NEFA DISCussion

1. No penalty for not bringing a girl to every challenge as there's already a 5 stroke penalty for not getting one qualified for finals.

2. Automatic 1 point for bringing a female when other team doesn't have one. Doubles is COED team vs single IF team choses to play female if uneven numbers.

3. Same as #2, just with a bonus point if female beats a guy.

Results:

1: Burgess, B2, Wick, NoHo

2: Capt Lawrence,

3: Buff, Pleasant Hill, Crane Hill, NASA, Maple Hill, West T.

3 please and thankyou.

3

3

I vote 3 as well.

I don't understand the clause "if uneven numbers" in #2 and #3. The coed versus single scenario would happen as long as the team with the woman elects to play their woman. Given this approach, it sure seems it would be a mistake to NOT play her (IMO).

What I really like about this change is we go from a team bringing a woman being at a disadvantage, to team bringing a woman being at an advantage. A team should not be penalized for bringing a woman and playing her -- which is effectively what happened last year if a team had to play a team that failed to bring a woman. This really encourages female participation.

So if both teams bring 16 players (or even numbers), team without a Female would actually need to sit a guy in the 2nd round.


PS: Separate topic, but I also think we need to clarify that 16 is the default max number of players (but only if captains cannot agree to more). Captains are free to agree to more players. If both teams manage to bring 20 players, I'd certainly be inclined to let everyone play. Unfortunately, we only have 18 players on our roster (at least as of right now).

John Dickison wrote:PS: Separate topic, but I also think we need to clarify that 16 is the default max number of players (but only if captains cannot agree to more). Captains are free to agree to more players. If both teams manage to bring 20 players, I'd certainly be inclined to let everyone play. Unfortunately, we only have 18 players on our roster (at least as of right now).

GREAT POINT! I completely agree with this...

3

1

so stupid, when you think about it, girls are 6% of the team, so you have to have that 6% make 60% of the challenges. Simply put, winter, family (ecspecially when most these women are married to, dating, or may have something better to do during winter months) is ridiculous.

Personally, I dont even think there should be a penalty at finals.

2

please

3

3 Please

John Dickison wrote:
I don't understand the clause "if uneven numbers" in #2 and #3. The coed versus single scenario would happen as long as the team with the woman elects to play their woman. Given this approach, it sure seems it would be a mistake to NOT play her (IMO).

I'm just saying you don't have to play a girl if you don't want to in doubles. If the numbers are uneven and a team has to sit someone, it can be the girl. Sure, it's probably beneficial to play her, but that's up to each captain to decide.

John Dickison wrote:
PS: Separate topic, but I also think we need to clarify that 16 is the default max number of players (but only if captains cannot agree to more). Captains are free to agree to more players. If both teams manage to bring 20 players, I'd certainly be inclined to let everyone play. Unfortunately, we only have 18 players on our roster (at least as of right now).

Yes this is how it is, sorry if it was unclear.

3

just so I get this straight, so. If our chick can't make it for a challenge, I don't know, family emergency, birthday, any circumstances, we get docked a point if the other female from the other team shows up, are teams really thinking this through clearly. I know Sarah will likely be at all our challenges, but I don't want to have the pressure of essentially saying, "If you don't show up, we throw 6% of the scoring on the day out the window"... b/c that's what it boils down to. Lot of pressure to put on ONE person on your roster.... to show up everytime, when you have 15 other guys that only have to make 60% of the challenges to qualify... not very fair!... in my eyes this is just ludicrous.

God forbid that a team loses by 1 this year, and that point was due to the fact that their woman was at a funeral or family function... anyone see where I am going?

Ok, so Team A shows up to a challenge, with their woman, the Team B doesn't have their woman. So does Team A get the automatic point AND can sit their woman all day? b/c then that just defeats the whole purpose of this dumb rule that people are voting 2 or 3 on. Want to get them involved? Dont make it mandatory that they show up without a penalty...

I'll mention again, it's likely, we'll have a chick at EVERY challenge, so this would HELP Burgess, but I think some teams really need to rethink their vote... or strategy...

I agree with your point Steve.

However, I can also see looking at the other perspective that it does stink for a woman to show up to play expecting to play another woman and not be able to.

There has also been talk of using this penalty only in cases where a woman is not on the roster. How to stop people from just putting a name on the roster? Maybe retroactive points if that said woman doesn't play in at least 2 challenges this year.

Lastly I don't think your example can happen - from what I understand the penalty point is only if the woman plays.

i believe a woman has to be on the roster and play to get any point(s) or to have the other team lose points.. either way it is, having a woman playing has to be rewarded.. we made the roster setup that way, voted on by the teams, so we need to make it work one way or the other

Pete Violet wrote: However, I can also see looking at the other perspective that it does stink for a woman to show up to play expecting to play another woman and not be able to.

Not only is it a bummer for the woman, but if the captain let's her play (which is only fair), she's likely going to lose her match. As I've pointed out before, that puts the team that actually brings a woman at a disadvantage. The best strategy at that point is to have the woman play the other team's best player -- which also sucks for both players/teams.

This is why there needs to be a penalty for not bringing a woman to each match. With #3 proposed above, the team with the woman automatically gets a point and team has an incentive to play her in a match that she has a chance at winning (not the other team's top player).


Captains need to coordinate to ensure either both teams have a woman show up or neither team has a woman show up. Then no penalty.

What the hell is going on here!?!

Why are we treating the female player differently than any other player on the team? The whole idea behind having a spot dedicated for a woman was to get them involved in the team challenge series. Creating restrictions is rediculous! We are all in the same boat here, trying to get our woman qualified for finals, so a team not bringing them to a challenge is hurting that team. I guess if the other team doesn't bring their woman to the challenge, the thought is that the team that does bring theirs is penalized? I don't fully agree with that. Don't play them in singles then. If a team shows up without a woman and my team has our woman show up, I will sit her in singles and tell the other team to funk off. Play them in a mixed group in doubles to get them qualified. Put them up as a throw away match or pair them with a top player from your team against a weak matchup.

1

Matt DeAngelis wrote:What the hell is going on here!?!

Why are we treating the female player differently than any other player on the team? The whole idea behind having a spot dedicated for a woman was to get them involved in the team challenge series. Creating restrictions is rediculous! We are all in the same boat here, trying to get our woman qualified for finals, so a team not bringing them to a challenge is hurting that team. I guess if the other team doesn't bring their woman to the challenge, the thought is that the team that does bring theirs is penalized? I don't fully agree with that. Don't play them in singles then. If a team shows up without a woman and my team has our woman show up, I will sit her in singles and tell the other team to [bleep] off. Play them in a mixed group in doubles to get them qualified. Put them up as a throw away match or pair them with a top player from your team against a weak matchup.

1

Matt: You first talk about getting a woman involved, then having her sit. Having a woman show, then sit sucks. Having a woman take a dive by playing against the other team's best player also sucks (for both). What if your team only brings 10 players to challenge while other team has more? You still going to sit her in singles? Nice move. You think she'll be back next year?

I've said my peace. Out.

John Dickison wrote:

Matt DeAngelis wrote:What the hell is going on here!?!

Why are we treating the female player differently than any other player on the team? The whole idea behind having a spot dedicated for a woman was to get them involved in the team challenge series. Creating restrictions is rediculous! We are all in the same boat here, trying to get our woman qualified for finals, so a team not bringing them to a challenge is hurting that team. I guess if the other team doesn't bring their woman to the challenge, the thought is that the team that does bring theirs is penalized? I don't fully agree with that. Don't play them in singles then. If a team shows up without a woman and my team has our woman show up, I will sit her in singles and tell the other team to [bleep] off. Play them in a mixed group in doubles to get them qualified. Put them up as a throw away match or pair them with a top player from your team against a weak matchup.

1

Matt: You first talk about getting a woman involved, then having her sit. Having a woman show, then sit sucks. Having a woman take a dive by playing against the other team's best player also sucks (for both). What if your team only brings 10 players to challenge while other team has more? You still going to sit her in singles? Nice move. You think she'll be back next year?

I've said my peace. Out.

Yes. If the other team does not bring their woman, then mine will sit during singles. How can you question that? Better yet, I ask all the teams that we play against if they will be bringing their woman to the match. If not, then I ask Kristi to make the call. Guess what, she is back for another season. DERP!

JD, that's ridiculous to talk to the other team before hand about bringing your woman, I'll then tell every team that I am not having Sarah show, then I will bring Sarah, and hope for the free point. This is so stupid, and when a team loses due to this, well, that'll be interesting.

Putting a lot of emphasis on the women with this situation and more on them then any other member of your team! So, a team that doesn't have a woman will be fighting from behind all season long... ridiculous, most will say, "it shouldn't be that difficult to find a woman to play..." well Cranbury didn't have one last year.

Steve Solbo wrote:JD, that's ridiculous to talk to the other team before hand about bringing your woman, I'll then tell every team that I am not having Sarah show, then I will bring Sarah, and hope for the free point. This is so stupid, and when a team loses due to this, well, that'll be interesting.

Putting a lot of emphasis on the women with this situation and more on them then any other member of your team! So, a team that doesn't have a woman will be fighting from behind all season long... ridiculous, most will say, "it shouldn't be that difficult to find a woman to play..." well Cranbury didn't have one last year.

this is why rosters should be due friday before the challenge .I would hope that you actually wouldn't pull that kind of crap steve .
but since you brought it up we'll have to make more rules on top of the already more rules so people like you can't abuse the existing rules get it ?this is getting pretty stupid .

Steven Dakai wrote:

Steve Solbo wrote:JD, that's ridiculous to talk to the other team before hand about bringing your woman, I'll then tell every team that I am not having Sarah show, then I will bring Sarah, and hope for the free point. This is so stupid, and when a team loses due to this, well, that'll be interesting.

Putting a lot of emphasis on the women with this situation and more on them then any other member of your team! So, a team that doesn't have a woman will be fighting from behind all season long... ridiculous, most will say, "it shouldn't be that difficult to find a woman to play..." well Cranbury didn't have one last year.

this is why rosters should be due friday before the challenge .I would hope that you actually wouldn't pull that kind of crap steve .
but since you brought it up we'll have to make more rules on top of the already more rules so people like you can't abuse the existing rules get it ?this is getting pretty stupid .

Well, things do change last second . I've had people say they can't make it, then things change and they can make it even within 12 hours of the challenge.

I think it should be more like, if you tell the other team 1 week in advance that your chick can't make it, then that's it, no loss of a point, that's more reasonable, or if things change and you know before the challenge. IT's NOT FAIR to put this much pressure on the ladies to make every challenge where it might cost a team points.

Like I said before, Sarah's attendance has been about 100% since the beginning, but if for some reason we can't get her to go, we really don't have a back-up, so we'd be giving up a point? funk THAT. That's just gay.

I...agree....with....Solbo!

Me too,I feel dirty. A week is plenty of notice

A key point here continues to be related to the pressure put on a woman show up. OK, I get it. I agree it puts more pressure on the woman to attend (and the captain to find a good date) -- not the intention, but an unfortunate result due to the fact that there are so few women available.

This league agreed to have a woman on each team. But if your team shows with a woman, and the other team has none, then the team with the woman is at a disadvantage (assuming she actually plays). Agree or not?

If not, are you saying Men and Women are equals in disc golf? While there are certainly some super-star PDGA women, I believe Men and Women are generally NOT equals -- especially at the NEFA/Challenge level. This is primarily due to the distance men can throw versus women.

Let's assume you have a Challenge scheduled against a team without a woman. Based on prior comments, it seems you would elect to Not play her in singles, but play her in Doubles.

Singles: Woman sits. Kinda sucks for her, but not a big deal. Also note that if your team has fewer players than other team, this means another guy on the other team sits -- so it's a bad decision for both teams. The "bonus point" option attempts to provide a reason to actually have 2 additional players from each team participate. It is unlikely a bonus point would actually be awarded.

Doubles: So the woman only plays in Doubles (coed versus all male). In this case, I believe the coed team is at a disadvantage and the likely outcome is a coed team loss (2 pts). Upset is still possible, but unlikely.

So while a team may be penalized 1 point for failing to bring a woman, the same team is also likely to pick up 2 points in the doubles match. For this reason, I believe the team without a woman still has an advantage -- even with the 1 point penalty. That's why I went even further to suggest the coed team play against a single guy (not Cali). There should probably be a voting option to have only the 1 point penalty / no doubles adjustment.

Also, for teams that are pretty confident in your women's attendance, I don't understand why you're essentially arguing the position of a team that has no woman on their roster at all.

If you reply further, please be sure to comment on whether you believe a doubles match with a coed team versus all male team (for 2 points) is fair.

Steven Dakai: I think Solbo's point was that attendance can change last minute, so 1 week notice doesn't work. My point was to suggest that coordinating a women's attendance in advance is helpful. Yes, I recognize it can and does change -- didn't mean to imply it was required.

I can be willing to compromise on the 1 point for singles. But I feel that a coed team vs someone playing singles is total BS. It is not fair at all and sets a team up to fail.

There are not enough active women playing through out all of nefa. Many teams are struggling to find a women and I hate the fact that we want to penalize a team each and every match.

It is great that some times have been able to find two

I don't see any advantage in gender when it comes to playing a lot of courses in NE. Most courses used are wooded and accuracy is rewarded more than power/distance. A coed team can do just find against an all make team just fine. The women contributes just as much as a male partner.

I am willing to compromise but this dubz thing is total crap