Approved 2013 rules revision

[cgkdisc]

Why the need for this text regarding connecting lies? "A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole."

It seems like the flight line will always fulfill this statement by default when players pass the mando properly. It seems to just muddle the clarity in the rule and in fact make players believe they can't throw across the wrong side of the mando once they have passed it properly.

[bruceuk]

Accepted. And it isn't. My personal aim is to make the stance easier to achieve, to reduce violations, but that is another thread that I'll start next week when I don't have a tournament to TD

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by 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!

So make the rule like this:

A solo i.e., un-seconded, initial stance violation call is a warning without rethrow.

An initial stance violation call that is seconded is a warning with rethrow.

Problem solved, right?

[bombmk]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Why the need for this text regarding connecting lies? "A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole."

It seems like the flight line will always fulfill this statement by default when players pass the mando properly. It seems to just muddle the clarity in the rule and in fact make players believe they can't throw across the wrong side of the mando once they have passed it properly.

I think that paragraph was an attempt to clarify the new rule. I think they missed the mando on it, though.

[stevenpwest]

I got two versions from your link. Which one is approved: July 16 or July 28?

[JenniferB]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

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

I sure hope not. 804 says the options for relief can be limited as a special condition with approval of the TM. 805 then lays down some requirements for special conditions, not a loop hole for when a "special condition" can be permitted for limiting relief options.

I don't see where a TD could say, "this island I've drawn around this pin is a 'special condition' requiring a mandatory retee unless you land safely. It's not 'OB.' It's a 'special condition,' so I don't need permission from the tour manager."

If that's allowed, then the rule change has no teeth at all. Sure, the TD can declare a drop zone and specify whether a penalty is assessed for using it, all without TD approval. But saying an area can be declared as not OB, but that limited relief from the area is mandated as a "special condition" sounds like complete BS to me.

[davidsauls]

re: Required drop zones for O.B.

Since TDs must get approval from the Tour Manager, has thought been given to how this process will play out?

Will it be just a matter of requesting it as a rules variation on the sanctioning agreement? (I.E., "On Hole 11, a drop zone will be required for all shots going O.B."). Or will we need to submit more---hole descriptions, diagrams, rationale for requiring drop zone?

[wsfaplau]

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

I saw the practice throw definition and saw it was during the round. I assumed the 2 minute part had been dropped. I didn't look in the comp manual. I now see the definition in the old rules matches the new one.

I was wrong. It is no different.

As for it being too late to make any changes that is disappointing but I appreciate you intended for it to be different. Next time.

[stevenpwest]

I'd just like to point out that this set of rules is a great improvement. There are far fewer redundancies and conflicting restatements, more consistent nomenclature, and far fewer logical loose ends. Just defining "position" as opposed to "lie" is a huge improvement.

We may never even realize how much better these are, because no one notices problems once they go away.

[reallybadputter]

801.02.D A disc that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

While I don't carry one regularly any more, when I used to carry a Discraft UltraStar (ultimate disc) I'd get someone asking about its legality at least a few times a year... So if that happens, should I now write down two scores on every hole that I throw it on? (Like any other disputed ruling, one with the penalty, and one without, and then have to go to the TD after the round for a ruling.)

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by reallybadputter

801.02.D A disc that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

While I don't carry one regularly any more, when I used to carry a Discraft UltraStar (ultimate disc) I'd get someone asking about its legality at least a few times a year... So if that happens, should I now write down two scores on every hole that I throw it on? (Like any other disputed ruling, one with the penalty, and one without, and then have to go to the TD after the round for a ruling.)

I wouldn't think so. The player would have to provide a reason to question its illegality other than he "doesn't think it's on the approved disc list". Otherwise, what's to stop a player from questioning any disc's legality and rendering it useless to its owner for the remainder of the round? "I don't think your Aviar is approved as PDGA legal...stop putting with it until we consult the TD." It's ridiculous.

If I were a player carrying a legal disc that players might question whether it is approved for play, like an Ultrastar, I'd have a copy of the approved discs list in my bag to whip out and show the doubters. It shouldn't be necessary, but if you're encountering a few uninformed folks a year on the matter, it might be worth the hassle.

[cgkdisc]

I think where the problem might occur is if a player say hands the Aviar back to its owner when pulling discs out of the basket after putting out and says, "Ya know that Aviar feels a little too heavy. I think we need to wait and see what the TD says to make sure it's legal." Then what? It's an "innocent" request and the TD is unlikely to have a scale.

[wsfaplau]

Originally Posted by jconnell

I wouldn't think so. The player would have to provide a reason to question its illegality other than he "doesn't think it's on the approved disc list". Otherwise, what's to stop a player from questioning any disc's legality and rendering it useless to its owner for the remainder of the round? "I don't think your Aviar is approved as PDGA legal...stop putting with it until we consult the TD." It's ridiculous.

If I were a player carrying a legal disc that players might question whether it is approved for play, like an Ultrastar, I'd have a copy of the approved discs list in my bag to whip out and show the doubters. It shouldn't be necessary, but if you're encountering a few uninformed folks a year on the matter, it might be worth the hassle.

I disagree, the rule seems pretty straight forward to me. The disc was questioned. That meets the criteria the rule put forth. There is nothing that says there has to be a reason.

I think it is a bad rule.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

I think where the problem might occur is if a player say hands the Aviar back to its owner when pulling discs out of the basket after putting out and says, "Ya know that Aviar feels a little too heavy. I think we need to wait and see what the TD says to make sure it's legal." Then what? It's an "innocent" request and the TD is unlikely to have a scale.

now that you mention it that could be a problem. that players' arm isnt a scale either. he's working the other player. which is pretty lame if thats all he can come up with. you know towards the end of a tourney round my mini feels like its overweight.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

I disagree, the rule seems pretty straight forward to me. The disc was questioned. That meets the criteria the rule put forth. There is nothing that says there has to be a reason.

I think it is a bad rule.

No question, Pete. I agree that it's a poor rule if it leaves open the opportunity for players to "work" each other by declaring perfectly legal discs questionable with no reason or evidence required. Seems a shame that all a player has to do is ask "is that disc legal?" even as a legitimate question (which for an Ultrastar is common), and the disc's owner is forced to put it away until he can ask the TD for approval. Especially if the answer can be given and the inquiring player's question nullified with a quick look at the approved disc list, no TD input required.

Though now that this point has been brought up, I'm looking forward to tooling on our local Epic throwers after the start of the year.

[cgkdisc]

Smartphones can legally be used in 2013 so you might want to save a link to the Approved disc page. Now they just need to develop an app and phone sensor to plug in the USB port to weigh discs.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Smartphones can legally be used in 2013 so you might want to save a link to the Approved disc page. Now they just need to develop an app and phone sensor to plug in the USB port to weigh discs.

Weigh Max BX-500 BlackBox FTW.

Originally Posted by ERicJ on DGCR

Add really accurate to the list of props too.

I have access to an ASTM E617 Class 6 weight set and used that to calibrate my Weighmax Black Box scale to be dead on balls accurate. After calibration every weight combination I tried from 1g up to 500g read out exactly what it should have been to 0.1g on the scale.

E.g. Class 6 weights at 170g are +/- 20mg (or +/- 0.01%), and the scale read "170.0g".

Prior to calibration the Black Box was off by ~1g at 500g range.

[JoakimBL]

The list of approved discs is pretty useless. Many discs don't have any markings to identify what it is. And how is a TD equipped to identify a worn disc with no markings and maybe a custom dye job? The only kind of illegal disc he can accurately judge is discs with damage, and maybe some kind of modified disc.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

The list of approved discs is pretty useless. Many discs don't have any markings to identify what it is. And how is a TD equipped to identify a worn disc with no markings and maybe a custom dye job? The only kind of illegal disc he can accurately judge is discs with damage, and maybe some kind of modified disc.

I understand the idea of not being able to identify a particular model because stamps have worn off or what have you, but how many non-PDGA approved flying discs are there that could be mistaken for a golf disc?

Besides, most manufacturers have their company name molded into the discs somewhere, so even if the model is indeterminate, at least the manufacturer is identifiable. And how many of these manufacturers have unapproved or disapproved discs on the market? QuestAT, I suppose, with the Turbo Putt (not that that isn't easily identifiable) Any others?

So if the model is in question, there's usually an easy way to verify its manufacturer, and from there I would ask the player to identify the model. I've known plenty of casual recreational players that have no idea what the disc they're throwing is, but I've met very few tournament players who couldn't answer the question "what type of disc is that?" about any disc they owned. At that point, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the player that the disc he's claiming is a Valkyrie is a Valkyrie, especially if the disc has the name "Innova" molded somewhere on its underside.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by jconnell

And how many of these manufacturers have unapproved or disapproved discs on the market? QuestAT, I suppose, with the Turbo Putt (not that that isn't easily identifiable) Any others?

Off the top of my head:
Discraft Nuke+ (protos only?)
Gateway Ninja
Innova XB (protos only)
Quest Wheel
None of the Black Jax light up discs are approved.

[cgkdisc]

Lots of current Ace Race discs out there but they are identified unless someone takes off the stamp.

[JenniferB]

The illegal disc question rule also presents a case of mutually assured destruction, so a player who tries to work another player using this rule is subject to being worked in return. Expect to see a case of two players questioning every single disc in each others' bags. The only question is when. I have January 1st in the pool. :-)

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

The illegal disc question rule also presents a case of mutually assured destruction, so a player who tries to work another player using this rule is subject to being worked in return. Expect to see a case of two players questioning every single disc in each others' bags. The only question is when. I have January 1st in the pool. :-)

Better get the TD to approve all your discs before the round starts.

The PDGA can then supply TD's with "PDGA Approved" stickers that they can hand out to players to put on discs that the TD has specifically checked prior to each event. The sticker of course violates the PDGA rule that prevents you from making any post production modifications to the disc.

[JenniferB]

Regarding the change to the mando rules stating that players will now, by default, throw from the previous lie if no drop zone is provided, I think the new rule is a bad idea. Mandos are supposed to be used for safety reasons, such as avoiding taking a line that passes through a playground or picnic pavilion, or another fairway or tee. That's the original purpose (and only valid purpose imho) of mandos. Given that, if someone just missed the mando, thereby demonstrating an inability to avoid putting others at risk, the last thing you want is for them to throw the same shot again from the same place. Much better, in my view, to have them automatically move to the default drop zone at the mando and throw from there. Granted, in a tournament, TDs can mark drop zones if safety is a real concern. But this rule change is going to promote unsafe casual play at every course that has properly designed mandos. I think this decision is one of the worst decisions the rules committee could have made.

[araydallas]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

Regarding the change to the mando rules stating that players will now, by default, throw from the previous lie if no drop zone is provided, I think the new rule is a bad idea. Mandos are supposed to be used for safety reasons, such as avoiding taking a line that passes through a playground or picnic pavilion, or another fairway or tee. That's the original purpose (and only valid purpose imho) of mandos. Given that, if someone just missed the mando, thereby demonstrating an inability to avoid putting others at risk, the last thing you want is for them to throw the same shot again from the same place. Much better, in my view, to have them automatically move to the default drop zone at the mando and throw from there. Granted, in a tournament, TDs can mark drop zones if safety is a real concern. But this rule change is going to promote unsafe casual play at every course that has properly designed mandos. I think this decision is one of the worst decisions the rules committee could have made.

I agree. Especially since I have seen many times mandatories are used to shape lines of play, not simply for safety's sake.

Now that being said, the RC doesn't monitor this site. I suggest this thought be sent to them. Perhaps they thought the rule would force TD's to make sure they marked the drop zones.

[JenniferB]

Originally Posted by araydallas

Perhaps they thought the rule would force TD's to make sure they marked the drop zones.

Ha! Good luck with that. It's hard enough to get TDs to mark tees, put water out on the course, or paint OB. I think TDs will more likely let the previous lie rule prevail even when the mando is clearly there for safety reasons, or legal reasons for that matter. Then you'll have tournament players climbing fences and getting courses pulled, among other things.

[cgkdisc]

Mandos should never be placed for direct safety reasons because they will not stop errant shots from going into a playground or picnic area. That would be a poor hole design in the first place. While not a fan of the new change versus the previous default drop zone, it should not increase safety problems (just scores) if the hole is designed properly in the first place.

[jconnell]

The only good mando is one that a player has to try hard in order to miss it. If a player can "just miss" their line and miss the mando, the mando is poorly located or the hole is poorly designed.

I do disagree with the argument about casual play. In my experience, most casual/non-tournament playing folks don't pay attention to things like mandos or OB anyway. No rule changes are going to change the way they (mis)play a course.

[JenniferB]

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?

I just noticed the rule says "unless subsequently approved by the director," not "until subsequently approved by the director."

A disc that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

I think that means you can keep using the disc until the director says it is illegal, but you are assuming the risk of taking penalty throws or even being disqualified if the director subsequently rules the disc illegal.

[wsfaplau]

That is a possible interpretation but not the only one