What rules would you add (not really, but you might wish for)

[cheesethin]

The words Advanced and Intermediate reference degree of skill.

Recreational references attitude - 'oh I don't take it seriously, it's just recreational for me'.

And Novice references newness to the sport and lack of experience.

(Note: experience does not directly correlate to skill. You can have lots of experience and still lack any skill! I'm four years into the game, I have plenty of experience, and I'm Novice rated. [emoji16])

Using MA1-4 works but a little bit of me likes to have words attached as well. Words are usually easier to grasp, whereas with 'codes' I'm normally having to translate them in my head first.

So, who's got good new names for MA3 & 4?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[sonny]

Somehow MA50 just doesn't have the ring of Grandmasters for me. OK, Senior Grandmasters isn't so great, but I was kind of looking forward to playing the Legends division in a couple more years....

 

[BillFleming]

(Note: experience does not directly correlate to skill. You can have lots of experience and still lack any skill! I'm four years into the game, I have plenty of experience, and I'm Novice rated. [emoji16])

Yes! I'm two years into this and my PDGA rating hasn't been higher than 652 (currently at 634). I'm Novice rated, but play Recreational (mainly because most tournaments don't have the Novice division).

One day I hope to get above 700 rated. But that would require me to play SMART disc golf and not HERO disc golf. (Smart disc golf is playing to your ability - HERO disc golf is going for the basket on every throw, regardless of distance or ability).

I'm always DFL in the tournaments I play since I have to play in MA3 (Recreational) instead of the division I'm actually rated for (MA4-Novice). But, DFL or not, I'm having fun.

 

[cheesethin]

... I'm Novice rated, but play Recreational (mainly because most tournaments don't have the Novice division).
...
I'm always DFL in the tournaments I play since I have to play in MA3 (Recreational) instead of the division I'm actually rated for (MA4-Novice). But, DFL or not, I'm having fun.

This strikes me as a shame.

 

[BillFleming]

This strikes me as a shame.

yeah, and I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind it....unless there are so few Novices that play tournaments (maybe because there usually isn't a Novice division?).

By the eligible ratings....Novice is any rating below 850 and I usually see quite a few players in MA3/Recreational that are lower than 850...so we would fill up a Novice division if it was available.

But it is what it is....I'll play MA3/Recreational....lose and still enjoy playing.

 

[cheesethin]

yeah, and I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind it....unless there are so few Novices that play tournaments (maybe because there usually isn't a Novice division?).

By the eligible ratings....Novice is any rating below 850 and I usually see quite a few players in MA3/Recreational that are lower than 850...so we would fill up a Novice division if it was available.

But it is what it is....I'll play MA3/Recreational....lose and still enjoy playing.

I'm in the UK, and up to two weeks ago our highest rated player was 970ish. This means that all of our Advanced level players (935+) tend to choose to play in MPO. Now, this could create a 'vacumn' in ADV and suck all the INT players up into it. And the REC players into INT, and NOV players into REC. But cleverly most TD's here just don't bother to offer ADV! This means everyone tends to play their rating and stick in the appropriate division.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Traditional skill progressive division names like: Advanced, Intermediate, Rec and Novice or Am 1, Am 2, Am 3 have become both sexist and ageist in lifetime sports especially when all genders and all ages might compete on the same course at the same time. Using the skill colors for division names that are already defined in PDGA docs makes the most sense. If your rating is in a certain range, your division color is Blue regardless of your age or gender. BTW, this can also resolve much of the transgender issue regarding current division assignment fairness.

 

[biscoe]

Traditional skill progressive division names like: Advanced, Intermediate, Rec and Novice or Am 1, Am 2, Am 3 have become both sexist and ageist in lifetime sports especially when all genders and all ages might compete on the same course at the same time. Using the skill colors for division names that are already defined in PDGA docs makes the most sense. If your rating is in a certain range, your division color is Blue regardless of your age or gender. BTW, this can also resolve much of the transgender issue regarding current division assignment fairness.

What is sexist or ageist about designating divisions numerically? Colors just add another layer of definitions to explain.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What is sexist or ageist about designating divisions numerically? Colors just add another layer of definitions to explain.

Just some examples.
- FA1 is really only as good as M(mixed)A3 but their skill level range is the same (White or Red)
- FA3, F4, FA60 and others at purple level forced to compete with green level M4 players or higher if M4 not offered.
- MP50 has to have a rating under 900 (white level) to compete in MA50 who has players with blue level ratings
- Many players over age 50 playing for many years are "forced" to play in divisions called Recreational/Am3 or Novice/Am4 to have chance to compete when not enough players in their age bracket enter.
- Juniors under 19 have players with ratings in MA1, MA2, MA3/FA1, MA4FA2, FA3, FA4 and below. Using color skill ranges makes more sense for the older junior divisions in the same way that talented youth in school sports are moved up to play on older age teams.
- Separate issue: The Pro/Am distinction versus using color skill levels makes no sense for players over age 40 who are competing in an adult recreational sport versus trying to climb a ladder to become a pro for a living.

 

[Casey 1988]

Somehow MA50 just doesn't have the ring of Grandmasters for me. OK, Senior Grandmasters isn't so great, but I was kind of looking forward to playing the Legends division in a couple more years....

I agree, the name system was better, but to get into the Senior Olympics as a sport, the PDGA had to make changes.

 

[Casey 1988]

Rule I would add and this is for Paul McBeth at a Pro Tour event the Maple Hill one where the Tournament Director had to Ask what the OB was due to how the rules were made for one hole. The Rule is that all tournament directors must declare all OB from the start in the Rules or Book and where it is on every hole, this saves time in having to contest oddities where you would think that something is inbounds when it is not just a mistake in how the rule was written.

 

[BillFleming]

Rule I would add and this is for Paul McBeth at a Pro Tour event the Maple Hill one where the Tournament Director had to Ask what the OB was due to how the rules were made for one hole. The Rule is that all tournament directors must declare all OB from the start in the Rules or Book and where it is on every hole, this saves time in having to contest oddities where you would think that something is inbounds when it is not just a mistake in how the rule was written.

I believe the issue wasn't on how it was marked, but how it was interpreted.

Rule: Pond is OB go to drop zone. Past the 'wall' is OB, take 1 meter in and play from there.

What happened: Paul's disc went past the wall (OB, 1 meter, play) into water (argued as Pond, OB, drop zone).

Paul's argument was that his disc was OB past the wall - which keeps him from having to go to the drop zone.

My understanding of the rules: More than one penalty happened. His disc went over the OB wall (penalty: OB, 1 meter in, one stroke, play) AND then it went into the water (OB, one stroke, go to drop zone). By the rules, you can only take one penalty....therefore, even if the water past the OB wall was meant to be 'go to the drop zone', the FIRST thing that happened and the FIRST penalty, was his disc going over OB wall. So I believe, that regardless of what the rule was for being long in the water, he would only be penalized for the first penalty - OB over the wall.

Common sense interpretation....the "water to to drop zone" rule was to save multiple throws over the pond possibly going into the water and creating high scores. Water behind the green wouldn't be included, because you wouldn't be throwing over water again and going to the drop zone wouldn't make sense for that reason.

 

[cheesethin]

I believe the issue wasn't on how it was marked, but how it was interpreted.



Rule: Pond is OB go to drop zone. Past the 'wall' is OB, take 1 meter in and play from there.



What happened: Paul's disc went past the wall (OB, 1 meter, play) into water (argued as Pond, OB, drop zone).



Paul's argument was that his disc was OB past the wall - which keeps him from having to go to the drop zone.



My understanding of the rules: More than one penalty happened. His disc went over the OB wall (penalty: OB, 1 meter in, one stroke, play) AND then it went into the water (OB, one stroke, go to drop zone). By the rules, you can only take one penalty....therefore, even if the water past the OB wall was meant to be 'go to the drop zone', the FIRST thing that happened and the FIRST penalty, was his disc going over OB wall. So I believe, that regardless of what the rule was for being long in the water, he would only be penalized for the first penalty - OB over the wall.



Common sense interpretation....the "water to to drop zone" rule was to save multiple throws over the pond possibly going into the water and creating high scores. Water behind the green wouldn't be included, because you wouldn't be throwing over water again and going to the drop zone wouldn't make sense for that reason.

Bill, OB is determined by where the disc comes to rest, not the route it took to get there. So multiple penalties didn't come into it in this case. It doesn't matter if your disc flies over several distinct OB areas en route - it only makes where it comes to rest. So there is no working out which OB 'happened first'.

(Mandos of course are different - both the route taken, and the resting place figure in the determination.)

On this particular hole, the problem was the caddy book had confusing/conflicting description of what the resultant lie was if you went into water long. As you correctly pointed out, going into water long wasn't intended to send the player to the drop zone.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[DavidSauls]

OB is also determined by "last place inbounds". Missing a mando is crossing a vertical plane; so is going OB. A disc that is both OB and lost is played as OB, despite coming to rest as lost, if there is evidence that it went OB.

Without knowing the specific incident, it sounds like a disc that crosses the wall (OB) and never returns inbounds, is OB for crossing the wall.

But.....

It also sounds like a bit of the perils of rules-making -- in this case, ground-rules-making. In wording rules, the author must imagine every scenario, to make sure the rules play out as intended. I once defined an OB as "over a fence", not thinking someone would somehow find a hole and their disc go "under the fence". (Henceforth, it was "beyond" the fence). I defined an OB with as beyond a creek, not imagining that someone would throw a disc at a 60-degree angle to the intended flight path, and reach a point where the creek entered a pipe under the ground.

The problem isn't that TDs aren't establishing rules in advance, as Casey suggests. It's that they're susceptible to not establishing them clearly enough.

 

[cheesethin]

OB is also determined by "last place inbounds". Missing a mando is crossing a vertical plane; so is going OB. A disc that is both OB and lost is played as OB, despite coming to rest as lost, if there is evidence that it went OB.

Without knowing the specific incident, it sounds like a disc that crosses the wall (OB) and never returns inbounds, is OB for crossing the wall.

Being OB and lost is a special case scenario, with its own rule governing it.

Normally, when the disc is not lost, crossing the OB plane is only trivially involved because it is physically impossible to enter an enclosed area without crossing the threshold. The rule as written defines the disc as being OB when it's resting position is clearly and completely surrounded by an OB area, that's it, nothing about how it got there is required to make the ruling. Also importantly, the route a disc took into an OB area has absolutely no power to prevent the disc being OB - so the route a disc took is irrelevant.

In the special case of a disc being OB and Lost (806.02.C) the normal requirement that a disc is seen to be clearly and completely surrounded by an OB area get substituted out and replaced with compelling evidence that the disc came to rest completely and clearly surrounded by an OB area. Having seen the disc cross an OB boundary can be part of that compelling evidence but it also requires that the disc had no chance of crossing back into inbounds. So essentially it is just acting as a proxy for the disc coming to rest OB.

Mandos are different in that both the the resting position of the disc and the route the disc took to get there there are both critical to whether a throw has missed the mando. A disc lying on the ground 10 m past a mando could have got there either by going the good side of the mando and therefore be safe, or by going past the bad side of the mando and therefore be a penalty. So the route here is critical to determining whether a mando has been missed.

But.....

It also sounds like a bit of the perils of rules-making -- in this case, ground-rules-making. In wording rules, the author must imagine every scenario, to make sure the rules play out as intended. I once defined an OB as "over a fence", not thinking someone would somehow find a hole and their disc go "under the fence". (Henceforth, it was "beyond" the fence). I defined an OB with as beyond a creek, not imagining that someone would throw a disc at a 60-degree angle to the intended flight path, and reach a point where the creek entered a pipe under the ground.

The problem isn't that TDs aren't establishing rules in advance, as Casey suggests. It's that they're susceptible to not establishing them clearly enough.

Totally agree! It looks really hard to write ground rules clearly and concisely, and without opportunities for 'under the fence' lawyering types.