Competition Manual 2011 Update

[Bruce Brakel]

The Competition Manual is intended to contain those rules regarding running and playing sanctioned tournaments that do not apply to non-sanctioned play.  Hence, the dog rule, the cart rule, the dress code, and the two-minute warning are all contained in the Competition Manual and not in the rule book.  The ten meter rule and the mando rule belong in the Rule Book, because those rules apply whenever you are playing disc golf by the rules.

In my role as a member of the PDGA Competition Committee I'd like to solicit input from TDs and rules zealots as to items regarding the Competition Manual you think

-- need to be changed
-- need to be added
-- ought to be deleted
-- could be reworded for clarity
-- or anything like that

Feel free to indicate whether you are a TD or a rules zealot.   

[damonshort]

In my last round Sunday the 3rd guy didn't show. Tom said we should split up after the 1st hole and each join the groups in front and behind us. I completely agreed - it made sense - but I figured it was covered in the Manual. (not that the two are necessarily connected, of course.) I don't see it in the current edition; is this specifically addressed anywhere?

[Bruce Brakel]

In the Competition Manual:

C. To promote fairness, groups shall not
be less than three players, except under
extenuating circumstances, as deemed
necessary by the director. In cases where fewer
than three players are required to play together
players, an official is required to accompany
the group and may play as long as this does not
interfere with the competing players.

It does not have the "break up and join different groups" procedure, but that is the best thing to do. 

[Bruce Brakel]

Tomorrow I will add that to my list of stuff that should be in there.

[damonshort]

...right, I knew about 'paragraph C' but I thought the corollary would be in there too.

[Jon Brakel]

Krupicka had a better idea. The two of them joined the threesome in front of them to make a fivesome and then played until the threesome behind them caught up. It was a flow issue. Had one of them dropped back they would have had to walk the distance of half the course because of a three hole gap behind them. Once the threesome caught up they split into two foursomes.

[stpitner]

I'd like to see a firmer ruling on the 2-meter rule instead of a wishy washy "you can have it if you want it"  It's either a rule or it's not!

With all of the different discs out in the world - how is one supposed to know if the person is using something that is approved or not?  eg. TeeBird Plus, Star Roc Plus - they supposedly slightly changed the mold, and are they still approved?  That's not so much rules, but maybe in the competition manual as far as variants of common discs and what to do in those situations.

as I think of more I'll post.

[Tom McManus]

Krupicka had a better idea. The two of them joined the threesome in front of them to make a fivesome and then played until the threesome behind them caught up. It was a flow issue. Had one of them dropped back they would have had to walk the distance of half the course because of a three hole gap behind them. Once the threesome caught up they split into two foursomes.

Why is that a better idea?

[Jon Brakel]

Krupicka had a better idea. The two of them joined the threesome in front of them to make a fivesome and then played until the threesome behind them caught up. It was a flow issue. Had one of them dropped back they would have had to walk the distance of half the course because of a three hole gap behind them. Once the threesome caught up they split into two foursomes.

Why is that a better idea?

It was a better idea for that situation. Since there was a three hole gap behind them, it was the equivalent of having one person have to walk back the length of half the course. He would have missed a hole or two just walking back. Plus sometimes a particular group winds up with a couple of slower people in them. Had the group behind them been one of those slow groups then the fivesome might never have been caught up with. It's a self correcting flow of play solution.

If there is no gap behind you then it would seem easier to split right away.

[Chainmeister]

It seems like a better idea in hindsight but not in practice.  in hindsight a double move- first a fivesome then later two forusomes-might flow better. However, the scorecard confusion would baffle most players.  Here, the two players immediately recognized the problem and made one move early in the round that remedied the problem. I wasn't there but suspect the guy who went to the group behind had to play his last hole alone while the rest of the group (which had played it as their first hole)  watched and the guy who went forward just watched while his new group played their last hole which had been his first.  I also think that since they had not called your cell phone, which was in the handbook, they needed to make the simplest move to avoid confounding the TD and risking the iimplementation of Murphy's law which in its corrollary stresses that "no good deed goes unpunished."

[pickax]

What happened was we had two on hole 13 and three on hole 12. There were empty holes for miles on either side of the groups. By playing as a five some until the next threesome caught up, holes were still played in order and if the third player for hole 13 showed up, the group would have split back off as a threesome. Once we got to 15, the threesome was teeing off on hole 14. One stayed behind and we made two foursomes at that time.

This procedure made perfect sense on a course with lots of gaps in the cards, if this was for a pool with a full field, then the one forward/one back procedure would have been used. One of the interesting problems with splitting a card is what to do if the third player shows up late. How many holes have they missed and should be penalized for? It's possible that the player moved back a hole may just be getting to his starting hole as the late player arrives. What's the penalty?

[pickax]

The score card confusion wasn't bad. The twosome kept their own card until we split them apart. When we split them, we transferred the scores of the player moving ahead to the card he was walking with and the player waiting up for the next card kept the scorecard with him and transferred it to the card he was joining.

Both players actually had a couple of holes to play solo. One had to play 12, the other 10,11,12. We stuck with the one playing 12, Brett walked with the other that had to play three holes.

[Chainmeister]

The score card confusion wasn't bad. The twosome kept their own card until we split them apart. When we split them, we transferred the scores of the player moving ahead to the card he was walking with and the player waiting up for the next card kept the scorecard with him and transferred it to the card he was joining.

Both players actually had a couple of holes to play solo. One had to play 12, the other 10,11,12. We stuck with the one playing 12, Brett walked with the other that had to play three holes.

When done by the TD its fine either way. I was assuming the players trying to do this on their own.

[pickax]

This was the novice division, but I was the one directing traffic. 

[Jon Brakel]

Either way they did it that Novice player would have had two or three holes to play by himself. The most gracious part of this story is that when Brett was going to walk with this player to finish his holes while the pros were getting ready to play the course they told Brett to just let the Novice player finish his 3 holes with their group. That was over the top cool of those guys!

[airspuds]

had this happen both days at the worlds where we had tee off times
and it was 2 threesomes to start then 4 somes
group in front was pro woman master leaders

we had official walk with us ,   would have made more sense to start as  5 some now
that i see this thread

both players missed at least hole 1   ,  one missed 2   i think , never good to start a round on gold 3 ;  then he threw to silver 3 basket   ,  uh  baskets over there  guy 

odd way to start a round with tee times
it was handled well  by the officials

[Tom McManus]

I contacted the PDGA about the officials exam and the affliate club program and this was the response that I received:

Tom,


Sorry - but the test is not an ACP benefit this year.  All TDs are getting free testing from the PDGA this year - so they pulled it as an ACP benefit.  Pleas contact the Tour Mgr. about details.


Thanks, Cliff Towne
PDGA Affiliate Club Program

[The Bogey Man]

Hahahaha figures.

[KenGmoney1]

I contacted them and they gave me a password to take the test for free. Just passed it yesterday!

[dana]

Funny, I contacted them and they never got back to me.  They haven't put the event on the tourpage yet either.

It reminds me of the time I emailed them (PDGA) in November and never heard back from them.

Pisses me off.