Hypothetically, if you are in a group of 3 for your 2nd round of a two day event
and you know one of the players is showing up late, what is the proper procedure?

Issues:
* After the "fire it up" is sounded you can't tee off in a group of 2 due to the requirement
of having 3 in a group.
*If you can't tee off, you can't "stroke" a player par +4 per hold until the late
player arrives.

Solutions:
*Tell the TD and do what he says.
*Since there were only a group of 3 on the hole "behind" you, move to that group to make
a group of 5 until the late player arrives and stroke them par+4 for the holes missed, then
either proceed in the original group of 3 ahead of the other group, or remain in a group of 6.
(The course could have easily accommodated this due to being open and short, with few players
on the course).
*Other?

I am sure there are going to be lots of opinions and thoughts on this, just curious as to how
others would have handled this hypothetical situation.

I think it depends on how certain you are that the player is coming. If the player called and is two miles away waiting for a train to cross and will be there for sure, then that's reasonable they will show up. If the group is there and the player can't be found and didn't tell the TD anything, then the following have been some solutions used in practice. These solutions could still be valid even if you think the player will arrive:
1. If the group comprises the only players in the division, no problem. Start play and penalize player if/when they show up.
2. If the group is the bottom card in a bigger division and it's the last round with little chance to contend for prizes, then start play as a twosome.
3. If there are groups of 3 or 4 in front and behind, split up with one going forward and the other backward. If late player shows up, the TD should put them on any card that wouldn't produce more than fivesome, even if it's not with either player they would have played with, and take the late penalties for the holes played by that group.

Would proceeding as a twosome allow for colusion where aces are concerned?

That's the TD's call, since the Rules do not address side bets.

This actually happened to me at 2000 Worlds. When they blew the two minute warning my caddy and I were the only ones at the tee. A second player came walking over from the field where he was practicing. He asked the question. I supposed that since we were not allowed to play as a twosome we would have to wait for the foursome behind us to catch up. Since it was my tee, the other players would not actually be late to the tee until the group behind caught up and we formed two threesomes. When they blew tee off a player was jogging up the fairway so we waited for the distraction to be clear, and when he showed up our fourth came jogging up the fairway, so it all became academic.

I think generally you should wait for the group behind to catch up and then play as two threesomes or a fivesome, whatever you got. But if you know you are on the course with no one behind you for a bunch of holes, I don't know what you do. Generally, I'd trust the two of you to play as a twosome until you caught the group ahead of you. There is no penalty specified for playing as a twosome, so I'm not going to make one up unless your scores look fishy.

OK, to add more information for this hypothetical situation, the player
was called prior to the 2 minute warning (only just), and informed us
that he was at the park, and running down to the hole.

Again, hypothetically speaking, the late player was WAY out of
contention, but the other two players were fighting for top card status
and final 9 play the next day. The card ahead (two holes ahead) is a
different division, and the card behind is the middle card in the division.
But the scores were still close enough that anything can happen.

Hypothetical again, the player showed up about 5 minutes late, so it
was all a moot point, but still curious as to if they were 15 minutes
late, or 20, or 30.

I believe the two players that were there would/should have played
with the 3 some behind them in the same division and carded a par+4
until they showed up.

Hypothetical, of course.

Thanks for the feedback and opinions.

PS, collusion was a serious consideration, as the 1st hole was a
119 foot shot at an ace. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Rule 804.06 C states:

"Groups shall not be less than three players, except under extenuating circumstances, as deemed necessary by the director, to promote fairness. In cases where fewer than three players are required to play together, an official is required to accompany the group and may play as long as this does not interfere with the competing players."

I don't think the above gives much guidance to the two players in the situation we are discussing. The TD did not design it to be a 2 person group, so we are OK there. I don't like how the last sentence is written, because it seems to be a requirement put up on the Official, and not the two players in the group. There is also no stated consequence for the two players if they indeed compete as a twosome. The only rule I could find that comes close is 804.05 A (3): "Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.", and I don't think this is applicable, since I don't think that the two people made a willful decision to play as a twosome; it occurred because of the failure of the third person to appear.

The only verbage I could find in the Comp Manual basically mirrored the Rule 84.06C, and I could find nothing in the Rules Q&A about this situation.

If I was in the group, I would tee off as expected, announcing when each player is to tee off, then giving the no show player a par plus 4 when the 30s has expired, then go on and then continue until all players have teed off. It is then that any appropriate measures should be enacted, whatever they may be, such as to stop play until the next group behind you tees off, wait for an official, etc.

Except you can't tee off with just two players since no one is there to second the foot fault.

If there is no foot fault, then no second is needed. Besides, the last three times I've called a foot fault, there has been no second even on cards with a foursome.

A foot fault is just one example of a rule where a second is needed and why groups of two are less functional even if allowed in some instances.

Except you can't tee off with just two players since no one is there to second the foot fault.
The thrower could second the foot fault. Or are we assuming every player is a cheater? :D

Chuck,

I have been there on another thread. To summarize:

- You can second a call made on you;
- Even if there were 5 people on your card, you can't force anyone to watch for a foot fault in the case you call one. That is, there is no consequence for someone stating that they did not second your call because they were not watching, versus someone stating that they did not second your call because they were watching and believed that there was no violation.

Talk about abusing the rules! You decide not to watch your buddy throw, so that you cannot second a violation called on him, and there is nothing anybody can do to make you watch so that you can second, if there is a call. I couldn't get anyone with any responsibility to man up and admit that was a circumvention of the Rules to consciously not watch others.

Krupicka, I bet you received no second on your last three calls because no one else was watching, right?

The usual responses:
1- "I wasn't watching"
2- silence with a deer in the headlights look.

Howdy Chucker

I inadvertently called a foot fault on myself at Knob Hill one year when I commented "Wow, I almost slipped off the edge of the tee pad, I must have foot faulted", which was seconded in record time by one of the locals since I had parked my tee shot. I thought I was going to be penalized a shot, but it was only a warning. Nevertheless I was so ****** I shanked my make-up shot and bogied the hole. So no, you do not need three people to call a foot fault, especially if you are an over-talkative maroon like me! DD

It's not that foot faults can't be handled by two players but you need a deciding vote (or official) which is why two player groups are discouraged. There are other rules situations where a group decision is involved and two players leads to more split vote situations, not that it isn't possible in groups of 3, 4 or 5 either.

Krupicka,

Loved your response #2 - it's like your speaking a foreign language to them. The only thing you forgot to mention was the sounds of the crickets chirping in the background!

ddevine,

Another good laugh. Kinda like piranha, waiting for a drop of blood to give them a reason to attack.

Chuck,

I agree that twosomes should be discouraged, but your previous message, "Except you can't tee off with just two players since no one is there to second the foot fault" read to me that it was not just discouraged, but prohibited, and I do not think that is the case.

804.06C says no less than 3 allowed in a group and only the TD can make an exception. So twosomes missing their 3rd player at tee time must join another group if there's no TD around, unless they are the only ones in the division.

Chuck,

I believe that the rule you quoted deals with the formation of groups prior to the start of the round. The group was constituted as a threesome. Where in the rules, Comp manual, etc, does it make or suggest that statement you made that the twosome must join another group?

I read that rule over and it does not say that it is for formation of groups prior to the start of the round. The title is "Grouping and Sectioning" indicating that it applies for the entire tournament, not just the time period prior to the starting gun. It does say that groups shall be no less than three, but provides for twosomes if an official walks with them. It does not say a twosome has to join another group.

That being said, there are many things not explicitly "said" in the rules, but people with functioning brains have to figure out ways of complying with the rules. A twosome joining another group is but one mechanism to effect such compliance.

The title of 804.06 is Grouping and Sectioning. This is a role performed by the TD, not players. If you look at every sentence in 804.06, each action specified is an action that is to be done by the TD. (Of course, pretty much every sentence is in passive voice which means that the actor is technically unspecified). 804.06.C is attempting to give rights to the player to not be placed in a group of 2. If they're are placed in a group of 2, the TD needs to provide an official to walk (and if they want play) with that group.

The title of 804.06 is Grouping and Sectioning. This is a role performed by the TD, not players. If you look at every sentence in 804.06, each action specified is an action that is to be done by the TD. (Of course, pretty much every sentence is in passive voice which means that the actor is technically unspecified). 804.06.C is attempting to give rights to the player to not be placed in a group of 2. If there are placed in a group of 2, the TD needs to provide an official to walk (and if they want play) with that group.


My point was that even though nothing in the rules "says" a twosome must join another group if the other player(s) in the group do not show, they have to do something in order to comply with the rules. One of their options is to join another group. Another option would be to request an official to accompany them.

deleted

One guy goes to the next group and the other guy goes with the group behind you.

Darn, I probably would have enjoyed the read.

And thank you for giving some meat to what I said about applying to the TD, who is the one who is responsible for the formation of groups. I knew I was correct, but you were able to state that if you look at how the sentences were written, then they must apply to the TD.

And both of the players in the twosome, that have "functioning brains" can scour the Rule Book and Competition Manual, word by word, and not find anything that tells them, or even suggests to them, what they should do once they found themselves in that twosome position.

If they decide to wait until the group behind them catches up to them on the tee box, there is nothing in the Rules that gives them a free pass not to be subject to 801.03 Excessive Time.

Say that my group is on tee box #6, which is very close to tee box #17, where the twosome is. If I observe them just standing around, when I can see that hole #17, their playing area, is "clear and free from distractions", I can mark 30 seconds off, then give whomever was supposed to tee off a warning for excessive time. If they say that they are waiting for an Official to show up, or the group behind them to catch up to them, I would say "Fine, but if you wait another 30 seconds, I will issue another violation. You can argue it out with the TD later, but there is nothing in the Rules that tells you two what to do, except to act like a normal group and play on."

I'm wouldn't intentionally be trying to give them a hard time, I would just expect them to be playing by,and complying with the Rules, and not inserting a non-Rule Rule into this situation, which some are trying to do here.

Bottom line - show me where in the rules, Comp manual, etc., it tells the two players what to do. It does not. It only tells the TD that, if the TD decides under extenuating circumstances to foar a group of two, then that group must be accompanied by an Official.

One guy goes to the next group and the other guy goes with the group behind you.

So, if I don't like the group I am in, I can choose to go on another card? If that twosome can do it, without any justification, why can't I?

The Rules don't say that a group, twosome or not, can spontaneously dissolve the group and merge with another.

Now, does it prohibit it? You know, I couldn't find anything in the Rules about that either. So it appears that anyone is free to join another card, although I would advise that you only do that before the round starts, so that it becomes even a stickier situation when your new group arrives at a hole you have already played.

I will think about trying that in my next event. If I see a group that looks like it would be more fun to play in, and they are in my division, I'll just mosey over there and tell them that I had my name stricken from the card where it was orignally written, and to please write my name in on their card.

The rules don't HAVE to tell them what to do, just what not to do without TD permission and that is not to play as a twosome. Since foursomes and fivesomes are allowed, they can choose that option by joining other groups without permission. (As Carlton said, if not prevented by the rules then an option is presumed legal if it doesn't violate laws)

The more troublesome issue is when someone gets injured or sick in a threesome once the round has started and that player abandons the group leaving two players who have played a different number of holes than the groups they might join up with. When that has happened, I've seen no problem with the group watching these players complete the holes if necessary at the end of the round.

The rules do not say, "Do not play as a twosome", the rules say, "Don't create the groups as a twosome" The group was created as a threesome. Three players were required to play together. Thus the rule was met. One of the players happened to not show. That AWOL player was still required to play with the other two. He just wasn't meeting his end of the bargain.

I think this is another area where the rules don't quite say what most of us have understood them to mean.

Chuck,

Please, please, PLEASE tell me what rule tells a group of two not to proceed without TD approval. Section 803 is "Rules of Play" and Section 804 is "Tournament Procedures". I think it makes sense that, in general, 803 applies to the players, and 804 applies to the Tournament Director.

I noticed that in 804, except for the references to the optional uses of drop zones, 2 meter rule, and what the players are to do if there is a suspension of play, there is essentially nothing that applies to the "Tee to basket" aspect of the Game, or applies to the time between you tee off at a hole to the time you hole out at that same hole. Shotgun vs Staggered start, Scorekeeping, DQing, Sectioning - all deal with issues either before the round has begun (Grouping/Sectioning and Beginning Play), the time between one hole is completed and the next is started (scorekeeping), or after the round is over (breaking ties, DQ/Suspension).

Chuck, you know me well enough I think to know that I do not argue or arguments' sake, but I am a passionate defender of the most defenseless part of DG, which is the Rules of Play. I have posted before that I can be won over with logic and with conclusions deriven from facts, but I also reserve the right to be wrong.

I know that, in practice, it is not a good idea to have a twosome, and others have made suggestions as to what that twosome should do. Since I can't find anything in the Rules against it, the twosome could immediately join another group, or split up and join 2 groups, preferrably the group ahead and behind them, or just plain continue play as a twosome. The only bugaboo would be if, let's say, the group became a twosome on the 8th tee pad, and one player walked back to the group playing 7 and one walked up to #9, it might cause a minor inconvenience for the group on 9, because they would have to come back and watch that player play hole 8, and also might have to watch that player start hole 9, if that group had already teed off on that hole.

I think this is another area where the rules don't quite say what most of us have understood them to mean.

Maybe the twosome could just declare that all of their throws after they became a twosome were provisional throws. That would clear things up, wouldn't it? :D

The rules do not say, "Do not play as a twosome", the rules say, "Don't create the groups as a twosome" The group was created as a threesome. Three players were required to play together. Thus the rule was met. One of the players happened to not show. That AWOL player was still required to play with the other two. He just wasn't meeting his end of the bargain.


Actually, the rules say neither. They say "groups shall not be less than three" unless circumstances are such that the director deems it necessary, in which case an official must accompany the group. "Do not play as a twosome" is an inference, a correct one mind you, but not what the rules say. Upon realization that the third player of the group is not going to "meet his end of the bargain", in the very least they need to get a word to the director that an official is needed to accompany the group in order to comply with the rules. If instructions come from the director for one of them to join the group in front and one to join the group behind, then that becomes what they have to do in order to continue participating in the tournament.

There is also no provision requiring an AWOL player to play with the other two players. That's only a requirement if the player desires to continue participating in the tournament. Once that player decides not to show/play/participate, that person is no longer subject to any such requirement.

I'd agree, informing the TD or an official as soon as possible is wise and courteous. Depending on the course and where you are on the course, that might not be so simple.

exczar

I see your point about 804 being predominately TD administration requirements for running the tournament, but at the end of the day, all of the the rules are to be complied with by all participants, players and TDs alike. As for a prohibition on two-player groups, 804.06(C) says that groups shall not be less than three and provides a required remedy for when fewer than three players are required to play together, that being accompaniment by an official. If the TD has these players join other groups, then there is no longer a situation where fewer than three players are being required to play as a group.

I'd agree, informing the TD or an official as soon as possible is wise and courteous. Depending on the course and where you are on the course, that might not be so simple.

Absolutely. New Quarter Park DGC in Williamsburg VA is on @50 acres of land. Holes 12 through 16 are more than a quarter-mile from where we run the tournaments. Almost impossible to effectively get a message from there to tournament central. That's why I usually mingle amongst the groups after the start and make sure everything is cool. I make myself visible enough that people can hail me if they need to.

I dream of the day when we can have an official for every 2 or 3 holes on the course to handle these situations as they arise.

This is why as a TD I announce in the player meeting before final rounds that if players find themselves in a twosome when the two minute warning sounds, to split up and move to a group ahead or behind. I also actually pull players on the last cards aside ahead of the player meeting and explain the situation and to be prepared. Sometimes it happens on higher cards, which is why I also mention it during the player meeting.

Many years ago, I was forced to accompany a twosome when a "pro" player had a temper tantrum and left early. Good thing I walked along, as these two players ended up cashing. Nowadays, I have a group of volunteers helping at my events and I could send another official out to escort a card.

I will let divisions of two play as twosomes. Generally this is Seniors, Grands or Ladies. I explain they will have to make their own calls, but if they have a problem to play provisionals and let me know. It has been my experience that these players in smaller divisions have a good grasp of sportsmanship. Plus, they have likely played many rounds with each other over the years during both casual and tournament play. In all the years I have done this, not once did a divisional twosome have any rules issues.

August,

You are absolutely correct about 804.06C stating that "Groups shall not be less than three players". The difference in the way I am interpreting this is in deciding not only who has the onus in remedying this situation, but also the temporal context of the Rule.

I think that we both agree that it is on the TD before the round starts to assure that, if there are any twosomes, that they be accompanied by an official. Where we disagree is when a twosome is created in the middle of the round. The rule gives a remedy if the two players are required to play together, and I think we are saying that they are not, since one remedy would be to put them on different cards, where they would not be playing together.

This is where the hole in the Rules is. The Rules do not specify a remedy in what should be done if a twosome is created outside of the TD's control, it only specifies a remedy if the twosome was created by the TD, or allowed to exist as in a 2 person division.

Here's a test - What if the group continued to play as a twosome for the remainder of the round. Would the two people be subject to any negative consequences of doing so? Would they receive penalty strokes, or would they be DQd? If there would be no negative consequences, then there is no rule against it, or no consequences against it occuring during the round.

I try to think of it this way. If there is a rule that says, "Condition X cannot exist", this is saying, to me at least, "Do not create Condition X", and in our context, the creator would be the TD. If the rule was applied to the players, it would apply to all three of them not to let it happen, but the only one who bears the responsibility for letting it happen also happens to be the one who is no longer participating in the round, so there is nothing that you do to that player, since they have decided to already withdraw. Giving them penalty throws has no effect.

Bit if a rule said "If Condition X occurs, and is allowed to continue, then the individuals involved will receive Penalty Z", this clearly empowers the individuals involved to remedy the condition, for if they do not, then they will receive the penalty specified.

Evidently, we need a rule in the form of the latter to deal with this situation, so that there is some impetus put upon the two players not to start the next hole as a twosome.

Here is a special situation I have come across.
What if a player in a threesome leaves with 2 holes to go and the group behind you is about 3-4 holes back and the group in front is atleast 2 holes in front of you. Should you wait the possible 30minutes to play the 2 holes or just finish up?

August,

You are absolutely correct about 804.06C stating that "Groups shall not be less than three players". The difference in the way I am interpreting this is in deciding not only who has the onus in remedying this situation, but also the temporal context of the Rule.

I think that we both agree that it is on the TD before the round starts to assure that, if there are any twosomes, that they be accompanied by an official. Where we disagree is when a twosome is created in the middle of the round. The rule gives a remedy if the two players are required to play together, and I think we are saying that they are not, since one remedy would be to put them on different cards, where they would not be playing together.

This is where the hole in the Rules is. The Rules do not specify a remedy in what should be done if a twosome is created outside of the TD's control, it only specifies a remedy if the twosome was created by the TD, or allowed to exist as in a 2 person division.

Here's a test - What if the group continued to play as a twosome for the remainder of the round. Would the two people be subject to any negative consequences of doing so? Would they receive penalty strokes, or would they be DQd? If there would be no negative consequences, then there is no rule against it, or no consequences against it occuring during the round.

I try to think of it this way. If there is a rule that says, "Condition X cannot exist", this is saying, to me at least, "Do not create Condition X", and in our context, the creator would be the TD. If the rule was applied to the players, it would apply to all three of them not to let it happen, but the only one who bears the responsibility for letting it happen also happens to be the one who is no longer participating in the round, so there is nothing that you do to that player, since they have decided to already withdraw. Giving them penalty throws has no effect.

Bit if a rule said "If Condition X occurs, and is allowed to continue, then the individuals involved will receive Penalty Z", this clearly empowers the individuals involved to remedy the condition, for if they do not, then they will receive the penalty specified.

Evidently, we need a rule in the form of the latter to deal with this situation, so that there is some impetus put upon the two players not to start the next hole as a twosome.

If there is no special remedy for a twosome created during the round, then the default is to adhere to "groups shall not be less than three", however inconvenient that may be. This is something that seems unique to disc golf in that we have people who quit during a round and we do not have officials all over the course like the PGA to handle these situations when they crop up.

Your "condition X" example is good, but I feel the logic is a bit flawed. If condition X cannot exist, then that would be a directive to not only avoid creating condition X, but also to avoid allowing condition X to exist. The player who creates condition X in the middle of the round is already out of the tournament, so it falls on the twosome to remedy the situation. Also, if you have a rule that says "if condition X then penalty Z" that doesn't empower anybody to do anything, except the TD who applies the penalty. I think that such a rule would encourage the players to remedy the situation, but it doesn't give them any specific powers to do so.

My point is that there is a current remedy, however inconvenient. Whether or not to create a rule for the special situation of creating a twosome during the round would be another debate in my opinion.

The rules formerly provided [and I'll let the reader search the rules to see if they still so provide] that the violation of any rule for which no penalty is provided is a courtesy violation. Therefore, if you play in a twosome, you could be warned for a courtesy violation and if you continue to play in a twosome after being warned, you could be stroked.

[Edit] Actually, I think we lost that rule with the last rules rewrite.

[Another Edit] Wow. Never realized this: the Competition Manual has a catch-all providing for the possibility of disqualification for the violation of any rule. So, if there is a rule that players cannot play in twosomes, the TD has discretion to disqualify them for that.

This is a very easy situation to handle within the current rules as they are written. I don't think we need a 3,000 page rule book to deal with every single situation someone can conjure up.


Twosomes created during the round must simply wait for the group behind them or wait for an official - even if it takes a half hour. This is simply ONE logical way to remedy the situation - even if it is not spelled out word for word in the rule book. If the twosome are way out of the money, already coming in last or the only ones left in their division, I wouldn't put in any extra effort to remedy the situation.


I believe the intent of this rule is to prevent the "appearance of impropriety". While the twosome may be completely honest, the situation does create the opportunity for less than honest players to take advantage. If a twosome does happen and the players seem to "take advantage" of the situation, there are already rules in place to deal with it afterward. The TD can DQ the players or report them to the PDGA and the Disciplinary Committee can handle it.


TD's and players are allowed to use discretion because the rule book cannot possibly foresee and deal with every single situation a player/TD may encounter. It seems some here take great pleasure in turning simple rules situations into convoluted dream sequences.

It seems some here take great pleasure in turning simple rules situations into convoluted dream sequences.

More to that point, it's really that people take great pleasure in coming up with convoluted dream sequences which the rules leave a little ambiguity on how to handle. And worse yet, some of these sequences (for the record, I'm not saying this thread is one of those) aren't presented with an underlying noble intention of making things better, but imo to get in another 'dig' on the PDGA. While I'm certainly in the boat that our rules book could be better worded and more explicit in a few places, it's not nearly as dire as some portray it to be. Indeed, it is often implied here that the rule book should be a 3,000 page manifesto which covers all possible hypothetical situations. When in reality, most things are covered quite well and a little common sense goes a long way.

I hope Jeff and discette were not referring to me. I certainly don't think Jeff is, because I believe that he knows my background well enough to know that one of the last things I would do is to try and puts "digs" to the PDGA.

I didn't start this thread, but I have tried to contribute reasoned conclusions, based on facts and based on the current Rules of Play and other PDGA references, and not create "dream sequences", and if I have not done so, I apologize, and please quote specifics from my posts that not been within those parameters I stated, so that I may learn from my mistakes.

Krupicka previously said, "The rules do not say, "Do not play as a twosome", the rules say, "Don't create the groups as a twosome" ", and August correctly replied that the rule actually says, "groups shall not be less than three". What K said was, I believe, a correct interpretation of the rule, becuase the "rule" is actually a "Tounament Condition", which, again, is addressed to the TD, and not the players, and it addresses conditions that the TD should or should not have at the beginning of the event.

I asked if a twosome continued to play, would there be any consequences to them, and I thank Bruce for addressing that question. It reads to me like there may have been consequences in the past, but for now, his finding was, IF it is a rules violation, the TD has the power to DQ them.

Going back to "The Official Rules of Disc Golf" document, I look at the Section Headings:

800 Definitions
801 Conduct of Players
802 Equipment
803 Rules of Play
804 Tournament Procedures
805 Measurement CrossReference...

The only Sections that should carry any weight in resolving this situation are 801 and 803. Others suggest that 804 should be used, and as I have tried to argue, it does not apply here. It should only be used to infer that a twosome is a situation to be avoided.

That being said, there are many ways to remedy, if indeed it needs to be, the situation of a twosome cropping up in the middle of the round. Chuck correctly said that, if something is not prohibited by the Rules, than it is acceptable, and I can find nowhere in the rules or in this thread, a statement that a twosome is prohibited. If it was, the newly created twosome would have to freeze in their tracks and take no more throws until there was no longer a twosome, which includes not finishing the hole if they had begun one, until such time as each of those two players are not in a twosome.

I agree with discette that we should avoid the appearance of impropriety whenever we can, but those two players did nothing to create that situation, and should not be penalized for it if they continue to play on. If I was there, I would advise them to join another group, or to split up to two other groups, but something I could not say to them, in good conscience is, "You MUST split up or do something else in order for you not to be part of a twosome group", or "If you don't split up or do something else in order for you not to be part of a twosome group, because if you don't, the TD has the discretion of DQing you."

Discette says that this situation does create the opportunity for less than honest players to take advantage. Well, guess what, the fact that we allow players throw from a tee or a mark without anyone else watching (except for special situations like 803.09D) also creates the opportunity for less than honest players to take advantage.

I don't know what more I can state here. I am not endorsing these middle-of-the-round twosomes to continue as such, I am just trying to state that there is nothing in the Rules (not Conditions, but Rules), or a Rule that can be reasonably interpreted to say that a twosome cannot procede, and the de facto existance of a twosome is not cause alone for any sanctions against those two players.

I am an unapologetic Rules Zealot, but I have not gone looking for cracks and loopholes in the Rules (at least not lately -I learned my lesson in doing that in 2002 and have not done so since - at that year's Worlds in Houston, when I introduced myself to the BOD members I did not know, I heard the comment that something like, "Oh , YOU'RE that guy from the Message Board...). If someone else brings up a situation that is not clearly addressed by our current documentation, I feel as free as anyone else does to comment on it, and I have not felt the need to belittle anyone for taking some logical, soundly-based tangents farther than I would have taken them.

I love this sport, I love many of the people in it, and as I have told a few others, with more specifics that I will get into on a public forum, if it not was for DG and other flying discs sports, I with all my heart believe that I would not be alive today.

Geez, just writing that is starting to choke me up. Go ahead and laugh, it's OK. I enjoy making others laugh, even when it's at my expense.

I hope Jeff and discette were not referring to me. I certainly don't think Jeff is, because I believe that he knows my background well enough to know that one of the last things I would do is to try and puts "digs" to the PDGA.

I can't speak for Discette, but I was definitely NOT referring to you, Bill. If you notice I specified that this thread is not one of those convoluted dream sequences. In fact, people leaving tournaments and resulting in twosomes happens practically all the time.

It was a general observation about some other Rules threads. And in fact, Bill I appreciate rules zealots like yourself who are usually quick to point out the non-rules rules which seem to get "invented" from time to time.

Sorry Bill, the 804 section applies to all players involved in tournament play as much as it does to TDs that are running tournaments. The difference between section 804 and other sections is that the rules in that section have no real meaning outside of organized competition. There are a few that do have some application to casual play such as special play areas, but most only apply to sanctioned events.

Players are responsible for following the rules in section 804 unless directly told otherwise by the TD. The TD cannot change the rules in the section either, but if a complaint is filed with the PDGA, the TD is the responsible party after the fact.

Fair enough Gary, so if you are saying that 804 applies to players as well, what is the consequence to a player of not following the 804 "rules"?

804.01 Special conditions - Any failures under this provision would likely be categorized as course misplays and penalized in accordance with 801.4 A, C, D, E.
804.02 A Shotgun Start - Several possible infractions could happen here.
- Starting on the wrong hole (not playing the stipulated course), the penalty is defined in 801.4.
- Throwing between the 2 minute warning and start - warning followed by a stroke.
- Late arrival, missed holes - par + 4 penalty
804.02 B Staggered Start - Late arrival, mised holes - see above
804.03 Scoring - improper scoring process - Courtesy violation 801.01
- incorrect total - proper total + 2
- late scorecard - proper total + 2
804.04 G - Stopping play before signal - 2 penalty strokes
804.05 - violations or offenses beyond the rules of play - suitable punishment up to disqualification and possible suspension of member benefits.
804.06 - playing with less than 3 players on a card - no defined punishment.
804.07 - N/A
804.08 - Playing outside of classification guidelines - DQ
804.09 - official not carrying a rule book - Stern talking to.

Previous examples of rules violations where no punishment has been defined show that the normal minimum penalty is the 2-stroke penalty that applies to misplays and the maximum is disqualification.

Good for you, you went throught it vey well, thank you. I especially like what you put down for 804.09.

Now, when you look at your list, doesn't what you have for 804.06 stand out a little bit? Those two remaining players have not changed how they are playing the round one iota - they are following the course, they are recording the scores according to how the Rules direct them to, etc. If their behavior has not changed since they became a twosome, then I contend that they are not subject to any consequences. Now if the TD or an Official told them to split up or join another group and they refused to do so, there could and should be consequences, but the way the rules and other "guidelines" are written, there are no consequences to the two of them for playing on, which is what a group is supposed to do in the middle of the tournament. Now, if they wanted, they could step aside and let other groups play through, while they are waiting for an Official to show up to give them a "ruling" on their situation, but I don't believe they are obligated to do so, unless the TD specifies so before the start of the round, which I think every TD should do.

Do you think the rule book should spell out a punishment for players if they play as a twosome without asking an official to escort them?

If so, how would you word an additional "rule/punishment" so that it is concise, easily understandable and not subject to misunderstanding or creative application.

All this presumes the TD didn't set the card this way and didn't mention anything in player meeting.

For this instance, your presumptions are correct. We have assumed that this card is in the middle of the round, was a threesome, then one person left.

Yes, I think that there should be something in the rules that explicitly instructs the twosome what to do, and that new rule can be hashed out by others. My primary focus is on what the current Rules tell us what we can and cannot do, and what happens when we violate those commands.

While I agree that TDs the have threesomes on the course should go over what to do in the case of a twosome, players that perform actions expressly forbidden by the rules (especially those in the 804 section) are subject to disqualification.

Gary,

The reason I do not think that that phrase in 804.06C, "Groups shall not be less than three players,..." is applicable to penalize two players who happen to find themselves in that situation is because, when you look at 804.06 in total, it is clear to me that this section is addressed to the TD and his/her staff, because it address not only the minimum size of a group, but also the segregation of Pro and Am players, how to group players within divisions, the permission to split divisions into pools, and what to do if these created pools competed under significantly different conditions.

Clearly, to me anyway, these are instructions to the Tournament Staff. Players do not decide how many players to place on a card, or in what order they should go on a card, etc.

Even the title of 804, "Tournament Procedures" suggests it, and even calls them procedures, not rules. and the Tournament Staff is charged with following these procedures.

Finally, these two players have not performed any action expressly forbidden by the Rules. Their group has lost a player, and they continued to play on. As I said before, if the TD has specified what they should do if they find themselves with only 2 players on the card, and they ignore that specification, they would be exposing themselves to negative consequences.

Wham! Wham! C'mon Horsey! Get UP!


Hmmmm.

Groups shall not be less than three players
As shown above there are many items in section 804 that apply to players.
The above quote expressly forbids groups of less than three players. The rest of the rule allows for exceptions when they are accompanied by an official.
This means the TDs are not allowed to cause this situation and players are not allowed to play in this situation.

Groups shall not be less than three players As shown above there are many items in section 804 that apply to players.
The above quote expressly forbids groups of less than three players. The rest of the rule allows for exceptions when they are accompanied by an official.
This means the TDs are not allowed to cause this situation and players are not allowed to play in this situation.


Gary is 100% correct.

but people with functioning brains have to figure out ways of complying with the rules.
F . Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the
principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.

in light of the history of this rules board...

now THAT is irony!

I have no burning passion to prove or disprove the onus on the players to remedy the problem of a two person card when it occurs during around, so I will let this one go.

I do find it curious though, if the burden is on the players if it occurs after the round starts, why there is no remedy provided by the rules, other than to hope that they can get an Official to follow them for the rest of the round. It seems when I read the Rules of Play, when a "problem" occurs, there is a procedure on how to deal with that problem, but there is none here, except the narrow example above.

This was a good discussion. Thank you. I look forward to others.

It is up to the TD to make sure the information is spread to the players before they leave.
I was sweating the second round this weekend with mostly 3 player cards all over the course. Most of the players that were not there for the second round had let me know beforehand. There was only one unexpected no-show and luckily it was on one of the three 4 player cards.

Well, Gary, I don't recall you saying anything in the players' meeting about what they should do if their group only has 2 players in it. I guess I must not have heard it.

You are correct, there was no player's meeting after lunch when we sent everyone everyone out as threesomes. So there was no announcement. There were a few officials wandering around with instructions to send one forward and one back. But I was hoping we did not have to shift anyone.

I try to remember to corner the TD and ask. Almost every TD I've spoken with has used the split-up-and-join-other-groups approach, so in the absence of explicit instructions I've been known to assume that...but I don't think it's ever actually happened to me. With the possible exception that I think there may have been one time that I ended up in a group of two when the round started...but we happened to have an official handy to walk with us who wasn't playing. Except I can't remember whether that actually happened or if the third guy showed up at the last second that time.