I heard there was a really good rules issue at the USDGC today, something the five rulebooks really don't answer. However, I only have half the story. I encouraged a witness to flesh out the details and post about it, but maybe he doesn't want to make an issue. If you're there and you know all about it, fill us in...

For bonus points, see if you can list at least five PDGA documents or anthologies that purport to be authoritative as to the rules.

OK I'll play along

PDGA Rule Book
Competition Manual
Rules Q&A
TD Sanctioning agreement
Caddy book or specific tourney rules

A player throws his drive on 10 and goes for the green. He lands his drive in bounds, 20 ft from the basket. Note: You cannot see the green/ground from the tee so there is a spotter. Also, this is a BUNCR hole. The spotter gives him the OB Red Flag. The Player then throws safely to the lay up spot and then safely throws over to the green. Upon walking up to the green, he and his group notice that his first disc is actually in bounds (20ft from the basket!).

Should be a 4 either way you rule it. If the spotter was a certified official then the erroneous call stands and its a 1 to the green 2 to lay-up 3 to green 4 in the bucket. If the spotter is not an official its 1 to the green, practice throw lay up, practice throw to the green, putt from original lie into the bucket.

But I'm willing to bet a dollar that I know what ended up being called: it wasn't fair that the spotter wasn't perfect so the player was allowed to take a two and not count all the throws. I'll even bet another quarter that someone somehow decided to retro-actively call the layup and shots to the green "provisionals", even though there is no way in heck they were provisionals.

Am I right? :D

This brings up a very sticky point. Spotters are by definition given official status as it applies to calling the spot of the disc. They are always right on the course, even when they are wrong. The call on the course should stand. The player should play out the first shot as a provisional, and carry everything to the TD for final decision.

What DGer has the balz to defy the official, declare
the next shot a provisional, (what you got to loose?!?!?!)
a provisional shot has less pressure, it may not count....
trim the strokes...

Spotters are by definition given official status as it applies to calling the spot of the disc.

I must've missed that rules update, because even the biggest tourneys I play have to scrounge to get help (for everyplace other than the MPO leader card) and I've been told plenty of times that the spotter is just helping but the group makes the real call.

It works because when you see the spotter paying attention you his mark seems reasonable you don't question it, but sometimes (since they are just people helping out) they don't know what to do or are talking or daydreaming and the group figures it out.

Didn't hear about the above posted example this year...

BUT..

I do know a player who on 888 a few years ago (before the Bunc'r) threw a shot over the road and skip up on the curb edge and the spotter gave the red flag.

The player chose to re-tee as his drop would have only been 10 - 15 feet down the fairway. He throws another drive over the road, no where near IB.

The same happens for a third time and then I believe for a fourth time as well, but def. at least three.

He finally gets his 4th/5th (7th or 9th stroke) drive in bounds and then sees that his first shot, which was never touched or moved, was actually IB.

His group thought, and logic told you, that they would be practice throws and he would play his first shot with those practice throws. He finished the hole from his first drive.

After much debate from the staff, the "practice" shots were erased from his score b/c it was a situation where the player would have normally called a provisional on each of his "practice" shots but didn't b/c of the spotter saying OB.

My best friend and player I caddied for this weekend, Justin Jernigan, had a VERY unfortunate incident occur that most players, especially top players, would have flipped their lid about and caused a scene, so kudos to Justin for only do so to me on the phone after the round - lol..

Anyway...

On hole 15 he didn't make the corner and tried to throw threw the OB to the green (similar to what Nate did during the final round for those who saw that).

He informed the spotter of his intentions and asked him to move, to which the guy did. As he throws, the disc, not thrown exactly like Justin intended to, starts going for the spotter. The spotter just stood there and it hit the spotter and stayed OB - everyone in the group said they were 100% sure his shot would have made it in bounds.

Justin did not blame the spotter and basically had that attitude that mistakes happen - however, Justin threw his next shot OB and then took a 7 instead of 4 on the hole. Needless to say, I think some rule needs to made for things like this that give the player the option of re-throwing without penalty when a spectator / volunteer is hit by a shot.

From the Rules, this is why the "practice shots" were erased.

803.01 D (5) Where a group's or official's decision is overturned on appeal, the official or director may, in the interest of fairness, allow the thrower's score to remain the same or adjust the thrower's score to reflect the correct interpretation of the rules.

A case could be made that the spotter "intentionally" was struck by Justin's disc since he didn't move, assuming he saw the throw coming. On intentional interference, the player has the option for a rethrow without penalty.

I must've missed that rules update, because even the biggest tourneys I play have to scrounge to get help (for everyplace other than the MPO leader card) and I've been told plenty of times that the spotter is just helping but the group makes the real call.

No change that I recall.

804.09.D
Non-playing certified officials may actively make rulings during any tournament play that they witness. If an official competes in a tournament, he or she may not officiate for any ruling within his or her own division. The official's ruling supersedes the ruling of the group, but an appeal may be made to the tournament director. The director may empower non-certified officials to act as spotters for a specific purpose. The ruling of such a spotter supersedes the ruling of the group.

The USDGC normally tells the spotters to not argue with the players, but the rules give the spotters the authority to make the call.

That's rough Gary.
I've helped a few spotters there understand some basic rules during play.
The "disc touching the OB line is out" ruling comes to mind.
(It is poorly written.)
So what happens when a clear injustice is done and the official backs off the initial ruling?
(ie: when it was shown to the spotter that the call made was in error and the spotter concurs.)

As I said earlier, the player should play a provisional from the point the questionable call was discovered. The TD has the ability to correct the score based on the correct ruling. Even if the spotter has the last say on the course, the player has the option (and in some cases the responsibility) of playing a provisional as part of the appeals process to take to the TD after the round.

I know that many spotters do not know all the rules they need to know, but as spotters, their call supersedes the call of the card. In order to question the call, the player needs to use the appeals process outlined in 803.01.D(3).

The "disc touching the OB line is out" ruling comes to mind.
(It is poorly written.)

The OB rule (803.09) starts with "A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area."
What could be clearer? The problem was that in the past it was written the same way except the line was considered inbounds and the non-rule saying was if it was touching the line (ib) it was in. Just as referring to discs suspended over 2M as OB was incorrect and caused problems when the options for OB discs changed while the options for suspended discs did not.

I think the answer to Dana's question depends on whether the spotter was empowered as an official, or whether he was just a helpful idiot, for the reason mentioned by Mr. Kennedy. It would also depend on whether the player thought to declare his second and third throws provisional upon the original call of the spotter.

What was the final ruling? Practice throws? Forgiveness for supplying the players with imperfect spotters?

I realize some will go ape if the guy wasn't "prescient" enough not to trust the spotter and call a provisional, but forgiving the practice throws seems like the right thing to do imo. Otherwise, the TD needs to inform every player at the player's meeting to always call a provisional, or set up a special tourney rule that all post-spotter-ruled-OB shots are provisionals until the disc status is verified by the group.

By the way, in this case or the one MTL described, if the player declared a provisional, does he need to declare a provisional for all subsequent shots from the provisional, or is that implied?

The rules refer to a provisional series of throws. If it is part of the series from the same provisional, I'd think it was implied.

From the summery of rules changes...

Out-of-bounds. The line is now
considered OUT, not in. This will
make OB much easier to rule upon,
in many situations. (Fences or walls
as OB.)

Sure we officials know the rule and like to reread the rules book.
The summery is all some people will read.
It should be more clear.

WOW that is incredibly unfortunate. Unless the drive hit the bricks, it was really tough to tell whether or not it came to rest inbounds. I can't believe that happened.

There needs to be some accountability by the USDGC. I don't know if they had any kind of spotters meeting before hand, but they really should. This was one of the major complaints I heard over the week.

Besides that, the tinkering with rules is getting waaaaaay out of hand. The stupid foot fault rule (I'm curious if ANYONE was called this week) which allows an illegal throw to actually be played, is just dumb.

The rumors about the 2m putting rule trying to be implemented scares the crap out of me. How can these guys make this stuff up when EVERYONE agrees it's stupid? I make a great upshot and still have to putt? Duh.

No run up on hole 5? What? why just hole 5? What are you trying to do to OUR game? Unreal.

BTW, the course played as tough and fair as it ever has.

Details. Foot fault rule? 2 meter putting rule? No run up?

The rumors about the 2m putting rule trying to be implemented scares the crap out of me. How can these guys make this stuff up when EVERYONE agrees it's stupid? I make a great upshot and still have to putt? Duh.
Please explain this rumored rule. If it is as your post makes it seem (shots coming to rest within a certain distance are moved out to a certain distance for a putt, instead of a normal drop-in), it is almost unbelievably dumb, and contrary to the one of the central tenets of the game: PLAY IT AS IT LIES.
No run up on hole 5? What? why just hole 5? What are you trying to do to OUR game? Unreal.
So, no runup was allowed on one hole of the event? Drives only, or all shots? Either way (if true), really a crappy rule tweak.

I understand wanting to "test drive" rule tweaks (even if they are stoopid & BUNCRiffic), but why choose the crown jewel of our events to do this? Why not use some lame Super Class event instead?:confused:

From the Rules, this is why the "practice shots" were erased.

803.01 D (5) Where a group's or official's decision is overturned on appeal, the official or director may, in the interest of fairness, allow the thrower's score to remain the same or adjust the thrower's score to reflect the correct interpretation of the rules.

Chuck, did this case involve an incorret interpretation of the Rules, or did it involve an incorrect observation? I can see an incorrect interpretation if the disc was totally OB except for a part touching the OB line, and the spotter declaring it IB, IF the OB line was declared to be OB, but if the spotter knew what was OB and what was IB, and the disc was clearly touching IB inside the IB/OB line, and threw up the OB flag, there is no rule interpretation issue, there is just a blown call, as there is in any officiated sport.

Please elaborate if this situation did involve an incorrect rule interpretation.

Please explain this rumored rule. If it is as your post makes it seem (shots coming to rest within a certain distance are moved out to a certain distance for a putt, instead of a normal drop-in), it is almost unbelievably dumb, and contrary to the one of the central tenets of the game: PLAY IT AS IT LIES.

Apparently this is what Harold wanted to do, and the PDGA wouldn't let him.


So, no runup was allowed on one hole of the event? Drives only, or all shots? Either way (if true), really a crappy rule tweak.

It wasn't the rule this year, just a rumor for next year.


I understand wanting to "test drive" rule tweaks (even if they are stoopid & BUNCRiffic), but why choose the crown jewel of our events to do this? Why not use some lame Super Class event instead?:confused:

It's silly how we play by one set of rules to get here, and another once we arrive.

Evidently, it is a trade-off that many are willing to make!

The correct interpretation of the rule would be, if the disc is totally on the in bounds side of the rope by two or three feet, it is actually in bounds, no matter where the spotter is guessing it might be when he raises the flag.

I don't think the drafters of the rules intended to split hairs between rules that are misinterpreted versus rules that are called or applied incorrectly based on incomplete information.

Maybe we just need a new spotter signal: raise both flags when you are guessing or are unsure so the player will know to say, "This one is a provisional."

From what I understand also a player can move ANYWHERE around the circle. So on a very windy day or a lie obstructed by trees, a player could move to an obstruction free zone or to a side he preferred to from (meaning against or with the wind).

I talked with a very top player in the sport, who I will choose to remain nameless but it's a big name, and he pretty much said he didn't understand why we tried stuff at our biggest events and that if the ring around the basket happens next year he will not play the event.

However on the flip side of things, USDGC was the first place to not play the 2M rule, so it's not always a bad thing.

I realize a lot of folks don't agree with some of his ideas. However, I applaud the guy for having vision and the courage to pursue it. Two things this sport badly needs. He wants to challenge the skills of the best and he doesn't let convention (or player complaints apparently) hold him back. Some ideas will die on the vine; others, well 50 years from now, they might be the convention waiting for the next Duvall to tear em down.

I realize a lot of folks don't agree with some of his ideas. However, I applaud the guy for having vision and the courage to pursue it. Two things this sport badly needs. He wants to challenge the skills of the best and he doesn't let convention (or player complaints apparently) hold him back. Some ideas will die on the vine; others, well 50 years from now, they might be the convention waiting for the next Duvall to tear em down.
More power to him if he wants to experiment with wacky rules. I'd wholeheartedly support his running a series of X-Tiers (or, better yet, unsanctioned events) to do just that. But at a PDGA Major event, with a historic title & thousands of $$ on the line, I don't think so.

I don't think the PDGA owns the USDGC.
By their own rulings, the TD is the owner of an event.
They can choose to sanction or not.
Final say should and does rest with the TD.

Well, maybe he should run it as an X-tier next year. The biggest X-tier on the planet, one all the super tour events could aspire to.

Better yet, run it as an unsanctioned event, the biggest unsanctioned event on the planet, one to which all the super tour events could aspire. Just like the MSDGC in the good ole days.

I understand the "tournament ownership" angle, Bob, but if he chooses to sanction (as a non-X-tier), part of the deal should be to use PDGA rules in toto.

I disagree,
The USDGC is the beat place to try out changes.
You get instant feedback from the best players from around the world.
As well as many of the finest TDs.
The score card for every players from 08 is now a part of all my events.
Bob

I do understand that some of the changes could warrant an X tier status.
But as a major, I suspect they gain more flexibility.

I disagree,
The USDGC is the beat place to try out changes.
You get instant feedback from the best players from around the world.


This could easily happen, with a poll, BEFORE the event.

Polling is not the same as actually playing it in competition. Even then, rules are not a popularity contest if a new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do.

Even then, rules are not a popularity contest if a new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do.
Which of the following are what these proposed rule changes are "intended to do":
1) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parked under the basket backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket, backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket. . .
2) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parks a drive, and (before having to move back & find a suitable spot for his non-drop-in) is called for a violation by a sheepish official because he failed to remember the one spot in the whole sport where he is forced to use a throwing technique that he may never use at any other time ever.
3) Alienate all players not blessed with the brilliant regulatory foresight of the elite think tank.
4) Eliminate the soft-landing precision approach shot as a necessary (or even desirable) aspect of a top player's game.
5) Turn the most prestigious, highest-paying event in our sport into a semi-glorified game of RIPT.

If any or all of those five are the intentions, kudos! I think that the elite think tank is possibly right on track for making sure a "new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do." If somethings other than those, however, are the intentions, I think a little more reflection about tinkering for the sake of tinkering is in order.

Maybe we just need a new spotter signal: raise both flags when you are guessing or are unsure so the player will know to say, "This one is a provisional."

funny you mention this... i was the spotter for the island on 888 all day the final round and had one that I knew would be really close on the path near the island. I held both flags out parallel to the ground and tilted them in unison. then held up my hands an inch apart and they figured it out. The guy left his mark... the group walked up and made the group call that it was in. I would have called it in myself but it was extremely close and I wanted to let the group make the call. I didnt know about my ruling being the 'final' answer until I started reading this thread so i'm glad i didnt make the signal. If the group wanted my opinion I would have given it though.

one thing i'm curious about is why Christian Sandstrom isn't listed as a DNF. maybe just an oversight but he did make the cut and for whatever reason (probably injury) chose not to play the final round.

sad to think someone missed the cut and possibly could have played in his place

More power to him if he wants to experiment with wacky rules. I'd wholeheartedly support his running a series of X-Tiers (or, better yet, unsanctioned events) to do just that. But at a PDGA Major event, with a historic title & thousands of $$ on the line, I don't think so.

You guys are funny. The USDGC *IS* his event! He built it from the ground up with the wacky and unconventional idea that it would be "One Division, One Champion". And that you'd have to qualify to play in it!

There were no tourneys like that.

He wanted to make a brutally tough yet completely fair layout that would challenge the game of the top players for the whole round. That's hard to do, so the yellow rope and Clown's Mouth and Ring of Haybales were used.

Nobody was seriously doing that stuff on grand scale. Does anybody remember all the whining and crying about the Gold Rope?

But then a funny thing happened: he convinced his company to make the 2nd most popular disc ever (Aviar is the first, right?) an exclusive fund-raiser in the newfangled plastic for this weird format event. The money rolled in and the event started filling! Imagine that...

I say, keep doing whatever the heck you want. He will regardless of what I say, but I just wanted to say it. :) It's the U.S. Championship and the course is hard. And fair. Like it should be. And that's because he does what he thinks would be neat to try.

Polling is not the same as actually playing it in competition. Even then, rules are not a popularity contest if a new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do.

Could you explain what the 2m putting rule is intended to do?

Could you explain what the 2m putting rule is intended to do?
Since in many areas the 2m rule is no longer in effect, a new 2m rule is needed to add to the confusion and help educate discgolfers on metric measurements.

Can't you see it now?
TD: "The 2m rule is not in effect, but the head banging prevention 2m rule is."

Could you explain what the 2m putting rule is intended to do?


Looks like it is intended to penalize those who have the ability, and thus the competitive advantage, to throw a disc and land less than 2m from the pin.

Alternatively, you could just have competitors slice off the index finger of their throwing hand at registration as a requirement for entry. That would even the field a bit eh?

One scenario when being directly under the basket won't help is:
You are playing a course with a seriously elevated basket. One side of the green is on a flat, the other side was a severe slope. You may not physically be able to "drop in" when you are under the basket. While some course designers would penalize you for being "too close", this rule allows you to move to a spot where a more reasonable shot can be made. Had you been slightly farther away from the basket, you had the added benefit of throwing the disc FORWARD, but under the basket, you don't have this opportunity.

Just trying to think of some cases where this is an issue. It's happened to me numerous times on Renny 2 gold. It also happens on Hornets 9 and to a slightly lesser degree Hornets 8.

So this new rule would make reward you for being on the wrong side of the basket?


One scenario when being directly under the basket won't help is:
You are playing a course with a seriously elevated basket. One side of the green is on a flat, the other side was a severe slope. You may not physically be able to "drop in" when you are under the basket. While some course designers would penalize you for being "too close", this rule allows you to move to a spot where a more reasonable shot can be made. Had you been slightly farther away from the basket, you had the added benefit of throwing the disc FORWARD, but under the basket, you don't have this opportunity.

Just trying to think of some cases where this is an issue. It's happened to me numerous times on Renny 2 gold. It also happens on Hornets 9 and to a slightly lesser degree Hornets 8.

My personal opinion is that the 2M rule should be, if you land within the 2M circle, you have to climb a tree to a height of 2M and 2M from the pole and putt backwards.

I'm fine to try this... silly rule, but I'd bet money you'd see it one year and then it would be gone (providing of course that I've read the discussion and understand what is being proposed).

On the stand in for #5, I actually support stand and throw, and I see that they are trying this on for size and to see the response. It does change the game and while I have supported the position strongly, I see some real reasons why we shouldn't do it. Nonetheless, I agree with those who think these tests are a good idea in this tournament. It has the power and prestige to make them be taken seriously.

for this two meter putt rule, did the players have the option to move back two meters to give them a better choice of shot, or were they forced?

1. The spotters are volunteers. Volunteers can not make mistakes in my opinion. We (the organizers) made the mistake in that we should have provided better education for them. One advantage that we enjoy with the USDGC is the opportunity to learn from our experience. My list for 2010 already has 24 items. One is to provide hole specific training for the spotters.

2. Stand and deliver has its merits and its drawbacks, but I am not aware that it has been considered for any hole at the USDGC.

3. There has been some accurate and some inaccurate information related to the close-range putting rule variance we requested. So to provide some clarity, I have pasted below the variance that we requested and the rationale for it.

USDGC 1.5M rule
A 3M or 10ft diameter circle will be marked around each target. The area within the circle will be considered a buncr. The outside edge of the circle will be considered the limit of the buncr area at 1.5M or 5ft.

No shot may be thrown from the 1.5M buncr. When a thrown shot comes to rest partially or entirely within the 1.5M buncr area, it will be removed and relocated to the drop zone. The drop zone will be anywhere outside the perimeter of the buncr. No mini mark will be necessary. A play may opt to use a mini, if he chooses

To complete the hole, a player's last shot must come to rest in the entrapment device as stated in rule 803.13B.

Players must demonstrate balance with both feet on the ground and with their momentum toward the buncr area completely stopped before advancing into the buncr area. This is regardless of the distance from the 1.5M buncr. For example, when a player wedges a shot from any distance into the basket, they must at some point, before entering the 1.5M buncr area (to quickly retrieve their disc), demonstrate stopped momentum toward the buncr.

Failure to demonstrate balance before entering the 1.5M buncr will be called encroachment, and will result in a re-throw on the first offense. The player will take the worst of the two results. On the second and all subsequent infractions of this rule, the player will re-throw, receive a one stroke penalty and the player will take the result of his the re-throw.

Rationale for USDGC

The rationale for this rules variance is multi-faceted.

1. We believe the existing 10M falling putt rule has shortcomings. The main shortcoming is that it is not consistently marked and needs to be always marked. The difficulty/cost of temporarily or permanently marking 10M area may be the reason it has not been marked on the vast majority of existing courses. When the ten meter area is not marked, it makes it difficult to know when a falling putt occurs. This can give rise to inequity of application. We believe that a "falling putt zone" must always be marked in order to be in effect. We also believe that some size falling putt zone should be marked to prevent the unsafe and unseemly lunging to the target by desperate putters.

2. Demonstration of balance has been somewhat deficient with the falling putt zone. A one foot up and one foot down "balancing" and continuing toward the target has been a source of concern with regard to completely stopping momentum before advancing. We believe that requiring both feet flat on the ground with stopped momentum toward the zone, rather than a demonstration of "balance" before advancing to the target, would be an improvement.

3. We believe very short range putts have largely been a demonstration of "going through the motions", but are not a real "projection of a disc". We feel that this is not a demonstration of any shot or skill and needs to be amended. When a shot comes to rest completely within 1.5M, it is no longer necessary for many to "project" the shot as required by the rules. It is merely necessary for many players to simply reach out and place the disc in the basket, rather than actually putt it. The longest putt possible, when a lie is completely within the perimeter of the 1.5M zone, is 4' 3". Most are shorter. Rather than going through the motions, we believe that the very close range lies (less than 4' 3") should be (for general play) picked up +1 stroke. Alternatively, and especially if the circle is not or cannot be marked, players would complete the hole under the current stance and hole completion rules but without consideration for falling putts (803.04 C). In the case of the USDGC, we feel that the elite field of USDGC players can be held to a slightly higher standard of pulling back and putting from 1.5M, which requires a real projection, rather than a mere placement of the disc.


4. We feel that the 3M diameter circle is something that can add to the look, interest, and legitimacy of disc golf for the viewing public and the players. This is especially true if the courses have permanently marked areas that are constructed to make mowing easier around targets, allow decoration such as colored gravel, sand, mulch, or some other appropriate medium to differentiate the 3M area from the surrounds and add another dimension to the look of disc golf. Also, for targets placed on hillsides, the 3M area can be built up on the low side to add interest and help prevent unlucky spit outs from the further tragedy of rolling away.

Take care,
Harold

Just a thought - our greens are larger than traditional golf greens, by virtue of putting being easier. For us a 30 footer is way easier than a 30 footer in traditional golf. Now, to debate your point I submit the fact that when a ball is on the lip, how often do you see traditional golfers walk up and tap in with one hand on the club, barely motioning, just shoveling it in without a real putting stance, motion, etc.

By the same token: as our greens are larger, it makes sense that our players would have the same lackadaisical attitude toward putts out to 2-3 feet. It is no different from traditional golf in that the motion for a "drop-in" is significantly less structured just as the motion for a "tap-in" is significantly less structured. If traditional golf isn't hurt by people tapping in, why are we hurt so much by people dropping in?


-Chris.

Which of the following are what these proposed rule changes are "intended to do":
1) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parked under the basket backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket, backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket. . .
2) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parks a drive, and (before having to move back & find a suitable spot for his non-drop-in) is called for a violation by a sheepish official because he failed to remember the one spot in the whole sport where he is forced to use a throwing technique that he may never use at any other time ever.
3) Alienate all players not blessed with the brilliant regulatory foresight of the elite think tank.
4) Eliminate the soft-landing precision approach shot as a necessary (or even desirable) aspect of a top player's game.
5) Turn the most prestigious, highest-paying event in our sport into a semi-glorified game of RIPT.

If any or all of those five are the intentions, kudos! I think that the elite think tank is possibly right on track for making sure a "new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do." If somethings other than those, however, are the intentions, I think a little more reflection about tinkering for the sake of tinkering is in order.

...and making sense at the same time. "RIPT"...that was brilliant. :)

In a related story, Tiger Woods expertly hits his 3-iron within 2 inches of the cup, but under the new rules, has to pull it out for a 10-footer to make it interesting to our television audience.

4. We feel that the 3M diameter circle is something that can add to the look, interest, and legitimacy of disc golf for the viewing public and the players.
Harold Maybe we should plant flower pots and pixies, and for even better viewing, make the putter hike the disc between their legs, then catch in mid-air and do a slamdunk. That would be far more interesting than drawing a 3m permamant circle.

Hey, wow look at that circle, it looks sooooo interesting and now we can make disc golf look legitimate.

USDGC 1.5M rule
A 3M or 10ft diameter circle will be marked around each target. The area within the circle will be considered a buncr. The outside edge of the circle will be considered the limit of the buncr area at 1.5M or 5ft.

No shot may be thrown from the 1.5M buncr. When a thrown shot comes to rest partially or entirely within the 1.5M buncr area, it will be removed and relocated to the drop zone. The drop zone will be anywhere outside the perimeter of the buncr. No mini mark will be necessary. A play may opt to use a mini, if he chooses

To complete the hole, a player's last shot must come to rest in the entrapment device as stated in rule 803.13B.

so basically there is a 3m "reverse island" that is sort of OB, only without the stroke? One of my buddies had that idea a few years ago for a tournament he was going to run. i thought it was a great idea, but he never went through with it. it just makes things more interesting. you just got one more fan!!

Hey Chris,

We tried to consider golf when developing this rule. In tournament golf, tap-ins may be approached more casually than longer putts, but the tap-in still complies with the rules. Rule 14.1 indicates that the ball must be fairly struck with the head of the club and not scraped, pushed, or spooned. Even when the ball is on the lip of the cup, the player still strikes it fairly. In contrast, tournament disc golf drop-ins are not necessarily in compliance with the rules. The definition of a throw is the propulsion of the disc. Drop-ins, in my opinion, are not propelled. Five feet seemed like a distance where almost every player would have to propel the shot.

Underlying this technical issue is a substantive difference in close-range shots between the two versions of golf. In having to strike the ball, the golfer can miss and miss big, especially under pressure. While disc golf drop-ins have been missed, they are practically unmissable. Close in, the disc golfer is simply going through the motions. There does not seem to be an action in sport that is quite as meaningless as the disc golf drop-in.

Proportionally, the �meaningless zone� in disc golf is far higher than golf. It is on the order of 1% of the disc golf hole length (4 feet out of 400 feet). In contrast, the golf meaningless distance may be one tenth as much or (1 foot out of 1000 feet). The 5 foot circle seemed to eliminate much of the disparity in the meaningless zones.

I believe the other reasons for the 5 foot circle (ease of marking the circle, pageantry, less subjective demonstration of balance) are more compelling, but I believe that it also important that our common practices technically comply with our rules. Our game is wonderful, yet the close-range throw seems like a minor defect that we should attempt to address. One of the reasons that the USDGC was created was to test and share new ideas.

Take care,
Harold

...Close in, the disc golfer is simply going through the motions. There does not seem to be an action in sport that is quite as meaningless as the disc golf drop-in.

what about hitting one out of the park in baseball... the player jogging around the bases is just going through the motions isn't he.

as far as the stand and deliver rule... maybe you could start to see what type of distance people can get by having a side-side event to the distance competition next year and have players throw 3 throws with the stand and deliver method. This would be great data to possibly see which holes to incorporate this rule on. If players are only losing 50' then maybe there is merit to it but if players can only throw 1/2 the distance (likely the number would be somewhere in the middle) it would be great to know.

one thing i'm curious about is if you'd ever entertain the idea of smaller (narrower) baskets? I heard this brought up by a couple top tier players as something that could be good for our sport and I have to say that they made good arguments/points. (the reasons/ideas would easily be cause for another thread and is probably one already somewhere).

whatever anyone's viewpoints I think its important to realize that having Harold come on here and externalize his thoughts is a gift of sorts... he could just say he doesn't care what others think or simply clam up after getting attacked for his 'crazy' ideas but instead he chooses to give out his ideas and even some of the reasoning behind them. its great to be able to pick the brain of the designer ... even if you think there's a little something 'off' inside there ;)

Hey Chris,

We tried to consider golf when developing this rule. In tournament golf, tap-ins may be approached more casually than longer putts, but the tap-in still complies with the rules. Rule 14.1 indicates that the ball must be fairly struck with the head of the club and not scraped, pushed, or spooned. Even when the ball is on the lip of the cup, the player still strikes it fairly. In contrast, tournament disc golf drop-ins are not necessarily in compliance with the rules. The definition of a throw is the propulsion of the disc. Drop-ins, in my opinion, are not propelled. Five feet seemed like a distance where almost every player would have to propel the shot.

Underlying this technical issue is a substantive difference in close-range shots between the two versions of golf. In having to strike the ball, the golfer can miss and miss big, especially under pressure. While disc golf drop-ins have been missed, they are practically unmissable. Close in, the disc golfer is simply going through the motions. There does not seem to be an action in sport that is quite as meaningless as the disc golf drop-in.

Proportionally, the �meaningless zone� in disc golf is far higher than golf. It is on the order of 1% of the disc golf hole length (4 feet out of 400 feet). In contrast, the golf meaningless distance may be one tenth as much or (1 foot out of 1000 feet). The 5 foot circle seemed to eliminate much of the disparity in the meaningless zones.

I believe the other reasons for the 5 foot circle (ease of marking the circle, pageantry, less subjective demonstration of balance) are more compelling, but I believe that it also important that our common practices technically comply with our rules. Our game is wonderful, yet the close-range throw seems like a minor defect that we should attempt to address. One of the reasons that the USDGC was created was to test and share new ideas.

Take care,
Harold
I appreciate your response and discourse Harold, and I agree with some of your points: the drop in can feel like a true gimme at times. However you're talking about only 1.5M or 5' which is hardly a distance that can make a difference with regards to "propelling" the disc. I just did a quick measure of 5' from the basket and was able to easily lean forward on my front foot and drop the disc in with virtually no propulsion. Admittedly my rear leg was out and I felt like a bit of a ballerina, but it wasn't difficult and I had no trouble regaining my balance.

I'm 5'10 with a 6'3 wingspan - and I consider myself along the lower end of the spectrum physically amongst players that have some natural talent for the game. Looking at most of the top pro players, with some exceptions: they're taller with a longer reach than myself. Jay Reading is about 6'4 with a 6'10 wingspan. A 5' circle is a meaningless adjustment, in my opinion. Now if you were forcing everyone to move out to 3M/10' it would be significant. Actually I'm somewhat confused by that part of your post...

You say anything within the 1.5M circle needs to be moved to the outside of the 1.5M circle and propelled in... what is the purpose of the second circle at 3M? I may be missing something here. Although I do like the idea of in some way marking at about 10' around the basket. That WOULD definitely look very cool. I may make that a project at my home course next year in order to add to the unique look of the course.


-Chris.

I guess I just don't understand how a tap in is not holing out in our sport. I get what Harold is saying about the lack of being propelled, but on the other end, the player is still controlling when where and how the disc is put in the basket. It is not like on tap ins where a player literally can just pick the disc up and drop it / place it in that he has no control of that. I've seen many different approaches to this action; off handed, forcefully, dropped in, set in, placed in, pushed through the top, intentionally wedging into the side, thumbed in, tomahawked in, and even hiked in.

Everyone of these actions have one thing in common - all were actions controlled by the player and all resulted in a successful completion of said hole since the basket and or chains were now supporting the disc. It's not like that it is impossible to miss these - you have to look further than Barry Schultz in the final round of the 2006 USDGC.

I have tremendous respect for you as a player, promoter and innovator in our sport Harold, but I am respectfully disagreeing with you on this topic. I can see your argument that a drop in may not be a propulsion of the disc but on other end but as I said, it in the end is completely in the players control when and how he taps out. He has to have complete control of the disc and it's flight to successfully hole out even if it is as simple as setting it in the basket and the flight is less than a 10th of a second.

Hey Andrew,

Good example with rounding the bases for a home run. The baseball player does seem to be going though the motion in the same way that a disc golfer does for a drop in. The home run trot is at least consistent with baseball's rules and it is also part of the pageantry of America's Pastime.

Stand and deliver is not an idea we are considering. We are willing to experiment, but only within parameters. One of these parameters is safety. In trying to stand and deliver, some players may hurt their knees as they may not be able to pivot properly. I also am not sure if we want to reduce the distance of throws. The tremendous distances that today's players achieve is part of the wow factor that distinguishes disc golf from our predecessor game, frisbee golf. Finally, the run up is fundamental to throwing itself. Changing the nature of throwing seems like too great a departure. In contrast, the 5-foot circle, is a very modest change in practice. Those who putted from the bricks on hole 12 at Winthrop realized just how short a 5-foot putt really is.

The smaller target, like stand and deliver, would also seem to be too great a departure. The tees and greens in golf may be more difficult for tournament play, but the hole is still the same size. While it would be nice for disc golf's par to more closely approximate golf's, a smaller target may also create more of the meaningless drop-ins. Even for the best players, putting seems plenty difficult as evidenced by all the missed putts inside the 10 meter circle this past week at Winthrop.

Take care
Harold

Hey Chris,

The 1.5 meter radius circle is the same as the 3 meter diameter circle. I should probably stick with one designation or the other.

I am 6'1". From 1.5 meters (5 feet), I can barely flip it over the rim of the tray. Some players, like Jay, may be able to still drop it in from 5 feet. The distance may need to be somewhat longer. Whether it is 1.5 or 2 meters, the circle would be much easier to mark than 10 meter circles.

Take care,
Harold

Hey Robert,

I agree that there are many different ways to hole out as defined by 803.13B. I am just not sure that all of these actions meet the definition of a throw. Score is based on the number throws (803.01A).

As I posted to Chris, I believe the other reasons for the 5 foot circle (ease of marking the circle, pageantry, less subjective demonstration of balance) are more compelling, but I believe that it also important that our common practices technically comply with our rules. Our game is wonderful, yet the close-range throw seems like a minor defect that we should attempt to address. One of the reasons that the USDGC was created was to test and share new ideas.

Take care,
Harold

Pity the player who parks his drive, upshot, or even a long distance putt underneath the basket. Your reward is to take 1.5 meters back (bring out the ruler everyone), so that we can have a cleaner looking putt throw. Darn, my disc landed on the other side directly under the basket. So now, I have to take 1.5 meters back from the other side of the basket. Oops, there's this bush/tree in my way behind the basket, can't go back 1.5 meters. I guess I have to call an unplayable lie now and I should have to rethrow until I can get my disc to land no closer than 1.5 meters of the basket.

Hey Patrick,

Pageantry was one potential benefits to the 1.5 meter circle. "Bullseye" was the tentative name we were going to use for landing drives within the circles. Like aces, our thought was to build excitement around bullseyes.

As a trade-off for having to move backwards, the player would be allowed to play from any point on the circumference of the circle. At Winthrop, we do not have any bushes or OB within 1.5 meters of a target, but the ability to move around the circle helps to eliminate this potential problem.

Take care,
Harold

I believe the other reasons for the 5 foot circle (ease of marking the circle, pageantry, less subjective demonstration of balance) are more compelling, but I believe that it also important that our common practices technically comply with our rules. Our game is wonderful, yet the close-range throw seems like a minor defect that we should attempt to address. One of the reasons that the USDGC was created was to test and share new ideas.

Take care,
Harold

Hi Harold, and with due respect for all you have done for our game, i don't like this idea. I too would like to see greens consistently marked. But i think if you land under the basket you have earned a drop in. In ball golf if you land within an inch do you have to back that baby up???

I like marking the putting zone (10 meter tethers which clip to the basket and help a TD paint a circle make sense) -- the PDGA could supply TD's with 10 meter tethers to mark greens for PDGA events...

Of course TD's can paint whatever circle sizes they want and create buncrs if they so choose or lobby accordingly... 1.5 meters is just too close. A spectator -- i think -- would appreciate a 10 meter circle much more than a smaller one. It would help underscore the distance / difficulty of a putt for the viewing public ...

Mr. Duvall, this conversation reminds me of a conversation I once had with Mark Ellis back when he was teaching me how to run non-standard format tournaments. He said, "Disc golfers are the kindest, most open minded bunch of liberal hippies you're ever going to meet. Until you mess with the rules or the standard format." :D

I'm fine with no-penalty o.b., and if you want to put a Woj sized wingspan of it around every basket, knock yourself out. For how much you spend on this tournament, you should be allowed any rules waivers you want.

I would not want it to be the rule that every tournament has to have little no-penalty o.b. circles around the baskets. I think some folks posting aren't saying this, but what they are really worried about is this leading to a general rule change making this mandatory. If you are not advocating a general rule change, but just doing something different at USDGC, I think they'd be less anxious. Maybe that is not clear.

I think your redefinition of the "demonstrating balance" rule is great for clearing up that ambiguity in the rules. Terry Calhoun's hand stand just won't be legal anymore. I'd have no problem if "demonstrating balance" was replaced with "two feet on the ground, no closer to the basket than the mark, and all forward momentum has stopped." But that rule does not address jump and lunge putts outside ten meters at all. It really just addresses the walking putt that new players have to be taught not to do.

Thank you for responding in this forum.

Hey Andrew,

Good example with rounding the bases for a home run. The baseball player does seem to be going though the motion in the same way that a disc golfer does for a drop in. The home run trot is at least consistent with baseball's rules and it is also part of the pageantry of America's Pastime.

Stand and deliver is not an idea we are considering. We are willing to experiment, but only within parameters. One of these parameters is safety. In trying to stand and deliver, some players may hurt their knees as they may not be able to pivot properly. I also am not sure if we want to reduce the distance of throws. The tremendous distances that today's players achieve is part of the wow factor that distinguishes disc golf from our predecessor game, frisbee golf. Finally, the run up is fundamental to throwing itself. Changing the nature of throwing seems like too great a departure. In contrast, the 5-foot circle, is a very modest change in practice. Those who putted from the bricks on hole 12 at Winthrop realized just how short a 5-foot putt really is.

The smaller target, like stand and deliver, would also seem to be too great a departure. The tees and greens in golf may be more difficult for tournament play, but the hole is still the same size. While it would be nice for disc golf's par to more closely approximate golf's, a smaller target may also create more of the meaningless drop-ins. Even for the best players, putting seems plenty difficult as evidenced by all the missed putts inside the 10 meter circle this past week at Winthrop.

Take care
Harold

Wait! Hold on just a minute. One of our sport's top promoters is claiming that big distance is appealing to the public? Who would've thunk it? Nah, let's just sink more resources into this super class stuff....it's easier.

I can see your argument that a drop in may not be a propulsion of the disc

I think the confusion on this point is the belief that propulsion requires release of the disc, which is not true. Websters defines "propel" as "to drive forward or onward...by means of a force that imparts motion." When we were kids playing with our Superman action figures, holding him in one hand and running around the yard, that constituted propulsion. Disc golf rules do not specifically require release of the disc until the very end; holing out. Releasing the disc is the most common and productive method of propelling the disc towards the target. However, theoretically, one could legally complete the hole by succesively placing the disc in front of the lie without throwing, albeit with a greatly increased score.

Our rules define a throw as "propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie." Thus, a drop-in constitutes propulsion of a disc and satisfies the definition of a throw per disc golf rules.

It seems to me the analogy to ball golf falls short. The ball that stops on the lip of the cup is a fraction of an inch from going in whereas the well placed upshot that lands under the basket never had a chance, and was not intended to.

Mr. Duvall, I appreciate your willingness to challenge the paradigm, your willingness to engage in discussion, and your patience in so doing.

Mr. Duvall, I appreciate your willingness to challenge the paradigm, your willingness to engage in discussion, and your patience in so doing.

Seconded.

Though I do hope the 5'-minimum-putt idea fades away.

Stand and deliver is not an idea we are considering.


Oh thank goodness.

Thanks for the discussion Harold. We appreciate it.

The main problem I see with the 2m Bullseye would be the inevitable spit through our less than perfect targets allow. This would be a shame to see by any competitor. I realize from this distance it shouldn't be an issue, but you know it will happen and probably to the guy who was leaning on the pole.

On a side question, where the chains different this year than previous years? I definitely remember feeling like they were thin last year, and this year I didn't see any spits, nor did I feel like the chains were "thin".

I just wanted to thank Harold for chiming in and explaining the reasoning behind his ideas, so people on the forum didn't run rampant with ideas that the USDGC was going all super class or something like that!

Also, I noticed that the chain supporters (yellow bands) were actually yellow this year. Last year they were a really cool american flag design. Was that just a 10th anniversary thing?

another scenario that could happen is the close range putt that hits the basket "sleeve" that rests just below the chains. From a short range, the chance of hitting this with the edge of the disc, and propelling the disc back out of the basket increases.

My wife and I played a round using the idea of the 1.5M radius. Niether of us ever missed from 1.5M. It did not make any difference at all. I think the only time I miss from that close is if there is 40mph sustained winds. We would have no problem with a rule like this.

Hey Tanner,

The targets have been enhanced. What you may have noticed is a slightly more receptive catching envelope supplemented by thicker galvanizing on the links.

Take care,
Harold

Hey Chris,

I agree that the flag designs we used the previous few years were pretty cool. We changed the tops this year for two reasons. First, we wanted to have the new tops discussed in the post to Tanner. Second, the yellow is more visible and more consistent with what the fans would see on many of their local courses.

Take care,
Harold

Here is a view of the basket and the 1.5 meter circle:

http://live.todocast.tv/images/pdga/dgolf_map_holder.jpg

While I mostly like and appreciate the rules variations that the USDGC has tried over the years, I find the "propulsion" argument a little contradictory to the stated intent.

To say that it takes no skill to execute a drop in - in essence negates/degrades the skill that must be exhibited in order to land within that 1.5M circle. So while I can acknowledge that it is a reasonable desire to have each player physically release the disc in order to hole out - which is something I do currently as a matter of principle (even with a drop in - I always release the disc and let it fall into the basket - as opposed to literally placing it in the basket) - - I'm not sure I agree with the justification.

Undoubtedly there would be some increase in the number of spit outs, cut throughs, and collar propulsions with the 5 ft circle, but it seems like the increase would be incredibly small given the effective distance of the putt would be on the order of one foot.

Take care,
Harold

Harold,
After I run a tourney I normally run and hide from my computer for a while. Congrats to you for answering all of the aftermath questions and complaints. I was merely being facetious with my Tiger Woods example and would be glad to play your tourney some day under whatever rules you wish to govern. I just need to qualify, become a state rep, or somehow get Joe Rotan to give me his sponsor exemption.
Historically, change has been scoffed at by skeptics and this is no different.
Keep thinking outside the circle! :)
KL

And wow, there were lots of missed putts when I was watching the live feed!

Potential options for new 10ft diameter basket bases. BTW, landing on the bases would not be considered on the playing surface nor supported by the basket. :)

...with Chucks drawing, retrieving the disc will become humorous.
Especially during the ice bowls.

Hey Craig,

I believe that the rules ask us to both release the disc and propel it. Mike nicely quoted Websters definition that propel does mean to move forward or onward. This, in my mind, is more than simply lifting the disc, opening your hand, and then letting gravity do all of the work, i.e. dropping it in. In current practice, many close-range putts are released and propelled; many are simply released. The five foot circle would force most players to do both.

While I believe that the drop in is meaningless action, the accomplishment to get the disc within the circle is not. That is one of the reasons why we wanted to celebrate the accomplishment with the bullseye designation.

Take care,
Harold

I agree that there are many different ways to hole out as defined by 803.13B. I am just not sure that all of these actions meet the definition of a throw. Score is based on the number throws (803.01A).

<!-- content-left --> <!-- content-main --> <!-- main --> 803.13 Holing Out

A. A player who fails to play any hole or fails to hole out on any hole during the round may be disqualified, at the discretion of the director, using the following guidelines:
(1) Holes missed due to late arrival may be scored and penalized according to section 804.02.
(2) Inadvertently failing to hole out (as determined by a majority of the group or an official) shall result in 2 penalty throws being added to the number of throws plus penalty throws already taken on the hole. The hole shall then be considered completed.
(3) Intentionally failing to hole out (emergency, injury, plane flight, etc.) constitutes withdrawal from competition. The player shall be withdrawn from competition and officially listed as "Did Not Finish" on the scorecard and in the event results.
B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.
C. Object Targets: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must strike
the marked target area on the object as specified by the director.


803.01 General

A. Description of the Game. The game of disc golf consists of throwing a flying disc from the teeing area to a target by a throw or successive throws. Players shall play the course as they find it and play the disc where it lies unless allowed otherwise by the Rules. The competitor who plays the stipulated round or rounds in the fewest throws plus penalty throws is the winner.


The following is from the Definitions section of the current Rules:

Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.

Thrower: The player who has made, or is about to make, a throw that is the aspect of play being considered by a particular rule.

Holed-Out: A term used to signify completion of a hole. A player has holed-out after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device or after striking the marked area of the designated object target.

Harold, this seems to be turning into an "Ask Harold" thread. I want to share my opinions, please.

1. I think the 1.5m circle is a good idea. I predict that this will not affect anyone's score and will make the tournament more interesting. I like the "bullseye" idea.

2. I think the player party should happen before Saturday. I didn't even think about attending, with an 11-12 hour drive ahead of us, and work on Monday. I didn't try to qualify for the putting finals because of this. I really enjoyed it last year and was disappointed that I could not attend.

3. For the putting finals, I'd much prefer the 2008 format for next year. I think that format makes for a much better test of putting skill when crowning the US Putting Champion.

4. Please re-iterate to spotters and tournament volunteers to turn their phones on vibrate. There was an unfortunate incident on our card during the last round.

Thanks again for running the best tournament in the US. Keep innovating.

Daemon Stahlin

�3. We believe very short range putts have largely been a demonstration of "going through the motions", but are not a real "projection of a disc". We feel that this is not a demonstration of any shot or skill and needs to be amended. When a shot comes to rest completely within 1.5M, it is no longer necessary for many to "project" the shot as required by the rules. It is merely necessary for many players to simply reach out and place the disc in the basket, rather than actually putt it. The longest putt possible, when a lie is completely within the perimeter of the 1.5M zone, is 4' 3". Most are shorter. Rather than going through the motions, we believe that the very close range lies (less than 4' 3") should be (for general play) picked up +1 stroke. Alternatively, and especially if the circle is not or cannot be marked, players would complete the hole under the current stance and hole completion rules but without consideration for falling putts (803.04 C). In the case of the USDGC, we feel that the elite field of USDGC players can be held to a slightly higher standard of pulling back and putting from 1.5M, which requires a real projection, rather than a mere placement of the disc.�

�4. We feel that the 3M diameter circle is something that can add to the look, interest, and legitimacy of disc golf for the viewing public and the players.�

Harold,

Let�s ask Tiger Woods to move his ball back from the hole when the ball is within a club handle length. �Hey Tiger move your ball back a full club length, don�t tap in you lamo�. That would give it a different look and make it more interesting�

Let�s ask all NBA players to only be able to dunk from outside the paint. So Shaq and others won�t look like they are going through the motions, Sorry Yao Ming that would end your dunks�

To add to the look of the game, I will use Blue Ribbon Pines Hole 1 for an example. They have different color woodchips that are out lined with rocks to make the green or game look better� not a punishment for a good looking shot that lands under the basket.

In sports, talent is rewarded by the end results, thus the tap-in putt and the near basket dunk, or the drop in putt-in disc golf.

I respect your efforts and ideas but I would have to disagree with this one, I would not consider using a 3m diameter circle.

Here is a view of the basket and the 1.5 meter circle:

http://live.todocast.tv/images/pdga/dgolf_map_holder.jpg

Now, my beloved soft JK is going to hit that brick, get torn up, but not before rolling 65 feet away from the pin.

i think 'twould be better to make a dome for the top of the basket to prevent DROT's and a dome underneathe the basket to slide discs near the basket back out to 1.5 meters away. That would also eliminate grounds keeping concerns.

i remember a conversation i had with Lavonne Wolfe about my lack of aces. He consoled me telling me aces were bad shots anyways and that a good shot lands right underneathe the basket.

I've always tried to make my upshots and drives so close that i don't have to putt. not with a great deal of success, but still...

either way, i still think we need a 10 meter circle so spectators can guage just how good the top pros are and how important good putting really is.

I am not sure that the 1.5 meter circle diminishes the reward for demonstrated skill for two reasons. First, given the surface conditions around targets, I feel that it's hard to say that inside five feet necessarily demonstrates more skill. In many cases it's simply a better result based on factors beyond the player's precision. More importantly, the 1.5 meter circle is still essentially an unmissable putt. It is simply one that helps to ensure a propulsion of the disc. In the circle is still better than beyond the circle. But within the circle, all the meaningless putts are treated equally and legally in my opinion. I do not believe that a club length putt in golf or a dunk in basketball are equivalent to a five foot disc golf putt. Both the dunk and the club-length putt both comply with the rules of their games, and neither is as missable as a five foot disc golf putt whose effective length is less than a foot.

Take care,
Harold

Harold, this seems to be turning into an "Ask Harold" thread. I want to share my opinions, please.

1. I think the 1.5m circle is a good idea. I predict that this will not affect anyone's score and will make the tournament more interesting. I like the "bullseye" idea.

2. I think the player party should happen before Saturday. I didn't even think about attending, with an 11-12 hour drive ahead of us, and work on Monday. I didn't try to qualify for the putting finals because of this. I really enjoyed it last year and was disappointed that I could not attend.

3. For the putting finals, I'd much prefer the 2008 format for next year. I think that format makes for a much better test of putting skill when crowning the US Putting Champion.

4. Please re-iterate to spotters and tournament volunteers to turn their phones on vibrate. There was an unfortunate incident on our card during the last round.

Thanks again for running the best tournament in the US. Keep innovating.

Daemon Stahlin

Dear Daemon,

Thanks for the feedback. One of the advantages that we enjoy at the Championship is the opportunity to learn from our experience. We will add the cell phone reminder in our instructions to the spotters next year. We will also try to instruct them better on the rules related to their particular hole. We will also review the method of the putting final. The venue at the 2008 player party certainly provided a lively backdrop for the competitons

The Saturday date for the player party this year was less than optimal. But as we plan for next year, we are wondering if we will even have a player party. Due to the higher profile of the Championship and the past shenanigans from some players, the risks associated with a player party potentially outweigh the benefits. Case in point is a man whose son attends the same school as my young'ns. This man is on the tourism board in Rock Hill. He avoided me at football games after last year's Championship. I eventually learned that he was not mad at me; he was embarrassed for me and the city. Over time, we were able to talk about the incidents. These discussions made it very clear that disc golf does not fly below the radar anymore and that off-the-course behavior can have serious consequences. It's kind of sad because I enjoyed these get togethers, particularly the ping pong.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Take care,
Harold

so then would not a rule that said when the disc lands within the 1.5 meter circle you add 1 to your score and proceed to the next hole suffice too???

I'd suggest a 5 meter circle from which one has to putt out, but I don't want to discourage newbies who often find putting the most discouraging part of learning our sport...

sorry if this proposal is meant just for world class events. i can't help but think of how it plays when universally applied...

so then would not a rule that said when the disc lands within the 1.5 meter circle you add 1 to your score and proceed to the next hole suffice too???

I'd suggest a 5 meter circle from which one has to putt out, but I don't want to discourage newbies who often find putting the most discouraging part of learning our sport...

sorry if this proposal is meant just for world class events. i can't help but think of how it plays when universally applied...


Rob, Yes, for everyday play, we agree as stated way up thread in point #3. And if no circle is marked, no falling putt rule would be in effect.

Take care,
Harold

Has the PDGA ever considered making 10m tethers and giving them to TD's as compasses and then requiring that all PDGA sanctioned events mark the greens? I think that would be great and would take the human element out of the -- 'am I outside of 10 meters?' -- question... to me the 3 meter circle is so small it seems absurd.

i've chimed in here quite enough though so i'll hang up and listen to other people's perspectives...

I wish Felix Sung could weigh in here on this.

More importantly, the 1.5 meter circle is still essentially an unmissable putt.
Why not take the proposal to its logical conclusion (and take away the potentiality of punishment for shaping a beeyooteeful approach to leaning on the pole then missing the "unmissable" 5-footer for whatever reason) & make everything within 1.5m "bullseye zone" a gimme & not have the player putt it at all? Seems equally inane & fairer.

Why not take the proposal to its logical conclusion (and take away the potentiality of punishment for shaping a beeyooteeful approach to leaning on the pole then missing the "unmissable" 5-footer for whatever reason) & make everything within 1.5m "bullseye zone" a gimme & not have the player putt it at all? Seems equally inane & fairer.

That is exactly what was proposed for everywhere else, except the USDGC.

Well I have read through the whole thread now, and while there has been some thread drift it has been interesting. In my mind disc golf is both an easy game, throw the disc from the tee, go pick it up and throw and repeat until it is in the hole, and an insidious game, where course designers force the player to throw a disc that goes straight 250’ and then must make a 90 degree turn and go another 100’. However, the game’s basics are pretty easy to explain to new players. Throw the disc from the tee, go pick it up and throw and repeat until it is in the hole. As players progress we can start to add the more important rules, such as throw from your lie using either the disc to mark the lie or a mini. If the disc goes into OB then you must go back to where it was in bounds and throw again with a penalty.
Over the years we have discussed some of the more difficult to understand rules, such as DROT, falling putts, etc. These non-intuitive rules are hard to explain to a new player. Why can my disc be hanging from the top of the basket not be “IN”, but if it touches any chains it is “IN”. Still looks out or looked good either way. With making a putting circle, it just appears to me that telling a new player that while they had a great shot, they must now move their disc back X meters, yards, feet, inches, cubits, whatever, seems counter intuitive. This movement of the disc 2 meters away from the basket will make little impact on most experienced players, and will hugely affect intermediate, recreational and junior players. I should rephrase this to say everywhere except Oklahoma, Kansas and some parts of Texas where 2 meters could mean multiple extra strokes for any player and a handful of strokes for new players. Would this potential rule be situational, it only applies to Advanced or Pro divisions? That does not seem to make sense either. We have enough problems with new players moving into these divisions without adding that there are now new rules that only apply because of their division.
Now let us consider windy conditions (i.e, Oklahoma, Kansas and some parts of Texas). Landing a disc within 2 meters may be essential to a good shot. It is critical to take the wind out of play as much as possible. Using a putting circle only makes this worse. I understand that there may be allowance on the player to pick their point on the 2 meter circle, but wind is an odd thing. That wind coming over your shoulder may suddenly switch and now your disc is 10 meters from the basket. And using a putting circle means I cannot choose to lay up and take a tap in. I MUST putt. I have seen players putting from 2 meters from the basket end up taking multiple strokes due to wind. Good players, not beginning players. There is my unsolicited comments on the question.

Based on what Dave D is suggesting, the 10 ft circle around the basket would be a gimme zone all the time except for the USDGC. Other than tournament play, that's pretty much how it is for rec play(ers) so I don't think they would have touble understanding that. All the USDGC would be doing is requiring the proposed "gimme zone" to be putted out.

The basic fundamentals to the game are:
Throw it,
Throw it again where it landed,
Get it in the basket.

The 1.5 putting rule would trade the play-it-where-it-lies principle to satisfy a disc-should-be-thrown philosophy. Since a 1.5m putt is still a gimme for most this adds nothing to the challenge of the game. Does violating the play-it-where-it-lies philosophy in this case really add anything? If one really wanted to make sure that the disc was not simply laid in the basket, add a rule that the disc must be released before contacting the chains or the basket.

Furthermore, I don't believe we should be going down the path of two different rule sets for different players. Tell newbies that if they are close enough they don't have to finish? I appreciate progress, but that sounds heretic. It violates the most basic part of the game which is get it in the basket!

*sarcasm on*If we start having separate rules, maybe we should consider making the 10m rule: 15m for men and 8m for women? *sarcasm off*

That is exactly what was proposed for everywhere else, except the USDGC.
Codifying the "gimme" into the official rules of disc golf!?!?! My jaw hangs agape in disbelief & my brow furrows with scorn.:(

why not just make the catching device 10' in diameter?

If one really wanted to make sure that the disc was not simply laid in the basket, add a rule that the disc must be released before contacting the chains or the basket.


Krupicka,

That rule is already in the rulebook.

Harold,

I understand why you would do away with the player party.

Thanks for your time!

Krupicka,

That rule is already in the rulebook.


No, it is not. The rule is 803.13B. Read the rule and you will see that there is no requirement that the release occur before the disc hits the chains or any other part of the target.

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to
hole out, the thrower must release the
disc and it must come to rest supported
by the chains or within one of the
entrapment sections. This includes a disc
wedged into or hanging from the lower
entrapment section but excludes a disc
resting on top of, or hanging outside of,
the upper entrapment section. The disc
must also remain within the chains or
entrapment sections until removed.

The rule only says that you must let go of the disc, not that you must let go of it before the target is contacted.

Hopefully we have thwarted another attempt to create another non-rule rule. Like they say, reading is fundamental.

I have not read every post in detail so forgive me if I've missed something. While there has been a lot of carping at Harold for the 1.5 M rule idea, I've really only seen one person address the real issue that Harold is getting at. That would be Bruce B., no surprise there since Bruce thinks about issues carefully.

Harold points out that we have a problem around the basket where many players fudge around the rules, some intentionally, but most unintentionally. He is trying to proffer a change that makes the setting fair. Rather than point out how ridiculous we think this change might be, taking Bruce's approach (one that I like a lot) and offering alternatives might be a more productive method?

I didn't see that Harold replied to Bruce's proposal so a will repeat it. The gist (please correct me if I'm wrong Bruce) was, if you're putting or going directly at the basket, you have to come to a stop, set both feet on the ground firmly, and take your putt. Bruce wrote more elegantly and thoroughly so review his post.

I like this method, like the ball golf example Harold mentioned, it forces the player to comply with the rules set. Another approach might be to eliminate the use of your thrown disc as a marker. Placing a mini slows the player down and makes for a cleaner transition from walking to the green and putting. On the other hand, it doesn't solve the jump putt inside the 10 M mark problem.

The reality though is that if players enforce the rules set as it exists, you solve the problem. Even in cases where players simply aren't careful. If you know the guys on your card are looking, you are going to be more exacting. I've seen this on a number of Pro cards, the players there are looking for an advantage and if you give it, they will take it.

Stand and Deliver, I disagree with Harold's notion about knee damage here. That isn't to say you can't damage your knees, you can, but I don't think it is any more likely than when you run up. If your technique is inadequate, standing or running, you can hurt yourself.

It's silly how we play by one set of rules to get here, and another once we arrive.

reminds me of baseball.... maybe we should have two different leagues of majors for disc golf

Hey Bruce and Lyle,

I did not address what our proposal did not address because I did not want to muddy the water. The narrow, yet multi-faceted, issue related to close-range putts does not appear to need the added complexity of distinct, but semi-related problems. Jump putts and lunge putts are other important problems related to rules compliance and game construct that need to be addressed separately. The solutions to those issues do not necessarily correlate with the solutions for close-range putts.

As for injuries related to stand-and-deliver: It is not so much that this method is inherently more dangerous; rather, it is more the switch to a fundamentally different technique for a single event that could be more dangerous.

Take care,
Harold

Hopefully we have thwarted another attempt to create another non-rule rule. Like they say, reading is fundamental.

Ah woops. Thank you.

Ah. I thought maybe Mr. Duvall was ignoring me because I throw Meteors. ;) Or because I called him Mr. :D

Based on what Dave D is suggesting, the 10 ft circle around the basket would be a gimme zone all the time except for the USDGC. Other than tournament play, that's pretty much how it is for rec play(ers) so I don't think they would have touble understanding that. All the USDGC would be doing is requiring the proposed "gimme zone" to be putted out.

That would be like not having the hitter of a home run have to run the bases. I don't like it. The hitter of the home run runs the bases because that is how you score. The putter of a parked disc drops it in because that is how you hole out. In both cases the doer gains the advantage of transforming the act -- which is often difficult -- into an easy thing to execute.
Not without its potential for failure, but still easy to execute.

That ease of execution is earned and usually enjoyed. Why take that away?

The reason for running the bases on a home run is pageantry and ego stroking. If anything, that's an argument against holing out a drop-in which looks pretty lame in comparison. Now, if players who land in the 10 ft circle had to run around the basket waving their hands doing some version of the hokey pokey... now then we'd have some pageantry!

I say if you land within the 1.5M circle you have to celebrate like a soccer player. Every time. Or you're stroked.

I really hope the tongue was firmly parked in cheek. Watching sluggers jog around the bases is not a great example of pageantry.

The reason for running the bases is that the rules require that each bag be touched in order including home plate for a run to count. If you jog the bases and miss one of the bases and the defensive team notices and tags the base, you are out and the homerun does not stand.

I am against the rule on several small points. The play it where it lies tenet is not sacred to me, but the place the disc on the side of the basket you prefer to putt from is. In conditions where the direction of the putt is important, landing the approach on the proper side of the target is a skill that should be rewarded. A drop-in putt is a reward for a well placed approach, and in many cases I do believe that it is within the control of the player. Often in adverse weather conditions a conscious decision is made to go for the shot or lay-up near the pole.

More than any of that, I think it is overly gimmicky, it should have no effect on scoring, and is extremely counter intuitive for all spectators familiar with stick and disc golf.

However, I do not run the event, and Harold should be free to implement whatever course specific restrictions he feels would benefit competition and the appearance of his event. At least all that he can get approved by the tour manager.

The reason for running the bases on a home run is pageantry and ego stroking.

Not true -- as i said above -- The hitter of the home run runs the bases because that is how you score

If anything, that's an argument against holing out a drop-in which looks pretty lame in comparison. No, it is an argument for scoring (home run, holing out) in a way consistent with the rules.

Now, if players who land in the 10 ft circle had to run around the basket waving their hands doing some version of the hokey pokey... now then we'd have some pageantry!you brought in pageantry. on a ground rule double, you don't go straight to second base because the rules call for the touching of each base consecutively in order to score a run. if you fail to follow the proper protocol -- you turn a potential run into an out. It isn't pageantry to jog to first or second on a walk or a ground-rule double or all the way around the bases on a home run. It is conservation of energy for the next scenario in which that energy may be helpful. Enjoying the trip is earned.

In disc golf, if I am playing in a gusty wind each foot away from the basket adds to the focus and energy required to make the putt. if i can lessen that strain by parking everything -- so much the better for me and the worse for my competition. If i am a young junior aged player, 1.5 meters to me with a strong wind may be like 4 meters to an adult player with a longer reach. We could say you have to go 1.5 meters back from your arm's length away from the target -- but why bother with unnecessarily complicating the rules?

if you want to argue we should mandate all PDGA events mark off the ten meter circle around each pin -- I am with you. That would give spectators a better feel for where a challenging putt for the top pros begins.

If baseball logically eliminated the home run hitter from running the bases, it would not change the outcome of the score, but it would reduce the pageantry and ego stroking for the hitter. It won't happen due to tradition, but there's no structural reason for jogging the bases. Of course, the player is usually moving toward first to make sure it's really a homer, so it doesn't hurt anything to continue around. But if he was allowed to stop and head back to the dugout once the home run was signaled, it would not change the game, just the pageantry and receiving the cheers of the fans.

BTW, I'm not arguing for the 10 ft circle rule. It doesn't feel right as a way to play the game, perhaps using tradition and connection with golf as reasons. The reasons proposed for the 10 ft circle are logical and well reasoned plus would speed play. Likewise, it's not necessary for the home run hitters to circle the bases. But it would not seem right if they changed the rule not requiring hitters to circle the bases. And, in the same way, my sense is that not putting out would not feel right. I don't see any reason why tradition can't sometimes trump logic when considering aspects of proposed changes to the rules of any sport or game.

If you can drive it into the circle of the 901 foot hole 12 at the USDGC, You should take off your shirt, run down the hill, do several Jack Black powerslides, and then several backflips off your stock car, jump into the bleachers, drink some milk, pop the champagne, and run around screaming GOOOOOAAAAAALLLLL, because that there, is one heck of a shot. :)

If you can drive it into the circle of the 901 foot hole 12 at the USDGC, You should take off your shirt, run down the hill, do several Jack Black powerslides, and then several backflips off your stock car, jump into the bleachers, drink some milk, pop the champagne, and run around screaming GOOOOOAAAAAALLLLL, because that there, is one heck of a shot. :)
Been there, done that. Actually it was my 2nd shot though. My 1st went all the way to 13's fairway so I had to tone it down a bit. You know how it is, those 901 foot dinkers are frustrating sometimes you just can't cut back on the power to park them.

this was an idea that mr. duvall thought he'd try out. it is not a new pdga rule. though it may be one day. i personally am not for it, or against it. as a 881 rated am, i'd have NO PROBLEM putting from 1.5m out from the basket. how did the "players" react to this rule? i didn't play this event and i'm sure most of the people commenting on this thread didn't either. how many pros would complain about having to putt from 1.5m out? was there even any complaints during the event?

This was not a rule for the event this year. I think it was a rule they were considering and are considering for the future.

is speed of play really the issue? (for non-USDGC tournaments). the difference of 10 seconds per hole is not that much, and I agree with the post that it goes against the concept of holing out.

is the issue the "propelling" of the disc? I think the post about dropping it in is still propelling was really good.

I think even for specators watching USDGC it would be hard to figure out why the players are moving backwards after throwing it right next to the basket? To me it wouldn't look more professional, just weird that a guy threw it right next to the basket but stopped 6 feet short of the basket to throw it in.

I'm all about new rules and changes that benefit the game, but I am not a huge fan of this rule. Would it keep me from playing USDGC, nope! Harold can do whatever he wants.. it is such a sweeeeeeet tourney. Hope to make it back again some time.

The reason for running the bases on a home run is pageantry and ego stroking. If anything, that's an argument against holing out a drop-in which looks pretty lame in comparison. Now, if players who land in the 10 ft circle had to run around the basket waving their hands doing some version of the hokey pokey... now then we'd have some pageantry!

When was the last time you saw someone hit a long putt or an ace? I'd say the Hokey Pokey was mild in comparison!

When was the last time you saw someone hit a long putt or an ace? I'd say the Hokey Pokey was mild in comparison!
Yes. But the context of my remarks was a person doing this after a drop-in. Unlikely thye'd do hokey pokey and would also look highly inappropriate to observers, unless of course it was the final putt to win $15K at USDGC.

The reason for running the bases on a home run is pageantry and ego stroking. If anything, that's an argument against holing out a drop-in which looks pretty lame in comparison. Now, if players who land in the 10 ft circle had to run around the basket waving their hands doing some version of the hokey pokey... now then we'd have some pageantry!

I don't know who told you that, but it seems more logical to me that the reason players run the bases is because that's how all runs are scored.

From Baseball Rules
"2.00 Definition of Terms ... A RUN (or SCORE) is the score made by an offensive players who advances from batter to runner and touches first, second, third and home bases in that order.

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when - . . .(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. ...

7.05 Each runner including the atter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance: (a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally, . . .

NOTE: When a runner is entitled to a base without liability to be put out, . . ., and the runner fails to touch the base to which he is entitled before attempting to advance to the next base, the runner shall forfeit his exemption from liability to be put out, and he may be put out by tagging the base or by tagging the runner before he returns to the missed base."

You don't score by hitting the ball over the fence. Hitting that ball over the fence just makes it a lot easier. Watch the umpires on the next home run you see. They are watching the runner carefully to see if he touches all the bases.

I agree the current rules require running the bases. But the rule could easily have been changed any time rules for home runs were considered over the history of the sport. There's no functional reason for running the bases if their rules committee decided it wasn't necessary. The pageantry, ego stroking and essentially tradition are "rational" reasons for retaining the base running specifically for home runs.

I agree the current rules require running the bases. But the rule could easily have been changed any time rules for home runs were considered over the history of the sport. There's no functional reason for running the bases if their rules committee decided it wasn't necessary. The pageantry, ego stroking and essentially tradition are "rational" reasons for retaining the base running specifically for home runs.

There's no functional reason for baskets if the Rules Committee decides it isn't necessary. just have rings on the ground and whereever your tee shot lands determines your score. center ring with a radius of 1.5 meters yields a 1. 4m yields a 2. 10m yields a 3.

But that is silly as would be not requiring all the bases to be touched in order to score a run. Ego and pageantry may enter in, but that is more about ego and pageantry loving than it is about rules and necessity. imo, drop ins should be relished by fans and players. Chuck, are you going to champion implementation of this 1.5 meter thing at all PDGA events or are you just playing devil's advocate here?

Read my post #115 to see my position on the bullseye.

Read my post #115 to see my position on the bullseye.

logical reasons can be made for almost anything. not sure who said it -- perhaps it was a tree commentating on the human being -- but it is a great and profound quote when appreciated:

"logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence"

I agree the current rules require running the bases. But the rule could easily have been changed any time rules for home runs were considered over the history of the sport. There's no functional reason for running the bases if their rules committee decided it wasn't necessary. The pageantry, ego stroking and essentially tradition are "rational" reasons for retaining the base running specifically for home runs.

Why not change the rule that Harold quoted about having to propel the disc to be considered a legal throw? Why not only stipulate that it just must be released. The golfer can open his hand and let gravity do the work, the way drop ins are often played currently. Then no circle would be necessary.

Too logical...

Hey Michael,

The apparent conflict between current disc golf practice and the definition of a throw would be good to eliminate. The other issues - unmarked 10 meter circles, more precise definition of balance, apron to catch spit outs, pageantry - were (and are) the more compelling reasons to me to continue to strive for an even better game.

Take care,
Harold

Potential rules improvements like Michael's excellent wording suggestion could not be put in place until the start of 2011 when a revised rulebook might be in effect. Harold and Dave use the USDGC for trying out some ideas to see how they work before the better ones might get incorporated in the next rulebook. High profile events like the USDGC and Worlds are the best places to test these ideas because they are the only places where we can get immediate feedback from around the world. In addition, the top players are so good that the "extreme" versions of some design/rules constructs like fairway width, OB, mandos and buncrs are required to separate the best from the best on the Winthrop course terrain that isn't naturally the best for an elite challenge in all areas of the property.

For example, the idea has been bouncing around for many years to formally add a rule where a disc lying on the ground with any part of it under the basket "cylinder" (or on top - DROTs) would automatically be "in" on the next shot without actually throwing it. This would essentially be legalizing the "gimme" which many of us already do in our informal rounds and leagues anyway. This would speed play without any material change in score. Had this rule been added and our game been played that way for a while, then the proposed 5 ft ring for USDGC where the elite players had to actually putt out might not have had so much negativity because it would just have been a more extreme version of the "gimme" rule strictly for the USDGC. In fact, I would say the proposed ring coming from that perspective might have needed to be 2-2.5m to sufficiently boost the stress level enough for those players who were then used to getting gimmes close up.

Hey Michael,

The apparent conflict between current disc golf practice and the definition of a throw would be good to eliminate. The other issues - unmarked 10 meter circles, more precise definition of balance, apron to catch spit outs, pageantry - were (and are) the more compelling reasons to me to continue to strive for an even better game.

Take care,
Harold

Thanks Harold, I do think its a good idea to try out. I feel like it could be nice for the sport if all of the courses made nice circles like the one you made at USDGC. I feel like the real test will be to get people who have never played disc golf to watch and see what their reactions are to the small circle.

Trying to make disc golf more like ball golf seems a bit redundant. These are two different sports that share similar characteristics. I do like to hear about Harold's ideas, as I think some of them are great. And, with the right arguments, I can see how a drop in is not a "throw". However, using common sense, I beg to differ. When "dropping" a disc in the basket, it is somewhat a "toss". So, the question is, at what point does a "throw" become a "toss", and a "toss" become a "throw". So basically, if I have a great upshot, possibly the best upshot that I have ever had in my life- pardon me, I mean a great "throw", and it lands right under the basket, I should be penalized by moving it back five feet, in order for me to "throw" my next shot? At five feet, it is still a mere "toss". Not everyone is as tall as people like Chris Woj, and yes, five feet is only five feet, but, lets factor in some high winds, and terrible playing conditions- this becomes a huge challange. And for Chris, no problem, he can reach out with those long gorilla type arms, and still set the disc in. For us people who are closer to midget status, this becomes a clutch shot that will take precise determination (don't get me wrong, every shot requires this). But, for all the shorties out there, why should they be penelized for something they have no control over? There is no reason for a great throw be penalized. If a person has a great throw, they should be rewarded by a drop in "toss", because they took the time, effort, and focus to get their disc under the basket in the first place. They earned it by rising to the occasion and throwing a great shot, under pressure.
Creating more and more rules only takes the fun out of the sport. And, as far as changing rules, why can't current members of the PDGA vote for something like this (if we can, it is my fault for not knowing, and I have never been aware of this)? If the PDGA rulebook is basically our (the player's) constitution, we should all be able to vote- for any changes whatsoever. A change to the rules is basically an amendment.

If a player makes contact with any part of the (basket) before they have released their disc from their throwing hand, a 2 shot penalty will be assessed to said player.
This can be likened to double hitting a ball in ball golf...aka T.C. Chen in a major a while back.

I agree the current rules require running the bases. But the rule could easily have been changed any time rules for home runs were considered over the history of the sport. . . .

Nope, because then it wouldn't be baseball anymore. Baseball is running the bases to score. If you add another way to score (hit the ball really far) then it is something else - maybe I-probably-would-have-scored-so-why-bother-to-play baseball.

Disc golf is getting a disc to a target. If you add another way to finish the hole, it isn't disc golf anymore.

Don't open the door to the neighborhood of make-believe.

Baseball or any version of a sport is defined by the rules it operates under. Even though the American League has a designated hitter, it is no less baseball than the National League without it.

In rereading some of the posts, it seems that I may have been unclear on one point. The five foot radius is measured from the pole. The effective length of the putt is far less. When accounting for the diameter of the tray (13 inches), the length of the player's arm (29+ inches), and the ability to lean forward some while maintaining balance (6+inches), the effective length of the putt is about a foot. With the ability to move around the circle, the wind would have to be incredibly fierce before a one footer became a challenge.

Take care,
Harold

In rereading some of the posts, it seems that I may have been unclear on one point. The five foot radius is measured from the pole. The effective length of the putt is far less. When accounting for the diameter of the tray (13 inches), the length of the player's arm (29+ inches), and the ability to lean forward some while maintaining balance (6+inches), the effective length of the putt is about a foot. With the ability to move around the circle, the wind would have to be incredibly fierce before a one footer became a challenge.

Take care,
Harold

I tested this out today, and it was rediculously easy. It is almost exactly the length of the one Barry missed at USDGC a few years ago on hole 5 when he tried to drop it in, but just couldnt quite reach.

Baseball or any version of a sport is defined by the rules it operates under. Even though the American League has a designated hitter, it is no less baseball than the National League without it.

[Tangent: "6.10 Any League may elect to use the Designated Hitter Rule."]

Sure, there are some rule changes which change the way the game is played without changing what the game is. But not the "core" rules. There are some changes which are so fundamental that the result is not a different version of the game, but a new game entirely.

Hey kids, let's play the new game called "Pretend you're going to make the next putt!" It's better than real disc golf!

I think anything that messes with 803.01 A. Description of the Game, has the potential to change disc golf into another game. It's like messing with the root directory - not to be done lightly.

Just a simple question, mainly pointed at Chuck, why are we even discussing baseball? As best I can tell, they have a larger fan base, they have a larger playing base, they attract more money, cities spend money on baseball easily, whereas disc golf has to beg for money most of the time, it has more advertising, it can yield college scholarships, it can support professional atheletes, it is on television..........

Just a suggestion, let us drop the worthless discussion of baseball and get back to OUR sport. I explained the suggestion of pulling the disc back for putts to my wife and she said it made little sense to her and she is married to a 30+ year disc golfer.

The baseball example wasn't used to be analogous to DG, just as another sport among many where rules can be there because they are logical or because of tradition. I already pointed out I'm not in favor of the USDGC 5 ft radius circle idea, not because it lacks a logical framework for the concept but because it feels like the wrong direction due to tradition.

In all the rounds that I've ever played, I don't remember seeing a drop-in putt that I considered questionable. Has anyone else? I also can't (off the top of my head) think of another instance where a player would be required to relocate a disc, having committed no rules infraction. It doesn't sound like this is really meant to address any potential rules infraction, other than propulsion and release of a disc. That could be cleared-up by changing the wording of the rule, as has been suggested. How would the rule apply to elevated baskets? Would it be 1.5m from the base of the supporting object? That could add several feet to a putt, if Mr. Pythagoras had it all together.

My apologies, though I was not hot as some seem to get, just scratching my head over it.


The baseball example wasn't used to be analogous to DG, just as another sport among many where rules can be there because they are logical or because of tradition. I already pointed out I'm not in favor of the USDGC 5 ft radius circle idea, not because it lacks a logical framework for the concept but because it feels like the wrong direction due to tradition.

Has the PDGA ever considered making 10m tethers and giving them to TD's as compasses and then requiring that all PDGA sanctioned events mark the greens? I think that would be great and would take the human element out of the -- 'am I outside of 10 meters?' -- question... to me the 3 meter circle is so small it seems absurd.

A lot of circles painted now that are supposed to be 10m are not 10m, either due to string stretching, or having to paint around obstacles. This coming from personal experience. As a marshal explained to me, the 10m circle is to help facilitate the rate of play (i.e. who's out), not to enforce falling putts.

As a marshal explained to me, the 10m circle is to help facilitate the rate of play (i.e. who's out), not to enforce falling putts.


Whaaaaat?!? RUKiddingMe? I have never seen a line that was not meant to give definition to a rule, almost always OB (and now buncr).

Either that marshal need re-education, or I do!:confused:

That is the correct interpretation. A painted 10m circle is just a frame of reference, and is not for rule enforcement.

You do. That's one of the things that needs to be updated in the rules. The 10m line for the putting circle is not official. I know of several pros who have asked that the actual 10m be measured to determine whether their lie is outside 10m even when the circle is painted.

Wow. In that case, can I ask that an OB line, made with rope, can be examined by the TD, in case it moved after he laid it out?

My goodness, a 10m circle that really doesn't mean anything. I wonder if the guy who drew so many of them at the KC worlds knew that?

Why is it buncr, and not bunker? Seriously, I need to learn something today.

As to the basic concept being discussed, imo the most persuasive argument is an aesthetic one, both in the look of a course, and to how a hole is completed. Using the "clarification of project" argument is wanting, as the obvious rebuttal, given above, is simply, "well, fix it through language and not design."

btw, I do find the aesthetic argument compelling myself (it took awhile for my limited imagination to work on me though), but I sense most will dismiss it until they actually see the changes.

Not official? What if the TD says that it is official? Is s/he circumventing the Rules of Play?

When you get right down to it, what is official? The Ace Hardware 10m metal measuring tape I have in my bag?

My goodness, please don't have anything out on the course that signifies distance, such as a 10m circle, or a 2m stick (if the 2m penalty is in play) unless they are for official use. If they are not, please don't have them out there. It is just confusing.

"The TD measured this stick to be 2m long, but it's just a guideline to give you an idea whether or not your disc is at or above 2m. You will have to get something _official_ to make the actual measurement"

!!!

Why is it buncr, and not bunker? Seriously, I need to learn something today.
The CR stands for Casual Relief. Essentially, a buncr works similar to a casual relief area but you are forced to take the relief whether it's line of play, drop zone or rethrow as specified by the designer/TD. A bunker would be some sort of hazard in our sport where landing in it meant you got no relief but had a tougher shot than normal to escape from it, similar to a sand trap in ball golf.

A lot of circles painted now that are supposed to be 10m are not 10m, either due to string stretching, or having to paint around obstacles. This coming from personal experience. As a marshal explained to me, the 10m circle is to help facilitate the rate of play (i.e. who's out), not to enforce falling putts.

Then the PDGA should grab the bull by the horns and get some official tethers produced that don't stretch and have a ring to lock around the pin on one end and a paint can holster on the other to yield a consistent 10 meter circle.

given the act of using such a device as a pretty accurate compass is simple -- the TD / RC could announce the painted circle shall be considered to mark the distance of 10 meters from the pin throughout the tournament unless it is found to be off by more than 10cm.

the marshall's suggestion that the circle is to show who is out is hard to take seriously. probably just a guy or gal with a dry sense of humor ;-)

I heard a lot of people say they enjoyed having the practice targets for the holes that there are back-ups on the course. #5 & #13 have some wait times that are sometimes over a half hour. I don't see it being to much of a competitive advantage since it's offered to everyone. Plus the Traveler's are pretty quite. Was there negative feedback from having the practice targets in 2008?

The problem with painting 10-meter circles is that in comes to about 2/3 mile of painted lines on an 18-hole course. That's a lot of work, a fair expense for paint or chalk or whatever, and extra difficult on holes with obstacles inside the circle. Painted circles are great, but hardly feasible in all events.

You could, however, have a 10 meter string on a spool, attached to the pole, which can be used to measure if there's ever a question.

just did the math, i did not realize we are talking 62.83 meters worth of mark around each hole... perhaps a more practical approach would be to have eight painted points around the circumference to cut down the amount of paint required and then eyeball inbetween those eight points...

another potential solution would be to mark the 10 meter circle with a ring of pea gravel, sand or inlaid bricks instead of paint. that could be a one-time amount of work which then became permanent (and new courses could make it part of protocol...)

or -- just get rid of the 10 meter rule altogfether and emphasize enforcement of no jump putting allowed rule presently in place (only putt-jumping allowed). that would be great if people honed their attention on what an illegal jump putt is verses a legal putt jump. i have never heard that called -- it seems like people do ask if they are outside 10 and then everyone watches the basket not the feet.

I tested this out today, and it was rediculously easy. It is almost exactly the length of the one Barry missed at USDGC a few years ago on hole 5 when he tried to drop it in, but just couldnt quite reach.

I don't think that's quite what happened, Barry wasn't paying attention, looked to the side on a clear vertical drop in, smacked the disc down onto the edge of the basket and it flipped out. He blew it! He did a "doh!" moment, and being who he is laughed it off.

On the other hand, this comments on the notion of "under the basket" being a gimme. Should it be? IMO no, it doesn't look professional. But I don't like the step back and put it in either. IMO, a better solution, one that will be universally rejected, is that the player is required to make a clear stance behind their disc on any shot with their marking foot being in place for two seconds before dropping the disc. It would be the same for any shot not off the tee. You can move back from the disc after your two seconds to include a run up or a jump putt, but you have to mark your lie with your foot for two seconds prior to that addition. The reality is this solves the Barry problem and Harold's too.

My goodness, a 10m circle that really doesn't mean anything. I wonder if the guy who drew so many of them at the KC worlds knew that?

A lot of guys drew those lines (me included, all 18 of them at Swope Park). And I did know that beforehand.

Then the PDGA should grab the bull by the horns and get some official tethers produced that don't stretch and have a ring to lock around the pin on one end and a paint can holster on the other to yield a consistent 10 meter circle.

given the act of using such a device as a pretty accurate compass is simple -- the TD / RC could announce the painted circle shall be considered to mark the distance of 10 meters from the pin throughout the tournament unless it is found to be off by more than 10cm.

the marshall's suggestion that the circle is to show who is out is hard to take seriously. probably just a guy or gal with a dry sense of humor ;-)

Sure, that's up to the TD. But I don't think there anything in any of the PDGA's materials that says if a circle is painted, it's at 10m, and can be used to enforce falling putts. Painting an OB line is one thing; even if it's crooked, it's defined. But painting circles in another animal all together. Some of the extreme greens on a lot of courses force you to paint around things. I couldn't imagine a way to paint an accurate 10m circle on the Down Under course at Rosedale in KC.

Sure, that's up to the TD. But I don't think there anything in any of the PDGA's materials that says if a circle is painted, it's at 10m, and can be used to enforce falling putts. Painting an OB line is one thing; even if it's crooked, it's defined. But painting circles in another animal all together. Some of the extreme greens on a lot of courses force you to paint around things. I couldn't imagine a way to paint an accurate 10m circle on the Down Under course at Rosedale in KC.

and then you have to consider inclines. would the 10m circle be on a flat plain or could it roll down with the hill from the basket? 10m straight out over a 3m slope down would be further than 10m down the slope.

and then you have to consider inclines. would the 10m circle be on a flat plain or could it roll down with the hill from the basket? 10m straight out over a 3m slope down would be further than 10m down the slope.

Yep. That's why a 10m circle should be used for speed of play, not for rule enforcement.

The interesting point here is that this 2m circle would probably be easier to consistently create. So we get out of this problem with 10m.

I think that it is great to have a circle to aid in speed of play, to assist in determining who is away, just don't give it the same radius as a distance that is used for rules enforcement, i.e. a 10 m radius.

I do have to admit, I don't recall in the huge players' meeting at KC that these circles were mentioned at all, but I did notice that they had a radius of approx. 10m, so I thought that they were made to help identify throws that were 10m or less from the target.

I think that it would have been nice if it was mentioned at the players' meeting that these circles have been drawn as a courtesy to the players, but they were not to be used for determining distance (I was going to say "for rules enforcement", but players should use _themselves_ for "rules enforcement")

The reason for running the bases on a home run is pageantry and ego stroking. If anything, that's an argument against holing out a drop-in which looks pretty lame in comparison. Now, if players who land in the 10 ft circle had to run around the basket waving their hands doing some version of the hokey pokey... now then we'd have some pageantry!

Pageantry and a World Champ trying to stroke someone on a courtesy violation to gank the win!


Thank God I can still wedge a soft rhyno into a cage and it counts, no matter that it actually had no chance to go in.

A lot of circles painted now that are supposed to be 10m are not 10m, either due to string stretching, or having to paint around obstacles. This coming from personal experience. As a marshal explained to me, the 10m circle is to help facilitate the rate of play (i.e. who's out), not to enforce falling putts.
Or you can have someone painting circles that isn't sure how long to make them. I had an event this summer called "The Best Tournament Ever" (I look forward to next year: "The Second Best Tournament Ever") that had the lines painted by some locals in the days before the event. Over the course of the event we began to call them it the Mystery Circle. It could be anywhere from 7-10m. It was pretty amusing and worked only to help understand how far out people were.

USDGC rocks!! Innova really knows how to run a professional event!!

I heard that the falling putt penalty, would be eliminated from this tournament.....but I guess not.

During the player meeting, it was made clear, that both feet had to be touching the ground to show balance........I don't think that is a correct interpetation of the rule.

I understand Innova has a few unique rules for their event...like bunker (which I think hurts the integrity of the game), but the both feet on the ground maintaining balance thing, is just dumb.....if you maintain balance on one foot...(example Will Shusterick).....the putt should be good. (like it says in the rule book...what do you do if a player only has one leg??....haha)

I saw Will foot fault at least a dozen times (according to Innovas interpetation of the falling putt), without anyone calling it. (for the record, Will always maintains balance on one foot legally)

People were talking about it before the tournament started, wondering how Innova can change a very clear rule before the tournament, but most people just ignored it once the tournament started, obviously.....I would like to see the same exact rules we use, in every other tournament we play throughout the year.

A solution for the bunker rule is easy......just make the landing zones a little easier, instead of making up a rule that doesn't exist......getting a circle 2, like Filo did on 17, should never, ever, ever happen.........look at the island green at pebble beach as the example.....make the landing zone wider....use a drop zone....

I would guess that the bunker rule was implemented after seeing huge scores on certain holes....sooooo, don't change the rules.......change the holes.

If you haven't attended the USDGC, I recommend doing so....it's the best tournament ever! Keep up the good work!

A solution for the bunker rule is easy......just make the landing zones a little easier, instead of making up a rule that doesn't exist......
Better take a closer look at the rulebook. Buncr is just a name for predetermined casual relief or special conditions areas already defined by the rules (see 804.01B). The drop zone in the case of the USDGC is the original lie.

Better take a closer look at the rulebook. Buncr is just a name for predetermined casual relief or special conditions areas already defined by the rules (see 804.01B). The drop zone in the case of the USDGC is the original lie.

I was referring to ball golf rules.....I'm aware of the disc golf buncr rule.....please correct me if I'm wrong, if ball golfers use the buncr rule....

I am under the impression the USDGC wants to simulate a ball golf tournament experience.......and no other tournaments I've played has the buncr rule.....also, no other tournament says you have to have both feet on the ground to show balance.....

Just trying to understand why these two rules are changed/implemented, during the biggest tournament of the year, after not playing either of them anywhere else.

ok

Ball golf has pot bunker sand traps on links courses in the UK that don't have a lot of trees to provide challenges. Many times a player's ball ends up almost right back where it was in the bunker while the player is trying to chip out of them.

OB rules have been around in DG for many years before the concept of the island green was popularized by the USDGC. The casual relief and special conditions rules have also been in the book a long time. It just took a designer to finally say Ah Ha! and use the buncrs as a design element.

If the definition of "balance" was actually clear, there would be no need for the specific definition requested as a variance for USDGC with both feet being on the ground and forward momentum stopped. My sense is that this more detailed definition used at the USDGC is what the original rules writers had intended for the meaning of balance (common sense) but just didn't write it in the rules. I expect something similar to the USDGC wording to be in the next rulebook.

Ball golf has pot bunker sand traps on links courses in the UK that don't have a lot of trees to provide challenges. Many times a player's ball ends up almost right back where it was in the bunker while the player is trying to chip out of them.

OB rules have been around in DG for many years before the concept of the island green was popularized by the USDGC. The casual relief and special conditions rules have also been in the book a long time. It just took a designer to finally say Ah Ha! and use the buncrs as a design element.

If the definition of "balance" was actually clear, there would be no need for the specific definition requested as a variance for USDGC with both feet being on the ground and forward momentum stopped. My sense is that this more detailed definition used at the USDGC is what the original rules writers had intended for the meaning of balance (common sense) but just didn't write it in the rules. I expect something similar to the USDGC wording to be in the next rulebook.

Good stuff chuck....thanks for the clarification.......but, pot bunkers are generally used after the tee shot in ball golf, around the greens... The big guns were the only ones who could go for the green on 10 without taking much of a risk......along with 13 as well. Oh well, I threw my first shot out of bounds in the parking lot....I'll just play for my par now, without taking a OB stroke.....how is that fair to players who don't have a 450 ft gun??!!

The definition of "balance" IS a very clear word to me.....did the player maintain balance?? Use common sense....yes or no, wether it's one or two feet.......I don't think this rule needs to be revised.....

I'm a ball golfer for 30 years.....and when I hit a ball OB....no matter how hard the hole is.....I always take an OB stroke, and figure out a way not to do it again. If I'm in a pot bunker, and don't get out......that's the way it goes.......

Thanks for the feedback Chuck....it's always educational on here:)

Let me say again, thanks to Innova for the awsome course and tournament....they have set the standard for some time now.....

I recently spoke with a competitor who attended this year's USDGC. He told me that nothing prevented players from putting while balanced on one foot; however, it was after throwing a putt players were advised to place both feet on the ground to demonstrate balance before advancing toward the target.

I heard a lot of people say they enjoyed having the practice targets for the holes that there are back-ups on the course. #5 & #13 have some wait times that are sometimes over a half hour. I don't see it being to much of a competitive advantage since it's offered to everyone. Plus the Traveler's are pretty quite. Was there negative feedback from having the practice targets in 2008?

Hey Kevin,

Sorry that I missed your post. There were two in-round practice putting areas in 2008. One was near the tee for Hole 4, and the other was near the tee for Hole 13. Some folks suggested that practice putting during the round jeopardized the integrity of the game, but that was not the reason we opted not to use them.

The practice putting green near Hole #4 was no longer needed. The redesigned hole significantly reduced the back-ups that we had experienced in previous years. The practice putting green near Hole #13 would have been beneficial again, but we had received reports that the semi-secluded area near a high-pressure hole was being used for activities that should not be done in situations that could affect the public's perception of professional disc golf. The benefit was not worth the potential cost.

For 2010, we are considering two practice putting greens. One would be near #13 but with different sight lines. One near #5 would also be beneficial, especially since the warm-up putting area is already close by. Of course we would need a rules variance like the one we received in 2008.

Thanks for the yummy coffee and take care,
Harold

I recently spoke with a competitor who attended this year's USDGC. He told me that nothing prevented players from putting while balanced on one foot; however, it was after throwing a putt players were advised to place both feet on the ground to demonstrate balance before advancing toward the target.

you sorta of made my point....if you are balanced (wether it's one or two feet)....it shouldn't matter.

all I'm trying to say is....why add a new rule before the biggest tournament of the year....especially when it's a common sense group call anyway, whether the play is balanced or not. What if we get a one legged qualifier? Will he get a pass on this new rule? Balance is balance....

ok

would modifying the rule to require at least a one second pause after release before advancing toward the target achieve the same end without changing the one support point rule?

would modifying the rule to require at least a one second pause after release before advancing toward the target achieve the same end without changing the one support point rule?

why don't they just make the rule the common thought... "within 10m. (or approx if you don't have a line or tape) don't pass your lie untill the disc has come to rest." wording would be made a little more clearer with out the parenthesis, of course

when most people are starting the sport... those rules are the easiest to understand. at least in the wording.

why don't they just make the rule the common thought... "within 10m. (or approx if you don't have a line or tape) don't pass your lie untill the disc has come to rest."Foot faulting has nothing to do with what happens to the disc once it leaves your hand.

What if we get a one legged qualifier? Will he get a pass on this new rule? Balance is balance....A one legged qualifier is not going to have another foot to place in front of the lie to foot fault...

Foot faulting has nothing to do with what happens to the disc once it leaves your hand.



yeah but i'm sure that by the time the disc comes to rest, the player will have either shown control of balance, or fallen down. if they are still trying to get their balance by then, it would probably be obvious they haven't got it yet.

If the disc hits the basket and rolls, your suggestion would mean the player cannot move to watch where it's heading. It just doesn't make sense to base whether a player's follow thru is acceptable or not upon when the disc stops moving.

I guess is any of this is to go down, or even brought up for a player vote, i would like to see the following.

Bull's Eye - 1 Meter circle around the basket. It's a gimme. Pick it up and add a stroke. No putting needed.

Buffer Zone - 2 Meter circle around the basket. If you are in the circle, but did not make the Bull's Eye, pull your putt out to any point on the edge of the Buffer Zone and demonstrate a legal putt and stance.

15 Meter Rule - Screw that 10 Meter Rule crap. Lets make it interesting. Its now 15 Meters and you will not have any excuse for making a falling putt anywhere inside of it.

Also, if you manage to hit and ace and it knocks the basket over, I think you should get to mark you score as a ZERO since you just proved that you are indeed, The Man.

I had a "polyester pole hole" being used as a temp hole actually start swaying after I aced it, at the Arsenal in Huntsville in 1985.

The general ability to officiate ourselves is one of the greatest traditions that we inherited from golf. I cherish this aspect of disc golf just as many golfers cherish this aspect of golf. When all disc golfers are honorable, and all players act honorably with keen perception and judgment, the subjectivity inherent in �demonstrate balance� does not present a problem. However our ability to govern ourselves is threatened when subjective rules are coupled with casual compliance. By defining �demonstrate balance� more precisely, we attempted to eliminate one element of subjectivity.

Take care,
Harold

While waiting on hole 5 Climo and Sprague started making fun of the rule with Kenny saying he was going to tap in while falling backwards since all he had to do was "show balance before proceeding forward" and the rest of the round we were had a few tap-ins followed by crane-like showings of balance which were ended by lightly placing the left toe back on the ground.

Buncr rule is like most of the things Chuck comes up with and from what I hear he is wanting to expand it to be included in more situations. I personally had a Par on all the Buncr holes after throwing the 1st shot OB during the 1st round and think the regular OB penalty is better in most cases on Winthrop.

On a side note the line on "888" is a 170ft stable putter inbounds every time. Next year I will just have to figure out how not to mess up the "so simple its hard" hole 9 which FWIW spit me twice on center putts.

One more thing, whatever was changed to the chain configurations on all the holes excluding 9-10 needs to not happen again. lol I saw a lot of weird spits in the tournament but also in the putting contest with the higher action chain movement.

While waiting on hole 5 Climo and Sprague started making fun of the rule with Kenny saying he was going to tap in while falling backwards since all he had to do was "show balance before proceeding forward" and the rest of the round we were had a few tap-ins followed by crane-like showings of balance which were ended by lightly placing the left toe back on the ground.

That was allowed under the current rule so you guys must be a real hoot on the circuit with your slapstick putting routines. :rolleyes:

That was allowed under the current rule so you guys must be a real hoot on the circuit with your slapstick putting routines. :rolleyes:


Yeah but the fact that it is allowed is what makes the rule so dumb. I know a lot of players (including myself) that especially when playing well will putt and watch it all the way in (on one foot) and once the disc has settled they move forward to get the disc even though they could have remained on 1 foot for another 5 minutes if needed.

I understand why the foot fault rethrow was changed but IMO this did more harm than good.

Yeah but the fact that it is allowed is what makes the rule so dumb. I know a lot of players (including myself) that especially when playing well will putt and watch it all the way in (on one foot) and once the disc has settled they move forward to get the disc even though they could have remained on 1 foot for another 5 minutes if needed.
Forcing the player to put their other foot down would seem to be the only way to confirm that the player posing on one foot was truly in balance before moving forward. A player who is not balanced could (and has) simply stepped forward after the disc has stopped making it look like they were in balance but in fact the stepping forward helped them regain balance.

Forcing the player to put their other foot down would seem to be the only way to confirm that the player posing on one foot was truly in balance before moving forward. A player who is not balanced could (and has) simply stepped forward after the disc has stopped making it look like they were in balance but in fact the stepping forward helped them regain balance.



Really? Wow I never knew that kind of thing had ever happened before. As we said before the round we wouldn't call anything unless it looked wrong and they fact is when people putt and move forward with no balance it is fairly easy to spot. A player can also place the other foot down quickly even if they never really established balance which like I said before is worse than a guy who is balanced on one foot proceeding to the hole after the group has seen that balance was shown (once again not very hard).

Except the unbalanced player just touching the ground with the second foot would still not meet the "all momentum stopped" part of the rule. The whole thing with the USDGC rule was to better define "common sense" for what balance is because there have been too many situations where it was unclear either what happened or in the minds of the players on what was a falling putt. No one cares if the player loses balance as long as it all happens behind the lie such as Kenny's falling backward from the crane position drop-in idea.

Except the unbalanced player just touching the ground with the second foot would still not meet the "all momentum stopped" part of the rule. The whole thing with the USDGC rule was to better define "common sense" for what balance is because there have been too many situations where it was unclear either what happened or in the minds of the players on what was a falling putt. No one cares if the player loses balance as long as it all happens behind the lie such as Kenny's falling backward from the crane position drop-in idea.


Why does nobody care if a player falls backwards? To me if you have to show forward balance you should also need to show balance when coming back. That is the whole reason he was making fun of it in the 1st place. One guy can hit a putt and in the minds of many show balance without placing the other foot down yet when he moves forward someone can call hiim trying to gain a stroke while some fool can fall backwards with no penalty. FWIW I care

They just need to keep you away from the rules.

I had nothing to do with this variance and am not on the rules committee. Consider that players can be lying on the ground to take a legal stance and be in a variety of weird positions. Forcing players to retain balance BEHIND the lie after releasing is unreasonable. However, preventing players from lunging beyond their lie to get closer to the hole is the reason for the rule as currently written. It was primarily a safety issue to prevent slam dunks and dead fall putts which occurred in the 70s. However, it's apparent that the wording in the current rule is not yet clear enough for players to follow and observers to call. Thus, the proposed wording for the USDGC rule was to make the intentions of the original rule clear.

I had nothing to do with this variance and am not on the rules committee. Consider that players can be lying on the ground to take a legal stance and be in a variety of weird positions. Forcing players to retain balance BEHIND the lie after releasing is unreasonable. However, preventing players from lunging beyond their lie to get closer to the hole is the reason for the rule as currently written. It was primarily a safety issue to prevent slam dunks and dead fall putts which occurred in the 70s. However, it's apparent that the wording in the current rule is not yet clear enough for players to follow and observers to call. Thus, the proposed wording for the USDGC rule was to make the intentions of the original rule clear.



If those are the true reasons for the rule why is there a need to modify the rule? I know it is pretty easy to spot a leaping putt and the way you stated it would seem that the players I am talking about are in no way taking away from the integrity or way the game is meant to be played but can be picked out when someone needs to get a stroke.

BIG difference between a slam dunk and a guy moving towards the hole after the putt has fallen.........................Especially when they have shown significant balance.

BTW I know you had nothing to do with this rule but I had heard about some of your other ideas which are less than stellar.

Oooohhh...:rolleyes:

When one is lost in space, most of one's ideas are stellar.

Ideas are just that - ideas. It's those "stellar" ideas that get massaged and tweaked to ultimately become grounded that eventually get implemented and might make a difference. There are several that have been in the pipeline for years now without the resources to get them grounded and move them forward.

Ideas are just that - ideas. It's those "stellar" ideas that get massaged and tweaked to ultimately become grounded that eventually get implemented and might make a difference. There are several that have been in the pipeline for years now without the resources to get them grounded and move them forward.


How about thinking of new ways to promote competition and better tournaments instead?

Like I said most things run by the PDGA are weak which makes them in many way like most governing bodies.

How about thinking of new ways to promote competition and better tournaments instead?

Like I said most things run by the PDGA are weak which makes them in many way like most governing bodies.

Well you obviously know what it takes so step up, run for state coordinator, put on an A or NT and show us all how it is supposed to be done. Lead by example not by sitting at a computer complaining about what you don't like.

Well you obviously know what it takes so step up, run for state coordinator, put on an A or NT and show us all how it is supposed to be done. Lead by example not by sitting at a computer complaining about what you don't like.



Actually I have come up with a few ideas to increase the significance of both the NT schedule and Worlds for a few years now yet I am basically made to look like an idiot by the PDGA ED. I really think $125,000+ in added cash to worlds would be pretty nice and a NT that followed some kind of path with smaller events mixed in would be nice but it seems the PDGA is unable to do this likely because of stingy event dates.

BTW when I do run an event it likely won't be PDGA sanctioned.

BTW when I do run an event it likely won't be PDGA sanctioned.

I am sure Discraft is very proud of your stance on sanctioning. Be sure to add that "non-PDGA" line to any arguments you have for growing Worlds and the NT. It will certainly bolster your credibility.:rolleyes:

I am sure Discraft is very proud of your stance on sanctioning. Be sure to add that "non-PDGA" line to any arguments you have for growing Worlds and the NT. It will certainly bolster your credibility.:rolleyes:



Truthfully I would expect Discraft to want the event to be sanctioned but the fact is that all events are equal and PDGA sanctioning means little when it comes down to it. I would rather play a non sanctioned event with 30 Pros instead of a sanctioned one with 10 anyway.

I would also hope that all things are looked at as equal when it comes to running tournaments and the PDGA would be happy to know that the sport is being promoted even if they aren't receiving anything. I know that is wishful thinking but the worlds issue bummed me out enough that if I am going to tournament money off somewhere the players in my event should be able to see some benefit from that money and the best way to do that is SN sanction the event so that the players have the chance to attend the Final at the end of the year.

$150 a year goes from me personally to the PDGA yet when attending Worlds every year I wonder where all the money goes with a $230 entry fee.................... At USDGC that large entry also comes with the possibility of huge payout and a great players Pack worth as much as your entry.


I just hope the rumor I hear is true (pretty sure it is) and there is a VERY large event coming up soon which I doubt the PDGA even knows about. Worlds BEST event anyone?

BTW not all of us start out anti-PDGA and to tell you the truth it took about 7 years of playing tournaments to change my mind about the org.

Bill,

Don't waste your breath. Matt lives in a world where there is no recession, where sponsors are apparently lining up just to fork over money to disc golfers, where money grows on trees, where 1000+ rated and touring players should be entitled to huge monetary gains simply on account of being skilled, where huge purses for tournaments should either come from taking away money from existing PDGA programs that grow the sport of disc golf, or a new tax is enacted which takes $1 from every player at all PDGA-sanctioned events throughout the year just so that it all can be given away at Pro Worlds. It's a world where paying for the touring expenses of a few hundred 1000+ rated and touring golfers to NT and major events and having a Pro Worlds with a large purse where it's just handed away is far important than growing the sport of disc golf.

The rest of us, we live in the real world.

the worlds issue bummed me out enough that if I am going to tournament money off somewhere the players in my event should be able to see some benefit from that money

He also lives in a world where "tournament" is a verb.

He also lives in a world where "tournament" is a verb.



The missing verb is actually send and sorry for the confusion.


Also Jeff not just Pro worlds but both worlds and I just wish I lived in the world where organizational money was better used to serve the actual players who send them money every year. I wish I lived in a world where the WORLD championships was more than just a week long money pit for most players.

I also wish the world could come true so that some of these guys would actually have incentive to be the best where they could support themselves without having to hold other jobs.

I also wish this world would come true because in my world tournaments would include all disc sports such as Ultimate, DDC, Freestyle, Guts, and others as a way of attracting more spectators since like Chuck says so often along with Rhett nobody wants to watch.

I wish I lived in this world where membership in the PDGA was seen as true way to support the sport and not a scheme so that we could have 100,000 instead of 10,000 members.

But as stated we are not in this world and I don't see it happening anytime soon until this newer thinking of the sport comes to be the mainstream.

Actually I have come up with a few ideas to increase the significance of both the NT schedule and Worlds for a few years now yet I am basically made to look like an idiot by the PDGA ED.



Mirror mirror on the wall,
is it really the PDGA ED making me look like an idiot
or is it someone else??????

Actually I have come up with a few ideas to increase the significance of both the NT schedule and Worlds for a few years now yet I am basically made to look like an idiot by the PDGA ED.

Matt,

I am a bit surprised by this remark because I merely countered your points with rational and valid counterpoints in nothing but a polite manner while never once making a disparaging remark about you, or attempting to embarass you.

As alluded to by another poster, it is interesting though that "YOU" think that you were �made to look like an idiot�.

My past offers to you to call me anytime you needed "accurate" information or if you wished to discuss some of your ideas still stands. You saw me at both the Worlds and the USDGC and had every opportunity to discuss your ideas with me in person but it appeared that you were avoiding me.

You saw me at both the Worlds and the USDGC and had every opportunity to discuss your ideas with me in person but it appeared that you were avoiding me.

I love how when I'm at tournaments and people have plenty of opportunity to discuss issues face-to-face with me, nobody says a word. You were on the bottom card at the Vibram Open all weekend, being the first to finish each day, and had ample time to discuss our marketing director, the notion of par in disc golf, and other issues you've chirped in about (without actually saying anything) over the last few months.

Eerily similar. Maybe y'all should change your brand of deodorant.

Matt,

I am a bit surprised by this remark because I merely countered your points with rational and valid counterpoints in nothing but a polite manner while never once making a disparaging remark about you, or attempting to embarass you.

As alluded to by another poster, it is interesting though that "YOU" think that you were �made to look like an idiot�.

My past offers to you to call me anytime you needed "accurate" information or if you wished to discuss some of your ideas still stands. You saw me at both the Worlds and the USDGC and had every opportunity to discuss your ideas with me in person but it appeared that you were avoiding me.

Not avoiding you as much as another higher up member of the ORG whom I feel should not continue to hold such an office.

Also the idiot part was referring to the part in my e-mail where I stated that I felt 50% or more of the current touring card holders (thanks for scrapping that BTW) would not join the PDGA if it were not the only way to play in A-tier events.

I also said that just because a member renews does not mean they support all the actions taken by the governing body and in some cases they may totally disagree but continue to renew. That is also the reason I continue to go to Worlds even though it seems like we get less money back than is put in and even if the books show differently the fact is that this is a pretty big factor for many who attend and probably is part of the reason Pro Worlds never fills and actually falls short of the USDGC and Vibram in both value and field size.

I am open to pretty much any idea which would help to grow the World Championship in the future since I feel a lot of people think $5000 for 1st is weak especially when the payout drops so quickly before flattening to a plateau where the difference is 10 strokes or 10 positions may only be $75. None of this would be an issue if the entry was $80 but the fact is that it is the 2nd most expensive event out there (even before extra fees) yet when you look at the non age-protected divisions the payout is pretty low.

Matt,

As I have explained to you several times previously, expecting the entire PDGA membership with it's 13,000+ active members to pad the wallets of 0.9% of our membership (# of pro members that cash at worlds), with little to no positive effect on the growth of the sport, is not at all realistic and is probably not going to garner much support from the majority of our members or the board of directors.

It is not, nor has it ever been, the mission of the PDGA to ensure that anyone can make a living playing disc golf. The PDGA is a membership association dedicated to the promotion and growth of the sport around the world. If we continue doing what we are doing to grow the game, the end result will be that people can make a living playing disc golf in the future but the sport is not to that point yet despite how badly you or I want it to be. Many people understand and accept this reality and support the association by becoming actively involved to help us grow the sport. Others refuse to accept this reality and they choose to use their energy in non-productive ways which only slows our progress. Which camp are you in?

Brian,

You mean you can't tell which one he is in from his posts? :rolleyes:

Matt,

... Many people understand and accept this reality and support the association by becoming actively involved to help us grow the sport. Others refuse to accept this reality and they choose to use their energy in non-productive ways which only slows our progress. Which camp are you in?

That sounds like W's infamous "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

There are countless clubs, regional associations and individuals that are growing this sport.
If we do not fly the banner of the pDGA are we the enemy?
Do you really view these energy uses as non-productive?
Are we now divided into "camps" that battle each other?

Jason Southwick installs courses, runs clinics at schools, writes a heck of a newsletter,
TD's multiple events and runs an auction with NEFA to support disc golf in his region.
He is no saint but he is making a difference.

Matt Hall is consistent if nothing else.
He has dreams and continues to share them with us.
I am thankful that he is firm in his convictions.
Keep bringing the ideas and observations, Matt,
many of us are listening.

thanks
steve timm

Matt Hall is consistent if nothing else.
He has dreams and continues to share them with us.
I am thankful that he is firm in his convictions.
Keep bringing the ideas and observations, Matt,
many of us are listening.

thanks
steve timm

Yes, it would do us well as an organization to look beyond the surface dissent and to hear the underlying shared aspirations. Matt is calling for the organization to hone its focus on the top pros and on enhancing the National Tour. The organization often seems more focused on growth and the majority members who are far from top Pros.

As long as we call ourselves the PDGA and not the ADGA it seems we need to address this problem of focus. Can we focus on both Pros and Amateurs? Maybe -- but there is certainly room for improvement. I would like to see the organization branch off into a parent organization (the PDGA) and an offspring counterpart (the ADGA). I think that in itself would address the root problem which leads to Brian's and Matt's apparent impasse (which is symbolic of a larger impasse).

Brian, I know resistance to change is natural, but please consider the above possibility as it relates to the growth of our Pro circuit. If the Pro circuit becomes centerstage, rather than neglecting growth of amateur ranks it will trigger such growth.

my two cents

would modifying the rule to require at least a one second pause after release before advancing toward the target achieve the same end without changing the one support point rule?

Harold? Chuck?

you guys are far more versed than i in considering the downstream ramifications of a particular rule change -- but i am thinking counting one, one-thousand is an easy thing for an observer to do and it accomplishes the goal of disabling falling/jumping/slam-dunking putts. iow, a measurable time-stamp on what demonstrating balance means...

Harold? Chuck?

you guys are far more versed than i in considering the downstream ramifications of a particular rule change -- but i am thinking counting one, one-thousand is an easy thing for an observer to do and it accomplishes the goal of disabling falling/jumping/slam-dunking putts. iow, a measurable time-stamp on what demonstrating balance means...

I agree....and Harold, thanks for your passion, and contributions to our sport. Thanks for the clarification of the rules change, but I just don't want to see a rule change for the top tournament in the world, when we don't use it anywhere else.....it's sorta of a slap in the face of the pdga rules committee. If you petitioned for the rules change, I would be fine with it, even though I wouldn't vote yes for it.

Keep up the great work!!

Big Shot
#14490

Adding one second still wouldn't solve the problem because a determination of balance would still be required. You couldn't just say that if a person waited a second they could then proceed and sometimes fall over and have that be OK. If balance is still included, all we have is the current rule plus one second and no way to demonstrate exactly what "balance" is. Seems like the USDGC version provides some clarity to the problem of determining balance "in front of the lie" which is all the current rule was lacking.

The USDGC and Worlds are the perfect locations to try out new rules or course structures. For example, if the island green was tried at a C-tier before the USDGC, it might not have gone past that because the quality of players testing it wouldn't have been at a level where the island green might have worked, especially when the first version did not have a drop zone. As players emptied their bag, I suspect we might not have learned how to use them for the level of player where it is suitable and also how to do it with drop zones like ball golf. Also, how do you test out (and afford) a mile or two of yellow rope to add challenge to a course at a C-tier? Again, the caliber of players would not provide a good test.

Adding one second still wouldn't solve the problem because a determination of balance would still be required. You couldn't just say that if a person waited a second they could then proceed and sometimes fall over and have that be OK. If balance is still included, all we have is the current rule plus one second and no way to demonstrate exactly what "balance" is. Seems like the USDGC version provides some clarity to the problem of determining balance "in front of the lie" which is all the current rule was lacking.

you've missed my point or I am not being clear enough. the minimum one-second delay rule i'm proposing would redefine (or supercede) what balance means and thus makes the whole question of balance moot / unnecessary. if you lose balance more than one second after release you have not slam dunked, jumped or walked forward prior to (or during) release so there is no problem. you can fall forward unintentionally or intentionally as long as you delay the fall at least one second. and you can fall backwards anytime.

I'm thinking a player might be able to be in the air at least one second with a run-up then jumping high toward the basket which would be legal under your proposal.

I'm thinking a player might be able to be in the air at least one second with a run-up then jumping high toward the basket which would be legal under your proposal.

:confused: i am suggesting adding the minimum one second delay before advancing past the mark to the existing rule in place of the demonstrating balance portion. i wish to retain the requirement of having at least one support point behind the mark at the time of release and not advancing past that support point (closer to the target) for at least one second post-release.

i haven't suggested exact wording as i would expect the RC to work that out to disable potential deviant interpretations such as the one you offer above ;)

I don't know why so many people forget the part where I said the collected money would go to support both AM and Pro Worlds.

Also the plan will only charge members on a per event basis........and as such those who play the most pay the most.

NOw if someone plays 2-3 events a year it would seem probable to me that they would vote yes to such a proposal if they knew that giving the $2-3 would bring about a much larger Pro field and Payout at Worlds.

The reason I only mention Pros there is due to the fact we can't seem to ever fill our side of the event and the division at the event has been declining while the Competition and total number of Pros in the country increases.

AM worlds to me also is a better value than Pro Worlds when you compare the two. The AM players Pay $100 to get in and get a pretty good players pack with at least 2 discs they might throw if not more and when you throw in the Free Roc that is already $45 in merch and actually as Suzette stated elseswhere the total value is maybe $200 even though that includes everything at Retail value which means they are starting off ok from the time the sign in.

I also am not too sure that AM worlds should be a for-profit thing which it would become iff you just put added money into the payout and as it is now the top few guys come out of there with insane amounts of Plastic (I have pictures to prove it) and with the exception of paying the Aces out in PLastic the payout is reasonable.

The Pro side however Pays $215 or so each year which by itself should build a pretty decent payout before too much cash is added but yet it pays players in the middle of the cash basically thier entry fee back where at any other event around the country you would at least double your entry. If all the other events can do it why can't the PDGA's only endorsed event which should show the best of what we have to offer?

Remember those like me and those other horrible Pros would be paying our own way on thise with 25+ entries a year so to say it is unfair inplies we are taking money without saying where it goes which is exactly what I would like this plan to do........GIVE THE PLAYERS A PLAN WHERE THEY CAN SEE THE END RESULT........and maybe even be a part of it and partake in the best event ever.

Wasn't there a survey where the majority of PDGA members wanted the Worlds to be more like a convention of the Frisbee Family as opposed to being the highest paying event?

I thought people liked the convention atmosphere.


As an aside, you can't really compare entry fee versus payout for ams and pros because I can pretty easily cover permits, fees, lunch and player pack, and still provide a 150% payout for ams with nothing more than their own entry fee, thanks to the wholesale/retail markup. There is no markup on dollars in versus dollars out, so it's just that much harder to do a good pro payout. Open entry fees are already really high just to make 1st place pay out over $300, so I don't know that adding even more to them is a good idea. You already lose a lot of your Open players to Pro Master and Pro Grand as fast as they can run away, and the high Open entry fees probably contributes to that trend also. But that's "big picture" stuff and no one ever wants to look at that.

Matt

Does "best event ever" = "biggest payout ever"?
Is it possible the "best event ever" might not have the "biggest payout ever"?

Matt

Does "best event ever" = "biggest payout ever"?
Is it possible the "best event ever" might not have the "biggest payout ever"?


Of course it is but you can"t have an event be great no matter what you do if the payout is seen as weak compared to other events and what they charge to enter.

What I was hinting at for the AMs is using a good bit of that money to increase the activities that they can partake in while they are there. I think just making the event experience even better would do a lot to draw in AMs but like I may have said before AM worlds fills every year while Pro worlds Pulls less than Vibram.

The point in my mind is that Pro worlds hasn't seemed to grow too much and they have been shooting for a $100,000 purse since Dr. Duesler announced that Pennsylvania would be the 1st to do so and now 5 years later it seems we are at least 5 years away from that if we keep on the current path.

Also Rhett, wasn't that survey taken at least 5 years ago? How many people actually replied? They ever think of polling Pros like they did over the Rookie of the year issue which came out with a different result than the general membership.

Matt,

If you were to more consistently use "accurate" information to support your position, it might convince more members to seriously consider some of your ideas.


Consider this:

Our active membership is currently at 13,660 (50% increase over 2005 = very healthy growth)

Am players make up 76% of our membership - 13,660 x .76 = 10,381 members

Pro players make up 24% of our membership - 13,660 x .24 = 3,278 members

09 Am Worlds attendance: 596 or 5.7% of active am members

09 Pro Worlds attendance: 327 or 10% of active pro members

As you can see a much higher percentage of pro members attend the worlds than amateur members. The fact that the am worlds is at or near capacity every year while the pro worlds typically does not fill is due to the fact that we have over seven thousand more amateur members than we have pro members.

You posted, "The reason I only mention Pros there is due to the fact we can't seem to ever fill our side of the event and the division at the event has been declining while the Competition and total number of Pros in the country increases" This is not correct. In fact, a review of the past couple of worlds shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Actual numbers indicate that the number of pros competing at Worlds has increased in recent years while the total number of pros in the country has proportionately decreased compared to total members.

You reported that Pro Worlds pulls less than Vibram which is also not correct. Vibram had 177 players and Pro Worlds had nearly twice that many with 327 players.

All of these statistical numbers are available on our website. I also invite you to contact me anytime you would like "accurate" information.


PS: Your signature line is not accurate either. The Southern Nationals is a regional tournament series and not a true non-profit. Reference my office report on page 30 of the summer issue of DiscGolfer magazine for an explanation of a true non-profit.

Of course it is but you can"t have an event be great no matter what you do if the payout is seen as weak compared to other events and what they charge to enter.




This is your belief but but I don't believe it reflects the majority of the PDGA membership.
With payouts around 40% of people cashing there are many players at the lower range of ratings for every event who have nearly 0% chance of cashing. They don't come play for the payout. They come play because they enjoy the game, the friendship, the challenge, for some exercise, so their kids can play, and many other reasons.

Do you really believe they can't believe an event is great just because the payout for the top players in Open may not be up to your standards? What about the players who cash but donate their winnings back to the course becuase they care more about playing a nicer course all year long than they do about the $100 they may make for last cash?

Nice touch discounting the survey Rhett mentioned (the only empirical data that exists) since it doesn't match what you want to see.

I think you should check your user settings. You might have the PDGA ED on "ignore" and might have missed his post. I'll quote an important part of it....

"As I have explained to you several times previously, expecting the entire PDGA membership with it's 13,000+ active members to pad the wallets of 0.9% of our membership (# of pro members that cash at worlds), with little to no positive effect on the growth of the sport, is not at all realistic and is probably not going to garner much support from the majority of our members or the board of directors."

That sure leaves alot of people, and a great % of members who might disagree with you that an event can't be great if the payout to the top open players isn't as big as you want it to be.

I'm just saying...

Matt,

If you were to more consistently use "accurate" information to support your position, it might convince more members to seriously consider some of your ideas.


Consider this:

Our active membership is currently at 13,660 (50% increase over 2005 = very healthy growth)

Am players make up 76% of our membership - 13,660 x .76 = 10,381 members

Pro players make up 24% of our membership - 13,660 x .24 = 3,278 members

09 Am Worlds attendance: 596 or 5.7% of active am members

09 Pro Worlds attendance: 327 or 10% of active pro members

As you can see a much higher percentage of pro members attend the worlds than amateur members. The fact that the am worlds is at or near capacity every year while the pro worlds typically does not fill is due to the fact that we have over seven thousand more amateur members than we have pro members.

You posted, "The reason I only mention Pros there is due to the fact we can't seem to ever fill our side of the event and the division at the event has been declining while the Competition and total number of Pros in the country increases" This is not correct. In fact, a review of the past couple of worlds shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Actual numbers indicate that the number of pros competing at Worlds has increased in recent years while the total number of pros in the country has proportionately decreased compared to total members.

You reported that Pro Worlds pulls less than Vibram which is also not correct. Vibram had 177 players and Pro Worlds had nearly twice that many with 327 players.

All of these statistical numbers are available on our website. I also invite you to contact me anytime you would like "accurate" information.


PS: Your signature line is not accurate either. The Southern Nationals is a regional tournament series and not a true non-profit. Reference my office report on page 30 of the summer issue of DiscGolfer magazine for an explanation of a true non-profit.


The majority of those stats you just posted are skewed in relation to what I am talking about as I am talking total numbers and not percentages but by your thinking since 10% of the Pro members attend worlds maybe they should be given more of a voice.

More Pro players may have been showing up total but that is due to better sites located within 5 hours of a major city but if you look at it

Also when I was referencing "Pros" at Vibram I should have clarified that I meant the MPO division which was larger than in KC.

Sorry if my signature is incorrect maybe I should just mention something about the payout for their Main event being much higher than that or Worlds?

I sure wish I could get this going with Worlds coming to Houston in 2011 but like you have stated many times Pro worlds is not of the highest priority which is the basis of my complaint.............

You can get this going. Start working on getting sponsors. Sponsors other than non-attending PDGA members.

I sure wish I could get this going with Worlds coming to Houston in 2011 but like you have stated many times Pro worlds is not of the highest priority which is the basis of my complaint.............

I sure would like to see you invest some sweat-equity in fundraising and make a pro worlds in your own backyard a priority for you. You come on here a lot and talk about what everyone else can do, so this is the perfect opportunity for you to step up and do something for yourself and disc golf in general. You have a lot of complaints about the pro worlds payouts of the past, so now's the time to show everyone how things are supposed to done.

And I don't mean posting here asking me for a dollar for every round I play. I mean joining the team and hitting the pavement and working for it.

I sincerely hope you join the team and take the challenge. You could make a positive difference and also learn a lot about what really happens to put on an event like Worlds.

The majority of those stats you just posted are skewed in relation to what I am talking about as I am talking total numbers and not percentages but by your thinking since 10% of the Pro members attend worlds maybe they should be given more of a voice.

More Pro players may have been showing up total but that is due to better sites located within 5 hours of a major city but if you look at it

Also when I was referencing "Pros" at Vibram I should have clarified that I meant the MPO division which was larger than in KC.

Sorry if my signature is incorrect maybe I should just mention something about the payout for their Main event being much higher than that or Worlds?

I sure wish I could get this going with Worlds coming to Houston in 2011 but like you have stated many times Pro worlds is not of the highest priority which is the basis of my complaint.............


Matt,

The stats I listed are not at all skewed. They are actual numbers and they quite clearly explain why Am Worlds reaches capacity and Pro Worlds often does not.

The MPO division at Vibram is larger by 14 players than the MPO division at Worlds because Vibram does not offer a Masters division. Any pro players under 40 have no option but to play in the MPO division at Vibram. If you combined the number of MPO and Masters players at Worlds into one division like they do at Vibram you would have a field of 204 players compared to 145 at Vibram.

Please feel free to change your signature line to whatever you want but if you want it to be "accurate" and based on reality, you don't want to change it to what you posted above because that is also not at all correct.

09 Pro Worlds Payout - $83,276
327 total players = $254/competitor
146 cashing positions = $570/cashing competitor avg.

09 Vibram Open Payout - $44,419
177 total players = $250/competitor
95 cashing positions = $467/cashing competitor avg.

09 SNPC Payout - $19,705
146 total players = $134/competitor
57 cashing positions = $345/cashing competitor avg.

Please do not mistake these statistical comparisons as an indictment of Vibram or the SNPC. They are both outstanding events with fantastic payouts and they should be and are recognized as such. The comparison is merely to show that many of your statements are simply not based on the facts.

Once again, all of these numbers are readily available on the website so why would you continue to use inaccurate numbers to support your position?

I echo Rhett's sentiments. I think that you could make a positive difference if you were to get involved with fundraising for the potential Worlds in Houston in 2011. I also think that you would learn quite a bit being involved in planning for an event of this magnitude from the host team's perspective. You probably don't want to handle the finances though. Your math isn't too good! :)

09 Pro Worlds Payout - $83,276
Entry fee = $215
Total entry fees collected = $70,305
327 total players = $254/competitor
146 cashing positions = $570/cashing competitor avg.
Percentage of entry fees making up total purse = 84.42 %

09 Vibram Open Payout - $44,419
Entry fee = $175
Total entry fees collected = $30,975
177 total players = $250/competitor
95 cashing positions = $467/cashing competitor avg.
Percentage of entry fees making up total purse = 69.73%


09 SNPC Payout - $19,705
Entry fee = $80
Total entry fees collected = $11,680
146 total players = $134/competitor
57 cashing positions = $345/cashing competitor avg.
Percentage of entry fees making up total purse = 59.27%

09 Pro Worlds Payout - $83,276
Entry fee = $215
Total entry fees collected = $70,305
327 total players = $254/competitor
146 cashing positions = $570/cashing competitor avg.
Percentage of entry fees making up total purse = 84.42 %

09 Vibram Open Payout - $44,419
Entry fee = $175
Total entry fees collected = $30,975
177 total players = $250/competitor
95 cashing positions = $467/cashing competitor avg.
Percentage of entry fees making up total purse = 69.73%


09 SNPC Payout - $19,705
Entry fee = $80
Total entry fees collected = $11,680
146 total players = $134/competitor
57 cashing positions = $345/cashing competitor avg.
Percentage of entry fees making up total purse = 59.27%



Thanks for posting that so I didn't have too. The fact is you get more for your money at SNPC and Vibram without having to spend over a thousand dollars on expenses.

The fact is the percentage of added cash that goes into worlds is comparatively low while the entries are very high. Vibram had more total added cash and SNPC came very close to 10,000 added with 1/2 as many players/

You posted, "The reason I only mention Pros there is due to the fact we can't seem to ever fill our side of the event and the division at the event has been declining while the Competition and total number of Pros in the country increases"

This is not correct. In fact, a review of the past couple of worlds shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Actual numbers indicate that the number of pros competing at Worlds has increased in recent years while the total number of pros in the country has proportionately decreased compared to total members.


Brian J. Graham, #5861, I think that last sentence is pretty misleading. On top of that, it has nothing to do with Matt's point. He mentioned total numbers, not percentage of membership.



Also, how are we determining that there has been an increase in attendance? I'm imagining a line graph from this data and it does not support your point or lead me to agree with you.

MPO Field size

2009- 131 MPOs 327 Total

2008- 145 MPOs 311 Total

2007-142 MPOs 312 Total

2006- 125 MPOs 299 Total

2005- 130 MPOs 301 Total

2004- 154 MPOs 332 Total

2003- 150 MPOs 336 Total

2002- 127 MPOs 224 Total

Brian J. Graham, #5861, I think that last sentence is pretty misleading. On top of that, it has nothing to do with Matt's point. He mentioned total numbers, not percentage of membership.

Also, how are we determining that there has been an increase in attendance? I'm imagining a line graph from this data and it does not support your point or lead me to agree with you.

MPO Field size

2009- 131 MPOs 327 Total

2008- 145 MPOs 311 Total

2007-142 MPOs 312 Total

2006- 125 MPOs 299 Total

2005- 130 MPOs 301 Total

2004- 154 MPOs 332 Total

2003- 150 MPOs 336 Total

2002- 127 MPOs 224 Total


Daemon,

I invite you to re-read my post carefully. Your chart above shows only MPO players while my post very clearly states "number of pros".

I'm not sure how my last sentence could be construed as misleading. It's common knowledge that the total number of pros and amateurs in the PDGA has increased every year since the association was founded. My intent was to explain that while our total member numbers increase every year, the pro division is growing at a much slower rate and that they make up an increasingly smaller percentage of our total members each year. Matt's initial point that the Am Worlds fills but the Pro Worlds does not was easily explained using "actual" numbers.

I'm not debating that the Vibram and SNPC add more cash. As I stated, they are both excellent events. I'm merely addressing the plethora of inaccuracies in Matt's posts and providing actual numbers. Vibram does an excellent job attaining sponsorship dollars from outside of our sport. The SNPC simply takes money from all tournament players throughout the year and jackpots it for the season ending event, so in effect the players are still providing nearly 100% of the purse. This is fine though because they are a tournament series as opposed to a membership association with a much broader mission and financial needs to fulfill our mission.

"You probably don't want to handle the finances though. Your math isn't too good!" PDGA Director.



"Also, how are we determining that there has been an increase in attendance? I'm imagining a line graph from this data and it does not support your point or lead me to agree with you.

MPO Field size

2009- 131 MPOs 327 Total

2008- 145 MPOs 311 Total

2007-142 MPOs 312 Total

2006- 125 MPOs 299 Total

2005- 130 MPOs 301 Total

2004- 154 MPOs 332 Total

2003- 150 MPOs 336 Total

2002- 127 MPOs 224 Total" Deamon

"I invite you to re-read my post carefully. Your chart above shows only MPO players while my post very clearly states "number of pros"." -PDGA Director



Looks like your math isn't very good! I remember line graphs from 5th grade and even when including all Pros at worlds the trend isn't really an upward one and I would actually argue it was higher this year due to the great location.

The 2nd column is total number of pros.

Matt posted, "The reason I only mention Pros there is due to the fact we can't seem to ever fill our side of the event and the division at the event has been declining while the Competition and total number of Pros in the country increases"


Brian Posted, "This is not correct. In fact, a review of the past couple of worlds shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Actual numbers indicate that the number of pros competing at Worlds has increased in recent years while the total number of pros in the country has proportionately decreased compared to total members."


Even if your last sentence was correct, and it is not, it would not be a supporting point in your argument that Matt is incorrect. Number of amateur PDGA members signing up has nothing to do with attendance at Pro Worlds.

Total number of pro PDGA members signing up has increased each year, and Pro Worlds attendance is not increasing, from what we can see. That was the fact that Matt was pointing out when you told him he was incorrect.

Thanks for posting that so I didn't have too. The fact is you get more for your money at SNPC and Vibram without having to spend over a thousand dollars on expenses.

Fact? I think not. Your opinion? Absolutely.

I see where you're going with this, Matt. You keep throwing out the SNPC and the Vibram so that when you get cornered with reality you'll be able to jump back and accuse of attacking those fine events.

I'm not attacking those fine events. Those fine events are indeed mighty fine.

BUT.....do you "get more for your money" at those events or at Worlds? That is entirely subjective and highly dependent on what it is you were seeking.

Are you looking for a convention atmosphere and tribal meeting of the frisbee family? I've never been to the Vibram or the SNPC, but I think Worlds wins here. By the way, the Vibram Open and the SNPC are mighty fine events.

Are you looking for a week of disc golf filled with things like a talent show, huge flymart, PDGA awards, and what not? Again I think Worlds take this. By the way, the Vibram Open and the SNPC are mighty fine events.

Are you looking to host 1000 golfers in one area (so that you can have that convention atmosphere) and have a dozen courses in play? Again, it goes to Worlds. By the way, the Vibram Open and the SNPC are mighty fine events.



I like the convention atmosphere of Worlds.

Fact? I think not. Your opinion? Absolutely.

I like the convention atmosphere of Worlds.


Fact based on the "fact" you get more payout for your entry which is a good deal less than worlds. This was proven true in the posts above where it showed the Vibram and SNPC have more added cash as a percentage of payout than worlds.

Also you may like the convention setting at worlds (and i do too) but I would be willing to bet my best disc that if you surveyed the Pros who show up to worlds they wouldn't feel the same as a majority and would likely vote to have it be an event with more prestige when it comes to the competition aspect.

Since Pro worlds is also usually separate why not have two separate surveys for AMs and Pros to shed light on the differing views from each class.

Matt (and others),

An analogy to that the PDGA World's has to be / must work toward being the best when measured by ROI is akin to demanding that the CEO of the largest company in any business sector always have the biggest increase(s) in profit; it's just not happening!

Glaxo or Coke will NOT have the greatest returns / biggest stock increase in the industry...they're just too big.
It's the "little, nimble companies" (of that industry) that CAN have - for a short growth spurt period in their lives - the "big value increase".

If you want "the biggest ROI" you had better always go to those "little(r), nimble tournaments" which - at least for now - DO have the "value". If you don't, you'll be (obviously) disappointed.
If you want decent value AND a whole lot more, go to tournaments like World's, etc.

It is basically unfair to expect ANY entity (in any profession, industry, endeavour, etc.) to be "both the biggest and the "best"". And I very loosely use the term "best" as such...because I believe ROI (at least in dg) is NOT always the "best". I know YOU do.

Karl

Matt posted, "The reason I only mention Pros there is due to the fact we can't seem to ever fill our side of the event and the division at the event has been declining while the Competition and total number of Pros in the country increases"


Brian Posted, "This is not correct. In fact, a review of the past couple of worlds shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Actual numbers indicate that the number of pros competing at Worlds has increased in recent years while the total number of pros in the country has proportionately decreased compared to total members."


Even if your last sentence was correct, and it is not, it would not be a supporting point in your argument that Matt is incorrect. Number of amateur PDGA members signing up has nothing to do with attendance at Pro Worlds.

Total number of pro PDGA members signing up has increased each year, and Pro Worlds attendance is not increasing, from what we can see. That was the fact that Matt was pointing out when you told him he was incorrect.


Feel free to argue about semantics. I stand by my statements and the numbers I've posted.

Feel free to argue about semantics. I stand by my statements and the numbers I've posted.

Growing by 3 players in 7 years while the largest was in 03' isn't really growth when you account for the number of new Pro players who join each year.

So I guess we are argueing how to read a line graph.

Growing by 3 players in 7 years while the largest was in 03' isn't really growth when you account for the number of new Pro players who join each year.

So I guess we are argueing how to read a line graph.

No... we are now arguing how to spell. :D

How about growing by 103 players in 8 years since those are the number of years that the table showed. ;)

so if it is not, nor has it ever been, the mission of the pdga to ensure that anyone can make a living playing disc golf, why is it made so hard to do so without becoming a member? this is almost as silly as the bullseye, but i am glad we are so concerned about the game's observers. i am confused as to how they came to be called observers, but pleased to have the company, and glad that the lack of observers won't be used as a crutch anymore.

no, no, disc golf. you don't use clubs. you can't really make any money. i am not really sure what the rules will be next week, but it is possible to get so close to the target that you don't even have to finish any of the holes. just check it out after this next putt and watch how the player returns his other foot to the ground. it's all very exciting really, so can we count on your support?

also, i am usually made to feel like a dissenter and badgered with suggestions that i not renew when posting, so i have been staying away. can someone tell me if it is now acceptable to belittle others as long as it is followed up with an approprite smiley?



and to an earlier point, i rather like the idea that tournament can be used as a verb, since so often it seems i am tournamenting away my time and money, but you don't hear me though.

If anyone is interested in players making a living from the sport, place all money the PDGA has into growing the sports presence in scholastic athletics. Stop all payments to directly benefit professional divisions for at least 10 years. Increase the number of people that know what the sport is without explanation to a few million, then work to gain sponsors of professional disc golf from outside the sport. Scrimping on other programs to save money for payout to Worlds will not help grow the sport, and the sport must grow before it can attract outside money.

No... we are now arguing how to spell. :D

How about growing by 103 players in 8 years since those are the number of years that the table showed. ;)



Sorry to continue arguing but I would assume 02' worlds had a lower attendance for some reason (like expected hell-like temps in Houston). Also the event has since flatlined and didn"t 2000 worlds still have the largest purse? If you ask me it looks like the event has been stagnant since at least 2003.

But the real question is "How much of the PDGA resources should be dedicated to an attempt to draw players to an event that never fills and has trouble finding a home?"

It is clear the the vast majority of Pros are not that interested in attending, so just how much does the purse need to increase before the possibility of cashing becomes an irresistible lure? 150% of total entries? 250%?

Which programs aimed at increasing the overall player base should be cut or eliminated to allow the pot to grow that large?

Personally, I would be all for a million dollar pot if it could be done without impact to programs aimed at growing the sport, but for now, I'd rather see that much going into scholastic sports programs.

No... we are now arguing how to spell. :D

How about growing by 103 players in 8 years since those are the number of years that the table showed. ;)

Brian J. Graham, #5861,

How about not. Attendance grew by 112 players from 02-03, and has remained stagnant since.

Your skewing of stats to prove that you are right has become tiresome. You come off as pompous when addressing members. Those who pay your salary do not deserve your condescension.

Brian J. Graham, #5861,

How about not. Attendance grew by 112 players from 02-03, and has remained stagnant since.

Your skewing of stats to prove that you are right has become tiresome. You come off as pompous when addressing members. Those who pay your salary do not deserve your condescension.


It is not just some of those on the message board who feel that way either.

really? I'm pretty sure it's just you two. And I fail to see where Brian's being pompous or condescending. He just doesn't support your ideas, and rightfully so.

"Those that pay your salary?" lmao, nice sense of entitlement, buddy. That's about as lame a card as you could've played.

As an am, a tournament director, an official, I can say that the day my entry fees get tapped to build a pro payout for any event will be the last time I play that event, and if the PDGA supports that, it'll be the last year I support the PDGA. Book that. And trust me, the PDGA needs people like me WAY more than they need whiny pros like you.

really? I'm pretty sure it's just you two. And I fail to see where Brian's being pompous or condescending. He just doesn't support your ideas, and rightfully so.


I haven't expressed any of my ideas here, beyond what I think about Brian. I've just been correcting Brian's stats and facts by removing the bias.


"Those that pay your salary?" lmao, nice sense of entitlement, buddy. That's about as lame a card as you could've played.

What have I said I am entitled to?


As an am, a tournament director, an official, I can say that the day my entry fees get tapped to build a pro payout for any event will be the last time I play that event, and if the PDGA supports that, it'll be the last year I support the PDGA. Book that. And trust me, the PDGA needs people like me WAY more than they need whiny pros like you.

Take out the whiny and I fully agree with your last sentence. Of course we need you. Profit made on am entry fees subsidize Pro payout. You did not realize this?

You played River Cities Rumble this year. The TD made a profit by paying out the players who cashed in your division with merchandise at retail prices. He put some of the money from the profit that he made off of your entry fee into the pro purse.

I think that your "entry fee gets tapped to build a pro payout" much more frequently than you think it does.

I haven't expressed any of my ideas here, beyond what I think about Brian. I've just been correcting Brian's stats and facts by removing the bias.



What have I said I am entitled to?



Take out the whiny and I fully agree with your last sentence. Of course we need you. Profit made on am entry fees subsidize Pro payout. You did not realize this?

You played River Cities Rumble this year. The TD made a profit by paying out the players who cashed in your division with merchandise at retail prices. He put some of the money from the profit that he made off of your entry fee into the pro purse.

I think that your "entry fee gets tapped to build a pro payout" much more frequently than you think it does.


Your statement implies that you felt entitled to call Brian pompous and condescending....why? because you're a PDGA member, so therefore you're "paying Brian's salary".....I view that as an unfounded sense of entitlement, especially since there are no examples of Brian being condescending or pompous.

And yes, I do realize. Club's/TD's do profit off of ams, but let me assure you the profit is minimal, unless you're merchandising yourself. Typically the vendor I work with will require 80% of total am entry fees, and the Des Moines club keeps the rest. We don't feed that back into pro purses, EVER! If a TD chooses to add that dough back to the purse, I guess it's their club's loss. I don't agree with it, and if I know about it prior to the event, I won't go. I'd much rather see that money go back to the local club. That does way more to promote the sport, rather than just putting a few more bucks in a few WHINY pro's pockets. I'd be willing to gander that perhaps clubs have to do this due to unmet goals on the fundraising side. As far as the Rumble goes, I'll check with the TD, as I know him personally. How do you know this? You see the TD report?

If that is true, you need a new merchlord.

To the best of my knowledge, your wrong about the Rumble. We paid to vend at the Rumble and that money went into the added cash for the Pro field, or to the Club for future ventures. There was no money taken from the Ams after player packs and tourney fees were deducted. John Resche was the TD, you can ask him but Im pretty sure he will tell you the same thing. All QC disc golf club events over the last year were used as fundraisers for Womens Nationals. The Club doesnt run events for self profit, but will use them to fundraise.

I run several sanctioned events every year and all have added cash. I have never taken Am money to put towards the Pro purse. It is all fundraised. I vend the event, what would be the point? I dont do it from my basement, or sell out of my trunk, as a way to make side money. Its my living and pays the rent at our proshop. Taking from the Ams to add to Pros would be selling ourselves short, as really, Pros bring nothing to the event. I fundraise to add cash for them because I respect that they come and play, and feel they are being used by the PDGA. Some Pros out there may or may not increase the Am turnout, but I personally think thats a myth leftover from the late 90s, early 2000s. Considering some of the storys Ive been told of top pros expecting this or that for attending, I cant see how it would balance out.

We pay to vend several events, and for most the money goes towards added cash, some to the club. Personally, I dont care where it goes as I feel TDs deserve to be paid. All this free stuff in disc golf, undercutting products and people not willing to make it more legitimate is just screwing it up.

true that

Wow! That is interesting! You guys should start getting merch directly from the manufacturers. Should be around 40% profit instead of 20%, not counting all the bonuses you would get like practice baskets, extra merch and supplies.

RE: RCR, I was assuming. That would be great if John got enough sponsors on board to raise the minimum $500 added for the RCR. We can't get that going around here very often. Around here, alot of the extra money that TDs choose to add to the pro purse comes from the am merch profit.

I can understand why you do not agree with the idea of ams subsidizing the pros. Personally I like the idea. You and I are different.

Do you lump all pros in as being "whiny"? Have you had bad experiences in the past?