Approved 2013 rules revision

[DShelton]

The way I read it is that the disc is illegal once it is questioned by a player or official. You can't use it. If the Director later says it isn't, then you can return to using it.

[PhattD]

Originally Posted by jconnell

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.

What are the chances that someone, for whom par +4 is likely to be better than what they actually shoot, is actually going to have any bearing on the people score well enough to cash? I understand that it is technically possible but I guess I'd have to say show me someone actually doing it in a way that unfairly benefits them before I'm gonna care.

[davidsauls]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

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

My reading would be that you can't use it. "Until" would imply that the disc will be approved by the TD; "unless" that it may or may not be.

[wsfaplau]

There is another option. The group can stand aside, let the the other groups play through, and go find the TD who will then make the call.

Nobody will be happy but that is one way to handle it.

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by davidsauls

My reading would be that you can't use it. "Until" would imply that the disc will be approved by the TD; "unless" that it may or may not be.

But that interpretation makes less sense. What would be the point? If that was the case, it would make much more sense that the TD needed to approve all discs prior to the round.
Granted, I read the rule that way too at first, but thinking about it, it just makes more sense the other way.

[davidsauls]

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

But that interpretation makes less sense. What would be the point? If that was the case, it would make much more sense that the TD needed to approve all discs prior to the round.
Granted, I read the rule that way too at first, but thinking about it, it just makes more sense the other way.

I'm talking about a literal reading of what the words say, not what the Rules Committee may have intended, nor how it's likely to be invoked.

"Is illegal" implies an immediate change in status, and "subsequently" implies a change in status sometime in the future.

The most generous interpretation I see is that the player continues using the disc, and the when the TD subsequently approves it, that approval is retroactive back to the moment when the disc declared illegal.

I haven't read the entire revised rulebook so don't know if other rules apply. Short of that, this looks to me to be a poorly-worded rule.

The assumption is probably that a disc can't be questioned except for specific reasons---non-approved model, weight not marked, no identifying mark, broken plate, etc. Is the rule clear on this?

[JoakimBL]

I actually think the wording is fine. As JenB points out, the disc is only illegal, if it isn't approved by the the TD at some point in time, after it the legality has been questioned. If the TD approves the disc after the round, the disc was never illegal to use.

However, there is a risk associated with using the disc after it has been questioned, that may or may not have been intentional. If you lose the disc, the TD cannot approve it, and it then becomes illegal, and you risk beeing DQ'ed. If the disc gets damaged to the point where it becomes illegal after it has been questioned, what then?

[wsfaplau]

I'm not sure how the wording is fine if it still leaves unanswered questions and is open to multiple conflicting interpretations.

Here is yet another option. That might be better than stepping aside until you can get a ruling.

Just play provisionals on the holes you used that disc on.

Of course sending a question to the rules committee would clear it up.
I'll send one off and post the response

[JoakimBL]

Writing rules that cannot be msinterpreted by those who lack reading comprehension skills is impossible. (No offense to anyone here intended at all) I agree there are some details that could use som clarification, but to me the rule is pretty cut and dry. The rule says unless, NOT until. If the TD approves the disc it is not and have not been illegal to use.
However, it should be clarified what the procedure should be for making the TD approve the disc. Who is responsible? How do you make sure the disc that is checked is the exact same as the one questioned and how do you keep track of the throws used by each questioned disc and the possible resulting penalties. But that is not the rules so much as the competition manual I think. If those questions aren't answered in the competition manual, which I don't remember reading, maybe the RC haven't thought this rule through enough? But I still think the rule is pretty clear, if you read it literally.

[wsfaplau]

I heard back from the rules committee.

Paraphrasing...

This isn't new. Last year's rules say basically the same thing.
They see it as a minor issue that wasn't prioritized to clean up but might in the future.
While it might seem to give power to a malicious player it would be a hard thing to pull off.
A TD or PDGA could discipline a player who abuses the rule and since so few unapproved discs are around it would be hard to convince anyone you really thought a particular disc was illegal.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

A TD or PDGA could discipline a player who abuses the rule and since so few unapproved discs are around it would be hard to convince anyone you really thought a particular disc was illegal.

Can you be certain of the bold part?

There are a fair number of overweight Wizards and Aviars and other putters out there. They're technically illegal.

Any disc which has had its "original flight characteristics altered" is also technically an illegal disc (with no reasonable method to verify).

[wsfaplau]

The only thing I am certain of is that I accurately paraphrased what I heard back from the rules committee and didn't offer my own opinion.

[16670]

hypothetical sitiation-
Frank,Tom,Bill,and Dave are playing a sanctioned tournament round.They have played many tournament rounds together but not always on the same card.Frank and Tom have had issues with each other before and prefer to not have to play together.But Frank and Tom both get along fine with Bill and Dave.Lets assume its the final round and this is the lead card. Frank and Tom are tied for 3rd with Bill and Dave well ahead fighting for the lead on hole 18. Hole 18 is not an easy birdie almost everyone gets a 3 slightly uphill 450' with a few smaller trees along the sides Bill and Dave both throw good shots to 100-140' short and to the right of the pin.Frank throws a good shot to 130' but towards the left side.Tom then throws and hits one of the trees on the left 200' back.They all start to walk down the fairway headed to there discs Frank and Tom kinda towards the left Bill and Dave kinda to the right.Tom gets to his disc that is under the tree everyone stops waits,Tom gets down a knee and throws a forehand that holes out from 200".Frank turns around and tells Bill and Dave" i called him on a footfault before it even hit the basket did you hear me?" Now lets say that both Bill and Dave wear earbuds with music while playing. Tom says he didnt footfault and that Frank never called him on anything.Frank swears on his mother that he did.whats the call?
Could anyone tell me how this couldnt happen with the current rule?

I think if the first occurance is not seconded there should not be a re-throw but only a warning
If the first occurance is seconded then a re-throw and the warning are called for

[wsfaplau]

Yes, this could happen and there are countless other ways a devious player(s) could impact someone in the way you describe, however, I've been playing for a long time and have never heard of such deviousness. And as a former chair of the PDGA disciplinary committee I have heard my share of incident reports.

But yes, in theory, that could happen.

I like your suggestion though.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

Yes, this could happen and there are countless other ways a devious player(s) could impact someone in the way you describe, however, I've been playing for a long time and have never heard of such deviousness. And as a former chair of the PDGA disciplinary committee I have heard my share of incident reports.

But yes, in theory, that could happen.

I like your suggestion though.

Such deviousness couldn't be accomplished as described in years past because prior to last Tuesday, in order to validly call and enforce a stance violation, one required a second. Frank would have needed assistance from Bill or Dave or even Tom in order for the call to stand. If he didn't get it, no foul and the group moves on.

Now, if it's the first violation of the round for the offending player, no second is needed. Frank says he called the violation, so Tom has to re-throw. Doesn't matter if Tom didn't hear him initially and it doesn't matter if Bill and Dave saw the violation or heard the call. Frank called it, which is all that is necessary according to the way the rule is now written.

I think that's a situation ripe for abuse. I'm sure the go to defense will be that if a player "abuses" this rule, he's subject to DQ or discipline for mis-using the rules. Good luck proving the "abuse". It can only happen once per round, so it will be hard to even trace whether it's habitual. And doesn't the mere threat of it being perceived to be one player working another mean that players are going to be even more hesitant to make legitimate calls than they might have been in the past when it did require two witnesses? This new rule is really not a step forward and it certainly isn't going to make stance violations easier to call.

[cwmwhipp]

801.03 Artificial Devices

During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may directly assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin (such as gloves, tape, bandages, or gauze) and medical items (such as knee or ankle braces). Placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed. An item such as a towel or a pad may be placed on the lie as long as it is not greater than one centimeter in thickness when compressed.

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

A player shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed at any time during a round to be using an illegal artificial device. A player who repeatedly uses an illegal device may be subject to disqualification in accordance with Section 3.3 of the PDGA Competition Manual.

Can we now use range finders or something similar during a round? These were previously not allowed but I see no mention of them now.

[wsfaplau]

Originally Posted by cwmwhipp

801.03 Artificial Devices

During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may directly assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin (such as gloves, tape, bandages, or gauze) and medical items (such as knee or ankle braces). Placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed. An item such as a towel or a pad may be placed on the lie as long as it is not greater than one centimeter in thickness when compressed.

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

A player shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed at any time during a round to be using an illegal artificial device. A player who repeatedly uses an illegal device may be subject to disqualification in accordance with Section 3.3 of the PDGA Competition Manual.

Can we now use range finders or something similar during a round? These were previously not allowed but I see no mention of them now.

yes you may

[wsfaplau]

Originally Posted by jconnell

Such deviousness couldn't be accomplished as described in years past because prior to last Tuesday, in order to validly call and enforce a stance violation, one required a second. Frank would have needed assistance from Bill or Dave or even Tom in order for the call to stand. If he didn't get it, no foul and the group moves on.

Now, if it's the first violation of the round for the offending player, no second is needed. Frank says he called the violation, so Tom has to re-throw. Doesn't matter if Tom didn't hear him initially and it doesn't matter if Bill and Dave saw the violation or heard the call. Frank called it, which is all that is necessary according to the way the rule is now written.

I think that's a situation ripe for abuse. I'm sure the go to defense will be that if a player "abuses" this rule, he's subject to DQ or discipline for mis-using the rules. Good luck proving the "abuse". It can only happen once per round, so it will be hard to even trace whether it's habitual. And doesn't the mere threat of it being perceived to be one player working another mean that players are going to be even more hesitant to make legitimate calls than they might have been in the past when it did require two witnesses? This new rule is really not a step forward and it certainly isn't going to make stance violations easier to call.

The deviousness could have happened in the past with a guy and a buddy and didn't.
Only time will tell how this plays out but I don't think it will be much of an issue.

We'll see though

[scarson]

It appears that an error has been made regarding the omission of a definition for falling putt in the rule book. The Summary of Rules Changes states that a definition was added for Falling Putt. However, it looks like the definition for Putt (falling) from the 2012 rules was removed and not replaced with a falling putt definition.

Does the definition from 2012 remain the same for 2013?

[scarson]

For an mobile friendly version of the PDGA Rules please check out (and bookmark) http://m.4pdga.com

Please let me know if anyone notices any problems with this version.

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by jconnell

[...]Doesn't matter if Tom didn't hear him initially and it doesn't matter if Bill and Dave saw the violation or heard the call. Frank called it, which is all that is necessary according to the way the rule is now written.
[...]

Where do you read that it doesn't matter if anyone heard the initial call? I'll argue if no one heard a valid call, it wasn't called.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

Where do you read that it doesn't matter if anyone heard the initial call? I'll argue if no one heard a valid call, it wasn't called.

No one heard the initial call, but it seems to me that he's making the case he made a call, which to me is enough to say he made the call. Remember, they removed the 3-second rule, replacing it with "promptly". He made the call "promptly", and because the initial call apparently went unheard, he's repeating the call, also "promptly". This hypothetical doesn't say he waited until 10 minutes later to argue, I have to assume he's doing it immediately after the shot in question. He's not going to let the player pick up his mark and his bag and start walking away if he's trying to argue there was a violation.

I guess my counter question should be where do you see that the initial call has to be heard to be valid? If that's a requirement, perhaps the earbud wearing players deserve courtesy violations for failing to listen...or maybe earbuds and music players should be disallowed so that players can hear calls in situations like this. (just to be clear, I'm not advocating banning earbuds and the like, just demonstrating that it isn't 100% on the calling player to ensure he's heard when making a call)

Bottom line is this...the initial call does not have to be THE call. If no one heard that, his repeating it to be heard is just as valid a call as the first one, especially with the 3-second limitation no longer in place.

[JoakimBL]

I'm guessing my argument is that exactly because of the situation you describe you have to make the initial call in such a way that there cannot be a dispute over whether or not the call was made "promptly" and not just after it was observed to go in the basket and it would suit the calling player to call a fault.
To be clear, I think it's a bad rule change all together, but there is no need to make it worse by allowing a call to stand, just because someone claims they called it properly. I'm not saying your interpretation is not valid, just that it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, so it's just your interpretation

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

I'm guessing my argument is that exactly because of the situation you describe you have to make the initial call in such a way that there cannot be a dispute over whether or not the call was made "promptly" and not just after it was observed to go in the basket and it would suit the calling player to call a fault.
To be clear, I think it's a bad rule change all together, but there is no need to make it worse by allowing a call to stand, just because someone claims they called it properly. I'm not saying your interpretation is not valid, just that it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, so it's just your interpretation

It also is not (and has never been) explicitly stated in the rules that the outcome of the shot means anything in terms of the validity of the call. I know that's what the whole 3 second thing was intended to do when it was there, but it seems to me that removing the exact time element from the rule is intended to relax the timing required to make a call. Therefore, whether the player made the initial unheard call at all is irrelevant to whether or not calling the violation again so that it can be heard is valid.

Unless the player making the call is waiting for maximum effect and allowing the throwing player to remove his mark and move away from the position before making (or re-iterating) the call, I don't think promptness is at issue.

All that said, I agree that the changes to this rule are poorly thought out. Both the removal of the 3-second window and the removal of the need for a second in the case of first offense of the round do more to cloud and complicate the application of the rules than to simplify and streamline them.

[araydallas]

Originally Posted by scarson

It appears that an error has been made regarding the omission of a definition for falling putt in the rule book. The Summary of Rules Changes states that a definition was added for Falling Putt. However, it looks like the definition for Putt (falling) from the 2012 rules was removed and not replaced with a falling putt definition.

Does the definition from 2012 remain the same for 2013?

See Definitions in rule 800.02

[jconnell]

scarson is right. The only appearance of the term "falling putt" in the book appears in the summary of changes section. It does not appear in the Definitions nor in the sections of the book that address stance.

[araydallas]

Originally Posted by jconnell

scarson is right. The only appearance of the term "falling putt" in the book appears in the summary of changes section. It does not appear in the Definitions nor in the sections of the book that address stance.

I see now. I have the mobile version and "Falling putt" was *asterisked, indicating it was inadvertently left out of the hard copy version.

[cdamon]

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

[Captain Bad]

I went to take the Official's Exam today, but it said it was still based on the 2011 rulebook. If I take the 2011 exam now, will it be valid? Is there a plan to release a 2013 Rules-based exam in the near future? If so, should I just wait until it's released to take the test?

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by Captain Bad

I went to take the Official's Exam today, but it said it was still based on the 2011 rulebook. If I take the 2011 exam now, will it be valid? Is there a plan to release a 2013 Rules-based exam in the near future? If so, should I just wait until it's released to take the test?

They're not requiring those that passed the exam in 2011 or 2012 to re-test for 2013, so I think you'll be good to take the 2011 test. I just hope you have a copy of the 2011 book to which you can refer if need be, since it's obviously no longer available online. (and oddly, they've removed the link to the history of the rules page that had every version of the book dating back to the beginning available for browsing)