Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
If you're late, TD has already adjusted group sizes whether you show up or not. If you bail mid-round, your group might be down to 2 players who have to scramble to regroup.
-
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)
Worlds Par
- Thread starter Steve West
- Start date
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Not that I'm slower than most, but I see your point. As before, if we are keeping track across divisions, this is more of a problem. Yep, I understand equity, it is after all, the American way.... How much work do you make if you have a tiered penalty? That would be the issue for me since while the equity thing is important, it isn't going to impact the top tiers. Yes, some rec player who misses a hole might then win by a stroke, but that is less important than if a pro did the same.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
why is that?
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,072
If we're talking about PDGA Rules and PDGA Sanctioned events, then I disagree.
Maybe the Rulebook definition needs to be updated to something like:
PAR - As determined by the Director, the score an expert [in their division] disc golfer would be expected to make on a given hole with errorless play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two throws from close range to hole out.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
If you're talking absolute morality, egos, philosophy, or the American way, they are exactly the same, if you're talking about impact on the sport and it's growth, they aren't.
The rule of + 4 is applied evenly across a division. Each player within the division is treated the same. The PDGA could write a rule making the punishment knowingly harsher for pro divisions, pros get +5 and ams get +3. We might not like it, but as long as the rule is applied evenly within the division, that is fine. You can argue with the PDGA about how unfair it is, and people argue all the time, and the PDGA might even change it, but you can't say the rule was applied unfairly against you and for the guys you are competing directly against.
BTW for all practical purposes, TDs move money from lower brackets via markups all the time. They also treat different age brackets differently all the time in fees and payout. This is one of Pete's arguments.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I've thought a better way to handle late players is a normal misplay of +2 per late hole but capped at 2 holes. You miss more than 2 holes, it's a DNS (Did Not Start).
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I'm assuming you'd make them play the hole? I like that resolution. Very nice, even all ways easy to do except, they have to play those holes and someone needs to hand hold. Still, solves the problem.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I'm suggesting Par+2 with out them playing the hole(s). But I could also see making them play one or two holes at the end instead and tacking on 2 per hole.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I'm kind of slow, but doesn't solution one leave you the same, with just a lower penalty?
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Yes, but it reduces non-throwing related penalties which get included in player's scores used for ratings calculations. It would be nice if we could get scores without those penalties included, strictly for ratings calculations. But that would be a hassle both for TDs and for data management on the web site.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Thanks. I suspect some may still think it unfair, but from a perspective of the game it seems good to me.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,857
I'd bet we'll soon see a requirement or an incentive for all scoring being done on something like PDGA Live or Udisc Live, with penalties (not just number, but type) and other stats included in the data.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
That penalty is vastly insufficient for missing over 10% of a round. Any player who actually plays a hole but plays it very poorly is likely to meet or exceed it scorewise.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
...but they will suck up all the bandwidth...
i certainly hope you are wrong but i would not be surprised to see the pdga incentivize it- i would be shocked to see them require it however.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
That may be. But the fundamental aspect of this judgment is how to balance keeping late players in the game versus simply DQing them like ball golf. It seems foolish to provide such a harsh par+4 penalty if the goal is keep a player participating and in contention. Just DQ after so many holes missed.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
Who says the goal is to keep them in the game? IMO they should be effectively eliminated from contention by failing to show.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Then why not DQ them? Less hassle for group and TD whether player will arrive late. The par+4, which was par+3 a while back, is clearly a way to potentially keep the player in the round.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
I said to dq them way up the thread and that is exactly what I believe should occur. Cut and dried and inarguably fair. Scorecard errors should also be a dq for that matter.
In spades.
Respect for the sport (by the players AND the unknowing public) is earned by tough standards, not by coddling players. If we (the PDGA) lose 'a player or 3' because we're "too tough on them", too bad; it'll be a valuable lesson that they'd learn some other way / time (and probably more painful, too). Are we that desperate for money that we base rules on participation numbers? God I hope not....
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
So, Sarah should have been DQed? Harsh, very harsh. But hey it would be easier.... Chuck, told ya so.
Similar threads
