Going into the last hole of a tourney player A and player B are tied up. While walking to the last tee pad, player A notices and picks up a disc apparently left behind by the last group.

Players A and B are both sitting 2 with fairly easy putts for par , when the owner of the found disc walks up and asks if we found a disc. Player A proceeds to toss the disc (about 20 feet) to its owner.

Players A and B both make par and player A proceeds to win the playoff on the 6th sudden death hole.

Should player A have been stroked for a practice throw?

Aye

Technically yes.

HOWEVER

I would hope that Player B after at least 35 holes of play in the books and still being tied with Player A; I would hope that he/she does not make that call and just let it be settled on the course.

Now, people are going to say a rule is a rule but, to me I really don't think that it was intentional (people are going to say that does not matter either) but, that would be a pretty crappy way to win a tournament. Instead of a great victory for Player A, people are going to say that it was tainted.

Chuck Kennedy argues that a player should be DQ'ed & possibly suspended for doing exactly the thing (not calling the practice throw) that you are describing. See HERE (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number =869624&Searchpage=0&Main=867688&Search=true&#Post 869624) and HERE (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number =869666&Searchpage=0&Main=867688&Search=true&#Post 869666)

Pretty lame, huh?

Chuck Kennedy argues that a player should be DQ'ed & possibly suspended for doing exactly the thing (not calling the practice throw) that you are describing. See HERE (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number =869624&Searchpage=0&Main=867688&Search=true&#Post 869624) and HERE (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number =869666&Searchpage=0&Main=867688&Search=true&#Post 869666)



Do your references point to an argument of a personally held opinon or simply point out the rule that addresses the issue?

Nothing personal, but your axe must be nothing but a nub by now.

If you have a shred of reading comprehension ability (maybe too much to ask from an Everton supporter, though), you should be able to read the references & my replies & figger it out for yourself, nub-boy.

If you have a shred of reading comprehension ability (maybe too much to ask from an Everton supporter, though), you should be able to read the references & my replies & figger it out for yourself, nub-boy.



When you're right, shite, you're right.

Chuck Kennedy argues that a player should be DQ'ed & possibly suspended for doing exactly the thing (not calling the practice throw) that you are describing. See HERE (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number =869624&Searchpage=0&Main=867688&Search=true&#Post 869624) and HERE (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number =869666&Searchpage=0&Main=867688&Search=true&#Post 869666)

Pretty lame, huh?


Keep your personal argument contained to minimal threads, please. You're the one that just comes across poorly when you do stuff like this, not Chuck.

Technically yes.

HOWEVER

I would hope that Player B after at least 35 holes of play in the books and still being tied with Player A; I would hope that he/she does not make that call and just let it be settled on the course.

Now, people are going to say a rule is a rule but, to me I really don't think that it was intentional (people are going to say that does not matter either) but, that would be a pretty crappy way to win a tournament. Instead of a great victory for Player A, people are going to say that it was tainted.


I agree with Mark. However I also think that this is the sort of situation where, as an outsider, I'd hope a TD or a fellow player (not involved in the 2-way-tie) would have the courage to call it. Player B SHOULD call it, but can't because it would make him a bad sportsman. If Player C or Official D steps in and makes the call, the right call is made and Player A learns a valuable lesson.

I'd hate to be Player B in this situation.

I don't understand the mentality behind the argument to not make the call. We are the referees of the sport.
Should player B make the call if he was 20 strokes behind?
What if he was 6 strokes ahead?
What if it happened with 10 holes left to play?
Every player should know the rules, every player should be ready to accept the consequences of their actions.
If I did something similar, I would call it on myself. I would never do what was described because I have known it was not allowed since my second tournament.

For some infractions that are accidental, I can see the sportsmanship argument having some merit, but see no reason to ignore an error in judgment or lack of knowledge.

New question: How would you feel if you were player A and won the playoff, but it gets out on the message boards and local scene that you should not have been in the playoff because player B let you slide on an easy penalty call.

Keep your personal argument contained to minimal threads, please. You're the one that just comes across poorly when you do stuff like this, not Chuck.


Thanx for the unsolicited sage advice, but I neither desire to make CK "look bad" nor care if I somehow "look bad" myself to a subset of the readership of this MB. When there is pertinent info/argument on another thread relating to the discussion at hand, I will continue to point readers in its direction.

I'd like to throw out an experience I had at a tournament once at the HHO in 05. I was playing hole 12 and one of the guys in my group went OB throwing his disc across the creek to the green of hole 16. Since everybody doesn't know the course I'll just say there isn't anywhere to cross and recover your disc until you play hole 16. However the lead pro card was playing hole 16 and the guy in my group asked Brian Schweberger to toss him his disc. Brian's reply was I can't but he took the disc and went to the edge of the creek, placed it in the water upside down and used a stick to push the disc toward the guy. Seeing something like this from one of the top players in the sport has stuck with me. All of us can't be as forunate to witness somebody doing the right thing and FOLLOWING THE RULES!, in an out of there way situation.

The scenario in question had a much easier solution than what Brian had to do but was ignored and laziness prevailed. Call them out, if it costs them for not following the rules then maybe they will learn something from it.

Technically yes.

HOWEVER

I would hope that Player B after at least 35 holes of play in the books and still being tied with Player A; I would hope that he/she does not make that call and just let it be settled on the course.

Now, people are going to say a rule is a rule but, to me I really don't think that it was intentional (people are going to say that does not matter either) but, that would be a pretty crappy way to win a tournament. Instead of a great victory for Player A, people are going to say that it was tainted.


I agree with Mark. However I also think that this is the sort of situation where, as an outsider, I'd hope a TD or a fellow player (not involved in the 2-way-tie) would have the courage to call it. Player B SHOULD call it, but can't because it would make him a bad sportsman. If Player C or Official D steps in and makes the call, the right call is made and Player A learns a valuable lesson.

I'd hate to be Player B in this situation.



I agree. I can't imagine that I would make the call if I was player B. However, A ought to know better and I would not feel sorry for him unless they were juniors. Yesterday I found an unmarked disc laying near a basket. I don't think it had been used in the round. I suspect somebody was practicing putting before the round. The disc, a putter, looked virtually unused. I put it in my bag. a number of holes later when I saw the TD running about the course in an ATV I signalled for him to come over and then HANDED him the disc. My putter was the same color. Had I inadvertently thrown that one I would have been ripe for a warning under 802.01.

I have a rules question I would like some opinions on or a real answer from the PDGA.

This happend this past weekend at a PDGA Sanctioned event. I was on the card in question.

What happened:
A player forgot to take his putter out of the basket and we proceeded to the next hole. We all took our drives on the next hole and were approaching our discs when the player in question, remembers he forgot his disc at the last hole. When he returned, I asked where he left it and he replied it was still in the basket. I informed him that it should be a two stroke penealty.

When this was brought to the attention of the TD, he said he called Dave Gentry and that it was not a penalty. I disagreed with the TD and Gentry.

My interpretation of the rule begins with the definition of the term "Holed-Out", you must know what holed-out means in order to apply it to the rules.

From the PDGA rule book:
800. Definitions
Holed-out: A term used to signify completion of a hole. A player has "holed-out" after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device or after striking the marked area of the designated object target.

Now the rule for failing to "hole-out
804.13 holing out
(2) Inadvertently failing to hole out (as determined by a majority of the group or an official) shall result in 2 penalty throws being added to the number of throws plus penalty throws already taken on the hole. The hole shall then be considered completed.



2 stroke penalty, right ot wrong folks?
I brought this up at the tournament to other TD's and one of them being a TD for a NT event and a Worlds and I heard anything from no strokes to one stroke but none of them called a two stroke penalty.

If y'all continued playing the next hole, I would concur with a two stroke penalty. If he discovered the error after driving, then went back & retrieved his putter (thus holing out), you could (IMHO) call the next hole's drive a practice throw, have him drive again, & continue on, effectively only penalizing him one stroke.

Was the disc still in the basket when he went back? If it was there then he could complete the holing out process with no penalty because the rule does not say when it has to be removed such as before the next throw. If another player removed it, and he got his disc back from that player, the hole was completed because the rule does not say the player who threw it has to remove it to complete holing out. If he went back and the disc was not in the basket, then interference occurred and he gets to replace his disc in the basket and remove it to hole out.

No penalty in any of those scenarios.

No penalty... He holed out when he put the disc into the basket. Even if someone else removed it from the basket, he would have still holed-out, and even if he returns later there is no time constraint here. He eventually got it out, so no penalty. I am surprised you would do that to someone during a tournament. Are you trying to read something into the rules in hopes of giving players unwarranted penalty strokes? Sounds like you need to lighten up man....


803.13 Holing out
A. A player who fails to play any hole or fails to hole out on any hole during the round may be disqualified, at the discretion of the director, using the following guidelines:
(1) Holes missed due to late arrival may be scored and penalized according to section 804.02.
(2) Inadvertently failing to hole out (as determined by a majority of the group or an official) shall result in 2 penalty throws being added to the number of throws plus penalty throws already taken on the hole. The hole shall then be considered completed.
(3) Intentionally failing to hole out (emergency, injury, plane flight, etc.) constitutes withdrawal from competition. The player shall be withdrawn from competition and officially listed as �Did Not Finish� on the scorecard and in the event results.

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.

Reading the rule above it says nowhere that he must remove it. It just says that it must remain with the chains or entrapment sections until removed....

You should have been given a courtesy violation for making up rules and trying to stroke players for no real reason....

C. Object Targets: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must strike the marked target area on the object as specified by the director.

Chuck, so when does the rule apply? Under your argument the player has up to the completion of the round to go back and get it.

Is that what your saying?

Is that what your saying?



I think so. I think the only way a penalty occurs is if the scorecard gets turned in and someone sees his disc still in the basket which would be unlikely unless maybe that was the last hole in the round.

I'm not sure exactly why removing the disc was part of the rule for holing out. Since the RC won't indicate a formal way to determine if a disc is at rest, it seems to me that the group can decide when the disc is at rest and holing out has occurred. Considering object targets don't require removal, I'm wondering if maybe the removing the disc should be stricken from the next rules update?

You need to refer to your PDGA definition as to what Holed-out is. Read my first post.

It has nothing to do with the player, position, cash or place of finish. I was called on this rule two years agao and now I want a clear understanding of it.

Per your post:
2) Inadvertently failing to hole out (as determined by a majority of the group or an official) shall result in 2 penalty throws being added to the number of throws plus penalty throws already taken on the hole. The hole shall then be considered completed. Under your argument, I could leave putters in every basket as long as I took them all out before the round is over.

Now, I ask you, WHERE DOES THIS RULE APPLY?

If y'all continued playing the next hole, I would concur with a two stroke penalty. If he discovered the error after driving, then went back & retrieved his putter (thus holing out), you could (IMHO) call the next hole's drive a practice throw, have him drive again, & continue on, effectively only penalizing him one stroke.



Where do you guys play tourny's at so I can be sure not to come there?

How about being courteous to players at an event and giving them the benefit of the doubt and not trying to figure out crazy ways to screw someone? Unbelievable.... :confused:

The dfinition of hole-out says it must be removed to complete the hole.
From the PDGA rule book:
800. Definitions
Holed-out: A term used to signify completion of a hole. A player has "holed-out" after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device or after striking the marked area of the designated object target.

It has nothing to do with the player, position, cash or place of finish. I was called on this rule two years agao and now I want a clear understanding of it.


I wasn't trying to figure a way to screw someone as you put it. I have been called on it before, took the two strokes and now I'm just asking WTH?

Is that what your saying?



I think so. I think the only way a penalty occurs is if the scorecard gets turned in and someone sees his disc still in the basket which would be unlikely unless maybe that was the last hole in the round.

I'm not sure exactly why removing the disc was part of the rule for holing out. Since the RC won't indicate a formal way to determine if a disc is at rest, it seems to me that the group can decide when the disc is at rest and holing out has occurred. Considering object targets don't require removal, I'm wondering if maybe the removing the disc should be stricken from the next rules update?




So the 2 stroke penalty for failing to hole out is written in the rule book but actually a non-rule? or should it say on the final hole of a round?

Was the disc still in the basket when he went back? If it was there then he could complete the holing out process with no penalty because the rule does not say when it has to be removed such as before the next throw. If another player removed it, and he got his disc back from that player, the hole was completed because the rule does not say the player who threw it has to remove it to complete holing out. If he went back and the disc was not in the basket, then interference occurred and he gets to replace his disc in the basket and remove it to hole out.

No penalty in any of those scenarios.


Sound fishy. If one could proceed to the next hole w/o holing out, what is to stop someone from skipping that knee-knocker 15-footer, playing the rest of his round, then coming back to attempt to hole out the 15-footer?

I guess "playing from an incorrect lie" could be pertinent to the above scenario, but I would also argue that until one holes out (by removing disc from the basket), the "correct lie" is not the next teepad.

Sound fishy. If one could proceed to the next hole w/o holing out, what is to stop someone from skipping that knee-knocker 15-footer, playing the rest of his round, then coming back to attempt to hole out the 15-footer?



That is exactly the answers we are getting. Now that I understand it more, I'll just pass on the tester putts until I have warmed up a little, then putt them in when we come back by. I mean since I do have the whole round to complete any holes, I can pick the order in which I choose to complete them, is this right Chuck?

I think the player only has until the completion of the next hole to retrieve the disc if it's still in the basket. Otherwise, a case could be made that Non-sequential play occurred per 801.04B(5) by completing holes out-of-order and a 2-shot penalty would be applied. However, if someone else had removed the disc from the basket or it was not there when he went back, then benefit of the doubt that the hole was actually completed before the next hole was completed resulting in no penalty.

Where do you guys play tourny's at so I can be sure not to come there?

How about being courteous to players at an event and giving them the benefit of the doubt and not trying to figure out crazy ways to screw someone? Unbelievable.... :confused:


Rules are rules, and I believe a verbatim interpretation & enforcement of the rules is a necessary facet of courtesy not only toward one's self & the player who (even inadvertently) breaks a rule but also (and more importantly) to the rest of the field who is "screwed" (as you so eloquently put it) by letting someone slide on a rules violation just because it seems like the standup thing to do.

BTW - I play in VA, the mecca of courtesy, and you are welcome any time you wish to come.

I agree, this seems kinda petty. Ok, so you were called on it in the past. Is this a grudge thing?

I believe holing out is mostly intended for people that do not actually mark their lie and put their putter in the basket. I doubt it was intended to be used as a penalty exploit because someone forgot to remove their putter from the basket. I keep thinking that if we had a rule book that covered every single aspect and scenario for every single rule, it would be bigger than War and Peace and would only get read by Chuck. I wish it was easier to interpret an unclear rule, but for now, let's try and give the benefit of the doubt. What harm is there in forgetting your putter? Seriously.

I understand you're still struggling with the 2 strokes it cost you in the past, and I hope you can get some closure. I'm glad the penalty was overturned in this scenario, because that's just a ridiculous call. It does nothing for sportsmanship.

I think the player only has until the completion of the next hole to retrieve the disc if it's still in the basket. Otherwise, a case could be made that Non-sequential play occurred per 801.04B(5) by completing holes out-of-order and a 2-shot penalty would be applied. However, if someone else had removed the disc from the basket or it was not there when he went back, then benefit of the doubt that the hole was actually completed before the next hole was completed resulting in no penalty.


I still argue that until one holes out (by removing disc from the basket), the "correct lie" is not the next teepad, so all subsequent throws have been made from an improper lie. The "failure to hole out" 2-stroke penalty actually gives putter-forgetter some relief if he has thrown more than one throw subsequent to forgetting, as every subsequent throw could conceivably be counted as practice until he correctly holes out & plays from the correct lie (the next tee).

Where do you guys play tourny's at so I can be sure not to come there?

How about being courteous to players at an event and giving them the benefit of the doubt and not trying to figure out crazy ways to screw someone? Unbelievable.... :confused:


Rules are rules, and I believe a verbatim interpretation & enforcement of the rules is a necessary facet of courtesy not only toward one's self & the player who (even inadvertently) breaks a rule but also (and more importantly) to the rest of the field who is "screwed" (as you so eloquently put it) by letting someone slide on a rules violation just because it seems like the standup thing to do.

BTW - I play in VA, the mecca of courtesy, and you are welcome any time you wish to come.



Thanks for th invite... Really guys, I am not trying to offend here but make a point that it is a bit petty.... people remove other people discs from baskets all the time and putters get left behind from time to time. IMO as long as it doesn't interfere with the tournament in a negative way you should just let the guy run back and get is disc....no penalty. Rules-wise it seems a bit vague about allowed time to retreive, who can retreive etc...

I have seen someone from the group behind ours, hand a putter that was left in the basket to a player in my group on the next hole. No one even thought about stroking the guy...

What harm is there in forgetting your putter? Seriously.



Ask the player on the next card whose disc bounced out because the putter was still there. Hopefully it wasn't an ace that was denied.

I have seen someone from the group behind ours, hand a putter that was left in the basket to a player in my group on the next hole. No one even thought about stroking the guy...


If I were that player (the one getting his disc back), I would offer a dozen sincere "thank yous", then sheepishly pull out my rulebook &amp; figure out how many strokes to penalize myself. <u>That</u> is the courteous thing to do!

I agree, this seems kinda petty. Ok, so you were called on it in the past. Is this a grudge thing? <font color="red">No grudge, the player aand I had a beer together after the round. I'm looking for a clear definition or ruling on the matter for future referrence. </font>

I believe holing out is mostly intended <font color="red"> I'm not asking for what or how you believe it was inteneded but on how the rule is written </font> for people that do not actually mark their lie and put their putter in the basket. I doubt it was intended to be used as a penalty exploit because someone forgot to remove their putter from the basket. I keep thinking that if we had a rule book that covered every single aspect and scenario for every single rule, it would be bigger than War and Peace and would only get read by Chuck. I wish it was easier to interpret an unclear rule, but for now, let's try and give the benefit of the doubt. What harm is there in forgetting your putter? Seriously.

I understand you're still struggling with the 2 strokes it cost you in the past, <font color="red"> You're missing the point, I don't care about the 2 strokes I got way back when. But what if this situation should come up with you? Wouldn't you want to know for sure what the ruling is? </font> and I hope you can get some closure. I'm glad the penalty was overturned in this scenario, because that's just a ridiculous call. It does nothing for sportsmanship. <font color="red"> So you beleive on rules in good sportsmanship should be called and ignor the rest of them? Thats the problem we have now, just call the ones you agree with and skip the rest of them</font>

people remove other people discs from baskets all the time <font color="red">and this is okay, it only states that the disc be removed to complete the hole, not who removes it. </font> and putters get left behind from time to time. IMO as long as it doesn't interfere with the tournament in a negative way you should just let the guy run back and get is disc....no penalty. Rules-wise it seems a bit vague about allowed time to retreive, <font color="red">VERY VAGUE </font> who can retreive etc...

He did apologize.... But I agree with others here and say that the rule is meant to force you to put the disc in the basket as stated. Just because "you" didn't remove it doesn't mean you didn't make your putt. Other players remove putts, or "clear it" for other players all the time. Are you going to call them for interference evry time they clear a disc? It is all about common sense.

people remove other people discs from baskets all the time <font color="red">and this is okay, it only states that the disc be removed to complete the hole, not who removes it. </font> and putters get left behind from time to time. IMO as long as it doesn't interfere with the tournament in a negative way you should just let the guy run back and get is disc....no penalty. Rules-wise it seems a bit vague about allowed time to retreive, <font color="red">VERY VAGUE </font> who can retreive etc...





I agree... too vague.

He did apologize.... But I agree with others here and say that the rule is meant to force you to put the disc in the basket as stated.<font color="red"> again, I am addressing the way the rule is written and applied not how you think it is intended. </font> Just because "you" didn't remove it doesn't mean you didn't make your putt. <font color="red">but it does say that to complete the hole or "Hole_out" the disc must be removed </font> Other players remove putts, or "clear it" for other players all the time <font color="red">it only states it must be removed, it doesnt say who has to remove it. </font> . Are you going to call them for interference evry time they clear a disc? It is all about common sense.



<font color="red"> I'm not trying to be a rules d--k, i'm just asking for a straight answer which appears to be unobtainable from the PDGA </font>

The only thing vague is the time limit in which to retreive the disc. The rule, to me, seems to be clear cut on the penalty for failure to remove the disc.

I don't agree with that completely. The reason is that you are using two areas of the rule to make the interpretation. In the definitions is says: A player has �holedout�
after the removal of the at rest disc
from the chains or entrapment area....

In the rules it defines " at rest" to help us with this a bit and reads:

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to
hole out, the thrower must release the
disc and it must come to rest supported
by the chains or within one of the
entrapment sections. This includes a disc
wedged into or hanging from the lower
entrapment section but excludes a disc
resting on top of, or hanging outside of,
the upper entrapment section. The disc
must also remain within the chains or
entrapment sections until removed.

This to me shows that the rule is stating the importance of the disc coming to rest and not being removed until it comes to rest. So the point of mentioning this is to keep people from grabing their disc while it is still bouncing around (not at rest)in the basket. In other words, remove when it is at rest and not before, but it doesn't mean the hole is not completed once the disc is resting if it is not removed.

<font color="red"> I'm not trying to be a rules d--k, i'm just asking for a straight answer which appears to be unobtainable from the PDGA </font>



just un-obtainable from the discussion board ;)

want a real answer........contact the rules committee

rules committee contact link (http://www.pdga.com/contact.php?a=sf)

let us know what you find out

I never knew that in the definition of holing out was

Holed-Out: A term used to signify completion of a hole. A player has �holed-out� after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device or after striking the marked area of the designated object target.

but it would make sense because if you leave your disc in the chains and another putt comes in and knocks it out, then it wouldn't have been holed out. I guess "technically" it should have been 2 shots since the player played the next hole.

Then go back and read the PDGA's definition of holed-out and get back to me.

I don't dissagree with your at rest rule, The disc was at reast and had been for about 10 minutes. However, even the at rest rule states at the end of it "until removed"

"but it doesn't mean the hole is not completed once the disc is resting if it is not removed. " I dissagree with this, the definition of holed-out seems very clear and it states that holing out is the completion of the hole and that it is not complete until the disc is removed.

How can you not complete a hole and start playing the next one with out some sort of penalty?

I'm not trying to be a rules d--k, i'm just asking for a straight answer which appears to be unobtainable from the PDGA




When this was brought to the attention of the TD, he said he called Dave Gentry and that it was not a penalty. I disagreed with the TD and Gentry.



I believe you got an official answer and only Graham can over rule it.

but it would make since because if you leave your disc in the chains and another putt comes in and knocks it out, then it wouldn't have been holed out.


Except that the Interference rule allows you to replace the disc in the chains so you can then remove it.

I cannot find a single rule that says you must be holed out before you begin the next hole. In fact a course we play is set up where you tee off for hole 9 hole right after you make your drive on 8 across a small canyon. You then hole out on 8 and proceed to your lie from the drive for hole 9 and finish that hole. This is done because the tee for #9 is on the same side of the canyon as #8 tee and it is very difficult to climb up and down through the canyon.

I cannot find a single rule that says you must be holed out before you begin the next hole. In fact a course we play is set up where you tee off for the next hole right after you shoot across a small canyon. You then hole out and proceed to your lie from the drive and finish the next hole.


Jeez!
Where do you guys play tourny's at so I can be sure not to come there?

Sound fishy. If one could proceed to the next hole w/o holing out, what is to stop someone from skipping that knee-knocker 15-footer, playing the rest of his round, then coming back to attempt to hole out the 15-footer?

I guess "playing from an incorrect lie" could be pertinent to the above scenario, but I would also argue that until one holes out (by removing disc from the basket), the "correct lie" is not the next teepad.



How about playing the holes in sequence? If you skip the putt and come back later to finish it you've then played the holes in an incorrect order.

Or, better yet, practice throws. You'd come back and attempt the putt and then have to play all the holes over again -- and still count the throws prior. :)

I cannot find a single rule that says you must be holed out before you begin the next hole. In fact a course we play is set up where you tee off for hole 9 hole right after you make your drive on 8 across a small canyon. You then hole out on 8 and proceed to your lie from the drive for hole 9 and finish that hole. This is done because the tee for #9 is on the same side of the canyon as #8 tee and it is very difficult to climb up and down through the canyon.

I have sent it all to the Rules Committee for a determination.

Playing the way you do should fall under 804. Special Conditions.

We had none at this tournament.

Gentry's call over rules the RC. If the RC says something different, then it might influence Dave's call in the future.

So Gentry can overide the actual rules and definitions printed and distributed by the PDGA.?

Absolutely. And I don't believe he overrode one in this case. The only rule that's not a grey area subject to interpretation is 'holing out' to complete hole in this case. A hole isn't completed until that process is completed. Another hole had not been completed yet so no penalty for playing out of sequence. The previous hole was completed when player went back to get his disc out of the basket before completing the next hole. No penalty.

Regardless whether holing out is changed to just having the disc be declared at rest in the next rules edition, I think it would be worthwhile to consider adding a penalty if the next hole is started before previous hole is completed unless special conditions exist such as the canyon scenario.

Okay, please enlighten me as to where this authority is given to Mr. Gentry to override the written rules of play.

Chuck, I am not arguing just to argue, I just have yet to see aything concrete and clear on this.

Absolutely. And I don't believe he overrode one in this case. The only rule that's not a grey area subject to interpretation is 'holing out' to complete hole in this case. A hole isn't completed until that process is completed. Another hole had not been completed yet so no penalty for playing out of sequence. <font color="red"> But subsequent throws were taken after the failure to complete the hole, would these be considered practice throws, sinc e the previuos hole was not completed? </font> The previous hole was completed when player went back to get his disc out of the basket before completing the next hole. No penalty.

Regardless whether holing out is changed to just having the disc be declared at rest in the next rules edition, I think it would be worthwhile to consider adding a penalty if the next hole is started before previous hole is completed unless special conditions exist such as the canyon scenario.

Chuck just gave it to you: None of the holes in question had been completed. But in your case the player did complete the previous hole before completing the next, and did in fact hole-out. Not a hard one for Gentry to rule on IMO

He was not practicing because he was throwing his shot in order of play. It says nothing in the rules that one must "hole- out" before starting the next hole, only that the holes must be completed in sequence, in which failure to do so is a penalty by itself.

So its okay to not hole out play two shots on the next hole, then run back and complete the previous hole, yea that makes sense.

Why don't you try that at a NT sometime and let me know how it works out for you. :p

Okay, please enlighten me as to where this authority is given to Mr. Gentry to override the written rules of play.


Head PDGA Marshal and Co-Director of the Competition Committee reporting to Brian Graham. The rules are provided as the primary but not only official resource for running events and making rulings. For example, the Competition Manual is a separate official document from the rules of play that governs action in tournaments.

We are talking about going back to pull a putter out of a basket, not making extra shots etc.. Gentry is well aware of the level of NT play and would most likely rule the same way... Call him and ask him..... I bet if a pro was in the same situation (although I doubt it happens often) and jogged back to get his putter form the previous target after making a drive, no one would make a fuss...

He was not practicing because he was throwing his shot in order of play. It says nothing in the rules that one must "hole- out" before starting the next hole, only that the holes must be completed in sequence <font color="red"> here in lies the hole in your argument, the hole was not completed under the definition of what it takes to complete the hole and that is the removal of the disc. </font> , in which failure to do so is a penalty by itself. <font color="red">Agreed, 2 strokes </font>



How can you complete the holes in sequence, when one of them hasn't been completed? That would break the sequence, wouldn't it?

I said he would get the 2-shot penalty if he completed the next hole before retrieving the disc. But you said he had not completed the next hole?

We are talking about going back to pull a putter out of a basket, not making extra shots etc.. Gentry is well aware of the level of NT play and would most likely rule the same way... Call him and ask him..... I bet if a pro was in the same situation (although I doubt it happens often) and jogged back to get his putter form the previous target after making a drive, no one would make a fuss...



Yea, I'm sure at the USDGC, if Feldberg were to do that, Climo, Doss, Shultz and the others would say nothing. :p


You keep wanting to interpret the rule to what you think it means, I am not making an interpretation, I am reading exactly the way it is written. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I said he would get the 2-shot penalty if he completed the next hole before retrieving the disc. But you said he had not completed the next hole?



You are correct, but he had taken two shots after failure to complete the hole. And where do you get the information that he can go back and complete the last hole if he hasn't completed the next hole yet? I can't find that anywhere?

I think we need another rules revision. ;)

I can't find anything written that says he has to complete the previous hole before proceeding but he definitely can't complete the next hole before the previous one. That's the loophole that should probably be closed. Did you find explicit wording that a player must complete a hole before playing additional shots? It seems obvious but I don't see the words. And I'm not sure the tee pad qualifies as a 'lie' in the way it's defined. If the tee is a lie then a penalty might be in order.

Ok in your senario you said he made two drives, but that was not a completed hole,,, right? So it doesn't really matter how many shots. How many of you think that Doss, Climo and Schultz would try to penalize Dave Feldberg if he threw his drive and then realized he left his putter in the basket and then quickly jogged over to the last hole and grabbed his disc and came right back?

He made two throws; one drive and a second shot and no that hole hadn't been completed yet.

I won't answer your question, my answer is obvious. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Do you not find it difficult to understand how a hole is not completed "under the definition of holed-out" but a player can continue and take two additional throws with out some sort of penalty? The whole premise of our game is to complete a hole before we move on to the next one.

Just the whole idea of being able to go back and complete a hole after you're half way into the next one with out any type of penalty is beyond me. Especially the way the current rules are written. :confused:

Even Chuck's explanation of it not being a penalty because he hadn't completed another hole after that one yet doesn't seem right. With this I could not finish a hole get up to my putt on the next hole, run back complete the previous hole, then run back to the next basket, make my putt, thus completing the last hole and the current hole in the span of one shot. Seems right doesn't it? :confused:

Just the whole idea of being able to go back and complete a hole after you're half way into the next one with out any type of penalty is beyond me.


Depends on how long the hole is and how fast the person moves. The 30 second rule is still in effect so a courtesy violation could occur.

I think I understand your point and it is good enough at that. Obiously there are lots of holes in the rules. The Rules Q&amp;A cover things that are missing. I would ask them to clear it up.

What I am pointing out here has to do with the definition itself. The idea that a person has not holed out simply because they forgot his disc in the basket is hard for me to agree with. I understand what it says in the rules and it is somewhat clear. But most players would allow the guy to run back and get his disc. I have seen it happen more than once, and usually the person has already announced their score and we are by the next tee. As long as the person gets their disc before it becomes a problem, ie; completing the next hole or distracting the next group I don't think most people would be so critical. Why? Again because the player made their putt and it is in the basket. You keep going down this hypothetical road where the lack of clarity could end up allowing people to play disc golf wonka-vator style, saving putts till later and all kinds of crazy stuff playing everywhich way. That's not the same as a disc left in the basket for a few extra minutes IMO. I wonder what Gentry's reason for his interpretation is? It would be interesting to find out.... :eek:

While we are on this subject, this is what happened to me this past weekend. A player in my group picked up my disc a threw it in the basket and told me it was a gimme. I told him and the group that I wanted a mark, which they reluctantly did (it was a foot away) and then I holed out and collected my disc. Now I could have stroked him (without warning) 2 penalty strokes. Is this right? I did not, but told him if he touched my disc again that I would.

It is interesting to me, because on the other hand players are always grabbing your "at rest" disc from the basket and handing it to you, which esentially could be considered intentional interference of your disc at rest.

If this call was made, and someone seconds this ridiculous call you could receive 2 penalty strokes without warning as well. Is this right?

Which brings us back to the holing-out discussion. Just how serious are we about the official removal of the disc from the target after it comes to rest, and what actually constitutes the completion of a hole.

IMO, Strictly speaking you and you alone are the only one allowed to remove your disc from the target. But in tournament play we frequently break this rule if I am reading it correctly.

I think what may have happened is that the Interference rule was updated so that discs at rest on the target get to stay there even if moved. That change removed the need for players to remove their disc to complete holing out but that wasn't deleted from the holing out rule. The only reason a player needs to remove their disc is if the other players ask to have it removed which is their right. Not sure I can see a reason to retain the 'remove the disc' as part of completing a hole.

Absolutely, every time you grab your buddies disc out of the bottom of the basket you should be stroked without warning. I am totally for this and think everyone should be stroked for doing this. Also, I think that anyone, anywhere on the course that makes a single noise while I'm enjoying my 30 seconds on the tee should be stroked. :D

I agree.. And likewise in the same sense, an intentional interference call of a disc at rest in the basket could be removed too. It just seems silly that someone could technically call and be seconded, and that would give a guy two strokes for handing someone their holed-out disc!

And likewise in the same sense, an intentional interference call of a disc at rest in the basket could be removed too.


Wouldn't be needed. If the rule is changed so a disc is holed out by coming to rest supported by the chains or basket, then anyone touching it after that point would be picking up a disc not in play.

While we are on this subject, this is what happened to me this past weekend. A player in my group picked up my disc a threw it in the basket and told me it was a gimme. I told him and the group that I wanted a mark, which they reluctantly did (it was a foot away) and then I holed out and collected my disc. Now I could have stroked him (without warning) 2 penalty strokes. Is this right? I did not, but told him if he touched my disc again that I would.



unfortunately that is not an infraction that can be warned, it is an automatic 2 stroke penalty, that you shouldn't have to call, the player should immediately call himself on it.

C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc, or consciously moves or obscures another player�s thrown disc at rest or a marker disc, other than by the action of a competitively thrown disc or in the process of identification, shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official.


Now granted, I will on a rare occasion take a players disc out of the basket at the same time I get mine and will hand it right to him and even this is only in a group of players that don't mind it, but I will NEVER pick any disc from the ground, other than my own. :p

other than by the action of a competitively thrown disc or in the process of identification,


All you have to say, "Is this your disc?" as you hand it to them... :D

:p /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ;)

When I win my first advanced tournament I want it to be bacause I stroked one guy for forgetting his putter, then stroked him again because he grabbed my disc out of the basket for me. :D

First off, I didn't stroke him, the rest of the group thought it was a penalty, second had it happened to me, I would have felt I needed to stroke myself, the way the rule is currently written. ;)

and 3rd, you have a long way to go to win an advanced tournament. :D

Twoputt I think as the rules are stated now you are correct that this is a 2 stroke penalty. I wonder if anyone's opinions would change if the disc was wedged in the side of the basket. What if as witnessed by someone the disc popped out and was laying on the ground when the thrower returned. I think it is because of this situation that the rule was written that the disc has to be removed to be completed.

In reference to the original situation, as a player I would have a problem stroking a player for this. The player did not gain an advantage over anyone else and he did not negatively affect any players. As a TD prior to this thread I wouldn't of stroked the player either, but now I know the letter of the law is a 2 stroke penalty. Talk about a rule that needs to be altered. I think an exception to the rule needs to be added to the rule book. If a player inadvertently doesn't hole out, but can do so by just removing his disc then no penalty will be assessed.

I received a reply from the rules committee on this situation.

Ready?

They feel comfortable with either a 2 stroke penalty or no penalty and lean towards no penalty.

Sounds clear to me. :p

What needs to be done is remove the statement "The disc must be Removed from the entrapment device" from the definition of "holed-out" Just make it a disc at rest, as determined by the majority of the group or an official. ;)

As I said earlier, I didn't just jump and stroke him, the group talked about it on the next hole and determined it was two strokes. The player in question and I sat and had a beer after the round, no problems, just trying to understand and apply the rules correctly. ;)

just trying to <u>understand</u> and apply the rules correctly. ;)


Good luck with that!

TwoPutt quote :

" I received a reply from the rules committee on this situation.

Ready?

They feel comfortable with either a 2 stroke penalty or no penalty and lean towards no penalty. " ... either ? ... or ? ... lean-towards ? ...
.
.
.
TwoPutt quote :

" 2 stroke penalty, right ot wrong folks?
I brought this up at the tournament to other TD's and one of them being a TD for a NT event and a Worlds and I heard anything from no strokes to one stroke but none of them called a two stroke penalty. " ... when Wise first asked about this scenario , my first-response was "nah , no penalty , Rule number sumpthin' thirteen" ... but Wise seemed very certain ... then after producing my Rules-Book -and- Competition-Manual , he pointed me to section 800 , page 3 , Definitions ... there it is , in black-and-white , crystal-clear ... "removal" ... for the next twenty minutes , I'm pouring over every-page of both books ; still shakin' my head ... I told Wise that I had to agree with him ... 2 stroke penalty ... believe me , I wanted-that-to-be-wrong ... I'm glad it had no effect on standings-and-payout ... but that is how the "book" is printed on this scenario ... period ... the big 10-4 ... roger-wilco ... done-deal lucille ... over 'n' out ...
.
.
.

Chuck34 quote :

" I can't find anything written that says he has to complete the previous hole before proceeding " ... that's exactly what I was pouring over every section to find ... I found nothing either , Chuck ... " Did you find explicit wording that a player must complete a hole before playing additional shots? " ... nope ... " It seems obvious but I don't see the words. " ... yup ...
.
.
.
.
Senior_Anti_Hussein_Bohn quote :

" While we are on this subject, this is what happened to me this past weekend. A player in my group picked up my disc a threw it in the basket and told me it was a gimme. I told him and the group that I wanted a mark, which they reluctantly did (it was a foot away) and then I holed out and collected my disc. " ... Practice Throw ... 803.01B ... no warning ... no appeal ... no interpretation ... automatic one-stroke penalty on him ... (another problem area in our current "books" that needs fixing) ...
.
.
.

outtabounds quote :

" Yesterday I found an unmarked disc laying near a basket. I don't think it had been used in the round. I suspect somebody was practicing putting before the round. The disc, a putter, looked virtually unused. I put it in my bag. a number of holes later when I saw the TD running about the course in an ATV I signalled for him to come over and then HANDED him the disc. " ... now HERE'S a doozie-of-a-deal for ya ... for you kindness , you receive a two-stroke penalty ... read 802.01E ... you carried it ... automatic ... no appeal ... no warning ... no interpretation ... no TD-discretion ... but , hey : it used to be worse-than-that years-ago before a re-write ... it used to be penalty-strokes -X- multiplied-by -X- the-number-of-holes-you-carried-it ... OUCH ... (another re-write needed , ay ?) ...

outtabounds quote :

" Yesterday I found an unmarked disc laying near a basket. I don't think it had been used in the round. I suspect somebody was practicing putting before the round. The disc, a putter, looked virtually unused. I put it in my bag. a number of holes later when I saw the TD running about the course in an ATV I signalled for him to come over and then HANDED him the disc. " ... now HERE'S a doozie-of-a-deal for ya ... for you kindness , you receive a two-stroke penalty ... read 802.01E ... you carried it ... automatic ... no appeal ... no warning ... no interpretation ... no TD-discretion ... but , hey : it used to be worse-than-that years-ago before a re-write ... it used to be penalty-strokes -X- multiplied-by -X- the-number-of-holes-you-carried-it ... OUCH ... (another re-write needed , ay ?) ...



You made the common mistake of thinking the ruling for an unmarked disc as the same as an illegal disc.

802.01.E. A player who carries an illegal disc during play shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. A player who repeatedly throws an illegal disc during the round may be subject to disqualification in accordance with 804.05 A (3).

802.01.F. All discs used in play, except mini marker discs, must be uniquely marked in ink or pigment-based marking which has no detectable thickness. A player shall receive a warning for the first instance of throwing an unmarked disc if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. After the warning has been given, each subsequent throw by the player with an unmarked disc shall incur one penalty throw if observed by two or more players of the group or an official.

... which poses the question :


� �unmarked disc� = legal disc ? �
.
� or �
.
� �unmarked disc� = illegal disc ? �
.
.
.
( it has to be one or the other ) � in the past , their rulings have been = "illegal" �


... this happened to a friend-of-mine and penalties were incurred at the PDGA World Championships in Alabama , 1993 ... sad , but true ...

802.01E - very interesting indeed

so if a disc of yours cracks during the round, your expected to throw it in the trash? carrying it with you the rest of the round is now illegal? how stupid is that?

or maybe you discover as a round starts that your favorite disc is cracked - you don't plan on throwing it anymore, but you want to save it to put it on your wall when you get back home, but yet carrying it in your bag for that round costs you 2 strokes?

802.01.B ...A disc which is cracked during a round may be carried by the player, but not used, for the balance of the tournament. The player must immediately declare his intention to carry the newly cracked or broken disc to the group or be subject to penalty under 802.01 E.

ah ok, makes more sense now, thanks

TwoPutt quote :

" I received a reply from the rules committee on this situation.

Ready?

They feel comfortable with either a 2 stroke penalty or no penalty and lean towards no penalty. " ... either ? ... or ? ... lean-towards ? ...
.
.
.
TwoPutt quote :

" 2 stroke penalty, right ot wrong folks?
I brought this up at the tournament to other TD's and one of them being a TD for a NT event and a Worlds and I heard anything from no strokes to one stroke but none of them called a two stroke penalty. " ... when Wise first asked about this scenario , my first-response was "nah , no penalty , Rule number sumpthin' thirteen" ... but Wise seemed very certain ... then after producing my Rules-Book -and- Competition-Manual , he pointed me to section 800 , page 3 , Definitions ... there it is , in black-and-white , crystal-clear ... "removal" ... for the next twenty minutes , I'm pouring over every-page of both books ; still shakin' my head ... I told Wise that I had to agree with him ... 2 stroke penalty ... believe me , I wanted-that-to-be-wrong ... I'm glad it had no effect on standings-and-payout ... but that is how the "book" is printed on this scenario ... period ... the big 10-4 ... roger-wilco ... done-deal lucille ... over 'n' out ...
.
.
.

Chuck34 quote :

" I can't find anything written that says he has to complete the previous hole before proceeding " ... that's exactly what I was pouring over every section to find ... I found nothing either , Chuck ... " Did you find explicit wording that a player must complete a hole before playing additional shots? " ... nope ... " It seems obvious but I don't see the words. " ... yup ...
.
.
.
.
Senior_Anti_Hussein_Bohn quote :

" While we are on this subject, this is what happened to me this past weekend. A player in my group picked up my disc a threw it in the basket and told me it was a gimme. I told him and the group that I wanted a mark, which they reluctantly did (it was a foot away) and then I holed out and collected my disc. " ... Practice Throw ... 803.01B ... no warning ... no appeal ... no interpretation ... automatic one-stroke penalty on him ... (another problem area in our current "books" that needs fixing) ...
.
.
.

outtabounds quote :

" Yesterday I found an unmarked disc laying near a basket. I don't think it had been used in the round. I suspect somebody was practicing putting before the round. The disc, a putter, looked virtually unused. I put it in my bag. a number of holes later when I saw the TD running about the course in an ATV I signalled for him to come over and then HANDED him the disc. " ... now HERE'S a doozie-of-a-deal for ya ... for you kindness , you receive a two-stroke penalty ... read 802.01E ... you carried it ... automatic ... no appeal ... no warning ... no interpretation ... no TD-discretion ... but , hey : it used to be worse-than-that years-ago before a re-write ... it used to be penalty-strokes -X- multiplied-by -X- the-number-of-holes-you-carried-it ... OUCH ... (another re-write needed , ay ?) ...




In my situation, I was thinking I could have called the player for intentional interference which is 2 strokes without warning. Are you also saying I could have tagged on a 3rd stroke without warning for a practice throw into the basket? :confused: