Ask PDGA Board Member Peter Shive

[bombmk]

@Garrett76zt - Peter asked me to respond. The SSA data displayed as a big list for each course is unlikely to return to the PDGA website for competitive reasons per PDGA Board request. It's too easy to sweep the information for others to try and duplicate the PDGA ratings system which is an important member benefit. The SSA info is still available indirectly for those who wish to use it by looking for the score nearest 1000 rating on the courses played in events. A modified version as noted is used in the PDGA app for calculating ratings.

Secret sauce in the ranking will not do if this sport ever makes it into a decent spotlight.

A ball golfer can maintain his/her own handicap without any help or membership from the PGA. I would argue that it actually involves the player more and increases the chances of him/her joining the PGA.

As a member it annoys me more that the process/result is not completely transparent than a non-member being able to calculate his own rating would (that latter annoyance would be a big zero, so not easy to beat).

 

[shive]

Ratings Manipulation Addressed

Everyone:

The PDGA has just announced a new policy, effective immediately, to deal with "tanking" (deliberately inflating round scores) and DNF's intended to preserve ratings. Please read the PDGA front page article and post questions if you are uncertain about the intent of the policy or how it works.

 

[mashnut]

I notice that for ams you specifically make it so that this penalty won't drop them down a division. Would it make sense to have the same qualification for pros at the 970 threshold where a pro would be able to play am?

 

[dx_roc]

The PDGA Board has asked the Statistics Committee to develop procedures with the goal to improve player compliance with the Competition Player Misconduct Rule 3.3 B(13) Deliberately seeking to manipulate ones player rating through intentional misplay or withdrawal.

While most DNFs result from obvious and legitimate causes such as serious injury or serious, unavoidable situations, some have also been attempts at manipulation, which were clear to fellow competitors and staff. The same is true of tanking (adding unnecessary throws in order to inflate a round score). Historically, these cases have been underreported for two primary reasons. It's currently not easy for other players and TDs to report the player and a specific penalty for not complying with the rule has never been listed.

Beginning in the 2013 competitive season, there will be a new result code (888) that TDs will enter on the TD report for the round score when players or TD wish to report their consensus that a player clearly attempted to have their round dropped to protect their rating by either not completing a round or by padding their score with extra throws.

We realize that this in some cases may be a judgement call, but we also ask the TD and the group to make other important judgment calls in our rules. We also feel that the players on the card and the TD are in the best position of anyone to provide vigilance on these practices.

Pros who receive an 888 will get a 5-pt rating deduction in the first ratings update after that event gets officially reported and that deduction will continue until the ratings update at least 6 months later. Ams will receive a rating deduction up to 5 pts or to the extent it does not drop them into a lower division. This deduction will also continue for at least 6 months.

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.

The Statistics Committee will also be tracking DNFs, Tanking and 888 codes this coming season to determine if any further actions are necessary. The intention, of course, is not simply to punish such unsportsmanlike and unprofessional behavior, but rather to draw attention to it and eliminate it from our play. We believe that this goal can be achieved with cooperation of players and event staff. We also trust that this policy will remove the perceived rating benefit of not finishing a round or taking excessive throws. The penalty, while not a very serious or long lasting one, is intended to achieve that purpose.

Additionally, we expect these procedures to improve player behavior in regards to informing staff when they intend to not participate in a round of play. This behavior is unprofessional and organizationally disruptive, but is not currently addressed in the rules.

 

[shive]

ratings manipulation

mashnut:

Good question. We thought about it, and decided not to put too much on our plate this time around. This is a trail year, and we will be looking very carefully at the effects of this policy. Perhaps it won't work well at all, in which case we would consider some sort of Plan B. Perhaps it will work well except that there are too many pros whose penalties drop them into a more favorable position to compete against Ams.

What would we do then? Well, we might tweak the policy in just the way you are suggesting. But we might also consider abolishing the current policy of "Pros Playing as Ams".

 

[DiscJunkie]

Is 5 points enough to deter this behavior?

 

[bombmk]

Is 5 points enough to deter this behavior?

Does not sound like a lot - but probably more than a bad round would actually do to the rating on average.

 

[shive]

DiscJunkie and bombmk:

Another good question. We can't know ahead of time how much penalty is required to deter this behavior. Our entry level thought was first to remove the incentive for the behavior by instituting a very small penalty. If there is no longer any advantage to the behavior, a very small penalty should suffice. We didn't want overkill on our first pass.

Again, 2013 is a trial year. We will look very closely at the results of this policy. If the basic idea looks sound, we can tweak the details (like the size of the penalty) later.

 

[Widdershins]

The PDGA Board has asked the Statistics Committee to develop procedures with the goal to improve player compliance with the Competition Player Misconduct Rule 3.3 B(13) Deliberately seeking to manipulate ones player rating through intentional misplay or withdrawal.

While most DNFs result from obvious and legitimate causes such as serious injury or serious, unavoidable situations, some have also been attempts at manipulation, which were clear to fellow competitors and staff. The same is true of tanking (adding unnecessary throws in order to inflate a round score). Historically, these cases have been underreported for two primary reasons. It's currently not easy for other players and TDs to report the player and a specific penalty for not complying with the rule has never been listed.

Beginning in the 2013 competitive season, there will be a new result code (888) that TDs will enter on the TD report for the round score when players or TD wish to report their consensus that a player clearly attempted to have their round dropped to protect their rating by either not completing a round or by padding their score with extra throws.

We realize that this in some cases may be a judgement call, but we also ask the TD and the group to make other important judgment calls in our rules. We also feel that the players on the card and the TD are in the best position of anyone to provide vigilance on these practices.

Pros who receive an 888 will get a 5-pt rating deduction in the first ratings update after that event gets officially reported and that deduction will continue until the ratings update at least 6 months later. Ams will receive a rating deduction up to 5 pts or to the extent it does not drop them into a lower division. This deduction will also continue for at least 6 months.

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.

The Statistics Committee will also be tracking DNFs, Tanking and 888 codes this coming season to determine if any further actions are necessary. The intention, of course, is not simply to punish such unsportsmanlike and unprofessional behavior, but rather to draw attention to it and eliminate it from our play. We believe that this goal can be achieved with cooperation of players and event staff. We also trust that this policy will remove the perceived rating benefit of not finishing a round or taking excessive throws. The penalty, while not a very serious or long lasting one, is intended to achieve that purpose.

Additionally, we expect these procedures to improve player behavior in regards to informing staff when they intend to not participate in a round of play. This behavior is unprofessional and organizationally disruptive, but is not currently addressed in the rules.

Help me out with an analysis here. There are two obvious cases where a player might want to lower their handicap rating: 1) an Amateur rated at level where they just barely MUST play Am 1 (I think that number is 935 at the moment) but would like to drop down to Am 2 in the future to sandbag against the easier competition or 2) a Pro rated at 970 who would like to drop down to Am 1 in the future for easy pickings. Each player need only drop their rating by 1 point to be allowed to sandbag.

Each player starts a tournament and is having such a bad round that they realize they have no real chance of cashing so they decide to tank the round to lower their handicap so next tourney they can win easily. They proceed to purposely play poorly (4 putting every hole is an easy to to accomplish this, btw) so under the new policy (888) their next rating is reduced by 5 points. Isn't the penalty giving them just what they want?

Under the former policies (2012 and before) there was some vague, unknown or at least poorly understood level where the Chuck Kennedy psuedo-statistical analysis declares the round is at too great a variance to be counted in future ratings. So if a player sandbags just enough it lowers their rating but too much sandbagging and it doesn't count at all.

So rather than the current policy where no one without an advanced degree in math knows how much to sandbag to be effective, the new rules allows anyone to lower their rating just by being obvious?

Did I miss something here?

 

[Scoot_er]

Is 5 points enough to deter this behavior?

It is enough to reduce the accuracy of PDGA ratings!

I have seen this happen maybe 3 times in 12 years.....not sure why the PDGA needs to step in.

 

[bombmk]

xxxx

 

[bombmk]

H.
Isn't the penalty giving them just what they want?

"Ams will receive a rating deduction up to 5 pts or to the extent it does not drop them into a lower division."

The Pro going Am would still be possible though.

 

[jeverett]

It is enough to reduce the accuracy of PDGA ratings!

I have seen this happen maybe 3 times in 12 years.....not sure why the PDGA needs to step in.

It wouldn't affect the accuracy of ratings.. the -5 rating, in order to be consistently applied for the full 6 months, would need to be applied after the actual rating calculations. i.e. players would have a 'real' rating, and it would be modified by -5 while the penalty is in effect.

 

[Garrett76zt]

@Garrett76zt - Peter asked me to respond. The SSA data displayed as a big list for each course is unlikely to return to the PDGA website for competitive reasons per PDGA Board request. It's too easy to sweep the information for others to try and duplicate the PDGA ratings system which is an important member benefit. The SSA info is still available indirectly for those who wish to use it by looking for the score nearest 1000 rating on the courses played in events. A modified version as noted is used in the PDGA app for calculating ratings.

Thanks for the response. Are notations about course layout, number of holes and weather/conditions too much info to give out?

 

[discreid]

Help me out with an analysis here. There are two obvious cases where a player might want to lower their handicap rating: 1) an Amateur rated at level where they just barely MUST play Am 1 (I think that number is 935 at the moment) but would like to drop down to Am 2 in the future to sandbag against the easier competition or 2) a Pro rated at 970 who would like to drop down to Am 1 in the future for easy pickings. Each player need only drop their rating by 1 point to be allowed to sandbag.

Each player starts a tournament and is having such a bad round that they realize they have no real chance of cashing so they decide to tank the round to lower their handicap so next tourney they can win easily. They proceed to purposely play poorly (4 putting every hole is an easy to to accomplish this, btw) so under the new policy (888) their next rating is reduced by 5 points. Isn't the penalty giving them just what they want?

Under the former policies (2012 and before) there was some vague, unknown or at least poorly understood level where the Chuck Kennedy psuedo-statistical analysis declares the round is at too great a variance to be counted in future ratings. So if a player sandbags just enough it lowers their rating but too much sandbagging and it doesn't count at all.

So rather than the current policy where no one without an advanced degree in math knows how much to sandbag to be effective, the new rules allows anyone to lower their rating just by being obvious?

Did I miss something here?

The rule isn't intended to stop people who want to lower their rating. It's to prevent people from quitting or tanking a bad round to preserve their rating.

 

[U_NICED_ME]

I have maintained an "Ask Board Member Peter Shive" thread on the PDGA Discussion Board since I was elected in September 2011. I do it because I feel that I should be accountable to the PDGA membership, and because I learn from the members' questions and the related discussions.

I am starting a similar thread here for several reasons. I think I have the time. We'll see. This Forum has more vitality. The PDGA Discussion Board has not yet rebounded even though the PDGA website has been vastly improved over the last few months. Also, I'm interested in questions and comments from players who are not PDGA members. We'd like to make the PDGA more attractive to nonmembers, and I can probably learn a great deal from their perspective.

So ask away, and I will do the best I can, subject to the considerations discussed in posts #1 and #7 of my thread on the PDGA Discussion Board.

Hi Peter. Ultimately, I realize the PDGA has very little to do w/Disc Golfer magazine but I have no idea how to contact any of the editors and I'm assuming you do.

I think it's about time for Elaine King to be on the cover of Disc Golfer. She is a 5x World Champ, she's still kicking @ss out there on tour, and she runs a Women's Clinic here in North Carolina free of charge. She helps so many women in our area and my game has improved 10-Fold this year. **I got the good attendance award in 2012**

These young girls on the AM tour piss me off not knowing who Elaine is. She is a model for all us. I almost think of her as the Roger Federer of Women's Disc Golf. She's got longevity, good form, and she'll always be in the mix.

It's time for some more Human Interest Stories. You've seen the response to the JK story. People like it!

 

[Cgkdisc]

A couple things here. The exercise to figure out a way to penalize PRO players from DNFing or tanking to preserve their rating and not screw up the ratings process covered wide ranging options. In Europe and a few high level events in the U.S., events use minimum ratings to determine who can initially enter them. Pros had been reported to DNF or tank rounds to preserve their rating to help make sure they could get in. In Europe, there are fewer events and options for lower rated players to play and many evevnts don't yet offer Am divisions at all. So players with ratings even below 900 must enter Open.

The only direct reason Ams got involved is that DNFing has various levels of unsportsman-like behavior depending on the reason. So Ams were included in the new ruling. Interestingly, the Disciplinary Committee has dealt with more ams than pros regarding regarding manipulation to protect their rating, not trying to drop their rating.

Since there's no ratings cap on Advanced versus all other Am levels, there was minimal concern regarding pros dropping their rating below 970. And they would still be prevented from entering Am Majors.

We're using a player's current "real" rating for ratings calculations, not their displayed rating that may have a penalty.

 

[shive]

Disc Golfer Magazine editor

to U NICED ME:

Actually, the PDGA publishes Disc Golfer Magazine. You can contact the editor at [email protected].

 

[munky]

Welcome to the board Pete. Since you are asking, I cannot seem to get action on getting my 2012 membership packet. I have emailed several times in an attempt to get this, to no avail. I know it is trivial, yet the key tags display so proudly in my office. I am on a five year membership, number 17958
If there is anything you can do, that would be great. If not, so be it, perhaps the PDGA could start working on my 2013 now. I don't know if anyone else has had this problem.

Bro, I am STILL waiting on my renewal package from 2012 and its now 2013!!!! Good luck on ever getting it. I have sent several emails to Sara about this and am still waiting. How hard is it to put a little piece of metal and a rules book in an envelope and mail it to me/us?

 

[shive]

munky:

I know that Executive Director Brian Graham is extremely concerned about cases like yours. If other recourses have failed, please send an email directly to him, and he should be able to handle it personally and promptly.