation is to go through the "Contact" link above, or for momentary simplicity, you can click here.

Rules Committee Contact Link (http://www.pdga.com/contact.php?a=sf&contact=Rules%20Committee)


In my opinion (and this is my opinion, not necessarily that of the RC), there's 2 ways to look at this situation, but both ways end up with the same result, which is a 6.

One, you could say the disc is lost. Nowhere above did anyone say that help was requested in searching for the disc, so any thought of a courtesy violation for anyone is out. However, more than one person DID assist in searching for the disc for a time, including players from another group. Therefore, the time started when more than one person started searching. Of course, there was no real "time" kept, only Justin's consideration of what 3 minutes were. Since no one argued with Justin's interpretation at this point, I would go with Justin' interpretation that 3 minutes had indeed expired, and he went back to his previous lie and rethrew (now his third shot), finishing in 6.

Two, if you want to take Mikey's argument that the clock never started and the disc can't be lost, then by Justin abandoning his lie and rethrowing from the previous lie, he is declaring the original throw to be unplayable. This again, carries the same one-throw penalty, rethrow from the previous spot, and Justin cards a 6 again.

There's actually no possible way Justin could get a 4 here, actually, since he actually threw a disc 5 times on this hole, and none of those throws were taken provisionally. He either gets a penalty for lost disc or unplayable, depending on how you'd like to rule, so 6 is the correct score. Personally, I'd like to argue that the disc was unplayable in this situation, but I really don't have a problem with calling it lost, either. I did the same thing at Cliff Drive in KC on Monday. Yanked my drive on hole 12 right into the woods, and WAY down the hill. There's no way I figured I was ever going to find it, so I declared it unplayable without even looking for it, and rethrew from the tee with a 1-throw penalty.

Again, that's my call, not the entire RC's. If someone wants to bring this to the RC's attention, you have the proper link above.

Hey, have more fun out there, and let's keep it friendly!

Chap

I tried to report that post to the moderators, but it "post already reported". I just wanted the moderators to know that more than one person is offended by this psychotic rambling of mikey.



Rhett,

Moderator Kevin McCoy is handling the flood of complaints we received today about Mike Kernan's posts. In the past, moderator Alan Sweeton and myself handled these complaints and ruled on his probations and suspensions. We feel strongly that a team approach is best, so that users who break DISCussion board rules don't fixate on one moderator and blame one moderator for upholding the rules. Perhaps hearing from a third source, and a respected 1000+ rated player and touring Pro, may finally convince Mike that his personal attacks and message board behavior are inappropriate.

As always, message board users are free to appeal the decision of the moderator to PDGA Communications Director Steve Dodge. In the same manner that a message board user who is put on probation or suspended can appeal to Steve over a moderator's decision to apply probation or suspension, a message board user who reports a post as offensive but is told by the moderator that the post does not break our DISCussion board rules can also feel free to appeal that decision to Steve Dodge. It's really a good system of checks and balances that we have in place here.

I would say that Mikey seems to know exactly what he can and can not do and works the system to get exactly what he wants out of it.

I would say that Mikey seems to know exactly what he can and can not do and works the system to get exactly what he wants out of it.



He still doesn't know what he shouldn't do.

But doesn't Innova sponsor Kevin? I see where it's all coming from now... (That's a joke, I'm kidding, I don't really believe in the Tri-Lateral Commission/New World Order controlling Disc Golf) :)

Welcome back Mike?Grunnion?Hawk?

Just because your paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Article_pictures/stalinsmall.jpg


LONG LIVE THE COMMUNIST REGIME!

That's a nice picture of Joseph Stalin! :cool:What, if anything, does that have to do with the sport of disc golf?

Oh, come on....if you're going to post a picture of a communist, go back to the beginning....let's get old school!

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/498.jpg

http://www.terribly-happy.com/images/smiley-01-29-01.gif

Mikey, if you can cite an example of a PDGA Rule, ruling, or RC Interpretation/Q&A that favors any manufacturer over another, I'm all ears. Of course, I'm betting you won't be able to find such a thing, because it doesn't really exist, but more power to you. Happy windmill tilting!

Chap



Well, let's just deal in a hypothetical situation then, since I'm just so out of touch with reality anyway.

I believe there was a recent thread regarding a sponsored Innova player who may or may not be continously violating the foot-fault, or stance rule.

Think the allegedly impartial Rules Committee is going to rule against said sponsored Innova player? Think the RC is going to place said player in a position where said player would have to adjust his putting style?

I don't think so...Innova has a lot of money to lose if its sponsored players do not win the Worlds or the USDGC any particular year...and don't tell me that having the World champ or USDGC champ on a sponsor's team doesn't affect disc sales...if it didn't boost sales, why would manufacturers sponsor anyone?

So, while the Regime Communista (RC) may say it's impartial, they don't look impartial to some of us. Chap, just out of curiosity, have you ever asked anyone from Gateway or Discraft their view of the alleged impartiality of the RC?

GET RID OF THE CORPORATE-OWNED MEMBERS OF THE RULES COMMITTEE OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!

The RC doesn't make rulings but makes the rules. Players call the rules. And if higher authorities are needed, then TDs, Marshals and the Competition Director progressively get involved. The RC is never involved in a specific ruling. They just provide written guidance in the rulebook and the Q&A section on what the rule means for others to enforce, including Gateway and Discraft sponsored players.

Agreed Chuck. Now, see if you can switch from focusing on a specific instance to the general terms I was actually discussing.

It looks to me like the Regime Communista (RC) might need to make a stance rule change...but will they change the rule so that Feldberg will have to quit jump putting?

I say, they won't change the rule, because they don't want Feldberg to have any sort of disadvantage...they won't force Feldberg to change his putting style.

So, what you then have is the appearance of favoritism by the RC towards an Innova-sponsored player.

You get rid of the Innova-owned players on the RC, and you no longer have the appearance of impropriety. Or you ask the Innova-owned players on the RC to relinquish their sponsorship. Either way, you take a giant leap towards credibility of the RC, which, in my opinion, would be very valuable to our beloved sport.

Or, you can continue business as usual and let Innova use the PDGA as its 2-bit prostitute, which is what it looks like when the RC is composed of so many Innova-owned players.

If Feldberg's jump putt style is so good and no one is calling it, why haven't top players sponsored by other companies have copied it? Surely you don't think Innova players are less honorable than those sponsored by other companies? The players in the groups are the ones that make the call and Feldberg's group does not always include Innova players. You make it sound like Feldberg has some secret method that he can get away with but no one else? Frankly, I'd like to see jump putts all the way to the basket with the requirement you release before landing, not before leaping.

Other than Carlton, who are the other "shills" on the RC?

I do know that Chap isn't a 2-bit prostitute, he'd cost at least a buck. :D

Frankly, I'd like to see jump putts all the way to the basket with the requirement you release before landing, not before leaping.



Don't you think that is a little dangerous? I can see it now, people diving head first for the slam dunk putt. :D

Dr. Rick, Carlton and Harold are Innova
Conrad, Chappy, Garcia are independent

I may not be up to date on the members of the RC, because they don't like to publish anything for fear of being the laughing stocks they are, but I believe Rick Voakes and Harold Duvall would be a couple of the shills.

Frankly, I'd like to see jump putts all the way to the basket with the requirement you release before landing, not before leaping.


http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/MSDGC/worst.jpg

I can see it now, people diving head first for the slam dunk putt.



And you don't already see people taking risky stances and chances to avoid taking an unplayable lie penalty? I did the "crane" putt two weeks ago near the basket to reduce wind risk. No need to jump at the basket. I just want to see players be able to jump up or out sideways from behind a bush and fling the shot for a spectacular save.

I still don't understand how a rule could be so cleverly worded that it unfairly benefitted one player and punished all others, or even players from one team over another.

I just want to see players be able to jump up or out sideways from behind a bush and fling the shot for a spectacular save.



that would bring our playground sport to an all time low imho. it's more spectacular to make the save without the circus act.

I still don't understand how a rule could be so cleverly worded that it unfairly benefitted one player and punished all others, or even players from one team over another.



That's because it can't /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Let's say the rules of the sport in the early years required players to stand and throw from any lie not on the tee pad with no runup allowed. Then, someone came along and said, "Why not allow players to run up to their lie as long as they release their shot before running past their lie?" I think allowing a runup might have been a tough sell if no runup had been allowed for 15 years. Arguments against would be "how could you tell when a player foot faulted," and since players could then throw farther, it would negate the existing course designs.

Those same arguments are there today but because we started with runups, people can't see the other side as making any sense. It's the same with jump putts all the way to the basket. If a player gets hurt, it's because they made the wrong choice similar to trying to crush a drive on muddy ground and getting hurt in some way from slippage. I realize the Stork deadfall putt had something to do with the rule we have now. But if Stork or any player wanted to do the deadfall putt after a rule change, why is that any different than the other risky techniques players may choose to use under our current rules?

If Feldberg's jump putt style is so good and no one is calling it, why haven't top players sponsored by other companies have copied it?



I think other players have copied it. If you can't beat Innova, join 'em. It's much easier than trying to argue with Dave anyway.


Surely you don't think Innova players are less honorable than those sponsored by other companies?



Less honorable, no. Much richer, yes. And don't call me Shirley.



The players in the groups are the ones that make the call and Feldberg's group does not always include Innova players. You make it sound like Feldberg has some secret method that he can get away with but no one else? Frankly, I'd like to see jump putts all the way to the basket with the requirement you release before landing, not before leaping.



I'm really not sure if Feldberg is getting away with anything or not---but I can't accept any ruling from the RC because Innova is so far up the RC's backside it's sticking out their mouth.

Is there no one other than Innova's stooges on the RC qualified to sit on the RC? I think not. I think that among 10000 active PDGA members, we can find 3 people who are not grovelling to Innova to sit on the RC.

But, you guys just go right ahead, keep 'em. Let all the world know that disc golf and the PDGA isn't about fairness, it's all about money. Because that's really what the PDGA is all about anyway. You jack the membership dues up and then you won't tell us how the $$$ is spent, save for some items that break down the budget into $200,000 categories, where you can hide the $5000 payments to Chuck, the RC, Brian's "severance pay", or whoever you're doling it out to these days.

Ed Headrick just did another flip in his grave.

but I can't accept any ruling from the RC because Innova is so far up the RC's backside it's sticking out their mouth.




Where have they made a ruling on Feldberg, anyone else or any situation? Are you talking about some meeting the RC had to review video of Feldberg to determine whether he foot faulted on some jump putts? Has that actually happened?

we have....and no comment.

I'm not saying they have. I was trying to make a point by detaling a hypothetical situation. That the point is lost on a bunch of stoned hippies with frisbees shouldn't surprise me.

That the point is lost on a bunch of stoned hippies with frisbees shouldn't surprise me.


Can't you refrain for one post at least ?

It's the same with jump putts all the way to the basket.



nope. somehow a run up seems justifiable when you unload a 400' drive. "slam dunks" are a drastic change from working the flight of a disc. the concept seems foolish. i'd personally prefer no run up allowed at all than to see people flying at metal baskets.

That the point is lost on a bunch of stoned hippies with frisbees shouldn't surprise me.


Can't you refrain for one post at least ?



http://www.wildwestweb.net/flicks/refrain.jpg

how's that?

No personal attack in that one.

Very good.

You know, I don't get to try out my material in front of a small test audience. Tough crowd, tough crowd tonight.

I'm really not sure if Feldberg is getting away with anything or not---but I can't accept any ruling from the RC because Innova is so far up the RC's backside it's sticking out their mouth.


People, please stop feeding the troll. It's obvious that all Mikey wants is attention, and that he no real point to make.

Mikey, leave it to you to create a fictitious event as evidence to prove your point.

The Rules Committee is not responsible for making rules calls on the course. TDs, officials, and players are. If you see a foot fault, please call it. There aren't enough people out there that do.

Are you saying we might let Innova players jump putt, but Gateway players can't? That's pretty absurd, but of course, that's what you're aiming for.

Chap

I'm saying, it is wrong to have people on the RC who could be influenced by their sponsor. If Harold wants his way on the RC, he could threaten the other 2 Innova shills into taking his rules by removing their sponsorship if they don't bow down to his almighty wisdom.

Sure, you say, that NEVER happens. Harold is such an up-and-up guy, he'd NEVER do anything of the kind. Yep, Harold would NEVER do anything like sue Discraft and Gateway, because Harold is all about what's best for the sport and not for his own wallet.

NEVERMIND that Harold & Innova did sue Gateway & Discraft to line Innova's pockets...NEVERMIND THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN DOROTHY!

HAROLD IS ALL ABOUT SHARING HIS PROFITS WITH EVERYONE, HE WOULD NEVER EVER ACT IN ANY OTHER WAY, EXCEPT THAT HE ALREADY HAS!

You're the tops Chap.

i'd personally prefer no run up allowed at all than to see people flying at metal baskets.




I would actually make that trade if it meant eliminating all jump putts. I just think if you allow them at all, that it would be easier to allow them everywhere and it would be easier to see if someone released before hitting the ground rather than before leaving the ground.

Yep, Harold would NEVER do anything like sue Discraft and Gateway, because Harold is all about what's best for the sport and not for his own wallet.




Of course, you wouldn't care about protecting intellectual property if you have none to offer...

I'm saying, it is wrong to have people on the RC who could be influenced by their sponsor. If Harold wants his way on the RC, he could threaten the other 2 Innova shills into taking his rules by removing their sponsorship if they don't bow down to his almighty wisdom.





Somehow I don't think that Dr. Rick or Carlton are depending on their Innova sponsorship to put food on the table or make the house payment. The notion that they could be pressured by Innova sponsorship is a stretch of logic at best.

It's probably best to try to buy off Chap. :D

Hey Chap, I'll give you some of Kim's homebrewed stout if you would do my evil bidding on the rules committee. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If you are coming to Herington Sunday, I can bring you the first installment.

i'd personally prefer no run up allowed at all than to see people flying at metal baskets.




I would actually make that trade if it meant eliminating all jump putts. I just think if you allow them at all, that it would be easier to allow them everywhere and it would be easier to see if someone released before hitting the ground rather than before leaving the ground.



Amen. Either eliminate them entirely or make it so you can effectively call them without having to use a slow motion camera.

I'm saying, it is wrong to have people on the RC who could be influenced by their sponsor. If Harold wants his way on the RC, he could threaten the other 2 Innova shills into taking his rules by removing their sponsorship if they don't bow down to his almighty wisdom.



Aren't rule change decisions made by the board with input from the rules committee ?

Also, the board has the power to completely ignore the advice of the rules committee and do whatever it thinks is correct.

Of course, you wouldn't care about protecting intellectual property if you have none to offer...



Agreed, the RC has nothing to protect.

It's probably best to try to buy off Chap. :D

Hey Chap, I'll give you some of Kim's homebrewed stout if you would do my evil bidding on the rules committee. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If you are coming to Herington Sunday, I can bring you the first installment.



Yes, Anita knows that I absolutely can be bought with good beer! :cool: And you know I always reciprocate with good beer. :)

Alas, I will not be in Herington Sunday...well, probably not. We're going to Iowa City Saturday, and won't get back until 11PM at earliest. If I get a strange burr under my saddle, and I answer the bell early enough on Sunday morning, I might chance a trip to Herington on Sunday. Dennis always puts on a fun event.

Chap

PS Mikey (aka Senor Quixote), keep up the good fight, man, and keep those windmills in check.

I'm saying, it is wrong to have people on the RC who could be influenced by their sponsor. If Harold wants his way on the RC, he could threaten the other 2 Innova shills into taking his rules by removing their sponsorship if they don't bow down to his almighty wisdom.



Aren't rule change decisions made by the board with input from the rules committee ?

Also, the board has the power to completely ignore the advice of the rules committee and do whatever it thinks is correct.



Gary,

You are correct. The Rules Committee is essentially an advisory board, although we are in charge of official interpretations of current rules (such as you might see in the Rules Q&A). The Board of Directors is the only governing body that can authorize changes in the PDGA Rules of Play.

Chap

I'll pack a few extra Black Dog Stouts just in case, Chap. They won't go to waste if you don't show. I'll make sure there are plenty for the Shoot Out. ;)

Kim has another year of experience in the brewing department under his belt. That's a good thing. :D

I'm saying, it is wrong to have people on the RC who could be influenced by their sponsor. If Harold wants his way on the RC, he could threaten the other 2 Innova shills into taking his rules by removing their sponsorship if they don't bow down to his almighty wisdom.





Somehow I don't think that Dr. Rick or Carlton are depending on their Innova sponsorship to put food on the table or make the house payment. The notion that they could be pressured by Innova sponsorship is a stretch of logic at best.




OK Anita, let's spin this one around the other way. If "Dr. Rick or Carlton are depending on their Innova sponsorship to put food on the table or make the house payment" , then why can't they resign from Innova's team in order to serve on the Rules Committee, an important committee that should not have any impropriety, real or imagined?

First, answer the question of how any impropriety, whether real or imagined, can occur in an advisory group with no policy making authority ?

If block voting taking place, what possible difference would it make ?

If you are implying that the RC has no policy making authority, I would disagree with that opinion. I believe it's well-documented how the last rule change was implemented by circumnavigating the BOD.

Black voting does make a difference...just look at how New Orleans re-elected Bill Jefferson and Ray Nagin. Oh wait, you said block voting. Communist Block voting means that Harold essentially has 3 of 6 votes on the RC...tough to rule against him with that ratio eh? Do you now see that one person, Harold, controls the RC?

I believe it's well-documented how the last rule change was implemented by circumnavigating the BOD.



Please show us this well-documented documentation.

In reading through the PDGA BOD minutes, I don't see any evidence of the Rules Committee circumVENTing the BOD.

PDGA BOD Minutes (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)


Communist Block voting means that Harold essentially has 3 of 6 votes on the RC...tough to rule against him with that ratio eh? Do you now see that one person, Harold, controls the RC?



The Rules Committee has been chaired by Carlton Howard for over 18 years. Carlton's honor is impeccable and your insinuation that Harold "owns" his vote is laughable.

If you strip away the hyperbole and paranoia, ParanoidDGA has a valid but limited point. Sponsored pros and other members with close ties to any manufacturer have a conflict of interest when they address issues which might impact different manufacturers differently. The only issues I can conceive of where this might be a real issue are technical standards compliance issues. [Mmmm, maybe in sanctioning and scheduling the big sponsored tournaments too.] When I weight stacks of ten, I see a significant difference between Innova's and Discraft's compliance with the max weight requirements.

On something like jump putting or the lost disc rule, then we're back to hyperbole or paranoia. I don't think Innova discs are lost more or less in percentage to the number of Innova discs out there, nor do Innova players jump before putting more or less in percentage to the number of sponsored Innova pros there are.

To the extent that Paranoid DGA is also arguing that Innova has economic power over the disc golf marketplace, Innova implicitly admits as much. They've employed lawyers who specialize in anti-trust law [monopoly law] to help them ensure that they don't expose themselves to liability for violating anti-trust laws in the way they conduct their business. That'a an expense you don't assume for no reason.

[edited due to personal attack]

The players in the groups are the ones that make the call and Feldberg's group does not always include Innova players. You make it sound like Feldberg has some secret method that he can get away with but no one else? Frankly, I'd like to see jump putts all the way to the basket with the requirement you release before landing, not before leaping.



I'm really not sure if Feldberg is getting away with anything or not---but I can't accept any ruling from the RC because Innova is so far up the RC's backside it's sticking out their mouth.

So, here's how Mr. Mikey answers a request for an example of the RC favoring one manufacturer: 1) Here's my example (Feldberg), 2) I'm not sure if it's an example, BUT I still don't like the RC...SO THERE!

Good answer Mikey! You must be right, because....because....well, you just must be right! Your skills of argument are beyond compare!

Yep, Harold would NEVER do anything like sue Discraft and Gateway, because Harold is all about what's best for the sport and not for his own wallet.




Of course, you wouldn't care about protecting intellectual property if you have none to offer...

If you don't mind, I'm gonna read this as more of a personal attack on Mikey....it's funnier that way. "Intellectual property"....LOL.

If you strip away the hyperbole and paranoia, ParanoidDGA has a valid but limited point. Sponsored pros and other members with close ties to any manufacturer have a conflict of interest when they address issues which might impact different manufacturers differently. The only issues I can conceive of where this might be a real issue are technical standards compliance issues. [Mmmm, maybe in sanctioning and scheduling the big sponsored tournaments too.] When I weight stacks of ten, I see a significant difference between Innova's and Discraft's compliance with the max weight requirements.

On something like jump putting or the lost disc rule, then we're back to hyperbole or paranoia. I don't think Innova discs are lost more or less in percentage to the number of Innova discs out there, nor do Innova players jump before putting more or less in percentage to the number of sponsored Innova pros there are.

To the extent that Paranoid DGA is also arguing that Innova has economic power over the disc golf marketplace, Innova implicitly admits as much. They've employed lawyers who specialize in anti-trust law [monopoly law] to help them ensure that they don't expose themselves to liability for violating anti-trust laws in the way they conduct their business. That'a an expense you don't assume for no reason.

I actually agree with Bruce. Although none of Mikey's ramblings convinced me of anything other than his ability to string words together...the possible conflict of interest is something that should be considered.

I don't believe that Innova or Harold raises an eyebrow at any of the RC's work other than as it relates to technical aspects of PDGA approved discs. I also don't believe that any of the sponsored RC members consider what is in the best interest of Innova when considering rule changes. However, as in my business, I do believe it is important to take steps to avoid conflicts of interest and THE APPEARANCE of conflicts of interest.

We often like to consider what other professional sports associations do...well, what do you think the PGA would think of having half of their rules committee members sponsored by Titlest? I don't think that would fly.

So, although I don't have any major concerns about the current state of things, I do think that the issue is worth exploring.

BTW, it should also be mentioned that the reason we find sponsored players serving on committees is because they are part of the 10% of every group that does 90% of all the work. They are very actively involved in the sport and it's no surprise that they are good players who are used whereever they are willing to serve. Unlike some who just complain, they take action and do something for the sport.

Yep, Harold would NEVER do anything like sue Discraft and Gateway, because Harold is all about what's best for the sport and not for his own wallet.




Of course, you wouldn't care about protecting intellectual property if you have none to offer...

If you don't mind, I'm gonna read this as more of a personal attack on Mikey....it's funnier that way. "Intellectual property"....LOL.



Actually he should mind as a personal attack is grounds for probation or suspension of MB privileges.

I guess another area where there are obvious conflicts of interest is with disciplinary issues involving sponsored pros, or other members with close ties to one manufacturer or another.