Question for Chuck

[Titan_Bariloni]

I got him at a 22point jump
if chuck is correct and older rounds are dropped the newer ones may be even higher weighted

1049

is a 20plus point increase unheard of?

edit..fun to ponder anyways

chuck anyway to entertain us with some unofficial results on the matter for SNG's?

[Josh Connell]

I got him at a 22point jump
if chuck is correct and older rounds are dropped the newer ones may be even higher weighted

1049

is a 20plus point increase unheard of?

edit..fun to ponder anyways

chuck anyway to entertain us with some unofficial results on the matter for SNG's?

Yeah, I think your math is off. I haven't looked at Jerm's ratings detail, but a 22 point jump in one update, for a player at his level, with the number of tournaments he has played, is highly unlikely. Maybe if he keeps it up, he can get that 22 point increase over the course of a year, but not in a month or two.

[Justin White]

if Big Jerm keeps up his pace of late he could make a run at highest rated player

if my math is correct and a ratings update was this week he might even already be that guy

I think your math may be at even par along with your English. No way he makes a 20 point jump from 1027 to 1047+. Ricky and Paul should be a tight race to the top rated. I want to see someone hit 1050.

McBeth was just 1050 before the last update which brought him down 3 points to 1047

[Gary Cyr]

ditto, He's not jumping 20 points in one rating. He would need something in the area of 10 straight rounds at 1,100 to even sniff it

[Titan_Bariloni]

he shot an average of 22 points over his rating over those 4 rounds

so what am i missing?

[Justin White]

You are missing all of his other rounds he has played

[Matt Stroika]

McBeth was just 1050 before the last update which brought him down 3 points to 1047

I must have missed that. What a slacker dropping 3 points.

It must be nice when your average rounds is 5-8 throws fewer than a great round for mere mortals. And then complains about payouts. Maybe that should be its own thread.

[Josh Connell]

he shot an average of 22 points over his rating over those 4 rounds

so what am i missing?

He's got 98 rounds in his current rating. When MHO is added to it (along with anything else he's played in the last month) and his older rounds drop, he's still probably going to have somewhere in the vicinity of 98-100 rounds in his average. The MHO rounds, even double weighted, are a relatively small percentage (5-6%) of the whole. It will impact his rating, but not nearly to the degree you seem to think.

[Gary Cyr]

If he keeps playing week you could easily see him crack 1,030

[Titan_Bariloni]

I C now

thought once the rating was est that just the next rounds after the last update were calculated then averaged off and added to the last update total....

didn't realize the entire picture was still figured into the math


1050 is insane

[Troy Dietrich]

Chuck, I hope you're still monitoring this....I have a question that I asked in another forum, and was really surprised by the replies. So I'd also like to hear your opinion.

This is in regards to best shot doubles rules.

A question came up during a match yesterday, where the opposing doubles team couldn't decide which approach shot they preferred....each person liked their own lie, and they wanted to putt from them separately. I stated that they had to choose one and both play from it. Which is what they ultimately did, but they were pretty insistent that they should each be able to play from their own lie. They also stated something about if they both missed the putt, they'd have to play the next shot from the furthest position.

I see no mention of this in the PDGA rules for best shot doubles...but if I'm wrong, I'd like to know.

http://www.pdga.com/rules/rules-for-doubles

I've always played doubles where both players have to play from the exact same lie...to the point where if one person shoots from the disc as it lies, the 2nd player cannot subsequently flip or mark the position with a mini (effectively changing the lie).

Just about every reply I received to this, people have been playing it where they CAN play from different lies (and the 2nd player can choose to mark the disc with a mini)...but they're then married to the 2nd shot for better or worse.

Thoughts?

[Jeff Prendergast]

If you decide to play both, you must use 2nd shot. Truth.

[Josh Connell]

First player throws from lie A. Team determines it was a "misplay" per 803.03 G. (1). Second player plays from lie B. Their choice at that point is count the first throw which carries a penalty and the team must then throw from lie B, or count the second throw which carries no penalties and the team can continue from the lie resulting from that throw.

What the team can't do is each throw from their own lie and then choose which of those throws to play from. One of the throws has to be categorized as a misplay (and thus be discarded or counted with associated penalties).

It's also in the "official" doubles rules on the PDGA website, though not so thoroughly explained.

If the first player throws from the wrong lie, the second player may still throw from the correct lie.

[Troy Dietrich]

Okay...clearly this is how everyone plays it. So I stand corrected.

Seems to me that it's twisting the rules as they're written. I don't know how you determine that the 1st throw was 'Misplayed' or played from the 'wrong' lie...when there's nothing wrong with that lie. IMO as soon as one of the players throws from a given lie, the throw itself demonstrates that they've chosen between the two options.

This should be explained more clearly in the rules. Maybe call it an 'optional throw from an alternate lie', and explain that the first throw is discarded if they choose to exercise this option.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

IMO as soon as one of the players throws from a given lie, the throw itself demonstrates that they've chosen between the two options.

Same thing I've always told people.

[Josh Connell]

Doesn't this just boil down to the same argument people had about players using the Optional Re-throw rule (né Unsafe/Unplayable Lie)? The player/team is taking a risk to, in their eyes, potentially save a stroke. It could totally backfire on them as often as they come out ahead (I'd argue it's most likely a wash), but the decision is entirely theirs to make.

I mean, think about what it takes for it to work out. Player 2 has to be so convinced that he can get a better result from the other lie that he's willing to pass up whatever Player 1 has gained with his shot. And then he actually has to execute the shot effectively. How often is this scenario going to come up where option 2 is so obviously the right spot for Player 2 to throw from (so much so that he is willing to gamble on his throw alone being good) that he can't convince his partner to take his shot from there as well? I would think unless Player 1 is convinced he can only sink his shot from his lie, the higher percentage play, given Player 2's confidence, is to have Player 1 lay up from the second lie and then let Player 2 take his run.

Basically, we're talking about a scenario that probably wouldn't make sense to attempt except in a one in a million kind of situation.

[Troy Dietrich]

It's similar. The PDGA fortunately clarified that rule by calling it an 'optional re-throw'...since determining an unplayable lie is too subjective. (who makes that determination?)

Your tying rule 803.03 G (1)'s definition of a misplayed disc...Throwing from from (A) the wrong tee area, or (B) a lie established by a disc other than the throwers, to playing from a legal lie established by your partner is far fetched at best. And the wording in the Doubles rules about playing from a 'Wrong' lie isn't much better. Neither make it clear that playing from both lies (or all 3 in triples, right?) as a part of team strategy is an option.

Here's the scenario we had yesterday (I'm pretty sure similar circumstances occur more than 1 in a million)

Position A) 18 foot downhill death putt to a basket perched on the edge of a steep hill. Miss and it probably goes to the bottom leaving another 20 -30 (or more) foot putt back up.

Position B) 20 -25 foot uphill putt that if missed should be an easy drop-in.

They wanted to putt from position A, and take a shot at the easier but more risky putt 1st. Then putt from position B, if A didn't work out...for what should be an easy drop-in if the 2nd shot also missed.

Whatever, I'm fine with it either way. I just think that this option should be spelled out more clearly in the rules if that's how everyone plays it.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

Have one person park it and the other go for it from position A or B.. SHOULD be the same result.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I'll jump in late just to confirm that a doubles partner can play the other lie after their partner threw from a lie. However, the second player's throw must then be used. As mentioned above, the team has considered their first throw a "misplay" or incorrect lie and the second player is throwing from the now correct lie.

[Jeff Prendergast]

As mentioned above, the team has considered their first throw a "misplay" or incorrect lie and the second player is throwing from the now correct lie.

The word in quotes is what makes people question and criticize this rule IMO. Can we scrap the phony pretense of calling it a misplay and simply acknowledge that, at times, the team can make a decision within the rules and will have to live with the consequence of the decision?

It's a tactical decision classified as a misplay...doesn't sit right with me.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

As mentioned above, the team has considered their first throw a "misplay" or incorrect lie and the second player is throwing from the now correct lie.

The word in quotes is what makes people question and criticize this rule IMO. Can we scrap the phony pretense of calling it a misplay and simply acknowledge that, at times, the team can make a decision within the rules and will have to live with the consequence of the decision?

It's a tactical decision classified as a misplay...doesn't sit right with me.

It does make it sound like an "oops" type of play.

My question is........ can this be done more than once during a round or will subsequent "misplays" be subject to penalty strokes?

[Bill Bertera]

which category does this type of "misplay" fall into:

http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rule ... 03-misplay

and how does this not apply:

A player who deliberately misplays the course to gain competitive advantage shall be penalized in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Competition Manual.

[Josh Connell]

As mentioned above, the team has considered their first throw a "misplay" or incorrect lie and the second player is throwing from the now correct lie.

The word in quotes is what makes people question and criticize this rule IMO. Can we scrap the phony pretense of calling it a misplay and simply acknowledge that, at times, the team can make a decision within the rules and will have to live with the consequence of the decision?

It's a tactical decision classified as a misplay...doesn't sit right with me.

It does make it sound like an "oops" type of play.

My question is........ can this be done more than once during a round or will subsequent "misplays" be subject to penalty strokes?

Why would they be subject to penalty strokes? For all practical purposes, how is the misplay (and its associated penalties that are disregarded) any different than one player of a pair throwing OB or foot faulting or missing a mando? As long as the team chooses to play on with the partner's non-misplay/OB/foot fault/missed mando throw, there's no penalty to the team. There's no penalty at all.

Or put it another way...every throw in doubles is a provisional throw. Only in doubles, the decision on which provisional throw is counted is up to the players rather than an official or the TD. With provisional throws, ones that aren't "ultimately used in the completion of the hole" are "not added to the player's score". So anything that happens with a throw that is ultimately not used essentially never happened.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

I see your point Josh......... it just SOUNDS like the team is changing their lie, midway thru their "turn", to gain an advantage.

[Troy Dietrich]

Okay, but this still doesn't sit very well with me, especially when taken in context with the rest of the rules.

Best Shot

Best Shot is by far the most popular doubles format. Both players throw from each lie (starting with the tee shot), then the team chooses which of the resulting lies to continue play from, until the hole is completed.

• A team may take a reasonable amount of time to pick which lie they want before the 30-second play clock starts.

•A lie that is picked up without being marked is gone forever; the team must throw from the other lie. If the second lie is picked up, it must be replaced in accordance with PDGA rules. All lies must be marked according to PDGA rules.

•If the first player throws from the wrong lie, the second player may still throw from the correct lie.

•In case of injury or disqualification, one partner may play alone, throwing one shot at each lie (essentially playing singles).

Note the words I listed in red italics. Taken as a whole, I don't see how playing from different lies is an option. Everything is about the team playing as a unit, not individual players making separate decisions.

It makes far more sense to me that the word "Wrong", was just poorly chosen...and would be better termed as an "Illegal" lie. To cover scenarios where a player mistakenly played from an OB disc, or one that missed a mando or something. As it stands this feels like it's just a loophole in the wording.

BTW Chuck, this isn't the first time this has come up....see: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90333&highlight=playing+lies+doubles

Maybe it's time to at least add something to the Rules Q&A section to clear this up.

[Troy Dietrich]

Or...simply add a new bullet point if this is how it's supposed to be played.

* A player may choose to play from an alternate lie, in which case the prior throw is void.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The overall problem is that the PDGA Rules Committee does not formally prepare rules for any format other than singles medal play. So at this point we're discussing the ramifications of the generalized format rules, some prepared by Houck and some formats, like Best Alternating and Tough Shot, by myself back in the early 90s. The PDGA has essentially adopted these format definitions and guidelines without formal review and clarification to deal with some quirky details that occur as result of two (or more) players throwing as a team. So it's pretty much left up to the TD to resolve any issues. That's where it stands now until the PDGA Rules and Competition Committees take on writing more details for these formats.

[Titan_Bariloni]

So tim c
I guess it really is left up to the league tds to make a rule