dixonjowers
Oct 23 2010, 11:36 PM
Did we handle this situation correctly...
A player misses a par putt and in anger, from about 2 feet away from the basket, he slams his disc into the basket. After letting it go it bounced out of the basket back towards his chest. He caught it on the fly and then placed it back in the basket.

We scored it a 7. 5 throws and then a 2 stroke penalty for "consciously altering the flight of a disc".

PhattD
Oct 24 2010, 11:05 AM
I would have to see what happened. If the disc bounced out and hit him and he caught it reflexively I would say he didn't intentionally alter the flight of the disc. I would say that if the disc was falling to the ground or going by him and he reached out to catch it that you scored it correctly.

jconnell
Oct 24 2010, 11:12 AM
I know the rules. I call the game according to the rules. I'm proud to be someone that one would define as a rules "nazi". However, I strongly object to the use of the term "nazi". There's no need to give a negative connotation to the idea of knowing, understanding and playing by the rules. It's things like that term that hold the sport back, IMO. (edit: thanks to the mods for changing the thread title)

But to the question at hand, I'd back up the ruling you made. Missed his third throw, slammed his fourth, which bounced out, then placed the disc back in the basket for his fifth. I think where there will be the most discussion will be in whether the interference penalty was appropriate.

I think it was, but I'm sure the argument will be made that he caught the disc instinctively and therefore didn't "consciously" alter the flight of the disc. I can see the logic behind such an argument, but the fact is he could have also let it drop when it came bouncing toward him.

I'll admit I'd lean to the side of penalizing him simply for being a jackass who slammed his disc hard enough into the basket for it to come bouncing back out at him. That doesn't seem like a routine little burst of frustration to me. In this case, I'd trust the players in the group to make the right call, having been the ones who witnessed the whole thing and being in the best position to determine whether the catch was conscious or instinctual and unavoidable.

bcary93
Oct 24 2010, 02:51 PM
. . . After letting it go it bounced out of the basket back towards his chest. He caught it on the fly and then placed it back in the basket.

Had the player tried to move out of the way and the disc hit him, the ruling could have been more generous. If he had his back turned, you probably could have excused him. But based on what you describe, how the interference could have been any clearer than catching the disc? If the player didn't know to get out of the way of a flying disc before this, then at least he has no excuse for the ignorance anymore.

I think you can ignore the arguments that this was a reflex: his reflex should be to get out of the way. If his reflex is to catch a disc in play then he needs to "consciously" reach a different decision regarding how disc golf is played.

PhattD
Oct 24 2010, 08:25 PM
Had the player tried to move out of the way and the disc hit him, the ruling could have been more generous. If he had his back turned, you probably could have excused him. But based on what you describe, how the interference could have been any clearer than catching the disc? If the player didn't know to get out of the way of a flying disc before this, then at least he has no excuse for the ignorance anymore.

I think you can ignore the arguments that this was a reflex: his reflex should be to get out of the way. If his reflex is to catch a disc in play then he needs to "consciously" reach a different decision regarding how disc golf is played.

Did the player have time to get out of the way? Was he so close to the basket that he didn't have time to blink before the disc got back to him? I don't know. Neither do you. Thats why we should leave the determination of whether or not it was intentional up to the people that witnessed the event.

august
Oct 25 2010, 08:29 AM
Way too much effort being made to give this guy a favorable ruling. The quick and simple ruling is to DQ the player for inappropriate behavior and be done with it, but that seems to be a difficult conclusion at which to arrive.

dixonjowers
Oct 25 2010, 08:46 AM
He didn't really have time to move out of the way. For a 2 foot putt he raised the disc almost to head level before slamming it in, kind of like a turbo putt.

We only sited the "consciously altering the flight of the disc" rule (803.07 C) because there isn't a rule for "slamming a putt so hard it comes back and hits you in the chest".

I think either this call was right or we could say the contact was accidental and no stroke, but then not marking the lie and reputting would be stroked.

Hoser
Oct 25 2010, 11:06 AM
Oh, this one is FUN!

In this scenario, Bubba putts for par (3, we assume). He misses. Now he�s lying 3, next to the basket. In anger, Bubba slams his disc into the basket, and the disc bounces back out, and he catches it.

� We�re assuming that Bubba slammed from a correct stance. If so, he�s now lying 4 plus whatever penalty his catch cost him.

� Bubba would have scored better if he slammed from a wrong stance and got called for either wrong stance or practice throw.

o A wrong stance call (within 3 seconds) would have helped Bubba most. Rule 803.04A would cancel his bogey putt and the catch and give him a warning for wrong stance and let him reputt 2� for bogey.

o A practice throw call (doesn�t have to be within 3 seconds) would be almost as good. Rule 803.01B and the definition of �practice throw� would mean (1) Bubba�s lie would not change and (2) his practice throw and the catch couldn�t be used and (3) Bubba would putt 2� for double bogey.

� What about Bubba�s anger? Courtesy rule 801.01 doesn�t say anything about throwing discs, angry or not. DQ rule 804.05A(1) specifically lets you angrily throw discs in play without risking DQ. So Bubba gets a free pass on being a jackass.

In the scenario, when Bubba�s 2� bogey putt bounces out of the basket, he catches it on the fly. Now we enter the realm of interference rule 803.07.

� 803.07A�s first sentence says �a thrown disc that hits another player shall be played where it comes to rest.� But the disc hit Bubba, not another player, so 803.07A�s first sentence doesn�t apply to Bubba�s lie.

� 803.07A�s second sentence says, �A thrown disc that was caught shall be marked at the point of contact.� So Bubba�s catch (intentional or not) means he marks his lie at the point where he caught it.

� But 803.07A�s third sentence says, �Alternatively, for intentional interference only, the thrower has the option of taking a rethrow.� If Bubba�s catch was intentional, then he can rethrow instead of marking at the point of contact � and, yes, the �rethrow� and �point of contact� lie locations are very close to each other, but still it�s critical to pinpoint Bubba�s next lie so he can be in correct stance when he putts for (urp!) quadruple bogey.

� Now, what�s Bubba�s score? 803.07C says if Bubba �consciously alters the course of a thrown disc,� he gets 2 strokes without a warning. Bubba�s catch surely was a conscious act � he caught it. So Bubba gets a 2 stroke penalty for consciously altering the flight, regardless of his intent.

� How about 804.05A(3) DQ for �cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play�? The scenario doesn�t say what Bubba intended. But if, for example, the basket was on a hillside and the ricocheting disc was likely to hit the ground and roll 100� downhill to an OB lake, then if Bubba caught it to prevent that, he�d be guilty of a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

Wait! Our fun isn�t over yet. The scenario says that Bubba catches his ricochet and places the disc back in the basket. He lays it in, he doesn�t throw it in.

� The hole-out rule (803.13) hints, but doesn�t actually say, that a lay-in is not a hole-out. 803.13B says exactly, �In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by [chains or basket].� Does the Rules Committee mean you can hole out by laying your disc into the basket and releasing it to rest there? (If so, drop-ins and lay-ins do hole out.) Or does the RC mean you must release your disc and then some disc-motion-through-air must happen after the release and before the disc comes to rest? (If so, drop-ins do hole out, but lay-ins don�t.)

� If the RC means that a lay-in can hole you out, then Bubba�s lay-in did hole him out and he finishes the hole with a score of 7 if, and only if, he laid it in from a correct stance at his lie. Remember our adventure, a few paragraphs ago, figuring out where to mark Bubba�s lie after the ricochet and catch? All that stuff is still in play at the instant he lays in. Did his feet move during the catch? Did the catch reposition his lie? Are his feet in the right place as he lays in? If his lay-in stance is wrong, is his score and his next move ruled by 803.04A (stance foul) or by 803.01B (practice throw)? If you�re saying, �It doesn�t matter, this close to the basket,� you�re wrong: PDGA stance rules aren�t �grey� about touching the line-of-play within 30cm behind the marker (hey, where is that marker now?) � you either touch it or you don�t.

� If the RC means that Bubba�s lay-in did NOT hole him out, then Bubba is now lying 6 next to the basket. He still has to putt out. But in the scenario he apparently started playing the next hole instead. So 803.13A(2) gives him an automatic 2 stroke penalty (no warning and no rethrow) for failing to hole out, and �the hole shall then be considered completed.� Bubba scores 8 on the hole, since he was lying 6 and the penalty added 2 more.

I said this is FUN, but it�s not. It�s ABSURD AND TEDIOUS.

Guys and girls, I�m going to do something that thousands of disc golfers should have done long ago: stand up and say, �THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.� The PDGA says we should respect its rulebook. But any rulebook that makes such a bizarre mess of this simple scenario, is just running around naked with a crown and a scepter and screaming, �This is the right way to rule the empire!�

No, it�s not the right way. It�s bull puckey. The PDGA rulebook spends 8700 legal-sounding words telling us how to fling a disc from point A to point Z and hit targets along the way. That�s more words than all the rules for running the United States of America � the entire US Constitution and all 27 amendments � plus Martin Luther King�s �I Have a Dream� speech plus Abraham Lincoln�s �Gettysburg Address� plus the long version of the Ten Commandments.

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. The PDGA rulebook is buck nekkid and weighs 1000 pounds, and it needs a beak-to-tail rewrite and liposuction to remove 900 pounds of fat and gristle.

ishkatbible
Oct 25 2010, 02:54 PM
we've all seen spit outs before. i've never seen someone catch one before, much less their own! sure there are several ways to attemt to call this one, but would you have ever imagined this exact scenario?

when you were writing the rules, would you have included "in the case where a player catches his/her disc as it spits out of the chains, due to anger of the previously missed putt, THIS is what you do! - BLACK AND WHITE! THIS IS WHAT YOU DO"

maybe this should be the next Rules School article

cgkdisc
Oct 25 2010, 03:46 PM
Interference was already covered in the first Rules School including this scenario: http://www.pdga.com/interference-rule Check out the last two lines.

I've actually had this situation occur when throwing out of some deep schule. My throw hit a tree trunk a few feet away and rebounded back into my throwing hand where I reflexively caught it briefly and then dropped it after a several hundred milliseconds like a hot potato when I realized I shouldn't catch it. After the group got off the ground from laughing, I played it from the same lie without extra penalty.

TOURNEYPLAYER
Oct 25 2010, 05:18 PM
what sort of penalty would be assesed to a player who misses a putt... (rollaway ensues) then kicks his bag, walks over to the putt now further away and picks up the disc, no mark. putts and misses again then hits the chains with that disc and walks over to his bag and kicks it again and all his discs go flying out. keep in mind other players are still waiting to hole out. this is not a new occurence for said player but was just wondering how to handle this when (not if it happens again)

brock
Oct 25 2010, 05:44 PM
mike, that was a great post, thanks for the laugh! it's always a challenge explaining to new tournament players about the litany of rule books...

dixon, please change the title, it's very offensive (and my family's from Germany)

i remember playing with avery and he missed his putt, then kicked his marker which sailed into the chains... dave wanted to stroke him, but too much laughter ensued for any extra strokes.

jconnell
Oct 25 2010, 05:49 PM
what sort of penalty would be assesed to a player who misses a putt... (rollaway ensues) then kicks his bag, walks over to the putt now further away and picks up the disc, no mark. putts and misses again then hits the chains with that disc and walks over to his bag and kicks it again and all his discs go flying out. keep in mind other players are still waiting to hole out. this is not a new occurence for said player but was just wondering how to handle this when (not if it happens again)
DQ.

Reasons? Take your pick: unsportsmanlike conduct, failing to hole out, willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play. There's plenty there to get him booted if it's a tournament.

But a DQ is something only a TD can do, so as a player, here's how I'd handle it, especially if this guy is a repeat offender who's gotten away with it before:


Call a courtesy violation for the first bag kick (just a warning)
Call a marking/stance violation for not marking his lie on the throw after the initial miss/rollaway (warning and re-throw required)
Call a second courtesy violation for the second bag kick (penalty throw assessed).
Count each disc that rolled out of his bag after he kicked it and assess a practice throw penalty for each one.
Mark him as DNF for the round because he never holed out.
Take all the evidence to the TD so that he/she can officially DQ the player, and hopefully report him to the PDGA (assuming the event is sanctioned) so they can deal with him too.

james_mccaine
Oct 25 2010, 06:04 PM
what sort of penalty would be assesed to a player who misses a putt... (rollaway ensues) then kicks his bag, walks over to the putt now further away and picks up the disc, no mark. putts and misses again then hits the chains with that disc and walks over to his bag and kicks it again and all his discs go flying out. keep in mind other players are still waiting to hole out. this is not a new occurence for said player but was just wondering how to handle this when (not if it happens again)


I can understand the DQ route as it seems the most applicable avenue given the rapidity of the violations . The specific rules (courtesy and marking) are not tailored to deal with this scenario, unless the group gave warnings (courtesy and marking) pretty quickly.

btw, looking over the courtesy section, I don't see a "second" being required. Isn't that required? Seems like a can of worms.

krupicka
Oct 25 2010, 07:25 PM
Since courtesy warnings only affect score and do not affect how one plays out the round. A second is not required. The TD can deal with any courtesy calls at the end of the round and overturn any that he feels is necessary.

bcary93
Oct 25 2010, 08:46 PM
Thats why we should leave the determination of whether or not it was intentional up to the people that witnessed the event.


Isn't that what I just said? I think you forgot to read what I wrote. I only suggested the same ideas I suspect the group may have considered while making the decision. Adding that there is a big difference from a person catching a disc and making even a futile attempt to get out of the way. All I'm saying is if he has time to catch the disc - he has time to TRY to get out of the way. He chose to catch rather than attempt evasive maneuvers - his choice, his consequnces.

IMO, they made the correct call.

PhattD
Oct 25 2010, 10:53 PM
Isn't that what I just said? I think you forgot to read what I wrote. I only suggested the same ideas I suspect the group may have considered while making the decision. Adding that there is a big difference from a person catching a disc and making even a futile attempt to get out of the way. All I'm saying is if he has time to catch the disc - he has time to TRY to get out of the way. He chose to catch rather than attempt evasive maneuvers - his choice, his consequnces.

IMO, they made the correct call.

You still seem to be saying that you can tell from reading a description online whether or not he conciously altered the flight of the disc. I'm saying that catching a disc that unexpectedly hits you in the chest isn't necesarily a concious act. Your post seems to indicate that the fact that he caught the disc is all you need to know to determine that he conciously altered the flight of the disc.

bravo
Oct 27 2010, 10:16 AM
Reaction doesn't take thought.
Response requires it.
The reaction to catch is just that.
The proper response is to let go and mark the next lie.
I don't know how every other player on the courses handle adversity but while angry it is much easier to react rather than respond.
Reaction may reap a person more severe reprocusions than responses.

once the player who loses his temper is penalized then hopefully that player changes his behavier while angry and the end result is a lower golf score.

curt
Nov 03 2010, 01:50 PM
I think that the score on the hole should have been a six, not a seven.

The guys slams his fourth shot into the basket, catches it and gets the two stroke penalty for intentional interference. I would argue that he still receives the benefits of having a disc intentionally interfered with, including the option to rethrow. The player would then exercise that option, reshoot his fourth shot which stayed in the basket. Add two stroke penalty to get to 6.

bcary93
Nov 03 2010, 11:01 PM
You still seem to be saying that you can tell from reading a description online whether or not he conciously altered the flight of the disc. I'm saying that catching a disc that unexpectedly hits you in the chest isn't necesarily a concious act. Your post seems to indicate that the fact that he caught the disc is all you need to know to determine that he conciously altered the flight of the disc.

No, I'm saying that based on the description provided by the person who was there, they made a valid decision - the rules place that burden on the players (including the offending player). Who are we to say they made the right decision? Well, that's what the poster was asking. The initial and subsequent posts from the person involved first-hand tell us the offender was ****** off and acting out - he made his own bed so he can sleep in it. Not only did he "slam" the disc into the basket, not only did he fail to get out of the way or apparently even try to get out of the way, but he also caught the disc and played it as if he was playing a Rec round. The group made a ruling on the spot which actually takes guts.

TOURNEYPLAYER
Nov 04 2010, 05:15 PM
No, I'm saying that based on the description provided by the person who was there, they made a valid decision - the rules place that burden on the players (including the offending player). Who are we to say they made the right decision? Well, that's what the poster was asking. The initial and subsequent posts from the person involved first-hand tell us the offender was ****** off and acting out - he made his own bed so he can sleep in it. Not only did he "slam" the disc into the basket, not only did he fail to get out of the way or apparently even try to get out of the way, but he also caught the disc and played it as if he was playing a Rec round. The group made a ruling on the spot which actually takes guts.


This is 100% correct. the simple act of putting a disc back in the basket without marking it is blatantly circumventing the rules. my first reaction would have been to get out of the way. it may have hit me but i wouldnt have caught it then put it in the basket and expected a 4 or a 5.

dixonjowers
Nov 06 2010, 07:32 PM
So the word "Nazi" got taken out of the title? Has political correctness gotten so far out of control that we are afraid of causing offense to Nazis?

brock
Nov 07 2010, 03:23 PM
you are offending people who follow the rules

"ignorance is bliss"

krazyeye
Nov 15 2010, 12:31 PM
And somehow those of German descent. See Brock's first post.