Approved 2013 rules revision

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by bombmk

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?

Not really looking to punish anyone, just force an action by players that I feel most have become too lax on over the years. I can't count the number of times where a cardmate has disappeared after his last putt, leaving the rest of us to total his card and turn it in for him. If he had to stick around to sign the card, at least it takes the responsibility off the other players to get his card right. I know the book says the player is solely responsible for his card, signature or not, but that doesn't stop players from putting that responsibility on them groupmates, leaving them in a potentially awkward or uncomfortable position. Perhaps what it will take is an occasion or two of that departed player's card being turned in unadded to convince him to take responsibility for it? I know I've been tempted. A more unscrupulous person might actually do it just to gain an advantage on the player.

As for enforcement...requiring the signature would mean the card can't be turned in without it. If the card is late, it's punished for that reason. Players don't want a penalty for a late card, so they'll make sure everyone signs. Everyone checks their card and signs, and there's no bellyaching that "I didn't see the card" or my favorite "what did I shoot?"

[krupicka]

Originally Posted by krupicka

801.01.E+802.04.E
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.

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).

Originally Posted by 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.

In the case I'm envisioning calling the TD over won't help. The player calling the warning is the only witness to the infraction. His card mates weren't paying attention, and the player will defend himself to the death. An illegal jump putt is very subjective and difficult to demonstrate later whether or not it was indeed legal (Video replay is already verboten by the BOD). I would think that if a single player has the ability to issue a warning on a foot fault, then it should be only a warning and a rethrow is not required. Otherwise get rid of the warning on a foot fault altogether and make the first occurrence a penalty (then it is in line with a practice throw which then becomes the same thing).

I think only needing a single player for a warning is a good thing if the effect is a warning only. In essence with a foot fault, it isn't just a warning, but it is a warning+rethrow penalty. In this case there really needs to be a second.

[bombmk]

Originally Posted by jconnell

As for enforcement...requiring the signature would mean the card can't be turned in without it. If the card is late, it's punished for that reason. Players don't want a penalty for a late card, so they'll make sure everyone signs.

So if someone runs off anyways, everyone on the card is punished?
All just to prevent a player from not checking his score, which he will be punished for anyways, if it is not correct?

I don't really see there being a more reasonable approach than just affirming that the responsibility is on the player for what his card says when it is turned in.

[cgkdisc]

I think only needing a single player for a warning is a good thing if the effect is a warning only. In essence with a foot fault, it isn't just a warning, but it is a warning+rethrow penalty. In this case there really needs to be a second.

I agree. Not only would a "second" reduce the chance of the vindictive "rethrow upon calling a fault after a spectacular long putt is made," it would also reduce the chance of the free mulligan call that has not yet been eliminated where a buddy can call a warning/rethrow when a player shanks a tee shot and makes it look enough like a foot fault for their buddy to call it.

[bombmk]

---
804.02 E:

If, after a mandatory has been passed, a subsequent throw crosses the mandatory line on the correct side but in the reverse direction, the mandatory has no longer been passed. The player must still pass the mandatory on the correct side. A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole.

---

What does the part in bold mean exactly?

It can't be right the way I read it - because in my world it is absolutely possible for two lies being connected by a straight line going the wrong way around a mandatory, while the throws having passed on the right side.

[cgkdisc]

It looks like the intent was more along the lines of "The flight line connecting the lies..."

[bruceuk]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

It looks like the intent was more along the lines of "The flight line connecting the lies..."

Yes, the line the disc took, rather than a straight line.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by bombmk

So if someone runs off anyways, everyone on the card is punished?
All just to prevent a player from not checking his score, which he will be punished for anyways, if it is not correct?

I don't really see there being a more reasonable approach than just affirming that the responsibility is on the player for what his card says when it is turned in.

Okay then, an unsigned score is subject to a 2-stroke penalty for the player who leaves the card unsigned, period. Punishment for an unsigned scorecard in golf is disqualification. The player MUST verify and attest to his own score. Don't see why players shouldn't be held to the same kind of standard in disc golf.

Players shouldn't be left with the responsibility of totaling and turning in other players' scorecards (IMO, all players should have to return to tournament central with the cards, but I'll settle for requiring the signature). If a player can't be bothered to total his card and sign it himself, the card should be turned in untotaled for that player.

[bruceuk]

If a player can't be bothered to total his card himself, the card should be turned in untotaled for that player.

I deleted 2 words and we have the current situation. Adding a signature requirement will just add a lot of strokes to a lot of players for no real benefit that I can see.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by krupicka

In the case I'm envisioning calling the TD over won't help. The player calling the warning is the only witness to the infraction. His card mates weren't paying attention, and the player will defend himself to the death. An illegal jump putt is very subjective and difficult to demonstrate later whether or not it was indeed legal (Video replay is already verboten by the BOD). I would think that if a single player has the ability to issue a warning on a foot fault, then it should be only a warning and a rethrow is not required. Otherwise get rid of the warning on a foot fault altogether and make the first occurrence a penalty (then it is in line with a practice throw which then becomes the same thing).

I think only needing a single player for a warning is a good thing if the effect is a warning only. In essence with a foot fault, it isn't just a warning, but it is a warning+rethrow penalty. In this case there really needs to be a second.

Totally agree with the quotes in red.

The as-proposed written rule is ripe for abuse. The defense that "it's cheating" to maliciously call a marginal foot fault to force a re-throw may be true, but it's effectively irrelevant in reality. It's one player's word vs. another. After the fact, no one else is going to be able to rule one way or the other whether the player released a disc early [without imagery/video].

If you fall back on "benefit of the doubt to the thrower" then the call never happened at all. Then all any thrower has to say is "wasn't a foot fault" and it nullifies the call. You're back to needing a second cardmate to enforce the call anyway.

A solo call of a stance violation should be a warning without rethrow.

[bruceuk]

I confess I've never been particularly convinced by the hypothetical buddies who have plotted together to cheat, much as I'm unconvinced by the hypothetical malicious infraction callers.

Virtually nobody calls the glaringly obvious violations, let alone the false or marginal ones, and one of the reasons is that there is little point as it's nigh on impossible to get it seconded. If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?

Longer term the aim will be to remove the warning/re-throw altogether, but in order for that to happen we need to tidy up the stance rules so that infractions are clear and easy to call. We have been throwing around some ideas on this for a while, and I'll start a separate thread to discuss that at some point.

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

It looks like the intent was more along the lines of "The flight line connecting the lies..."

So is this a vetting of the rules so that mistakes can be changed? Or will this gem be in the rules until the PDGA uses up 10,000 rulebooks?

[cgkdisc]

I thought I heard the new rules were already at the printer. But I find that somewhat surprising since I don't think the Competition Committee has completed their changes to be in sync with the new rules (unless maybe those changes were already made at the PDGA office?)

[bruce_brakel]

I don't think the Competition Committee was involved in anything to do with drafting changes to the Competition Manual.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?

Nope.

[futurecollisions]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?

dangerous comment here, whoever you are, i hope you aren't in charge or have any kind of influence, this is the last thing we need

[bruceuk]

How quickly we descend from thanks and constructive criticism to personal insults, and all for posing a hypothetical question.

FWIW I agree and would prefer to have a second for rethrows or no rethrow for warning, but here I thought we were having a discussion. Wrong ironically named forum I guess.

[krupicka]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?

Bruce, I don't want to belabor this point, but this comment did get rub me the wrong way. It may be due to my point of view based on the American Justice system or the ongoing Innocence Project here locally. I realize a disc golf penalty is not the same thing as Death Row, but I thought I would help explain the strong reaction here by some to that statement.

I appreciate you taking the time (and a few lumps) in discussing the new rule changes. Do you know if it is a done deal with the 2013 rules as presented (i.e. rule books printed) or is there still a chance some of these issues can be corrected/changed/tweaked?

[bruceuk]

My understanding is that they are being formatted for the printers and that it may be too late to implement any changes. I am saddened by that, I'm new to the process and I thought we had more time. I also could have posted these several weeks ago, but didn't know I could. Next time around I'll do better.

As I started the post, I don't give much credence to the posited 'dirty cheater' who is looking for every loophole to ruthlessly exploit on the course. After all, the DC buddies could have been merrily calling false violations on others after good shots just as easily as on each other after bad ones. So I don't really believe you will get malicious false positives.

Let me try and rephrase it in a less contentious way, and sorry if I offend any north american morality system I'm unaware of!

All hypothetical:

Imagine a world where DG is on TV.
Currently you have a stance violation test system that is (generously) 1% accurate on fairway throws. That is 99% of violations are unpunished.
On putts it may be significantly better (the group is nearby, generally watching, overbalancing can be obvious), so lets call it 50% accurate there.
The watching viewer can see every violation.

Based on my purely personal anecdotal observations, I'm close enough to observe and be able to warn players on fairway throws at least a third of the time (based on a card of 4 people, I'm usually close enough to at least one of the three to see). Assuming I now warn on every violation the system accuracy goes up to 25%. If my card mates do the same, we're certainly above 50%, I'd say we ought to be shooting for 75%+. Putting may only increase to 60%.
BUT, every so often a call is made that is wrong.
The watching viewer can see every violation, called or otherwise, and the miscalls.

Which looks better? Miscalls and marginal calls happen all the time in sport, from dodgy penalties to pass interference. My contention is that the latter situation makes our sport look more professional to an outside observer. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

See the poll not too far from here for a real life TV example of where this would have lead to improved accuracy and viewer perception.

[Karl]

Bruce,

Not picking on you but your statement...
"It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction."
...has me thinking that this attitude is wonderful IFFFFF perfection (or REALLY close to it) can eventually be attained. But that will never be the case for the rules we presently have. There are too many gaping holes to just bandaide things.
It may take severe changes to really refine the rules so that the "no calls" and "debatables" are taken out. Do we continue to 'tweak' the present rules (and MAYBE make them better by a couple of percent every time we reassess) or should we step back - after 37 years of trial - and REALLY assess "what works and what doesn't"?
I vote for the latter.

Karl

[bruceuk]

As per a previous post, we have been tossing around severe changes to the stance rules for this reason, but it was considered too much work in one go to restructure the rules and look at major changes.

Additionally the BOD are a little change-averse because they perceive the player base to be change-averse, which means it is much easier to get incremental change approved.

[krupicka]

I guess I'm less concerned about a cheating incident but more about tempers on the course. When a single player can issue a warning and it is purely a warning, I can see the warned player being annoyed, but living with it and being a little more careful next time. If a single player can cause another player to have to rethrow a shot, I can see a few arguments, flared tempers, and then possible tit-for-tat retribution against the player who called the first foot fault. It may make players even less likely to call a stance violation!

One of the benefits to having a second on a call like a foot fault is that it is that there is now at least a bit of consensus and not a one v. one argument. Under the current rules, a stance violation call without a second is like a pure warning. That option is no longer the case with the 2013 rules.

[bruceuk]

I understand that concern.

Of course if you remove the rethrow, you have the possibility of someone having a tricky 8m headwind putt for the title, leaning into it too much and following through. Doesn't matter that the whole finals card, gallery, sponsors et al saw it, the putt still stands. Not sure that's an ideal picture either!

[jimimc]

804.02 E:

If, after a mandatory has been passed, a subsequent throw crosses the mandatory line on the correct side but in the reverse direction, the mandatory has no longer been passed. The player must still pass the mandatory on the correct side. A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole.


Does this mean if my throw passes a mandatory on the correct side hits a tree then rolls back through the mandatory, that I now have missed the mandatory? I know it sounds strange, but this actually happened in a tournament. One person called it a missed mandatory, while the others ruled it a made mandatory, play on.

[krupicka]

Under the previous rules that was the correct interpretation.

2011 rules - "Once the disc has completely passed the mandatory line on the correct side (even if it subsequently re-crosses the line), the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole"

[jimimc]

And now it would be a missed mando?

[bruceuk]

Not missed, but not made. You still have to correctly pass it on your next throw. If however it rolls back on the incorrect side, you have made the mando and can play any way you choose.

Imagine your disc has a piece of string attached to it and tied to the tee post, if after your throw you pull the string taut and it passes the correct side of the mando, you're all good. If not, then you're not.

[cgkdisc]

Your disc now has to land past the made mando side before you've made the mando. If your disc passes it then bounces back across the made mando side, you have not made the mando.

bruceuk: this seems unclear as stated below:

Once you pass the mando, can you throw around the wrong side of it if for some reason that would be a good route? Or if your throw passes the mando on the good side, hits a tree and comes back across the bad side line you stated you still made the mando using the string theory. Do you still have to throw around the good side on your next shot?

[bruceuk]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

if your throw passes the mando on the good side, hits a tree and comes back across the bad side line you stated you still made the mando using the string theory. Do you still have to throw around the good side on your next shot?

No, go any way you choose.

The reason being that the bad side mando line extends to infinity, and it is possible to have a dogleg whereby the basket is tee side of the line.

[futurecollisions]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

How quickly we descend from thanks and constructive criticism to personal insults, and all for posing a hypothetical question.

FWIW I agree and would prefer to have a second for rethrows or no rethrow for warning, but here I thought we were having a discussion. Wrong ironically named forum I guess.

Bruce I apologize if that came across as a personal attack, it was not meant to. Your statement there does bother me though and I hope this is not the direction of the PDGA to assume a punishment mentality