this? (http://home.comcast.net/~jmerhi/2009_MAACflier-email.pdf)

The backstory is that he doesn't want some pro winning his am event, but he has to let sub 970 pros play. So he's giving them a greatly reduced fee to play what is typically called trophy only, but there is no trophy and the sub 970 pros don't have the option to not play "trophy only" and compete for the plastic.

There's also an issue regarding the awarding of a basket to the winner of the Advanced field. The TD doesn't want to give the basket to a sub 970 pro who might win Advanced.

Finally the TD has historically forbidden the winner of Advanced from playing the tourney in the future. I think all winners have accepted this as a tradition, but this can't be enforced can it?

No, is the short answer. You can offer but not require someone to play "Trophy Only." Philosophically, I don't get why the TD should have a problem with the pro sliding over since a rating is a rating is a rating regardless of our artificial, self-determined am vs pro distinction at this level. The sub-970 "pro" can be at a disadvantage to Advanced players who can have ratings higher than that. If the pro is sliding over to Advanced and happens to be favored, it means the Advanced field is weak in the first place and yet you would want to reward the winner of a weak Advanced division a basket by excluding a legit contender from a shot at it?

Actually, Chuck would be hard pressed to back up his opinion with anything in the Rules, Sanctioning Agreement, Tour Standards or Competition Manual [not to mention the Player's Handbook or Monster Manual].

The Competition Manual does say:

B. At the option of the TD, Pro or Am players may compete
for trophies only in any Amateur division offered by an
event that their player rating, age and gender qualifies
them for, by paying a reduced entry fee.

The TD could argue that he is exercising his option. The secret rule doesn't really say what the PDGA intended, but the TD is doing what it says.

It says may not must.

Seems like some of this is contrary to "Comp.2.1.J All Bump rules are invalid and not allowed at PDGA sanctioned events. Players shall be allowed to play in any divisions they might be eligible for, if those divisions are offered by the Tournament Director."

Responding to Krupicka, the TD is not limiting any player from competing in the division of his choice.

Responding to Sharky, it says "At the option of the TD..." Here the TD is exercising his option. Pros may compete for trophies only at a reduced entry fee. They may also stay home.

Nowhere anywhere do the rules ever say that TDs must let anyone compete for prizes. Nowhere anywhere do the rules say that if amateurs are allowed to compete for prizes then pros have to be allowed to compete for prizes in the same division.

All the rules say is that pros under a certain rating are allowed to compete in certain amateur divisions. The TD is not precluding that.

Again, to all of you, I challenge you to find anything in the rules preventing the TD from doing what he is doing. I cannot.

At least according to the flier posted, he's limiting MA1 to 970 (regardless of Pro/Am classification).

Bruce,

All of the below assumes that there was no special waiver granted from the PDGA Tour Manager.

The TD does not have to offer all PDGA Tour Player Divisions, true, but the divisions offered at a PDGA event must be PDGA Tour Player Divisions, and the Table of PDGA Tour Player Divisions as well as the statement that "Pro Men and Women
<970 can play Advanced", are in 08TourStandards.pdf

In the Comp Manual, 2.5.B., it is my opinion that the phrase "At the option of the TD" is referring to the option of the TD to offer a trophy only division, and does not give the TD the option to force certain players, whom are eligible to play in another offered division, to play in that trophy only division.

How is the TD not limiting any player from competing in the division of his choice? If a MA1 division is offered, a pro player with a rating <970 is elgible to play in it, and cannot be restricted from competing in that division.

If the TD is restricting Pros that can play Am to play in that "trophy only" division, then that division is not on that is a PDGA Tour Player Division, and should not be allowed.

I really want to know the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion. If it is stronger than mine, I can be swayed. I look forward to reading it.

Krupicka,

If the TD is limiting MA1 to 970 (regardless of Pro/Am classification), that is not a PDGA Tour Player Division, and should not be allowed.

If the TD is limiting MA1 to 970 (regardless of Pro/Am classification), that is not a PDGA Tour Player Division, and should not be allowed.
The only time that can be done is when the TD is running a Ratings event within the framework of existing PDGA divisions. A Ratings event is when the TD offers just Open, Adv, Int, Rec & Nov. With that format, all am and pro players over 969 must enter Open with the ams allowed to win merch if they "cash" to retain their am status.

Here's the local debate on this subject (http://www.md-discgolf.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2564&st=0&sk=t&sd=a)

If all Ams who have ever taken cash in casual leagues, pick up rounds or doubles are also excluded from the basket and have to play Trophy Only, then maybe there's some validity. Oh wait, I bet there aren't any. The only thing different about a PDGA Am is they are players who have not accepted cash in sanctioned events (other than reinstated PDGA Ams). The am who has never won cash playing skins with buddies, casual rounds, dubs or unsanctioned events is pretty rare especially among those who might enter that event.

How 'bout a PDGA B-tier with no restrictions. $10 (or $5 or $3 or whatever) entry fee for all. Provide $10 worth ("retail value") of burgers/dogs/chips/sodas for each player's player's package, to meet B-tier requirement. Trophy-only (i.e., $0 payout). Just make the trophy a rock from the parking lot if you want. I'm sure you can massage the numbers to fit $0 payout to the payout guidelines (100%+ after PDGA fees, tour fees, admin fees, & greens fees).

Also concurrently run a non-sanctioned event. Same 4 rounds' scores would be the basis for competition for each of the two tournaments. Filter entry eligibility for this non-sanctioned event however you wish, such as only those entered in the B-tier, only <970, only non-having-ca$hed, and/or whatever. $30 (or $35 or $37 or whatever) entry fee for all. Payout with plastic & basket(s) for this non-sanctioned, player-filtered event only.

Seems to be a solution for your "problem" w/o setting up any PDGA crybaby liability issues. Only rubs are PDGA points (if anybody cares) & "official" results of the lame-ified PDGA event. The non-sanctioned event would be the "real" event, while the PDGA version is a straw man erected just to allow for ratings, insurance, etc.

I have to modify one thing about what I said previously:

Prohibiting a 970+ Am from playing advanced would not be allowed by the PDGA rules, secret rules, and double secret rules, unless the TD got triple secret permission from Dave Gentry. Secret Rule 1.1(A) says,


"All members in good standing of the PDGA are eligible to
compete in any division for which they qualify based upon
class (Professional or Amateur), age, gender, and player
rating unless approved in advance by the PDGA Tour
Manager."

So the TD does not have inherent authority to exclude Ams over 970 from the tournament.

However, nothing in the rules grants any player the right to play for prizes. Nothing in the rules restricts the power of the TD to preclude certain players from playing for prizes. At IOS tournaments, for example, juniors are not given the option to play for prizes in the junior divisions.

It would be, perhaps, unprecedented to draw a line within a division and say that players rated over this line may not play for prizes, but there is no rule prohibiting it. Furthermore, and more importantly, there is no rule granting any player the right to play for prizes. If you think there is a rule, quote it.

Vegan Ray: I have run that tournament more than once. So has Discontinuum. I guess we've always run them as C-tiers, but we've run no-entry fee and nominal entry fee tournaments with no payouts. There is no rule requiring a payout.

Bruce, you are correct that there is no rule/stipulation granting any player the right to play for prizes, and there is also no rule/stipulation restricting the TD from precluding certain players from playing for prizes, like you stated for the Juniors in the IOS event.

The problem I have with what is being proposed is that it is discriminatory. Please correct me if I am wrong, but from everything I have read from the PDGA about Pros playing as AMs, in an AM event that does not involve a National or World title, there is NO difference between a 969 rated, 38 year old Pro and a 971 rated, 38 year old AM. They both can play in the AM1 Division at the same event, and dare I say, have the right to play in the AM1 Division, according to the PDGA, and the TD is attempting to separate these two players, and I cannot find any rule/stipulation in any PDGA documentation that would allow the TD to do that. If you think that there is such a rule/stipulation, please quote it.

It is discriminatory, but Pros are not a protected class. You can discriminate all you want so long as it does not involve race, gender, religion and whatever classes are protected in your state.

The TD does not need a rule allowing it. His sanctioning agreement does not say that he won't do anything not covered by the rules. At every tournament every TD does dozens of things not covered by the rules. The rules don't say how to mark tees, mark o.b., design a scorecard, arrange a leaderboard, run a players' meeting, conduct awards. The rules are silent on many things.

TDs agree to follow the rules, the competition manual, the tour standards, and the sanctioning agreement. Those contain all the things a TD must do or not do. Everything else is up to how he wants to run his tournament.

This is a lot like that graduated entry fee concept where higher rated players pay more to play in the same division than do lower rated players. It is a radical departure from our assumptions about how tournaments are normally run, but not forbidden by the rules the TD agrees to follow.

Any player who does not like the idea can vote with his feet or lobby the Competition Committee to make a new rule prohibiting it. Until then, there would be nothing preventing me from advertising that players with even numbered ratings have to play trophy-only and players with odd numbered ratings can get in for prizes. It would be weird and pointless, but there's no rule saying that every player in a division must be given the option to play for prizes if any players are being given that option.

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=64 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64 height=18>Bruce,

I am glad that you acknowledge it as discriminatory, because in the eyes of the PDGA, the two players cannot be separated because there are no attributes to use to discriminate.

</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>I also agree, in general, with your statement that if a PDGA document does not prohibit or specify a certain action, then the TD is free to exercise that action in a manner that does not conflict with the PDGA.</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>In this instance, separating the LT 970 Pros does conflict with the PDGA:</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>From "08CompetitionManual"</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>Section 1: Tournament Procedures</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>1.1. Player Eligibility</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>A. All members in good standing of the PDGA are eligible to compete in any division for which they qualify based upon class (Professional or Amateur), age, gender, and player rating unless approved in advance by the PDGA Tour Manager. Please see Section 2: Division Qualification for more specific information on division eligibility.</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>Section 2: Division Qualifications</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>2.4. Pros Playing Am</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>A. Pros rated less than 970 may now compete in Amateur divisions offered at PDGA A, B, and C Tier events, for which they qualify based on player rating, age, and gender.</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>(1) Pro Men and Women</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>< 970 can play Advanced (MA1)</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>From "09SanctioningAgreementV1-8"</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>As Tournament Director, I hereby accept the terms of the 2009 PDGA Tour Sanctioning Agreement. Please initial each of the following points and sign below.</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>� Agree to follow and enforce the Official Rules of Disc Golf, Competition Manual, and 2009 Tour Standards. If any provision of these documents is unacceptable I shall contact the Tour Manager and request a waiver.</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>If a 969 38 year old PDGA member in good standing went to sign up for a PDGA tournament where there was MA1 offered, and was told that he could not play (or in the TD's eyes, was not elgible to play) in the MA1 division, the player could quote Section 1.1 of the Comp Manual and say, "Yes, I am indeed elgible to play in that division, and I am choosing to exercise that eligibility".</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>If the TD does not grant the request, the TD is in jeopardy of not being allowed to be a TD for any more PDGA events.</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 13.2pt" height=18><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 13.2pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=18>Please 'splain to me how keeping this person out of the MA1 division at this tournament does not go against any of what I have shown above, for I think that it clearly does.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

im just surprised no one has brought up the trophy only division with no trophy..what if you played in a tourny as a pro with an advertised $5000 prize but then when you played the money wasnt at payout?maybe a lunch only division?

Replying to exczar, I'm not sure if you are talking about the topic or a hypothetical. At the tournament in question, the TD is not excluding the 969 rated pro from playing Advanced. He is merely excluding the 969 rated pro from taking prizes.

Bruce,

The hypothetical is a real world example of the topic. The TD is still treating them differently, when they are playing in the same division. If they are both playing in MA1, they are both eligible for the same prizes.

I still don't understand how you are justifying the TD not letting one MA1 player be eligible for a certain prize and another not be. The Pro/Am status is NOT a PDGA-approved justification for such discrimination.

I'm not getting anything out of you re: how this can be done in a PDGA tournament. You must be working on the "disc golf is gambling" issue in your mind :)

I'm justifying the TD's actions vis a vis the <970 pros by the absence of any rule forbidding what he is doing. So long as he is following the rules, the competition manual, the tour standards and the sanctioning agreement, he can do other creative things as his heart desires.

Jon and I have always done lots of creative things. We found a way to create Am IV before it was a division. We were offering trophy-only options before the PDGA had heard of such a thing. We've run reasonably successful tournaments with no payout [or entry fee] whatsoever. So long as a TD follows the rules, the competition manual, the tour standards and the sanctioning agreement, anything else he wants to do is his decision.

Cite the rule the TD is violating.

I did already, so forget it.

Well, then, a rule he is violating.

Sounds like a call to the Competition Committee is in order. Someone involved please do so, before virtual blows come.

bruce and bill, please keep going, this is very interesting and could be setting an unwanted precedent for future TDs.


bill said:
"A. Pros rated less than 970 may now compete in Amateur divisions offered at PDGA A, B, and C Tier events, for which they qualify based on player rating, age, and gender.
(1) Pro Men and Women
< 970 can play Advanced (MA1) "


^^bruce, sounds like this is the rule that is being broken ("creatively circumvented")


i am rated just below 970 and like to play both am and pro events if held back to back weekends. it's nice to be competitive and have a chance at winning.
ex) wintertime open in LA & La Mirada

why should i be FORCED to play in a trophy only division? If I qualify for a division under PDGA guidelines, then I should be given equal opportunity as any other player in my division.

Now, if the TD wants to give the basket to an Int/Rec player, then no problem.
but, you can't segregate the players in one division, can you? sounds discriminatory.

And how can he stop am players >970 from competing without it being a ratings based event?

sounds fishy to me

Actually what the TD is proposing is that anybody who has taken cash in a PDGA event is not allowed to compete for any prizes. So for example he is excluding me from winning any prizes in the Male Advanced Masters division, me being a 57 year old 922 rated player who has taken cash in pro grandmasters.

If the TD also excludes any player who has ever played for cash in unsanctioned leagues, events, doubles and casual play then that would at least be consistent by allowing only true amateurs to play.

why should i be FORCED to play in a trophy only division? A. You can stay home. No one is forcing you to play trophy-only. B. There is no trophy-only division at this tournament. Just a few trophy-only players. C. Why do you think you have a right to play for prizes? The rule you and Bill keep quoting give you a right to play in an amateur division. It says nothing about being allowed to play for prizes.

Bruce, that's disingenuous. If a player qualifies to enter a division, the TD can't selectively determine who among the top finishers doesn't get to receive the appropriate award. Policy might dictate that some get merch versus cash as in ams cashing in pro divisions, but they still receive the same value prize.

Now, a legit way to allow the pros under 970 to enter am and receive the regular prize value if they cash, but not the basket, is to have a sponsor donate the basket and specify that it goes to the top finishing amateur as recognized by the PDGA. When the sponsor specifies the conditions of the prize award, then they can do whatever they want for criteria. It could be something like a prize only available to the top finishing woman in Maryland over age 27 who has lived there for at least 10 years. In this case, the basket sponsor could simply be the club hosting the event.

Once again, Chuck, you can quote no rule, competition standard, tour standard or clause in the sanctioning agreement that requires a TD to offer prizes to every player in a division. I'm not being disingenuous at all. I cannot even spell the word. This is really no different from that tournament where differently rated players paid different entry fees to compete in the same division. There is no rule that requires that every player be charged the same entry fee or receive the same amenities at a tournament.

The TD is introducing a unique wrinkle that no one else, apparently, has tried and very few have thought of. It is normal for the reactionary majority to scream in horror at a new idea. Frequently the reactionary powers that be rush to prevent the implementation of a new idea. But currently, there is no rule that forbids this.

I'm not commenting on the wisdom or fairness of the TD's decision. I'm just saying that there is no rule against it, and no one so far has quoted a rule to show me wrong.

Follow this logic:
- PDGA members in good standing who qualify for a division cannot be excluded from entering (with the exception of private property issues).
-In the Sanctioning Agreement, the TD agrees to only host official divisions and those are enumerated on the Divisional table. There's no official division that can be restricted to "Pros under 970 playing trophy only" or under the options provided for the Trophy Only players within the several divisions allowed on the TD report. This factor alone blows the idea out of the water short of a waiver from the Tour Director.

The sponsor angle on the basket that I proposed may be one way to meet the goals of the TD and allow pros who qualify to play in am divisions at this event without seeking a waiver.

Bruce, there is no rule that you can't throw from a camel, but you can figure out that you can't if you read what the rules don't allow.

So, no, there is no rule that addresses the EXACT, SPECIFIC, INSERT ANOTHER SYNONYM HERE topic we are discussing, so maybe it just comes down to common sense.

I will try this again. I think it is obvious to a casual observer who reads the rules, comp manual, etc, that competitors who are playing in the same division ARE eligible for the same prize purse, unless, as Chuck says, there is some special prize a sponsor donates for a special eligibility in said division, such as best finish by an out of state player, etc.

Can I find a specific rule that says so? No. Can I apply common sense and extrapolate existing rules/policy? Yes.

I remember you on other threads discussing that DG tournaments could be considered gambling. Are you a lawyer? You seem to like to argue minutae.
EOM

I used to think it was obvious that all competitors should pay the same entry fee and play for the same rewards. Then we quit doing that five years ago at my tournaments with much controversy. We invented the trophy-only option. And the PDGA later adopted it. Sort of.

But, in the PDGA's wording, it is not the player's option. "At the option of..." who? The rule says at the option of the TD.

This TD is exercising his option in a way that none of us have before. Like the TD who ran that sliding entry fee based on ratings tournament. Or like the MDGO in 2000 when it offered the option to play Open for $40 or $60. Or like the IOS tournaments where you can play Open for $50 or $25.

The rules leave a lot of discretion to the TDs. You can play from camels if the TD says they are a playing surface. You can tell pros playing am, dudes you're paying $10 and not in for prizes if you want to go am on me.

It is not obvious anywhere in the rules that a TD cannot do this. It is just your assumption that has never been challenged previously.

Krupicka knows the rules and likes to argue the rules. Mike, where's the rule? You shut up and went away but I can see the glow of your little Mac book. I know you're reading.

The TD has the option to offer a variety of pay-in options whether Trophy Only or stepped entry fees as has been tried recently. Player can choose to participate in an official division per the Sanctioning Agreement, and there's not one that fits the proposed event criteria that's the topic of this thread. The payout structure within an official division in terms of the value paid (cash or merch) for each finish position cannot be adjusted or set aside based on some factor that violates the payout progression without Tour Director approval or the specifications of a sponsor. The official division wording is within the Sanctioning Agreement signed by the TD.

Yes. Bruce I'm following this. And the rules listed under Section 2.5 of the Competition manual only seem to grant the rights of the TD to run a trophy only division. Players rights aren't really covered. There are two terms where the definitions might disallow restricting a certain class of players to play trophy only.

The first is Bump Rules. If this is considered a bump rule, then CM.2.1.J "All Bump rules are invalid and not allowed at PDGA sanctioned events" The OP comment about previous winners not being allowed to compete definitely falls in this category. Could one argue that pros (as this TD defines them) can only play trophy is a local bump rule? I would define local bump rules as rules that restrict a players options for a tournament that are not otherwise restricted by the PDGA.

Since "Pros rated less than 970 may now compete in Amateur divsions..." (CM2.4.A) The second lies in what it means to compete as an Am. CM.2.1.E "Players entering into an Amateur division compete for trophies and/or prizes." Guess that doesn't really help.

Bruce, how would you tweak the existing Comp manual to disallow limiting a players choice to register and compete in an offered division and format that they are otherwise eligible for.

I think if there is a rules-based argument against what the TD is doing, it would have to be found in the rule against local bump rules. However, when the anti-bump rule was adopted, trophy-only options were not a recognized part of the PDGA format. When the anti-bump rule was adopted, all that was contemplated were local rules that move a player out of a division based on criteria other than his PDGA rating, age, gender or pro-am classification. So it is clear that the authors of the rule did not contemplate this scenario. But, one could argue that what the TD is implementing is a new kind of bump rule and it should be prohibited under the anti-bump rule. If ex-czar were paying me to write a petition to the Board, that would be one of my arguments.

I know from having been on the Board and teleconferenced into the meeting, that when Pros Playing Am and Trophy-Only options were adopted it was part of a compromise on some radical format changes that Chuck was proposing. By allowing pros of a certain rating to play in amateur divisions, we made it possible to run true R-tiers within the current divisional format. A TD can now run a tournament for every player rated from 800 to 1040 by offering one Open and four amateur divisions. When we were reaching that compromise I remember saying to Chuck, "So are you proposing that a pro of less than a certain rating be allowed to play trophy-only in the amateur divisions? And Chuck responded that the two were separate things. He was simply proposing that a pro of less than a certain rating be allowed to play in amateur divisions. At the time the Board had a lot of Pro Seniors and Pro GrandMasters on it who were not very competitive in Pro Master, so i think they liked the Pros Playing Am idea.

Answering Mike's question, I think the exercise would be futile. I'm pretty sure that if the issue of Pros Playing Am were to come before the current Board for review and amendment, they would simply abolish the rule. Some ran on that platform. Some have expressed that opinion in conversations here and there.

I'm not against pros of a certain rating playing in amateur divisions. Maybe 969 is a bit high for Advanced given the ratings of most players actually playing Advanced. And I'm not against TDs creating new format wrinkles that don't violate any existing rules. I think experimentation within the existing structure should be encouraged.

Bruce,

I must not have been in a good mood yesterday when I made my last post. I received a suggestion that I re-read it, because the overall tone, and especially the last paragraph, seemed harsh to the reader, and now I agreee, so I apologize to you for it, and I hope that it did not cause any harm to the reasoned dialog we are having here.

That being said, ARE YOU ON CRACK??!?

(j/k, sorry, couldn't resist)

Back to the "At the option of". In the Comp Manual, under 2.5 Trophy only, twice it states, "At the option of the TD,..." I have interpreted this to mean that the TD has the option of offering a Trophy Only division, and is not forced to, even if three or more players ask the TD to do so, not that the TD has the option of forcing players to play in this division.

Bruce, you are right that a TD has a lot of discretion, but I am making the assumption that the TD is complying with the "2009 PDGA Tour Event Sanctioning Agreement", which requires the TD to, in part, "Agree to follow and enforce the Official Rules of Disc Golf, Competition Manual, and 2009 Tour Standards. If any provision of these documents is unacceptable I shall contact the Tour Manager and request a waiver"

So, obviously, you cannot play on a camel according to the Official Rules of Disc Golf, and if the TD says you can, the TD is in violation of the "2009 PDGA Tour Event Sanctioning Agreement", and it has been my thought that to do what has been suggested would be in violation of the Agreement as well.

From what I'm reading here, it certainly sounds like the TD would be trying to invent a new bump rule. However, it appears to be legal according to the PDGA.
<hr>2.5 B. At the option of the TD, Pro or Am players may compete for trophies only in any Amateur division offered by an event that their player rating, age and gender qualifies them for, by paying a reduced entry fee.

I read this as, "The TD may offer a trophy only entry fee for an amateur division." However, nowhere does it state whether or not the TD has the right decide who plays for trophy only.
<hr>1.1. Player Eligibility
A. All members in good standing of the PDGA are eligible to compete in any division for which they qualify..

This one is pretty clear. If Player X is rated 969, X qualifies to play Advanced - no matter how many times they've won open. The TD does not have the rights to move them into another division.
<hr>
The problem is: 1.1.A does not say, "Player X is eligible to compete for an amateur division and the same payout." By forcing trophy only, the TD is still following the rules since the player would be competing in that division, albeit for a different prize.

My stance - it's legal. As a player, I would expect the TD to have the trophy only criteria clearly listed on all tournament documents and information. I can only imagine the uproar we'd hear if a 969 player came in from out of town to find their options were to pay an additional fee to move up, pay a smaller entry fee and have no payout, or drive back home.

Mike,

I have been operating that one of the definitions of a division is that it is a sectioning that treats all players equally, and that treatment includes the payout structure. I believe that Division X (where X specifies age range, sex, Pro/AM, etc) and Division X - Trophy Only are different divisions. The PDGA may lump them together for the purposes of assigning points, etc, if the two divisions play the same course, and the TD may mix the two divisions for card assigments, but I believe that they are two separate divisions, because primarily of the payout structure.


Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong.

The sanctioning agreement says in part ...the TD will ""Agree to follow and enforce the Official Rules of Disc Golf, Competition Manual, and 2009 Tour Standards. If any provision of these documents is unacceptable I shall contact the Tour Manager and request a waiver"


The 2009 tour standards doc says in part.."Agree to ensure that each player competes in an official division for which they are eligible, based on class (Pro, Amateur, Junior),
age, gender, and player ratings. See the �2009 Divisions Table� for more information."

and... "Agree to pay a minimum of 40% of the Pro field and a minimum of 45% of the Am field as per the 2009 pay tables."

The 2009 pay tables tell you what to pay for each place.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Without getting a waiver the TD and PDGA have agreed which members are allowed to play in which division and what the payouts need to be.

If the TD wants to do something different...he/she has options, including x-tier status or a waiver. The sanctioning agreement says if the standards are unacceptable he/she will contact the tour manager and request a waiver.

This isn't rocket science here.

Bill, trophy only is a subset of a division. It cannot be considered a division on its own. If a trophy only player wins, he gets the 1st place trophy. There isn't a second 1st place trophy for the full in player.

I find it a little entertaining witnessing this discussion, mostly because I know the TD and the entire history of his event, which is in its 16th or 17th year.

I see his latest efforts as a response to the glut of tournaments on the schedule - which over the past couple years has a) forced him out of his traditional date, and b) forced him to go from a 2 day to a 1 day event - just to try and keep attendance up to the point where he can AFFORD to give away the big prize.

From the first year on - the TD has basically said - if you win this AM only event - you are not welcome to play again. Largely - I have viewed this as an effort to curb sandbagging -and at the same time spread the wealth. As he has given away a basket for 1st place every year. So regardless of the minutae of and changes that have happened to the rules, the sanctioning agreement, and the competition manual (which has only existed for a few years now) - the intent is a good one. The fact that he is trying to beef up attendance by letting previous winners (many of which are playing and cashing in MPO with <970 ratings) play for a reduced rate shouldn't be causing anybody any grief.

The "rules" he is challenging with regard to player eligibility - he has been challenging since 1993 - without a waiver. Get over it.

SO WHAT IF A 990 RATED AMATEUR (THAT HAS NEVER ACCEPTED CASH)SHOWS UP TO PLAY?does he have more right to the basket than a 890 rated grandmaster(that cashed in the 90s)..by ratings the amateur should beat the grandmaster by 10 strokes per round but by your logic he has less right to compete...explain?

SO WHAT IF A 990 RATED AMATEUR (THAT HAS NEVER ACCEPTED CASH)SHOWS UP TO PLAY?does he have more right to the basket than a 890 rated grandmaster(that cashed in the 90s)..by ratings the amateur should beat the grandmaster by 10 strokes per round but by your logic he has less right to compete...explain?

I think you just explained it. Entitlement is not welcomed at this event past a level as determined by the TD.

If you are 990 and still playing AM - you are not welcome to compete at this event.

Let's be clear - It's not my event.

My beliefs about the event are based on what I know of its history. Personally - I think the offering of big prizes like John gives away are part of the problem of entitlement within "official pdga divisions".

My thoughts on the whole Am vs Pro debate is a whole other discussion. The labels are meaningless.

IMO, if any player is 990 and still playing AM - they are one narcissistic SOB. And I would support any TD telling them it's time to move up, or that they aren't welcome to play down.

I think you just explained it. Entitlement is not welcomed at this event past a level as determined by the TD.

If you are 990 and still playing AM - you are not welcome to compete at this event.

Let's be clear - It's not my event.

My beliefs about the event are based on what I know of its history. Personally - I think the offering of big prizes like John gives away are part of the problem of entitlement within "official pdga divisions".

My thoughts on the whole Am vs Pro debate is a whole other discussion. The labels are meaningless.

IMO, if any player is 990 and still playing AM - they are one narcissistic SOB. And I would support any TD telling them it's time to move up, or that they aren't welcome to play down.

i understand what yours or the TDs beliefs are but when you sign the sanctioning agreement you sign away your right to follow your belief and "agree" to follow the rules as they are written .i believe if i slip and throw a crap shot i should get a mulligan but the rules say differntly.now if i wanted to run a tourny where you got a mully if you slipped i could petition the PDGA for a waiver(which they would deny)...im not so sure they would deny the TDs request for the trophy only forced option but to say where going to do what we want then deal with the PDGA afterwords even though they obviously know they should would be circumventing the rules and they would have to be DQed from TDing for CHEATING:)

There is no rule that the TD has to welcome every player. There may be players at the tournaments I help with that are not welcome.

Has the TD ever refused to take any amateur's entry fee?

I'm more interested in this thread as a hypothetical situation than what actually occurred. I can understand the TD and other players wanting the 969 player to move up, but I can also realize that the player may not feel ready to play in the pro division that weekend for whatever reason. This same scenario could just as easily apply to the 890+ Rec player or the 934 intermediate guy. Rather than discuss the specifics of one particular tournament, let's figure out the primary issue: Can the TD refuse to let a player play for payout, in a division they qualify for, at a PDGA sanctioned event?

As much as I dislike the idea, I can't find anything that says they aren't allowed to do this. Here's the Rule Book (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PDGA2007rulebook.pdf) and Competition Manual (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/08CompetitionManual.pdf), if you don't have them nearby.

Keep in mind that although the TD has the final say at the tournament - there would be no tournament without the players. If the TD is going to use the trophy only sub-division to encourage players to move up, they risk losing players and ultimately the tournament itself. We've all played at poorly run events, how many of those did you mark as "must play again!"?

The way you have couched this is just an inherently different scenario than the original topic of this thread. The event in question is and always has been an ALL AMATEUR event. So it has had restricted divisions since its inception.

Seems like it also restricted Ams > 970 and amnestied Ams. So his scenario applies. Part of the reason for the discussion here is to explore the unintended consequences of the decisions made directly and indirectly related to the original topic.

Wasn't there a major event that had ratings restrictions? No one above a certain rating?
But I divert from the issues.

A TD can create any payout restrictions (Really ANY conditions at all) as long as it is published in advance. ie:it's explained on the flyer.

Players should always go to events with their eyes open and understand just what they can expect. EVERY event is different.

PDGA tournament guidelines are not there to produce identical experiences at events.

BOB Graham
TD of The New Jersey Jam

A TD can create any payout restrictions (Really ANY conditions at all) as long as it is published in advance. ie:it's explained on the flyer.
This I would disagree with, if "can" is used to mean "is permitted to." TDs agree to "pay a minimum of 40% of the Pro field and a minimum of 45% of the Am field as per the 2009 pay tables." It is in the sanctioning agreement which is the TD's contract with the PDGA.

It does seem apparent that the TD disagrees with changes in the last few years in the PDGA's division system, and is circumventing them, if not by letter of the law then certainly its intent.

Why not just go non-sanctioned and be free to restrict registration as he sees fit?

But to me it's a minor issue, at best. Players know what they're getting into, and for the very small number who may have wanted to play but been excluded by ratings or past winnings, well, there are other events. Even if the PDGA decided this violated the sanctioning agreement, it doesn't have a lot of leverage or enforcement power with TDs; it must depend on the good faith of TDs to honor the sanctioning agreement, in letter and spirit.

It would also be simple to call it an X-tier where this restriction would be no problem.

Well I have to say that this is not a hypothetical situation for myself and I'm not quite sure how I will respond yet. Again I am a 922 rated MPG player and decided to play Am Masters at this event as there is nothing else going on PDGA wise that weekend and I love to play and compete at Seneca so I certainly want to compete in the tournament. Winning plastic really isn't a big deal to me so the $10/no prize option doesn't sound too bad to me on some levels, but other parts of me feel that if I am eligible to play then I should be treated just like anyone else playing with a full entry fee and full eligibility to win discs/prizes. Anyway I guess we will see what happens when I show up and try to register. What do you all suggest I do if he refuses to take my registration at the full rate?

Well I have to say that this is not a hypothetical situation for myself and I'm not quite sure how I will respond yet. Again I am a 922 rated MPG player and decided to play Am Masters at this event as there is nothing else going on PDGA wise that weekend and I love to play and compete at Seneca so I certainly want to compete in the tournament. Winning plastic really isn't a big deal to me so the $10/no prize option doesn't sound too bad to me on some levels, but other parts of me feel that if I am eligible to play then I should be treated just like anyone else playing with a full entry fee and full eligibility to win discs/prizes. Anyway I guess we will see what happens when I show up and try to register. What do you all suggest I do if he refuses to take my registration at the full rate?
I suggest that the TD do what I posted a week ago:
Run a PDGA B-tier with no restrictions. $10 (or $5 or $3 or whatever) entry fee for all. Provide $10 worth ("retail value") of burgers/dogs/chips/sodas for each player's player's package, to meet B-tier requirement. Trophy-only (i.e., $0 payout). Just make the trophy a rock from the parking lot if you want. I'm sure you can massage the numbers to fit $0 payout to the payout guidelines (100%+ after PDGA fees, tour fees, admin fees, & greens fees).

Also concurrently run a non-sanctioned event. Same 4 rounds' scores would be the basis for competition for each of the two tournaments. Filter entry eligibility for this non-sanctioned event however you wish, such as only those entered in the B-tier, only <970, only non-having-ca$hed, and/or whatever. $30 (or $35 or $37 or whatever) entry fee for all. Payout with plastic & basket(s) for this non-sanctioned, player-filtered event only.
and then there is nothing a chondrichthyes whiner (or a whiner of any other class of chordates) CAN do other than go with the TD's low-entry, no-payout program or gather up his toys & go back home in a huff. No PDGA statues will have been bent or broken & no groveling for waivers or X-tier status will have been necessary.

What do you all suggest I do if he refuses to take my registration at the full rate?

if john refuses to take your reg at the full rate i suggest you pay the lesser rate.

The TD may take your reg at the full rate, but put you in the Trophy only division anyway. You did pay the $10, you just paid a little more, and you could always ask for the difference as a refund.

If you played in the same division as the basket-eligible group, and were grouped on cards with them, then when after the event is over, the TD could just say, "Oh, you were only eligible to play in the trophy-only division, and here is a refund of what you paid minus the $10". Sure would make registration easier - just postopone the issues until the event is over.

The TD may take your reg at the full rate, but put you in the Trophy only division anyway. You did pay the $10, you just paid a little more, and you could always ask for the difference as a refund.

If you played in the same division as the basket-eligible group, and were grouped on cards with them, then when after the event is over, the TD could just say, "Oh, you were only eligible to play in the trophy-only division, and here is a refund of what you paid minus the $10". Sure would make registration easier - just postopone the issues until the event is over.

so what your saying is take full entry then if the person who cashes is a pro then you bump them to trophy only..no-bump rule?
what if they dont place in the $ do you just keep the full entry fee instead of refunding the differnce?

Good luck getting that refund. If the TD knows the rules well enough to force players into trophy only, I'm sure they know this one:
1.3. Withdraws and Refunds
D. No refunds will be issued after the 7th day prior to the start of the event, but the player shall be sent a player�s package if one was provided to event competitors.

Of course then you could argue about being in the full division because of 1.2.B

A player is officially �entered� in the event when their entry fee is received at the tournament address.

Ultimately, A TD can do whatever the TD wants to do, and worry about the consequences later.

You should enter the Am 1 division, with the TD's permission, and when you win it the TD should award you the basket and erect a statue of you commemorating the victory.

The TD apparently wants fair competition. A 57 year old guy with a 922 rating should not intimidate the young guns. I'm rooting for you.




QUOTE=Sharky;1381848]Well I have to say that this is not a hypothetical situation for myself and I'm not quite sure how I will respond yet. Again I am a 922 rated MPG player and decided to play Am Masters at this event as there is nothing else going on PDGA wise that weekend and I love to play and compete at Seneca so I certainly want to compete in the tournament. Winning plastic really isn't a big deal to me so the $10/no prize option doesn't sound too bad to me on some levels, but other parts of me feel that if I am eligible to play then I should be treated just like anyone else playing with a full entry fee and full eligibility to win discs/prizes. Anyway I guess we will see what happens when I show up and try to register. What do you all suggest I do if he refuses to take my registration at the full rate?[/QUOTE]

I see his latest efforts as a response to the glut of tournaments on the schedule - which over the past couple years has a) forced him out of his traditional date, and b) forced him to go from a 2 day to a 1 day event - just to try and keep attendance up to the point where he can AFFORD to give away the big prize.

The low attendance could be a result of:


From the first year on - the TD has basically said - if you win this AM only event - you are not welcome to play again.

Why would any AM want to play this tournament if they think it could be their last for that tournament. I'd go to another tournament too, one I can go back to time after time.

Now he's telling possible winners that they aren't welcome either. Even more reason to go to another person's tournament.

The low attendance could be a result of:


From the first year on - the TD has basically said - if you win this AM only event - you are not welcome to play again.


Why would any AM want to play this tournament if they think it could be their last for that tournament. I'd go to another tournament too, one I can go back to time after time.

Now he's telling possible winners that they aren't welcome either. Even more reason to go to another person's tournament.

Here is one thing to consider:

This is the 15th annual running of this tournament. This tournament started back in the mid 1990s, and was pretty much THE PREMIER amateur event on the east coast at that time. This tournament was considered for many years what Bowling Green, Am Nationals, and even Am Worlds are today - pretty much one of the highest competitive amateur tournaments each year. Back in this time, there were no player ratings. Basically the only way we judged a person's game was strictly via their performance in tournaments. And when someone won THE PREMIER amateur event against the best amateurs from the entire Mid-Atlantic region (and some coming from North Carolina or New England) and took home a polehole, that was a pretty good indication that said player GOT GAME and had what it takes to compete at a higher level of competition. The intent of the tournament was seemingly to identify who was the best amateur in the region. It was fully understood and embraced by many competitors that if you won the Mid-Atlantic Amateur Championships, there was no need to compete in it again the following year. You were essentially ready for the Open division and that higher level of competition. That the TD officially stated on the flyer that previous winners were not invited back was merely a formality that was intuitively understood by nearly everyone.

The problem is now that we have PDGA rules which seemingly conflict with the historical intent of this tournament. And I firmly believe the TD has the right to run the tournament the same way he's always run it for the last 14 years. This isn't the 15th Annual Mid-Atlantic "Pros who used to be good but whose ratings have now dropped into the low 900s" Championships. It's the 15th Annual Mid-Atlantic AMATEUR Championships.

I just wish everyone would understand this. This is not about determining who is the best player with a rating under 970. This is about identifying the best AMATEUR player in the region - someone who has never accepted cash. And while the prestige of the tournament might not be today what it once was, especially in comparison to tournaments like Bowling Green & Am Nationals, I still sympathize and agree that if you win this tournament, you have GOT GAME and there is little reason to return the following year.

Jeff,

I hear what you're saying, but then maybe - if the TD insists on having "history on his side" and running things "like they've always been" - it's time to NOT have the PDGA sanctioning...because it seems (debatable) like both can't co-exist precisely as both need to be (the PDGA 'rules / agreements' being followed and 'history' being replicated).

Karl

While it might be laudable to call it an Amateur event, the current format for big PDGA amateur events involves big prizes. If in fact, there were no prizes like traditional amateur events in other sports (other than the basket for first place) then there would be no reason for low enough rated pros to cross over, and even if they did, why should the amateurs care? The best amateurs that attend will likely have higher ratings than any crossover pros due to the cap. If the intent is to determine the best amateur then make that the primary reward for the event, not all of the merch. Just have really nice player packs like the Memorial.

It was fully understood and embraced by many competitors that if you won the Mid-Atlantic Amateur Championships, there was no need to compete in it again the following year. You were essentially ready for the Open division and that higher level of competition. That the TD officially stated on the flyer that previous winners were not invited back was merely a formality that was intuitively understood by nearly everyone.

But now we DO have ratings and to be honest, if a player wins the tournament and only has a rating of, say 950, he is still an amateur in the eyes of the PDGA, whether the TD feels he's ready to move up or not. So if he came back the next year to "defend" his title, it is quite unfair to tell him to take a hike, he's not welcome. Despite all the years this tournament has been going on, it appears as if the ams are going where they ARE welcome the next year.

The problem is now that we have PDGA rules which seemingly conflict with the historical intent of this tournament. And I firmly believe the TD has the right to run the tournament the same way he's always run it for the last 14 years. This isn't the 15th Annual Mid-Atlantic "Pros who used to be good but whose ratings have now dropped into the low 900s" Championships. It's the 15th Annual Mid-Atlantic AMATEUR Championships.

Then he shouldn't run it as a PDGA event if he doesn't want to follow PDGA's rules.

I just wish everyone would understand this. This is not about determining who is the best player with a rating under 970. This is about identifying the best AMATEUR player in the region - someone who has never accepted cash. And while the prestige of the tournament might not be today what it once was, especially in comparison to tournaments like Bowling Green & Am Nationals, I still sympathize and agree that if you win this tournament, you have GOT GAME and there is little reason to return the following year.

The PDGA says that a pro with a rating under 970 can compete as an amateur. If the TD doesn't like that then he shouldn't sanction the tournament.

The prestige comes from being able to defend a title. It comes from the competition. Sure you may have "game" this year, but there is always some young gun coming down the pike that will show you up some day. If you can't defend against that young gun, then why go to this tournament when you can show him up at a tournament down the road where you can return to year after year. You won this year, but next year who knows? You never will in a tournament you can't play in again if you win.

That is what is going to keep the good players from going to the tournament. They WANT that competition, even if the TD doesn't. So they go elsewhere and the tournament gets smaller and smaller.

The PDGA sanctioning agreement is there for the protection of the players more than for the TD to get cheap insurance. A sanctioned event carries specific guarantees on who can participate and in which divisions. If the TD wishes to alter those conditions, by all means ask for a waiver and run the event as an X-Tier event and publish the restrictions. X-Tier events still qualify for ratings if the eXception does not effect scoring.

this? (http://home.comcast.net/~jmerhi/2009_MAACflier-email.pdf)

The backstory is that he doesn't want some pro winning his am event, but he has to let sub 970 pros play. So he's giving them a greatly reduced fee to play what is typically called trophy only, but there is no trophy and the sub 970 pros don't have the option to not play "trophy only" and compete for the plastic.

There's also an issue regarding the awarding of a basket to the winner of the Advanced field. The TD doesn't want to give the basket to a sub 970 pro who might win Advanced.

Finally the TD has historically forbidden the winner of Advanced from playing the tourney in the future. I think all winners have accepted this as a tradition, but this can't be enforced can it?

Well apparently a TD can do this. The state coordinator in Maryland, Dr Evil, checked with the PDGA authorities and they OK'ed the format I am told, so I'm in for $10 with no payout. I don't have a huge problem with this I just wanted it run by the PDGA to make sure it was allowed.

Glad to see you've jumped into the pool. I hope the trophy only requirement doesn't change the complexion of the tourney for you.

Hi everyone.... John Merhi here, the TD of the Mid-Atlantic AM Championship. First, many thanks to Jeff L, Craig G, and those who so eloquently stated (more or less) my intentions. I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to respond.

I also want to thank Dave Gentry and the PDGA for granting this event the waiver I sought. It reads:

The PDGA has granted the 2009 Mid-Atlantic Amateur Championships (EVENT) being held on July 25th and 26th the following waiver:

The EVENT may restrict all players currently classified as a professional but allowed to compete under the “Pros playing Am” to compete as trophy only. It should be noted that there are no restrictions on players currently classified as amateurs.

This waiver is valid only for the event in question and is non-transferrable. The event must re-apply for this waiver if desired in the future.All along, I've had one goal in mind.... to protect the AM who hasn't cashed from the PRO who has. When you accept cash, you make a choice. I'm holding you to that choice. This has the bonus effect of removing the guilt from the <970 pros who ordinarily wouldn't play in this event because they know it's not fair for them to do so. Now, they get to play guilt free and no one can call anyone a bagger.

Let's review the "pro being bound and shackled into Trophy Only against his will at the ALL amateur tournament" scandal. You get 4 rounds of golf on a perfectly manicured, championship course including 2 huge lunches and probably food at 6:00 pm too. Your results get turned in to the PDGA. All for $10. And the complaints are?

A clarification... while it's true I used to restrict winners from playing again, only 1 previous winner ever asked to do that. It has never been an issue. A few years ago, I changed my philosophy. Previous winners can play. They play for free, and eat for free. Their results get turned in to the PDGA. But no one gets a second basket.

If someday a MAAC winner refuses to play/eat for free and just HAS to compete for that second baskets... then he can take the issue to the PDGA. I'll bend if they ask me to. So far, the 14 previous winners at this event have all been class acts... and they understand what I'm trying to do. I honestly expect the same will be true of the next 14 winners. Call it naive optimism. :)

Also, I have zero interest in running an unsanctioned event. I've had a very positive 15 year relationship with the PDGA and I intend to do my part to continue that. This is an experiment that most people have agreed is a pretty good compromise. The PDGA was very cool about it.

This TD is exercising his option in a way that none of us have before. Like the TD who ran that sliding entry fee based on ratings tournament. Both of us hail from Seneca Creek State Park in beautiful Gaithersburg MD. I guess we just like to try stuff. Evolve or become extinct! :)

seems as tho the waiver you got didnt let you exclude amateurs rated above 970 even tho it was stated that they would be excluded many times in this thread?

so will a 990 rated am be turned away?

I don't think John ever said that AMs rated over 970 could not play in the event with payouts. Probably not an issue as we don't have any Ams rated that high in the area but if one does elect to play no problem and John has placed no restrictions on them only on pros that have taken PDGA money.

I think you just explained it. Entitlement is not welcomed at this event past a level as determined by the TD.

If you are 990 and still playing AM - you are not welcome to compete at this event.

Let's be clear - It's not my event.

My beliefs about the event are based on what I know of its history. Personally - I think the offering of big prizes like John gives away are part of the problem of entitlement within "official pdga divisions".

My thoughts on the whole Am vs Pro debate is a whole other discussion. The labels are meaningless.

IMO, if any player is 990 and still playing AM - they are one narcissistic SOB. And I would support any TD telling them it's time to move up, or that they aren't welcome to play down.
^^..seems like he thinks hes a spokesperson..maybe John should reign in his minions^^

could be considered a personal attack against any 990 rated am or at least an attack against there mother:)

I don't think John ever said that AMs rated over 970 could not play in the event with payouts. Probably not an issue as we don't have any Ams rated that high in the area but if one does elect to play no problem and John has placed no restrictions on them only on pros that have taken PDGA money.

My geography is a little weak. How big is your area?

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 450px; HEIGHT: 114px" cellPadding=3 border=0 25px><TBODY><TR><TD>Brian Ratcliffe (http://www.pdga.com/player-stats?PDGANum=27537)</TD><TD> 27537</TD><TD> VA </TD><TD> USA </TD><TD> 971 </TD><TD> 9 </TD><TD> M Am</TD></TR><TR><TD>Fredericksburg</TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD> (http://www.pdga.com/player-stats?PDGANum=34933)</TD><TD> </TD><TD></TD><TD> </TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD> (http://www.pdga.com/player-stats?PDGANum=40041)</TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD> </TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Yorktown, Va</TD><TD> </TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD> </TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Brad Allison (http://www.pdga.com/player-stats?PDGANum=31191)</TD><TD> 31191</TD><TD> VA </TD><TD> USA </TD><TD> 970 </TD><TD> 29 </TD><TD> M Am</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.bestcase.com/grafix/map.jpg

:rolleyes:

Fredericksburg is about 2 hours away, Yorktown maybe 3.5 hours, certainly within reach, although I don't know those guys, personally, I think it would be cool if they showed.

^^..seems like he thinks hes a spokesperson..maybe John should reign in his minions^^

I agree. No one said anything about a waiver being granted or about people being able to play again if they win (for free even). I wouldn't care about a second basket, as long as I can compete the next year. If all this was stated up front, then I don't think there would have been as much fuss as there was.

I'm still not too fond of the idea of forcing a player, who is allowed to play in a division, to take a different prize than everyone else just because they took money in the past, but if the PDGA authorized a waiver for it, I can't do much about it.

One point on your assertion that a player that has accepted cash has made a choice.

If that player is rated under 970, they have only chosen to give up the chance to play in am majors while taking cash instead of merch at some events. Not quite the same choice they made by taking cash 15 years ago.