NEFA DISCussion

I’m looking to give some feedback here to the Board of NEFA. I have no idea how this poll will turn out.

I’m told that if I play in 6 events in Pro Open then I would lose my ability to play the Finals as a Pro Master. This type of situation would work the same for someone playing AM1 and Am2 or any other two sets of divisions.

This is the way the current people in charge are enforcing the rule which currently reads this way.

“Players who qualify for the Finals in more than one division must play in the highest division that they are invited to compete in, according to the following hierarchy,…..”

I am the one that originally wrote this rule into the charter, when I was President. Although the wording may now be slightly different, the current way it is being enforced WAS NOT my intention for the rule. I understand now that over the last couple of years some people have been affected negatively with the current enforcement. Right now, NEFA officials are not letting anybody that has enough events played in a higher division play in the lower division, IF that player never receives a spot to play in the higher division.

This rule was meant to encourage players to move up and play in higher divisions. The current enforcement most times would affect someone negatively by taking away their opportunity to play in the lower division at the finals. If a player was to play in a higher division, qualify,…and actually receive an "invitation" to compete in that higher division, then yes they should play in that higher division. A player doesn’t actually receive an invitation to play in any division UNTIL there is a spot to accommodate them. Being on a waitlist hoping enough people choose not to attend so that you can, IS NOT an invitation. And this was not the intention of the rule. I know,..I created it.

Gary Cyr wrote:I’m looking to give some feedback here to the Board of NEFA. I have no idea how this poll will turn out.

I’m told that if I play in 6 events in Pro Open then I would lose my ability to play the Finals as a Pro Master. This type of situation would work the same for someone playing AM1 and Am2 or any other two sets of divisions.

This is the way the current people in charge are enforcing the rule which currently reads this way.

“Players who qualify for the Finals in more than one division must play in the highest division that they are invited to compete in, according to the following hierarchy,…..”

I am the one that originally wrote this rule into the charter, when I was President. Although the wording may now be slightly different, the current way it is being enforced WAS NOT my intention for the rule. I understand now that over the last couple of years some people have been affected negatively with the current enforcement. Right now, NEFA officials are not letting anybody that has enough events played in a higher division play in the lower division, IF that player never receives a spot to play in the higher division.

This rule was meant to encourage players to move up and play in higher divisions. The current enforcement most times would affect someone negatively by taking away their opportunity to play in the lower division at the finals. If a player was to play in a higher division, qualify,…and actually receive an "invitation" to compete in that higher division, then yes they should play in that higher division. A player doesn’t actually receive an invitation to play in any division UNTIL there is a spot to accommodate them. Being on a waitlist hoping enough people choose not to attend so that you can, IS NOT an invitation. And this was not the intention of the rule. I know,..I created it.

Didn't this happen to Rick Williams last year? I'm all for making the player who qualifies for multidivisions play up but not at the cost of not getting into finals. That's just wrong.

Gary,

I think your second option should read "When they receive an invitation for a specific division."

IF the current rule reads as you state: “Players who qualify for the Finals in more than one division must play in the highest division that they are invited to compete in, according to the following hierarchy,…..” there really is no room for interpetation. If you are not invited to Men's Open finals, and you are invited to PRo masters, than according to the rules, you can play pro masters. It sounds like a misunderstanding. The rule is not even ambiguous. If it stated that you "must play in the highest division that you qualify for", that would be a different story and simply by playing enough tournaments, you could eliminate yourself form PRo Masters, but that would be an interpretation and we would need to define "Qualify."

As it stands now, do we really need to define "Receive an invitation?" IF we define "receive an invitation" as being told "We have a spot for you and you are invited" than we would clearly be able to play in PRo Masters finals, unless we qualified in pro and got invited to play in the finals.

It sounds like an easy fix.

I agree with what you are saying Eric. In reality a person is not "invited" until there is a spot to accommodate them. However, I've asked our President if my Pro Masters invitation would be "null and void" if I played in enough tournaments to "qualify" as a pro but not actually get invited.

The response was that it would indeed be 'null and void"

Unless there is some kind of misscommunication between Sandy and I,..this is my interpretation of our exchange.

I could have actually used the word invitation in the 2nd option but given the narritive of what I wrote, I do believe the intention of the poll question is clear. There can be missunderstanding between what constitutes and actual invitation. Apparently from those running NEFA, they consider you to be invited once you've played the proper number of events to "qualify". I have no problem playing Pro at the Finals and would actually prefer it,..if I get an "Invitation"

Pulled right from the charter.

Players who qualify for the Finals in more than one division must play in the highest
division that they are invited to compete in, according to the following hierarchy: Pro
Open, Pro Master, Pro Grandmaster, Pro Women, Advanced Men, Advanced Master,
Advanced Grandmaster, Advanced Women, Intermediate Men, and Intermediate Women.

So that being shown shouldn't players only have to play up if there is a spot for them in the higher division?

I thought we addressed this pretty well during our charter edits this past winter.

“Players who qualify for the Finals in more than one division must play in the highest division that they are invited to compete in, according to the following hierarchy,…..”

This is intended to mean that if you qualify for finals in multiple divisions (ie, MPO and MPM), and you are invited to compete in both, then you are to play the highest division. If you are only invited to compete in MPM, but still qualify for MPO, you are not prevented from playing MPM.

That is not what I understood from my exchange with Sandy last week. I would have played Open at Woodland last weekend had this been my understanding. No Big deal. As long as I know I can play Pro at events and only have to play there at Finals IF there is a spot to accommodate me,..I will be moving more towards Pro since I should have a Pro Master spot already secured.

Thanks for the explaination Matt.

In retrospect a poll is pointless. This should be elementary not to prevent a player from competing in a lower divison if they didn't actually get into the higher division. Weaker players who would want to force a strong player out of their divison would vote to force a player to be stuck in the higher divison after fielding enough events to potentially play there.

Another idea to throw out there - let players declare their division at membership sign-up.
1) The player can't earn points in a "higher" division.
2) The player can only get an invite for the declared division.

yes I think the word "invitation" should be worked into the equation...

gary I was involved in the tweak of this rule..rewording whatever ya call it..and my intentions were not to screw someone out of finals..

it was to prevent a guy who was invited in one division(lower regardless of age protection) and in a higher division from playing in the lower division at finals...

thus the defining of the ranking of nefa divisions regardless of age protection

I must admit in hindsight I woulda added the invited word

We added that invited word this past year, so it should be all set now.

now what if for example

MPO played 6 events 18 invited...player X finished 20th and is on waitlist
Master Open played events qualified,finished 1st

if that wait list spot opens up does player X have to play in open..or is this not considered an "invite"?

to me above question is most realistic in actually happening and would be the "issue"

The way it was written, that player would have only been invited to compete in MPM. They got a back-door invite which allowed them to play in the MPO, but they weren't actually "invited" to play.

Titan Bariloni wrote:now what if for example

MPO played 6 events 18 invited...player X finished 20th and is on waitlist
Master Open played events qualified,finished 1st

if that wait list spot opens up does player X have to play in open..or is this not considered an "invite"?

to me above question is most realistic in actually happening and would be the "issue"

Matt DeAngelis wrote:The way it was written, that player would have only been invited to compete in MPM. They got a back-door invite which allowed them to play in the MPO, but they weren't actually "invited" to play.

I think that the player should have to play open. As the waitlist reaches them they should be forced to play up.

I can see both sides here...as a player it would be frustrating not knowing where ya gonna play IMO...the uniform invite kinda covers the main issue IMO...although I could see them having to take that spot as it opens...as well

I don't think so Jeff, that seems completely unfair. Take this into account:

I compete in enough events to qualify for both MPO and MPM. I am 35th in MPO because I earned very few points the 6 times I played in that division, never cashing once, not invited to finals for MPO. I am 2nd in MPM and get invited to finals to play MPM. I plan on attending finals to compete in MPM. A few days before finals, people in MPO drop out or say they aren't going to make it, and the list moves down the line until it reaches me, 35th place. You think it is fair to say to that person, you need to play MPO, not because you were competitive in that division and you placed high enough in the standings to get an invite, but because other people ahead of you opted to not attend?

Titan Bariloni wrote:now what if for example

MPO played 6 events 18 invited...player X finished 20th and is on waitlist
Master Open played events qualified,finished 1st

if that wait list spot opens up does player X have to play in open..or is this not considered an "invite"?

to me above question is most realistic in actually happening and would be the "issue"

This will be my situation unless I was to qualifiy within the firswt 16 MPO players (which is my goal of course). If I get a spot from the waitlist I will gladly play in MPO at the finals without any complaints.

yeah Matt your right on that was never the intention...

and sux'ed it happened...cuz they could get shutout even if they were 21st and 18 get invited

now Matt is the "back door" invite still not an invite..?

IMO the rule needs even more definition or discussing of what gary and I just spoke of

I don't consider that an invite. It would be completely unfair to force that player to compete in MPO because they just happened to get in (by vertue of several people not attending).

maybe as to what an "invite" is

is it a spot offered at anytime in X division

or 1st waive of invites and then the wait list is different and does not apply

to me if we were to even define the divisions in the first place to have people play in highest skilled division qualified and invited to then we should keep with the spirit of the rule and make waitlist be defined as an invite

after a lil thought as a player it should be more of an honor then a distraction and OBV they teased the issue anyways by even competing in the 2 divisions

Matt DeAngelis wrote:I don't think so Jeff, that seems completely unfair. Take this into account:

I compete in enough events to qualify for both MPO and MPM. I am 35th in MPO because I earned very few points the 6 times I played in that division, never cashing once, not invited to finals for MPO. I am 2nd in MPM and get invited to finals to play MPM. I plan on attending finals to compete in MPM. A few days before finals, people in MPO drop out or say they aren't going to make it, and the list moves down the line until it reaches me, 35th place. You think it is fair to say to that person, you need to play MPO, not because you were competitive in that division and you placed high enough in the standings to get an invite, but because other people ahead of you opted to not attend?

Not sure how my name got into this but my feelings are that this whole situation should be a non-issue with regards to Pro divisions because they're only age protected, not ratings driven.

If you're 50+ and can school the MPO players I say you get to play wherever you're qualified to. Most Pro players logic would lead me to believe that a person in this situation would play in a divsion with the most players as the payouts would be larger there.

please give the logic behind not considering an invite an offered spot..?

is it for logistics...TDs/nefa/player ect ect..cuz it would then affect the division player leaves..but sometimes may offer another spot to another player who was not in MPO waitlist and just MPM..so maybe positive there even if its a pain

not true JW..sugarbush Mr Marcus

a well skill rated pro...who wanted to chose to play age protected but could not

just for 1 example

the issues really is should we allow age protection to apply to finals...it was discussed and the discussion lead to a majority saying NO...under the highest division qualified for and now invited..there needed to be definition and a ruling on this

it could be examined again to determine if we allow age protection to apply and to me

Drew has it right on how to do as it has been discussed by subcommittee years ago....declare your division

then we could also charge more for PRO players as does the pdga does while collecting nefa dues...for many reasons not gonna thread drift to much

In the scenario that I laid out, the player is 35th in MPO, 2nd in MPM. They didn't cash at any MPO event, and took last place points every time they played. They do not get invited to finals for MPO because of the standings and how low they are. They do get an invite to play as an MPM. Then, because other people in MPO can't make finals, this person is told they need to relinquish their opportunity to win the finals event in MPM, and basically get crushed in MPO? Please give the logic behind that?

why did they play pro open to begin with..? enough times to get on spot for whatever reason?

maybe nobody else showed that day for MPM and they couldn't improve on points anyways..IDK(although this falls under the can a player play in another division and still receive points for his declared division or event played as to keep competitive spirit and not have a 1 man division sorry thread drift again but this ties into many issues at the core really IMO cuz if ya go one way ya gotta look the other way to)

well anyways unless it for not wanting to play alone or couldn't move up in points..then if they played Open they musta wanted to play OPEN so why not make em if its available

and if they were so stacked in MPM that they did not need a win or couldn't move up..then again they should be playing open cuz they got skilllz...regardless of age(and again if ya wanna go agep then go agep IDC does not affect me but under the highest division wording age should not apply)

Matt DeAngelis wrote:I don't consider that an invite. It would be completely unfair to force that player to compete in MPO because they just happened to get in (by vertue of several people not attending).

I would disagree with this for this reason.

The player that is 35th on the list has some sort of desire to comete in whatever division they placed 35th in. Therefore, if they do get an invite off the waitlist then they should play in the higher division.

Just my opinion.

However, what you are saying now is so far off from what Sandy told me that I think internal clarification of how the rule is enforced is needed

well if sandy did not know the "invited" word was added then as it was before he was correct..

also I was maybe 4 deep on invite list of MPO last year can't remember..1 got in

yeah it was 72..but if the norm was 90-120 then in most..heck I will bet no more then 10 get in off waitlist and that is high cuz the word bet is in there....lol

I know what I meant to do when I wrote the original version of the rule.

Player plays in two divisions and qualifies in both (meaning playing enough events)
Player get's invitation to compete at finals (Invitation being the point in time when there is actually a spot for you)
Player is required to play in the higher division

The reasoning for this was that this player did spend part of the yr cashing in the lower division and is going to be paid some of the overall money for the lower division. This player either spenjt some time trying to chase money in a higher division or, just wanted to test themselves. As a result of this, if you did actually get an invitation and a spot opened in the higher division, I felt you should have to play there. You cashed in the lower division all year.

That was the method to my madness.

yes and the first edit to it my intention

was to keep that all of that and define "age protection" and how it applies to Finals placement

as we enforced it as gary had it worded anyways..coughmrmarcuscough at sugarbush and then we tried to clarify...not doing a great job..but rick and rob were in on that to and it really only affected rick so kinda lol...and then defined as invite and highest

now we are here

what an invite is...and gary stated his original intent so why change it just define it..