Minnesota Majestic

[Consult20]

When Nate hit the dirt in front of the island hole (I believe it was the 2nd time around in the playoff), I was thinking he was OB -- and Terry didn't say (or know) either way for awhile! I thought it was over right then, but it turned out Nate was closer than Ricky and of course both made their putts. But for about 30 seconds I really thought it was Ricky's win right there.

 

[araytx]

Steve West posted something a while back indicating it didn't really matter what way tiebreaks were done to determine the "best" player. In which case, I'd be in favor of doing tiebreakers in lower tier events like bag tags where the lower rated player of the 2 or 3 has to win outright or the higher rated player wins the tie. If both have the same rating, then whoever had the best score on the toughest course (highest SSA) played or the only course played. If still tied then lowest PDGA number wins the tie. Done. No need to take extra time to play any holes. This simple process could also be done to break ties lower than first for trophies. Easier for TDs and less time for players waiting around for awards.

I'd certainly be also in favor of a predetermined tiebreaker for anything less than an A-tier. Whether it's by rating, hot round going backwards, hot hole going backwards, card playoff (statistical only) starting with hole #1, etc. Very much helps out from a TD perspective.

Why would having 1 hole for a playoff always be better than having 2 playoff holes - if it even makes it past the first playoff hole? Why shouldn't the PDGA just mandate to play the course in order for a playoff? :\

I think the TD is best to determine the course/event playoff holes rather than some bureaucratic formula.

I am not suggesting taking that role away from the TD. I am just suggesting that he/she be required to have an odd number of holes, because I advocate for rotating the throwing order each hole. For example, at the Majestic if done the way I advocate, it would always have been Ricky teeing first on #1, and Nate on #22. Trying to get a "fair" rotation, I'd advocate for an odd number of holes for the playoff loop simply so, if the playoff goes to multiple holes, the same player wouldn't always be throwing first on the same holes.

If the TD wants to use his entire course and the course has an even number of holes, all he'd have to do is decided which one hole is not being used for the playoff. He could say the playoff begins on hole #1 and then concludes on 17, restarting on 1 if it goes beyond that. Realistically, the likelihood of a playoff going more than 17 holes is awfully slim.

There are multiple reasons, enumerated on many forums and discussions why it shouldn't be a PDGA reg to mandatorily to play holes 1-18 in order. I won't go into that here. we can start a new thread if it's of interest to you.

 

[ejvogie]

There's no compelling reason (to me) not to break ties on the field of play, no matter what tier the tournament is sanctioned at. However, making a 2 hole loop of mostly wide open shots is just dumb.

 

[sidewinder22]

I am not suggesting taking that role away from the TD. I am just suggesting that he/she be required to have an odd number of holes, because I advocate for rotating the throwing order each hole. For example, at the Majestic if done the way I advocate, it would always have been Ricky teeing first on #1, and Nate on #22. Trying to get a "fair" rotation, I'd advocate for an odd number of holes for the playoff loop simply so, if the playoff goes to multiple holes, the same player wouldn't always be throwing first on the same holes.

If the TD wants to use his entire course and the course has an even number of holes, all he'd have to do is decided which one hole is not being used for the playoff. He could say the playoff begins on hole #1 and then concludes on 17, restarting on 1 if it goes beyond that. Realistically, the likelihood of a playoff going more than 17 holes is awfully slim.

There are multiple reasons, enumerated on many forums and discussions why it shouldn't be a PDGA reg to mandatorily to play holes 1-18 in order. I won't go into that here. we can start a new thread if it's of interest to you.

Yeah, that's a bureaucratic answer to a virtual non-issue. It is no different/fair than if you started a tournament at the top of the card and they tied all the way from round 1 hole 1.

Why don't you suggest we alternate the lead off on all holes during normal rounds instead of going by previous score? That would make it "fair" for everyone every round then, except when it's 18 holes unless it's a threesome or sixsome card, then they should reduce all rounds to 16 holes for foursome cards.

 

[jerry garcia]

few things:
-coverage was the best I've seen by SmashBoxx, Terry is finding his zone. Stats updates are fantastic. Split screen..meh.
prob already addressed, but would like to see image of tee signs, or at least hole distances prior to teeing off, hard to get grasp if not familiar with the course. Really like telling us what disc is thrown when possible.
-nate's meltdown is why we love sports...heckling comes with growing the sport (fountain hills always has dudes yelling from their balconies, somebody yelled "choke" at me last month at KOTL as he drove by.) cell phones will always ring...
Nate will be fine, consummate professional, awesome talent, lesson learned.
Would like to see alternating teebox honors as well in playoff, seemed advantageous to go 2nd on hole #22
Worlds will be awesome !

 

[araytx]

Yeah, that's a bureaucratic answer to a virtual non-issue. It is no different/fair than if you started a tournament at the top of the card and they tied all the way from round 1 hole 1.

Why don't you suggest we alternate the lead off on all holes during normal rounds instead of going by previous score? That would make it "fair" for everyone every round then, except when it's 18 holes unless it's a threesome or sixsome card, then they should reduce all rounds to 16 holes for foursome cards.

Seriously SW??? Not bureaucratic. I think you may be trolling me, but I'll reply here -- still sticking to the OP topic. The difference is the a playoff is sudden death. In the regular rounds that's not a factor, because holes 1-18 or 1-22 during the regular rounds are not sudden death. I've advocated many times before that in a playoff the same player shouldn't get to go first on every hole and the same one get to go second on every hole. Whichever camp you're in (either the "I get to put the pressure on my opponent" camp, or the "I get to see what my opponent did before making my decision" camp) it is not fair (meaning equal) to a sudden death playoff scenario for the player to have the same teeing order throughout. It typically doesn't matter as much as it did here, where this playoff actually went 6 holes; but I'm in camp B and I think it's an advantage to go second. Here, as it turned out, Ricky made the long 70-foot putt to stick his 3p, BUT... had I been Nate on that last hole -- once I saw Rick was OB and this time not putting from the green, I would have laid up short and had the easy approach to the sure three -- making him hit that putt with my disc sitting under the basket. Maybe that disc sitting there as he's putting would make him think about it more. And that choice is available because of the sudden death situation, and Nate had the advantage (in my mind) of seeing Ricky's drive first throughout however many holes there were.

I'm not the only one who says playoffs should alternate teeing order, either.

 

[DirtyMeathook]

Yeah, that's a bureaucratic answer to a virtual non-issue. It is no different/fair than if you started a tournament at the top of the card and they tied all the way from round 1 hole 1.

Why don't you suggest we alternate the lead off on all holes during normal rounds instead of going by previous score? That would make it "fair" for everyone every round then, except when it's 18 holes unless it's a threesome or sixsome card, then they should reduce all rounds to 16 holes for foursome cards.

There is a huge difference in advantage between getting to tee off last in random tournament round, versus a one on one playoff. I agree though, the odds of a playoff going 18 holes are so small, the omitting a hole clause seems unnecessary.

 

[araytx]

There is a huge difference in advantage between getting to tee off last in random tournament round, versus a one on one playoff. I agree though, the odds of a playoff going 18 holes are so small, the omitting a hole clause seems unnecessary.

^^^ THIS

Yes, I think it's huge! It's the same reasons in college football teams winning the toss choose defense first. They NEVER do that in the regular game, only in the playoffs, because the playoff is different.

My original thought was an odd number of holes, like three in this case, just so if the rule does get changed it wouldn't be Nate always goes second on #1, then Ricky would get to always go second on #22. Big difference when one hole has a significant OB area. As you said & I agree, it's clearly an advantage to go last on hole #22.

The only reason I even mentioned 17 holes is because SW challenged me with "why not mandate the entire course in order?" As a TD, my loop would typically be the 3 or 5 holes closest to the HQ. That makes the most sense to me. I wouldn't want the playoff finishing a mile from HQ -- for a least a couple of good reasons.

 

[onemilemore]

I wanna add that Terry' interview with Rick right after the playoff was excellent. I'm comparing it directly to the awkward interview Avery conducted with Rick right after the European Masters.

After the playoff at The Majestic, Terry actually conducted a give-and-take interview and listened to what Rick had to say and then followed up like a professional. And the camera showed both Terry and Rick conversing, and Rick looked at Terry while he was being interviewed, like a real sports interview. I've never seen Rick as comfortable doing media than he was in this interview. He expressed his excitement but also provided interesting details on specific shots and moments during the tournament and the final round and playoff, specifically - like that incredible 60 foot bomb putt for his 3p for the win. And I'm not one of the folks who thinks he has a problem speaking in public to begin with either.

In contrast, in Järva, for his post-victory interview, after Rick won the European Master, Avery delivered some half-baked observations before posing to Rick some vague non-question like "how'd it go down?" Then the camera left Avery and closed in tight on Rick only leaving Rick to stare awkwardly into the lens and stammer through whatever sports platitudes and bromides he could manage to remember after being put on the spot like that.

Avery was interviewing Rick - ask him a specific question then face him during the answer and interview him like every other professional sports broadcaster working in sports - don't pose some open-ended request to speak and then turn him away from you and make him face the camera that was two feet from his face to tell everyone directly "how it went down" right after he won such an exhilarating tournament.

It was painful as hell to watch and made me feel bad for Rick, after what was an incredible performance, especially after his drive on 18 rolling out of bounds before hitting a tree and stopping and then making that incredible up shot from his knees for the win. Rick's upshot might be my top shot of the year, so far.

While the content of Terry's interview may have been better, the visual is not. No offense to Smashboxx/Terry, but the way World Tour does it - interviewer asks question on camera, then zoom in on the player answering the question - is how every major sport does it. The subject is Ricky, not Terry and Ricky. As a result, the zoom in is appropriate.

 

[sidewinder22]

^^^ THIS

Yes, I think it's huge! It's the same reasons in college football teams winning the toss choose defense first. They NEVER do that in the regular game, only in the playoffs, because the playoff is different.

My original thought was an odd number of holes, like three in this case, just so if the rule does get changed it wouldn't be Nate always goes second on #1, then Ricky would get to always go second on #22. Big difference when one hole has a significant OB area. As you said & I agree, it's clearly an advantage to go last on hole #22.

The only reason I even mentioned 17 holes is because SW challenged me with "why not mandate the entire course in order?" As a TD, my loop would typically be the 3 or 5 holes closest to the HQ. That makes the most sense to me. I wouldn't want the playoff finishing a mile from HQ -- for a least a couple of good reasons.

You don't get it. The TD must specify before the tourney the sudden death playoff holes/order. The TD has no way of knowing if there will be a tie, or whether it's a 3 way or 4 way tie. If there is no specified order you default playoff play to 1-18 in order or whatever the last layout was to sudden death. It really makes no difference if they played 17 holes or 18 holes in the playoff, might as well play all 18 again if they tied all the way through.

You can not change the order or number of the holes after finding out there are 3 people tied for 1st as opposed to 2. You couldn't make an "odd" 3 hole playoff fair if there are 3 people tied for 1st. They would each lead off the same hole over and over if all 3 kept tying on a 3 hole playoff loop.

 

[sidewinder22]

The only true way to make a fair playoff order, would be to flip a coin for each playoff hole, because each hole is like a separate overtime, not a series. Not a series or another round!

 

[@iDiscGolf]

Thanks prodigy for those 20 minute videos!

Just watched the final 9. That sucked for sexton, that's gonna bug him for sure. Ricky coming in clutch with that long putt

I'm still surprised those 4-1/2 hr dgpt videos have so many views. Big your out for the event.

 

[DiscFifty]

The TD must specify before the tourney the sudden death playoff holes/order.

Never knew that. Is that just for NT's?

 

[JC17393]

Never knew that. Is that just for NT's?

No, it's for all events. If the playoff holes are not specifically set in advance, the default is to play the regular course starting on hole 1.

Competition Manual 1.9 Tiebreakers
B. Final ties for first place in any division or for the reduction of field size must be broken by sudden death play. Sudden death play shall begin with hole number one unless a different hole or series of holes is designated by the Tournament Director prior to the start of the tournament.​

 

[UP Mountain Man]

FPO Gate

From what I heard, someone in Cat's group went OB on that hole today and went to the drop zone. Cat then asked and realized that she should have gone there yesterday. Under current PDGA rules, any score corrections can be made in any previous round until the tournament is declared over.

My grandson and I followed the FPO lead card on Saturday and Sunday.

From what I observed, it was the chase card, with Val and Paige, who were both on the lead card Saturday, that figured out the misplay from Saturday, while they played the hole on Sunday.

When they were finished, they brought it up to someone (TD?), then they came out to watch the last hole. One of the (many)controversies was "who knew what", on the 22 tee pad. I overheard Cat say that "she would have played the last hole differently if she had known about the penalty". I can't say for certain if Sarah knew, before Cat threw, about the penalty.

It was definitely an unfortunate situation. It took nothing away from the incredible show that the ladies put on for us, for two days. I was really looking forward to extra holes, and watching the best ladies in the world continue their battle! These girls are GOOD! :clap:

 

[Cgkdisc]

My grandson and I followed the FPO lead card on Saturday and Sunday.

From what I observed, it was the chase card, with Val and Paige, who were both on the lead card Saturday, that figured out the misplay from Saturday, while they played the hole on Sunday.

When they were finished, they brought it up to someone (TD?), then they came out to watch the last hole. One of the (many)controversies was "who knew what", on the 22 tee pad. I overheard Cat say that "she would have played the last hole differently if she had known about the penalty". I can't say for certain if Sarah knew, before Cat threw, about the penalty.

It was definitely an unfortunate situation. It took nothing away from the incredible show that the ladies put on for us, for two days. I was really looking forward to extra holes, and watching the best ladies in the world continue their battle! These girls are GOOD! :clap:

That makes sense. Hard to say whether tracking metrics played a role in discovering this error. But it wouldn't surprise me that the process of tracking stats will reduce possible scoring errors as it becomes more common in sanctioned events in the future.

 

[BionicRib]

No, it's for all events. If the playoff holes are not specifically set in advance, the default is to play the regular course starting on hole 1.

Competition Manual 1.9 Tiebreakers
B. Final ties for first place in any division or for the reduction of field size must be broken by sudden death play. Sudden death play shall begin with hole number one unless a different hole or series of holes is designated by the Tournament Director prior to the start of the tournament.​

Does the TD have to get a waiver for that? Just curious....

 

[sidewinder22]

Does the TD have to get a waiver for that? Just curious....

Nope.

 

[araytx]

The only true way to make a fair playoff order, would be to flip a coin for each playoff hole, because each hole is like a separate overtime, not a series. Not a series or another round!

I disagree with that. Like the college football playoff system, it's fairer if the winner of the toss gets the choice the first hole, then the other player gets the choice the next hole, and so one for as many playoff holes as there are.

You don't get it. The TD must specify before the tourney the sudden death playoff holes/order. The TD has no way of knowing if there will be a tie, or whether it's a 3 way or 4 way tie. If there is no specified order you default playoff play to 1-18 in order or whatever the last layout was to sudden death. It really makes no difference if they played 17 holes or 18 holes in the playoff, might as well play all 18 again if they tied all the way through.

You can not change the order or number of the holes after finding out there are 3 people tied for 1st as opposed to 2. You couldn't make an "odd" 3 hole playoff fair if there are 3 people tied for 1st. They would each lead off the same hole over and over if all 3 kept tying on a 3 hole playoff loop.

I do get it. And I do TD, and I always specify playoff holes pre-tournament at players meeting. So yes in the rare situation where I specified pre-tourney a 3-hole playoff loop for 1st place, and then somehow there were exactly three players tied for first, yes they'd still be teeing first on the same holes around and around -- assuming all three players continued to get the same score hole after hole. They'd first have to do that three straight times just to have the effect you're mentioning. So yes, there's still an outside chance. However, once one player was eliminated from the playoff my proposal still works. Of course, there's also an even smaller chance of my specifying a five-hole loop and having the exact number players tied for first as the number of playoff holes I specified pre-tourney.

Can we at least agree on that?
And hopefully you can acknowledge at least that a number of players think it is an issue for the RC to address. They should either say that it doesn't make that big of a difference to them, make a change, or come up with a position statement.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Note: It's the Competition Committee not the RC that would deal with this issue.