-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Ledgestone Insurance Open
- Thread starter jvphobic
- Start date
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Hole 5, Round 3.
corin_brown
Eagle Member
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Araytx,
Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last time. Nor have I gone back to review rules or video so take it as you will.
I always had the fundamental understanding that one could rethrow from a previous lie. No matter what the outcome. Perhaps I am incorrect in this. If there is a rule for a hole that does not allow that, then it is a change from the standard PDGA rules, by my perhaps incorrect understanding, and someone should have had the caddy book to say nope, not allowed. If no one does, but someone like Nikko has said I can't, when I believe it is part of the rules that I can, then I'm taking my provisional until proven otherwise.
Again, perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding on DZ rules and they say specifically you aren't allowed to rethrow from your previous lie? At this point, I need to go and look.
If a TD then shows up and says, nope not allowed, then you can make an argument that I should finish the provisional, but I've played by the rules of the game, at least as I understand them.
If Paul throws and lands under the basket, and the rules don't allow it, then the provisional was good fun, but doesn't count, no matter what Paul or the TD wants. Arguing things that didn't happen is sort of a waste of time IMO.
In good fun, the notion that Paul colluded with the TD to get the "provisional throws" removed from his score seems a reach. Did they sneak off to the bathroom and exchange cash? Or did they have this conversation in front of the card? "So look, you know who I am right?" Wink Wink. And yes, I know all about positions of power and how they work, but I think the best you'd get out of it was that they all had a misunderstanding that goes back to, exceptions to the rule make for big disasters that can be avoided with clear instructions at the player's meeting.
For whoever posts to correct my misunderstanding of the rules, Thanks! I am off rereading them for the first time in a year so I am thanking you now so you don't have to wait.
Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last time. Nor have I gone back to review rules or video so take it as you will.
I always had the fundamental understanding that one could rethrow from a previous lie. No matter what the outcome. Perhaps I am incorrect in this. If there is a rule for a hole that does not allow that, then it is a change from the standard PDGA rules, by my perhaps incorrect understanding, and someone should have had the caddy book to say nope, not allowed. If no one does, but someone like Nikko has said I can't, when I believe it is part of the rules that I can, then I'm taking my provisional until proven otherwise.
Again, perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding on DZ rules and they say specifically you aren't allowed to rethrow from your previous lie? At this point, I need to go and look.
If a TD then shows up and says, nope not allowed, then you can make an argument that I should finish the provisional, but I've played by the rules of the game, at least as I understand them.
If Paul throws and lands under the basket, and the rules don't allow it, then the provisional was good fun, but doesn't count, no matter what Paul or the TD wants. Arguing things that didn't happen is sort of a waste of time IMO.
In good fun, the notion that Paul colluded with the TD to get the "provisional throws" removed from his score seems a reach. Did they sneak off to the bathroom and exchange cash? Or did they have this conversation in front of the card? "So look, you know who I am right?" Wink Wink. And yes, I know all about positions of power and how they work, but I think the best you'd get out of it was that they all had a misunderstanding that goes back to, exceptions to the rule make for big disasters that can be avoided with clear instructions at the player's meeting.
For whoever posts to correct my misunderstanding of the rules, Thanks! I am off rereading them for the first time in a year so I am thanking you now so you don't have to wait.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Just listened to the video, clearly, Nikko said nothing at the retee. Paul, and perhaps others, thought there was a rule not allowing the retee, but he wasn't sure, so he took the provisional. Now, I couldn't hear the conversation that led up to the retee, but clearly someone said you can't. Again, in lieu of a caddy book, if someone is telling me no, and as Nikko points out at the DZ, you can, then I'm gonna take it as a provisional. I'd be foolish not to. Taking it as a straight throw under those conditions where someone is suggesting I can't, would have been stoopid.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Just as a note, Paul always called the retee the provisional. Steve Dodge wanted to call the DZ the provisional, a mistake on his part, but he acknowledged the issue quite clearly. "It isn't clear that a retee is allowed, therefore Paul took a provisional."
Last hashing up Terry and Steve for not liking what is going on here is kind of funny. It's like hashing on the guy who disagreed with you by taking out a personal attack on their character, as opposed to discussing the issue at hand. Attack the issue all you want, that's good fun, but calling Terry and Steve out because they find what goes on here to be silly is a bit much. If you want to say social media matters, well, yes it does. Should it? let me give you the links in social media to the don't eat bananas site.
Last hashing up Terry and Steve for not liking what is going on here is kind of funny. It's like hashing on the guy who disagreed with you by taking out a personal attack on their character, as opposed to discussing the issue at hand. Attack the issue all you want, that's good fun, but calling Terry and Steve out because they find what goes on here to be silly is a bit much. If you want to say social media matters, well, yes it does. Should it? let me give you the links in social media to the don't eat bananas site.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
This one I can't resist, sorry. The fact that Paul didn't like the DZ is the whole reason for the rule, throw from a previous lie. It's because you don't like where you are going to have to play from.
So I count 109 "999's", yikes! Even with over 1,000 players that seems like a big number.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Appears many of those DNFs "bought" the advertised awesome player pack and didn't spend the money to come to event. Not many real DNFs at least through yesterday. May be more not playing last round today, but we'll see.
onemilemore
* Ace Member *
I've got to politely disagree with you about World Tour and being able to avoid anything like this because it is overseas and without much media. Just because they aren't live doesn't mean they don't give copious hole-by-hole updates via social media - a strategy Pro Tour should think about emulating - and Facebook live feeds. In fact, I'd argue that more people follow World Tour online than do Pro Tour. How many people were watching yesterday? World Tour has had 2-3K easily on their Facebook live feeds.
I think it more comes down to the fact that World Tour has most of the courses and events relatively standardized. I know they have some island greens at World Tour events, but I think they have gone with standard rules for most layouts. Standard = less confusion = less attention on the quirks = more attention on the play.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of Dodge's social media and publicity strategy either, other than perhaps he is spread too thin with all of his duties this first year. After we wrote a piece criticizing their media strategy after the Silver Cup they made some adjustments, particularly on social media, so it was pretty easy to find info on the Majestic. But I will agree that Ledgestone hasn't been as well-publicized. Growing pains all around, but I hope people continue to hold these tours to higher standards so they are forced to grow and improve.
corin_brown
Eagle Member
I just watched the entire #6 debacle again. Effing hilarious. The entire affair occurred with no more professionalism, authority or clarity than if they were playing MA3 at a local, rinky-dink C-Tier.
Not once did anyone produce a caddy book. Not once did anyone produce a PDGA rule book. Not once did an official marshal or TD take control of the situation. Not once was there any organized & fair discussion among the entire card about how to proceed.
Steve Dodge was by far the most authoritative sounding voice during the incident, but it wasn't until later that I found out that he, in no way, was a TD for the tournament. So what, exactly, was he doing injecting himself into the discussion? I liked especially how he kept referring, with great confidence, to the "course director", whatever that is. This episode screamed out for the "TOURNAMENT director", not a "course director" or whatever role Steve Dodge was playing either.
Then someone showed up and produced a phone, claiming to have the word handed down from a TD, apparently. Then whatever "ruling" this phantom TD handed down was promptly subjected to an actual game of telephone until it trickled down to the players. Pretty comical stuff. I bet Jussi was laughing his ass off watching.
I feel badly for Nikko. Nikko had every right to feel aggrieved, but he's also to blame. He should have insisted to speak to an official TD to clarify what precise shot McBeth was playing before they proceeded. Instead, he decided to throw up his hands and whine about it for 30 minutes, plainly cursing on camera, wrecking what was to that point an excellent round and probably wrecking his tournament and further cementing his reputation, in the eyes of everyone who was watching, for being rash and unpredictable. Poor guy just can't figure it out.
Not once did anyone produce a caddy book. Not once did anyone produce a PDGA rule book. Not once did an official marshal or TD take control of the situation. Not once was there any organized & fair discussion among the entire card about how to proceed.
Steve Dodge was by far the most authoritative sounding voice during the incident, but it wasn't until later that I found out that he, in no way, was a TD for the tournament. So what, exactly, was he doing injecting himself into the discussion? I liked especially how he kept referring, with great confidence, to the "course director", whatever that is. This episode screamed out for the "TOURNAMENT director", not a "course director" or whatever role Steve Dodge was playing either.
Then someone showed up and produced a phone, claiming to have the word handed down from a TD, apparently. Then whatever "ruling" this phantom TD handed down was promptly subjected to an actual game of telephone until it trickled down to the players. Pretty comical stuff. I bet Jussi was laughing his ass off watching.
I feel badly for Nikko. Nikko had every right to feel aggrieved, but he's also to blame. He should have insisted to speak to an official TD to clarify what precise shot McBeth was playing before they proceeded. Instead, he decided to throw up his hands and whine about it for 30 minutes, plainly cursing on camera, wrecking what was to that point an excellent round and probably wrecking his tournament and further cementing his reputation, in the eyes of everyone who was watching, for being rash and unpredictable. Poor guy just can't figure it out.
Lyle, my friend, I'm not sure why you went to some of those places, but, I'll try again. I am not insinuating that Paul had anything to do with collusion with TDs or anything of the like. I am blaming the TDs for advantaging Paul in this situation. It wasn't Paul. And I'm not mad with anyone. I see it as a mistake -- one which for our sport, might have far-reaching ramifications (as far-reaching as a spot like disc golf can have), if the PDGA does not either correct it or affirm it (one way or the other) from the main office very soon. I plan on asking for a clarification.
#1 -- I don't think yours is a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules. Until yesterday I, and I think a lot of players, believed that you may throw from the previous lie with a one-throw penalty at any time, which is the exact wording of 803.02B. Apparently, today the rule is "any time except where the TD states otherwise," the italicized which is not in the rules. The far-reaching ramification is that it appears as if, a TD can now say something like this on his rules sheet/caddy book:
For holes 6, 9, 14, 17, and 18 there is no optional re-throw. Any throws that end up out-of-bounds, even from the putting circle *must* proceed to the designated drop zone."
I don't think that's what PDGA wants, but obviously today, I really don't know.
#2 -- I think PDGA and these TDs are on a slippery slope if they are asserting that a TD can "disallow" optional re-throw -- which is what they did. My point is that Paul wanted to throw from the tee because it is a better angle (even if longer) to access the circle. He pretty much said that.
#3 -- If Paul had thrown that re-tee right under the basket or perhaps aced it, he'd have been arguing that the rules DO allow it under 803.02B and that the TD can't take away optional re-throw -- and rightfully so. The issue there is that the rules do allow it; somehow we found out yesterday that the TD can override the rule. The problem with the provisional situation was they did something that was not equal for all cards -- the TDs made a ruling while this group was in the middle of the hole, and they can't physically be able to make such rulings for all groups. And even if ultimately the ruling came out the same, the card still should have played out both the provisional and the original both ways to completion -- and the TD should have ruled AFTER the round when the cards were turned in. By ruling mid-hole, the TDs advantaged Paul -- not at Paul's urging, but by the TDs's doing. That why Nikko started saying, "this is f---ing bull----!" But because of Nikko's history, his thoughts on the issue were ignored.
#4 -- I don't buy that Paul "didn't know" if he could re-tee or not. He knows the optional re-throw rule better than anyone, so yes he was gaming. I don't blame him for that. But he was on a card with Nikko Locastro (the only one who'd challenge him in reality), and Chris Dickerson (rookie of the year) and Tim Barham (regional pro). The other two guys weren't going to challenge McBeth on a ruling, so Nikko was left to fend for himself. When someone in Paul's camp said just call a provisional, then he realized that he'd probably get a free look at the outcome, because it was just him & Nikko -- the other two guys weren't saying anything.
In an event using multiple courses like this one, each course has to have a certified official serving as the on-site authority. To distinguish them from the official TD, they're usually called course directors. They still "report" to the TD in terms of heirarchy, but for the course in question, they are the defacto TD in terms of making rulings. Can't really expect one TD to be available and make decisions for 7 or 8 different courses like they use at the Ledgestone.
This event had the same type of problems last year with only 680 players. The event was originally scheduled to have 1236 players this year: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2896638#post2896638
Why try to host 1,236 players if you don't have appropriate courses and volunteers for 680 players? It appears the organizer of this event is more focused on having bragging rights to the "highest payout ever" and/or "largest event ever" rather than providing the best possible experience for all the competitors.
Here is what Paige Pierce posted about the Megiddo Course on Facebook:
Defenders say the players should be grateful for opportunity to win the "biggest payout ever". The organizers should be very grateful that only 898 players showed up for the first round instead of the 1007 players that actually registered! :hfive:
I don't recall seeing these types of complaints for Glass Blown Open, which hosted 1120 players on 6 courses or Bowling Green, which hosted 830 players on 10 courses.
It appears the end (Largest Payout Ever!) justifies the means (inappropriate courses with bizarre OB and throw & distance rules not allowed by the PDGA rules or Tour Standards).
Again, why would an event try to host over 1200 players when they don't have enough appropriate courses or volunteers to host 600 players?:wall:
Why try to host 1,236 players if you don't have appropriate courses and volunteers for 680 players? It appears the organizer of this event is more focused on having bragging rights to the "highest payout ever" and/or "largest event ever" rather than providing the best possible experience for all the competitors.
Here is what Paige Pierce posted about the Megiddo Course on Facebook:
Defenders say the players should be grateful for opportunity to win the "biggest payout ever". The organizers should be very grateful that only 898 players showed up for the first round instead of the 1007 players that actually registered! :hfive:
I don't recall seeing these types of complaints for Glass Blown Open, which hosted 1120 players on 6 courses or Bowling Green, which hosted 830 players on 10 courses.
It appears the end (Largest Payout Ever!) justifies the means (inappropriate courses with bizarre OB and throw & distance rules not allowed by the PDGA rules or Tour Standards).
Again, why would an event try to host over 1200 players when they don't have enough appropriate courses or volunteers to host 600 players?:wall:
That's exactly what I thought Chuck, it crossed my mind to do that too but I decided it was slimy to take a spot from someone who could actually play the event just for discounted merch.
Last edited:
DinosaurThunder
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,395
Did you have your tinfoil hat on for this statement? I think it's crazy to think he only got that call because he's Paul McBeth.
Paul was prepared to be shooting 3 or 5 based on however the ruling came out.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
This is one of the potential consequences when shifting toward "True Am" format with great player pack and less payout. I think selling player packs in advance of the event like a Mystery Box, where you don't have to register to play, would be a great way to help raise more money for events and provide additional exposure for sponsors with items in the packs. This way, the player is upfront that they don't intend to come and play.
It strikes me, as it does with any of these mega events, that they'd be better served to at the very least split the Pro and Am sides into different weekends if they want to have big fields. That's even with the ones that seem to pull off their events without a hitch (GBO, for example). I understand the big event or festival atmosphere they want to create, but IMO, a truly professional event should focus on the professionals first and foremost.
From the sound of Paige's critique (and she's not the only one I've seen on social media this weekend), the FPO division doesn't feel taken care of with the courses they've been given to play. That shouldn't be happening at this level of event.
This event seems to be trying to do more than it's capable of. The biggest payout in history is great. I don't think the tournament needs 1200 players or tricked out courses with odd rules to justify giving it out. Keep the biggest payout ever, scale everything else back a touch, focus it on the pros, and simplify the rules and it's still guaranteed to be a must-play on the tour.
Media links was the first post on the Worlds last week and now the Ledgestone Insurance Open. Just a thanks for making it easy to find the live feeds.
Thank you
onemilemore
* Ace Member *
And even the payout is a bit of a misnomer. I mean yes, all value added together they bring in the largest payout in history. But when a lot of that is player's pack value, I have a hard time getting excited about it being the "largest ever" payout. Just my opinion on that one, although the $7K for four days of disc golf in MPO is nothing to shake your fist at.
To your earlier point, Bradley Williams called it "circus golf" on Facebook. It's gotta put these top players in a tricky spot: Either go for the big payout and not enjoy the gameplay, or pass up the opportunity at a large payday because you don't like the courses. Not an easy choice to make when your livelihood rides on these events.
Similar threads
