ERicJ
Apr 08 2010, 05:41 PM
For all the calls/rules that must be "observed by two or more players or an official"... can the official be a certified official that is playing in another division? I.e. a singular player making the call as an official.

Say an MA3 player (who is a certified official) is playing an adjacent fairway to an MA1 group and witnesses an MA1 player make a gross stance violation, can the MA3 player call him on it (and being an official it is unnecessary for the call to be confirmed by another member of the group)?

davidsauls
Apr 08 2010, 05:56 PM
Is an official (for such purposes) anyone certified as an official by the PDGA, or is it someone appointed by the TD? I've rather assumed that this means "tournament official"---that is, someone working the tournament and charged with acting as an official---but not sure that assumption is based on anything other than my experience in other sports.

tkieffer
Apr 08 2010, 06:07 PM
Can he? Perhaps. Should he? I would say not. Even more so if playing as they are not acting in the role of an official at that time.

I won't act as an 'official' unless my assistance as such has been requested by the TD. The card itself IMO doesn't give me permission to get involved to this level at a tournament.

From the rule book:

Official: A person who is authorized to make judgments regarding the proper application of the rules during play.

I've always considered the Official role to be that of helping make sure the rules are applied correctly. Not as a 'referee' whose role would be to spot infractions. Disc golf doesn't have referees. Spotting infractions and making calls is the role of the group.

cgkdisc
Apr 08 2010, 06:08 PM
An "official" per the rules in this case would be a non-playing certified official who had been designated as one for the event. Even if the TD is playing, they would only be one of two players needed to make a call for rules where that's the case. If it's a call with regard to say where an OB line is located, then the TD would be an official in this case even if playing. Non-playing certified officials that are spectators but not designated by the TD as an event official can make calls (considered good form to wait for group to make initial call) but are only one of two in the rules where that matters.

tkieffer
Apr 08 2010, 06:11 PM
Is an official (for such purposes) anyone certified as an official by the PDGA, or is it someone appointed by the TD? I've rather assumed that this means "tournament official"---that is, someone working the tournament and charged with acting as an official---but not sure that assumption is based on anything other than my experience in other sports.

Beat me to it.

I feel the same. Just because you hold the card doesn't make you an 'official' in the capacity you personally choose.

tkieffer
Apr 08 2010, 06:14 PM
Non-playing certified officials that are spectators but not designated by the TD as an event official can make calls (considered good form to wait for group to make initial call) but are only one of two in the rules where that matters.

I'd be curious where this is referred to. I would never consider getting involved as a spectator. IMO, it would be in very poor form to interject where my assistance wasn't requested.

ERicJ
Apr 08 2010, 06:17 PM
An "official" per the rules in this case would be a non-playing certified official who had been designated as one for the event.
Where, per the rules, does it say that?

I only see:
[New/Online] Comp Manual 1.11 D. Non-playing certified officials may actively make rulings during any tournament play that they witness. If an official competes in a tournament, he or she may not officiate for any ruling within his or her own division. The official's ruling supersedes the ruling of the group, but an appeal may be made to the tournament director. The director may empower non-certified officials to act as spotters for a specific purpose. The ruling of such a spotter supersedes the ruling of the group.

cgkdisc
Apr 08 2010, 06:26 PM
I didn't say they couldn't make rulings, just that they alone couldn't make the ruling in the case where two calls are required. That should be clarified but the Definition for "Official" implies that they are "authorized" by the TD to be an Official for the event as opposed to someone who happened to pass the rules test.

ERicJ
Apr 08 2010, 06:36 PM
Section 800 (Definitions) says:
"Official: A person who is authorized to make judgments regarding the proper application of the rules during play."

But it's not clear from where the authorization comes. Comp Manual 1.11 mentions at least twice that passing the Official's test is required. It seems a logical conclusion that the repeated mentioning of the test implies certification/authorization.

Where do the rules mention anything about Officials needing the specific authorization of the TD? (The only thing I see even close is that the TD can specify an official to rule on appeals in his/her place.)

How does one go about getting this officially clarified?

ERicJ
Apr 08 2010, 06:40 PM
I didn't say they couldn't make rulings, just that they alone couldn't make the ruling in the case where two calls are required.
By what rule? (With the exception of within their own division that I previously quoted/posted.)

cgkdisc
Apr 08 2010, 06:51 PM
Ask Gentry. A certified official playing in another division or walking along as a spectator who wasn't designated by the TD as an official cannot be the only one making a foot fault call, which is essentially the question. I would be shocked with any other response from Gentry. A non-playing Marshal following a group can be the only one to make a foor fault call. However, marshals have been coached to let the group make the calls and just confirm calls and referee things like line calls for discs on the edge of OB.

ERicJ
Apr 08 2010, 07:04 PM
Ask Gentry. A certified official playing in another division or walking along as a spectator who wasn't designated by the TD as an official cannot be the only one making a foot fault call, which is essentially the question. I would be shocked with any other response from Gentry. A non-playing Marshal following a group can be the only one to make a foor fault call. However, marshals have been coached to let the group make the calls and just confirm calls and referee things like line calls for discs on the edge of OB.

There's a dozen or so instances in the rule book where an Official can make a call in lieu of two or more players. The stance violation in the OP is just one example.

Where is the term "Marshal" defined as it pertains to disc golf?

A certified official playing in another division or walking along as a spectator who wasn't designated by the TD as an official cannot be the only one making a foot fault call

I guess I'm just missing where you get that from, other than opinion. The way I read the rules, that is specifically allowed:

"Comp Manual 1.11 D. Non-playing certified officials may actively make rulings during any tournament play that they witness."

cgkdisc
Apr 08 2010, 07:14 PM
Already contacted the Competition Committee which includes Gentry in regard to this. In essence, the PDGA approves members who have passed the test as qualified to be officials but they need to be "authorized" by the TD per the Definition in the rules as an "Official" for an event.

ERicJ
Apr 08 2010, 07:23 PM
Already contacted the Competition Committee which includes Gentry in regard to this. In essence, the PDGA approves members who have passed the test as qualified to be officials but they need to be "authorized" by the TD per the Definition in the rules as an "Official" for an event.
That makes the most sense. So who gets/takes the action to rectify the rulebook definition to include "by the TD"?

exczar
Apr 08 2010, 07:51 PM
As, Chuck said, it would be bad form for a "playing in another division" or a spectating PDGA Official to make a call unilaterally, but there is nothing to prevent it, according to the current Rules.

That is because there is nothing in the Rules or the Comp Manual that prevents it. There is no definition of what "authorized" means in the definition of "Official", so in lieu of that omission, anyone who passes the Official's test is "authorized" and well as "certified" by the PDGA.

Having said that, remember that the TD has a great deal of power during the event, and can judge if said person, acting as an Official, is complying with the Rules.

cgkdisc
Apr 08 2010, 07:52 PM
It's happening now for the 2011 update.

august
Apr 09 2010, 08:48 AM
Already contacted the Competition Committee which includes Gentry in regard to this. In essence, the PDGA approves members who have passed the test as qualified to be officials but they need to be "authorized" by the TD per the Definition in the rules as an "Official" for an event.

This is the popular interpretation that allows Certified Officials to ignore violations that they see and not get involved, but this interpretation is not supported by the written rule. 804.09D clearly states that "non-playing certified officials may actively make rulings during any tournament play that they witness." Passing the official's test and being a current PDGA member are the only authorizations needed. A certified official NEVER needs a second for a rules call. If Gentry wants it otherwise, then he needs to lobby to have the rule revised to reflect that desire.

august
Apr 09 2010, 08:50 AM
As, Chuck said, it would be bad form for a "playing in another division" or a spectating PDGA Official to make a call unilaterally, but there is nothing to prevent it, according to the current Rules.

That is because there is nothing in the Rules or the Comp Manual that prevents it. There is no definition of what "authorized" means in the definition of "Official", so in lieu of that omission, anyone who passes the Official's test is "authorized" and well as "certified" by the PDGA.

Having said that, remember that the TD has a great deal of power during the event, and can judge if said person, acting as an Official, is complying with the Rules.

Agreed.

cgkdisc
Apr 09 2010, 10:24 AM
Sorry but that's nonsense and would imply that a certified official playing in a group has more authority to make calls than another group member. They don't. And I'm talking about a group where the certified official happens to be in a different division playing in a group with players from different divisions. The Authorization to become an Official for the event comes from the event TD (or host team) and no one else. It's no different from the NBA, MLB, NCAA or NFL when certified officials happen to be fans in the stands. They can't make the calls even if they shout them out like the other fans.

Here's some wording from earlier rulebooks before the current certified officials test indicating that Officials are authorized by the TD, not just because they are qualified. You can see the intent of the test was to produce a pool of qualified members who could be called upon by the TD to be authorized Officials for an event.

1986: Officials must have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Rules of Play and Tournament Rules. It is required that, while acting as an Official, each Official have a current copy of the Rules in their possession.

1990: To be eligible to serve as an official, an individual must have demonstrated their knowledge of the rules by passing the Official's Qualification Test.

ERicJ
Apr 09 2010, 11:54 AM
Here's some wording from earlier rulebooks before the current certified officials test indicating that Officials are authorized by the TD, not just because they are qualified. You can see the intent of the test was to produce a pool of qualified members who could be called upon by the TD to be authorized Officials for an event.

1986: Officials must have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Rules of Play and Tournament Rules. It is required that, while acting as an Official, each Official have a current copy of the Rules in their possession.

1990: To be eligible to serve as an official, an individual must have demonstrated their knowledge of the rules by passing the Official's Qualification Test.

I don't see anything there that implies authorization by a TD. It just says if you want to be an official you better have a rule book on your person and have passed the test.

IMO, if the intent were to require TD authorization it would seem obvious that would have been included in the definition. There's no way the current "TD interpretation" would hold up in a court of law going by today's written rules. I'm glad it's being clarified for the next rules update.

cgkdisc
Apr 09 2010, 12:05 PM
Both of those statements indicate a person qualified to be an official must be designated as one for an event. So, if a person qualified to be an official has not been told by an authority that they are one for the event, whether the TD, host group or PDGA, then they aren't operating as one at that event.

ERicJ
Apr 09 2010, 12:41 PM
Both of those statements indicate a person qualified to be an official must be designated as one for an event. So, if a person qualified to be an official has not been told by an authority that they are one for the event, whether the TD, host group or PDGA, then they aren't operating as one at that event.
Where's the "designated for an event" wording to back that up? Just like the "by a TD" assumption, there is no written rule supporting that interpretation.

In the e-mail from the PDGA after passing the Official's Exam the PDGA has specifically told me (and other recent certified officials) that I can officiate "at any point going forward" at "PDGA sanctioned events". No mention there either of needing to be deputized by a TD or just for specific events.

davidsauls
Apr 09 2010, 12:44 PM
Imagine the fun if every certified official in the gallery at the USDGC jumped in to call a footfault. Or to argue that it wasn't one.

I'd pay for the live broadcast to watch that.

For myself, as a certified official playing in tournaments other than my own, I'm not interested in watching groups from other divisions to see if they're complying with the rules.

cgkdisc
Apr 09 2010, 12:52 PM
Imagine the fun if every certified official in the gallery at the USDGC jumped in to call a footfault. Or to argue that it wasn't one.
Can you imagine taking a vote from all of the "official" observers? :)

Where's the "designated for an event" wording to back that up? Just like the "by a TD" assumption, there is no written rule supporting that interpretation.

Again, if a player has not been told by some authority that they are an "official" for an event, they are not according to those statements cited from the rules posted. Unfortunately, the intent is perhaps less clear in the current rules but the term 'authorized' is still in the definition.

In the e-mail from the PDGA after passing the Official's Exam the PDGA has specifically told me (and other recent certified officials) that I can officiate "at any point going forward" at "PDGA sanctioned events". No mention there either of needing to be deputized by a TD or just for specific events.
Note the phrase "can officiate" not "authorized to officiate" was used.

ERicJ
Apr 09 2010, 01:12 PM
Again, if a player has not been told by some authority that they are an "official" for an event, they are not according to those statements cited from the rules posted. Unfortunately, the intent is perhaps less clear in the current rules but the term 'authorized' is still in the definition.

"Less clear"?? How about: completely unclear?

The PDGA told me that I may officiate at sanctioned events based on rules proficiency demonstrated by passing of the exam. Given the lack of any verbiage to the contrary a reasonable case can be made that is all the "authorization" that is necessary.

ERicJ
Apr 09 2010, 01:14 PM
Imagine the fun if every certified official in the gallery at the USDGC jumped in to call a footfault. Or to argue that it wasn't one.

I'd pay for the live broadcast to watch that.

For myself, as a certified official playing in tournaments other than my own, I'm not interested in watching groups from other divisions to see if they're complying with the rules.

At PDGA AM World Doubles, you're a player between rounds following a card from another division playing Alt Shot. One of the active players is standing on the tee box and probably not intending to throw yet, but the disc falls out of their hand and it rolls over 2M and crosses an OB boundary. Opposing team says "hey that looks like a throw". Team on the box says "no, I didn't mean to throw that". Opposing team doesn't have a rule book and questions the call again but acquiesces in the end. Team on the box is allowed to pick up the disc with no penalty and make their first throw from the tee.

As a spectator holding a certified officials card, what do you do?

cgkdisc
Apr 09 2010, 01:54 PM
All certified officials may point out rules or make calls. It's just that if the rule requires two people or an official, then you need confirmation for your call unless you were designated as an official for the event. As Sauls pointed out, the peanut gallery should not be making calls unless their help is needed.

august
Apr 09 2010, 02:06 PM
Both of those statements indicate a person qualified to be an official must be designated as one for an event. So, if a person qualified to be an official has not been told by an authority that they are one for the event, whether the TD, host group or PDGA, then they aren't operating as one at that event.

I agree that this is the best way to proceed and that it would be chaotic nonsense to have any and all officials making rulings, but the rules do not indicate or infer a requirement to be designated by the TD. In order to make that come true, you would need to revise the rules to say "only non-playing officials specifically designated by the TD shall make rulings during a sanctioned PDGA tournament. Spectators who happen to be certified officials shall not make rulings during the tournament. Players who are also certified officials may make rulings pursuant to the guidelines in 804.09D."

I understand that it is your opinion that the rules already indicate that an official has to be designated by the TD to make rulings, but I don't see any wording in the rules that supports that opinion.

discette
Apr 09 2010, 02:44 PM
At PDGA AM World Doubles, you're a player between rounds following a card from another division playing Alt Shot. One of the active players is standing on the tee box and probably not intending to throw yet, but the disc falls out of their hand and it rolls over 2M and crosses an OB boundary. Opposing team says "hey that looks like a throw". Team on the box says "no, I didn't mean to throw that". Opposing team doesn't have a rule book and questions the call again but acquiesces in the end. Team on the box is allowed to pick up the disc with no penalty and make their first throw from the tee.

As a spectator holding a certified officials card, what do you do?

I wouldn't do anything - unless I was asked.

If I was asked, I would gladly hand them a copy of my rule book and point out the definition of a practice throw on Page 4. Then I would point out the rule states "projection" and let them make their own decision. If they pressed me further, I would give my personal opinion that it is not a practice stroke and tell them to make a note on the scorecard and ask the TD for an official ruling before turning in the scorecard.


In the example, it is clearly stated the disc "fell". We don't know whether it went towards the target or not. However, since it wasn't "projected", it is still my opinion that there is no harm, no foul and no practice throw. But again, it is up to the TD to make the final decision.


Practice Throw: During a round, the
projection of a disc of a distance greater
than two meters, or of any distance
toward a target, intentional or not, which
does not change the player�s lie, either
because it did not occur from the teeing
area or the lie, or because the player had
already thrown competitively from the
teeing area or the lie....

exczar
Apr 09 2010, 02:47 PM
I agree that this is the best way to proceed and that it would be chaotic nonsense to have any and all officials making rulings, but the rules do not indicate or infer a requirement to be designated by the TD. In order to make that come true, you would need to revise the rules to say "only non-playing officials specifically designated by the TD shall make rulings during a sanctioned PDGA tournament. Spectators who happen to be certified officials shall not make rulings during the tournament. Players who are also certified officials may make rulings pursuant to the guidelines in 804.09D."

I understand that it is your opinion that the rules already indicate that an official has to be designated by the TD to make rulings, but I don't see any wording in the rules that supports that opinion.

Agreed.

But

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone who was a certified Official was in the gallery and witnessed a foot fault during the playoff for the 2009 MPO title in KC. It could have happened. I found out after the fact from someone who is a cert. off. that s/he saw a foot fault in said playoff, but chose to say nothing.

That is why we need to have something in the Comp Manual or the ROP to limit Tournament Officials to only those who have been "authorized" by the TD to act in such capacity.

I'm sorry, CK, but it is not "nonsense" for this to happen.

I guess we need to go back even more and think out about what the Rules of Play (ROP) should cover.

Right now, it is a list of permissable and impermissable actions.

I have heard 2 schools of thought:

1) If it is not permitted by the rules, then it is impermissable;

2) If it is not listed as a impermissive action, then it is permitted.


If I had to guess, I would say Chuck is leaning toward #1 in this situation, and I am leaning toward #2.

In the KC playoff situation, is the gallery Official obligated to speak up?

ERicJ
Apr 09 2010, 03:10 PM
In the example, it is clearly stated the disc "fell". We don't know whether it went towards the target or not. However, since it wasn't "projected", it is still my opinion that there is no harm, no foul and no practice throw. But again, it is up to the TD to make the final decision.

Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie....
Interesting interpretation.

Per the rule it doesn't matter if the disc went towards the target or not because it clearly traveled more than 2M. Also, the rule clearly states that an unintentional action still qualifies as a practice throw. Lastly, the harm in this case is to all the other players/teams in the division: the offending team should have taken at least one additional stroke for a practice throw, or two strokes if the ruling was it was a competitive throw and they were required to count it and the OB penalty as well.

veganray
Apr 09 2010, 03:17 PM
From Rules Q&A:
Is a drop a throw?

Question: I was playing a casual round with some friends and had a shot wind up deep in some Evergreen trees. I tried to throw a forehand shot as my out shot, and when I brought the disc backward, it hit a tree branch and bounced forward out of my hand. My arm motion did not go forward at the time I lost grip of the disc, but the disc did bounce forward as a result of hitting the branch. The disc then rolled forward about three feet in front of me.

I counted it as a throw, even though my arm motion was not going forward at the time I lost my disc. I am curious if this is indeed how I should have scored the shot for future reference.

Response: Applicable Rules: 800 Definitions ("Throw")

The ruling here hinges on what constitutes a throw, or to put it another way, when a throw begins. A strict construal would have the throw begin once the player has taken a stance. One problem with that is that it is not obvious when a player has taken the stance they will throw from. Also, any release of the disc after that point (even setting the disc on the ground) could be interpreted as a throw. Such a strict interpretation raises other problems.

An alternative is to consider that the throw begins when movement of the disc in the intended direction begins. Under that interpretation, a disc dropped or knocked out before or during a backswing does not count as a throw. The rules committee prefers this more forgiving interpretation.

It is analogous to the requirement in football that the quarterback's arm must be moving forward for a pass to have occurred. At the point of time under consideration, the disc is still held, so forward arm movement equates to forward disc movement. After the release, direction of intent no longer matters. The disc may go sideways or backwards, but the important thing is that the arm moved in the direction of intent after a stance was taken and the disc was released, hence a throw occurred.

august
Apr 09 2010, 03:27 PM
Agreed.

But

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone who was a certified Official was in the gallery and witnessed a foot fault during the playoff for the 2009 MPO title in KC. It could have happened. I found out after the fact from someone who is a cert. off. that s/he saw a foot fault in said playoff, but chose to say nothing.

That is why we need to have something in the Comp Manual or the ROP to limit Tournament Officials to only those who have been "authorized" by the TD to act in such capacity.

I'm sorry, CK, but it is not "nonsense" for this to happen.

I guess we need to go back even more and think out about what the Rules of Play (ROP) should cover.

Right now, it is a list of permissable and impermissable actions.

I have heard 2 schools of thought:

1) If it is not permitted by the rules, then it is impermissable;

2) If it is not listed as a impermissive action, then it is permitted.


If I had to guess, I would say Chuck is leaning toward #1 in this situation, and I am leaning toward #2.

In the KC playoff situation, is the gallery Official obligated to speak up?

Like I said, it would be chaotic nonsense to have any and all officials present making rulings. It should only be those designated by the TD. It's just that there is nothing in the rules indicating that this is the protocol to be followed.

I would say that as long as we are a self-policed sport, then the gallery official should speak up if cheating or circumvention of the rules is witnessed. But there should be a written protocol for that too!

In Virginia Law, the Dillon Rule is followed. The Dillon Rule is you can do what the law says you can do, but nothing more.

tkieffer
Apr 09 2010, 03:37 PM
I would think this would be common sense that doesn't require specifying in a rule somewhere. As a comparison, would anyone even consider the possibilility of an NFL referee who is at a game with his family suddenly jumping out of the stands and calling a holding penalty? An NBA official at his kid's high school game deciding to call a foul?

Don't let the cert card go to your head. Passing an open book test and sending in your $10 (or is it $15?) isn't that big of a deal.

veganray
Apr 09 2010, 03:37 PM
In Virginia Law, the Dillon Rule is followed. The Dillon Rule is you can do what the law says you can do, but nothing more.

That's a little misleading, Mike, in that the Dillon Rule applies very narrowly to conflicts between a local government & the government of the Commonwealth. Dillon Rule pretty much says two things:
1) Local governments have only three types of powers: those granted in express words, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, and those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation (not simply convenient, but essential).
2) If there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has not been conferred.

Are you equating the tournament with the locality & the PDGA with the Commonwealth? Or what?

For what it's worth, my views on the topics actually at hand:
1) Tournament should have to specifically identify officials for the event. Though someone may have PDGA "Official" status, he should not be allowed to act as an official at an event unless specifically identified as such beforehand by the TD.
2) Current rules do not allow for the above, and any person (or other creature) with PDGA "Official" status is justified making a call anytime, anywhere, unless the call effects competition in a division in which he (or it) is playing.
3) PDGA rules are written in such a way that what they implicitly allow any action that is not explicitly prohibited, and that is the way they should stay. Could you imagine the heft of a rulebook that was written in such away as to attempt to codify every legal action, leaving the prohibited behaviors as whatever is not specifically allowed?

august
Apr 09 2010, 03:48 PM
I would think this would be common sense that doesn't require specifying in a rule somewhere. As a comparison, would anyone even consider the possibilility of an NFL referee who is at a game with his family suddenly jumping out of the stands and calling a holding penalty? An NBA official at his kid's high school game deciding to call a foul?

Don't let the cert card go to your head. Passing an open book test and sending in your $10 (or is it $15?) isn't that big of a deal.


If common sense was prevalent in disc golf, I would agree with you.

august
Apr 09 2010, 03:59 PM
That's a little misleading, Mike, in that the Dillon Rule applies very narrowly to conflicts between a local government & the government of the Commonwealth. Dillon Rule pretty much says two things:
1) Local governments have only three types of powers: those granted in express words, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, and those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation (not simply convenient, but essential).
2) If there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has not been conferred.

Are you equating the tournament with the locality & the PDGA with the Commonwealth? Or what?

Sorry 'bout that. Didn't mean to be misleading. I was just sharing the concept of only being allowed to do what you are specifically permitted to do. I think there is reasonable doubt that the power to designate only certain certified officials to make rulings at a sanctioned tournament exists. The rule as written provides for officials to make rulings from the gallery. I don't think we want that so we need to expressly provide for the power to designate ruling officials for a tournament and exclude those officials who have not been so designated.

veganray
Apr 09 2010, 04:07 PM
A very concise distillation of points 2 & 3 in my last paragraph above. I agree, except that I do think it is necessary that we, if we want to disallow every PDGA-crowned "Official" in the peanut gallery from making binding calls, require every event "to designate ruling officials for a tournament" and "exclude those officials who have not been so designated."

discette
Apr 09 2010, 04:53 PM
Interesting interpretation.

Per the rule it doesn't matter if the disc went towards the target or not because it clearly traveled more than 2M. Also, the rule clearly states that an unintentional action still qualifies as a practice throw. Lastly, the harm in this case is to all the other players/teams in the division: the offending team should have taken at least one additional stroke for a practice throw, or two strokes if the ruling was it was a competitive throw and they were required to count it and the OB penalty as well.

You can point out all the other items that would say it is a practice throw, but you did choose to overlook the most salient point that was mentioned first - "projection".

Not a practice throw.

Giles
Apr 09 2010, 05:19 PM
Lastly, the harm in this case is to all the other players/teams in the division: the offending team should have taken at least one additional stroke for a practice throw, or two strokes if the ruling was it was a competitive throw and they were required to count it and the OB penalty as well.

It would have had to have happend 8 times to change the results... Trust me, they could have put up a better score if they needed to.

MEGAMERICAN
Apr 09 2010, 05:53 PM
Interesting interpretation.

Per the rule it doesn't matter if the disc went towards the target or not because it clearly traveled more than 2M. Also, the rule clearly states that an unintentional action still qualifies as a practice throw. Lastly, the harm in this case is to all the other players/teams in the division: the offending team should have taken at least one additional stroke for a practice throw, or two strokes if the ruling was it was a competitive throw and they were required to count it and the OB penalty as well.

Projection according to Merriam Webster is:

"the act of throwing or thrusting forward,"

which is the point the person you were quoting was trying to make.

ERicJ
Apr 09 2010, 06:18 PM
Okay... ignore the specifics of the latter example, it's jacking the true purpose of this thread. The specifics are a debate for another thread altogether.

The issue I raised in the OP: by written rule certified officials can make calls over-ruling the group, has been reiterated by several others and is really the point. Chuck said he's contacted the Competition Committee and hopefully they will clarify for the 2011 rulebook update.

august
Apr 09 2010, 11:49 PM
A very concise distillation of points 2 & 3 in my last paragraph above. I agree, except that I do think it is necessary that we, if we want to disallow every PDGA-crowned "Official" in the peanut gallery from making binding calls, require every event "to designate ruling officials for a tournament" and "exclude those officials who have not been so designated."

Yes. And in thinking about this more, it may be that the current wording in the rule reflects a time when there may not have been many certified officials around and the wording may have been crafted to encourage any certified official available to assist in making a ruling. But times and practices have changed from that and I think we need to clarify as you and I have indicated.

cgkdisc
Apr 10 2010, 02:17 AM
Conversation at an event...
Certified Official Spectator (COS): "Foot fault on that player!"
Players in Group: "None of us saw it."
COS: "I'm a certified official and can make that call."
Players in Group: "I think you need a second and no one did."
COS: "No, as an official, I can make that call by myself."
Players in Group: "According to the Definition of official in the rulebook, an official has to be authorized. Who authorized you to make calls here?"
COS: "The PDGA did when I passed the Official's test."
Players in Group: "We're all certified officials and all the PDGA told us is we could be officials at events. The word "authorized" was never used in that certification process. So unless you can confirm your authorization for this event, it looks like no foot fault."

ERicJ
Apr 10 2010, 03:23 AM
Conversation at an event...
Certified Official Spectator (COS): "Foot fault on that player!"
Players in Group: "None of us saw it."
COS: "I'm a certified official and can make that call."
Players in Group: "I think you need a second and no one did."
COS: "No, as an official, I can make that call by myself."
Players in Group: "According to the Definition of official in the rulebook, an official has to be authorized. Who authorized you to make calls here?"
COS: "The PDGA did when I passed the Official's test."
Players in Group: "We're all certified officials and all the PDGA told us is we could be officials at events. The word "authorized" was never used in that certification process. So unless you can confirm your authorization for this event, it looks like no foot fault."
Okay... now show me the written rule where four players who didn't see a rule broken outweigh one official that was paying attention and did.

cgkdisc
Apr 10 2010, 09:27 AM
The foot fault needed to be seconded. It wasn't that the COS call was invalid. Some in the group may have actually watched the player throw but did not agree it was a foot fault.

exczar
Apr 10 2010, 01:16 PM
The foot fault needed to be seconded.

Not if called by an Official.

It wasn't that the COS call was invalid. Some in the group may have actually watched the player throw but did not agree it was a foot fault.

Or more likely, they weren't even watching.

cgkdisc
Apr 10 2010, 01:17 PM
Not if called by an Official.
Only if "authorized." You should know better having been around when those rules cited from 1986 and 1990 were written.

exczar
Apr 10 2010, 01:21 PM
Only if "authorized"


In the absence of what "authorized", we must assume that any Official is "authorized" unless they have been un-"authorized".

Is there any reference in the ROP or CM as to what "authorizes" an Official to make calls?

cgkdisc
Apr 10 2010, 01:28 PM
No, it's very clear in the definition that an official must be authorized by some authority. As pointed out, the PDGA does not use that word when certifying officials. Thus, a person qualified to be an official must receive some sort of authorization to act as an official in an event. Just because someone is a current PDGA member does not mean they are defined as a "player" in every event. They have to pay an entry fee and be confirmed they are now a "player" in that event. No different from a certified official that must be authorized to be an "Official" for that event.

august
Apr 10 2010, 03:04 PM
No, it's very clear in the definition that an official must be authorized by some authority. As pointed out, the PDGA does not use that word when certifying officials. Thus, a person qualified to be an official must receive some sort of authorization to act as an official in an event. Just because someone is a current PDGA member does not mean they are defined as a "player" in every event. They have to pay an entry fee and be confirmed they are now a "player" in that event. No different from a certified official that must be authorized to be an "Official" for that event.

You are entitled to your own opinion Chuck, but not your own facts. In order for the definition to be "very clear" it needs to say "authorized by the tournament director". You can't require authorization without explaining how to get duly authorized.

By the way, in your conversation example, if you assume that the COS has no standing to make rulings, and he is not a member of the playing group, then the foot fault has not been called at all and needs to be called and seconded, not just seconded. In your example, the players in the group tell him his call needs to be seconded, then claim that he has no standing to make calls.

cgkdisc
Apr 10 2010, 04:07 PM
It's not an opinion. If a rule says someone needs to be authorized to be an official, that person knows they are not authorized until someone in authority tells them so. No one should assume they are authorized for anything unless they have been told they are. The PDGA doesn't tell certified officials that. It really doesn't matter who as long as it's someone known to have authority over an event such as the TD who has granted it.

In your example, the players in the group tell him his call needs to be seconded, then claim that he has no standing to make calls. <!-- / message -->
No standing to unilaterally make calls but can be one of two. That's the only disagreement among those who feel authorized as officials all the time by default to make unilateral rulings just because they passed the official's test.

ERicJ
Apr 10 2010, 11:51 PM
No, it's very clear in the definition that an official must be authorized by some authority. As pointed out, the PDGA does not use that word when certifying officials. Thus, a person qualified to be an official must receive some sort of authorization to act as an official in an event. Just because someone is a current PDGA member does not mean they are defined as a "player" in every event. They have to pay an entry fee and be confirmed they are now a "player" in that event. No different from a certified official that must be authorized to be an "Official" for that event.
What the PDGA does say when passing the Official's Exam:

"you may officiate at any point going forward." (What about "any point" is unclear here??)

"Becoming a PDGA Official allows you to officiate at PDGA sanctioned events."

Either or both of those statements can be reasonably interpreted as authorization by the PDGA without specifically using the word authorized.
If the PDGA wants to limit officials that are allowed to officiate to only officials that have been authorized by the TD, then update the verbiage.

"you may only officiate at any point going forward if authorized by the TD."

"Becoming a PDGA Official allows you to officiate at PDGA sanctioned events if authorized by the TD."

tkieffer
Apr 10 2010, 11:54 PM
I'm amazed this discussion is still going on.

Just because you might be a club member for a local club, would you feel it appropriate to start moving baskets the night before if you weren't part of the staff or hadn't been asked to do so by the TD? Trot out and start spotting on a hole without prior involvement or asking those who are running the tournament if they need assistance? Decide that the water jugs should be moved?

Why would anyone feel they can just out of the blue decide they are going to interject themselves and act as an official? Especially in a 'sherriff' mode as keeps being discussed ('got my card, don't need no backup, I'm here to clean up this joint whether the tournament players want me to or not''). Please, it was just a self adminstrated open book test and $15. The PDGA didn't deputize you.

Jeff_LaG
Apr 11 2010, 07:12 PM
I'm amazed this discussion is still going on.

It boggles my mind too. I would guess that it's picayune arguments like this which caused Carlton to withdraw from the Rules Committee.

august
Apr 12 2010, 08:36 AM
It's not an opinion. If a rule says someone needs to be authorized to be an official, that person knows they are not authorized until someone in authority tells them so. No one should assume they are authorized for anything unless they have been told they are. The PDGA doesn't tell certified officials that. It really doesn't matter who as long as it's someone known to have authority over an event such as the TD who has granted it.


No standing to unilaterally make calls but can be one of two. That's the only disagreement among those who feel authorized as officials all the time by default to make unilateral rulings just because they passed the official's test.


Cool. I look forward to seeing that in the rule book because currently it does not say that. That is the practice and the way it should be. That's the understanding with which I operate.

And spectators cannot make one of the two calls required. The rule says a foot fault call can be made by a player in the group or an official, and when a player in the group makes it it must be seconded. Are you saying that because the rule book does not prohibit spectators from making calls, that they are allowed to do so?

august
Apr 12 2010, 08:50 AM
It boggles my mind too. I would guess that it's picayune arguments like this which caused Carlton to withdraw from the Rules Committee.

My mind is a bit boggled as well. I am uncomfortably amused by the general complacency that the rules as written are perfect and need no revisions to improve comprehension. Perhaps that complacency is due to a piacyune intellect.

And with that, seeing that this is clearly going nowhere at break-neck speeds, I will drop it.

Hoser
Apr 12 2010, 11:38 AM
Tim Kieffer, everything you say in Post #54 makes good sense, except . . .

As we seek to limit who can officiate, we�re losing sight of a greater good: the need to deal fairly with this scenario�s �gross stance violation.� Shouldn�t our main concern be to achieve justice � penalize the foul and protect the field?

Remember in 1987 when golfer Craig Stadler knelt on a towel to hit his ball? He got DQd for not penalizing himself for building a stance. PGA officials DQd him. But the person who brought the foul to light was not an official at that tournament, nor a PGA certified official at all, nor did he make the call at the time of the foul, nor was he even on the course. He was a guy at home watching the tournament on TV. He knew the rule, and after the round ended he called in and said, �Hey, shouldn�t Stadler take a penalty for building his stance?� Tournament officials reviewed the videotape and agreed. Stadler had already signed his card without the penalty, and in golf it�s a DQ offense to sign a wrong score, so he got DQd.

Tim (or anybody else on this thread), do you think it was wrong for that viewer to get involved? Would it have served the sport better if he just shut up?

This question isn�t about some bozo in the stands at a baseball game (or at any sport where officials routinely make the calls) yelling, �Ah, the umpire is blind!� It�s about rule-savvy observers, regardless of credentials or authorization, getting involved to bring fairness to the game.

This becomes a really big deal for disc golf when you realize that half the people in the gallery have cells phones that can video the action. So if it isn�t already common for witnesses to come forth with video evidence of fouls, it soon may be.

(On the recent �Mitch v. Clint� thread, Bill Burns and I agreed that all stance fouls are also practice throws. I argued that the practice throw rule lets us call every stance foul without a 3-second time limit. Bill maintained that, when stance fouls happen very near the lie � for example, a jump putt where the player is barely off the ground when he releases his disc � officials and TDs will call that only as a stance foul and never as a practice throw. I think Bill�s argument is bad for the game, because it limits how video evidence can bring justice to those plays.)

We value disc golf�s rules because they make the game fun and challenging. If fouls aren�t penalized � especially when there�s video evidence � the game loses its fun, its challenge, and the respect of everyone from players to sponsors. So, yes, we need structure for running tournaments, but we also need to encourage everyone who speaks up in service to fair play.

davidsauls
Apr 12 2010, 11:51 AM
The Stadler analogy is a little off. The fan didn't make the call. He just suggested it.

As a certified official attending the USDGC as a spectator, I would not try to make a call. I might mention a possible rules violation to a player (probably only one I know), or a marshall or tournament worker/official or the TD.

tkieffer
Apr 12 2010, 01:03 PM
The Stadler analogy is a little off. The fan didn't make the call. He just suggested it.

As a certified official attending the USDGC as a spectator, I would not try to make a call. I might mention a possible rules violation to a player (probably only one I know), or a marshall or tournament worker/official or the TD.

I was about to add the same. If I wanted to get involved while a spectator (most likely not), it would be along the lines of notifying the TD or official of the situation, not running in and making the call myself.

johnrock
Apr 12 2010, 01:28 PM
One thing that hasn't been addressed yet is at most events I've played in, the Td will usually ask during the player's meeting if any players are Certified Officials. That seems like all the "authorization" needed to make official calls during that event.

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 01:32 PM
I do recall sort of making a call from the peanut gallery at the MN Majestic in 2004 or 2005 which may have been an A-tier that year. In the Final 9, a player hit the mando tree (you had to pass on the right) on a safari hole and bounced hard to the left and back a bit. He picked up his disc and walked to the drop zone for the mando. Just before he threw I called out to him from the sidelines that he hadn't missed the mando and needed to go back to where he landed. It potentially saved him a few shots in likely penalties had he thrown a shot or two playing from the drop zone and later having it discovered. Of course, he choked his next throw and didn't make it across the mando line but he maybe threw one better on his score than he would have with the penalty.

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 01:34 PM
One thing that hasn't been addressed yet is at most events I've played in, the Td will usually ask during the player's meeting if any players are Certified Officials. That seems like all the "authorization" needed to make official calls during that event.
That's simply a misunderstanding on the TDs part unless those players will be authorized officials. Even then, they still can't make unilateral rulings in the division they are playing in.

tkieffer
Apr 12 2010, 01:38 PM
I do recall sort of making a call from the peanut gallery at the MN Majestic in 2004 or 2005 which may have been an A-tier that year. In the Final 9, a player hit the mando tree (you had to pass on the right) on a safari hole and bounced hard to the left and back a bit. He picked up his disc and walked to the drop zone for the mando. Just before he threw I called out to him from the sidelines that he hadn't missed the mando and needed to go back to where he landed. It potentially saved him a few shots in likely penalties had he thrown a shot or two playing from the drop zone and later having it discovered. Of course, he choked his next throw and didn't make it across the mando line but he maybe threw one better on his score than he would have with the penalty.

You were acting as a coach, not an official! ;-)

johnrock
Apr 12 2010, 01:54 PM
That's simply a misunderstanding on the TDs part unless those players will be authorized officials. Even then, they still can't make unilateral rulings in the division they are playing in.

I have always understood that part, it is clear in the rules. You're harping on and on about something that IS NOT clear in the rules. Get the passages re-written to reflect what you keep going on about and then case closed. Until then the written rule book is what we have to go by.

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 03:40 PM
It could be more clear, but it IS clearly written that a certified official must get authorized to be an Official at an event. The fact that some don't understand the meaning of that is a reason for clarification, but not correction of the rule. It wouldn't be the first rule that is written correctly but people misinterpret like the one this weekend where the TD claimed that if your disc is just touching the OB line, you are OB regardless if any of your disc is IB.

Hoser
Apr 12 2010, 03:41 PM
Chuck, were you watching the Masters yesterday? On Hole #13 (maybe it was #15), going for the green in two, Ernie Els landed in the creek fronting the green. Dropping �three� backward along the line of play, he skulled his fourth shot over the green. Chipping five from there, he overshot the pin and rolled off the front of the green. The gallery groaned at the error, as the ball came to rest partway down the slope. From where Ernie was standing, the ball was invisible and the gallery reaction made him think the ball had gone back into the creek. He took a new ball in hand and raised his arm to shoulder height to take a drop where he stood.

The gallery shouted, �No, no!�

Ernie got the memo. He didn�t drop that ball. He went across the green, found his ball dry, and got up and down for double bogey seven.

If he had dropped that ball, the drop would have been live and he would have been lying seven where he stood. The gallery saved him two or three strokes and a bunch of cash.

Coach? Official? Tattletale? Busybody? Loudmouth? Fair play?

On the same day, another mind-blower happened, which I�m curious to get your opinion about. Phil Mickelson, battling for the lead, had a 12� putt for birdie. He addressed the ball, head down, ready to swing his club back for the putt. At this instant the Golf Gods saw fit to waft a piece of pine cone fringe across 150� of open air from the nearest tree to land exactly on Phil�s line, halfway to the hole. Two seconds later, Phil putted straight toward the hole. The ball hit the debris and bounced off line.

Here�s what I�m wondering: if Phil�s caddie had seen the situation in time to warn him without causing a horrid shank, would it have been fair play for the caddie to say, �Wait!� to stop Phil from putting?

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 03:51 PM
I saw the replay of Phil's ball hitting that pine debris. If the caddie or Phil had seen it before the ball was struck, they could move it. Let's say it was a really long putt and the caddie is close enough to the line, maybe halfway, and the same debris dropped on the putting green. Once the ball is struck, the caddie could not remove the debris even if he was able to do it fast enough before the ball got to that point in the putt.

tkieffer
Apr 12 2010, 04:05 PM
Coach? Official? Tattletale? Busybody? Loudmouth? Fair play?



Yes. No. No. Perhaps. Perhaps. Yes.


An official would not have stopped him from making the drop. But they would have made a ruling after the act was performed if the player didn't apply the rules properly to the situation. If everything was done according to the rules (lie was played as it should have been, penalty strokes were recorded appropriately), the official would not be involved at all.

Golf has officials. Not referees.

tkieffer
Apr 12 2010, 04:11 PM
if Phil�s caddie had seen the situation in time to warn him without causing a horrid shank, would it have been fair play for the caddie to say, �Wait!� to stop Phil from putting?

Yes, the rules of golf allow for advice from the caddie. One of the reasons pro golfers employ their own and compensate them well.

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 04:17 PM
In Ernie's situation, he was planning to do the drop as one of his options to replay from the same lie when a ball goes into a hazard (OB). Had he dropped it and the ball wasn't in the hazard, it would have been recorded as Ernie taking an unplayable lie which ends up with the same one shot penalty as if it were in the hazard.

JerryChesterson
Apr 12 2010, 04:48 PM
Yes, the rules of golf allow for advice from the caddie. One of the reasons pro golfers employ their own and compensate them well.

I started playing golf when I was about 10 years old. At the age of 15 I was lucky enough to get to caddy for a pro golfer at the Hawkeye Classic in 1993. This was a Nike Tour event (now called the Nationwide Tour) and the winner grabbed a paultry $27,000. The guy I caddied for didn't have his normal caddy so he came into the caddy shack and picked me. WOW what an expereince. I had to caddy 1 round during the Pro-Am and 2 rounds for the tourney. He didn't make the cut. I still got paid $500 in cash for 15 hours of work ($30/ hour isn't bad when you're 15) and he gave me another $1000 worth of equipment he no longer wanted/needed. Gloves, balls, clubs, etc. It was great.

I think the PGA tour guys are kind of like agents, they take a percentage cut of the winnings. Those guys are part caddy, part phycologist. Wonder how many PDGA players could benefit from having a caddy on the bag that knows the local course and knows the player. Probably could be the key to get a lesser known player over the top. Take worlds for example, send your caddy to course, he knows your game, have him look at the best landing spots, the footages, etc. I know the PGA caddys spend hours before the events walking the course, measuring things, etc.

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 05:18 PM
Feldberg is at least one touring pro who does hire local caddies and they earn 10% of what he wins, I believe.

JerryChesterson
Apr 12 2010, 05:59 PM
Feldberg is at least one touring pro who does hire local caddies and they earn 10% of what he wins, I believe.

Dave, if you come play in San Antonio look me up.

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 06:17 PM
Feldberg might have the heaviest bag of all pros with his 40+ discs he carries.

ERicJ
Mar 29 2012, 07:52 PM
Already contacted the Competition Committee which includes Gentry in regard to this. In essence, the PDGA approves members who have passed the test as qualified to be officials but they need to be "authorized" by the TD per the Definition in the rules as an "Official" for an event.That makes the most sense. So who gets/takes the action to rectify the rulebook definition to include "by the TD"?It's happening now for the 2011 update.This never happened for the 2011 Rules Update, did it?
Is it still on the list to be clarified?

cgkdisc
Mar 29 2012, 09:00 PM
Not that I'm aware of. It's probably the responsibility of the Competition Committee not the RC for this rule tweak.

ERicJ
Mar 30 2012, 12:47 PM
Not that I'm aware of. It's probably the responsibility of the Competition Committee not the RC for this rule tweak.
Contacted the Competition Committee and here is the response:
TDs do not need to authorize members who are already certified officials. A non-playing official may make a call they witness. A playing-official may make calls but not on those within the same division the official is playing in.

cgkdisc
Mar 30 2012, 12:53 PM
Just waiting for the spectator officials to start calling foot faults then. Should be interesting.

ERicJ
Mar 30 2012, 02:47 PM
Contacted the Competition Committee and here is the response:TDs do not need to authorize members who are already certified officials. A non-playing official may make a call they witness. A playing-official may make calls but not on those within the same division the official is playing in.
Andrew followed up to say they will look into tightening up the language in the rule book & comp manual.

JoakimBL
Apr 01 2012, 09:39 AM
That is a ridiculous interpretation of the rules, but it is easy to get that changed. I can take the officials exam and just call fouls on every shot for every player i see as a spectator. As best i can read the rules, there are no way the players can overturn my bogus rulings, when i'm certified.
Obviously an exteme scenario, that is never going to happen. But I have played with certified officials that are not sure about even some basic rules. I havn't taken the examyself, but maybe it is too easy? Maybe the current one, makes sense as a players tule test, but we need a more extensive one for true officials?

Martin_Bohn
Apr 02 2012, 10:57 AM
Just waiting for the spectator officials to start calling foot faults then. Should be interesting.

as in if the certified official spectator didnt like the player, and started calling any infraction he/she could think of just to mess the the hated player. conflict of interest i would say, out of line for sure, a whole new can of worms to worry about.....

davidsauls
Apr 02 2012, 02:49 PM
USDGC lead card, final day, 4 players, 800 certified officials in the gallery.

Oh, the possibilities.

I think I'd skip the footfaults and look for courtesy and 30-second violations. I'm a little nervous that I'd call one and only 150 other officials support me, while 650 try to overrule me.

This might be how we finally get on network TV. Riot at a frisbee tournament.

krupicka
Apr 02 2012, 03:05 PM
There really should be two types of tests here: a rules proficiency exam and a certified official exam. We currently only have a rules proficiency exam which is called the officials' exam.

ERicJ
Apr 02 2012, 03:21 PM
There really should be two types of tests here: a rules proficiency exam and a certified official exam. We currently only have a rules proficiency exam which is called the officials' exam.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q193/ejubin/like_button_300x133.jpg

Paul Taylor
Apr 02 2012, 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgkdisc
Not that I'm aware of. It's probably the responsibility of the Competition Committee not the RC for this rule tweak.

Contacted the Competition Committee and here is the response:

Quote:
TDs do not need to authorize members who are already certified officials. A non-playing official may make a call they witness. A playing-official may make calls but not on those within the same division the official is playing in.

__________________
So as a TD, can I "un-authorize" members?

JoakimBL
Apr 05 2012, 02:27 PM
Interesting point I thought of reading the thread about players children. What if a Caddy is a certified official? Can he now make calls, that does not need to be seconded? According to the competition committee, apparently he can. What a fantastic idea.

davidsauls
Apr 05 2012, 02:34 PM
Awesome thought. Instead of choosing a caddy for his willingness to carry my bag, I'll choose him for his mastery of the rulebook and prosecutorial abilities!

jconnell
Apr 05 2012, 03:00 PM
Interesting point I thought of reading the thread about players children. What if a Caddy is a certified official? Can he now make calls, that does not need to be seconded? According to the competition committee, apparently he can. What a fantastic idea.

A caddy is an extension of the player for whom he/she is caddying. Certified officials can only make calls as an official for players outside his/her division. Since the caddy is essentially the same as his player under the rules, if he's making a call, he's doing it as if his player is making the call and not as an official.

JoakimBL
Apr 06 2012, 07:02 AM
Since the caddy is essentially the same as his player under the rules

It is not that I don't believe you or would disagree that that should be the case, I just cannot find it in the competition manual where it says anything to that effect. I can only read that the player is responsible for the caddie, which is not the same thing

A player�s caddie is subject to all items
with in the PDGA Rules of Play and the PDGA
Competition Manual including all applicable
dress codes.

While this could be interpreted in that way you say, it is at least not perfectly clear that the caddie is an "extension of the player". And as in the other thread, there is still the question of what defines a caddie. So even if your interpretation is correct (which I'm not saying it isn't), a player could still bring a long his own personal official as a "spectator" and let him make non seconded calls on the other players.

Further more there is an issue of recording the calls and penalties, that different spectators are making on the score cards. So even if the Competition Committees interpretation is the intended ruling, it is not very well thought out and implemented.

jackinkc
Apr 09 2012, 04:34 PM
competition manual 3.5

C. Players choosing to use a caddie will be solely responsible for their caddie's conduct from the two minute warning until the players cards are turned in. Misconduct by a caddie may subject the player and caddy to disqualification and/or suspension.


This explains that the player is responsible for a caddy, and subject to all rules of the events. The word conduct could be tricky to understand, it as an extension, but this is a long and historic precedent in the sport, which at times could trump information that you may find online.

JoakimBL
Apr 09 2012, 04:55 PM
Even if that interpretation precedes the "Any non-playing official can make calls at all times" (A caddie is still not playing, even if he is the responsibility of the player), that still does not address the lack of a definition of a caddie. And even if a caddie was well defined, that still wouldn't address the problem of bringing your own official as a spectator, to make calls.

jackinkc
Apr 10 2012, 01:15 PM
At that point, you would take provisionals, and discuss with the Course Director or the TD. If it became that big of an issue, let other groups play through and explain the disruption....But then that is the nice guy in me. Can this happen, you bet it can, should it? No, but then in today's whats in it for me, the etiquette (which I have issues with in our sport, and YES I am just as guilty as those I get mad at) in our sport is part of the problem. We don't self officiate well, we ignore many calls and instances that we should be calling out, and that hurts our impression to an observer that may know the rules, and asks why someone gets away with it.....

gnduke
Apr 13 2012, 08:27 PM
The response from the competition committee is what I have always understood the rule to mean. I will admit that it is considered poor form to make a call while the group is together and in a position to observe the infraction and fail to make the call themselves.

I will only go out of my way to make a call in the case where a player/group is gaining a likely advantage on the field by ignoring a call. The problem with making spot calls around the course is that they tend to affect the field differently. The field of players will generally be consistent on what infractions they tend to not notice, and which ones get called. I am not saying that is the correct method, but at least it is fair.

On the idea of mixed divisions on a card, any official has the same authority to make calls on players not in their division as any other on that card.

drdisc
Apr 23 2012, 12:31 AM
This seems to be the best place for an observation. Now days the TD's are playing in their own events, C and B tiers. I know this is "legal", but I have seen problems.
When the tourney HQ is left unguarded, theft could occur. If the park is busy, there is no one at HQ to answer questions. If there is a problem with procedure or rules, there is no one at HQ to help out. I have seen this occur several times. Perhaps this situation needs to be addressed by those who can make the change?