-Reclassification of division may be most confusing rule for some to understand. This includes how some B.O.D. members are reading the rules (myself included). Recently there was much discussed over "Competition in a tournament without finishing all holes and rounds offered shall be disregarded for the purposes of player reclassification"

Question 1...
Option A - All holes must be played for reclassification purposes, this means any holes including missing just one hole would prevent players from moving down to a lower division.
Option B - As long as the player does not "DNF" they are allowed to reclassify themselves even if they missed several holes.
Option C - we set a number to allow the players to miss an amount of holes, for example (no more then 3 holes may be missed at the start of a round for reclassification purposes)

1.3 Player Reclassification:
1.3.1 A player not qualified for an Amateur division due to having accepted a finishing award in a Pro division (gained Professional Status) may compete in an Advanced Amateur division for which the player would otherwise be qualified after finishing four (4) consecutive immediately preceding Championship qualifying tournaments without accepting a finishing award in any and all Pro divisions in which the player accepted a finishing award.
1.3.2 A player not qualified for an Intermediate Amateur division due to having accepted a finishing award in an Advanced Amateur division may compete in an Intermediate Amateur division for which the player would otherwise be qualified after finishing four (4) consecutive immediately preceding Championship qualifying tournaments without accepting a finishing award in any and all Advanced Amateur divisions in which the player accepted a finishing award.
1.3.3 Competition in a tournament without finishing all holes and rounds offered shall be disregarded for the purposes of player reclassification if no finishing award is accepted. Example a DNF (Did Not Finish) with no finishing award accepted will not qualify or disqualify a player for reclassification. Example accepting a finishing prize for a DNF means the player must finish four (4) subsequent events as specified above to be reclassified.


- Division of 1. So in the case a player moves to a higher division or is forced to play a higher division and the division has only 1 player. May this player move back down into their division the formally played.

Question 2
Option A - The player accepted a finishing award and therefore must follow rule 1.3.1 or 1.3.2
Option B - The player is guaranteed to win his division because there is only 1 player, therefore the tournament does not effect His/Her classification.

A tournament director may, by giving adequate public notice, restrict the divisions offered. Absent such notice, the tournament director shall offer for competition all divisions listed in this Section for which three (3) or more players offer entry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2013 03:35PM by Eric Day.

Feel free to add any questions, please include options for people to vote/discuss.

Mr. Day, are these trick questions? Both answers, not opinions are Option A.

Dillon Gourley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Day, are these trick questions? Both answers,
> not opinions are Option A.


A - Player wins and is now stuck in the division
B- Players wins, but because there is only 1 players, player does not have to keep playing in higher division.

Question 1 - Option A
This is the way I think the current rule was intended to apply. An adequate way to clarify the language would be to insert the words "actually playing and" in between "without" and "finishing" in the first line of rule 1.3.3. It would read "Competition in a tournament without actually playing and finishing all holes and rounds offered...".

Question 1 - Option B
The simplest way to get this application would be to remove the words "holes and". It would read "Competition in a tournament without finishing all rounds offered..."

Question 1 - Option C
A missed hole score is par + 4. Even one of those is enough to make a difference in cashing in an event. I think an event with a missed hole score should be disregarded for reclassification purposes.

The 2nd question is about play in a division of 1 or less than 3 or some other number. That presents a classification (stay up) issue and a reclassification (move down) issue. Neither rule currently has an exception based on number in the division. If we want to make it so <3 person divisions are disregarded we should do that in both stay up and move down rules. I don't think that would be a simplification but it might be a better rule.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The 2nd question is about play in a division of 1
> or less than 3 or some other number. That
> presents a classification (stay up) issue and a
> reclassification (move down) issue. Neither rule
> currently has an exception based on number in the
> division. If we want to make it so <3 person
> divisions are disregarded we should do that in
> both stay up and move down rules. I don't think
> that would be a simplification but it might be a
> better rule.

It would be looked at the same as a doubles event.

Opt "B"...If it is Your intend to miss( be late) to a round, You will(or should) be DQed
A tourney should not count unless there is at lease 3 persons to make it count towards reclass
Move on UP, Instead of down when reclass

I don't see any good reason to get into what a player's intent is. An objective standard based on actions makes a much better rule.

I don't see any good reason to DQ for missed holes on the front end of an event. We don't need our playing rules to be that different from the PDGA just to have our own classification rules.

Having a 3 person rule for classification purposes is a justifiable idea. If we amend the reclassification (move down) rules to disregard < 3 person finishes we will be making it easier to move down, not harder. If we amend the classification (stay up) rules to disregard < 3 person finishes we will be making it easier to stay down. So basically, creating rules to disregard < 3 person finishes for classification purposes would not in any way make people play in a higher division. In fact, it would do just the opposite.

If the ultimate goal of a classification rule change is to move people up, disregarding < 3 person finishes is not the way to go.