PDGA Rules History

cgkdisc · Dec 14 2009, 04:19 PM

The history of the five major rules updates since the original 1982 rules has been posted on the PDGA site here: http://www.pdga.com/rules/pdga-rules-history

A story has been posted on the PDGA Home page with an overview of the rules changes thru the years. I dug thru the archives and managed to find these books, scanned them and converted the text into MS Word. Then, I went thru and highlighted all of the changes from the previous book using blue text and highlighted completely new rules or sections in red.

I've also provided a grid that shows the terminology additions in the Glossary or Definitions in each update. There's also a timetable that highlights specific changes in concepts that were made or added in each rules statement from edition to edition. Hopefully this will help the RC as it embarks on their updating effort this coming year.

reallybadputter · Dec 14 2009, 09:06 PM

Ok, looking at the logic of the original falling putt rule:

7.0 FALLING PUTT
1. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to touch any of the area in front of a line
perpendicular to the direction of the throw, drawn through the lie, constitutes a falling putt and is not
allowed. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.
2. A warning will be given by any member of the foursome with all members of the foursome advised
of the warning. There will be no penalty; however, a re-throw must be taken if the illegal putt was
successful.
3. A one-throw penalty will be assessed for all subsequent occurrences in the same round by three (3)
members of the foursome or PDGA Official. A re-throw will be required of all successful falling putts.

How did it get changed to the getting to re-throw even the one that misses? If the 1st version had never been in the rules, I could understand the current rule...that an illegal throw can never be used... but the change to the current rule means that you could benefit from your violation...

I get it less now that I know that it used to be how I think it should be...

cgkdisc · Dec 14 2009, 09:18 PM

In theory, a rule should be based on the whether an action was legal or not and not what happened after the fault.

stevenpwest · Dec 15 2009, 10:54 AM

Nice work. And I do mean work. This is just an example of the amount of work it takes to review the rules. Imagine testing every proposed rule against all situations mentioned in the forum?

reallybadputter · Dec 15 2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

In theory, a rule should be based on the whether an action was legal or not and not what happened after the fault.

Why? Many, many other sports make the call that actions after the violation change the outcome.

The obvious ones:

Football... you jump offside on D and I get a free play... I can decline the penalty...

ok that involves a choice by the opposition... so:

Basketball... you put up a jumper and I hit your elbow... foul called... whistle blows... ball goes in... by your logic you should go to the line and shoot 2... the ball going in doesn't count.

Hockey... you slash me as I enter the zone ref raises his arm to indicate a penalty... if I score anyway, you don't go to the box

Soccer... I foul you, but you keep control and are better off if the ref doesn't stop play... ref calls advantage based on what is happening immediately after the foul...

In all these cases the rules allow a different or no enforcement if the result of the play if the result of the play is more advantageous to the opponents of the violator that it would be if play stopped at the time of the violation.

cgkdisc · Dec 15 2009, 07:30 PM

My point is more about your assumption that combining the outcome with the foul was "better" than not. I would think that rules should start from the point where the consequences of a foul would be the same regardless of the outcome UNLESS a case could be made where the consequences should be different based on the outcome. I think the RC wanted to avoid the situation where a player who observed a foot fault wouldn't wait for the outcome to decide to call it.

Try to find examples in individual sports because when playing against a team or other player, there's an interaction where a fault on one side impacts the other side and a choice could be involved. In golf, it's primarily the player against the course.

reallybadputter · Dec 15 2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

I think the RC wanted to avoid the situation where a player who observed a foot fault wouldn't wait for the outcome to decide to call it.

However, on the first violation of a falling putt, that is exactly what the rules are currently encouraging me to do.

Assuming nothing has been called earlier in the round:

Right now, say my opponent is 15 feet out, kneeling under a pine tree and has to lean out at a funny angle to get a clean putt from down low... He throws his putt and hits low, missing, but falls forward onto his hands.

The current rules almost encourage the following mental process: "Was that just a falling putt? Should I call the falling putt? Give him another free shot at the birdie? But he missed the shot, why should he get another that he'll make easily since he had a practice shot just because he committed a violation? Well, the rules say that I should call the falling putt anyway... Oh darn... that was more than 3 seconds and the rules say that it has to be called within 3 seconds... too bad so sad..."

I say if he misses a falling putt, play it as it lies. Note the warning on the record.

Or maybe stop coddling players and giving them a warning on foot faults... just make the first violation a stroke, problem solved.

JohnLambert · Dec 16 2009, 12:51 AM

I've found myself browsing through looking for old rule books before. I've used archives such as http://web.archive.org/web/199904281...framerule.html but it only goes back as far as 1998. Nice job Chuck!

Alacrity · Dec 16 2009, 02:15 PM

Talking about the falling putt, I recently played with someone who did exactly as described, he fell forward after the putt and called himself. The putt did miss. He was a bit upset when no one seconded. With the current rule, it behooves a player to call himself once per round on a missed putt if he/she believes it is makeable. We can dicuss whether this is honorable or not, but the rule allows this to be done AND does give a player, willing to use this, an advantage.

Chuck, great bit of work. I have been looking for something like this for some time. Thank you.

bruce_brakel · Dec 21 2009, 01:37 AM

Good move in getting a link on the rules page too.

Dec 14 2009, 04:19 PM	#1
cgkdisc PDGA Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 6,220	PDGA Rules History The history of the five major rules updates since the original 1982 rules has been posted on the PDGA site here: http://www.pdga.com/rules/pdga-rules-history A story has been posted on the PDGA Home page with an overview of the rules changes thru the years. I dug thru the archives and managed to find these books, scanned them and converted the text into MS Word. Then, I went thru and highlighted all of the changes from the previous book using blue text and highlighted completely new rules or sections in red. I've also provided a grid that shows the terminology additions in the Glossary or Definitions in each update. There's also a timetable that highlights specific changes in concepts that were made or added in each rules statement from edition to edition. Hopefully this will help the RC as it embarks on their updating effort this coming year. __________________ Rater of the tossed arc.

Dec 14 2009, 09:18 PM	#3
cgkdisc PDGA Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 6,220	In theory, a rule should be based on the whether an action was legal or not and not what happened after the fault. __________________ Rater of the tossed arc.

Dec 15 2009, 07:30 PM	#6
cgkdisc PDGA Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 6,220	My point is more about your assumption that combining the outcome with the foul was "better" than not. I would think that rules should start from the point where the consequences of a foul would be the same regardless of the outcome UNLESS a case could be made where the consequences should be different based on the outcome. I think the RC wanted to avoid the situation where a player who observed a foot fault wouldn't wait for the outcome to decide to call it. Try to find examples in individual sports because when playing against a team or other player, there's an interaction where a fault on one side impacts the other side and a choice could be involved. In golf, it's primarily the player against the course. __________________ Rater of the tossed arc.

Dec 21 2009, 01:37 AM	#10
bruce_brakel PDGA Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Dying More Discs Posts: 5,571	Good move in getting a link on the rules page too. __________________ Circuit court staff attorney - 25 years. My judge must retire. Looking for employment.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Dec 14 2009, 09:06 PM	#2
reallybadputter PDGA Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 269	Ok, looking at the logic of the original falling putt rule: 7.0 FALLING PUTT 1. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to touch any of the area in front of a line perpendicular to the direction of the throw, drawn through the lie, constitutes a falling putt and is not allowed. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole. 2. A warning will be given by any member of the foursome with all members of the foursome advised of the warning. There will be no penalty; however, a re-throw must be taken if the illegal putt was successful. 3. A one-throw penalty will be assessed for all subsequent occurrences in the same round by three (3) members of the foursome or PDGA Official. A re-throw will be required of all successful falling putts. How did it get changed to the getting to re-throw even the one that misses? If the 1st version had never been in the rules, I could understand the current rule...that an illegal throw can never be used... but the change to the current rule means that you could benefit from your violation... I get it less now that I know that it used to be how I think it should be...

Dec 15 2009, 10:54 AM	#4
stevenpwest PDGA Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 190	Nice work. And I do mean work. This is just an example of the amount of work it takes to review the rules. Imagine testing every proposed rule against all situations mentioned in the forum?

Dec 16 2009, 12:51 AM	#8
JohnLambert PDGA Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Visalia, California Posts: 366	I've found myself browsing through looking for old rule books before. I've used archives such as http://web.archive.org/web/199904281...framerule.html but it only goes back as far as 1998. Nice job Chuck!

Dec 16 2009, 02:15 PM	#9
Alacrity PDGA Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Tyler, Texas Posts: 1,771	Talking about the falling putt, I recently played with someone who did exactly as described, he fell forward after the putt and called himself. The putt did miss. He was a bit upset when no one seconded. With the current rule, it behooves a player to call himself once per round on a missed putt if he/she believes it is makeable. We can dicuss whether this is honorable or not, but the rule allows this to be done AND does give a player, willing to use this, an advantage. Chuck, great bit of work. I have been looking for something like this for some time. Thank you.