Main Menu

PDGA Members: Preview Proposed Rule Changes for 2023

PDGA Members: Preview Proposed Rule Changes for 2023

Public comment opens for rule, competition revisions

Tuesday, August 23, 2022 - 11:36

The Official Rules of Disc Golf (ORDG), the Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events (CM), and the PDGA Tour Standards go through some level of revision each year. A critical part of this process is making proposed changes available for public comment by members. A list of the changes – first major, then minor, then a rundown of some clerical matters – is here for your reference. Please read the updates below carefully, think about their impact, and give us your thoughts. 

Members are asked to email their comments and recommendations regarding the proposed rules changes below to [email protected] by September 12th, 2022, where the replies will be read, considered, and cataloged. No other rules changes will be considered for the 2023 rules update.

Major Changes

Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events

1.03 Withdrawals and Refunds

These new sections outline player rights and TD responsibilities regarding refunds if an event is canceled or postponed.

J. If a Tournament Director cancels an event, all currently registered or waitlisted players must receive a 100% cash refund of their entry or waitlist fee. Only in the case of a disaster that prevents the event from taking place, and only with prior approval from the PDGA Director of Event Support, may a TD provide players registered for Amateur divisions with a player pack and a partial cash refund in the amount of the difference between the retail value of the player pack and the amount of the entry fee.

K. If a Tournament Director postpones an event, all players currently registered or waitlisted for the original date at the time of postponement must receive a 100% cash refund if they request it.  Once a new date is announced, all prior registrants who are still registered must be notified by email and given a reasonable opportunity to receive a 100% cash refund if they determine they are unable to attend the event on its new date.

1.05 Practice Rounds, Beginning Play, Late Arrivals

This revision adds language to reflect that more than two scorecards may be used, as well as clarifying penalties for players who do not provide their group with the opportunity to examine the scorecard.

G. The Tournament Director must provide at least two scorecards to each group, to be kept independently of one another. These scorecards may be of the same medium or of different media. The two scorecards must be reconciled by the group and submitted  Each member of the group should be given the opportunity to examine the scorecards and each member of the group must agree on an official scorecard and submit it by whichever method the Tournament Director has designated as the official scoring method for the tournament. Any player who denies the opportunity to another player in the group to examine and verify the official scorecard receives two penalty throws.

1.06 Grouping and Sectioning

This new provision creates minimum standards for tee time posting and states that adjusting a player’s tee time earlier in the day requires they affirmatively agree to the change.

L. At staggered start events with scheduled tee times, Tournament Directors must post tee times for all players no later than 10 hours prior to the first tee time for that division.  

  1. If tee times must be adjusted after posting, no player may be assigned an earlier tee time without their affirmative consent. 

  2. Events with multiple tee time rounds in a single day must obtain a waiver of this rule from the PDGA Director of Event Support. 

  3. The PDGA Mid-Event Weather Suspension Guidelines supersede this requirement where it is necessary for player safety or to complete rounds in progress.

Tour Standards

Pass-Through Fees

To make it easier to provide a quality experience for all players, and to provide a baseline level of compensation for Tournament Directors, additional items will be added to pass-through fees that are subtracted from gross entry fees to make net entry fees. To ensure transparency, TDs are required to specify the amounts and types of all pass-through fees in pre-registration materials.

Pass-through Fees are: PDGA Per-Player Fee, as required by Tier level; Greens Fees, meaning the fees required to secure the course(s) and permit play; Series Fees, meaning a fee paid by an event that is part of a points Series under CM 2.02.B toward Series-end prizes or payouts; Bathroom Fees, meaning the prorated per-player cost of toilet rental; and TD Fees, meaning a per-player amount not to exceed the PDGA Per-Player Fee for that Tier. All pass-through items and amounts must be published in pre-registration materials. Other event expenses, such as player packs and prizes, trophies, line paint, staff compensation, or lunch, are not included in pass-through fees.

A-Tier Requirements: Warm-Up Areas and Underserved Divisions

These additions tighten up the requirements for the player experience at what will be, for many competitors, the premier event Tier of their playing careers.

Warm-Up Areas. All A-Tier events must have a designated warm-up area readily available to all players.  If sufficient throwing space is not available, the event must provide one or more practice nets. The event must also provide one or more practice targets.

Waitlists. All A-Tier and above events must use divisional capping to provide space for those underserved divisions offered by the event, and waitlists must be maintained by division so a drop from an underserved division is filled from the same division wherever possible. Only within three weeks of an event may Event Directors fill a vacancy in an underserved division without a waitlist from a different division (as allowed by course or other pool capping considerations). Event Directors should reach out to the PDGA Event Support Team ([email protected]) prior to opening registration if they need help setting this up correctly.

Minor Changes

Official Rules of Disc Golf

803.02 Relief from Obstacles

In the previous wording, the use of “as allowed above” could have been interpreted to only apply to parts A and B, and therefore any other type of relief was inherently penalized. Changing it to say “by rule” allows for non-penalty relief in other rules to be allowable.

C. A player who takes relief other than as allowed above by rule receives one penalty throw.

806.03 Casual Area

Similar to the explanation for 803.02, this change merely clarifies that relief from casual areas are not penalized if taken in accordance to the rules.

B. To obtain relief from a casual area, the player's lie may be relocated without penalty to the nearest lie which is farther from the target and is on the line of play, at the nearest point that provides relief (unless greater casual relief is announced by the Director).

C. A player who takes relief other than as allowed by rule receives one penalty throw.

804.01 Mandatory Routes

This change clarifies that mandatory routes restrict the path of the disc for the entire hole, regardless of the direction the disc is traveling.

A. A mandatory route restricts the path the disc may take to the target in the process of playing a hole

803.01 Moving Obstacles

This change adds additional clarity to what defines a casual obstacle. Casual obstacles are intended to be loose debris, not just any item that happens to be dead or detached.

B.1 A player may move casual obstacles that are on the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed when taking a stance. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director. Objects intentionally placed as part of the course or event are not casual obstacles. 

806.04.A: Relief Area

This clarifies that Relief Areas are treated exactly the same as OB areas in all aspects except for the applied penalty throw. This includes discs landing within 1m of a relief area. This update also aids in how to handle situations where OB and Relief Areas share an edge.

A. A relief area is an area designated by the Director from which a disc may not be played, or any in-bounds area that players are prohibited by law from entering. A relief area is considered and played as an out-of-bounds area, but no penalty throw is applied with the exception that no penalty throw is assessed to a player whose disc comes to rest in a relief area.

813.01 Illegal Disc

This update provides additional clarity that players may not throw a disc that is intentionally deformed such that it no longer complies with the technical standards for approved discs.

C. Other modifications to a disc after production make the disc illegal, including but not limited to: ... 

5. Intentionally deforming a disc such that it is not in a circular, saucer-like configuration.

802.03 Excessive Time

Using the phrase “remains clear” provides additional clarity that a player’s 30-second time window restarts if the playing area does not remain continuously clear. 

A.4. During which the playing area is remains clear.

Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events

1.03 Withdrawals and Refunds

The change in language here reflects the long-standing PDGA policy of how to evaluate whether a refund is due or not. The old language muddied the intent of the policy. The change also reflects that non-refundable items like DGS and PayPal processing fees are not included in a refund.

B. Players who have paid MORE than a nominal waitlist fee of $10 to be on an event’s waitlist who do not get into the event, or who officially request to withdraw from the waitlist prior to the event’s published closure of registration and waitlist replacements (within one week is recommended), will receive a 100% cash refund of their waitlist fee (minus the up to a $10 handling fee) waitlist fee. Waitlist players who ONLY paid a nominal non-refundable waitlist fee of $10 or less will not receive a refund.

C. Players who officially request to withdraw from an event at least 30 days before the start of the event will receive a 100% cash refund of their entry fee (minus up to a $10 handling fee). 

D. Players who officially request to withdraw from an event 15 to 29 days before the start of the event will receive a 100% cash refund of their entry fee minus up to a $10 handling fee ONLY if their spot in the tournament is filled through either the waitlist or a walk-up entry (if offered) by a player who is on the waitlist at the time of the withdrawal request. If the player’s spot is NOT filled, the TD has the choice to provide EITHER a 50% cash refund OR just the player’s pack the player would have received if they had attended (minus the cost of shipping). In the case of a player in a Pro division for an event without a Pro player pack worth at least 25% of the Entry Fee, the TD will provide the 50% cash refund.

E. Players who officially request to withdraw from an event within 14 days of the start of the event and prior to the event’s published closure of registration and waitlist replacements (within one week is recommended) will receive a 100% cash refund of their entry fee minus up to a $10 handling fee ONLY if their spot in the tournament is filled through either the waitlist or a walk-up entry (if offered) by a player who is on the waitlist at the time of the withdrawal request. If the player’s spot is NOT filled, the TD has the choice to provide EITHER a 25% cash refund OR just the player’s pack they would have received if they had attended (minus the cost of shipping). In the case of a player in a Pro division for an event without a Pro player pack worth at least 25% of the Entry Fee, the TD will provide the 25% cash refund.

1.05 Practice Rounds, Beginning Play, Late Arrivals

This change clarifies when players may practice at staggered start events with scheduled tee times, and defaults to no practice on the course while play is ongoing.

B. 2. Staggered Starts or Tee Times (rounds where groups start one after another on a certain hole): The player shall start at the time announced by the Tournament Director. Players are recommended to check in with the starter ten minutes before their tee time. At staggered start events with scheduled tee times, players may practice in any area designated by the Tournament Director until the starter indicates the two-minute signal for their group provided their practice does not distract players on the course. When tournament rounds are in progress at a course, that course is unavailable for practice unless the Tournament Director specifies otherwise.

1.12 Tournament Officials

This revision specifies who designates PDGA Marshals.

A. Only the Tournament Director, those Certified Officials that have been designated by the Tournament Director, or a designated PDGA Marshal as designated by the PDGA Director of Competition, are Tournament Officials for a given event.

1.14 Leagues

This allows children under 13 accompanying a playing group at PDGA Leagues to be supervised by a player in the group.

C. 5. Children under 13 who are accompanying a group may be supervised by an adult in the playing group (see 1.13.A).

2.01 General

The first change addresses players who request to change divisions after competition has begun, but before they have started their rounds. NOTE: This is inserted as a new 2.01.C, and current 2.01.C et seq. will move down a letter (C to D, D to E, etc.).

The second change clarifies how to limit offered divisions, corrects the misunderstanding that a division must have four players to be contested, and emphasizes the importance of offering underserved divisions.

C. After the close of registration, players may not request to change their division unless their division has three or fewer people, in which case players must request a change prior to the start of competition.  TDs may approve or deny this request in their sole discretion.

K. L. A Tournament Director may, by indicating it on the registration form, restrict the divisions offered in their event. Absent such notice, the Tournament Director shall offer for competition any division which has four or more players that are eligible and who wish to compete. Tournament Directors may offer divisions with fewer than four players at their discretion (see 1.03.I). A Tournament Director may limit the divisions they wish to offer at their event by listing only the divisions they plan to offer on their registration form.  If a division is offered and at least four eligible players register for that division, that division must be held.  If fewer than four eligible players register for an offered division or a division does not have four eligible players at the close of registration, it is at the Tournament Director's discretion whether to hold the division or not (see 1.03.I).  Tournament Directors are strongly encouraged to offer divisions which are otherwise underserved (see 1.02.C.2.c) and to hold such divisions even if fewer than four eligible players register.

3.04 Dress Code

This revision clarifies that players must wear a lower outer garment and opens up well-tailored sleeveless shirts with collars and tennis dresses that meet the requirements to any player who wishes to wear them.

B. All competitors and staff are required to wear a shirt an upper and lower outer garment, such as a shirt and pants.

D. 2. All players must wear a shirt covering their upper chest area and lower torso. A well-tailored shirt with a collar and sleeves covering the upper arm shall be considered acceptable. Tank tops are not allowed for any competitor, but women may wear sleeveless shirts with collars. Women may also wear well-tailored one-piece tennis dresses with minimum one-inch-wide shoulder straps. A well-tailored shirt with a collar is acceptable, with or without sleeves. A well-tailored one-piece tennis dress with minimum one-inch-wide shoulder straps is also acceptable. Tank tops are not allowed for any competitor.

3.08 Tournament Director Rights and Responsibilities

This revision sets the minimum age to serve as a Tournament Director of record at 18.

Any qualified, current PDGA member age 18 or over who is interested in running a PDGA-sanctioned event may be required to take and pass an online tournament procedures assessment test before being able to direct that event. That test will be based upon the Official Rules of Disc Golf and the Competition Manual. PDGA members under the age of 18 may not be Tournament Directors.

Clerical Items

Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events

2.03 Reclassification of Professional/Amateur 

This section was improperly structured, giving it two possible citations to 2.03.A. This edit fixes the problem.

A. Professional to Amateur

A. 1. Players registered with the PDGA as Professionals may petition the PDGA Memberships Manager or PDGA Director of Event Support for reclassification as Amateurs, but they must meet all requirements to reclassify.

2. Players must meet all requirements laid out in the Divisions, Ratings and Points Factors table in order to reclassify.

B. Amateur to Professional

A. 1. An Amateur wishing to change their classification to Professional may do so by contacting the PDGA Memberships Manager.

B. 2. An Amateur player is automatically reclassified as Professional when the player has accepted cash while competing in a Professional division (see 1.10.A and 1.10.B). 

3. Accepting cash for winning an ancillary contest such as an ace pool, top-of-the-card round prize, or CTP contest does not cause a player to relinquish their amateur status.

Tour Standards

The reclassification criteria for Professionals seeking to reclassify as Amateurs currently are enumerated in an FAQ document.  This change moves those criteria into the Tour Standards as part of the Divisions, Ratings, and Points Factors document. The criteria will not change, and can currently be found in the reclassification question in the FAQ.

^ Back to the top ^

Comments

The moving obstacles clarification makes it harder to define what exactly can be moved. How do I playing at a course I have never been to know whether that object was placed there on purpose, or someone had moved it out of the way there? Why put the player in an unsafe position when they could just pick up an move an object and put it back? Perhaps a size restriction clarification would be better?

803.01

Recently I have seen large trees fall over dead in fairways and park districts etc don't always remove them promptly if at all. While some course designers have intentionally left trunks, stumps etc in place as a course feature. The rule here requires interpretation of course designer's intent which cannot be known or easily assumed in all cases, particularly if you are not familiar with that course.

While players are unlikely to be able to move trucks or stumps, smaller items or individual items within a group (like a pile of branches or boulders obstructing a throw from a certain position where the top branch(s) or stone(s) could be moved would be in question with regard to their intent) I would suggest changing the language so that it is not dependent on knowing or presuming designer intent.

Submitted by aidantaus on

I understood this to refer to eg. a rope set up for the event in question to keep spectators at bay, but which happens to be in an in-bounds area alongside the fairway. If your lie is under the rope, you are not allowed to loosen or move the rope in order to better your stance.

Course design elements should in any case be large or obvious enough to be considered part of the course. After all, you're allowed to move _only_ loose debris _on the ground_, and only from under your supporting points - not to make better room for your swing, or a clearer window for the line of your throw.

New TD rule, with the growth in the juniors and their knowledge of the rules, would you consider allowing under 18 being assistant TDs? I played an event (C-tier) with a young TD that had dad assisting. I didn't hear of any issues with the event. Just something to think about to develop younger people into quality TDs.

3.04 - Dress Code. Two things, 1) is cotton now permissible to wear as a t-shirt? Assuming nothing derogatory, why would a simple cotton t-shirt not be permitted? It sounds like now it is permitted, but clarity here would be nice, since it is specifying "well-tailored" and that is a matter of opinion of what is "well" tailored and what is "poorly" or "decently" tailored.
Also, why are the ladies permitted to wear sleeveless but not the men? Not to say that tank tops should be permitted, but if ladies can wear sleeveless, I feel men should be permitted to as well, with the same standards of the top apparel.

Submitted by laura44969 on

@TheWanderingTechie, any and all gendered language has been removed from the Dress Code.
"competitors", "staff", "players"; that applies to any and all people in those roles.

B. All competitors and staff are required to wear an upper and lower outer garment, such as a shirt and pants.

D. 2. All players must wear a shirt covering their upper chest area and lower torso. A well-tailored shirt with a collar is acceptable, with or without sleeves. A well-tailored one-piece tennis dress with minimum one-inch-wide shoulder straps is also acceptable. Tank tops are not allowed for any competitor.

Well said, and good point! I read that, but did not catch that language change. Excellent! By the way, thank you for pointing that out. 😊

Cotton T-shirts are still not allowed (that part of the rule isn’t changed as best I can tell). I imagine they aren’t allowed because they can look less professional (can get wrinkled, show sweat) than performance fabric shirts.

T-shirts are allowed, aren't they? But, I would say that the wording is deliberately "misleading" to push forward an emphasis on collared shirts.

PS. My mistake. I had forgotten that this part of the rule is specifically applicable to "elite series events and Majors" and is not a compulsory rule for A-Tiers and below.

OB waivers should be allowed to be granted for use on a course as long as the layout does not change. This would end having to ask for the same OB waiver time and time again.

Submitted by wmacduff on

Please reconsider or modify the existing rule requiring a TD to sit during a B tier event. Many of these events have multiple TD that are accessible during the round. Events that are run via tee time have the ability to schedule a playing TD to be at tourney central at all times of the event. As it stands this rule punishes hard working TDs and prevents them from playing in events that they work hard to make happen. This will not grow the sport, only burn out the existing TDs that make this sport happen.

I messaged the PDGA when this new rule was first introduced and advocated STRONGLY against the change. It simply is punishing those who volunteer - the amount you volunteer equals the amount you are being punished. I have TDed events for over 20+ years (Multiple events per year) and have had ZERO problems playing while being a TD.

Three important things of note:

1. I, and I am guessing the majority of others who TD and play, know that being a TD is the priority. If called for an emergency or any other serious reason, it is accepted that I would then remove myself from the event to take care of my duties.

2. It is common sense that any player can reach the TD whether the TD is on hole #8 or sitting at Tournament Central. It is irrelevant where the TD physically is at any time - they are reachable.

3. It is absolutely demoralizing knowing that you, as a TD, are going to put in 100 hours of work for an event, all the while realizing that you will be sitting on your ass for the entire day instead of enjoying the sport, comradery, competition and fruits of your labor.

Simply put - It is unfair to punish those who are the backbone of PDGA sanctioned events. Additionally, it is never a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you.

Submitted by bucklerj01 on

I agree with this, I work very hard on all of my events, I have played all of my events including B tiers until this year, and I’ve never had an issue. I give my phone number to all competitors and tell my card that my sound is on in advance, never had an issue.

I’m going to address the entire “B-tier” as a whole on the comments below.

The definition of the circle for a falling putt MUST, absolutely MUST, be extended to 20 meters. NOT 15 METERS! 15 meters is insufficient to truly solve this massive problem. Do not change a rule and leave it broken. Commit to your shot and fix it seriously. It is impossible to judge illegal jump putts in real time, but on slow-motion video we see that blatant violations are widespread! Frequently players are not only 100% in the air at release time, but their front foot is often rubbing the tall grass nearly 2 meters in front of their lie (just 8m from the basket). Touching a weed with your PLANT FOOT in front of the lie before release is clearly illegal. By extending the circle to 20 meters there is substantially less incentive to cheat and little reason for other players to worry about a microsecond difference between release of disc and toe. So the debate will be over! Also, as a practical measure, the TD does not need to place 40 little red flags around every basket at 20m. One simple solution is to just tie a fishing line to the pole and tie a handle at 20m. Then players can easily pull the radius line out to any lie in question. Finally, please ignore the counter-arguments that say this will ruin C1 putting statistics. We can still keep stats on putting within 10m and talk about it all we want, just as we talk about the imaginary C2 circle today.

20 meters just pushes the problem out. This would solve the problem:

"A player shall compete in such a manner that the other players in the group can confirm that the player is complying with the rules."

Then, if it happens too fast to tell whether you are breaking the rule, then you are breaking the rule.

I don't understand why all shots don't follow a simple uniform 'Both feet, or 2 points of contact must touch behind the players lie after the disc leaves the hand on any shot. Balance and control must be established on any shot within 10 meters prior to moving past the players lie."

I'm personally not a shot of different rules for shot in general. A putt or a throw should have the same rules. If people find it reasonable to have an establish rule after a putt, I can handle that. I would just rather not have more and more sliding rules and special cases.

I agree. All jump and step putts should be made behind the lie. It is not impossible to do. If you jump a yard forward on a jump putt stand a yard back from your lie and land behind your lie. Jump putts and step putts are just cheating. The jump putter is a yard or two closer to basket than their Iie. It is cheating on distance. They are making their shot closer by subverting the foot fault rule. I have never seen these jump putters release a disc while in the air. They always touch ground before releasing. Imagine a ball golfer jumping around when putting. Or a step putt. In Helena Montana we call it the Roncho (Ron used a raunchy shot) putt after a person that originally used the putt to shorten the distance to the target. Players that keep supporting this shot are cheaters pure and simple.

Submitted by hazard on

You're seeing them LAND before releasing? When I was still playing regularly the issue was telling whether or not they released before they left the ground, since 802.07A1 required a supporting point in contact with the lie.

Edit: As far as I can tell, that hasn't changed. If they've *taken off* before release, it's already a stance violation. If they *land* before release, it's just egregious. Granted, in the case of step putts rather than jump putts, it *is* the moving foot landing that matters, but you mentioned both separately and then continued talking about jump putts and specifically said "in the air."

I believe you are correct. But I watched a video of Paul McBeth doing exactly as I said in a tournament. I also saw Ken Climo do the same. They stand at their lie, jump forward and supposedly release disc in air. Trouble is they are touching ground beyond the lie when disc is released. I've been in PDGA tournaments where this was alllowed if they were more than 30 feet (10 meters) from basket. I think it is a violation of Foot Fault rule, but the PDGA has been allowing it. I tried to call it a foot fault on someone in a tournament and was told I was wrong.

Submitted by FredVocino on

The rules permit jump and step putts. The exploitation of that opportunity to hedge on the distance to the target brought us the trouble with detecting violations involving contact behind (for jumps) and ahead (for steps) of the lie. That trouble was more than anyone in a position to deal with it wished to deal with it. That is, the players on the card avoided the fuss over the fractions of inches; and the rule makers "let it all slide"..
This has turned into a farce where people are told "Your video evidence is meaningless. Don't complain. Just learn to exploit the rule and do as we do."
It may have been politically possible to change the rule to avoid the exploitation in the past. But now the wisdom and courage to make a change is as doubtful as that which we see in the changes related to the 30 second rule

For A tier requirements you might want to specify what constitutes a sufficient space. Specifically from ledgestone O pool MA2 Kennel lake and eureka permanent had no where to throw but northwood blue warm up area was great.

Submitted by FredVocino on

The introduction of the update for 813.01 Illegal Disc includes this reference: "a disc that is intentionally deformed such that it no longer complies with the technical standards for approved discs." After that, we see another example (5.) within the universe of treatments that are not among the 3 allowed treatments (modifications) in the above section 813.01.B.

In an earlier Q&A (QA-EQU-2) the PDGA noted that a factory-second disc was legal as long as it complied with the Technical Standards. The current reference to technical standards shows, again, how the PDGA has an ability to touch on the usefulness of technical standards as indicators of disc legality; but, they have so far been unable/unwilling to fully grasp the standards as superior to the antiquated obtuse terms that remain in the rule.

The terms "original flight characteristics" were tossed out of the operative section of the rule (B.); but they were then inserted in section C. so as to bring new confusion to anyone trying to determine their import and meaning. "Moderate" and "Excessive" sanding criteria are sufficiently vague as to expose players to the uncertain variations in judgements by competitors and course officials. This not only makes sanding of any degree a potential controversy; it is a notional expression of certainty that there are no better methods of treating the scrapes, gouges and burrs acquired during normal use.

Technical standards is the obvious touchstone by which all issues of disc legality can be resolved (not just factory seconds and balled pieces of plastic). The PDGA's piecemeal approach to rules amendment leaves the coherent and prudent administration of the illegal disc rules in doubt. Previously exasperated local event officials will be better served by giving them a rule that does not cause them to wonder about a disc's original flight characteristics or their finger sensitivity to sanded disc surfaces. Let them look at a "questioned" disc and note how it varies from fresh copies of the same mold. Note: Would be "cheaters" will be incapable of predicting the absence of a new disc for comparison purposes.

Submitted by FredVocino on

The proposal to amend 1.14 states:
"This allows children under 13 accompanying a playing group at PDGA Leagues to be supervised by a player (sic) in the group.

C. 5. Children under 13 who are accompanying a group may be supervised by an adult in the playing group (sic) (see 1.13.A)."

Comment:
Section C. provides for exceptions to rules that would otherwise apply. In each case the rule being excepted is identified.

The text of the amendment expresses an allowance ("may") for an adult supervisor of a child who is not yet 13 in a player group. That leaves open the possibility of a child who is not yet 13 to accompany a player group, where the allowance has not been taken (i.e.no adult acts as the child's supervisor.)

The above being the intent of the exception to rule 1.13.A, the proposed amendment to 1.14.C is coherent. Children under 13 are currently permitted to accompany player groups under 1.13.A, provided they are in the role of caddie* or supervised by a person who is not in the player group*. Such Supervision is currently a required condition not an allowed condition.
(*Note: The current text of 1.13.A delivers meaning whereby a child under 13 who is a caddie is not subject to the other conditions of supervision expressed there. Also, a caddie is considered a member of the player group except for purposes of making group calls or rulings. See 3.05.D.)

Trouble with integrating the proposed amendment to 1.14 (including its reference to 1.13.A) into a coherent alignment with other provisions of the rules confronts us as we ask how rule 3.05.B matters here. The text of the proposed amendment does not refer to 3.05.B as an being excepted.

(EDIT) The above gives us an operation where a child under 13 may accompany a player group without adult supervision but that child must not be a caddie (i.e. subject to the same standards of behavior applicable to a player; and taking direction from a player that is tantamount to supervision)

It is disappointing to note that the recent controversy concerning Kristin Tattar's daughter did not lead to an effort to reconcile rule 1.13.A and 3.05.B as they each bear differently on the issues of caddie age eligibility. It may also be worthwhile to identify what the current rules allow and require as part of your effort to make exceptions for league play.

Edit: 8/31/22 It has finally occurred to me that the proposed revision is intended to make an exception, where the condition for supervision by persons who are not players or caddies is waived in cases of league play. This does, however, leave us with questions concerning the identity of those other adults who accompany a player group (not gallery persons) who might act as supervisors under 1.13.A. We see in 3.05.G how such others are identified; but that leaves us unclear about those sanctioned events in the wide space between league level and Major / Elite levels.

My apology for misapprehending the intent of the proposed change regarding leagues remains, even as I wonder as above. I also remain perplexed by the continued reference in 1.13.A to only children under 13 who are not caddies being subject to supervision by an adult who is not in the player group. The necessary corollary is that a child under 13 who is a caddie may accompany a player group without meeting those specified terms of supervision. Their role as caddie is a more rigorous form of supervision than for a non-caddie 12-year-old accompanying that same player group. I am not pleading the case for children under 13 to have any place in the eventual definition of player groups and those who may be correctly included as in their company. I assume galleries/spectators follow, not accompany, player groups.

The Mando language is attempting to define a plane with as few as one reference point. This is mathematically impossible. A plane can only exist through a minimum of three points.
This leaves tremendous dispute over where said plane exists.
Change the text to read, “…a plane, as defined by a minimum of 3 points”.
Or a sentence to the effect of, “…where no 3rd point exists, then perpendicular to line, (between box and basket), through reference point 1”.
Or both. But the current language is without merit and needs revising.

Submitted by FredVocino on

I have visualized the plane used in connection with discgolf mandos as having one point being the center of the earth. That would serve to define the plane that would divide the earth in a perfect half, where the upward axis of the supposed coordinate plane is on an infinite straight line passing through the earth's center and, the horizontal axis, being perpendicular to the vertical axis, would provide a vertex point and the line (ray) on which any point beyond the vertex would serve as one of the three points needed to define the plane.

That is: earth's center is point A; The vertex of the axes is point B; any point on the horizontal axis is point C.

Mandatory rule changes initiated this year were a terrible idea that has been the topic of complaining ever since they were installed. Attempting to further entrench them into the canon of regulations will only serve to deepen the revulsion to this "two-way plane" idea. Reverting the rule to the way it was prior to 2022 would be the best result possible.

Submitted by rvanmanen on

803.01 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Fix the casual object removal to include run-up, not just stance, so people dont break their ankles because they had to leave loose twigs/acorns/walnuts/rocks/other debris in their upshot run-up.

Submitted by hazard on

I haven't been playing for a while, when did they change the rules so that a player is ever *entitled* to a run-up?

To be clear, I agree that it is better to increase relief and removal options than it is to have injuries, but to the best of my knowledge recognizing a fairway run-up as being something to which a player is entitled in all cases would require a lot more changes than this...

Submitted by rvanmanen on

someone correct me if I am mistaken, but before last year, you were always able to move an object that was behind your lie. Last year they changed the wording so that you were only able to move an object behind your lie that is in your stance

Submitted by hazard on

I see what you mean. I don't have my old rule book handy to check at the moment, but I seem to recall that being the case as well. I see the change as consistent with the fact that nothing else in the rules suggests a player is entitled to a run-up, but I don't have any particular support for the change either.

I may have been erroneously connecting that change back to prior discussions from way back when you couldn't move the obstacle if it extended in front of the lie, so if such an obstacle prevented a legal stance the player was stuck with taking relief; and taking relief from an obstacle (without taking a penalty) only allowed for obtaining a legal stance, not for ensuring a run-up or even an unimpeded throwing motion. But yes, I believe your assertion about moving obstacles behind the lie that interfered with your run-up rather than your stance was previously correct.

Submitted by hazard on

I would suggest that 1.03 D-E may need further clarification. It currently reads to me as potentially meaning either that the distinction depends on whether there is someone on the waitlist to take the player's spot at the time of withdrawal, even if that player also withdraws, or on whether a person who *ultimately* takes their spot was on the list at the time. So that, for example, if there were one player on the waitlist, and I withdrew, and then another person joined the waitlist, and the person who was on the waitlist when I withdrew also withdrew, then what refund I'm supposed to get might depend on that interpretation.

For Underserved groups, I would like to see MA40 added.
Rule: 1.02.C.2.c - TDs may offer early registration tiers based on specific divisions that are otherwise underserved. These are limited to female-only divisions, junior divisions, or senior (age 50 and older) age-based divisions.

Submitted by bucklerj01 on

I would consider taking a look at B tier events.

Currently, you are forcing nonmembers to become members or re-new their membership to compete. I have seen a drastic decline in B tiers because of this. A B tier we once expanded to 144 player field barely has 50 people signed up for it this weekend. I am running an event that could have held 288 players across 4 courses and I had 95 people sign up. A large part of my field I planned on being Children and women but most of them aren’t registered with the PDGA.

Another note about B tiers is currently there is no benefit to running a B tier. By running a B tier, the only thing I’m doing differently is paying the PDGA more money.

I could just as easily run a 4 round C tier with 10k added cash and there’s nothing stopping me from doing so. And on top of that, the TD can’t play if they run a Btier, which makes C tiers much more appealing to run.