-
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)
Ask PDGA Board Member Peter Shive
- Thread starter shive
- Start date
That thread was epic. Pete, you should find and review that thread because I doubt there's anything else that could possibly be said on the subject.
You should also probably avoid rules change discussions in a thread such as this one, or that's all you'll end up with.
My vote's in the "choice" column, but I'd like to take your principle here a bit further.
There are probably other ways the PDGA can loosen the reins on TDs.
The PDGA sets up the divisions, and allows TDs to decide which divisions to provide at an event, as long as it's announced in advance. I think this is good.
Might it also be applied to payouts? The PDGA could set the standard 50% payout, and TDs could change it to, say, paying the top 25%, as long as he announces it in advance?
Perhaps in other ways as well?
This would allow TDs to be innovative and players to make the ultimate decision. But players would still know what to expect from a PDGA sanctioned event: the usual standards, unless advertised otherwise.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
td freedom all the way.
Lewis
* Ace Member *
I have never been a member of the PDGA. The main reason I have not joined is that I do not play many sanctioned events. There are plenty around, but it just isn't my preferred way to play these days. However, another consideration for me is whom the PDGA's target customer is. Not being a professional disc golfer, I tend to expect the Professional-DGA's goals are oriented towards serving pro dgers. Is that an accurate expectation? If not, how do you address the possibility that "what's in a name" might discourage membership among amateurs?
The PDGA, and its tournaments, are overwhelmingly populated by amateurs. By which I mean, players competing in amateur divisions. By some definitions of "professional", it's 99.8% amateurs.
I don't know how much the name matters to non-members. Members were polled on it a number of years ago, and most of us Ams voted to keep the name.
I don't know how much the name matters to non-members. Members were polled on it a number of years ago, and most of us Ams voted to keep the name.
shive
Par Member
What reasonable freedoms would you like?
to mfcastillo17:
I totally agree about the absolute importance of TD's. Here's how I put it earlier (post#33):
"TD's are our most important resource, more important even than the PDGA. Think about it. What would be worse, to have the PDGA disappear completely, or to have TD's disappear completely? Most of us joined the PDGA because we love to play in structured competitive events, so we revere TD's and want to encourage them as much as possible."
We've been talking lately about choice vs. freedom. And not just for the two-meter rule, but in the wider sense. That is, would TD's rather have the PDGA set the structure of sanctioned competition, or would they rather have as much freedom as possible to make choices at the local level?
From just the limited sample so far, I get the distinct impression that, while choice can sometimes be a burden, most TD's can accept that and would prefer the freedom.
The question then becomes, "How much freedom can the PDGA reasonably extend?" Very complicated issue. For starters, the PDGA has defined certain big-time events as "PDGA-owned", and argues that it then has the right to set strict conditions (ie, no nonmembers, smoking restrictions, rules variance requirements, etc). It's a sort of "if you take the money, you take the orders" argument.
There are only about twenty PDGA-owned events, and over 1500 other events, so most of our concern here is with these smaller tournaments. So, for prospective or veteran TD's of these events (A-Tier and down), what are the reasonable freedoms that you would like to have that you don't have now? I know some of you have already suggested some. I want more.
to mfcastillo17:
I totally agree about the absolute importance of TD's. Here's how I put it earlier (post#33):
"TD's are our most important resource, more important even than the PDGA. Think about it. What would be worse, to have the PDGA disappear completely, or to have TD's disappear completely? Most of us joined the PDGA because we love to play in structured competitive events, so we revere TD's and want to encourage them as much as possible."
We've been talking lately about choice vs. freedom. And not just for the two-meter rule, but in the wider sense. That is, would TD's rather have the PDGA set the structure of sanctioned competition, or would they rather have as much freedom as possible to make choices at the local level?
From just the limited sample so far, I get the distinct impression that, while choice can sometimes be a burden, most TD's can accept that and would prefer the freedom.
The question then becomes, "How much freedom can the PDGA reasonably extend?" Very complicated issue. For starters, the PDGA has defined certain big-time events as "PDGA-owned", and argues that it then has the right to set strict conditions (ie, no nonmembers, smoking restrictions, rules variance requirements, etc). It's a sort of "if you take the money, you take the orders" argument.
There are only about twenty PDGA-owned events, and over 1500 other events, so most of our concern here is with these smaller tournaments. So, for prospective or veteran TD's of these events (A-Tier and down), what are the reasonable freedoms that you would like to have that you don't have now? I know some of you have already suggested some. I want more.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
One of the reasons I play PDGA tournaments, is that I have a reasonable idea of certain standards. Making things too loose diminishes this.
That said, one recent change tightening up the freedom of TDs by the BOD should be revisited. TDs now need to get approval by the tour director for cases where we may mark a certain OB area such that you must go to the drop zone. This is really unnecessary.
That said, one recent change tightening up the freedom of TDs by the BOD should be revisited. TDs now need to get approval by the tour director for cases where we may mark a certain OB area such that you must go to the drop zone. This is really unnecessary.
Sadjo
* Ace Member *
PETER:
I have one suggestion that would help raise more sponsor dollars for local tournaments. I have run several tournaments over the years and I get asked regularly for a list of where players come from...park departments, city councils, CVBs and others. Small towns like when people from out of town come to visit when the attraction is something other than family.
On the PDGA tournament schedule and results I'd like to see once a tournament has started or is over for the players city and state to still be listed. I ran an event in November and was asked after the event to provide a list of players and where they were from to the city council. They wanted the information to see if it would be worthwhile to invest more into courses and/or events. It would be easier to get that information if the city and state of players was still included following a tournament.
Thanks for your service.
I have one suggestion that would help raise more sponsor dollars for local tournaments. I have run several tournaments over the years and I get asked regularly for a list of where players come from...park departments, city councils, CVBs and others. Small towns like when people from out of town come to visit when the attraction is something other than family.
On the PDGA tournament schedule and results I'd like to see once a tournament has started or is over for the players city and state to still be listed. I ran an event in November and was asked after the event to provide a list of players and where they were from to the city council. They wanted the information to see if it would be worthwhile to invest more into courses and/or events. It would be easier to get that information if the city and state of players was still included following a tournament.
Thanks for your service.
I second both points.
For the first, it's why in many cases I prefer keeping the rule, but allowing the TD to vary if he announces in advance. Players should know what to expect.
For the second, I find this to be a step in the wrong direction. Especially since I don't know what the process for approval is going to be. Do I have to submit maps? Measurements? An essay justifying the mandatory drop zone? Is this necessary?
skottyb
Eagle Member
Really where did I state in my responses that I wanted freedom and not rules? Please by all means show me. I think a RULE shouldn't be optional but that's my take on it. I guess I'll just receive snippy comments back from now on?
Last edited:
I think Pete said you want rule over freedom.
Without opening the whole debate on 2-meter, but just on the idea that a "RULE shouldn't be optional"---this is the same to me as O.B. We have rules about out-of-bounds, but the TD determines whether to declare anything O.B. or not. The O.B. rule doesn't say all water or all pavement or everything over fences is O.B. Same with 2-meter; the rule is there and TD decides whether it applies to all trees, some trees, or no trees.
Pete,
I don't know the legalities with the vendors, but if possible I'd like the PDGA to resume publishing SSAs for courses.
I don't know the legalities with the vendors, but if possible I'd like the PDGA to resume publishing SSAs for courses.
Sadjo
The information you are requesting about player hometowns is ALREADY available on the PDGA event pages.
Before an event, the player's City, State and Country are all listed in sort-able columns. http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/98787
After and event, hold your cursor over the player name on the results page, and the hometown info is visible in the pop-up. http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/97863
Last edited:
Yes, but if he'd like to print it out and show to the city/village/township/etc... council, it's not going to show up.
skottyb
Eagle Member
He said " Now you say that you want the rules, and not the freedom." I was just debating the fact that I never said either, no biggie though. I was just saying it'd be nice to have a clear cut definition, and I'm aware this isn't always plausible. Good point David.
Sadjo
* Ace Member *
I'm talking about an easy way to get that information to councils or boards that request it. It also would make it easier to send a link to the person that asked the question to see that info for themselves in an easy fashion.
Can't you just print the list before the event when the names and cities and states are listed?
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
That only works if everyone is pre-registered. The names/cities are not shown once the first day of the tournament arrives. (Peter, sorry for the thread drift).
