To 888 or not to 888.......

[smyith]

Why do we have rules that punish players for throwing OB? Why do we have rules that punish players for throwing on the wrong side of a mandatory?

i dont think these two really apply as comparisons. they are in play penalties and aren't designed to punish a specific player(s).

Why do we have rules that punish players for damaging course property and foliage?

honestly one of my favorites

Perhaps because the rules are in place to prevent/curtail undesirable actions and behaviors. Ratings manipulation has been deemed an undesirable action. No showing with no notice during a tournament has been deemed an undesirable behavior.

and that doesnt seem counter productive to you?

 

[JC17393]

i dont think these two really apply as comparisons. they are in play penalties and aren't designed to punish a specific player(s).

Huh? The OB rule and its resultant penalty is in place punish a specific player...the one that goes OB. The 888 rule and its resultant penalty is in place to punish a specific player...the one that manipulates his rating or the one who no-shows with no notice. I don't see how in play or not makes any difference at all. You asked why the PDGA would make rules that punish players, and I gave you three examples among many others of rules the PDGA has written which punish players.

and that doesnt seem counter productive to you?

I'm not sure what exactly you think the end goal is that this rule is counter-productive toward achieving, so I'm not sure how to answer this.

 

[dreadlock86]

and that doesnt seem counter productive to you?

how is it productive to allow people to do whatever they want? if the goal is growing the sport then curtailing undesirable behaviors is not counter productive, it is weeding out people who treat the sport unprofessionally.

 

[bradharris]

Huh? The OB rule and its resultant penalty is in place punish a specific player...the one that goes OB. The 888 rule and its resultant penalty is in place to punish a specific player...the one that manipulates his rating or the one who no-shows with no notice. I don't see how in play or not makes any difference at all. You asked why the PDGA would make rules that punish players, and I gave you three examples among many others of rules the PDGA has written which punish players.

You're comparing in-play score penalties (OB and Mando) to administrative penalties (888).

Complete apples and oranges.

 

[Matt B.]

a question that just came to mind:
why would an organization that struggles to keep its members current feel that it is a good idea to make rules to punish those players?
seems counter productive to me.

Uh, because you'd lose a lot of members if you didn't have rules preventing people from acting like morons?

 

[JC17393]

You're comparing in-play score penalties (OB and Mando) to administrative penalties (888).

Complete apples and oranges.

Fine, would it better if I used the rule about not manipulating the scorecard which can result in a player being suspended (an administrative penalty) for an on/at the course violation? Or the same for drug use/possession? Or for unprofessional behavior? Or failing to pay tournament fees? Those are just a few examples of punishments on the current disciplinary list that resulted from breaking rules written by the PDGA.

Point is, arguing that the PDGA shouldn't implement the 888 rule because it punishes players as if it isn't their place to punish players is a foolish stance to take considering they already have a great number of rules (in play and not) with resultant and arguably more punitive punishments already on the books.

 

[DavidSauls]

Uh, because you'd lose a lot of members if you didn't have rules preventing people from acting like morons?

There you are. The rule doesn't just punish players---it protects the other 98% of players by giving them a better tournament experience.

Well, very very very slightly, in both cases.

 

[jenb]

The main problem I have with this

Although not directly related to ratings manipulation, the 888 code can also be applied to players who DNF without giving the TD sufficient notice they would not be showing up for the next round. "Sufficient notice" is defined as at least 15 minutes prior to tee off assignment time. Players who DNF without such notice will be reported as an 888 code by the TD.

is that the player who refuses to hole out on the last hole, and the player who is in a bad car accident on the way to the tournament get the exact same slap on the wrist. The guy who refused to hole out should be getting suspended from play, not a mere 888. And while many TDs would change the 888 to a 999 for the player in the car accident once they learn what happened, it's inevitable that some pedantic TD will be a hardass and turn that guy off the tournament play for good.

 

[mashnut]

Maybe you should make that argument after it actually happens even once. I can't imagine a TD not being willing to change that, nor can I imagine that the PDGA office wouldn't fix that for you if the TD didn't. It seems like maybe you're still angry about your own situation (which was resolved instantly when you contacted the TD) so you're looking for silly unlikely examples.

 

[jenb]

Maybe you should make that argument after it actually happens even once. I can't imagine a TD not being willing to change that, nor can I imagine that the PDGA office wouldn't fix that for you if the TD didn't. It seems like maybe you're still angry about your own situation (which was resolved instantly when you contacted the TD) so you're looking for silly unlikely examples.

I don't know why you can't imagine it. Just go back and look at all the posts by the self proclaimed hard asses in this thread. The rule, as written, allows no excuses.

 

[mashnut]

The official explanation from the PDGA says "can", not "must". As a lawyer, would you say that leaves no room for TD interpretation?

 

[JC17393]

I don't know why you can't imagine it. Just go back and look at all the posts by the self proclaimed hard asses in this thread. The rule, as written, allows no excuses.

As a self-proclaimed hard-ass TD (and probably as pedantic as they come), I would NEVER give an 888 to a player who had a valid excuse for leaving a tournament. Nor would I have any qualms at all regarding changing an initial 888 to a 999 if a reasonable explanation was given (your example of a car accident between rounds would most definitely fall in the category of a reasonable explanation). The rule as described in the oft-quoted article that announced it has two very specific uses which I don't really think leave much room for interpretation or abuse: manipulating a rating or leaving a tournament with no notice. It doesn't really leave a TD much room to mess with players without the TD looking like a jackass (and the PDGA is bound to side with the player in such a situation).

Frankly, having read a lot of your posts at a couple forums, you come off as extremely paranoid about TDs and how unscrupulous they are. I get the impression that no matter how rules are written or re-written, you're never going to get past your belief that TDs are out to get you/others and will just find a new way to abuse the players with any newly re-written rules.

 

[DavidSauls]

How many 888s do you think it will take before the PDGA penalizes a player? Beyond the minor, temporary, and inconsequential change to his rating?

If someone is getting in car wrecks between rounds often enough to reach this threshhold, or otherwise incurring emergencies that don't allow contact with the TD, he or she has bigger problems than the false 888s.

 

[megamerican]

It just really confuses me why they haphazardly applied the 888 to also include no-call no shows. That's fine if they feel that the penalty should be the same and I have no problem with the penalty. However, in their manifesto on ratings manipulation it says they want to study it and keep statistics.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a separate code for no-call no shows than having it the same as something that is completely different? Do they have anything internally to show that it was someone who was called out by their group for purposefully sandbagging or leaving in the middle of a round complaining about doing bad from the person who just didn't show up and didn't tell the TD ion time?

Someone who gets an 888 for a no-call no show whether it is legitimate or not could be unfairly viewed as a ratings manipulator, when it just so happened that they didn't bother to show up the next day and told the TD too late.

 

[krupicka]

I have put in my notes in the TD report the reason for every 888 and 999 on that report. Don't know if they look at them, but they are there.