keithjohnson
Dec 07 2005, 10:57 AM
why has not much been said about the 2 bigger changes in the rules book for 2006?
gnduke
Dec 07 2005, 11:09 AM
Enlighten us. I have yet to see a 2006 rule book.
neonnoodle
Dec 07 2005, 11:42 AM
Enlighten us. I have yet to see a 2006 rule book.
I think he's talking about the pink cover and the lack of use of capitol letters.... :D
I think he's talking about the pink cover and the lack of use of capitol letters.... :D
Sharky
Dec 07 2005, 11:44 AM
One major rule change is that when a disc is lost the only option will be stroke and distance, deciding where the majority of the group last saw it inbounds will be history. (This was told to me by a reliable source.)
gnduke
Dec 07 2005, 11:52 AM
I had heard this was a possible change, and it was discussed in an earlier thread. I personally thought it would be a bad change that could cause more problems than it fixed. But that was just my opinion on it.
It has already been discussed, and I haven't seen the rules changes yet.
It has already been discussed, and I haven't seen the rules changes yet.
Dec 07 2005, 12:23 PM
This is a great idea I am all in favor of any rule that puts fair back in the game. Look at GOLF those cats are expected to call rules infractions on themself, when was the last time you played a tournament and someone called themself for anything?
sandalman
Dec 07 2005, 12:56 PM
One major rule change is that when a disc is lost the only option will be stroke and distance, deciding where the majority of the group last saw it inbounds will be history. (This was told to me by a reliable source.)
the 2MR afficianados are silent on this because we have learned common sense does not get you anywhere when it comes to rules changes.
i tee off. the disc never shows up. i have to walk back to the box and throw again, laying two??? wtf!
that the exact double jeopardy situation that the anti-2MR zealots used to lay waste to the principle of playing it where it lies.
so why should anyone comment on the rules changes? at this rate there will be some new body that makes sensible rules and the pdga can focus on moving the game forward (which it is doing very nicely) rather than constantly tweaking rules.
the 2MR afficianados are silent on this because we have learned common sense does not get you anywhere when it comes to rules changes.
i tee off. the disc never shows up. i have to walk back to the box and throw again, laying two??? wtf!
that the exact double jeopardy situation that the anti-2MR zealots used to lay waste to the principle of playing it where it lies.
so why should anyone comment on the rules changes? at this rate there will be some new body that makes sensible rules and the pdga can focus on moving the game forward (which it is doing very nicely) rather than constantly tweaking rules.
rhett
Dec 07 2005, 01:41 PM
Look at GOLF those cats are expected to call rules infractions on themself, when was the last time you played a tournament and someone called themself for anything?
When was the last time some cat at the local muni ball golf course called himself on a rule? You wil see ten thousand kicks to improve the lie and "free drops" there before you see a self-called rule.
There is no disc golf equivalent of the PGA tour, where the economics dictate that you would have to be a retarded [I'm a potty-mouth!] to risk next week's (and the week after that, and the week after that...) potential monetary windfall by trying to shave a stroke this week. You can't compare that with anything in disc golf.
When was the last time some cat at the local muni ball golf course called himself on a rule? You wil see ten thousand kicks to improve the lie and "free drops" there before you see a self-called rule.
There is no disc golf equivalent of the PGA tour, where the economics dictate that you would have to be a retarded [I'm a potty-mouth!] to risk next week's (and the week after that, and the week after that...) potential monetary windfall by trying to shave a stroke this week. You can't compare that with anything in disc golf.
AviarX
Dec 07 2005, 01:42 PM
the 2MR afficianados are silent on this because we have learned common sense does not get you anywhere when it comes to rules changes.
common sense says that the 2 meter rule should not be force-fed on all TD's and all courses -- but should instead, like OB, be up to TD discretion. Trees are obstacles and eliminating the 2 meter rule does not eliminate the tree-as-obstacle.
common sense says that the 2 meter rule should not be force-fed on all TD's and all courses -- but should instead, like OB, be up to TD discretion. Trees are obstacles and eliminating the 2 meter rule does not eliminate the tree-as-obstacle.
rhett
Dec 07 2005, 01:43 PM
the 2MR afficianados are silent on this because we have learned common sense does not get you anywhere when it comes to rules changes.
common sense says that the 2 meter rule should not be force-fed on all TD's and all courses -- but should instead, like OB, be up to TD discretion. Trees are obstacles and eliminating the 2 meter rule does not eliminate the tree-as-obstacle.
blah frickin' blah.
common sense says that the 2 meter rule should not be force-fed on all TD's and all courses -- but should instead, like OB, be up to TD discretion. Trees are obstacles and eliminating the 2 meter rule does not eliminate the tree-as-obstacle.
blah frickin' blah.
AviarX
Dec 07 2005, 01:59 PM
:D it looks like you are slipping in and out of your admin. hat nicely Rhett.
rhett
Dec 07 2005, 02:03 PM
:D
quickdisc
Dec 07 2005, 04:44 PM
" Common sense says that the 2 meter rule should not be force-fed on all TD's and all courses -- but should instead, like OB, be up to TD discretion. Trees are obstacles and eliminating the 2 meter rule does not eliminate the tree-as-obstacle."
Nice. It should be Ultimately up to the TD's discretion , if trees are to be considered OB.
Played a recent tournament at beautiful La Mirada and even though there was no mention of a 2MR on trees , on the entry form, it was mentioned at the players meeting. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Nice. It should be Ultimately up to the TD's discretion , if trees are to be considered OB.
Played a recent tournament at beautiful La Mirada and even though there was no mention of a 2MR on trees , on the entry form, it was mentioned at the players meeting. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
denny1210
Dec 08 2005, 12:16 AM
Thanks Keith for starting the thread.
1) I used to be strongly in favor of the 2 meter rule. Leading up to the Players Cup I was in favor of using it. I was persuaded, largely by the decision not to use it at USDGC. I've come to believe that TD's can best determine which cases are best served and using it selectively.
2) While the change in interpretation of the OB line may be confusing in the short run, I do feel that our long run objectives are best served by following the model of golf in most cases, however
3) I do not feel that our interests are best served by adopting the stroke and distance rule for lost discs. In pro golf tournaments balls are rarely lost. When they are lost it's usually because the ball has found an area far removed from the usual area of play. They have thousands of spectator/spotters. In disc golf, a disc can be lost that's withing 20 ft. of the fairway. In most cases there are one or two spotters max per hole. I believe that the S&D penalty for a disc that ticks a tree on the edge of the fairway and shoots into the abyss is too severe. Yes, there is uncertainty about where to spot a lost disc, but the player has already incurred a penalty stroke and lost one of their favorite discs - that's enough.
I do feel that there is room in disc golf for S&D OB hazards that are different from normal "Lateral" hazards. This has already been invoked by TD mandatory re-tee holes and could be formalized in the rules.
1) I used to be strongly in favor of the 2 meter rule. Leading up to the Players Cup I was in favor of using it. I was persuaded, largely by the decision not to use it at USDGC. I've come to believe that TD's can best determine which cases are best served and using it selectively.
2) While the change in interpretation of the OB line may be confusing in the short run, I do feel that our long run objectives are best served by following the model of golf in most cases, however
3) I do not feel that our interests are best served by adopting the stroke and distance rule for lost discs. In pro golf tournaments balls are rarely lost. When they are lost it's usually because the ball has found an area far removed from the usual area of play. They have thousands of spectator/spotters. In disc golf, a disc can be lost that's withing 20 ft. of the fairway. In most cases there are one or two spotters max per hole. I believe that the S&D penalty for a disc that ticks a tree on the edge of the fairway and shoots into the abyss is too severe. Yes, there is uncertainty about where to spot a lost disc, but the player has already incurred a penalty stroke and lost one of their favorite discs - that's enough.
I do feel that there is room in disc golf for S&D OB hazards that are different from normal "Lateral" hazards. This has already been invoked by TD mandatory re-tee holes and could be formalized in the rules.
scottfaison
Dec 08 2005, 05:20 PM
Very interesting points there Denny...one thing that rule would do though is to make sure that the group as a whole is actually watching all the shots thwron instead of standing around oblivious...on course ettiquette is an area that we need to enforce more as golfers..
james_mccaine
Dec 08 2005, 05:30 PM
While the change in interpretation of the OB line may be confusing
What is the change?
What is the change?
rhett
Dec 08 2005, 05:33 PM
...one thing that rule would do though is to make sure that the group as a whole is actually watching all the shots thwron instead of standing around oblivious...
I don't quite follow how the change is going to effect this change. The throwers actions result in a penalty for the thrower. The non-watchers have no moe buy-in than they do now.
I don't quite follow how the change is going to effect this change. The throwers actions result in a penalty for the thrower. The non-watchers have no moe buy-in than they do now.
Moderator005
Dec 08 2005, 05:40 PM
...one thing that rule would do though is to make sure that the group as a whole is actually watching all the shots thwron instead of standing around oblivious...
I don't quite follow how the change is going to effect this change. The throwers actions result in a penalty for the thrower. The non-watchers have no moe buy-in than they do now.
Seriously. Especially ultra-competitive golfers may be tempted to watch their fellow competitors even less, since the penalty is harsher because the thrower goes all the way back to the old lie. Previously, he played it from where it was last seen.
I don't quite follow how the change is going to effect this change. The throwers actions result in a penalty for the thrower. The non-watchers have no moe buy-in than they do now.
Seriously. Especially ultra-competitive golfers may be tempted to watch their fellow competitors even less, since the penalty is harsher because the thrower goes all the way back to the old lie. Previously, he played it from where it was last seen.
ck34
Dec 08 2005, 05:46 PM
What is the change?
The OB line will now be OB instead of in. It think the RC messed up on this one after talking with Harold. In theory, it's supposed to help with fences. However, thay didn't make the change that goes along with it that allows surfaces (like fences) to be called OB rather than using verticality which is still in there. In other words, you could call the fence line OB under the new interpretation in 2006, but if the fance is not perfectly vertical, a shot that hits the fance on a side that's leaning could still be considered the last point IB even though the TD erroneously thought the fence itself was the OB line.
For the confusion it's going to bring, I don't see much benefit in making the line OB instead of IB. I'm pretty sure you'll hear some arguments next year where someone thinks that touching the line automatically makes the disc straddling it OB. However, it still remains that if any part of the disc is still IB, the disc is IB.
The OB line will now be OB instead of in. It think the RC messed up on this one after talking with Harold. In theory, it's supposed to help with fences. However, thay didn't make the change that goes along with it that allows surfaces (like fences) to be called OB rather than using verticality which is still in there. In other words, you could call the fence line OB under the new interpretation in 2006, but if the fance is not perfectly vertical, a shot that hits the fance on a side that's leaning could still be considered the last point IB even though the TD erroneously thought the fence itself was the OB line.
For the confusion it's going to bring, I don't see much benefit in making the line OB instead of IB. I'm pretty sure you'll hear some arguments next year where someone thinks that touching the line automatically makes the disc straddling it OB. However, it still remains that if any part of the disc is still IB, the disc is IB.
sandalman
Dec 08 2005, 05:49 PM
sounds like the RC is basically oh-fer the last year or so.
ck34
Dec 08 2005, 05:54 PM
Well, we did get clarification on the mando issue. If your disc just crosses the good side of the line during the throw, you made the mando even if the disc curls back across the good or bad side of the line because it hit a limb or tree that knocked it back before it stops moving. However, if you cross the "missed" side of the mando line and bounce back, you get the benefit of the doubt and haven't missed the mando (yet).
gnduke
Dec 08 2005, 06:00 PM
Really a strange way to go. Being able to declare a nearly vertical surface as IB or OB would have been a better option.
I think the TDs should be given the freedom and responsibility of declaring the OB lines as most appropriate. The ability to declare the OB side of the fence as OB, and the IB side as IB regardless of the verticality or flex of the fence is all that was really needed.
I think the TDs should be given the freedom and responsibility of declaring the OB lines as most appropriate. The ability to declare the OB side of the fence as OB, and the IB side as IB regardless of the verticality or flex of the fence is all that was really needed.
james_mccaine
Dec 08 2005, 06:05 PM
sounds like the RC is basically oh-fer the last year or so.
Hahahaha. The Rules Committee kicks asssssss!!!!!!!!! ;)
Hahahaha. The Rules Committee kicks asssssss!!!!!!!!! ;)
sandalman
Dec 08 2005, 06:13 PM
so you think stroke plus distance makes sense for all cases of lost discs? and that is is not a double penalty?
james_mccaine
Dec 08 2005, 06:32 PM
so you think stroke plus distance makes sense for all cases of lost discs?
No, not really. I have always advocated discussing a rule that allowed for no penalty. Where one can rethrow without a penalty, but count the first lost throw as a stroke. You know, effectively a one stroke penalty instead of two. I think it is a good option for certain situations, but that is for another thread.
I see this rule as little different than the previous rule. In fact, in some cases, it may be less onerous than the previous rule. I rarely see lost discs, but when I do, they are usually in the middle of the schule. Oftentimes, if the group follows the rules, the thrower would take a penalty and his next shot would be from the middle of the schule.
Unless his lost throw originated from the schule, this rule might be less punitive than the previous rule.
No, not really. I have always advocated discussing a rule that allowed for no penalty. Where one can rethrow without a penalty, but count the first lost throw as a stroke. You know, effectively a one stroke penalty instead of two. I think it is a good option for certain situations, but that is for another thread.
I see this rule as little different than the previous rule. In fact, in some cases, it may be less onerous than the previous rule. I rarely see lost discs, but when I do, they are usually in the middle of the schule. Oftentimes, if the group follows the rules, the thrower would take a penalty and his next shot would be from the middle of the schule.
Unless his lost throw originated from the schule, this rule might be less punitive than the previous rule.
ck34
Dec 08 2005, 07:16 PM
I don't see why the lost disc rule can't be made similar to the OB rule which has up to three options which can be restricted by the TD where desired. Continue with the lost disc rule like it's been but also allow the rethrow plus penalty just like OB. If the TD feels the current version is too friendly or likely to be abused, they can restrict lost disc on that hole to rethrowing.
I could even see lost disc drop zones, especially for high grass areas. If you find your disc, you get to play it from there. If you can't find it, you take a penalty and play from the drop zone. Lots of times, it's expensive, time consuming and/or difficult to mark large high grass or scrub areas with paint so there can be official OB lines. The drop zone with penalty for losing a disc would be consistent for everyone and save a lot of paint.
Making lost disc like OB would allow rules to be consistent for the options available and better match our varying terrain conditions.
I could even see lost disc drop zones, especially for high grass areas. If you find your disc, you get to play it from there. If you can't find it, you take a penalty and play from the drop zone. Lots of times, it's expensive, time consuming and/or difficult to mark large high grass or scrub areas with paint so there can be official OB lines. The drop zone with penalty for losing a disc would be consistent for everyone and save a lot of paint.
Making lost disc like OB would allow rules to be consistent for the options available and better match our varying terrain conditions.
scottfaison
Dec 08 2005, 07:17 PM
Thanks for your replies to my post...I mistyped it badly..never post and talk to a person in real time at once lol...what I was trying to say is it will make the throwers more aware of making sure others watch the throws since they can penalize them for not watching...not how I originally typed it...I agree tat the way I had it before makes no sense..thanks for pointing out my logic flaw resulting from not typing everything I was thinking :cool:
rhett
Dec 08 2005, 07:27 PM
I rarely see lost discs, but when I do, they are usually in the middle of the schule.
Are you telling me that you intentionally circumvent the rules by allowing a disc that you can see to be called "lost"??? :) :D:)
Are you telling me that you intentionally circumvent the rules by allowing a disc that you can see to be called "lost"??? :) :D:)
quickdisc
Dec 08 2005, 07:45 PM
I rarely see lost discs, but when I do, they are usually in the middle of the schule.
Are you telling me that you intentionally circumvent the rules by allowing a disc that you can see to be called "lost"??? :) :D:)
If you see your disc , but can not physically play from that exact lie , it is considered an unplayable lie. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
If it is not safe to play from there either , same deal. Not worth the risk to play from a unsafe lie.................trust me............I tried this once , and **** near fell of a cliff !!!!! :eek:
Are you telling me that you intentionally circumvent the rules by allowing a disc that you can see to be called "lost"??? :) :D:)
If you see your disc , but can not physically play from that exact lie , it is considered an unplayable lie. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
If it is not safe to play from there either , same deal. Not worth the risk to play from a unsafe lie.................trust me............I tried this once , and **** near fell of a cliff !!!!! :eek:
keithjohnson
Dec 09 2005, 12:27 AM
Enlighten us. I have yet to see a 2006 rule book.
cover is now blue and garnett is now on the rules committee..what 2 things did you think i was speaking of? :eek: :p
:D
cover is now blue and garnett is now on the rules committee..what 2 things did you think i was speaking of? :eek: :p
:D
Dec 09 2005, 05:49 AM
...what I was trying to say is it will make the throwers more aware of making sure others watch the throws since they can penalize them for not watching...
Even if I am compelled to watch your throw it does not mean I will be of any use to you in finding your errant disc. In fact if you've warned me with a courtesy violation for not watching you throw, it's very likely that I'll be searching wherever your disc is not.
Even if I am compelled to watch your throw it does not mean I will be of any use to you in finding your errant disc. In fact if you've warned me with a courtesy violation for not watching you throw, it's very likely that I'll be searching wherever your disc is not.
circlek13783
Dec 09 2005, 09:46 AM
Enlighten us. I have yet to see a 2006 rule book.
cover is now blue and garnett is now on the rules committee..what 2 things did you think i was speaking of? :eek: :p
:D
Am I missing something... Where are these rules posted? My membership package (and the 2006 TD Planning package) states that they would be posted online by 11/30. :mad:
You'd think that as a TD of a major, I might have gotten information on exactly what the changes were. :eek: :o
If they are posted, I appologize. :cool:
cover is now blue and garnett is now on the rules committee..what 2 things did you think i was speaking of? :eek: :p
:D
Am I missing something... Where are these rules posted? My membership package (and the 2006 TD Planning package) states that they would be posted online by 11/30. :mad:
You'd think that as a TD of a major, I might have gotten information on exactly what the changes were. :eek: :o
If they are posted, I appologize. :cool:
underparmike
Dec 09 2005, 12:13 PM
Who are the CLOWNS on the RC? what a bunch of boneheads these guys are. can't they leave well enough alone for one year, and concentrate on eliminating the loopholes in our already existing rules? no, that would only move the sport forward instead of the confusing stupid circles that the RC inflicts on our sport every year.
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
dave_marchant
Dec 09 2005, 01:52 PM
You sound like you are confessing your mental ineptitude moreso than any shortcomings of another party with that rant.
The rules and rules changes are really not that difficult to comprehend for anyone with an IQ over 85.
The rules and rules changes are really not that difficult to comprehend for anyone with an IQ over 85.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 01:53 PM
Who are the CLOWNS on the RC? what a bunch of boneheads these guys are. can't they leave well enough alone for one year, and concentrate on eliminating the loopholes in our already existing rules? no, that would only move the sport forward instead of the confusing stupid circles that the RC inflicts on our sport every year.
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
At the bottome of every Q & A segment in the Rules Q & A section of this website, are listed the people who donate their time and are on this committee:
The PDGA Rules Committee
Carlton Howard
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Dr. Rick Voakes
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
-----------------
to react to a rule change by calling them clowns is not exactly "professional" behavior.
It would be interesting to hear what their debates and thought processes were on the changes -- i know i found Carlton Howard's PDGA radio segment on the 2 meter change last year very informative.
perhaps the idea is that stroke and distance will make the lie for the next throw after a lost disc less based on group subjectivity and less subject to argument. In the few instances where i've seen the lost disc rule apply -- stroke and distance often is less punitive than penalty and play it where it was last seen...
i also like the OB line being OB rule -- it will help clarify how the walls lining the creek on holes 3 and 15 at Idlewild are not IB -- hit the wall and drop in creek and you must play from the tee side of the creek -- you don't get it up on the green...
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
At the bottome of every Q & A segment in the Rules Q & A section of this website, are listed the people who donate their time and are on this committee:
The PDGA Rules Committee
Carlton Howard
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Dr. Rick Voakes
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
-----------------
to react to a rule change by calling them clowns is not exactly "professional" behavior.
It would be interesting to hear what their debates and thought processes were on the changes -- i know i found Carlton Howard's PDGA radio segment on the 2 meter change last year very informative.
perhaps the idea is that stroke and distance will make the lie for the next throw after a lost disc less based on group subjectivity and less subject to argument. In the few instances where i've seen the lost disc rule apply -- stroke and distance often is less punitive than penalty and play it where it was last seen...
i also like the OB line being OB rule -- it will help clarify how the walls lining the creek on holes 3 and 15 at Idlewild are not IB -- hit the wall and drop in creek and you must play from the tee side of the creek -- you don't get it up on the green...
sandalman
Dec 09 2005, 03:19 PM
souldnt that be left to the TD and course designer?
oh, sorry, you do not welcome the "logic" you used for the 2MR discussion here.
oh, sorry, you do not welcome the "logic" you used for the 2MR discussion here.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 04:03 PM
souldnt that be left to the TD and course designer?
oh, sorry, you do not welcome the "logic" you used for the 2MR discussion here.
Pat, maybe like Rhett you ought to lose the admin. hat when you chime in on threads where you are expressing your personal opinion. (unless of course you embrace the 2 meter rule change for 2006 -- then keep it on :D)
i think the 2 meter rule should be up to TD discretion and the default should be no 2 meter rule. i also think the TD should have discretion when possible, and that the RC should set the default scenarios and let TD's work from there. I don't think though that holing out should be up to TD discretion -- i am not that hung up on logical consistency if that is your concern.
oh, sorry, you do not welcome the "logic" you used for the 2MR discussion here.
Pat, maybe like Rhett you ought to lose the admin. hat when you chime in on threads where you are expressing your personal opinion. (unless of course you embrace the 2 meter rule change for 2006 -- then keep it on :D)
i think the 2 meter rule should be up to TD discretion and the default should be no 2 meter rule. i also think the TD should have discretion when possible, and that the RC should set the default scenarios and let TD's work from there. I don't think though that holing out should be up to TD discretion -- i am not that hung up on logical consistency if that is your concern.
sandalman
Dec 09 2005, 04:10 PM
why? are you afraid that i will change your posts? how does the "A" threaten you? besides, i'm not an admin to be a moderator, just to lend techical assistnace when needed.
we have an event here that uses the walls of the creek as IB. if you are over water but hit the bank and bounce back into the drink, then you get to play from that side of the creek.
the rules change takes away that option, removing the TD's ability to set up the course as he/she see fit. the lack of such flexibility was one of your more strident criticisms of the 2MR.
we have an event here that uses the walls of the creek as IB. if you are over water but hit the bank and bounce back into the drink, then you get to play from that side of the creek.
the rules change takes away that option, removing the TD's ability to set up the course as he/she see fit. the lack of such flexibility was one of your more strident criticisms of the 2MR.
ck34
Dec 09 2005, 04:17 PM
It makes the call a little dicier but it doesn't really take away the "bank as IB" option and that's my problem with the new rule only going part way. Very few banks are vertical (and some are undercut) and the vertical plane upward from the water/bank interface will likely not have much "bank" intersecting it. So, I don't see how the rule necessarily changes the option for TDs to have the bank IB. In addition, I doubt the wall Rob is talking about at Idlewild is perfectly plumb vertical. So, it would have been better if the new rules allowed the TD to specify the wall surface as the OB plane to take away any doubt.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 04:26 PM
having an "A" implies special authority. maybe Rhett could tell you his perspective about that. If you were for the 2006 2 meter rule change i might not be so concerned about it :D
as far as flexibility -- i would have preferred the 2 meter rule be thrown out completely -- my decision to favor it being up to TD discretion was based on an interest in compromising (finding a reasonably mutually agreeable solution).
in the past, we had to declare the soil-wall junction as the OB line so that discs hitting the wall and falling in the creek had to be played from the far side of the creek. Since you want the reverse-ruling, maybe you could make the water, wall junction the OB line so that the wall itself is IB.
What I like about the wall being OB on Idlewild hole's 3 and 15 is that it makes you think hard about risk reward when you go for the greens. That way on hole 15 for example if you go for a birdie 4 you risk going OB and taking a circle 6. If the wall was IB then it would be a lot easier to get circle 5's which are pars. Playing it that way makes a birdie more difficult. (the course is designed to challenge the very best).
as far as flexibility -- i would have preferred the 2 meter rule be thrown out completely -- my decision to favor it being up to TD discretion was based on an interest in compromising (finding a reasonably mutually agreeable solution).
in the past, we had to declare the soil-wall junction as the OB line so that discs hitting the wall and falling in the creek had to be played from the far side of the creek. Since you want the reverse-ruling, maybe you could make the water, wall junction the OB line so that the wall itself is IB.
What I like about the wall being OB on Idlewild hole's 3 and 15 is that it makes you think hard about risk reward when you go for the greens. That way on hole 15 for example if you go for a birdie 4 you risk going OB and taking a circle 6. If the wall was IB then it would be a lot easier to get circle 5's which are pars. Playing it that way makes a birdie more difficult. (the course is designed to challenge the very best).
gnduke
Dec 09 2005, 04:34 PM
The fact that most walls are not vertical is the main point for the course Pat is bringing up (at least I think he is talking about Greenbelt). The main advantage to maiking the walls IB is that the player always takes their mark in from the top of the retaining wall, safely on the grass, with plenty of room. If the OB line was changed to a water line (it would be impractical to mark the bricks at the water line throughout the entire course), it makes the OB line an unstable line. It also means that players that are marking lies along the line will be losing around 2' of the 1m they get back from the OB line for safe footing.
I agree that the TD needs to be given the freedom of declaring mostly verticle surfaces as IB or OB, and stating that a disc striking the OB side of a fence is OB no matter how much the fence flexes at impact.
I agree that the rules should cover the general options that a TD has control over, and the default rulings if the TD does not overrule them. It should also specify what the TD must do to override those default rulings. Using the "we always play it that way" reason is not sufficient. It should be in writing either on the tee sign for the hole, or distributed to all players a a handout, or on the back of the scorecards.
I agree that the TD needs to be given the freedom of declaring mostly verticle surfaces as IB or OB, and stating that a disc striking the OB side of a fence is OB no matter how much the fence flexes at impact.
I agree that the rules should cover the general options that a TD has control over, and the default rulings if the TD does not overrule them. It should also specify what the TD must do to override those default rulings. Using the "we always play it that way" reason is not sufficient. It should be in writing either on the tee sign for the hole, or distributed to all players a a handout, or on the back of the scorecards.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 04:39 PM
It makes the call a little dicier but it doesn't really take away the "bank as IB" option and that's my problem with the new rule only going part way. Very few banks are vertical (and some are undercut) and the vertical plane upward from the water/bank interface will likely not have much "bank" intersecting it. So, I don't see how the rule necessarily changes the option for TDs to have the bank IB. In addition, I doubt the wall Rob is talking about at Idlewild is perfectly plumb vertical. So, it would have been better if the new rules allowed the TD to specify the wall surface as the OB plane to take away any doubt.
Chuck, the wall is thick enough that it seems pretty easy to say a disc that hits the wall and falls back has to be played from the teepad side of the creek. Idlewild hole 15 is 1001 feet and the following picture showing the wall that lines the green doesn't show that the last part of the hole is downhill to you get down near the creek (from where this photo was taken).
http://innovadiscs.com/cfr/2005/kenstate.jpg
by the way, if anyone wants one of these CFR Starfire-L's contact course pro Fred Salaz: [email protected]
Chuck, the wall is thick enough that it seems pretty easy to say a disc that hits the wall and falls back has to be played from the teepad side of the creek. Idlewild hole 15 is 1001 feet and the following picture showing the wall that lines the green doesn't show that the last part of the hole is downhill to you get down near the creek (from where this photo was taken).
http://innovadiscs.com/cfr/2005/kenstate.jpg
by the way, if anyone wants one of these CFR Starfire-L's contact course pro Fred Salaz: [email protected]
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 04:41 PM
Gary, wouldn't it be possible to declare a drop zone or some other conditional (like 2 meters of relief back on the lop) for places where the footing would be a problem?
gnduke
Dec 09 2005, 04:49 PM
2m relief for OB isn't an option in the rules.
Extended relief for casual obstacles is.
Having the wall as the IB line was perfect since it was stable, required no effort to mark, and guaranteed a safe stance. Since the height of the wall changes through out the park, the distance from the waterline to the top of the wall changes throughout the park.
Having the option of the line being IB or OB left up the the TD would be a reasonable option. Set the default either way, it really does not matter since the TD can override it.
Extended relief for casual obstacles is.
Having the wall as the IB line was perfect since it was stable, required no effort to mark, and guaranteed a safe stance. Since the height of the wall changes through out the park, the distance from the waterline to the top of the wall changes throughout the park.
Having the option of the line being IB or OB left up the the TD would be a reasonable option. Set the default either way, it really does not matter since the TD can override it.
ck34
Dec 09 2005, 05:04 PM
Chuck, the wall is thick enough that it seems pretty easy to say a disc that hits the wall and falls back has to be played from the teepad side of the creek.
Not exactly. What you would need to do is define the OB line where the wall is located as maybe 2 inches inside the wall. Otherwise, where the water touches the wall is the OB line and it goes vertical from that point. If the wall tilts slightly toward the basket (which I suspect it does in spots), then technically, a good portion of the wall is IB as the rule is now written.
Not exactly. What you would need to do is define the OB line where the wall is located as maybe 2 inches inside the wall. Otherwise, where the water touches the wall is the OB line and it goes vertical from that point. If the wall tilts slightly toward the basket (which I suspect it does in spots), then technically, a good portion of the wall is IB as the rule is now written.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 05:58 PM
My thinking was that since the wall is almost a foot wide and the wall itself is being called the OB line, the green side of the wall-green juncture is the OB line and any disc hitting the wall without hitting the green never cleared the OB line and therefore is played from the teepad side of the creek.
can you explain why only the creek side of the wall is OB? btw, there is an area where there is some land between the wall and the creek and that is marked with an "out of bounds" sign just to make it clear (see pic from previous post)
can you explain why only the creek side of the wall is OB? btw, there is an area where there is some land between the wall and the creek and that is marked with an "out of bounds" sign just to make it clear (see pic from previous post)
sandalman
Dec 09 2005, 06:02 PM
having an "A" implies special authority. maybe Rhett could tell you his perspective about that. If you were for the 2006 2 meter rule change i might not be so concerned about it
it is so good to know you are a man of principle! :cool:
it is so good to know you are a man of principle! :cool:
ck34
Dec 09 2005, 06:05 PM
Calling the basket side of the wall interface with the grass as the OB line is perfectly fine. An OB line doesn't really have any thickness so if the wall itself is declared OB, the OB line is the boundary between the grass and wall, not the water and wall. No problem. My point was that changing the rule as it was done didn't make your situation any better or worse.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 06:13 PM
Chuck, i am saying we declare the entire wall as OB. Then the OB line has no thickness, but would therefore be on the green side of the wall. Right???
ck34
Dec 09 2005, 06:29 PM
Yes. If in some weird way a disc hung on the wall on the water side after maybe rolling from the basket side, it would be OB if no part of the disc was over the grass.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 07:21 PM
Chuck, i am saying we declare the entire wall as OB. Then the OB line has no thickness, but would therefore be on the green side of the wall. Right???
[QUOTE]
Yes. If in some weird way a disc hung on the wall on the water side after maybe rolling from the basket side, it would be OB if no part of the disc was over the grass.
my point was that the wall is thick enough that its vertical irregularities would not effect the intent of making the wall OB (the intent being that discs hitting the wall and falling short could not be played from up on the green since the last place IB was the far side of the creek)
btw, we are also putting a permanent line on the tee side of the creek using buried, in-ground railroad ties to delineate the OB line on the tee side (thus eliminating the need to paint the OB line for tournaments)
[QUOTE]
Yes. If in some weird way a disc hung on the wall on the water side after maybe rolling from the basket side, it would be OB if no part of the disc was over the grass.
my point was that the wall is thick enough that its vertical irregularities would not effect the intent of making the wall OB (the intent being that discs hitting the wall and falling short could not be played from up on the green since the last place IB was the far side of the creek)
btw, we are also putting a permanent line on the tee side of the creek using buried, in-ground railroad ties to delineate the OB line on the tee side (thus eliminating the need to paint the OB line for tournaments)
ck34
Dec 09 2005, 07:41 PM
my point was that the wall is thick enough that its vertical irregularities would not effect the intent of making the wall OB
How thick the wall is is not relevant to this rule issue though. The thin OB line is either where the water meets the wall, is in the middle of the wall or is the edge of the wall where it meets the ground toward the basket side. The trouble scenario is if the OB line was defined as the wall/water interface. It's not in this case. If the wall went up in the air say 2-3 feet above the ground on the basket side, the problem would reappear because that wall face couldn't be counted on to be vertical. Having the OB line be the middle of the wall would be the best choice in that scenario. But for now, the top of the wall is so close to ground level that OB works fine as the edge between the wall and ground.
How thick the wall is is not relevant to this rule issue though. The thin OB line is either where the water meets the wall, is in the middle of the wall or is the edge of the wall where it meets the ground toward the basket side. The trouble scenario is if the OB line was defined as the wall/water interface. It's not in this case. If the wall went up in the air say 2-3 feet above the ground on the basket side, the problem would reappear because that wall face couldn't be counted on to be vertical. Having the OB line be the middle of the wall would be the best choice in that scenario. But for now, the top of the wall is so close to ground level that OB works fine as the edge between the wall and ground.
keithjohnson
Dec 09 2005, 10:57 PM
Enlighten us. I have yet to see a 2006 rule book.
cover is now blue and garnett is now on the rules committee..what 2 things did you think i was speaking of? :eek: :p
:D
Am I missing something... Where are these rules posted? My membership package (and the 2006 TD Planning package) states that they would be posted online by 11/30. :mad:
You'd think that as a TD of a major, I might have gotten information on exactly what the changes were. :eek: :o
If they are posted, I appologize. :cool:
who said they are posted?
they are talked about in the new disc golf magazine dec/jan issue though...
chuck and others know about them so they must be seeing them somewhere also :eek:
:D
cover is now blue and garnett is now on the rules committee..what 2 things did you think i was speaking of? :eek: :p
:D
Am I missing something... Where are these rules posted? My membership package (and the 2006 TD Planning package) states that they would be posted online by 11/30. :mad:
You'd think that as a TD of a major, I might have gotten information on exactly what the changes were. :eek: :o
If they are posted, I appologize. :cool:
who said they are posted?
they are talked about in the new disc golf magazine dec/jan issue though...
chuck and others know about them so they must be seeing them somewhere also :eek:
:D
keithjohnson
Dec 09 2005, 11:02 PM
Who are the CLOWNS on the RC? what a bunch of boneheads these guys are. can't they leave well enough alone for one year, and concentrate on eliminating the loopholes in our already existing rules? no, that would only move the sport forward instead of the confusing stupid circles that the RC inflicts on our sport every year.
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
At the bottome of every Q & A segment in the Rules Q & A section of this website, are listed the people who donate their time and are on this committee:
The PDGA Rules Committee
Carlton Howard <font color="blue"> yes and chair </font>
Conrad Damon <font color="blue">yes </font>
Harold Duvall <font color="blue"> yes</font>
Dr. Rick Voakes <font color="blue"> yes </font>
Joe Garcia <font color="blue"> yes</font>
John Chapman <font color="blue"> yes </font>
<font color="red">jim garnett....not listed in your list but ON the committee according to the rule book </font>
-----------------
to react to a rule change by calling them clowns is not exactly "professional" behavior.
get your answer straight mister :D:D
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
At the bottome of every Q & A segment in the Rules Q & A section of this website, are listed the people who donate their time and are on this committee:
The PDGA Rules Committee
Carlton Howard <font color="blue"> yes and chair </font>
Conrad Damon <font color="blue">yes </font>
Harold Duvall <font color="blue"> yes</font>
Dr. Rick Voakes <font color="blue"> yes </font>
Joe Garcia <font color="blue"> yes</font>
John Chapman <font color="blue"> yes </font>
<font color="red">jim garnett....not listed in your list but ON the committee according to the rule book </font>
-----------------
to react to a rule change by calling them clowns is not exactly "professional" behavior.
get your answer straight mister :D:D
ck34
Dec 09 2005, 11:04 PM
I helped the PDGA office edit the new rules document the RC had drafted when I was visiting the NDGC just before Thanksgiving.
keithjohnson
Dec 09 2005, 11:11 PM
I helped the PDGA office edit the new rules document the RC had drafted when I was visiting the NDGC just before Thanksgiving.
they should have put you in the book chuck! :D
i knew you had to have alot of knowledge....you do about most things...
i think you live on line and whenever any posts anything rules/ratings/anything to do with stuff not in texas you are right there....i'm beginning to think you are the REAL lawnmower man :eek: :D
they should have put you in the book chuck! :D
i knew you had to have alot of knowledge....you do about most things...
i think you live on line and whenever any posts anything rules/ratings/anything to do with stuff not in texas you are right there....i'm beginning to think you are the REAL lawnmower man :eek: :D
ck34
Dec 09 2005, 11:43 PM
I'll be mostly offline for the next four days working in 6" of snow on another course design (The Bear) at Highbridge, so have at it.
AviarX
Dec 09 2005, 11:44 PM
Who are the CLOWNS on the RC? what a bunch of boneheads these guys are. can't they leave well enough alone for one year, and concentrate on eliminating the loopholes in our already existing rules? no, that would only move the sport forward instead of the confusing stupid circles that the RC inflicts on our sport every year.
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
At the bottome of every Q & A segment in the Rules Q & A section of this website, are listed the people who donate their time and are on this committee:
The PDGA Rules Committee
Carlton Howard <font color="blue"> yes and chair </font>
Conrad Damon <font color="blue">yes </font>
Harold Duvall <font color="blue"> yes</font>
Dr. Rick Voakes <font color="blue"> yes </font>
Joe Garcia <font color="blue"> yes</font>
John Chapman <font color="blue"> yes </font>
<font color="red">jim garnett....not listed in your list but ON the committee according to the rule book </font>
-----------------
to react to a rule change by calling them clowns is not exactly "professional" behavior.
get your answer straight mister :D:D
:eek: :DLOL thanks for the correction. maybe jim garnett doesn't do rule Q & A's :confused:
RULES COMMITTEE, YOU SUCK!!
At the bottome of every Q & A segment in the Rules Q & A section of this website, are listed the people who donate their time and are on this committee:
The PDGA Rules Committee
Carlton Howard <font color="blue"> yes and chair </font>
Conrad Damon <font color="blue">yes </font>
Harold Duvall <font color="blue"> yes</font>
Dr. Rick Voakes <font color="blue"> yes </font>
Joe Garcia <font color="blue"> yes</font>
John Chapman <font color="blue"> yes </font>
<font color="red">jim garnett....not listed in your list but ON the committee according to the rule book </font>
-----------------
to react to a rule change by calling them clowns is not exactly "professional" behavior.
get your answer straight mister :D:D
:eek: :DLOL thanks for the correction. maybe jim garnett doesn't do rule Q & A's :confused:
neonnoodle
Dec 10 2005, 11:51 AM
The 2006 Rulebook Update is a terrific step forward for organized disc golf. In all instances it tights up the gaps and provides for more inclusive and definitive rulings.
I am saddened to see that some politics have been played with it and that it was not entirely left up to the RC, still it is a very clear step forward.
Certainly, there will be things to discuss and areas of further improvement, that is just the nature of the game. No one, certainly not the geniuses here, could have done a better job of it.
I am saddened to see that some politics have been played with it and that it was not entirely left up to the RC, still it is a very clear step forward.
Certainly, there will be things to discuss and areas of further improvement, that is just the nature of the game. No one, certainly not the geniuses here, could have done a better job of it.
sandalman
Dec 10 2005, 12:22 PM
it is SOOOOOO very good to know that there is no possible way that it could have been improved upon. we all will sleep much easier tonite.
neonnoodle
Dec 10 2005, 12:50 PM
Certainly, there will be things to discuss and areas of further improvement, that is just the nature of the game.
If we all pool together we could send Pat and Keith to the same reading comprehension course at the local community college. I'll start it out at $1 each, anyone else?
If we all pool together we could send Pat and Keith to the same reading comprehension course at the local community college. I'll start it out at $1 each, anyone else?
sandalman
Dec 10 2005, 02:27 PM
No one...could have done a better job of it.
how sad when comprehension of your own scrathings is so weak
how sad when comprehension of your own scrathings is so weak
neonnoodle
Dec 10 2005, 05:44 PM
No one...could have done a better job of it.
how sad when comprehension of your own scrathings is so weak
Are you capable of reading more than one sentence Pat?
And have you found any 2 or 1 dimensional OB lines out at your course yet?
Let's see if he sees the second question... :D
how sad when comprehension of your own scrathings is so weak
Are you capable of reading more than one sentence Pat?
And have you found any 2 or 1 dimensional OB lines out at your course yet?
Let's see if he sees the second question... :D
sandalman
Dec 10 2005, 07:46 PM
i defy you to prove that lines require three dimensions to exist.
do not post on any other topic until you can mathematically prove it. promise that if you cannot, or if your proof is shown to be invalid, you will never post again about subjects of which you lack knowledge sufficient to gain credibility.
simple enough?
do not post on any other topic until you can mathematically prove it. promise that if you cannot, or if your proof is shown to be invalid, you will never post again about subjects of which you lack knowledge sufficient to gain credibility.
simple enough?
AviarX
Dec 10 2005, 08:53 PM
thank goodness non-members are not allowed to spoil this riveting discussion :eek: :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :p
Dec 11 2005, 02:46 AM
i defy you to prove that lines require three dimensions to exist.
Fat lines are three dimensional. Are all the lines on your course skinny?
Fat lines are three dimensional. Are all the lines on your course skinny?
magilla
Dec 11 2005, 01:08 PM
I rarely see lost discs, but when I do, they are usually in the middle of the schule.
Are you telling me that you intentionally circumvent the rules by allowing a disc that you can see to be called "lost"??? :) :D:)
Well, He IS from Texas......... :eek:
:D
ala ..... '94 Am World's.....
As I was looking for a lost disc in my group, One individual kept hanging around a certain spot. Just as that person was pushing for the "2-Minute" call I noticed that the disc was actually RIGHT UNDER HIS FEET. Impossible to not see. It was OBVIOUSLY an attempt to thwart the rules.
Since the player involved didnt actually take a stroke it went no further other than letting that person know that he was an ******* :mad:
There were already enough issues with cheaters at that worlds...
Mysteriously finding lost discs on the opposite side of the fairway......
Writing down the wrong scores, when you were on tape taking an extra throw.....
Funny thing is that the only people penalized were the players that used "Magnets" during play that were not yet approved...even though we did receive them in our players packs.. :eek: :p
Are you telling me that you intentionally circumvent the rules by allowing a disc that you can see to be called "lost"??? :) :D:)
Well, He IS from Texas......... :eek:
:D
ala ..... '94 Am World's.....
As I was looking for a lost disc in my group, One individual kept hanging around a certain spot. Just as that person was pushing for the "2-Minute" call I noticed that the disc was actually RIGHT UNDER HIS FEET. Impossible to not see. It was OBVIOUSLY an attempt to thwart the rules.
Since the player involved didnt actually take a stroke it went no further other than letting that person know that he was an ******* :mad:
There were already enough issues with cheaters at that worlds...
Mysteriously finding lost discs on the opposite side of the fairway......
Writing down the wrong scores, when you were on tape taking an extra throw.....
Funny thing is that the only people penalized were the players that used "Magnets" during play that were not yet approved...even though we did receive them in our players packs.. :eek: :p
sandalman
Dec 11 2005, 03:16 PM
i defy you to prove that lines require three dimensions to exist.
Fat lines are three dimensional. Are all the lines on your course skinny?
the fat ones dont last long enough to actually measure.
Fat lines are three dimensional. Are all the lines on your course skinny?
the fat ones dont last long enough to actually measure.
quickdisc
Dec 11 2005, 06:35 PM
Going to play in the snow , " Dreaming of "Champaine Powder" on Mt Bachelor..
:cool:
:cool:
neonnoodle
Dec 12 2005, 10:02 AM
i defy you to prove that lines require three dimensions to exist.
Fat lines are three dimensional. Are all the lines on your course skinny?
I defy you to prove that a 1 or 2 dimensional OB line exists in out on a course in 3 dimensions. Which happens to be the realm most of us exist and play disc golf in.
I hope others find this as funny as me. If not switch to one of the other more fascinating threads now showing...
Fat lines are three dimensional. Are all the lines on your course skinny?
I defy you to prove that a 1 or 2 dimensional OB line exists in out on a course in 3 dimensions. Which happens to be the realm most of us exist and play disc golf in.
I hope others find this as funny as me. If not switch to one of the other more fascinating threads now showing...
keithjohnson
Dec 12 2005, 10:37 AM
Certainly, there will be things to discuss and areas of further improvement, that is just the nature of the game.
If we all pool together we could send Pat and Keith to the same reading comprehension course at the local community college. I'll start it out at $1 each, anyone else?
how do i get dragged into your quote when i posted only factual info?....
i think YOU are the one needing help, but then again i may be misreading this post huh? :p
If we all pool together we could send Pat and Keith to the same reading comprehension course at the local community college. I'll start it out at $1 each, anyone else?
how do i get dragged into your quote when i posted only factual info?....
i think YOU are the one needing help, but then again i may be misreading this post huh? :p
sandalman
Dec 12 2005, 12:37 PM
nick, i used to think you were an i</b>diot. now i realize you are a fool.
of course we play in three dimensions. that has nothing to do with lines by definition being less than three dimensional. once again you completely fail to recognize and/or admit that you are wrong. if you cannot do that for this extremely narrow, disc-golf unrelated topic, how in the world can you expect anyone to believe you can contribute rational and reasonable thoughts on issues important to our sport?
of course we play in three dimensions. that has nothing to do with lines by definition being less than three dimensional. once again you completely fail to recognize and/or admit that you are wrong. if you cannot do that for this extremely narrow, disc-golf unrelated topic, how in the world can you expect anyone to believe you can contribute rational and reasonable thoughts on issues important to our sport?
bruce_brakel
Dec 12 2005, 12:57 PM
why has not much been said about the 2 bigger changes in the rules book for 2006?
The PDGA prefers to draft rules changes in secret. That was the plan last year, but when they tricked me into not attending the session where they initially abolished the two-meter rule, I lost respect for their preferred process and broke the information embargo. So what you have now is business as usual.
The PDGA prefers to draft rules changes in secret. That was the plan last year, but when they tricked me into not attending the session where they initially abolished the two-meter rule, I lost respect for their preferred process and broke the information embargo. So what you have now is business as usual.
james_mccaine
Dec 12 2005, 01:22 PM
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
AviarX
Dec 12 2005, 02:03 PM
once again you completely fail to recognize and/or admit that you are wrong. if you cannot do that for this extremely narrow, disc-golf unrelated topic, how in the world can you expect anyone to believe you can contribute rational and reasonable thoughts on issues important to our sport?
nice mirror, isn't it? although you are suggesting Nick look into it, perhaps there are quite a few of us that could benefit from a peek /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Gary seems to pass your test though...
nice mirror, isn't it? although you are suggesting Nick look into it, perhaps there are quite a few of us that could benefit from a peek /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Gary seems to pass your test though...
bruce_brakel
Dec 12 2005, 02:55 PM
The rules committee never tried anything as simple as an end run. It was more of a Statue of Liberty play. I think for people who play games competitively, trick plays are inherently rewarding, almost irresistable, virtually self-justifying.
But don't misunderstand me. The rules committee never did anything sneaky with the two-meter rule. That was Theo and his unanimous quorum. The rules committee tried to get sneaky with the unplayable lie rule.
But don't misunderstand me. The rules committee never did anything sneaky with the two-meter rule. That was Theo and his unanimous quorum. The rules committee tried to get sneaky with the unplayable lie rule.
Dec 12 2005, 04:00 PM
The rules committee never tried anything as simple as an end run. It was more of a Statue of Liberty play. I think for people who play games competitively, trick plays are inherently rewarding, almost irresistible, virtually self-justifying.
But don't misunderstand me. The rules committee never did anything sneaky with the two-meter rule. That was Theo and his unanimous quorum. The rules committee tried to get sneaky with the unplayable lie rule.
All of this would make a great spy novel...if any of this were remotely interesting! :D
But don't misunderstand me. The rules committee never did anything sneaky with the two-meter rule. That was Theo and his unanimous quorum. The rules committee tried to get sneaky with the unplayable lie rule.
All of this would make a great spy novel...if any of this were remotely interesting! :D
paerley
Dec 13 2005, 12:36 AM
of course we play in three dimensions. that has nothing to do with lines by definition being less than three dimensional.
To go the next step, I'd argue that it's a 4 dimensional game. As disc golf is a series of events, we need to consider the time axis as well.
To go the next step, I'd argue that it's a 4 dimensional game. As disc golf is a series of events, we need to consider the time axis as well.
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 09:33 AM
The new rules, by the way, are now available through a link on the home page.
circlek13783
Dec 14 2005, 10:39 AM
The new rules, by the way, are now available through a link on the home page.
And where might we find the "Differences" information? :confused:
And where might we find the "Differences" information? :confused:
tbender
Dec 14 2005, 10:43 AM
The new rules, by the way, are now available through a link on the home page.
And where might we find the "Differences" information? :confused:
Last page of the PDF file.
And where might we find the "Differences" information? :confused:
Last page of the PDF file.
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 10:58 AM
The explanation of the unplayable lie rule makes it look like the rules committee finally succeeded in running that Statue of Liberty play. Under the new rule, five meters lateral relief with a one-throw penalty is no longer allowed. Infinite lateral relief with a 2-throw penalty is also abolished. The explanation certainly does not explain any of this. The explanation looks like it was drafted intentionally ambiguous so as to not call attention to the rule change!
I think that's funny. :D
I think that's funny. :D
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 11:15 AM
The practical effect of the new rule is simply this: it used to be that if you threw into a nasty patch of cactus, razor grass, or anywhere off the cut fairway on Terry Calhoun's course, you could fish your disc out with a stick, take a one-throw penalty and not get cut to ribbons trying to get to your disc. Now you get to walk back to where you threw from and throw another disc into the same nasty patch of crap unless you get lucky and can get relief by going five meters straight back. In golf you can always take one stroke and five club lengths. In disc golf we want to see more blood. :D
neonnoodle
Dec 14 2005, 11:22 AM
nick, i used to think you were an i[/b]diot. now i realize you are a fool.
of course we play in three dimensions. that has nothing to do with lines by definition being less than three dimensional. once again you completely fail to recognize and/or admit that you are wrong. if you cannot do that for this extremely narrow, disc-golf unrelated topic, how in the world can you expect anyone to believe you can contribute rational and reasonable thoughts on issues important to our sport?
Again with the hot tempered flaming Pat.
I am not saying that in theory lines can not be one or two dimensional, but that OB lines out on a real course can not be. There is nothing 'wrong' about that, it simply "is".
Why do you take this so personally and get so clearly irrate? Very strange behavior if you think about it. We're just discussing stuff here, not deciding the future of disc golf...
of course we play in three dimensions. that has nothing to do with lines by definition being less than three dimensional. once again you completely fail to recognize and/or admit that you are wrong. if you cannot do that for this extremely narrow, disc-golf unrelated topic, how in the world can you expect anyone to believe you can contribute rational and reasonable thoughts on issues important to our sport?
Again with the hot tempered flaming Pat.
I am not saying that in theory lines can not be one or two dimensional, but that OB lines out on a real course can not be. There is nothing 'wrong' about that, it simply "is".
Why do you take this so personally and get so clearly irrate? Very strange behavior if you think about it. We're just discussing stuff here, not deciding the future of disc golf...
neonnoodle
Dec 14 2005, 11:24 AM
why has not much been said about the 2 bigger changes in the rules book for 2006?
The PDGA prefers to draft rules changes in secret. That was the plan last year, but when they tricked me into not attending the session where they initially abolished the two-meter rule, I lost respect for their preferred process and broke the information embargo. So what you have now is business as usual.
I used to think that I was the message board user most full of myself, I appreciate Bruce lifting the title from me...
The PDGA prefers to draft rules changes in secret. That was the plan last year, but when they tricked me into not attending the session where they initially abolished the two-meter rule, I lost respect for their preferred process and broke the information embargo. So what you have now is business as usual.
I used to think that I was the message board user most full of myself, I appreciate Bruce lifting the title from me...
neonnoodle
Dec 14 2005, 11:26 AM
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
Good question.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
Good question.
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 11:28 AM
Nick may be right about me being full of myself. I did not get much breakfast this morning so I'm not full of anything else. Besides, my self-absorbtion is one of my few endearing qualities.
On the other hand, the new rules make it clear that o.b. lines are imaginary geometrical lines with no width. So Nick wins one, loses one, and goes back on ignore.
On the other hand, the new rules make it clear that o.b. lines are imaginary geometrical lines with no width. So Nick wins one, loses one, and goes back on ignore.
neonnoodle
Dec 14 2005, 11:30 AM
The practical effect of the new rule is simply this: it used to be that if you threw into a nasty patch of cactus, razor grass, or anywhere off the cut fairway on Terry Calhoun's course, you could fish your disc out with a stick, take a one-throw penalty and not get cut to ribbons trying to get to your disc. Now you get to walk back to where you threw from and throw another disc into the same nasty patch of crap unless you get lucky and can get relief by going five meters straight back. In golf you can always take one stroke and five club lengths. In disc golf we want to see more blood. :D
Sounds like more of a poor hole design issue than a rules issue. The director can still provide relief for such areas under other rules. Certainly for such a likely landing spot (2 times in a row) a good director would, right?
Sounds like more of a poor hole design issue than a rules issue. The director can still provide relief for such areas under other rules. Certainly for such a likely landing spot (2 times in a row) a good director would, right?
Moderator005
Dec 14 2005, 11:53 AM
why has not much been said about the 2 bigger changes in the rules book for 2006?
The PDGA prefers to draft rules changes in secret. That was the plan last year, but when they tricked me into not attending the session where they initially abolished the two-meter rule, I lost respect for their preferred process and broke the information embargo. So what you have now is business as usual.
I used to think that I was the message board user most full of myself, I appreciate Bruce lifting the title from me...
Bruce disagrees with some of what the PDGA does...but we all do. Nick, your thinking is correct - you are definitely the message board user (and disc golfer) most full of yourself.
The PDGA prefers to draft rules changes in secret. That was the plan last year, but when they tricked me into not attending the session where they initially abolished the two-meter rule, I lost respect for their preferred process and broke the information embargo. So what you have now is business as usual.
I used to think that I was the message board user most full of myself, I appreciate Bruce lifting the title from me...
Bruce disagrees with some of what the PDGA does...but we all do. Nick, your thinking is correct - you are definitely the message board user (and disc golfer) most full of yourself.
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 12:09 PM
Since Nick is now on ignore, I assume he was just apologizing for the unprovoked personal attack and inquiring as to why I missed breakfast.
(1) No problem. I'm used to it. (2) Wednesdays I have to be in court at 8:30 a.m. and my alarm clock forgot to scream, "It's freaking Wednesday so quit ignoring me!!!"
Here. Let me say something positive about the new rules.
I like the way we have adopted the USGA "Lost Ball" rule as our lost disc rule, right down to the use of the weird "reasonable evidence" standard. Whereever possible I think it helps when we play our golf variant by the Rules of Golf, even when the Rules of Golf include bizarre language.
I like the pdf. I think if I download that, and cut and paste the pages properly, I can make quick, cheap, bootleg rule books to distribute to our players.
(1) No problem. I'm used to it. (2) Wednesdays I have to be in court at 8:30 a.m. and my alarm clock forgot to scream, "It's freaking Wednesday so quit ignoring me!!!"
Here. Let me say something positive about the new rules.
I like the way we have adopted the USGA "Lost Ball" rule as our lost disc rule, right down to the use of the weird "reasonable evidence" standard. Whereever possible I think it helps when we play our golf variant by the Rules of Golf, even when the Rules of Golf include bizarre language.
I like the pdf. I think if I download that, and cut and paste the pages properly, I can make quick, cheap, bootleg rule books to distribute to our players.
Dec 14 2005, 12:32 PM
From Bruce:
Since Nick is now on ignore, I assume he was just apologizing for the unprovoked personal attack and inquiring as to why I missed breakfast.....
That's rare. You don't often see the words Nick and apologizing in the same sentence.
From Nick:
Sounds like more of a poor hole design issue than a rules issue. The director can still provide relief for such areas under other rules. Certainly for such a likely landing spot (2 times in a row) a good director would, right?
:p
I can visualize the flyer for a Nick tournament:
"The mandatory players meeting will commence Friday evening at 6PM. Please bring a notebook and several sharpened #2 pencils. We expect to have the special rules covering this years course explained by approx. 10PM. Attendance will be taken and a 2 stroke courtesy violation assessed for all non-attendees.
Thank you,
King Kight"
Since Nick is now on ignore, I assume he was just apologizing for the unprovoked personal attack and inquiring as to why I missed breakfast.....
That's rare. You don't often see the words Nick and apologizing in the same sentence.
From Nick:
Sounds like more of a poor hole design issue than a rules issue. The director can still provide relief for such areas under other rules. Certainly for such a likely landing spot (2 times in a row) a good director would, right?
:p
I can visualize the flyer for a Nick tournament:
"The mandatory players meeting will commence Friday evening at 6PM. Please bring a notebook and several sharpened #2 pencils. We expect to have the special rules covering this years course explained by approx. 10PM. Attendance will be taken and a 2 stroke courtesy violation assessed for all non-attendees.
Thank you,
King Kight"
Dick
Dec 14 2005, 12:40 PM
actually nick, you should refresh on geometry. since there is a clear line of in or out, ob lines are obviously 2 dimensional.
Dec 14 2005, 01:18 PM
How come "Reasonable Evidence" isn't in the definitions?
Is it irony that one of the arguments of getting rid of the 2 meter rule is how it can be very punitive by not only getting a stroke but also getting your lie in the middle of some shule or bush/tree thing but the unplayable lie has been changed to be equally as punitive?
I don't have any major problems with the changes but I do think the RC should be working toward making our rule book less ambiguous rather than more ambiguous.
803.09 Out of Bounds
...In order to consider the disc as out of-
bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within
the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of
such evidence, the disc will be considered
lost and the player will proceed according
to rule 803.11B.
Is it irony that one of the arguments of getting rid of the 2 meter rule is how it can be very punitive by not only getting a stroke but also getting your lie in the middle of some shule or bush/tree thing but the unplayable lie has been changed to be equally as punitive?
I don't have any major problems with the changes but I do think the RC should be working toward making our rule book less ambiguous rather than more ambiguous.
803.09 Out of Bounds
...In order to consider the disc as out of-
bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within
the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of
such evidence, the disc will be considered
lost and the player will proceed according
to rule 803.11B.
james_mccaine
Dec 14 2005, 01:37 PM
The bit about determining the difference between a lost disc and an OB disc seems sufficient, IMO. With the different way of playing a lost disc, there has to be (or should be) some language to distinguish between a lost disc and a clearly OB disc which is either also lost, or the group is unwilling to look for it because they know it is OB and its "OBness" will supercede its "lostness.".
There are too many people out there looking to get an edge by the rules who would of said "until you find it, I'm calling it lost, not OB." This language is needed to counteract that mentality.
There are too many people out there looking to get an edge by the rules who would of said "until you find it, I'm calling it lost, not OB." This language is needed to counteract that mentality.
AviarX
Dec 14 2005, 01:57 PM
<font color="blue"> quickdisc </font> wrote:
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
<font color="blue"> Nick </font> wrote:
Good question.
filibuster :confused:
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
<font color="blue"> Nick </font> wrote:
Good question.
filibuster :confused:
danniestacey
Dec 14 2005, 02:41 PM
So what would be the rulling if a disc goes into the middle of the pond.
Is it OB and you take where it went out or is it lost because you cannot retrieve it?
I like the rule change, but there needs to be more clarifiaction between a lost disc and lost disc that went OB.
We have a hole at our course where you have to throw a big anhyzer over the trees. After it clears the trees you cannot tell where it went for sure. There is OB running parrallel with the fairway. Sometimes we can tell that the disc is going to go OB but we can't actually see it go over the fence. Alot of the time we don't find the disc inbounds or out of bounds because of how thick the trees are. So is it lost or OB?
Is it OB and you take where it went out or is it lost because you cannot retrieve it?
I like the rule change, but there needs to be more clarifiaction between a lost disc and lost disc that went OB.
We have a hole at our course where you have to throw a big anhyzer over the trees. After it clears the trees you cannot tell where it went for sure. There is OB running parrallel with the fairway. Sometimes we can tell that the disc is going to go OB but we can't actually see it go over the fence. Alot of the time we don't find the disc inbounds or out of bounds because of how thick the trees are. So is it lost or OB?
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 02:50 PM
You can't define "reasonable evidence" any more than you can define "dictatorial diffenbaccia" or "magnanimous magnolia." The term assigns a characteristic of personality to an impersonal concept. Evidence does not have the capacity of reason so it cannot be reasonable or unreasonable.
But it is the USGA term and I was not being facetious when I said that I think it is helpful when our rules track theirs. That is what makes our sport disc golf rather than basketdisc.
What the USGA means by reasonable evidence is "evidence from which it is reasonable to conclude." This would probably be less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and less than clear and convincing evidence. It might not even be a preponderance of the evidence. It is at least some evidence.
For practical purposes it means this: if you throw a disc over a blind hill into thick woods with nasty impenetrable schule on the left and murky water on the right, and all you know is that it was heading for the middle before you heard it hit the tree, you should take the penalty for lost disc rather than o.b. disc. But if you saw it hit the tree and riccochet towards the water and that area is relatively free of disc obscuring stuff, your group should concede that you have "reasonable evidence" that the disc was lost in the water. But if you disagree with their call, play it both ways and then ask the TD when you get in, if playing it both ways gives you a worse result based on their call.
But it is the USGA term and I was not being facetious when I said that I think it is helpful when our rules track theirs. That is what makes our sport disc golf rather than basketdisc.
What the USGA means by reasonable evidence is "evidence from which it is reasonable to conclude." This would probably be less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and less than clear and convincing evidence. It might not even be a preponderance of the evidence. It is at least some evidence.
For practical purposes it means this: if you throw a disc over a blind hill into thick woods with nasty impenetrable schule on the left and murky water on the right, and all you know is that it was heading for the middle before you heard it hit the tree, you should take the penalty for lost disc rather than o.b. disc. But if you saw it hit the tree and riccochet towards the water and that area is relatively free of disc obscuring stuff, your group should concede that you have "reasonable evidence" that the disc was lost in the water. But if you disagree with their call, play it both ways and then ask the TD when you get in, if playing it both ways gives you a worse result based on their call.
james_mccaine
Dec 14 2005, 03:16 PM
So what would be the rulling if a disc goes into the middle of the pond.
Is it OB and you take where it went out or is it lost because you cannot retrieve it?
If there is reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest out of bounds, then it is "OB" and not "lost." I'm going to assume that when everyone sees it go OB, the standard of "reasonable evidence" will always result in an OB call. At least I hope so.
We have a hole at our course where you have to throw a big anhyzer over the trees. After it clears the trees you cannot tell where it went for sure. There is OB running parrallel with the fairway. Sometimes we can tell that the disc is going to go OB but we can't actually see it go over the fence. Alot of the time we don't find the disc inbounds or out of bounds because of how thick the trees are. So is it lost or OB?
This is trickier and will probably result in some disagreements. Seems to me, if you can "tell" it is going OB, then there is reasonable evidence, and it should be treated as OB. If it is questionable, I suspect it will depend on the group dynamics, similar to what occurs under the present rules when the group decides where the disc was lost, or where it went OB.
Is it OB and you take where it went out or is it lost because you cannot retrieve it?
If there is reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest out of bounds, then it is "OB" and not "lost." I'm going to assume that when everyone sees it go OB, the standard of "reasonable evidence" will always result in an OB call. At least I hope so.
We have a hole at our course where you have to throw a big anhyzer over the trees. After it clears the trees you cannot tell where it went for sure. There is OB running parrallel with the fairway. Sometimes we can tell that the disc is going to go OB but we can't actually see it go over the fence. Alot of the time we don't find the disc inbounds or out of bounds because of how thick the trees are. So is it lost or OB?
This is trickier and will probably result in some disagreements. Seems to me, if you can "tell" it is going OB, then there is reasonable evidence, and it should be treated as OB. If it is questionable, I suspect it will depend on the group dynamics, similar to what occurs under the present rules when the group decides where the disc was lost, or where it went OB.
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 03:23 PM
Here is the kicker: the definition of reasonable evidence is only going to matter when a disc is lost on a hole with o.b. How much time does a player have to complete his "discovery" and prepare his case? Can he issue interrogatories? Can he schedule depositions? :D
tbender
Dec 14 2005, 03:27 PM
Here is the kicker: the definition of reasonable evidence is only going to matter when a disc is lost on a hole with o.b. How much time does a player have to complete his "discovery" and prepare his case? Can he issue interrogatories? Can he schedule depositions? :D
Bruce finds another revenue stream... :D
Bruce finds another revenue stream... :D
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 03:39 PM
So what would be the rulling if a disc goes into the middle of the pond.
Is it OB and you take where it went out or is it lost because you cannot retrieve it?
When you know a disc is both lost and o.b., you play it as o.b. Under the rule, you have reasonable evidence that it was o.b. before it became lost, so you get the benefit of what will usually be the less punitive rule.
We have a hole at our course where you have to throw a big anhyzer over the trees. After it clears the trees you cannot tell where it went for sure. There is OB running parrallel with the fairway. Sometimes we can tell that the disc is going to go OB but we can't actually see it go over the fence. Alot of the time we don't find the disc inbounds or out of bounds because of how thick the trees are. So is it lost or OB?
First, it is not a violation of the rules to ask the guy throwing last to spot for the group. When I'm playing courses where I need reasonable evidence :D, I try to get the group to agree on the first hole that bob will spot on every blind hole.
But I think the answer lies in the second word in the phrase "reaonable evidence." Whenever you have no evidence where the disc was lost, you also lack reasonable evidence that it was lost o.b. Whenever you have some evidence that the disc was lost o.b., your group will probably concede that you have reasonable evidence.
So, the no-evidence-default-rule is that your disc was lost in bounds and you have to walk back and throw with a penalty. When there is "reasonable evidence" that it was lost out of bounds, you get all the options available for an out of bounds throw.
I really don't think the new rule will be hard to enforce if players learn that there is a new rule. And it is rare that a disc is lost but you have only arguably unreasonable evidence that it was lost o.b. Either the people paying attention saw it going o.b. or not. And most players will not be unreasonable if the evidence is not unreasonable. If your evidence is that voices only you can hear are telling you the disc was lost out of bounds, you need a better alibi or a better lawyer.
Is it OB and you take where it went out or is it lost because you cannot retrieve it?
When you know a disc is both lost and o.b., you play it as o.b. Under the rule, you have reasonable evidence that it was o.b. before it became lost, so you get the benefit of what will usually be the less punitive rule.
We have a hole at our course where you have to throw a big anhyzer over the trees. After it clears the trees you cannot tell where it went for sure. There is OB running parrallel with the fairway. Sometimes we can tell that the disc is going to go OB but we can't actually see it go over the fence. Alot of the time we don't find the disc inbounds or out of bounds because of how thick the trees are. So is it lost or OB?
First, it is not a violation of the rules to ask the guy throwing last to spot for the group. When I'm playing courses where I need reasonable evidence :D, I try to get the group to agree on the first hole that bob will spot on every blind hole.
But I think the answer lies in the second word in the phrase "reaonable evidence." Whenever you have no evidence where the disc was lost, you also lack reasonable evidence that it was lost o.b. Whenever you have some evidence that the disc was lost o.b., your group will probably concede that you have reasonable evidence.
So, the no-evidence-default-rule is that your disc was lost in bounds and you have to walk back and throw with a penalty. When there is "reasonable evidence" that it was lost out of bounds, you get all the options available for an out of bounds throw.
I really don't think the new rule will be hard to enforce if players learn that there is a new rule. And it is rare that a disc is lost but you have only arguably unreasonable evidence that it was lost o.b. Either the people paying attention saw it going o.b. or not. And most players will not be unreasonable if the evidence is not unreasonable. If your evidence is that voices only you can hear are telling you the disc was lost out of bounds, you need a better alibi or a better lawyer.
sandalman
Dec 14 2005, 06:59 PM
Here is the kicker: the definition of reasonable evidence is only going to matter when a disc is lost on a hole with o.b. How much time does a player have to complete his "discovery" and prepare his case? Can he issue interrogatories? Can he schedule depositions? :D
nope. none of that. the TD will listen to both sides of the argument after the round, without going to the hole to visualize the lines the disc is claimed to have travelled, and make a summary judgement based on... well, based on whatever he feels like basing it on :D
this is progress, get it??? :cool:
nope. none of that. the TD will listen to both sides of the argument after the round, without going to the hole to visualize the lines the disc is claimed to have travelled, and make a summary judgement based on... well, based on whatever he feels like basing it on :D
this is progress, get it??? :cool:
bruce_brakel
Dec 14 2005, 08:17 PM
That's how we do summary judgments in my court! Seriously, sometimes after they argue the judge will ask me in chambers, "How positive are you that the Court of Appeals will call this the same way?" and I will say, "Um, you got a coin?"
neonnoodle
Dec 14 2005, 09:43 PM
<font color="blue"> quickdisc </font> wrote:
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
<font color="blue"> Nick </font> wrote:
Good question.
filibuster :confused:
Apparently so.
Bruce is perfecting plausible deniability. He's still waiting for the Cheese Marshals to break down his door and carry him away for all of his illegal activities on the PDGA BOD.
<chuckle>
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
<font color="blue"> Nick </font> wrote:
Good question.
filibuster :confused:
Apparently so.
Bruce is perfecting plausible deniability. He's still waiting for the Cheese Marshals to break down his door and carry him away for all of his illegal activities on the PDGA BOD.
<chuckle>
quickdisc
Dec 14 2005, 10:14 PM
<font color="blue"> quickdisc </font> wrote:
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
<font color="blue"> Nick </font> wrote:
Good question.
filibuster :confused:
Apparently so.
Bruce is perfecting plausible deniability. He's still waiting for the Cheese Marshals to break down his door and carry him away for all of his illegal activities on the PDGA BOD.
<chuckle>
Incorrect Nick !!!! I never said that statement !!!! Post a retraction statement.
I'll take Rhett's post as a clever reply to my poor writing. If you are implying that I saw a lost disc and sat idly by without pointing to it, essentially calling me a cheater, then kiss my [I'm a potty-mouth!]. If not, well, then nevermind.
Bruce, what motivation would the RC have to do an end run around you?
<font color="blue"> Nick </font> wrote:
Good question.
filibuster :confused:
Apparently so.
Bruce is perfecting plausible deniability. He's still waiting for the Cheese Marshals to break down his door and carry him away for all of his illegal activities on the PDGA BOD.
<chuckle>
Incorrect Nick !!!! I never said that statement !!!! Post a retraction statement.
AviarX
Dec 15 2005, 02:21 PM
Happy Birthday Pat! :D
Hopefully as you age you will begin to appreciate the wisdom of leaving the 2 meter rule up to TD discretion instead of force-feeding it as a default rule on all courses at all events :eek:
Hopefully as you age you will begin to appreciate the wisdom of leaving the 2 meter rule up to TD discretion instead of force-feeding it as a default rule on all courses at all events :eek:
underparmike
Dec 16 2005, 12:18 PM
Bruce is perfecting plausible deniability. He's still waiting for the Cheese Marshals to break down his door and carry him away for all of his illegal activities on the PDGA BOD.
<chuckle>
the Cheese Marshals have 4 or 5 other <font color="red"> [I'm a potty-mouth!] </font> on the BOD to pick up first.
<chuckle>
the Cheese Marshals have 4 or 5 other <font color="red"> [I'm a potty-mouth!] </font> on the BOD to pick up first.
neonnoodle
Dec 16 2005, 04:49 PM
Mike, don't concern yourself with the Cheese Marshal's you better bolt your door for the Sleeze Marshal's...
bruce_brakel
Dec 16 2005, 05:00 PM
Usually the guy who got out of the car a block before the liquor store and walked home does not get charged with anything.
quickdisc
Dec 16 2005, 07:13 PM
It is also Unfortunate to be detained at the airport for looking like someone else !!!!! :eek:
j_d
Dec 18 2005, 06:59 PM
Look at GOLF those cats are expected to call rules infractions on themself, when was the last time you played a tournament and someone called themself for anything?
When was the last time some cat at the local muni ball golf course called himself on a rule? You wil see ten thousand kicks to improve the lie and "free drops" there before you see a self-called rule.
Although I don't play much ball golf any more, my fellow muni hackers and myself always called strokes on our selves, played provisionals when a shot was suspected of being OB and ate 2 strokes when we hit a ball OB. I once carded a 15 on a short par 4 for a shot OB off the tee and then 5 more from the thick rough into a pond guarding the green. The following time I played the hole, I chipped in from 30 yards for a 2. It's very satisfying hitting a good shot from a bad lie or scoring well knowing you played by the rules.
I think the game would be a lot more interesting if the OB penalty was re-tee plus 1 stroke but can see the point that a lost disk and stroke is bad enough plus some people probably wouldn't help look appropriately knowing the damage inflicted. It's a shame people can't be more honest.
When was the last time some cat at the local muni ball golf course called himself on a rule? You wil see ten thousand kicks to improve the lie and "free drops" there before you see a self-called rule.
Although I don't play much ball golf any more, my fellow muni hackers and myself always called strokes on our selves, played provisionals when a shot was suspected of being OB and ate 2 strokes when we hit a ball OB. I once carded a 15 on a short par 4 for a shot OB off the tee and then 5 more from the thick rough into a pond guarding the green. The following time I played the hole, I chipped in from 30 yards for a 2. It's very satisfying hitting a good shot from a bad lie or scoring well knowing you played by the rules.
I think the game would be a lot more interesting if the OB penalty was re-tee plus 1 stroke but can see the point that a lost disk and stroke is bad enough plus some people probably wouldn't help look appropriately knowing the damage inflicted. It's a shame people can't be more honest.
quickdisc
Dec 18 2005, 08:22 PM
Hmmmmm...........stroke and distance like ball golf. It might work.
I'd like to be able to have my own golf cart on every course.
:D
I'd like to be able to have my own golf cart on every course.
:D
neonnoodle
Dec 18 2005, 10:01 PM
Usually the guy who got out of the car a block before the liquor store and walked home does not get charged with anything.
Yet remain trembling under their covers months later...
Yet remain trembling under their covers months later...
orotter
Dec 20 2005, 04:51 PM
It feels like old times reading the hairsplitting on a rules thread.
If a three armed monkey without PDGA official's certification acting as TD defined anything below sea level as OB in the player's meeting, and you played the tournament in Death Valley, would you ever finish? :confused:
If a three armed monkey without PDGA official's certification acting as TD defined anything below sea level as OB in the player's meeting, and you played the tournament in Death Valley, would you ever finish? :confused:
quickdisc
Dec 20 2005, 05:42 PM
:D What !!!! The monkey is not certified ? :eek:
I'm still playing !!!! :D
I'm still playing !!!! :D
© 2008-2018 Professional Disc Golf Association. All rights reserved.