Alabama   •   Arkansas   •   Florida   •   Georgia   •   Kentucky   •   Louisiana   •   Mississippi   •   Oklahoma   •   Tennessee   •   Texas
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Serious Question on Eligibility

Posted by ww 
ww
Serious Question on Eligibility
February 04, 2008 02:12PM
As SN TDs, we need absolute confirmation on the issues of eligibility for players who accept cash as their winnings in a SN-sanctioned tournament.

1) If a player has accepted cash money for winnings in a SN tournament, they are locked in that division for no less than six months. Correct?

2) If an amateur player 'cashes' in an Open division, they may accept prizes in lieu of cash money to retain their amateur eligibility. Correct?


Now to the confusing part...

What is the BoD's position on players who have accepted cash money, yet play down in an amateur division BEFORE the six months is over, unbeknownst to the TD of the tournament the player played down in.

Should that player's eligibility time frame have another six months added?
Should that player be unable to play any amateur tournemant ever?
Should a player who accepts cash money in the SN Pro Championships never be allowed to play down to amateur again?



I need to know answers to these questions sooner than later. Please don't wait until the next meeting.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2008 02:13PM by ww.
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
February 05, 2008 07:41AM
the bad news and i think this is a very important issue is that you probably will have to wait untill the next meeting; the good news is we meet tommorrow night; and this will be an issue.
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
February 05, 2008 10:20AM
Willie, I can't speak to what we might decide tomorrow night but I know that the precedent is that one of the board members will usually talk to the offending player and explain the rules to this person. JohnK claims that no one as of yet has had a problem with moving up once the rule was explained and they were told that they needed to.

I personally think we need some more concrete consequences in place for a repeat offender but the board may choose to cross that bridge when we come to it and bank on the goodness of SN disc golfers.

Willie, if you think you know of a specific occurrence that we need to address, please PM, email, or call me and we'll discuss it so that I can present it tomorrow night.

Thanks,

Jeff H
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
February 06, 2008 09:07AM
WW, calvin should be ashamed! lol The Mobagger name continues;o]~

Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
April 08, 2008 11:51AM
Good (?). Head scratcher... Same... At the unity summit thing, there were two of "our" "rec" Players there!??? I thought Rec was a One Time ONLY Thing and one played SNAC & SNDC!!! This Div thing HAS to be Fixed!!! WW, I would Suspend Tour playing for Him/Her for 1 Year! Baggin HAS to Stop...................
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
April 08, 2008 02:21PM
I would think it would also matter whether the individual "cashed" in the lower division.....

I am only tossing out the "injured player moves down" theory.....

but as far as plain sandbaggers go--I'd think after a personal explanation, the individual would become compliant, but if not, I agree that some sanction is warranted....imho

Griff
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
April 08, 2008 08:19PM
Jack,
In a dual sanctioned tournament, PDGA rules apply. The players were playing in the appropriate PDGA division.

Josh
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
April 08, 2008 11:24PM
Shoot Jack, according to PDGA rules, I can play Rec with my 897 rating! But I'm locked into the pro divisions in SN 'cause I can occasionally win some cash (and can't resist accepting it). FYI, I have a problem with "one time" divisions. I don't think a first time player should be forced into Am. That's why I don't have a problem with the PDGA's Novice>Rec>Int>Advanced>Pro progression. I happen to love playing pro master in SN and advanced master in PDGA. I'm not baggin' in either situation. rWc3523
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 18, 2008 02:01PM
I would like to propose a change to the 6 month rule (which as we find from the am championships, can be exploited)

instead of forcing them to move up for 6 months after they have cashed, lets make them move up for X number of tournaments instead (I think 10 is a good number myself, but that can be decided later)

in the case of 10 being a good number, if you cash in open for instance, you now have to play open at least 10 more tournaments before you are allowed to move back down - obviously if you cash again, that number starts over

this prevents somebody from just "taking a break" for 6 months, to then play in the am championship or some other big am tournaments and bag their way to victory

if you can not cash in 10 tries (about 6 months for those who play enough tournaments), then its possible your not ready to move up yet and you will be allowed to move back down, but chances are, if you are a pro level player, you will cash and will not be bagging in the next am championships
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 18, 2008 02:03PM
and personally, I also do not think the winner of the previous am championships should be allowed to play in the next am championship

now whether its decided to apply the above rule to them or not can be decided later, but the way it is now isn't right
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 19, 2008 04:11PM
Clayton, I agree that the 6 months rule needs to be tweaked and making that a number of tournament requirement isn't a bad idea...

John k
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 19, 2008 09:18PM
Quote
John K
Clayton, I agree that the 6 months rule needs to be tweaked and making that a number of tournament requirement isn't a bad idea...

John k

What about players that have had major injuries. Recovery time from a RCR or ACL repair is 6 months. Is it fair to tell a player that they must donate for 4-6 events in pro in addition to the 6 month rule?

Personally, I fail to see the problem. No one in any of my groups at the SNAC was complaining about bagging.

Josh
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 06:44AM
Quote
Hilltopper
Quote
John K
Clayton, I agree that the 6 months rule needs to be tweaked and making that a number of tournament requirement isn't a bad idea...

John k

What about players that have had major injuries. Recovery time from a RCR or ACL repair is 6 months. Is it fair to tell a player that they must donate for 4-6 events in pro in addition to the 6 month rule?

Personally, I fail to see the problem. No one in any of my groups at the SNAC was complaining about bagging.

Josh

Josh, Do you think it is/was ok for the person who finished tied for first in 05/06 to have played and won this years SNAC even though he has already played 3 events this year and all of them where in the open divison. If nothing else it should be clear that if you cash at the SNPC you are out for at least a YEAR!

As for the injuries, I have had my shoulder done 3 times in the last 3 1/2 years and have never asked to be able to play advanced. If you are hurt and you return before you know you should then that is on the player not the BOD! and if there is a case where you need to vote do so but, make sure there are more then 3 present when YOU ALL VOTE!!!!

as for the no complaining, I guess they knew that there was no way to stop these baggers from taking the top 4 spots and yes all of them had finished in the top four before ;[~

Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 10:05AM
Quote
Tax Man
As for the injuries, I have had my shoulder done 3 times in the last 3 1/2 years and have never asked to be able to play advanced. [~

Didn't the board just have to vote to NOT let you play Advanced at the SNAC?

Jeff H
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 10:35AM
So what's the difference?

JABBA


it MUST be the plastic
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 11:10AM
Quote
cajundop
Quote
Tax Man
As for the injuries, I have had my shoulder done 3 times in the last 3 1/2 years and have never asked to be able to play advanced. [~

Didn't the board just have to vote to NOT let you play Advanced at the SNAC?

Jeff H

Yes, Jeff they did. Do you care to explain why 3 people voted for the whole BOD and what logic did you guys use before saying NO???

You can pick up my next question about a player who is signed up for masters but, did not play masters during the year for which the championship is being contested. If they did not contribute to a certain divison why, should they be allowed to take/play in it?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2008 11:12AM by Tax Man.
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 01:39PM
Bob
It was 4 people at the meeting minus Mike Sidebottom amd Bill McCarty who has been absent all year. I've sent you answers to all the emails you sent me as to why we voted as we did.

As to the SNPC..

The only qualification to get into the snpc is to have sn points. After that you can register in whatever division you are eligible for. Just as in the past when Lavone Wolfe played open in the sn qualifiers and grandmasters in the snpc you play where you want based on your age and confidence.

There are several players that are older and can play in masters and grandmasters but have the skill to compete in open but its their option, during the season the masters / gmasters playing open were playing up in my mind.

I haven't seen any problem with players moving within the pro divisions as they see fit, there were several pro masters players at last years SNPC that moved down, based on your arguement if they hadn't played open all year then that shouldn't be allowed either. Being able to move to open or stay in an age protected division that you are eligible for is one of the few advantages of being old.

John k
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 02:05PM
This was a pm I got from someone you said was there,
Re: ??
From: Hilltopper
To: Tax Man
Date: 08/14/2008


BTW I had no say in the vote on your eligibility for the SNAC. I would have voted that you should be able to play. I was out of town on vacation when that came up though.

Josh

I took out some of this PM as it was not about the vote. So, that is why I questioned the vote and the reasons as to why I was told I could not play.

The other question is about how/why/if a player has played open all year and has NOT contributed to the Master payout {2 a head} then why now should they be able to try and win/take/place in the masters divison.

I was unaware of the masters players that played down{or in the correct divison} based on the fees paid in.

It brings up a unique point or option for this SNPC and future ones. If there is no problem with them moving around during the season can there 2 dollars per event be attached to them and there respective divison??? Players like Will, Kernan, Jabba................ have played both but, How are there fees being sorted.

Just using the first two in points shows this.

Will BT 19 masters events=38 13 open =26
Larry H 16=32 8 =16

so is the 70 going to masters and the 42 to open?

Seems like the entire 112 should go to masters but, I think this maynot have been discussed in the past.

Could you shed some light on this as it would appear that the masters field should/would be missing out. This is why I asked about the player with no masters points??????????

Long winded but curious.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2008 02:08PM by Tax Man.
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 02:14PM
Keep it simple, as the sn treasure I'm not going to track where each player plays and where his sn money should go. If that's the case who wants to take over....I just don't see it being as big an issue as you make it out to be.

With all your ideas Bob you should run for an sn board position...

John k
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 03:17PM
Quote
John K
With all your ideas Bob you should run for an sn board position...

John k

Or get it handed to him when a person steps down :O)

Keep it simple bob. What about players moving up from INT to ADV during the year? Or players that go from ADV Maseter to ADV during the year.

I still think too many divisions are offered which are watering down some of them.

Terry Zeringue
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 03:35PM
Quote
TheZinger
Quote
John K
With all your ideas Bob you should run for an sn board position...

John k

Or get it handed to him when a person steps down :O)

Keep it simple bob. What about players moving up from INT to ADV during the year? Or players that go from ADV Maseter to ADV during the year.

I still think too many divisions are offered which are watering down some of them.

lol, MMMMM, Zinger I was attempting to move at the time and did serve on the BOD after that. Funny how guidelines where implemented when I was on the BOD are not being used. What was your reason for stepping down??

I will say it is complex and very intersting when you look at the numbers.

Just the 166 master players from last year breaks down something like this.
946 masters fees
224 to open
184 to GM
276 to advanced masters
34 advanced
6 int
4 rec

Sure it is easy to seperate by divison but, it just got me thinking as to why when someone like Will plays masters in the SNPC does not have a value on him?

He paid in 38 as a master and 26 as an open player.There is no way he can play both at the snpc so the 26 goes to the open field??? If you look at those numbers you have about 700 dollars being mixed. In maynot be a big issue but it just got me curious.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2008 03:36PM by Tax Man.
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 04:45PM
Josh, if a player is injured, they can appeal to the board or some other way out can be voted on

I was just throwing out the idea and the BoD can hash out the details of what they like and don't like for different scenarios - its really not complicated and a lot more fair

just kinda funny that last year's adv. championship winner was allowed to play in this years, as well as someone who cashed in last years pro championship, all because they just "didn't play in pro" for 6 months
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 07:54PM
Rating System!
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 08:09PM
I'm with you Matt! Sorry, I didn't find you at SNACs and introduce myself... I failed to realize you were there until it was too late.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 20, 2008 08:38PM
Its ok man, hopefully we will get to play in another one.
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 21, 2008 10:58AM
Quote
Tax Man
Yes, Jeff they did. Do you care to explain why 3 people voted for the whole BOD and what logic did you guys use before saying NO???

That's not what I was point out. I was pointing out the complete lie when you stated you have never asked to be able to play advanced. You did, and the board had to vote on it. As for 3 people voting for the BoD decision, seeing as we are only 5 people anyway without Bill McCarty, 3 is a majority.

Quote
Tax Man
You can pick up my next question about a player who is signed up for masters but, did not play masters during the year for which the championship is being contested. If they did not contribute to a certain divison why, should they be allowed to take/play in it?

So you have a problem with someone who has played Open all year playing Masters at the SNPC but you don't have a problem with an Advanced guy stepping up to play at the SNPC in your division. Seems to me like a conflict there Bob. You want the entry fees of those you can beat but not the competition of those you can't?

Sorry, players hop divisions all year long and the Masters are in the same boat as the Women. A number of the better women that are not yet ready for the pro ranks will play Am Men or Adv Men all year long, in fact Judy's only points were in Advanced Men. You don't even have a feeble argument to say that she shouldn't have played in the Women's divisions at the SNAC.

Jeff H
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 21, 2008 12:57PM
Quote
cajundop

That's not what I was point out. I was pointing out the complete lie when you stated you have never asked to be able to play advanced. You did, and the board had to vote on it. As for 3 people voting for the BoD decision, seeing as we are only 5 people anyway without Bill McCarty, 3 is a majority.



So you have a problem with someone who has played Open all year playing Masters at the SNPC but you don't have a problem with an Advanced guy stepping up to play at the SNPC in your division. Seems to me like a conflict there Bob. You want the entry fees of those you can beat but not the competition of those you can't?

Sorry, players hop divisions all year long and the Masters are in the same boat as the Women. A number of the better women that are not yet ready for the pro ranks will play Am Men or Adv Men all year long, in fact Judy's only points were in Advanced Men. You don't even have a feeble argument to say that she shouldn't have played in the Women's divisions at the SNAC.

Jeff H


NO LIE HERE JEFF!

I did not ask Jeff!!! I just merely stated I was playing then, I was told by a board member that he would ask the BOD. I only said I was playing. Then told I would/could play but not take prizes before it was ever brought to your attention. I was eligable and there was no reason other then I did not have am points. There should be no reason a player attempting to play in a higher divison and does not cash should not be able to use his points elsewhere. Even you state that it is common place.
I was the one that has been lied to about who voted. You still have not stated your reason for voting me down. If Bill is no longer attending and or voting then he needs to be replaced or Jim should step in on votes. Heck you guys can at least do that since no one seemed to follow up on the guidelines set for the SNAC!!!!


No, I have no problem but, If I was told I did not have the necessary am point then, I see it as somewhat of the same when someone does not have a Masters point.

Where did you hear me saying I am ok with advanced stepping up?

Your right Judy should have played where her points where ;o]~ No arguement needed since you all voted me out for the same reason.

After looking at it a little further that is when I asked how funds where seperated based on this person. Should the 6 dollars he put into open move over to masters otherwise he is playing in a divison in which he did not contribute.

Notice how much money goes to different divisons in which players do not play in during the championship. Just figure it would make more sense to keep it where they play in the championship. Especialy if someone moves into a divison they have not played in.

Not that hard!





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2008 01:42PM by Tax Man.
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 21, 2008 01:40PM
Its not hard the way it is.

"Then told I would/could play but not take prizes before it was ever brought to your attention." - from me, John k

I wasn't giving you permission but stated that was the only way I'd be willing to let you play.

Why is it people always seem to play the "lie" or "stole" card. All the board members in attendance agreed you shouldn't be allowed to play, whoever was there...

John k
Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 21, 2008 03:16PM
Quote
John K
Its not hard the way it is.

"Then told I would/could play but not take prizes before it was ever brought to your attention." - from me, John k

I wasn't giving you permission but stated that was the only way I'd be willing to let you play.

Why is it people always seem to play the "lie" or "stole" card. All the board members in attendance agreed you shouldn't be allowed to play, whoever was there...

John k

John,

I am only saying that i did not ask the BOD to play but was told it would be discussed. Then I was told i lied about asking. My point was I have had shoulder surgery three times and never asked to move back down. I did say I was going to play but, was rejected and an Open player won the snac ;[

As for the BOD members in attendance, you must be talking about the three of you that made/voted on it. Josh said he would have let me play. Sidebottom said he was on the fence. Not saying anyone lied just that I had been told differently. I still think 3 people is not enough to base a vote with. In the past we had 6 and Jimo as the tie breaker not sure what has changed?

I know it is not hard the way it is but, once again it seems like some changes would benifit the SN.

1. Is it fair for a player to play in the championship where he/she has not added to it earlier? Should they go where they put in?

2. Is this not the same as telling me I could not play advanced because I DID NOT HAVE ANY AM POINTS?

3. Can a spreadsheet or excel program help with that if we where to change it?

Thanks for all you do!

Re: Serious Question on Eligibility
August 21, 2008 03:34PM
Honestly Bob you are the only person saying that the SN fees should go somewhere other than the division they played in the sn qualifier.

John k
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 62
Record Number of Users: 19 on January 14, 2013
Record Number of Guests: 244 on February 20, 2013