AJGA Rules Suck

[Pretzel]

25 minutes ago, phillyk said:

Mission statement from ajga is for "...Growth and development of young men and women who aspire to earn college golf scholarships through competitive junior golf."

To me, this rule reinforces their mission. Now i dont agree with this, it intends to be an organization (pre-collegiate as you called it) only for those trying to find a college from high school that take golf seriously. There is no rational/real reason other than that. To them, they might think that because you are already enrolled in college and not golfing, that you may not fit that type of junior golfer to be competitive enough, which isn't their "focus".

Idk, im just trying to come up with a reason. 

I aspire to earn a college golf scholarship through competitive junior golf. I don't see anywhere that it says it intends to help pre-collegiate golfers do this and nowhere else. 

I do appreciate at least providing evidence, but I just think they're too narrow minded about it. I'm just as competitive as a number of other golfers my age, and I got an offer to DII schools, I just wanted to go to a school with better academics as well. 

I understand I probably won't get a scholarship in reality, but neither will many of those playing in AJGA events. Just an odd and rather arbitrary place to draw the line and to keep it there so firmly.

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, Pretzel said:

“[A] quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself, always a laborious business."  -A.A. Milne, If I May

“A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.” - Dorothy L. Sayers, Gaudy Night

“Be careful--with quotations, you can damn anything.” - André Malraux

My point here is quotes are meaningless in a vast majority of situations outside of writing a literary paper. They prove that a singular famous person might have shared your opinion, assuming the quote was recorded and used correctly, and that means nothing in terms of the strength of an argument. 

 

Note to self:  do not cross rhetorical swords with Pretzel.  

[iacas]

@Pretzel, just sign up for a tournament. Is that possible? Is it possible to just sign up?

[Pretzel]

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Pretzel, just sign up for a tournament. Is that possible? Is it possible to just sign up?

I have to register with the AJGA first before I can sign up for a tournament, and it asks me for school/golf information to register. Because I am in a college, it won't let me register.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I have to register with the AJGA first before I can sign up for a tournament, and it asks me for school/golf information to register. Because I am in a college, it won't let me register.

What do kids not attending high school put?

Get creative.

[DrvFrShow]

Some kids are being home schooled.

[Pretzel]

I'll give it another go and have some fun with school selection this evening. I suppose if they're not fact checking anything I put down...

[freshmanUTA]

On 2/15/2016 at 4:45 PM, Pretzel said:

I am still, however, a junior golfer. I am not yet 18 years old, I qualify for junior discounts at nearly every golf course, and I am still legally a minor (I can't even sign the lease for my own dorm room).

Unfortunately for us both, the definition of a Junior Golfer is "Any golfer who has not finished secondary school or turned 19, whichever comes first." 

 

That means once you have a diploma you're SOL no matter how old you are.

 

I myself have found some amateur/Junior tournaments that will let me play until I'm 19 regardless of graduation, but AJGA is holding firm on their ruling it looks.

 

Sorry man, I wish you the best!

[DrvFrShow]

@freshmanUTA So in other words dumb is rewarded. Yeah I saw the age 19 in there. This is Murica.

We had a saying where I worked: promote the incompetent; reward the inept.

[freshmanUTA]

Just now, DrvFrShow said:

@freshmanUTA So in other words dumb is rewarded. Yeah I saw the age 19 in there. This is Murica.

We had a saying where I worked: promote the incompetent; reward the inept.

Seeing as the average high school graduate is 18 when they graduate i think that stopping you from playing when you turn 19 makes sense because most people who are 19 are already in college anyway.

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

Unfortunately for us both, the definition of a Junior Golfer is "Any golfer who has not finished secondary school or turned 19, whichever comes first." 

That's only the definition of a Junior Golfer for the AJGA, though, yes? Not for the other junior golf tours and tournaments and things @Pretzel listed.

[freshmanUTA]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That's only the definition of a Junior Golfer for the AJGA, though, yes? Not for the other junior golf tours and tournaments and things @Pretzel listed.

Actually, I'm not sure that's the definition for AJGA. When I applied to the IJGA that's what they told me and said that they don't care about college as long as you don't play in college and are under 19.

 

Maybe AJGA is being a little  harsh here. The USGA definition is "...a junior golfer is considered to be an amateur golfer who has not reached their 19th birthday during the calendar year ending December 31st prior to a competition requiring that golfer to be a junior in order to participate."

 

 

[hcopenhagenh]

Pretzel, there are too many variables for the AJGA not to change their stance.  You can have a 17 year old golfer Playing college golf, as I pointed out FAU has a 17 year old golfer playing on the women's team.  Are you telling me she should be eligible to play Junior Golf?  

In my mind it is counter productive for any Junior Tour to allow you to play since you are in college.   It is black and white and I do not care if you are playing in college or not.  You are trying to take a spot away from 1) Someone WHO FOLLOWED THE RULES 2) People seeking to get into college.  It doesn't matter that YOU think you should be eligible, the rules state you are not.  There are also other ways to get recognized and noticed.  AJGA isn't the only way.  If you are truly good enough, it really shouldn't matter that you play junior golf.  Go play in men's amateur events.

The bottom line, you should have known and followed the rules before you made the decision with your family.  You being a good or smart person has nothing to do with the rule.  They have to draw the line somewhere.

[turtleback]

20 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Pretzel, there are too many variables for the AJGA not to change their stance.  You can have a 17 year old golfer Playing college golf, as I pointed out FAU has a 17 year old golfer playing on the women's team.  Are you telling me she should be eligible to play Junior Golf?  

In my mind it is counter productive for any Junior Tour to allow you to play since you are in college.   It is black and white and I do not care if you are playing in college or not.  You are trying to take a spot away from 1) Someone WHO FOLLOWED THE RULES 2) People seeking to get into college.  It doesn't matter that YOU think you should be eligible, the rules state you are not.  There are also other ways to get recognized and noticed.  AJGA isn't the only way.  If you are truly good enough, it really shouldn't matter that you play junior golf.  Go play in men's amateur events.

The bottom line, you should have known and followed the rules before you made the decision with your family.  You being a good or smart person has nothing to do with the rule.  They have to draw the line somewhere.

Once again you fail to make the slightest bit of sense or interact with the points that have been made.  How hard is it to have an eligibility rule that says you are eligible until age x or until you become a member of a college golf team, if earlier.  

And he is not trying to circumvent the rules, he is making an argument for why they should be changed in simple justice.  And an argument for why the rules do not faithfully carry out the organization's stated intent of providing opportunities to showcase golfers so they can qualify for a golf scholarship.

And he KNEW the rule when he made his decision that his education was more important, and decided that his overall life decisions should not be unduly influenced by the ridiculous rules of junior golf.  Your FAU 17 year old is ON A COLLEGE GOLF TEAM!!!  Are you really so obtuse that you do not see the difference between this and Pretzel's situation?  I do not think you have even been reading the responses, because if you had you could never have written this:

Quote

You can have a 17 year old golfer Playing college golf, as I pointed out FAU has a 17 year old golfer playing on the women's team.  Are you telling me she should be eligible to play Junior Golf?  

because no one has suggested any such thing and without even reading what he is going to say, if he responds, I and everyone else who has actually read this thread KNOWS that Pretzel's answer would be no.  He is not on a college golf team.  He does not play college golf.  Gee, other than that the situations are identical  

But let's try logic.  Pretzel is 17, person A is 17.  Person A goes to one building to take his classes.    Pretzel goes to a different building to take more difficult classes.  They are the same in every other aspect.  Well hell, I get it now.  This gives Pretzel a huge unfair advantage in playing tournament golf against person A.  Right?  No.

When we talk about the ROG in the Rules section and someone criticizes a given rule the rules gurus can usually point to the underlying principles of the ROG as to why the rule is what it is.  This is what you have utterly failed at.  You have not put forth any rational reason or principle that would justify this rule.  Mostly you just stamp around, say the rule is the rule, insult Pretzel, and then go on to say the rule is the rule.  Maybe that works in your circles, but around here we like to have rational reasons for things.  And you have not put forth any rational reason for the rule being the way it is.  Or, in my example, why Pretzel and player A should be treated any differently from each other.

[hcopenhagenh]

3 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Once again you fail to make the slightest bit of sense or interact with the points that have been made.  How hard is it to have an eligibility rule that says you are eligible until age x or until you become a member of a college golf team, if earlier.  

And he is not trying to circumvent the rules, he is making an argument for why they should be changed in simple justice.  And an argument for why the rules do not faithfully carry out the organization's stated intent of providing opportunities to showcase golfers so they can qualify for a golf scholarship.

And he KNEW the rule when he made his decision that his education was more important, and decided that his overall life decisions should not be unduly influenced by the ridiculous rules of junior golf.  Your FAU 17 year old is ON A COLLEGE GOLF TEAM!!!  Are you really so obtuse that you do not see the difference between this and Pretzel's situation?  I do not think you have even been reading the responses, because if you had you could never have written this:

because no one has suggested any such thing and without even reading what he is going to say, if he responds, I and everyone else who has actually read this thread KNOWS that Pretzel's answer would be no.  He is not on a college golf team.  He does not play college golf.  Gee, other than that the situations are identical  

But let's try logic.  Pretzel is 17, person A is 17.  Person A goes to one building to take his classes.    Pretzel goes to a different building to take more difficult classes.  They are the same in every other aspect.  Well hell, I get it now.  This gives Pretzel a huge unfair advantage in playing tournament golf against person A.  Right?  No.

When we talk about the ROG in the Rules section and someone criticizes a given rule the rules gurus can usually point to the underlying principles of the ROG as to why the rule is what it is.  This is what you have utterly failed at.  You have not put forth any rational reason or principle that would justify this rule.  Mostly you just stamp around, say the rule is the rule, insult Pretzel, and then go on to say the rule is the rule.  Maybe that works in your circles, but around here we like to have rational reasons for things.  And you have not put forth any rational reason for the rule being the way it is.  Or, in my example, why Pretzel and player A should be treated any differently from each other.

I have read everything.  I honestly believe you are just a moron.

[turtleback]

Just now, hcopenhagenh said:

I have read everything.  I honestly believe you are just a moron.

If there was a vote on which of us was a moron, I'm pretty confident of what the outcome would be.  

But I can tell you that you will not last long around here calling people morons.  I would have thought that such a "the rules are the rules" guy would know that you are violating the standards of the board.  You wil be lucky if you do not get dinged with a warning by a moderator.

 

Oops, I see it has already happened.

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

If there was a vote on which of us was a moron, I'm pretty confident of what the outcome would be.  

But I can tell you that you will not last long around here calling people morons.  I would have thought that such a "the rules are the rules" guy would know that you are violating the standards of the board.  You wil be lucky if you do not get dinged with a warning by a moderator.

 

Oops, I see it has already happened.

Take it down a notch! Geez! It's a rules discussion!

[iacas]

49 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Pretzel, there are too many variables for the AJGA not to change their stance.  You can have a 17 year old golfer Playing college golf, as I pointed out FAU has a 17 year old golfer playing on the women's team.  Are you telling me she should be eligible to play Junior Golf?  

It could be very simple. AJGA events could be open to:

• Golfers who are not yet 18 (or 19) years old.
• Golfers who are not and have never played collegiate golf.

@Pretzel meets both criteria. The example you cited does not.

49 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

In my mind it is counter productive for any Junior Tour to allow you to play since you are in college.

He's IN college, he's not playing FOR the college. Why is it counter-productive? What if he was at a junior college or something that didn't even have a golf team, at 16, and looking to play for a college team the next year? That serves the same purposes as the AJGA serves, by what you're saying, right now.

49 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

It is black and white and I do not care if you are playing in college or not.

That's arguing a tautology - he can't play because the current rule says he can't play. He understands the current rule. He thinks it should be different, though. So do I.

49 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

You are trying to take a spot away from 1) Someone WHO FOLLOWED THE RULES 2) People seeking to get into college.

1) is just the tautology again. 2) applies to him, too: @Pretzel also is trying to get a college scholarship.

Plus, you have no evidence that he'd be taking a spot away from anyone. That is only true if the fields are full.

49 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

It doesn't matter that YOU think you should be eligible, the rules state you are not.

Stop arguing what the rules currently say. We get it.

49 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

The bottom line, you should have known and followed the rules before you made the decision with your family.  You being a good or smart person has nothing to do with the rule.  They have to draw the line somewhere.

And they could change where that line is drawn.

8 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Once again you fail to make the slightest bit of sense or interact with the points that have been made.  How hard is it to have an eligibility rule that says you are eligible until age x or until you become a member of a college golf team, if earlier.

Yup. Pretty ridiculous to call someone a moron while you continue to ignore points made against your stance that "the rules are the rules," eh @hcopenhagenh?

8 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And he is not trying to circumvent the rules, he is making an argument for why they should be changed in simple justice.

Yup. Ditto for the rest of your post @turtleback.

4 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

I have read everything.  I honestly believe you are just a moron.

You received a warning for that post. We do not tolerate calling other members names. Discuss maturely.