Approved 2013 rules revision

[wsfaplau]

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

.... 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.
...

Give players penalty flags they can throw like football coaches to get a review!!!

[araydallas]

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

Originally Posted by jconnell

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.

Originally Posted by wsfaplau

Give players penalty flags they can throw like football coaches to get a review!!!

Given all those comments, I do see the confusion and possible arguments that might ensue. I know Pete was "semi-"joking but perhaps some type of visible signal along with the verbal call could be a way to make it clear that you're calling a violation. Maybe a fist in the air, maybe pointing at the thrower & marker, or something like that. It wouldn't be required, but just like one way of demonstrating balance inside the circle is to put both feet on the ground behind the marker and picking it up, one way to verify a violation is called is the "double fist pump in the air" or some similar signal together with the prompt verbal call.

[pterodactyl]

Do the discount double-check move!

[PhattD]

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?

Requiring initials or a signature would prevent someone from heading up to tourney central with the card while you're cleaning up a short putt and turning in the card before you had a chance to look at it. I wouldn't have a problem with someone telling me the card got turned in before he looked at it and wants to check his score. If you sign it or initial it first then you clearly had a chance to look it over.

[NateB]

Is the "line of play" still defined as a line drawn from the target through the center of the disc or marker if the hole is horse shoe shaped?

[krupicka]

The line of play is still the line drawn from the target through the center of the disc regardless of the shape of the fairway (except of course if there is a Mando).

[NateB]

There is no mention of mando in the definition of line of play.

[krupicka]

It's not in the definitions, but it is in 804.02.F

The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by NateB

There is no mention of mando in the definition of line of play.

Per 800.02, the line of play is "[t]he imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond."

Per 804.02F, "the nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory."

[JenniferB]

If the legality of a player's disc is questioned. May the player take a provisional to play a hole using the the disc, and thus suffer no penalty if the disc is subsequently declared illegal by the TD?

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

If the legality of a player's disc is questioned. May the player take a provisional to play a hole using the the disc, and thus suffer no penalty if the disc is subsequently declared illegal by the TD?

No. If an illegal disc is used in play, the throw counts and it is penalized. If the player disputes the ruling of the group (in other words, he wants to throw the disc in question), then he does so at the risk of being penalized for it if the TD agrees that the disc is illegal.

It isn't a matter of the disc's position being in dispute and each side of the dispute results in a different position from which the player establishes his lie. The lie remains the same whether the disc is declared legal or illegal. A provisional is superfluous.

[JenniferB]

What if a player's disc is challenged, so he throws a different disc, but then there is a dispute whether it lands ob and the player declares a provisional and uses the challenged disc for the provisional. Then it turns out the disc is illegal and his disc did land OB. The provisional throw doesn't count, but does the player still take 2 penalty throws?

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

What if a player's disc is challenged, so he throws a different disc, but then there is a dispute whether it lands ob and the player declares a provisional and uses the challenged disc for the provisional. Then it turns out the disc is illegal and his disc did land OB. The provisional throw doesn't count, but does the player still take 2 penalty throws?

Provisional shots that aren't counted can't really be penalized, since by discarding them, it is as if they never happened. But in your proposed scenario, there should be two sets of provisional throws, one as if the initial shot was in-bounds, one as if the initial shot was out-of-bounds. So choose wisely when deciding which set of provisional shots on which to use the illegal disc. If that set is the one that counts, it warrants the additional two-throw penalty.

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by jconnell

No. If an illegal disc is used in play, the throw counts and it is penalized. If the player disputes the ruling of the group (in other words, he wants to throw the disc in question), then he does so at the risk of being penalized for it if the TD agrees that the disc is illegal.

It isn't a matter of the disc's position being in dispute and each side of the dispute results in a different position from which the player establishes his lie. The lie remains the same whether the disc is declared legal or illegal. A provisional is superfluous.

If your interpretation is correct, and I'm not in agreement that it is, instead of throwing the provisional, the player should just call an official and get a ruling.