I have never been adjusted, definitely never been DQ’d. So I don’t have a horse in this race just my opinion. And yes I have ran tournaments with hundreds of players and have played in more than enough tournaments to understand what goes on “behind the scenes” when putting together a tournament of this size.
Most importantly NO ONE has said or even implied Scott and the WA staff have done anything less than a phenomenal job.
I believe a disqualification should be used to remove a player not only from the current years event but any future events as well. A DQ should be used for some issue so egregious the WA does not want this player to ever come back.
If I hear a player is DQ’d my thoughts are, “did he lie about his identity”? “Did he assault another player”? Now if a 15 handicapper shoots 72, yes a DQ might be warranted, I still think a retroactive adjustment solves all potential sandbagging issue. An adjustment could include a penalty, a retroactive adjustment to his lowest posted index, and if that adjustment exceeded a specific number lets say 10 shots an additional penalty could be applied.
As I said earlier many players save up for a year to be able to come to play in the WA. I am retired but many players use their vacation time to come. They trade family vacations for the WA. Many players travel great distances, from foreign countries, from opposite coasts. For many players the WA is an event that requires financial and resource planning that starts the day the previous WA ends. Everyone knows and adjustment means you shot a lights out round. A disqualification has a totally different implication.
I would like to see DQs removed except for the most serious of issues and revisit how adjustments are used as an alternative.