One for the DGRZ's out there ...

This came up this weekend at the Toronto Disc Golf Championships ....

Hole #2 was a 225' Mandatory island shot with 90' OB circle around the basket. Instructions were that if you did not land inside the circle you must re-tee (with a stroke obviously).

Here's what happened .... all four players tee off and they think they are all safe, they walk up to the green and find one of them did not make it. The player that did not hit the circle has to walk back and re-tee ... Can he take back that same disc he just threw and use it again?

We debated this one for quite a while and I see both sides, yes and no ....

I'd love to hear what you experts have to say. :)

[dannyreeves]

For those that were arguing the "no," what was their points?

Can he take back that same disc he just threw and use it again?

[/QUOTE]

Why was this even a matter of debate? The situation described is an OB situation, pure and simple. The Rules do not prevent retrieving an OB disc and rethrowing it on the following throw. The only circumstance in which a player is prevented from retrieving and rethrowing a disc is on a stance violation not involving a putt (803.03.H).

[bruce_brakel]

For some reason this issue came up in Peoria too, perhaps because of the road o.b. and the long walk from on top of the hill on 18 to where a long drive might be road o.b.

I think that if a player can retreive the disc without delaying play, there is no issue under the rules. So if he had to walk all the way out there to see if it is o.b., he is not delaying play by picking it up before walking back. Given the ambiguities inherent in the wording of the 30 second rule, [803.08(B)?]there is no bright line as to when you can retrieve the o.b. disc before rethrowing and when you have to throw a different disc.

I think the issue arises because at the USDGC they do not allow a player to retrieve and rethrow an o.b. disc on the island hole. Perhaps it is within the TDs discretion to rule that any retrieval creates an unreasonable delay but I don't see how you could interpret the rule that way if the player could retrive and rethrow within 30 seconds.

[sandalman]

the 30 second ticker starts when the player arrives at his lie. if he walks up to his disc only to find it is OB and then must walk back to the tee, he gets 30 seconds from the time he arrives back the tee.

and the other players on the card get courtesy warnings for advancing down the fairway in front of the away player!

[girlie]

Actually, the ticker doesn't start until...


A. A maximum of 30 seconds is allowed to each player to make a throw after:
(1) the previous player has thrown; and,
(2) the player has taken a reasonable time to arrive at the disc and mark the lie; and,
(3) the playing area is clear and free of distractions.

B. A player shall receive a warning for the first excessive time violation if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player shall be assessed one penalty throw for each subsequent excessive time violation in the same round if observed by two or more players of the group or an official.




the lie has been marked AND the area is free and clear of distractions.

I know this is another topic/quesiton entirely, but I'd like your take...

I had an instance where I was playing in an event and my group was waiting on every tee for the group in front of us to finish. My tee shot went about 50' off the fairway to the right and there was a huge branch in my way. I marked the lie, but could not come to a proper stance behind my marker disc because of the big branch. So I stepped off my lie and moved the big branch and as I returned to my lie - another player in my group spoke up to say that I had already used 45 seconds of time and that my limit was 30.

I was under the impression that (1) my lie was not free of distractions until the large branch was moved so that I could take a proper stance and (2) it was not appropriate to call me on my shot time when we were waiting on every hole for the group in front of us to finish.

What do you all think?

[sandalman]

"(1) my lie was not free of distractions until the large branch was moved so that I could take a proper stance and (2) it was not appropriate to call me on my shot time when we were waiting on every hole for the group in front of us to finish."

re: item 1: free of distractions does not include moving obstacles. it refers to things like kids playing football on the fairway, etc. i hope the branch was a) dead, b) detached and c) completely behind your lie... otherwise your moving it was in violation of several rules, some of which warrant immediate penalty strokes. even if it met all three of those conditions, you may not move obstacles on a course that are a factor in the round. (and yes, that one has holes big enough to drive a caterpillar through.) but finally and most importantly, a "proper" stance does not mean your "preferred" stance. a player is not entitled to a "preferred" stance - only a legal stance.

re: item 2: i could not agree with you more. kinda picky. next time watch his feet real close :D

The 'no' argument was based on the 30 second rule if I remember correctly .... when they brought that up we said, well the guy has to walk all the way back and re-tee and your going to only give him 30 seconds??

One interesting 'yes' argument was this ... interestingly enough this foursome was the lead open card, and the player that threw OB was, at the time, ahead. Someone said, hey, if he wants to throw the same disc again that he just threw OB , go for it!! lol

[girlie]

Okay, you're right, the dead and detached branch that was in the way of me taking a legal stance and strictly behind my lie would fit under 803.04 Obstacles & Relief under C. Casual Obstacles:


(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle.



So, really - my ticker should re-set to 30 seconds once that casual object has been moved, correct?

[sandalman]

imo, correct.

[gnduke]

Sorry, but as I understand the rule, you are not allowed extra time to prepare the area around your lie before the timer starts. It was discussed quite a bit while back when a player needed time to dismantle a pile of brush so he could take a stance within it. As I recall, he was not allowed that time.

This rule gets stretched all the time when a player is in a very bad spot and can't decide which type of shot to throw, or they need to move some stuff out of the way and then have to decide what to throw.

I know that many players do take more than 30 seconds when faced with a particularly difficult lie, but they are not in compliance with the rule. Even good karma fearing, rule abiding players that are trying to follow the letter of the rules sometimes can't get comfortable with a shot from deep jail before the 30 seconds runs out. It is rarely called, but it is a violation.

One legal option is to allow the next player to proceed under the speed of play rules to buy more time. This requires co-operation from the other players on your card though, and it sounds like you weren't getting much of that.

The 'no' argument was based on the 30 second rule if I remember correctly .... when they brought that up we said, well the guy has to walk all the way back and re-tee and your going to only give him 30 seconds??



Evidently some people need to go back and re-read 801.03. As others have stated, the clock doesn't start until all three conditions set forth in §A have been met, therefore, excessive time doesn't enter into the discussion.

-----

Bruce Brakel wrote:

I think the issue arises because at the USDGC they do not allow a player to retrieve and rethrow an o.b. disc on the island hole.



I think the difference between the USDGC and this scenario is that at the USDGC, between the hay bales marking the island perimeter and the spotter, it's not necessary to walk to the green in order to determine the IB/OB status of the thrown disc, so there is no need to delay the rethrow. Also, it would not surprise me if the "no retrieving and rethrowing an OB disc" rule at the USDGC is a special condition.

803.03
H. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc prior to the re-throw, except in the case of a putt from within 10 meters. Where a disc is retrieved in violation of this rule, a one throw penalty shall be imposed without a warning.

While it's not 100% clear, my interpretation is that this rule only applies to a re-throw due to a stance violation. In the above scenario I would not apply the rule.

While it's not 100% clear, my interpretation is that this rule only applies to a re-throw due to a stance violation. In the above scenario I would not apply the rule.

Jim, I'm curious why you don't think it's 100% clear that it only applies to stance violations?

Good question.

Typically, rules in the individally lettered paragraphs are stand alone and independant of each other. I included paragraph H. in its intirety. It falls under Section "803.03 Stance Subsequent to Teeing Off".

In that light, it could be interpreted as any time one takes a stance subsequent to the initial tee shot, so in the case of an OB or missed mando the player wouldn't be allowed to retrieve the previously thrown disc.

In order to be perfectly clear that this rule only apples to rethrows due to a validly called and seconded stance violation, it should be a continuation of, or sub-paragraph to paragraph G.

Typically, rules in the individally lettered paragraphs are stand alone and independant of each other.

I'm not sure I agree. As I see it, the individually lettered paragraphs are logically coordinate and interrelated, in that they explicate specific aspects of the overall rule within which they appear. Paragraph A of 803.03, for example, sets forth the requirements for a legal throw. Paragraph B defines the point in time at which ¶A ceases to be in force; ¶C clarifies the exception in ¶B; ¶D expands ¶A by restricting a player's stance under certain conditions; ¶E provides for a legal stance in cases where the requirements set out in ¶A cannot be met; ¶F specifies the procedure for calling infractions of ¶A and the associated penalty; ¶s G and H address resumption of play following a validly called infraction.


In that light, it could be interpreted as any time one takes a stance subsequent to the initial tee shot, so in the case of an OB or missed mando the player wouldn't be allowed to retrieve the previously thrown disc.

Except that the throw following OB or a missed mando is not a re-throw. ¶H deals with re-throws, which only occur in the event of a stance violation and must be taken from the original lie (¶G):


803.03 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off
H. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc <font color="red">prior to the rethrow</font>, except in the case of a putt within 10 meters. Where a discs is retrieve in violation of this rule, a one throw penalty shall be imposed without a warning.

I tend to agree with your interpretation. I merely offered an alternate interpretation as a possibility.

[neonnoodle]

I tend to agree with your interpretation. I merely offered an alternate interpretation as a possibility.



This is how Jim says, "You were right, I was wrong." ;)

[underparmike]

H. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc prior to the re-throw, except in the case of a putt from within 10 meters. Where a disc is retrieved in violation of this rule, a one throw penalty shall be imposed without a warning.


so we've discovered yet another confusing rule. anyone of the self-annointed DGRZs care to update the lowly membership on if and when the next revision of the rules is going to occur?

[prairie_dawg]

Mike,

They are not on the rules committee, they just act like they are :o:D

[Moderator005]

so we've discovered yet another confusing rule. anyone of the self-annointed DGRZs care to update the lowly membership on if and when the next revision of the rules is going to occur?



So what set of rules do the Southern National tournaments follow, eh?

Yeah, that's what I thought. :p

[exczar]

so we've discovered yet another confusing rule. anyone of the self-annointed DGRZs care to update the lowly membership on if and when the next revision of the rules is going to occur?



Mikey,

There is only one self-appointed DGRZ, which is me. I appointed the rest (of which there are only 4, with the late Scott Wolfe among the 4).

Just wanted to clear that up for you. :D

As to your question, rules revisions are not scheduled for regular time periods (every 3 yrs, for example), so the PDGA will decide when the next revision will occur.

ps Welcome back to the board. Hope I don't have to use the "ignore user" feature for you. :D I wonder how many young pups recognize the avatar you are using, or should I say THE AVATAR YOU ARE USING!!!! :D

[prairie_dawg]

You guys are both using pictures of dead guys. Good Homage :cool:)

IMHO

OH OH OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!


That was for Mikey. ;)

[underparmike]

my mistake, exczar. so you don't know if the PDGA is rewriting the rulebook at the present? i thought maybe it was. don't ya just hate having to guess all the time?

jeff, instead of knocking SN, you ought to run an SN tournament. less work for the TD, less money taken from the participants, less paperwork. is it any wonder why only a couple tournaments in this neck of the woods are sanctioned by the PDGA anymore? i think i might have been the last PDGA supporter around here, too bad y'all have the "take us or leave us attitude" that has totally disgusted most of us.

oh let me add a smiley for you sensitive folks :)

[neonnoodle]

Mike,

They are not on the rules committee, they just act like they are :o:D



If we did that you would only hear from us once every 7 years or so... ;)

[rhett]

...too bad y'all have the "take us or leave us attitude" that has totally disgusted most of us.



As opposed to what? What is it you would like, someone to wipe your [*****] for you after you [*****] on the PDGA?

[neonnoodle]

my mistake, exczar. so you don't know if the PDGA is rewriting the rulebook at the present? i thought maybe it was. don't ya just hate having to guess all the time?



Yeah, you’re right Mike, we’d be better off if SN was running the whole show. With no rules at all there’d be no guessing; it’d be like 5 year olds playing chess, just make it up as we go along.

And they are working on it, it just won’t be out for another couple of years. They’re a conservative bunch which is appropriate with such business.


jeff, instead of knocking SN



HELLO! (Said against the better judgment of my wife) You might want to consider similar action on your part concerning the PDGA.


, you ought to run an SN tournament. less work for the TD, less money taken from the participants, less paperwork.


less concern and commitment to working with organizers in surrounding regions,
less concern and commitment to working with organizers around the US,
less concern and commitment to working with organizers around the World,
less feeling of community and unity with organizers and players in surrounding regions, the US and the World.
Less support and effort for greater regional, national and worldwide efforts.

From what I know I think you are being misleading though: How is there less money taken from participants at SN events? I thought each player paid $5 an event (or more) into some series kiddy, the PDGA only gets $3 at events far bigger than the average SN events, $2 at similar events, and $1 at smaller ones. You return that in prizes, the PDGA returns it in services. Services which in my opinion do a hell of a lot more for our sport than just redistributing entry fees, which is essentially what the SN does.


, is it any wonder why only a couple tournaments in this neck of the woods are sanctioned by the PDGA anymore?



Seems to me that you guys have decided that you want to take what the PDGA has provided to you at much cost and effort, and in return allow everyone else around the country and world to pay your way; it must be nice to have a free ride. Your stance comes off as selfish, ungrateful and downright contemptible.


i think i might have been the last PDGA supporter around here, too bad y'all have the "take us or leave us attitude" that has totally disgusted most of us.



Mike, if you were the last PDGA supporter in your neck of the woods, and you speak for the majority of SN players and organizers, and the PDGA not kowtowing to you and your “take it or leave it attitude” of my way or the highway, then I have one thing to say:
Don’t let that door hit you where the sun don’t shine on the way out!


oh let me add a smiley for you sensitive folks :)



Even if there was some truth to your message it is not likely to come across when your words and actions amount to hurling chit at people trying to do their best and make a real difference.

[dixonjowers]

OK, DGRZ's, I've got a serious hypothetical for you. We ran across this situation on Saturday and began to wonder if this was possible.
OK, a drive came to rest about 1 foot behind a 10-15ft tall baseball backstop. Picture a shape like the top 3 sides of a stop sign, kind of a moon shape. The basket was approximately 40ft on the other side of the backstop straight behind it. From where he was, his only play was straight over the fence but getting it up and over wasn't easy.
So, here is the question. Could he run, jump, without touching the ground, put a plant foot on the fence, jump higher, in order to have a flatter angle to get over the fence? Does that make sense?
I guess the basic question is, can you jump from behind your mini and legally redirect yourself off of other objects, fences, trees, tables, etc.?

[neonnoodle]

Without researching it more thoroughly I offer the following answer:

NO

Please take a look at the rules link here for detailed reasons as to why this would be illegal. I'd be interested to hear what you find.

Look right under the PDGA logo at the top of this page and you will see the "Rules" link.

[ck34]

The best shot I've seen from those situations is to lie on your back with foot behind mini so your throwing hand is as far away from fence as possible and flick it over the fence. Takes practice and power to pull that off.

[gnduke]

Not allowed, but not because he bounced off the fence/tree/wall to gain height. Though contact/support from anything in front of the mark would also not be allowed.

[dixonjowers]

Makes sense but do you know where that is found in the rules, Gary?

[underparmike]

there there little nicky, get it all out now, you'll feel a lot better.

your little nit-picking posts really are a detriment to your cause, it's a shame you lose support every time you type something. okay, i won't let the door hit my [*****] on the way out, but don't assume i speak for the SN, just as you,thank goodness ,don't speak for the PDGA, although it's embarassing that you have ever been on a PDGA committee.

SN only charges $2 a player to sanction, and no extra sanctioning fee on top of that. SN doesn't make anyone jump through hoops to find out where the money they collect is spent. quit misrepresenting yet another thing you are totally clueless about. as for SN being "selfish", why don't you say the same of Texas 10 and their unsanctioned events? if the PDGA didn't attempt to suck so much cash from every TD and player i'd bet Texas 10 would sanction all their events with the PDGA as well. face it nick, PDGA fees are too high and there's no accountability for how the PDGA spends its cash. you can't ever provide any evidence against my claims, and until someone does, yes, i will sound like i'm anti-PDGA, which i'm not. as a TD i have to do what is best for my tournament, and since sanctioning with the PDGA does nothing except drain too many resources, while SN sanctioning brings in droves of players, i'll stick with them. for you to say that SN is anything other than a great bunch of disc golf-loving people is an uniformed lie.

[gnduke]

803.03.A.1

803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off

A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc...

[dixonjowers]

How does that rule coincide with the idea of a jump putt? When I do that I plant then jump then release. Is this illegal or do we need to consult a different rule for this problem?

[gnduke]

Same rule, you must release the disc before you leave the ground or it is illegal.

[neonnoodle]

Start practicing a puttjump. More control and legal.

I've never actually seen a jumputt. It'd be interesting to see if anyone could increase their accuracy off of the ground. I suppose Bball players do it with the jumpshot. My QB Donovan does better when he is set or rolling, when he jumpasses the emergency crew starts the ambulance engine. :D

This whole scenerio seems like poor management on the part of the TD. Wouldn't it have been easier to have an official standing by the island indicating whether or not the disc was IB? Yeah you may not get to rethrow that disc, but you also don't have to walk down and back to determine if you need to rethrow in the first place. Saves a lot of time and effort not to mention avoids disrupting the flow of the game. I think there's video on this website of a NT event in which this technique was used. I think Julianna Korver had to re-tee like 3 or 4 times on that hole! Imagine if she had to walk up and down the hole each time!!

EDIT: Sorry didn't realize the subject had shifted. This post is in reply to the original post on this thread. The one about the island hole.

From what it sounds like, your jumpputt is illegal. If you're jumping and releasing the disc while you are in mid-air that is illegal because at the time of release you didn't have at least one supporting point on the ground at least 30cm behind your mini. A true jumpputt I do believe results in a release of the disc and then the jump. Basically the momentum placed on the putt is so great that the natural result is you leaving the ground. But at the instant of release, you must still have at least one supporting point on the ground. Or something...

[peter_h]

In the situation with a disc landing close to the fence: By not marking your lie with a mini, instead using the thrown disc as marker which is perfectly allowed by the rules, you can also gain an extra app. 21cm (Depending on the diameter of the thrown disc of course). Doesn't sound like much, but might make a big difference. And of course also use your full 30cm behind the mark... There, you've just gotten an extra legal 0.5 meters to your advantage :cool:

On jump putts. I've studied video clips of a couple of different players using the jump-putt technique. Of course, as has already been stated here, you must release the disc while you're still in contact with the playing surface in order for such a putt to be legal.

In a regular video, even when watched frame-by-frame, I could not really not tell wether this was the case or not! Guess you need more frames/sec... Especially in one case I was absolutely certain that the release was made in mid-air when watching the live situation. But when later checking the video frame-by-frame it actually was such a close call that I could not tell for sure, and it even turned out to look closer to legal than not. So it seems jump-putts are very hard to judge...