Approved 2013 rules revision

[bruceuk]

I can now present the 2013 rules in html format:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rules2013.html

A summary of the changes is here:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rule-changes.txt

[wsfaplau]

Awesome, thanks Bruce.

OK, I'll start.

Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

I can now present the 2013 rules in html format:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rules2013.html

A summary of the changes is here:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rule-changes.txt

Thank you for posting these.

Just took a cursory glance through the new text of the rule book. Plenty of good changes.

One thing jumped out to me as ripe for potential abuse, and that is the "Omitted Hole" rule (803.03 G. 6.). If a player comes up to a hole for which they feel they will throw a high number of throws, they could skip it, call it omitted, and take par+4 and perhaps take a score lower than they would if they played it. Or perhaps a hole with a water hazard that a player prefers to skip so they don't lose discs. A seven might be better than tin-cupping four discs into the water and taking a double digit score.

I understand the reasoning behind the rule though...for instances where an emergency arises and the player must step away but can also return. But perhaps that belongs under the discretionary rules as a call for the TD to make on a case by case basis. The point being that it should be incumbent on the players to play every hole on the course regardless of difficulty, and I think the omitted hole rule gives players a loop hole to intentionally skip holes, potentially without consequence. Granted, it's a loophole that will be advantageous in only a very few and probably very rare occasions, but a loophole just the same.

I'll need to read the new book more thoroughly to make any further comments.

[krupicka]

Now that only a single player needs to call a stance violation for the first offense since it is only a warning (801.01E), why is the text "Stance violations may not be...seconded by the thrower" in 802.04E needed?

[krupicka]

801.01F+801.04G Was it intentional that courtesy violations now require a second? Same question for a practice throw.

[krupicka]

According to 804.04D we now need to get approval from the Tour Manager when we feel that it is better on a hole to restrict relief for OB to a drop zone. I realize that many pro's disliked throw and distance at the USDGC, but is it really necessary to for me to be submitting my course info sheet on every tournament I run to the tour director for approval? There is usually a hole or two where limiting the OB options makes sense.

Of course it also seems that based on 805.03.B, if the area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone.

[krupicka]

It seems that a number of items have been moved to the competition manual. I assume a new competition manual will also be ready soon.

[krupicka]

With all of the things moved to the competition manual (e.g. start of play), why was a late scorecard left in the rules and not moved to the competition manual?

[wsfaplau]

When will the Q&As be redone?

[wsfaplau]

If someone questions the legality of my putter I can't use it again until the TD or an official approves it?

[wsfaplau]

Krupika mentioned this on another thread and I want to reiterate it here.

The point of this feedback is to constructively offer feedback with the sole intent of helping make the rules as solid as possible. The Rules Committee has a difficult task in writing rules for our sport. I applaud what they are doing and feel everyone else should as well.

The posting of these new rules is a great opportunity for members to get a chance to provide feedback before the rules are implemented. This opportunity hasn't been presented before.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. Please take the feedback in the positive manner it is given.

[JoakimBL]

I have not read the entire rules, just the summary of Changes.

It strikes me as odd, that the definition of thrower have been removed, yet "thrower" is used repeatedly in the rule changes?

If a second is not needed if the violation only results in a warning, is there anything stopping me form calling violations on my cardmates on the first hole, even if they are not violating a rule? Obviously I could get a curtesy violation, if it's obvious what I'm doing, but If say that I call 30 seconds after 25 seconds, it's not obvious, and the rest of the group can do nothing? That doesn't sit right with me, since it opens up all kinds of doors for angle shooting.

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

If someone questions the legality of my putter I can't use it again until the TD or an official approves it?

That doesn't seem well thought out. Just an inocent questing when a player is ready to drive: "Is that disc legal?" and he has to pick another disc! Repeat as needed.

[bruceuk]

I'll try to cover these in order, apologies if I miss any. Incidentally, it would be helpful if you could reference the rule you're questioning

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

Awesome, thanks Bruce.

OK, I'll start.

Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

That remains in the Competition manual, so not sure how you've come to that one.

Originally Posted by jconnell

One thing jumped out to me as ripe for potential abuse, and that is the "Omitted Hole" rule (803.03 G. 6.). If a player comes up to a hole for which they feel they will throw a high number of throws, they could skip it, call it omitted, and take par+4 and perhaps take a score lower than they would if they played it. Or perhaps a hole with a water hazard that a player prefers to skip so they don't lose discs. A seven might be better than tin-cupping four discs into the water and taking a double digit score.

We did discuss the various ways in which you might gain advantage by intentional misplay, and felt that it was adequately covered by 803.03 F.

Originally Posted by krupicka

Now that only a single player needs to call a stance violation for the first offense since it is only a warning (801.01E), why is the text "Stance violations may not be...seconded by the thrower" in 802.04E needed?

Given the previous loophole it's simpler I think to rule the player out in this instance than have a long winded rule about how you can't warn, but can call or second if there's a penalty.

Originally Posted by krupicka

801.01F+801.04G Was it intentional that courtesy violations now require a second? Same question for a practice throw.

Yes, we wanted to adopt as close as possible to a single approach to applying the rules, hence section 801.01

Originally Posted by krupicka

According to 804.04D we now need to get approval from the Tour Manager when we feel that it is better on a hole to restrict relief for OB to a drop zone. I realize that many pro's disliked throw and distance at the USDGC, but is it really necessary to for me to be submitting my course info sheet on every tournament I run to the tour director for approval? There is usually a hole or two where limiting the OB options makes sense.

Of course it also seems that based on 805.03.B, if the area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone.

That was a Board decision.

Originally Posted by krupicka

It seems that a number of items have been moved to the competition manual. I assume a new competition manual will also be ready soon.

Competitions Manual is a different committee I'm not on, so can't help you there.

Originally Posted by krupicka

With all of the things moved to the competition manual (e.g. start of play), why was a late scorecard left in the rules and not moved to the competition manual?

There are so many aspects of scoring that are fundamental, it was felt best to retain it.

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

When will the Q&As be redone?

QAs are here: http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/qanda.html
Worth noting that I think 8 still needs updating to reflect returning the disc to it's approximate position, rather than playing from the resulting lie. which would therefore mean that you DO get the 2m penalty if it's in play, I've dropped a note to Conrad.

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

If someone questions the legality of my putter I can't use it again until the TD or an official approves it?

This is just a reformulation of the 2011 rule: "Discs must be specifically approved by the director if questioned by another player or an official."
I think if someone queried a clearly legal disc and you presented your case to the Director, they would be subject to Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating.

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

If a second is not needed if the violation only results in a warning, is there anything stopping me form calling violations on my cardmates on the first hole, even if they are not violating a rule? Obviously I could get a curtesy violation, if it's obvious what I'm doing, but If say that I call 30 seconds after 25 seconds, it's not obvious, and the rest of the group can do nothing? That doesn't sit right with me, since it opens up all kinds of doors for angle shooting.

Yes, Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

Yes, Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating

I'm not disagreeing or trying to be difficult, but that can be a very hard line to draw. Is the guy calling the first stance violation or 30 seconds, doing it because he believes it to be correct, or is he trying to gain an advantage?

Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating could also just have been the answer to the problem of calling violations on yourself to get a mulligan. However, previously you needed an ally to help you cheat, now, you can do it without a second.
IMHO this is poorly thought out.

[krupicka]

Bruce, thank you for posting the rules and answering our questions. I appreciate it. Would you care to comment on the OB vs. Special Conditions part of my question. Is this a correct understanding?

804.04D+805.03B It also seems that based on 805.03.B, if an area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone without Tour Manager approval.

[bruceuk]

Originally Posted by krupicka

Bruce, thank you for posting the rules and answering our questions. I appreciate it. Would you care to comment on the OB vs. Special Conditions part of my question. Is this a correct understanding?

804.04D+805.03B It also seems that based on 805.03.B, if an area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone without Tour Manager approval.

Yes, that seems correct to me. I'll raise it.

[krupicka]

The problem is I don't think you want to get rid of the option for a TD to declare special condition areas. If this gets changed, then it also needs to be reconciled with casual relief areas as often Special Conditions are what are used to justify handling those areas with lie options that are different than just move back on the line of play. Without the muddying of the Tour Manager getting involved, the three categories (OB, Casual Relief area, special condition areas) gives TDs have reasonable authority to declare an area with the following characteristics:
- penalty vs no penalty
Lie options (pick one or more)
- on line of play
- drop zone
- where last IB.
- previous lie
The local TD is best to determine what is appropriate on this continuum for their course design.

[bruceuk]

I agree, but the board removed the OB options from the TD

[krupicka]

I guess my point in that last post is that if the Special Conditions rule changes, there may be other unintended side effects that can ripple into handling of casual relief areas.

[bruceuk]

It may be as simple as removing the option to add penalty strokes from the special conditions.

[futurecollisions]

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

Glad to see this

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by futurecollisions

Glad to see this

As Bruce pointed out up thread, I don't think the new rule book says anything about this one way or the other. It's something that would be covered by the Competition Manual. And Bruce seems to indicate that it the 2-minute warning has not gone away.

[jconnell]

You know what I would love to see in the next edition of the rule book? Elimination of the sentence "Players whose scorecards are turned in unsigned accept responsibility for the scores recorded." from newly numbered rule 805.02 F.

It's time to start requiring signing or initialing scorecards at the end of the round again. I can't count how many times I've encountered players asking what they shot or questioning their posted scores after the card has been turned in with the excuse of "I never saw the card to add/verify it". Requiring the initialing/signing forces all players to take full responsibility for their cards and their scores with no excuses.

[bombmk]

Originally Posted by jconnell

You know what I would love to see in the next edition of the rule book? Elimination of the sentence "Players whose scorecards are turned in unsigned accept responsibility for the scores recorded." from newly numbered rule 805.02 F.

It's time to start requiring signing or initialing scorecards at the end of the round again. I can't count how many times I've encountered players asking what they shot or questioning their posted scores after the card has been turned in with the excuse of "I never saw the card to add/verify it". Requiring the initialing/signing forces all players to take full responsibility for their cards and their scores with no excuses.

There are no excuses today either. And they have full responsibility today as well. Regardless of a the signature or not.

The only way to enforce it would be to punish the absence of a signature. A completely bureaucratic reason. It serves no practical purpose other than to train people in some behaviour that the rules are already, potentially, punishing them for not following.

All the rulebook needs to say is that the player is solely reponsible for turning his/her scorecard in and the scores on it. If the score is wrong, you want to punish the player extra for not signing it?

[krupicka]

801.01.E+802.04.E

The way I read this only a single player needs to issue a warning on a stance violation and thus the thrower needs to rethrow their shot based solely on this single call. Since there is no second required on this, wouldn't this be ripe for abuse? I can see someone sinking a long jump putt on a hole and another player claiming they foot faulted by releasing the disc too late. Sort of a let's see you do that again type call. What recourse is in this situation? Can the rest of the group overrule the warning if they were watching (which they probably weren't but that's another topic)?

Part of this lies in that most warnings in the rules are just warnings and a single call is probably sufficient. If the warning is called, it's noted on the scorecard and play continues on. In the case of a foot fault, it is a warning + rethrow. Thus this affects play (and possibly score).

[bruceuk]

There is an endemic culture of not calling violations throughout DG worldwide, stance violations, time and probably courtesy are the prime culprits, and the move to a single person warning is part of trying to resolve that. If I can warn you on it myself, the rest of the card will be alert and available for seconding it in subsequent cases. Currently the first warning is typically one person seeing it and having an informal word, which I think lends itself to personal 1-2-1 conflict, and does nothing to alert the group to look for a formal infraction.

In terms of recourse you have the option of invoking 801.01 C, get a ruling or take a provisional if no official is available. False or tactical calling is cheating, and if the rest of your group supports you I would expect the TD to make that call.

[cgkdisc]

It looks like the "who is an official" still hasn't been clarified which still allows certified officials in the gallery to make calls. Perhaps the definition for Official could have included "authorized by the TD" wording to clarify that?

[bruceuk]

I think that is one for the competition manual, rather than rules of play

[cgkdisc]

I would think the rules of play either shouldn't have the word "official" in it at all since they aren't needed/involved in rec play anyway. Or, if the word official is included like it has been for a long time, then the full explanation should be included.