The Community of Disc Golfers and About All Things Disc Golf

2-somes in a PDGA sanctioned event

So in a tournament you hear the horn being blown to start a round and there are only 2 players on your hole what are you supposed to do?? Don’t look at the rule book first do you know the answer??

This is not a trick question but you should know this. Very important for both the players and the TD's / officials.

All players must know this as it is the player’s responsibility to know the rules. Yes the TD is there to settle issues but the players must know and enforce the rules. Some rules have to be enforced when the infraction happens, others can be enforced up to the end of payouts of a tournament. The punishment for the players isn’t listed in the rules but the extreme answer or punishment can be disqualification for not following the rules. If the TD thinks you intentionally didn’t follow the rules this is his only recourse. The TD is responsible for making sure this doesn’t happen. But really it is the players who must self enforce the rules!

Tags: PDGA, Sanctioned, events, rules

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jamie 'gr8rocshot' Ruane on February 24, 2009 at 4:06pm

See, that's another great reason why not allow the twosome to split up into other groups....what likely will happen...is the missing player is simply late.

If the rules are followed in this case and those two were escorted for thier round...the late guy would simply join them recording par +4 for every hole missed from the time the two actually got started...In effect the late guy gets a little extra time.

Now the other way being...the late guy shows up.... you 're stuck putting him in the next group by, so to speak...now you've possibly infected another group with this problem...whom have nothing to do with it....

Now if two guys show back up to trny central and there is absolutely not anybody availible to escort them...that becomes an extenuating circumstance as deemed by the TD.

Permalink Reply by William Gilbert on February 24, 2009 at 4:26pm

My answer to the multiple choice is D) ? or 3 holes both players had teed off on there 3rd holes and would have to finish them before they could rebuild its group.
So then they would be starting together on hole 4 with the late player recording 3 7's assuming all par 3's. The group is going to be further forced to stay together when the guy that went forward and started on hole 3 has to play hole 1 and 2 which the late guy recorded a couple of 7’s for and the other guy already played.

My experience with these kinds of late people is it would be better assuming the 2-some properly split 1 forward, 1 backward would be place the guy with the 1st 3-some you can find if there are any and be done with it. Card him with X 7's or whatever and go from there.

My club only has 2 events where me might have more than 1 non-playing TD/ official. So I am not likely to send an official out to play with any 2-somes. tell them to break up if somebody(s) are missing.
Now from a player stand point, lets say in the AM3 division if you knew that 2 other AM3's played as a 2-some what would you think as a player in that division, would your thinking change if you found out they were friends? the reason behind the no 2-some rule is to prevent cheating which happens anyways but it cuts down the likely hood of it happening.

Permalink Reply by Jamie 'gr8rocshot' Ruane on February 24, 2009 at 8:02pm

William Gilbert said:

My answer to the multiple choice is D) ? or 3 holes both players had teed off on there 3rd holes and would have to finish them before they could rebuild its group.
So then they would be starting together on hole 4 with the late player recording 3 7's assuming all par 3's. The group is going to be further forced to stay together when the guy that went forward and started on hole 3 has to play hole 1 and 2 which the late guy recorded a couple of 7’s for and the other guy already played.

My experience with these kinds of late people is it would be better assuming the 2-some properly split 1 forward, 1 backward would be place the guy with the 1st 3-some you can find if there are any and be done with it. Card him with X 7's or whatever and go from there.

My club only has 2 events where me might have more than 1 non-playing TD/ official. So I am not likely to send an official out to play with any 2-somes. tell them to break up if somebody(s) are missing.
Now from a player stand point, lets say in the AM3 division if you knew that 2 other AM3's played as a 2-some what would you think as a player in that division, would your thinking change if you found out they were friends? the reason behind the no 2-some rule is to prevent cheating which happens anyways but it cuts down the likely hood of it happening.

As a AM3 player....I'd likely not know the difference...lol!!!

You as the TD have the call...I don't think it's the proper one in my opinion. It's tough either way you slice it. I personally feel that no other groups should be affected by someone not showing up on time.

No matter what you do, someone will not be happy and surely point some flaw in either theory...at least with my take on it, you got the rule book to back you up.

Permalink Reply by tick on March 7, 2009 at 10:08pm

Assuming there is not an available official to go with the group of two, the forward and back split is the best available solution I see for the group of two.
I would like to see the PDGA adjust the rule to allow a knowledgable neutral third party (not necessarily an official) as designated by the TD accompany the group of two. To me this would be the least disruptive solution.
This is a good example of why more players should get their officials certification, and volunteer to help with tournaments which the are not playing in! I'll pay the test fee for anyone who will help at my tourny this way!
On the multiple choice I pick two if the late player can reasonable join the back group and tee off within 30 seconds of the last player already on that card. Otherwise add them in an available spot on the last, or nearest last card. Which is hopefully on a very nearby hole. The missed holes are those already played by that group.

Permalink Reply by William Gilbert on March 8, 2009 at 1:35am

Remember the PDGA rules are just like driving ignorance of the rules or the law is not an excuse. Most of the rules are designed to be player enforced, the TD is mostly there to settle issues with players who don't know the rules.

You comment on paying to the TD Test here is another idea for you.
If your club is an affiliate club of the PDGA costs like $20 - $25, you can allow as many members as you want take the test for free. there are other nice benefits to being an affliate club as well. look into it something to consider.

Permalink Reply by JC on March 8, 2009 at 8:50am

tick said:

I would like to see the PDGA adjust the rule to allow a knowledgable neutral third party (not necessarily an official) as designated by the TD accompany the group of two. To me this would be the least disruptive solution.

It's already written into the rules.

804.06 Grouping and Sectioning
C. Groups shall not be less than three players, except under extenuating circumstances, as deemed necessary by the director, to promote fairness. In cases where fewer than three players are required to play together, an official is required to accompany the group and may play as long as this does not interfere with the competing players.

804.09 Officials
D. ...the director may empower non-certified officials...

Permalink Reply by tick on March 8, 2009 at 10:30am

JC said:

tick said:
I would like to see the PDGA adjust the rule to allow a knowledgable neutral third party (not necessarily an official) as designated by the TD accompany the group of two. To me this would be the least disruptive solution.

It's already written into the rules.

804.06 Grouping and Sectioning
C. Groups shall not be less than three players, except under extenuating circumstances, as deemed necessary by the director, to promote fairness. In cases where fewer than three players are required to play together, an official is required to accompany the group and may play as long as this does not interfere with the competing players.

804.09 Officials
D. ...the director may empower non-certified officials...

804.09 Officials
D. ...The director may empower non-certified officials to act as spotters for a specific purpose. ...
I never thought of this except as facilitating the use of spotters in the usual way. I think it does apply to this situation. Thank you for pointing out 804.09 Officials: D.

At many tournaments there is someone available to serve in this capacity.