Hello everyone. I'm the chair of the Rules Committee and the primary author of the 2013 revision of the
rulebook. I'm not on this forum very often, so I'll make a few points that I hope will help clarify the
discussion and then I'll sign off:
- It's great to see lively discussion of the changes. There weren't a whole lot of actual rule changes,
since the main focus was to improve the rulebook as a document. In my opinion, there weren't any major
rule changes. I don't mind reading criticism at all - I'm more interested in the substance of it. My
hope is that the disc golf community will regard this revision as a significant improvement.
- Folks like bruceuk, Chuck Kennedy, Pete Kenny, and Steve West have done a lot over the years to help
the sport in various ways. (I'm probably omitting some names, that's from a quick scan of this thread).
It's healthy to disagree with them (especially Chuck
), just bear in mind that they've already put in a
lot of time and effort working with the PDGA to advance disc golf in a number of ways.
- The rules can always be improved. I agree that the rules on questioning an illegal disc or an
illegal artificial device should be clarified. The current interpretation I saw is correct: the item
is only illegal once the TD says it is. We should also consider how the single-person warning applies
to a stance violation, since there is a rethrow component to the handling of the violation. That was
overlooked. Pete is correct in stating that one goal of the rewrite is to make players less reluctant
to make rule calls.
- Good catch by scarson on the discrepancy regarding the definition of Falling Putt between the description of
changes and the Definitions section. The changes description is wrong; the definition was removed because
it does not appear in the rules.
- There will always be a point at which a rule breaks down, whether it's from malicious intent, an
unusual combination of circumstances, misapplication of the rules, etc. If the rules considered all
possible scenarios, they'd be a hundred pages long and no one would carry or use them. They're intended
to cover the vast majority of real-life situations. There's a section that recommends
extrapolating from the closest applicable rule for situations that are not explicitly covered. That,
together with appeals, provisionals, and escalation to the TD, gives us a pretty good safety net.
- The 2013 revision is done and printed, so the best way to phrase comments is as something to consider
for the next revision.
- Another forum for feedback is the PDGA contact form. A note to the Rules Committee comes to me,
and I'll generally reply fairly soon and copy the rest of the committee. Feel free to use that for
any rules-related question, including questions about the motivation behind specific changes. Note
that there's a separate contact form for competition-related questions.
-Conrad