Greetings BOD, I am trying to drop down from Adv to Int. I have played in 3 tournaments without cashing, however 1 was a DNF. I am asking for some clarification on how many more tournaments I need to play before I can be reclassified.

My argument,

In the tournament I DNF'ed I quit with 6 holes left, just didn't feel like playing anymore, I would not of cashed even of I had finished. Section 1 of the "NEW" handbook states a DNF does not count toward reclassifying thy self. However the "OLD" handbook which we all have gone by with the exception of the "4 tournament rule" that everyone has known about. The new handbook was JUST adopted and published on every forum Wednesday. The rules have been a "work in progress". I looked up the rules before I quit, I could not find ANYWHERE where it said DNF did not count.

Can I get some opinions or thoughts on this? Eric I already know yours...

Thank you.

I say you have to not cash in one more event and then you can go down to Intermediate as long as they are consecutive.

"HOGMAN"
HyZer Nation

Dillon, you are probably the first person I have ever known that is competing to deliberately LOSE! If you are such a bad golfer that you can't compete in advanced, you should have no problem LOSING without having to try. I sure hope it makes you very proud when you are elegible for Intermediate.

This is such a sad and petty issue for the BOD to even consider and for the competitive golfers to even read.

what he said!!!!!!

Lol wasnt your first ever win in an adv field?

2011 Adv Points Champion
2011 Am player of the year

petty isn't it,how some must shrink up to think tHEY are on top!!!

I'd like to answer your question but you have not stated enough facts and it is difficult to dig them out of this site. On a quick look I saw you have cashed twice in advanced this season.

You state you "have played in 3 tournaments without cashing" but what we need to know is what happened in your last 4 events disregarding any DNF's. The current reclassification rule has been in effect for about a year now. If you consider only your last 3 events, they were all in advanced, you accepted no finishing award any either of them and one of them was a DNF, then you have at least 2 more to go.

From what I read on the other thread, He had played two without accepting a finishing award (not cashing), then 1 He didn't finish (DNF). One of these events hasn't been posted on the site yet from what I understand, this caused some questions as well.

His argument is that the New Handbook wasn't posted until this week, even if the rules have been voted on in the past.

Answer A, He has to play in 1 more events without accepting a finishing award, and without turning down multiple finishing award within 6 months of each other.

Answer B, He has to play in 2 more events without accepting a finishing award, and without turning down multiple finishing award within 6 months of each other. The "DNF" does no count to his reclassification status.

He already has My answer via PM, I am choosing not to answer right away so not to sway any other opinions.

On November 21, 2011 the proposed current rule book was posted and the reclassification rule has not changed since then.

<[www.sndg.org];

Adoption was posted January 27, 2012

[www.sndg.org]

The current publication adequacy of the reclassification rule is really no different now than it was almost a year ago, so if it should not apply to everything in the last almost year due to publication inadequacy then it should not be applicable now either.

It would be nice if the rule was changed to reflect not that a player has not only "not accept" a finishing award but that the player "did not qualify for a finishing award, whether accepted or not." Seriously, what difference does it make if a person accepts the award if they played well enough to get one. Under the new rule, all you have to do is let the TD keep your second place prize in four tournaments and you get to move down and win against weaker competition. What is the justification for the acceptance rule?

I agree and I also think that you should not be able to turn down prizes at any level

I think we adopted the prize acceptance exception in part to be more consistent with the PDGA. I am generally in favor of that purpose, at least regarding playing rules. It's been so long since I read PDGA classification rules I'm pretty much clueless about them. What I do know is the SN classification rules disregard the PDGA. I think that makes a good argument to discard the prize acceptance exception, since a purpose for it has been abandoned.

Of course there are still arguments in favor of keeping the prize acceptance exception. It does allow a player to be bold and move up, try hard, then still maintain status if he thinks the result was a fluke. Every dog has his day, good and bad. It's a lot easier to get over on two guys who are usually better than it is to get over on ten. It's a lot easier to win or cash on your home course. It's a lot easier to win or cash on a short course even if you don't have the distance game to do so in the higher division on many other courses.

That's three valid reasons why award placing might not mean a player is really competitive in a higher division generally. Without the failsafe of the prize acceptance exception, we could be discouraging trial move-ups. The only move-up rule we have is the TD rule, so our move-up incentives are already weaker than our move-down impediments. I'm not so sure we should lessen our move-up incentives, such as they are.

I don't really have an opinion on whether we should keep the acceptance exception or not, other than I personally wouldn't bother changing any classification application without being convinced it would group similar skill better overall.

How many places do we have to read this crap?

___________________________________________________________________________
Keith "Sunshine" B

Look at the sunny side Sunshine, at least we brought the private section back to life for a minute.

Well we could always go to a Roc vs Buzzz thread ;)
This one was a valid question to start with.

LOL Lawyers............



Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at the sunny side Sunshine, at least we
> brought the private section back to life for a
> minute.

___________________________________________________________________________
Keith "Sunshine" B

Monty Python's Argument Clinic

[www.youtube.com]

lol

___________________________________________________________________________
Keith "Sunshine" B