Pages : [1] 2

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 09:14 AM
Open Letter to the PDGA and All Members

from Mike Williams #2820 and Matt Metcalf #2371



We are two ordinary disc golfers who have played the game, and watched its rules develop, for nearly forty years. This is our favorite game.

In the sport�s early days, local clubs invented their own Frisbee Golf rules, field-testing interesting ways to play the game. When the PDGA published its first national rules in 1980, the locals stopped experimenting. The sport gained a central authority but lost the spark of grassroots innovation. The result � thirty years and eight revisions later � is the soon-to-be-published 2011 PDGA rulebook.

We appreciate the Rules Committee�s heartfelt mission and hard work to provide good rules for the game. Yet disc golfers everywhere can benefit by seeing new rule ideas from outside of the Rules Committee, to gain a fresh perspective to improve your game.

So we�ve written a whole NEW DISC GOLF RULEBOOK (http://www.snapchingthegame.com)that�s simple enough to print on a putter.

Starting from scratch, we�ve created a game that has subtle differences from PDGA disc golf. We gave this game a new name � SnapChing � to help us, and you, look afresh at the game. Don�t worry: SnapChing is so similar to disc golf, you might play all day and not know the difference. Same discs, same course, same goal.

We offer our innovative rule system to the PDGA�s current thousands of members, but even more we offer it to the millions of future players who have never seen a PDGA rulebook. To attract these millions to the sport, it will help to give them a rule system that�s easy and sensible for them to use. There�s no time better than now, to think about how to provide it for them.

We welcome your feedback: post your comments on our SNAPCHING FORUM (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/theforum/). And we invite you to print our single page of NEW RULES (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/rulesofsnapching.pdf)and go out to your favorite course and play SnapChing. See how easily our rules handle every situation on the field of play. See how your game feels fairer and more fun. See how SnapChing�s rules work in ways that you wish your PDGA rulebook would.

We hope you�ll share Rules of SnapChing with friends, to spark a positive, creative, constructive discussion on disc golf rules for the future of YOUR sport. :)

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 09:22 AM
If you have trouble printing out our single page of NEW RULES, click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf).

MTL21676
Nov 08 2010, 10:08 AM
In the sport�s early days, local clubs invented their own Frisbee Golf rules, field-testing interesting ways to play the game. When the PDGA published its first national rules in 1980, the locals stopped experimenting. The sport gained a central authority but lost the spark of grassroots innovation.


I appreciate your passion for the game and the willingness to come up with new and creative ways for everyone to enjoying throwing discs, but I do want to highlight this.

It sounds like you are basically saying that a uniform set of rules instead of more local rules is a bad thing. I could not disagree more.

Imagine if I decided to come to your town and play a tournament. All my life I've played the way I play in Raleigh, North Carolina. Well your town has a rule that says anytime your desk lands upside down, your next shot must be throw with the disc upside down.

Well being from Raleigh where we don't have that rule, I would be at a major disadvantage because I've never had to do this. And beyond that, I wouldn't really every come back to your town ever again.

Uniformity in a game as large as ours is a good thing.

davidsauls
Nov 08 2010, 11:04 AM
You might want to add a line to the effect of:

"For all circumstances not covered by these rules, make it up as you go".

I would need to use such a clause several times per round.

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 11:12 AM
Robert, thanks for your critique.

You said that uniformity in a game as large as ours is a good thing, and we agree, except:

(1) If the uniform fits so awkwardly that few players choose to wear it (i.e., few players choose to read, or are able to understand and use, the PDGA rulebook), maybe it makes sense to consider a better-fitting uniform.

(2) Disc golf isn�t very large yet. Hopefully in our lifetimes, we may see it grow 100 times bigger. Maybe it�s okay to say to the current 40,000 PDGA members, �Here�s your PDGA rulebook. Like it or leave.� But what about the next 4 million members? Are you willing to shut the door, now, to their opportunity for better rules?

Robert, keep your arm loose and keep enjoying the game. And if your curiosity overrides your skepticism, print out Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) and take your friends out to Raleigh�s fine courses and play some SnapChing. You may be surprised.


Mike Williams and Matt Metcalf


PS: Your example of throwing a disc upside down actually showed up in a set of rules @ 1975 in California (William Curtis Park Frisbee Golf Club, Sacramento, CA). Here are rules that players at that park used, back then � they look funny now, but they do give you a flavor of a time, in our sport, when players and clubs field-tested innovative ways to play.

Upside down Frisbee. If Frisbee falls to the ground in an upside-down position, the players has two options: (1) throw and release Frisbee upside-down for the remainder of the hole, or until Frisbee is righted; or (2) throw Frisbee in a normal manner and accept one penalty stroke.

Treed Frisbee. If Frisbee becomes caught in a tree, the player will accept two penalty strokes. Play continues from the point directly under the treed Frisbee. The treed Frisbee is considered lost and may not be used for the remainder of the tour.

Mulligan shot. Applies only to tee shot. May not be used in lieu of a penalty-producing first shot. The Frisbee used for the first shot may not be used for the mulligan shot. The mulligan shot may not be used in tournament play.

Miscellaneous.
� The intentional roll shot is disallowed.
� Any combination of no more than four Frisbees constitutes a set to be used in a tour.
� To score the Frisbee must strike the object tree below the first major branching of the tree.


(Archivist Peter McCarthy sent us these rules, courtesy of the Midwest Disc Sports Collection at the Western Historical Manuscript Collection, University of Missouri.)

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 11:21 AM
David -- and anybody else -- we invite you to create any field-of-play disc golf scenario, that you've ever run into or imagined, and let us show you how SnapChing's single page of rules gives you a clear ruling on that scenario.

Let 'em rip, boys and girls. Bring it on.

Mike and Matt

davidsauls
Nov 08 2010, 12:02 PM
David -- and anybody else -- we invite you to create any field-of-play disc golf scenario, that you've ever run into or imagined, and let us show you how SnapChing's single page of rules gives you a clear ruling on that scenario.

Let 'em rip, boys and girls. Bring it on.

Mike and Matt

---I arrived late and missed the first 3 holes.

---I teed from the wrong teepad and didn't realize it until several holes later.

---Disc stuck in a tree.

---My disc went O.B. Where is my lie?

---I altered my disc so it won't roll on slopes. Can I still use it?

---My disc landed in a fire ant bed. Do I get relief? How much?

---I missed the mandatory. What do I do now?

---I added my scorecard wrong. Any penalty?

---I landed in a big muddy pool that is not O.B. Where is my lie?

---My putt missed, started rolling down the hill, but my bag stopped it. Penalty? Next lie? Does it matter that I put my bag down in the path of the rolling disc?

---Disc stuck in outside of bottom of basket (a "wedgie"). Does it count? Does it count if it falls before I get to it?

---Unlimited alcohol allowed in tournament play? Are illegal drugs a private matter between me and the police?

---If much of this is covered by the TD's decisions, am I trading a thick rulebook for a thin rulebook and a thick set of TD's opinions?

davidsauls
Nov 08 2010, 12:10 PM
That's on the fly without much thinking---someone else can no doubt do much better. Not that I think our rulebook is great, but.....sports don't have thick rulebooks because they think it's fun to do so. It happens because situations occur that the rules don't address, so a new rule must be written. Or there's a disagreement that requires words to be defined or phrases clarified. Or cunning players see a loophole and exploit it, so the loophole must be closed. Pretty soon you have a rulebook (...and rules Q&A....and Rules School) attempting to handle any odd thing that may occur or that someone may attempt.

pterodactyl
Nov 08 2010, 01:07 PM
My snapching uniform is clashing with my rulebook.

Vanessa
Nov 08 2010, 01:20 PM
I agree that its a real challenge to create rules that are flexible and clear ... but here's a few other scenarios that I offer to see how the SnapChing rules handle:

- I played from someone else's lie. What do I do now? Is there a penalty?
- How do I know where OB is? What if my disc is partly OB and partly not?
- I hit the right target correctly, but it cut through the chains. Does that count?
- My disc landed on a hill right under the pin and then it rolled downhill and into a thornbush. I think it rested for two seconds. Those competing against me do not agree. Who decides?
- At a tournament, two of the four people in our foursome didn't show up on time. What do we do?
- My disc landed inside a BIG patch of brambles. I can throw from in there, but I'm going to get bloody doing so. Can I claim the nearest 1' area outside the brambles because otherwise I will injure myself? And can I choose a 1' area closer to the pin, or must I go further away?

And a question: what is a no-fly line?

cgkdisc
Nov 08 2010, 01:22 PM
And a question: what is a no-fly line?
Required roller shot... ;)

ishkatbible
Nov 08 2010, 03:42 PM
Required roller shot... ;)

i thought it would be a mando?

oh wait... i get it... ha ha

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 04:11 PM
GOOD QUESTIONS, DAVID.

To see how these SnapChing rulings work, print out our single page of RULES OF SNAPCHING (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) and follow along with these explanations.



I arrived late and missed the first 3 holes.



Rule 2�s delay clause, and Rule 5�s order of play guideline (whose only penalty is possible DQ for rudeness), work together to offer SnapChingers a bit of flexibility for arriving late on a tee.

When the �start� horn blew and your groupmates saw that you were missing, they did one of three things. (1) They called the TD (via cell phone) to report that you were absent. (2) They waited for you on the tee, until someone else on the course called the TD to say that your group was blocking the flow of the tournament. (3) They teed off without you, and when they got to the point where they�d lose sight of the tee, they called the TD and reported that you were absent. (Why then? Your groupmates don�t want to lose sight of you, because they have an interest to monitor your play.) Whenever the TD finds out you�re absent, the TD puts you on the clock (the TD decides how much time). If you don�t tee off before the clock dings, you DQ.



I teed from the wrong teepad and didn't realize it until several holes later.

Rule 7. When you struck the prior target correctly, your lie became the next hole�s correct tee.

Rule 3. Your tee shot from the wrong pad was not a �throw,� since you weren�t touching your lie when you released the disc into flight.

Rule 8. Your wrong-pad shot didn�t change your lie. Your lie is still the hole�s correct tee.

Rule 11. Your wrong-pad shot was a release into air, so you score 1.

Together, Rules 3 & 8 & 11 likewise raise your score by 1, without changing your lie, for each further shot you make from anyplace that�s not your lie. Suppose you played a total of ten shots before you realized your mistake. You now lie 10 on the correct tee that you haven�t yet played.


Disc stuck in a tree.

Rule 6. Your throw cancels your lie and creates your new lie on the ground.

Rule 7. Your lie is a 1�-wide circle centered below where your disc first rests. Except if your whole disc first rests above OB, your lie is your just-canceled lie.

There�s never any penalty, in SnapChing, for a disc resting above IB ground.


My disc went O.B. Where is my lie?

Rule 7. When your whole thrown disc first rest on or above out-of-bounds, your lie is your just-canceled lie.



I altered my disc so it won't roll on slopes. Can I still use it?



Rule 3. If your disc isn�t World-SnapChing-League (WSL)-approved, your toss isn�t a �throw.�

Rule 8. If you release a disc into air in a way that�s not a throw, your lie doesn�t change.

Rule 11. You score 1 each time you release a disc into air (whether the disc is WSL-approved or not).

The question of whether a WSL-approved disc is still legal if you alter it, is covered not in SnapChing�s rules of play (which tell you what to do on the field of play) but in SnapChing Technical Standards (which tells you what you need to know before you step onto Tee #1 of a WSL event). SnapChing�s tech specs for discs are the same as the PDGA�s.


My disc landed in a fire ant bed. Do I get relief? How much?

Rule 7. If you can�t throw at all without injury, your lie is the closest 1�-wide circle where you can.

This rule give you relief to the closest place where you can throw at all (i.e., correct stance) without getting bit.


I missed the mandatory. What do I do now?

SnapChing uses a simpler form of mando called a �no-fly line.� It�s a line that the TD draws on the course, and your disc mustn�t cross that line.

Rule 7. If your whole thrown disc crosses a no-fly line, your lie is your just-canceled lie.


I added my scorecard wrong. Any penalty?

Rule 11. When you correctly hit a target, record your score.

No rule of SnapChing tells you how to record your scores. No rule of SnapChing requires you to add your scores. No rule of SnapChing requires you to report your scores (promptly or not) to the TD. But you surely will try to legibly and promptly report your scores to the TD, so you can get grouped with peers in the next round and have a chance to win buckage and plaquage. Your self interest, not a rule, motivates you.

In a world where most people have trouble making correct change at McDonald�s, we wrote SnapChing�s rules to reflect your throwing skill, not your adding skill.


I landed in a big muddy pool that is not O.B. Where is my lie?

Rule 7. Your lie is a 1�-wide circle centered below where your disc first rests. Except If you can�t throw at all without injury, your lie is the closest 1�-wide circle where you can.

You either can, or can�t, throw from the muddy pool at all without injury. Play accordingly.


My putt missed, started rolling down the hill, but my bag stopped it. Penalty? Next lie? Does it matter that I put my bag down in the path of the rolling disc?

Rule 7. Your lie is a 1�-wide circle centered below where the disc first rests.

If you put the bag down in the path of your rolling disc: Rule 2. The TD can eject you if you play unfair.

If your bag was there before you threw, and nobody asked you to move it before you threw, then no foul. If anybody did ask you to move it before you threw, and you refused to move it, then: Rule 2. The TD can eject you for acting rude.

The better you get at playing the game, the more aware you�ll be of where you put your equipment. Top players aren�t likely to let your scenario happen. Less experienced players learn by experience.


Disc stuck in outside of bottom of basket (a "wedgie"). Does it count? Does it count if it falls before I get to it?

The question of whether your disc correctly holed out is covered not in SnapChing�s rules of play (which tell you what to do on the field of play) but in SnapChing Technical Standards (which tells you what you need to know before you step onto Tee #1 of a WSL event). SnapChing�s tech specs for holing out are the same as the PDGA�s.

Rule 7. However, in SnapChing, �rest = stay still two seconds.� So you apply that definition of �rest� to the PDGA hole-out requirements. For example, if your disc stayed still two seconds wedged in such a way that it qualified as a hole-out, then Rule 7 says your lie is the next hole�s tee � because your lie is always located according to your disc�s first rest, regardless of whether it later squeezes out and rests on the ground.


Unlimited alcohol allowed in tournament play? Are illegal drugs a private matter between me and the police?

Rule 2. The TD can eject you if you act rude or play unfair.

Breaking laws is rude to the whole field: you put the event in danger of being kicked out of the park.

Using substances that enhance your performance is unfair play. SnapChing�s rules of play don�t address this in detail, but SnapChing Technical Standards (which tells you what you need to know before you step onto Tee #1 of WSL events) governs artificial devices and substances the same as the PDGA.

Getting yourself arrested during play will cause you to become absent. When the TD finds out you�re gone: Rule 2. The TD can eject you for failing to throw when the TD says.


If much of this is covered by the TD's decisions, am I trading a thick rulebook for a thin rulebook and a thick set of TD's opinions?

David, that�s one of the best questions you could ask.

Rule 1. Play by Rules of SnapChing as the TD amends. The TD�s rulings prevail. You may call the TD to rule.

Rule 2. The TD may eject you . . .

Rule 1 lets the TD make local rules that override the rulebook. We�ve written a set of rules that creates an interesting game that�s fun and challenging to play. But if special circumstances on the course, or in the nature of the event, make it sensible for the TD to make local rules that override the rulebook, we specifically give the TD that power.

We haven�t fully field-tested how this will work. But we feel it makes more sense than writing complex rules and then requiring the TD to petition the World SnapChing League, in advance, to alter those rules.

Aside from making local rules, Rule 1 also puts the TD in charge of ruling whenever players ask for a ruling. We hope that SnapChing�s rules are so clear that players seldom will need help to use them on the field of play. It�s likely that most calls for rulings will involve one of three matters:
� Players� behavior � is the misbehavior rude enough for DQ.
� Players� absence or tardiness that slows the tournament flow: the TD can put the player on the clock and DQ for delay.
� Disagreement about where to locate a lie or how to score a play. If these rulings involve questions of fact, the TD will rely on players� eyewitness reports and on the on-the-scene reports of aides whom the TD sends out to roam the course. If these rulings involve questions of rule rather than fact, the TD will apply the rules as he sees fit.

Rule 2 puts the TD in charge of all judgment calls about what a player may intend or think or believe. SnapChingers never have to make those calls. This does put pressure on the TD; but we believe that good training by the WSL will prepare TDs to treat these situations in ways that encourage good behavior and keep the game in a good light.


* * *

David, thank you for presenting these scenarios. Feel free to send us more � but please, before you send them, try them out yourself with the rules of SnapChing. Then send us the really tough scenarios that you can�t figure out: those are the ones that can really help us prove and improve our rules.

davidsauls
Nov 08 2010, 05:09 PM
Thanks for all that....and in all honesty, I wrote my post after a quick read-through the of rules on the putter (I noticed the rules with explanations afterwards). I should have seen the answers to a few of my questions---like O.B. sending me back to my previous lie.

And with appreciation for your efforts I, for one, will pass. Your rules are certainly briefer than the PDGA's, but an awful lot seems to rely on the TDs judgement of "unfair", "rude", etc. It doesn't strike me that these rules cover everything that can happen in the field of play, unless you've got a TD at hand.

I also prefer the PDGA version of O.B. (lie where it went O.B., with penalty stroke). I think the "rethrow without penalty" was used at USDGC in 2009, without rave reviews.

A particular course I play a lot has several shots off big hills, with O.B. near the basket, where you can't judge it from the tee. I'd hate to arrive, find my disc O.B., and have to climb 400' back and 60' higher to re-throw.

Ultimately, I'm one who'd rather arrive at a tournament knowing what the rules are, than playing by differing rules at every event.

davidsauls
Nov 08 2010, 05:21 PM
I'll footnote that I'm also a TD, and this doesn't particularly appeal to me in that regard, either. I'd rather not have people contacting me from all over the course to make judgement calls; if I MUST make a call on appeal, I like to pull out the book, turn to precise wording, and say "I'm sorry you found your disc 3 1/2 minutes after the search began....but at that point, it was a lost disc."

But I hope you, and anyone else who wants to try snapching, have great fun with it.....and perhaps some of your innovations will prove themselves in trial and end up in the PDGA book oneday.

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 06:04 PM
VANESSA, thanks for your scenarios. And congratulations: you are the first replier on this thread who shows evidence of having actually logged onto our site and looked at the stuff there. How�dja like the rules-on-a-putter?


I played from someone else's lie. What do I do now? Is there a penalty?


Rule 3. You weren�t touching your lie at the instant you released your disc into flight, so your toss wasn�t a �throw.�

Rule 8. You released a disc into air in a way that wasn�t a throw so your lie doesn�t change. Your lie is still where it was.

Rule 11. You released a disc into air, so you score 1 for that toss.

Okay, your score went up 1 and your lie didn�t advance. Now go play your lie. There�s no other penalty.

This same three-rule combo governs every other kind of misplay that involves a wrong stance � in other words, almost every possible way that you can misplay the course.


How do I know where OB is? What if my disc is partly OB and partly not?


The TD tells you where OB is. OB may be marked on the course map. It may be marked on the course itself. The TD may tell you about it in the players� meeting. You find out where OB is, the same ways in SnapChing as in PDGA disc golf.

Rule 7. Your lie is a 1�-wide circle centered below where your disc first rests. Except if your whole thrown disc first rests on or above OB, your lie is your just-canceled lie.

So if your disc lands partly OB and partly IB, play where it lies. If there�s just a sliver of the 1�-wide circle lie IB, too small to let you possibly get into a stance that doesn�t touch OB or closer to the target, use Rule 7�s last clause to move your 1�-wide circle slightly so you can get a legal stance.



I hit the right target correctly, but it cut through the chains. Does that count?



SnapChing�s rules of play don�t cover hole-out requirements. Hole-out requirements are covered in SnapChing Technical Standards, a document that tells you what you need to know before you step onto Tee #1 of a WSL event. SnapChing�s hole-out requirements are the same as the PDGA�s.

Rule 7. If your disc hits the right target correctly, your lie is your next tee.


My disc landed on a hill right under the pin and then it rolled downhill and into a thornbush. I think it rested for two seconds. Those competing against me do not agree. Who decides?


You�re saying that your disc stayed still two seconds under the basket, before it grew legs and rolled downhill. Your competitors are saying it didn�t stay still two seconds before it rolled.

Rule 1. You may call the TD to rule.

Any time there is any disagreement about how to locate a lie or score a play, anyone can call the TD to rule. If the ruling involves a question of rule, not of fact, the TD will apply the rules as she sees fit. If the ruling involves a question of fact � as in your scenario � the TD will consider all the witness reports (you�ll be passing your cell phone around a lot), and then she�ll make a ruling and you�ll all abide by it.

Since everybody knows that this will be the ruling process, players usually manage to reach agreement before calling the TD.

Every player on the course has the right and the power to bring the full force of the rulebook and the TD to bear on any issue at any time. Group majority has no force. There are no officials (who missed 30% of the questions on the officials� test) to get in your way. You have direct access to the TD at all times. That�s how SnapChing tournaments are played. (And in casual SnapChing, your group becomes the TD, and you either work out your disagreements or quit and go home � same as in disc golf.)


At a tournament, two of the four people in our foursome didn't show up on time. What do we do?


Please see our reply, in Post #13 above, to David Saul�s first scenario: I arrived late and missed the first 3 holes.

Rule 2. The same answer applies to the two late arrivers in your group. Either they arrive before the TD�s clock dings (in which case they can catch up to the group and play on without penalty) or they don�t (in which case they DQ for failing to throw when the TD says). There is a natural limiting factor: you have an interest to monitor your competitors� play, so you�re not going to get so far ahead that you lose sight of them.


My disc landed inside a BIG patch of brambles. I can throw from in there, but I'm going to get bloody doing so. Can I claim the nearest 1' area outside the brambles because otherwise I will injure myself? And can I choose a 1' area closer to the pin, or must I go further away?


Again, congratulations, Vanessa, on actually reading the rules of our new game. If we were handing out gold stars, you�d get one. As it is, we�re just handing out a new rulebook, and anybody who pays attention can have it and get more enjoyment out of what �Steady� Ed Headrick called �the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy.�

Rule 7. If you can�t throw at all without injury, your lie is the closest 1�-wide circle where you can.

Rule 3. �Throw� means to be in a correct stance at the instant you release your flight.

So Rule 7 gives you relief in two kinds of situations:

IMPOSSIBLE LIES. When it is impossible to take any correct stance, you get to move to where it is possible. For example, your disc lands in the crotch of a tree, where the lie directly below is inside the tree trunk. Or your disc lands in foliage so thick that you just can�t get in there to take a stance without breaking stuff. Or your disc lands so close to an OB line (or on the line) that you can�t get into a stance that doesn�t touch OB. (In SnapChing, you don�t get 1M relief from OB when your disc lands within 1M of an OB line.)

DANGEROUS LIES. The other situation involves IB lies where it may be possible to take a correct stance, but it is dangerous to do so: slippery slopes or mud, bees, ice, chained dogs, and meetings of the Society for Creative Anachronism.

The danger-of-injury kind of Rule 7 situation is where you�re likely to have some discussion, among the group, about whether it�s really an injurious situation or just an uncomfortable or awkward one. PDGA disc golf solves this by allowing you (if you take a one-stroke penalty and throw next from elsewhere) to just abandon any IB lie that you decide is unplayable or unsafe or tedious or smelly. You don�t have that option in SnapChing. SnapChingers play the IB lie they get, except for Rule 7 relief from impossible or dangerous lies.

Group discussions about dangerous lies may be lively. Some players have higher tolerance of pain than others. Some are more allergic to stinging insects or poisonous plants than others. The word �wimp� may be bandied about. The bottom line is that every player can bring to bear the full force of the rulebook and the TD. If your group disagrees whether an IB lie is dangerous to play, or if the group disagrees about the amount of relief, anyone is free to call the TD to rule.

Rule 7 says �closest� but says nothing about what direction the relief can be taken in. If �closest� is closer to the hole, so be it. Often you�re going to get a fairly awkward relief lie, since the closest circle where you can throw at all may be an inch away from a circle where you�d hurt yourself throwing. Like for instance, when you get relief from a big patch of thorns, you�ll likely have to settle for a lie where you�re sticking your leg in under the outer branches of the patch. In a case like that, being closer to the hole usually won�t give you a scoring advantage.

And if there�s a situation on the course where Rule 7 relief could give you a scoring advantage � for example, a basket is right next to a slippery river bank, and your closest no-injury relief is at the top of the bank next to the basket � that�s a course design problem that the TD should address before the tournament.

The whole idea behind SnapChing�s Rule 7 relief from impossible or dangerous lies, is to guarantee that you can play the game safely and without more pain than you�re willing to inflict on yourself.


And now the icing on your cake of questions: What is a no-fly line?

Vanessa, if you look at the mando rule in all nine PDGA rulebooks (1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2011), you�ll see a grand train wreck of lines, planes, perpendicularities, unwinding, drop zones, and marking lies vis-�-vis the mando object. The PDGA has gone through more contortions than a circus geek, trying to create and govern artificial doglegs (that�s what a mando is).

We figured there had to be a better way.

So we invented the no-fly line. It�s a single line that the TD draws on the course. This line isn�t perpendicular to anything. It�s just a line on the course. It can be straight, or curved, or it can loop to enclose an area.

The TD might use objects to show where the line�s endpoints are. Or the line may be a straight-line-of-sight between two objects. Whenever an object marks an end of a no-fly line, the only part of the object that matters is where the object meets the ground.

Rule 7. If your disc crosses a no-fly line, your lie is your just-canceled lie.

Rule 11. Your throw, that crossed the no-fly line, counts 1 on your score.

There�s no additional penalty stroke. Your score just went up 1, and now you face the same challenge that you just screwed up.

Rule 3. Every throw in SnapChing orients your stance to the target. If you�re playing around a no-fly line, orient your stance to the target, not to either end of the line.

krupicka
Nov 08 2010, 06:20 PM
So how long can I take to find a disc I threw into the woods?

The wind is really howling. How long can I wait to see if I get a brief calm in the wind?

jconnell
Nov 08 2010, 06:44 PM
I teed from the wrong teepad and didn't realize it until several holes later.

Rule 7. When you struck the prior target correctly, your lie became the next hole�s correct tee.

Rule 3. Your tee shot from the wrong pad was not a �throw,� since you weren�t touching your lie when you released the disc into flight.

Rule 8. Your wrong-pad shot didn�t change your lie. Your lie is still the hole�s correct tee.

Rule 11. Your wrong-pad shot was a release into air, so you score 1.

Together, Rules 3 & 8 & 11 likewise raise your score by 1, without changing your lie, for each further shot you make from anyplace that�s not your lie. Suppose you played a total of ten shots before you realized your mistake. You now lie 10 on the correct tee that you haven�t yet played.
So you're saying that any throws I made after teeing from the incorrect tee are counted, but that any holes completed amongst those throws don't count? I instead have to back track to the hole I misplayed, start from the correct tee, and replay the holes that followed? Isn't that a bit impractical, especially if we're talking about a tournament in which there are playing groups on every hole? What if the misplay is on the second hole of my round, and I don't know there was a misplay until the seventeenth hole of the round? I have to replay 15 holes? Awesome.

I understand your nostalgia and desire to return to a simpler time and a seemingly simpler game. But I think everything we are experiencing now in terms of rules changes and adaptations are simply the natural evolution of a game into a sport that has grown in popularity and scale since its infancy. Snapching, if it ever catches on in a similar manner, is bound to reach a point in the future where its rules and regulations are just as complex as disc golf's are today. Perhaps 40 years from now, some avid snapching enthusiast will be proposing a return to a simpler game because snapching has outgrown its own grassroot beginnings and become too complicated for their simpler tastes.

DShelton
Nov 08 2010, 07:25 PM
OK, let me see if I got this straight.

All the rules I need to play is on that putter, except that I have to refer to another set of rules (SnapChing Technical Standards) to determine if I holed out properly or what I can or can not play with and then at the end of the day, I can put down that I scored a 45 and not the 56 that my actual score reflects and if I say "Oops, I must have added something up wrong," then I don't face any repercussions because it was an accident.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the fact that you are trying to do something different, but when a sport becomes nationalized, it needs a cohesive set of rules that all players must follow to be able to expand the sport.

Look at ball golf's rule book or baseball's. Each are a mile thick, yet the sports are loved and played by millions. Not all use the standard rules for casual "pick up" games, but when one enters a tournament style of play, they all use the same set of rules. The PDGA rule book is that set of rules for disc golf. They may be frustrating at times and are still a work in progress, but they are what have caused the sport to go from a funny little sport that only stoners and a few geeks played to a legitimate sport that is starting to gain national recognition.

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 07:31 PM
David, we really appreciate your thoughtful replies. Your experience as a TD gives your opinion weight, and your courteous way of arguing the points earns our respect.

You needn�t feel awkward about asking questions that you could have figured out in advance. We knew somebody was going to do that and it would give us an opportunity to encourage folks to read the new rules. So, thanks for being the guinea pig.

You brought up four points that are important for us to address.


Your rules are certainly briefer than the PDGA's, but an awful lot seems to rely on the TDs judgement of "unfair", "rude", etc.


You�re absolutely right about SnapChing relying on the TD�s judgment of unfair, rude, etc.. Yet does the PDGA way of handling courtesy and fair play get better results? PDGA rules give players lots of specific no-no�s to enforce against each other, usually with warnings. In our experience, players would rather chew broken glass than get involved in that process.

We�ve spent long hours debating how to handle courtesy in SnapChing, and we believe the TD is best equipped to handle all of it. A well-trained TD can DQ for big problems, and bend a player�s ear on the cell phone enough to cure most medium-sized problems. SnapChingers, knowing that the TD is their fall-back for enforcement, can handle small problems through normal social intercourse.

You�re right, it�s not an ideal situation. But we feel it�s a better alternative than listing every possible kind of objectionable act (which, like sensitivity to poison ivy or bee stings, varies from person to person), and deciding on a menu of penalty options for each, and putting the weight of enforcement on the shoulders of the players.

Having said all that, we�re eager to hear of any better ways to govern courtesy.


It doesn't strike me that these rules cover everything that can happen in the field of play, unless you've got a TD at hand.


Unfortunately the PDGA rulebook puts players in an even stranger situation: even with officials and the TD at hand, it�s often impossible to reach agreement on what certain rules mean, or how to apply them, unless you have the Rules Committee at hand to interpret the rules. And if you glance at the FAQ Q&A�s at pdga.com, you�ll see that even the RC itself often has a hard time explaining what they mean to say in the rules.

We recall a situation at the 1990 Worlds, when the lead Pro Grandmaster group was playing a 200� hole. All four players teed off and landed 6� from the basket. They went and marked their lies. Then one player turned away, fished his putter out of his bag, stepped up to A WRONG MARKER and putted out.

The group called for a ruling and stood aside forty-five minutes while four officials debated half a dozen different rules in the 1990 rulebook that seemed to apply to this simple error. One of those rules was this: 803.09C �Playing the Wrong Lie� said that when a player plays a wrong lie, �If the mistake remains uncorrected at the time the offending player completes the hole, he may not go back to resume play from his correct lie and he will incur a six-throw penalty.�

Clearly, that rule gave the player a score of 8 on that hole.

We won�t go into the gory details of what the other pertinent rules said, nor how or why the officials eventually decided on a three-stroke penalty that they never were quite able to explain to the group. The grandmaster title was decided the next day by a single stroke, and the winner would have been different if the six-stroke penalty had been applied.

David, we don�t want to use this discussion thread to berate the RC. The RC works hard, with good heart, under tough conditions, and they deserve everyone�s respect. But we stand firm on this point: this sport needs better rules than that. And we are hopeful that 40,000 disc golfers (of whom we are two) with inquisitive minds and millions of hours of field-of-play experience may come up with better rules than the RC has.

Oops, we sort of got up on a soapbox there. Down, boy, down.


A particular course I play a lot has several shots off big hills, with O.B. near the basket, where you can't judge it from the tee. I'd hate to arrive, find my disc O.B., and have to climb 400' back and 60' higher to re-throw.


Rule 1. The TD can make local rules that override the rulebook.

On your big-hill course, the TD would naturally make a local rule that provides relief, on those holes, that keeps you from having to climb the hill to rethrow. What relief would that be? That�s up to the TD to decide. Different hills may require different reliefs. We deliberately gave SnapChing TDs the power to make local rules that can handle those situations.


I also prefer the PDGA version of O.B. (lie where it went O.B., with penalty stroke). I think the "rethrow without penalty" was used at USDGC in 2009, without rave reviews.


This deserves more discussion. We�ve field-tested �rethrow without penalty� and found that it does an excellent job to (1) guide players to develop skill not to land OB and (2) create the most interesting and fun strategy balance between caution and bold play. Maybe we should talk with Harold Duvall to hear his thoughts on the 2009 USDGC experience.


Mike and Matt :) :)

Hoser
Nov 08 2010, 08:08 PM
Hey, Krupicka, thanks for weighing in.

SnapChing has no 30-second limit for throwing nor a 3-minute limit for searching for a lost lie. The only delay rule in SnapChing is this:

Rule 2. The TD can eject you if you fail to throw when the TD says.

Disc golfers universally ignore the 30-second rule. In our 40 years of tournament and casual play, we�ve never seen a 30-second penalty. In writing SnapChing�s delay rule, we decided that the only reason to time play is if slow play is blocking the tournament flow. The TD can handle that by putting players on the clock � whether they�re taking a long time to throw, or whether they�re absent on a tee, or whether they quit play � under threat of DQ. Any player (who isn�t absent) can decide to throw in time to avoid DQ.

The �lost� situation is very different in SnapChing than in PDGA disc golf. For one thing, SnapChing�s �lost� rule governs losing your lie, not losing your disc. Losing a disc is small potatoes. Losing your lie is a game-stopper: you must have a lie, in order to keep playing. By writing SnapChing�s �lost� rule to deal with lies, not discs, we�ve avoided confusions that have beset disc golf�s lost disc rule, in fairly common situations where you know where your disc is but don�t know where your lie is, or vice versa.

We�ve devised lost-lie relief that needs no penalty. (Oh, boy, this is going to raise a howl from those of you who think stroke and distance is an appropriate way to govern lost discs.) If our relief works, and if it�s fair to the whole field � and we believe that it does and it is � then there�s no need for any penalty for losing your lie. Our no-penalty relief has this result: you�ll likely score the same on the hole as if you hadn�t lost your lie. That result doesn�t hurt the game at all, and it feels way better than stroke and distance penalty.

(There�s actually another, very powerful reason for not penalizing lost lies, that relates directly to the 2M penalty. But we�ll save that for another day.)

Rule 9. If your lie is lost, your groupmates deem where your thrown disc first rests.

Since SnapChing doesn�t penalize lost lies, SnapChingers aren�t motivated to search a long time for wayward discs. Instead, soon after their search begins, they�ll say to their groupmates, �Hey, guys, while we�re looking, deem me a spot.� The groupmates then deem where the disc first rested. The lost guy marks that spot (if it�s deemed OB, his lie would be his prior lie). Then the search goes on until the lost guy either finds his lie or he gives up, or anybody on the course calls the TD and the TD puts the lost guy on the clock. The lost guy quickly throws, and the game goes on. (If it�s a favorite disc, he can come back later and look for it.)


Mike and Matt :) :)

jconnell
Nov 08 2010, 08:21 PM
We recall a situation at the 1990 Worlds, when the lead Pro Grandmaster group was playing a 200’ hole. All four players teed off and landed 6’ from the basket. They went and marked their lies. Then one player turned away, fished his putter out of his bag, stepped up to A WRONG MARKER and putted out.

The group called for a ruling and stood aside forty-five minutes while four officials debated half a dozen different rules in the 1990 rulebook that seemed to apply to this simple error. One of those rules was this: 803.09C “Playing the Wrong Lie” said that when a player plays a wrong lie, “If the mistake remains uncorrected at the time the offending player completes the hole, he may not go back to resume play from his correct lie and he will incur a six-throw penalty.”

Clearly, that rule gave the player a score of 8 on that hole.

We won’t go into the gory details of what the other pertinent rules said, nor how or why the officials eventually decided on a three-stroke penalty that they never were quite able to explain to the group. The grandmaster title was decided the next day by a single stroke, and the winner would have been different if the six-stroke penalty had been applied.
Seems to me that it isn't the rule book (be it the 1990 book or the 2006 book or the 2011 book) that is the problem, it's players' and officials' willingness to use it properly. I don't think any writing or rewriting of any rule is ever going to affect that. Only an effort by all players to suck it up and make a call without fear of offending someone who's already in the wrong.

Your example here from Worlds doesn't prove the rule book was ineffective, it proves the TDs and officials at that world championship were freaking morons. The player holed out from the wrong lie. There is a rule in the book entitled "PLAYING THE WRONG LIE"! What other rule do they need? How much debate is necessary? The rule explicitly states that if the player holes out before the mistake is rectified, he incurs a 6-stroke penalty. End of story.

Seems to me the rules of snapching, which leave far more interpretation up the TD, would not correct the issue you experienced at Worlds, it would lead to more of those situations in every round of play. You've demonstrated yourself in some of your answers to other questions that one must apply a number of snapching rules to a given situation to determine an outcome that the PDGA rule book covers in one. Seems to me that leaves more room for interpretion, debate and disagreement than the current PDGA rule book does.

Besides, there will never be a way or a time in which the rule book adequately covers every possible scenario without room for debate and interpretation. Because for every rule created or modified, a new situation is bound to arise. There isn't a sport out there in which particular rules aren't debated and questioned and interpreted in five different ways by five different people. That's how rules are adapted and updated to keep up with the changing technology and innovations of the sport.

davidsauls
Nov 09 2010, 08:33 AM
There are a few drawbacks to leaving so much up to group discussion and the TD. Sure, the PDGA rules do this, but not nearly to the same degree. One is the that my group may rule differently than another group, which may help or hurt me in relation to another competitor in a different division, same group. Sure, this is true under PDGA rules, but snapching seems to greatly expand it.

Another is that, at least around here, TDs frequently play in their own tournaments, making appeals to them very problematic.

Yet another is that we use PDGA rules for tournament and casual play. It gives our casual play structure. But with so much dependent on the TD, casual play would seem to have a lot of "make it up as you go" to it.

*

One reason that I---personally---find little appeal in snapching is that I don't find a particular problem in the complexity of the PDGA rulebook. I spent many years coaching baseball and basketball, so I'm quite comfortable with the PDGA book having similar structure. (There are, oh, about fifty changes I'd like to see in it, but that's another story).

Not meant as a criticism of what you've created....just pointing out why I, and I presume many others, are unlikely to embrace it.

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 11:14 AM
David, thanks for your Post #23.


TDs frequently play in their own tournaments, making appeals to them very problematic.


You�re right. SnapChing�s rules don�t make it easy for a TD to play in the tournament.

As we wrote SnapChing�s rules, we tried to craft a single set of rules that would work for big tournaments, casual foursomes, and everything in between.

In the simplest form of play � a casual group � the group becomes the TD and takes on the TD�s decision-making powers and duties. Since SnapChing TDs can amend the rules of play, casual groups likewise can bend the rules � which is the way casual disc golfers always have played, using the rules as a guide but choosing to ignore or modify some of them. (E.g., ignore the 30-second rule, allow mulligans or practice throws, drink beer, search longer than 3 minutes for lost discs.)

Simple formats like Tuesday night league play easily fit SnapChing rules: there�s one guy in charge, maybe with an assistant or two. If players run into a snag, they call The Guy to solve it.

Formal tournaments, especially big ones, require the TD to delegate duties to a staff. The TD may get spread pretty thin, and our only justification for loading her with the duty of Ruler-in-Chief is that SnapChing�s rules are clear enough that groups seldom will need rulings to agree how to locate lies or score plays.

As for needing rulings to solve behavior problems, we hope that the specter of DQ for rudeness, combined with normal social interaction on the field of play, will do as good a job of encouraging courtesy as the PDGA rules do, and won�t involve the TD much to mediate or penalize.

At big events the TD (who, in SnapChing, has power to amend the rules of play) could put staff in charge of making rulings under her authority. Now we�re getting into the realm of officials � that�s a whole �nother kettle of fish with its own set of problems, among which is that the TD has to deal with appeals when officials don�t know their job.

David, it�s a lot to think about. We�re not sure we have all the answers. We appreciate you keeping us on our toes, from your TD perspective.


One reason that I---personally---find little appeal in snapching is that I don't find a particular problem in the complexity of the PDGA rulebook. I spent many years coaching baseball and basketball, so I'm quite comfortable with the PDGA book having similar structure. (There are, oh, about fifty changes I'd like to see in it, but that's another story).


Your ease at understanding PDGA rules, and your experience coaching and learning rules for other sports, are a bit outside the realm for most disc golfers.

It would be interesting to poll the PDGA membership to see how comfortable players are with the rulebook. Anecdotal evidence from our forty years of tournament and casual play suggests that most disc golfers learn the game by word of mouth rather than from the rulebook. That�s why we�ve made the effort to write rules that average players can easily use, without interpretation, on the field of play. That�s our goal, and if we haven�t met it yet, we�ll keep trying, not only for the thousands of current players who have a hard time using their rulebook but also for the millions of future players who haven�t yet seen a PDGA rulebook and will wish for something better.


Mike and Matt :) :)


PS: This thread isn�t the place to ask, but we�d be real interested to hear which fifty things you want to change in PDGA rules. We appreciate the way your mind works. Feel free to CONTACT US (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/contact.html) at our SnapChing website about this.

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 12:42 PM
Josh, thank you for Post #22.


Seems to me the rules of snapching, which leave far more interpretation up the TD, would not correct the issue you experienced at Worlds, it would lead to more of those situations in every round of play.


You and others are saying that SnapChing�s rules leave a lot of interpretation up to the TD. We may have given a wrong impression by saying, �Call the TD, and the TD will apply the rules as she sees fit.� We meant to say that when you call the TD, the TD will apply the rules or amend them as she sees fit.

We�ve tried to write SnapChing rules so you can apply each rule�s exact words, with no interpreting, and you�ll always get consistent results that create a fun challenge.

So it�s fair to ask: why might a TD amend a rule of play? One reason may be to enhance course design or deal with special circumstances on the course. For example, a TD could make a local rule saying that if you land on a certain bridge over an OB creek, you�re IB and you play from there with no penalty. That local rule would override SnapChing Rule 6, which creates your new lie on the ground, and Rule 7, which says if you land above OB your lie is your previous lie. Or, in mid-round Chuck Kennedy might find a beehive in a log under his disc and � oh, never mind, SnapChing Rule 7�s last clause already takes care of that: If you can�t throw at all without injury, your lie is the closest 1�-wide circle where you can.

Or situations might arise when the TD would decide that applying a given rule of play creates an inequity or unfairness. (We can�t think of any such case, right now, but let�s assume it for the sake of argument.) In that case, the TD could give a ruling that overrides the rule of play. SnapChing TDs have the authority to do that � though it�s our aim that, when the World SnapChing League accredits TDs to run tournaments, the WSL would train TDs to use that power for the good of the game rather than for their own whims.

Other than those examples of a TD amending rules of play, the TD�s main duty, in giving rulings, is to help a groups apply rules� exact words to get the right results, in situations where (despite our best effort to write clear rules) a group disagrees about what rules say.


You've demonstrated yourself in some of your answers to other questions that one must apply a number of snapching rules to a given situation to determine an outcome that the PDGA rule book covers in one. Seems to me that leaves more room for interpretation, debate and disagreement than the current PDGA rule book does.


Josh, we invite you � and everybody else on this thread � to look at these Q&A SCENARIOS (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/Solving%20field-of-play%20scenarios.html) (from pdga.com) that disc golfers sent in to the RC. When you see how SnapChing rulings compare with RC rulings, you may change your mind about which rule system solves field-of-play scenarios more simply.


Besides, there will never be a way or a time in which the rule book adequately covers every possible scenario without room for debate and interpretation. Because for every rule created or modified, a new situation is bound to arise. There isn't a sport out there in which particular rules aren't debated and questioned and interpreted in five different ways by five different people. That's how rules are adapted and updated to keep up with the changing technology and innovations of the sport.

A lot of folks share your feeling that clear rules are impossible to write, to govern every situation on the disc golf field of play. In 1991, in an interview in Disc Golfer magazine, Rules Committee Chair Carlton Howard (he no longer is chair; Conrad Damon has taken the helm this year) said, �It is impossible to write the rules in a manner that will prevent them from being misapplied or misinterpreted.�

When we saw Carlton�s quote, twenty years ago, we were surprised that the top guy on the rules committee was admitting that he couldn�t do the job. We�ve grown less surprised, over the years, to hear other people echo that �can�t do� viewpoint. Maybe most disc golfers have given up on ever having a rulebook that you can take to the course and use, all by yourself, to solve every situation you get into.

We wrote SnapChing rules because we believe clear rules CAN BE WRITTEN. We believe players deserve clear rules. We feel that comparisons to rules of golf or baseball, as justification for a dense and hard-to-use rule system, are self-defeating. Are we idealists? Maybe so. But since it�s obvious that �can�t do� is not going to get the job done, we�re working from a CAN DO attitude to see how much is possible, and we welcome anyone to help us figure out how to do the job better.

And we gently suggest, to everyone, that �can�t do� belongs on some other thread, not this one.

davidsauls
Nov 09 2010, 12:58 PM
Just one specific situation---if I read the snapching rules right:

The 30-second rule.

In the PDGA, this is often abused. Players take more than 30 seconds---but not a lot beyond the 30-second interval. Everyone knows the 30-second rule is out there, and even the thrower feels some pressure to proceed. The other players in the group, if sufficiently aggrieved, can apply the 30-second rule. No one tries to wait 2, 3, 4 minutes for the wind or rain to stop. And if it does get called, the rest of the group can point to the rule, and the TD uphold it.

In snapching, there is no specific guideline, other than the TD determining that the player is holding up the event. So a player waiting for favorable winds can wait until his groupmates get fed up and track down the TD or his representative, who can hear them out and tell him to move along. Or DQ him. How many minutes have passed?

*

Again, I don't entirely disagree with your goals. One of the many things I'd change in disc golf would be eliminating the "falling putt" rule, with the same stance rules everywhere. Simpler. A snapching sort of notion.

rob
Nov 09 2010, 01:01 PM
Was the last sentence of rule #1 written mainly for Chuck? ;) [ jk Chuck]

rob
Nov 09 2010, 01:03 PM
There are a few drawbacks to leaving so much up to group discussion and the TD. Sure, the PDGA rules do this, but not nearly to the same degree. One is the that my group may rule differently than another group, which may help or hurt me in relation to another competitor in a different division, same group. Sure, this is true under PDGA rules, but snapching seems to greatly expand it.

Another is that, at least around here, TDs frequently play in their own tournaments, making appeals to them very problematic.

Yet another is that we use PDGA rules for tournament and casual play. It gives our casual play structure. But with so much dependent on the TD, casual play would seem to have a lot of "make it up as you go" to it.

*

One reason that I---personally---find little appeal in snapching is that I don't find a particular problem in the complexity of the PDGA rulebook. I spent many years coaching baseball and basketball, so I'm quite comfortable with the PDGA book having similar structure. (There are, oh, about fifty changes I'd like to see in it, but that's another story).

Not meant as a criticism of what you've created....just pointing out why I, and I presume many others, are unlikely to embrace it.

2nd

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2010, 01:05 PM
What if complexity in the rules is a necessary part of creating a game that is more fun and interesting to play competitively? Complexity of gaming rules has not been a drawback for the boom starting with early role playing games like D&D which later morphed into the myriad video versions like WoW. Knowledge and utilization of lesser known or understood rules has a certain appeal as players become better. In addition, some of our rules are there as conversions from the ball golf equivalent which necessitates similar and sometimes more complexity, i.e. 2m rule. More complex rules also provide more design options to create holes with more types of fair risk/reward challenges.

jconnell
Nov 09 2010, 01:19 PM
We wrote SnapChing rules because we believe clear rules CAN BE WRITTEN. We believe players deserve clear rules. We feel that comparisons to rules of golf or baseball, as justification for a dense and hard-to-use rule system, are self-defeating. Are we idealists? Maybe so. But since it�s obvious that �can�t do� is not going to get the job done, we�re working from a CAN DO attitude to see how much is possible, and we welcome anyone to help us figure out how to do the job better.
You say "[w]e�ve tried to write SnapChing rules so you can apply each rule�s exact words, with no interpreting, and you�ll always get consistent results..."

If that is true, then why would a player ever need to call a TD for a ruling in your game? All he/she would have to do is pull out your magic sheet of paper and apply rule x, y, and z. No need to call a TD ever. But you've already demonstrated in your answers here that snapching requires a lot of interpretation and TD rulings.

And I object to my postings being classified as a "can't do" attitude. It's not such at all. It's a practical attitude. As was Carlton's statement 20 years ago. I don't see any evidence that Carlton or the rules committee abandoned any endeavors to clarify or streamline the language in the rule book. In fact, since the quote you cite, there have been a half-dozen updates and re-writes to the rule book to achieve better clarity and application on the course.

I believe your quest to set up a simple and universal set of rules is a noble one, but it's also a fools' errand to think you can write a single short set of rules and never again have to adapt, add to or clarify them. As I said before, this single page of rules is bound to grow longer and more complex if your game is going to catch on and grow beyond a simple local game. It's just the natural evolution of any game into a sport.

If that's not what you want, and snapching is intended to be a simple backyard kind of game, then you're fine. If you intend for snapching to ascend to the level disc golf is at now, or even beyond it, then you should be prepared for the idea that your rules as currently written, with the loopholes you intend to leave to local TDs to solve, are not going to fly far.

davidsauls
Nov 09 2010, 01:31 PM
I'll offer this, a bit more constructively:

I assume you've played snapching and enjoyed it. You've no doubt a clear idea in your mind what the words and phrases in the rules mean, and how they are reasonably applied.

Run a few events. Run them for non-sanctioned. Maybe as charity events, like Ice Bowls, which are frequently run with non-PDGA rules. Or maybe with a lot of money on the line so players will really care. Do it on a course with lots of O.B. and a no-fly-line or two.

You may find that players like all, some, or none of the changes.

You will probably find that players in a tournament can come up with all kinds of situations you never dreamed of. You can see how well snapching applies to the bizarre problems disc golfers encounter. (It happens to me, carefully writing ground rules for a course....I'm sure it'll happen to a whole set of rules).

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 02:23 PM
Josh, thank you for Post #18


So you're saying that any throws I made after teeing from the incorrect tee are counted, but that any holes completed amongst those throws don't count? I instead have to back track to the hole I misplayed, start from the correct tee, and replay the holes that followed? Isn't that a bit impractical, especially if we're talking about a tournament in which there are playing groups on every hole? What if the misplay is on the second hole of my round, and I don't know there was a misplay until the seventeenth hole of the round? I have to replay 15 holes?


We agree with you on two points:

First, yes, it can be impractical to go back, in mid-round with groups on every hole, to correct your misplay. Yet similar interruptions happen when groups play through in PDGA tournaments while other groups are standing aside to await a ruling. It�s awkward, but it can be done.

Second, yes, if you misplay on Hole #2 and don�t realize it until Hole #17, you�ve wasted a lot of time and piled up a dreaded score. And you�ll probably choose to DNF rather than go back and correct your misplay (lying @ 47 somewhere on Hole #2).

SnapChing�s way of dealing with misplays is stern but consistent. And all you have to do, to not misplay, is to pay attention enough to throw every shot from correct stance at your lie.

SnapChing�s misplay treatment has an interesting side-benefit: it completely changes the social atmosphere for calling fouls. In PDGA disc golf, players hate to call fouls. If there�s a warning before a disc golf penalty, the caller gets a social stink and the fouler gets off free (and sometimes also gets to rethrow to improve his score). This is why rule enforcement is such a problem in disc golf. In SnapChing (where there are no warnings), if you misplay, you hope someone will tell you about it RIGHT AWAY to keep you from piling up needless score. Not only that, if a SnapChinger sees a foul and doesn�t call it, or if a SnapChinger sees someone about to misplay and doesn�t advise them, that witness is being rude by holding back the information and letting the competitor go wrong. In SnapChing you can DQ for being rude. So the act of calling a foul in SnapChing is respected by the whole field, including the fouler. SnapChing�s no-nonsense way of dealing with misplays encourages everyone to be on their toes, not only to make sure their own play is correct, but to monitor competitors� play too.


I think everything we are experiencing now in terms of rules changes and adaptations are simply the natural evolution of a game into a sport that has grown in popularity and scale since its infancy.


We respectfully disagree about disc golf evolving into a more complicated game. Disc golf is a game of throwing discs from point A to point Z and hitting targets along the way. It�s not very complicated. What makes it seem complicated, to disc golfers today, is that the Rules Committee has patched and amplified the rules in a way that creates complexity. In eight revisions over the last thirty years, the PDGA rulebook has taken on a complexity of its own that is far out of proportion to the game it governs. If you play that same game by SnapChing�s rules, you�ll find the game a lot simpler. Try it: print out our single-page RULES OF SNAPCHING (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) and go to your favorite course and play a few rounds by these rules. If our claim is true, you�ll easily govern every situation you get into during play, and your whole experience of playing the game will feel simpler and more fun, without sacrificing any of the skill challenge that makes disc golf a great game.

The whole premise of disc golf, and of SnapChing, is to create a game-structure to help you enjoy what founder �Steady� Ed Headrick called �the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy.� It�s so much fun to fling discs long and true, that it doesn�t take a very complicated structure to turn that fun into a game. Our aim, in writing rules for SnapChing, is to govern that game simply and to encourage, rather than interfere with, your joy of flinging discs.


Mike and Matt :) :)

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 03:29 PM
David, thank you for Post #26


The 30-second rule.

In the PDGA, this is often abused. Players take more than 30 seconds---but not a lot beyond the 30-second interval. Everyone knows the 30-second rule is out there, and even the thrower feels some pressure to proceed. The other players in the group, if sufficiently aggrieved, can apply the 30-second rule. No one tries to wait 2, 3, 4 minutes for the wind or rain to stop. And if it does get called, the rest of the group can point to the rule, and the TD uphold it.

In snapching, there is no specific guideline, other than the TD determining that the player is holding up the event. So a player waiting for favorable winds can wait until his groupmates get fed up and track down the TD or his representative, who can hear them out and tell him to move along. Or DQ him. How many minutes have passed?


Great question. We�re glad you asked, because the 30-second rule points out a major problem in PDGA rules that we hope to cure in SnapChing.

Whenever players feel free to disrespect any particular rule of a game, it breeds disrespect for all of the game�s rules. Disrespect for any rule festers like a bad spot on an apple: it tends to turn the whole thing brown.

We�ve been watching disc golfers disrespect the 30-second rule through forty years of tournament and casual play. In all that time, we�ve seen plenty of fouls but not even one 30-second penalty enforced. Sometimes players mutter, �30 seconds� at each other, and sometimes it seems to speed play up or sometimes it starts an argument that slows play down. One thing you never see on a disc golf course is somebody starting a stopwatch when another player marks his lie.

Why do disc golfers care so little about this rule? We think it�s because they don�t need it, to throw promptly. Occasionaly in this thread we�ve mentioned what �Steady� Ed Headrick called �the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy.� It is a marvelous sensation, and disc golfers crave to do it. Mostly it�s hard to wait for your turn to come around: ya wanna throw!

We envision SnapChing as a unique game that�s not a clone of golf, and so we never go out of our way to pattern SnapChing�s rules after golf�s rules. But once in a while, golf sets an example that works well in SnapChing � for example, golf�s way to govern delay. (We�re not golfers � so if we�re wrong about this rule, somebody please correct us.) Golf shots are not timed unless your group blocks the flow of the tournament by falling a hole behind the group in front of you. Then the director can put your group on the clock, and penalize anyone who fails to play before the clock dings.

SnapChing handles delay the same way. Rule 2: The TD can eject you if you fail to throw when the TD says. By the way, it isn�t hard to track down the TD to get him to time a delay: open your cell phone and give him a call.

When we say delay, we�re talking about not only slow throwing, but also the other three kinds of delay that can happen during play: failing to show up on a tee; stopping play prematurely; and searching for lost lies. Rule 2 handles all four kinds of delay: a player (unless he�s absent) can easily avoid DQ by deciding to throw before the clock dings.

Let us give you one quick example. The start horn blows and Groupmate Bubba hasn�t shown up. You pull out your cell phone and call the TD. The TD says, �As soon as it�s Bubba�s turn to throw, tell me and I�ll start counting to 60 seconds.� Bubba�s turn comes � still no Bubba. �Okay,� you tell the TD, �start your clock.� 60 seconds later the clock dings and the TD says, �Did he throw yet?� �Nope.� �Okay, he�s DQd.� And your group plays on without Bubba.

SnapChing needs no other rule to make you play promptly. The sole reason to time play in a SnapChing tournament is to keep the tournament flowing smoothly. As long as the tournament is flowing smoothly, delay doesn�t need to be timed. But as soon as anyone on the course � players in the delayer�s group, players in other groups, spectators, or aides that the TD sends out to roam the course as her eyes on the scene � informs the TD that any delay is interfering with the tournament flow, the TD can cure it quickly with Rule 2.

By governing delay this way, we�ve created � at no cost to the sport � a pace-of-play rule that players can respect and not ignore.


Again, I don't entirely disagree with your goals. One of the many things I'd change in disc golf would be eliminating the "falling putt" rule, with the same stance rules everywhere. Simpler. A snapching sort of notion.

Thanks for your support on that. We hope to get lots of feedback on that idea.


Mike and Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Nov 09 2010, 03:39 PM
I own a private course, at which cell phone service is sketchy at best. Plus, with the poor service, my phone frequently starts "roaming" and runs its battery down when I least expect it. When I'm TD should I tell people just to shout really, really loud for me, and I'll try to find them? Of course, I'll make a point that others might swallow their putts when they hear the loud shouts, but as TD I won't consider the interruptions rude. Nor, for that matter, the ringing cellphones.

A player throws real close to O.B. Perhaps O.B. He reaches his disc and marks his lie (inbounds, of course) before others in the group have a chance to see it. Anything to do, except DQ under the vague "unfair" provision?

I hate overhand shots, because my old, surgically built shoulder can't do them. I think it's unfair that younger players can. As a TD, can a DQ someone for throwing a thumber, even if I didn't announce it in advance, because it's "unfair"? Do I have to refund his entry fee if I do?

Sorry, got carried away there. Didn't mean to get silly. But I think "unfair" play is pretty open to interpretation.

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 04:31 PM
Josh, thank you for Post #30.


You say "[w]e�ve tried to write SnapChing rules so you can apply each rule�s exact words, with no interpreting, and you�ll always get consistent results..."

If that is true, then why would a player ever need to call a TD for a ruling in your game? All he/she would have to do is pull out your magic sheet of paper and apply rule x, y, and z. No need to call a TD ever. But you've already demonstrated in your answers here that snapching requires a lot of interpretation and TD rulings.

Great question, Josh, that�s a fair challenge.

We�ve aimed to create rules that are clear enough for players to use without having to call the TD for rulings. Maybe we�ve succeeded; maybe not. We wrote Rule 1 as insurance against the likelihood that we�ve made mistakes.

But we didn�t just pop these rules out in a pipe dream. We�ve spent more than a dozen years honing each word to say exactly what we mean. If you go out and play SnapChing, we�re confident that in almost every field-of-play situation you�ll play the game as we�ve envisioned it, if you apply each rule�s exact words.

Could we be fooling ourselves? Sure. Hey, let�s go play some SnapChing and find out.


I object to my postings being classified as a "can't do" attitude. It's not such at all. It's a practical attitude. As was Carlton's statement 20 years ago.


Yeah, we came down on you a little hard, Josh. Sorry to ruffle your feathers. We should probably apologize to Carlton, too. Maybe we�ll get around to that.


I don't see any evidence that Carlton or the rules committee abandoned any endeavors to clarify or streamline the language in the rule book. In fact, since the quote you cite, there have been a half-dozen updates and re-writes to the rule book to achieve better clarity and application on the course.


We�ve put all nine PDGA rulebooks (1980 through 2011) on computer and done some analyses. The results are interesting.

The first PDGA rulebook, published in 1980, was 14 rules of play expressed in 1500 words. The next thirty years� rules of play revisions were:
� 1983: 3400 words
� 1986: 4400 words
� 1988: 4800 words
� 1990: 4900 words
� 1997: 7000 words
� 2002: 7800 words
� 2006: 8500 words
� 2011: well over 100 rules, requiring 8700 words to tell you how to fling a disc from point A to point Z.

Not all of that streamlining happened on Carlton�s watch. Just 3700 words of it.


I believe your quest to set up a simple and universal set of rules is a noble one, but it's also a fools' errand to think you can write a single short set of rules and never again have to adapt, add to or clarify them. As I said before, this single page of rules is bound to grow longer and more complex if your game is going to catch on and grow beyond a simple local game. It's just the natural evolution of any game into a sport.


Golly, maybe you�re right. Maybe our rules will have to do a whole bunch of adapting, adding and clarifying. Maybe that�s the natural way any game evolves.

Well, we�re starting at less than 400 words. Here we go.


Mike and Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Nov 09 2010, 04:39 PM
This actually happened:

Division of 4 Pro Grandmasters in a tournament, including the TD, playing together. Fairly early in the round, they play a hole from the long tee when they're supposed to play it from the short tee. Discovered after the round. (Yes, the TD forgot his own groundrules, which were in writing)

Snapching says they take all the subsequent throws, then go back to the correct tee and proceed to play the course from there, accumulating a horrendous score. They could withdraw and DNF, of course. But competitively speaking, they're all in the same boat and still have a chance at winning. And if even one of them wants to continue, everyone else at the tournament waits an extra 2 or 3 hours for them to do so.

Right?

(I'll have to apologize that I'm just dropping in here for brief moments while at work, so as I read the snapching rules I might be misreading something).

If I'm wrong, how's this play out?

*

I play tournaments where the course is full (90 players, fivesomes on every hole) and the pace of play is tedious at best. If you don't have time limits on people arriving, starting, throwing, getting to their disc, or searching for a lost disc, etc., other than summoning the TD to ask someone to move quicker; have people who throw O.B. retreating 300' or more to rethrow; and have groups retreating to interject themselves into the flow to replay holes, how long might these rounds take?

wsfaplau
Nov 09 2010, 04:44 PM
Mike and Matt,

Nice job. You clearly put a lot of thought into it.
I'll give it a try.

One downside, having more phones on the course can't be a good thing.

I have a birdie putt on the last hole to tie for the lead.
Just before I release the disc my competitor's cell phone rings distracting me enough so I GAK the putt and lose. Should the TD DQ my competitor for acting rude and not silencing his cell phone?

jconnell
Nov 09 2010, 05:00 PM
I believe your quest to set up a simple and universal set of rules is a noble one, but it's also a fools' errand to think you can write a single short set of rules and never again have to adapt, add to or clarify them. As I said before, this single page of rules is bound to grow longer and more complex if your game is going to catch on and grow beyond a simple local game. It's just the natural evolution of any game into a sport.


Golly, maybe you�re right. Maybe our rules will have to do a whole bunch of adapting, adding and clarifying. Maybe that�s the natural way any game evolves.

Well, we�re starting at less than 400 words. Here we go.
Your snark isn't really doing anything to win me over. And the number of words in the rule book means nothing to me. So what if the rulebook has grown in size and complexity over the years? "Streamline" doesn't necessarily equate to economy of words. It relates to ease of use. And frankly, I have zero difficulty reading, comprehending and applying the PDGA rules of play as they're written (don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with every rule exactly as written).

And in the rare and odd circumstance in which a question arises in the course of playing a round that can't be readily answered with a look into the oh-so-onerous, 24-page, pocket-sized rule book, I seek a ruling from the TD as a final answer. And in 12+ years of playing and running events, I can't recall a single instance in which a reasonable, equitable and practical answer couldn't be found in the rule book.

I think my biggest issue with snapching and the way you present it is the way you scapegoat the PDGA rule book for the reluctance of players to make calls and apply rules on the course. And that's possibly because I've never had a problem making a foot fault call or calling someone on exceeding 30 seconds or making any other call required by the rules of the sport. The fault doesn't lie in how the rules are written, the fault is in the players initiative to play by them. If they're not inclined to play by them as written, I can't see how simplifying them down to a single page as you have will change their minds. Either they have the integrity to know the rules and play by them or they don't. Sadly, more players lack the integrity than possess it. A shorter list of rules won't change that.

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 05:09 PM
DShelton, thank you for Post #19


OK, let me see if I got this straight.

All the rules I need to play is on that putter, except that I have to refer to another set of rules (SnapChing Technical Standards) to determine if I holed out properly or what I can or can not play with and then at the end of the day, I can put down that I scored a 45 and not the 56 that my actual score reflects and if I say "Oops, I must have added something up wrong," then I don't face any repercussions because it was an accident.


Yep. You�ve got it straight. There are two documents that govern SnapChing play. The one that you take onto the course, to play by, is a single page. You can leave the Tech Standards at home (although if you come to the tournament wearing a shirt without a collar, you may wish you had read the dress code more carefully).

At the end of your round, the TD will add the hole scores that you report. You�re welcome to add them for your own info, but your addition is irrelevant to the TD.

There�s actually a 40-year tradition in disc golf that proves that the game doesn�t need tournament players to add their scores at all. TDs have never, ever, let players add their round scores together.

For the purpose of figuring out who wins and who loses, it�s exactly as important to add round scores together as to add hole scores together. If the game forbids players to do one of those additions, it is absurd to require them to do the other.


When a sport becomes nationalized, it needs a cohesive set of rules that all players must follow to be able to expand the sport.


We agree with you 100%. Yet if the sport�s rulebook starts looking like Jabba the Hutt, and the sport�s governing body has only one process to revise rules � and that process is the one that�s feeding Jabba � what do you propose, to achieve better rules?

We propose Rules of SnapChing.


The PDGA [rules] may be frustrating at times and are still a work in progress, but they are what have caused the sport to go from a funny little sport that only stoners and a few geeks played to a legitimate sport that is starting to gain national recognition.


Stoners and geeks . . . hey, we resemble that remark!

Is it possible that disc golf has grown in spite of the PDGA rulebook rather than because of it? Is it possible that the sport could have grown faster if it had had clear, brief rules? Is it possible that disc golf�s growth in the next 40 years may be spurred or held back depending on whether its rulebook is a single page or a mile thick?

Something to think about.


Mike and Matt :p :cool:

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 05:35 PM
Hey, Pete, thank you for Post #37. We�ve been waiting for you to enter the fray. We remember, in another thread a while back, you challenged, �Why doesn�t anybody try to write an alternative rulebook.� Kid, this bud�s for you.


One downside, having more phones on the course can't be a good thing.

[Scenario]

I have a birdie putt on the last hole to tie for the lead.

Just before I release the disc my competitor's cell phone rings distracting me enough so I GAK the putt and lose. Should the TD DQ my competitor for acting rude and not silencing his cell phone?


Yeah, cell phones can be a problem unless you turn them off. Any TD who doesn�t use the players� meeting to advise, �Turn off your cell phones, unless you�re calling me for a ruling� should be hauled away and shot right after he DQs your competitor.


Mike and Matt :D :rolleyes:

krazyeye
Nov 09 2010, 05:37 PM
I would love to see the PDGA define the fairway lie of a one foot circle rather than 30cm line. Other than that these rules just look like a fun way to get people to play a casual game. My family plays horseshoes one way but the National Horseshoe Pitchers Asosiation of America probably wouldn't approve of the way we do it. Snapching as a governing body just doesn't work in my humble opinion.

rob
Nov 09 2010, 06:30 PM
Hey, Pete, thank you for Post #37. We�ve been waiting for you to enter the fray. We remember, in another thread a while back, you challenged, �Why doesn�t anybody try to write an alternative rulebook.� Kid, this bud�s for you.


One downside, having more phones on the course can't be a good thing.

[Scenario]

I have a birdie putt on the last hole to tie for the lead.

Just before I release the disc my competitor's cell phone rings distracting me enough so I GAK the putt and lose. Should the TD DQ my competitor for acting rude and not silencing his cell phone?

Yeah, cell phones can be a problem unless you turn them off. Any TD who doesn�t use the players� meeting to advise, �Turn off your cell phones, unless you�re calling me for a ruling� should be hauled away and shot right after he DQs your competitor.


Mike and Matt :D :rolleyes:


So, are you saying a TD should DQ him/herself as soon as the phone starts ringing, or he/she answers it, or should never be allowed to play in any tournament they run? Or do they just say "I'm the TD, I can't be DQ'd for being rude, hope anybody playing on my card has a great time listening to me make rulings all day long and if I have to run over to another hole to make a ruling, you'll have to wait , because I'm the only one that can tell ME when to throw!"
I like the fact that you guys are trying to make things simple. I just don't think you've answered enough of the questions to your rules (in your rules) to allow play without WAY TOO MANY calls to the TD. Which may be why the PDGA rule book keeps growing. What you have would be fine for casual play, but not for regional/ national/ world play.

davidsauls
Nov 09 2010, 06:45 PM
Where are the technical standards, anyway? I wandered all through the website but couldn't find them.

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 07:29 PM
David, thank you for Posts #31, #34, #36 and #43. This is great stuff you�re offering.

Yes, we definitely look forward to running SnapChing events. Players will give us powerful feedback to either confirm what we�ve got or suggest ways to improve it. And we�ll get wonderful field-of-play scenarios to munch on.


I own a private course, at which cell phone service is sketchy at best. Plus, with the poor service, my phone frequently starts "roaming" and runs its battery down when I least expect it. When I'm TD should I tell people just to shout really, really loud for me, and I'll try to find them? Of course, I'll make a point that others might swallow their putts when they hear the loud shouts, but as TD I won't consider the interruptions rude. Nor, for that matter, the ringing cellphones.


Wow, you�ve got us there, David. Roaming charges . . . dang, we�re waving the white flag!


A player throws real close to O.B. Perhaps O.B. He reaches his disc and marks his lie (inbounds, of course) before others in the group have a chance to see it. Anything to do, except DQ under the vague "unfair" provision?


Man, your radar is really good. You�ve hit another important point.

Although players are at the bottom of SnapChing�s chain of authority (World SnapChing League, TD, rulebook, players), it is the players who actually carry out the game on the field of play by agreeing how to locate lies and score plays.

We pondered long and hard about whether SnapChing needs a rule to compel players to monitor each others� play. What would that rule look like? How would it be enforced? How can you make someone pay attention without penalizing his inattention? How fair is it to make someone take focus off his own game and focus elsewhere?

In the end we decided not to create such a rule, but to urge mutual monitoring in another way: the potentially drastic way SnapChing governs misplays (see Rules 3, 8 and 11), plus our bare-bones �cheating� rule (Rule 2: the TD can eject you if you play unfair), create a reality where each player has a competitive interest to monitor his fellow players� flight path, marking, stance, and throw.

That being said, any disc golfer can tell you that SnapChingers aren�t going to go sniffing around after each other all over the course, giving the eagle eye to every move. Players are going to trust each other, a lot of the time, to fairly mark and stand correctly at their lies. Of course, you are always free to keep an eye on anybody. And you are free, whenever a disc lands near OB, to trot along with the thrower and help him get the right mark.

You either do monitor Bubba�s play, or you don�t. If you don�t, you are in a position of having to trust Bubba.

Technology will have an impact on this. Spectators with cell phones that can take photos or videos, can gather evidence that Bubba nudged his disc inbounds or Nikko putted with both feet off the ground. Anybody � player or not, whether present at the course or watching the tournament on TV at home � can email the TD video evidence of a misplay or cheating. If it�s a misplay, the TD just needs to inform the group and then the group can apply the rules to get the right lie location and the right score. If it�s cheating, the TD has the power to DQ.


I hate overhand shots, because my old, surgically built shoulder can't do them. I think it's unfair that younger players can. As a TD, can I DQ someone for throwing a thumber, even if I didn't announce it in advance, because it's "unfair"? Do I have to refund his entry fee if I do?

Sorry, got carried away there. Didn't mean to get silly. But I think "unfair" play is pretty open to interpretation.


Don�t beat around the bush: just cut off his thumb, and tell him if he wants his entry fee back, he can hitchhike over to your house to collect it.

One of us (Matt says we shouldn�t tell which one) was always chosen last for grade school lunchtime baseball games, and he got exiled to left field and never got a chance to pitch, so he never learned to throw overhand. At age 12 this same kid went out for kids� league football, and on the first play of practice, he ran out to catch a pass and collided dead-on with a nut-high post on the edge of a parking lot. That took the steam out of him for football, so he never learned to throw overhand in that sport, either. We�re telling you this to let you know that you�re not alone, David. There, there. It�s okay. We�re as torqued as you are about kids who throw overhand disc shots. But (sigh!) we just couldn�t bring ourselves to ban those shots in SnapChing. The tightest restriction we felt fair about imposing, on how you project a disc into flight, is (see Rule 3) �by hand� � although we greatly admire our dear departed friend David Tayloe, from San Antonio, who once threw a Frisbee 137� with his foot.


This actually happened:

Division of 4 Pro Grandmasters in a tournament, including the TD, playing together. Fairly early in the round, they play a hole from the long tee when they're supposed to play it from the short tee. Discovered after the round. (Yes, the TD forgot his own groundrules, which were in writing.)

Snapching says they take all the subsequent throws, then go back to the correct tee and proceed to play the course from there, accumulating a horrendous score. They could withdraw and DNF, of course. But competitively speaking, they're all in the same boat and still have a chance at winning. And if even one of them wants to continue, everyone else at the tournament waits an extra 2 or 3 hours for them to do so.

Right? If I'm wrong, how's this play out?


Oh, you gotta get a prize for this scenario. We laughed so hard, we blew chunks.

David, this may be one of those rare times when the TD (in spite of the fact that it�s a conflict of interest for him) decides to override the rules of play in order to correct an inequity, namely the prospect of holding up the whole tournament while four addle-brained geezers make double fools of themselves. We wouldn�t dare suggest how the TD should rule, but some options might be to keep the scores as they stand, or replay only the hole where they played the wrong tee.

The best solution might be for the TD to give his three groupmates retroactive dispensation and then DNF himself rather than have to look those guys in the eye for the rest of the tournament.

Oh, no, wait, we just went into a huddle and came up with a solution that is within the rules of SnapChing. The four geezers should stand aside and let the rest of the field finish the competition. Then, at night after the tournament ends and everyone has gone home, the four geezers come back, pausing a few moments just outside the park border to each consume a twelve-pack of tallboys, then they go whooping and hollering onto the course with flashlights and glow discs and have a great time replaying the round. The winner gets the trophy which MUST BE INSCRIBED WITH THE WINNING SCORE.


I play tournaments where the course is full (90 players, fivesomes on every hole) and the pace of play is tedious at best. If you don't have time limits on people arriving, starting, throwing, getting to their disc, or searching for a lost disc, etc., other than summoning the TD to ask someone to move quicker; have people who throw O.B. retreating 300' or more to rethrow; and have groups retreating to interject themselves into the flow to replay holes, how long might these rounds take?


Well, um, off the top of what�s left of our heads, we suggest that the event organizers limit the field to foursomes (72 players on an 18 hole course � more or less players if there are more or fewer holes), and/or start early enough to build in some slack time for players who can�t figure out how to take a correct stance. We agree that it�s a shame to turn anyone away from signing up, but you have to draw a line at some point (sixsomes? sevensomes?) to make events manageable and fun for those who do participate.

We agree that SnapChing�s approach to misplays, and the requirement to throw again from the same lie after you land OB or cross a no-fly line, is going to take time and cause some inconveniences. We can only suggest that it�s not as bad as when a walk-back happens in golf, and don�t forget that there�s entertainment value in keeping the camera on the face of the guy who has just made the longest drive of his life and arrived to discover that it�s OB, and now he is taking the walk of shame back to the tee, gritting his teeth to keep from punching out the cameraman who is dancing around him like a crazed Chihuahua and holding the camera way up in his face. DO NOT CUT TO COMMERCIAL.


Mike and Matt :eek: :eek:


PS: Oh, yeah, about SnapChing Technical Standards. They're not on our website (but we appreciate you taking the Grand Tour). Just assume that every SnapChing technical standard is the same as in PDGA disc golf -- all the stuff in the PDGA competition manual, plus PDGA Rules of Play Section 802 (disc and marker specs, target specs, artificial devices), 803.13B-C (target hole-out requirements), 804.05C (tour suspension), 804.06 (grouping and sectioning), 804.07A (ties), 804.08 (classification of players), and Section 805 (measurements). (Never mind 804.09 -- officials -- because SnapChing's rules of play don't say anything about officials nor require them for rulings.)

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 07:55 PM
Josh, by your Post #39 we can see that you are a man of principle who speaks his mind and hoes a tough row and lets chips fall. It�s a pleasure to debate with you.

We also congratulate you on your twelve-year unbroken streak of having no problem using the PDGA rulebook to find equitable and practical solutions to every situation in play. You have an extraordinary understanding of the rules, a generous appreciation of their complexity, and a rare and bold willingness to make calls in competition.

But we disagree with your assertion that �more players lack integrity than possess it.� We think it�s more likely that a flaw in PDGA rules, rather than a flaw in PDGA members� character, is the main contributor to shoddy rule enforcement in disc golf.

Josh, if you�re right, then SnapChingers won�t enforce our rules any better than disc golfers enforce PDGA rules. But the vote isn�t in yet. Until there�s evidence, one way or another, we�re going to choose to believe that most players are eager to play by rules that give clear guidance to a fun and stimulating skill challenge.


Mike and Matt

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 08:05 PM
Krazyeye, thank you for your (Post #41) well-written and courteous rejection letter. We appreciate your opinion.


Mike & Matt :D :D


PS: Gig 'em, Aggies!

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 08:22 PM
Rob, thank you for Post #42.

We�re getting several responses on the theme of �The TD will be so busy answering the phone to give players rulings, that he won�t be able to run the tournament, much less play in it.�

We sure do hope that our rules are clear enough that players won�t besiege the TD with calls. But if we�re wrong about this, then it means either (1) SnapChing TDs won�t be able to play in their own tournaments unless they risk irritating their groupmates, or (2) SnapChing TDs must have staff to handle everything but the rulings, or (3) we need to write the rules clearer, or (4) we gotta reconsider whether to have officials (arrgghh) in SnapChing.

This is an issue we haven�t field-tested yet. We�ll need to run some SnapChing tournaments to get a better sense of how big a burden the TD bears if she is the sole authority for rulings. If SnapChing does need officials, then at least we�ll try to hold them to a higher certification standard than ruling correctly seven out of ten times on the field of play.

Keep asking us the tough questions, Rob. We appreciate the challenge.


Mike and Matt

Hoser
Nov 09 2010, 08:38 PM
HELLO to those of you who are just finding out about this thread, or who have been reading it but resisting checking out our SNAPCHING WEBSITE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com).

We invite you to read an article on our BLOG (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/theblog/) entitled "Reasons NOT TO READ Rules of SnapChing." It will either confirm your dastardly opinion of us, or maybe it will interest you the challenge of trying to improve disc golf rules.

We're in this for you, and for all future disc golfers. So go ahead and read that article -- hey, if you're going to ignore us, you ought to at least read some good reasons for doing it!


Mike and Matt :) :)

DShelton
Nov 09 2010, 09:58 PM
PS: Oh, yeah, about SnapChing Technical Standards. They're not on our website (but we appreciate you taking the Grand Tour). Just assume that every SnapChing technical standard is the same as in PDGA disc golf -- all the stuff in the PDGA competition manual, plus PDGA Rules of Play Section 802 (disc and marker specs, target specs, artificial devices), 803.13B-C (target hole-out requirements), 804.05C (tour suspension), 804.06 (grouping and sectioning), 804.07A (ties), 804.08 (classification of players), and Section 805 (measurements). (Never mind 804.09 -- officials -- because SnapChing's rules of play don't say anything about officials nor require them for rulings.)

It seems that you still have the complexity that the PDGA has in your simpler game (look at all the discussions that pop up about holing out in disc golf or why dryfit shirts are allowed and not tee shirts).

Also you never addressed my observation that games such as baseball, basketball, football and ball golf all have huge groups of players, yet they all have rule books that make disc golf's rules look like your single sheet of rules. Complexity is good for a sport because it forces players to follow a uniform set of rules that don't change from one area to another.

As someone already pointed out, it isn't the complexity of rules that's the problem, but the reluctance of players to call people for infractions of those rules.

wsfaplau
Nov 10 2010, 02:46 PM
As someone already pointed out, it isn't the complexity of rules that's the problem, but the reluctance of players to call people for infractions of those rules.

While I think your statement is true I think even more of the problem is people don't take the time to read and learn the rules because it is just so much more fun to get out and throw..

jconnell
Nov 10 2010, 03:37 PM
While I think your statement is true I think even more of the problem is people don't take the time to read and learn the rules because it is just so much more fun to get out and throw..
I agree with all of that. Though I'd argue that more than the "fun" factor of going out and throwing, many players are a part of a cycle of the rules being passed down orally. Instead of a player becoming interested in the sport and taking the initiative to read the book and learn the rules properly, most rely on more experienced players to "show them the ropes". More often than not, the "experienced" players learned the rules the same way, orally from other players. Then you've got a game of telephone where the further from the original source you get, the more garbled the message gets.

Nowhere is it more evident to me than reading message boards both local and larger (such as this one) where it seems once a week there is a poster asking how situation X is supposed to be handled, when situation X is something relatively simple like missing a mando, going OB, marking and stance, etc. A few times, when a response to such a question suggested checking the rule book (and includes a link to the online book here at pdga.com), the original poster comes back and says he'd rather just ask than look it up. Sad that taking a couple minutes to type a post and then waiting anywhere from five minutes to five days for an answer is "easier" than making a couple clicks and finding the answer for oneself.

It's running across attitudes like that and the scoffs and chides I've all too often heard for having the audacity to actually carry a rulebook and *gasp* open it and look up a rule when a question arises that leads me to believe that the problem is absolutely not the book itself (or how long it is or how it's written) as the snapching fellows attest. It is the attitude of most players and the derisive way in which they treat the rules of the game and those who strive to know and play by them.

Hoser
Nov 10 2010, 03:41 PM
DShelton, thank you for Post #49.


It seems that you still have the complexity that the PDGA has in your simpler game (look at all the discussions that pop up about holing out in disc golf or why dryfit shirts are allowed and not tee shirts).


You�re right about disc golf�s tech spec complexities. They should be simpler.

We�ve put all our energy into creating SnapChing�s rules of play. We haven�t yet tried to refine the tech specs of disc golf. Eventually we hope to do that.


You never addressed my observation that games such as baseball, basketball, football and ball golf all have huge groups of players, yet they all have rule books that make disc golf's rules look like your single sheet of rules.


That�s a good point. We�ll answer two ways.

First, games played by teams are a lot more complex than games played by individuals. For example, in disc golf, you throw a disc at a target. In baseball, a pitcher throws a ball at a strike zone where the ball may be caught and thrown by the catcher or it may be hit by the batter to areas fair or foul where the ball may be caught and thrown while the batter runs or slides to touch one or more of four bases and be tagged or not . . .

Golf, too, is more complex than disc golf, due mainly to a facet of golf that doesn�t exist in disc golf: the challenges of hitting a ball with a club at a tiny point in space involving grass, dirt, sand, mud, pine needles or gravel that may affect the club striking the ball.

We have designed SnapChing as a game completely independent of golf and every other sport. This unique new game works well with simpler rules.

The second part of the answer is surprising. When it comes to writing disc golf rules, a committee of champion players who have edited prior rulebooks has an advantage over two ordinary guys whose sole credentials are forty years on the field of play. Yet there�s advantage on the other side, too:

� The process of two friends working together, is way easier than a committee of seven. In a committee, so many ideas and opinions fly around the room, it�s hard to boil them down. And it�s hard to schedule committee meetings, and the meeting has to end at 4 pm, so compromises happen, that may fall short of nailing down the best possible rules. By contrast, two friends can get together easily and bat stuff back and forth far into the night, with no urgency to compromise.

� Two friends, beholden to no one and with no deadline, can let their minds range free to consider all nooks and crannies of the game. They can try out ideas, find that they�re flawed, and try other stuff, over and over without limit. A committee must meet its boss�s expectations (the RC serves at the pleasure of the PDGA board of directors) and has to get the job done according to the schedule the boss sets.

� Two friends can set a goal to write the best possible rules for the game. The RC is stuck with a different goal, assigned to them by the board of directors: patch and amplify the existing rulebook. The RC isn�t free to just dump stuff and start over. They are yoked to precedent, and to the longstanding tradition that disc golf is a stepchild of golf.


We�re not saying that Mike and Matt are in a better position to write rules than the RC is. We�re just saying that ordinary disc golfers, working at their own goal and on their own timeline, have opportunities that aren�t available to a committee that must turn its revision in to the board of directors by September.

We respect the RC: they work hard in tough conditions. They are good-hearted folks who have given great effort to a worthwhile goal. Meanwhile we have given our own effort. It�s up to you to look at the results and see how you feel about both sets of rules.


Complexity is good for a sport because it forces players to follow a uniform set of rules that don't change from one area to another.


We don�t understand why you say that complexity is good for a sport. Can you elaborate?

As we�re thinking about games� complexity and simplicity, we�re reminded of one of the most popular games ever created, that�s played by hundreds of millions of people who play it exactly the same way in every nation and every culture on the planet. It�s a game that involves wile, deception, quick reflexes and nimble decision-making. The game is Ro-Sham-Bo, and its entire rulebook is this:


Signal rock, paper or scissors.
Rock breaks scissors. Scissors cut paper. Paper covers rock.
If you tie, do it again until somebody wins.



As someone already pointed out, it isn't the complexity of rules that's the problem, but the reluctance of players to call people for infractions of those rules.

We stand by our response to Josh, in Post #45.

tkieffer
Nov 10 2010, 04:34 PM
Looking forward to seeing how the Professional Snap Ching Association (PSCA) does in the future. Good luck.

Also, good luck explaining to the unknowing public what your game involves. It's hard enough expalining disc golf ('you know, frisbee golf') to people.

As for simpified rules, there are many places where you can look up the basic 10 rules for rec players that are posted at many disc golf courses. It pretty much contains about all a starting player needs to get going.

tkieffer
Nov 10 2010, 04:44 PM
Here's a quick one.

BASIC REC RULES (http://wsdga.org/Images/BasicRulesofPlay.pdf)

A bit out of date with #8 (two meter rule), but short, sweet, easy for new players.

Not ready for competition, but enough for someone to get started with the fun.

Hoser
Nov 10 2010, 05:01 PM
Pete and D (sorry, D, we don�t know your name), thank you for Posts #50 and #51.

You�re both making strong points that open a door to interesting thoughts.

Pete says:


People don't take the time to read and learn the rules because it is just so much more fun to get out and throw.


The big ol� happy dancing 800-pound gorilla in that sentence is that it is GREAT FUN TO GET OUT AND THROW! The �marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy� is a huge motivator to play disc golf or SnapChing. A two-year-old kid or an octogenarian can pick up a disc and get a thrill out of flinging it toward a target. It takes ten seconds to have the whole experience: grip, throw, release, and watch the flight. It�s so easy, a caveman can do it.

Nobody feels that level of ease or pleasure picking up a rulebook and reading it.

One of our prime motives in writing SnapChing rules short and simple is to help people not feel intimidated or bored to read them. We�re hoping that an easy-to-read rulebook can draw people to the game.

Pete, you touched on another important point when you said, �People don�t take time to read and learn the rules.� The experience of reading the PDGA rulebook is way different from how it feels to hear a fellow player tell you how to handle a situation on the field of play. Here�s an example from the 1983 PDGA rulebook (when PDGA rules were much simpler than they are today):


1.0 Courtesy
1. Players should not produce any distracting noises or any potential visual distractions for the player who is throwing.
2. The throwers should not throw until they are certain that the throw, it�s flight, or landing will not distract another player.
3. Freestyling, padiddling etc., will not be allowed any place on the course during play by any player. A warning will be given by any member of the foursome, or a PDGA official, with all members of the foursome advised of the warning. A one-throw penalty will be assessed, for all subsequent occurrences in the same round, by any two members of the foursome, or by a PDGA official.
4. A player who is consistently discourteous may be disqualified under rule 20.2.


If someone teaches you the game, they speak plainly in language your brain is more attuned to understand: �It�s rude to distract a guy who�s throwing. If you do, your groupmates or an official can warn you, and the next time two guys in your group or an official see you do it, you�ll get a penalty stroke. If you�re really rude, the TD can DQ you.�

We�ve tried to write SnapChing�s rules in the kind of words and rhythms that people�s ears like to hear in normal conversation, rather than in formal, legal-sounding language. We feel that simple language is a more effective way to teach the game.


D, you said:


It's . . . the scoffs and chides I've all too often heard for having the audacity to actually carry a rulebook and *gasp* open it and look up a rule when a question arises that leads me to believe that the problem is absolutely not the book itself (or how long it is or how it's written) as the snapching fellows attest. It is the attitude of most players and the derisive way in which they treat the rules of the game and those who strive to know and play by them.


We agree that when you go to the trouble to re-tune your brain enough to read and understand the rulebook, it feels really frustrating to know that the majority of other players won�t do it too, and that they may not respect you for doing what they themselves aren�t willing to do. A natural first reaction is to blame that majority for sloth and bad character, rather than think that the problem might lie in a rulebook that you�ve learned to understand.

Are people, in general, lazy and lacking in character? If so, no rulebook is going to work. End of story. But if people aren�t generally lazy and lacking in character, it may be worth considering that some rulebooks might bring out people�s better energy and character, and other rulebooks might not.

For years, we�ve watched the RC harangue players (for example, in the FAQ Q&A), �READ THE RULES!!!� You can practically see the RC members jumping up and down and tearing their hair. �Why the heck won�t the players open up the rulebook and pay attention?!?� It must gall them to know that they�ve worked so hard on those rules, and yet the average player, if he ever picks up the rulebook and opens the cover, isn�t able to get halfway down the first page without eyestrain, migraine, high pain and fry brain.

This �read the rules� roadblock is a tough situation, D. You�re trying to solve it from your viewpoint. We�re trying to solve it from ours. Let�s hope one of us succeeds.


Mike and Matt

Hoser
Nov 10 2010, 05:19 PM
Heck, Josh, we apologize for attributing your Post #51 input to DShelton. (See our last post.)

Mike and Matt :o :o

jconnell
Nov 10 2010, 05:24 PM
D, you said:
Nope, that would be me you're quoting
D, you said:
It's . . . the scoffs and chides I've all too often heard for having the audacity to actually carry a rulebook and *gasp* open it and look up a rule when a question arises that leads me to believe that the problem is absolutely not the book itself (or how long it is or how it's written) as the snapching fellows attest. It is the attitude of most players and the derisive way in which they treat the rules of the game and those who strive to know and play by them.


We agree that when you go to the trouble to re-tune your brain enough to read and understand the rulebook, it feels really frustrating to know that the majority of other players won�t do it too, and that they may not respect you for doing what they themselves aren�t willing to do. A natural first reaction is to blame that majority for sloth and bad character, rather than think that the problem might lie in a rulebook that you�ve learned to understand.
You seem to fail to grasp my point. I'm not bothered that players didn't take the effort I did to read the rule book. I'm bothered by the fact that these players openly MOCK the fact that I have the rule book in hand and ready to use. That doesn't seem to me to be about their own desire or ability to read and comprehend the rules. (which, BTW, absolutely positively does NOT require a "re-tune" of the brain to understand unless you are a drooling moron) It's more like the "cool" kids laughing and making fun of the "geeks" in high school. It's the attitude that labels someone who knows the rules a "rules nazi" or a "rules dick", because the idea of knowing the rules is uncool and unfun. Making the rules simpler and "easier" to understand probably won't do anything to make them "cool" to follow.

Hoser
Nov 10 2010, 05:44 PM
Tim, thank you for Post #53 and #54.


Thanks for showing us the BASIC REC RULES. Where did you find these?

You might be interested to see a 1976 set of rules that Ed Headrick�s Disc Golf Association sent out in kits of baskets that the DGA sold to parks in those days. (We got this version from archivist Peter McCarthy, courtesy of the Midwest Disc Sports Collection at the Western Historical Society, University of Missouri.)

(NOTE: the PDGA�s first rulebook was published in 1980.)



DGA 1976 Tee Sign Rules


GENERAL. Disc golf is played like ball golf using a flying disc. One point is counted each time the disc is thrown and when a penalty is incurred. The object is to acquire the lowest score.

TEE THROWS. Tee throws must be completed within or behind the designated tee area.

LIE. The spot on or directly underneath the spot where the previous throw landed.

THROWING ORDER. After teeing-off the player whose disc is farthest from the hole always throws first. The player with the least amount of throws on the previous hole is the first to tee-off on the next hole.

FAIRWAY THROWS. Fairway throws must be made with the foot closest to the hole on the lie. The other foot may be no closer to the hole than the lie. A run-up and normal follow-through, after release, is allowed.

DOG LEG. A dog leg is one or more designated trees or poles in the fairway that must be passed on the outside when approaching the hole. Until the dog leg is passed, the closest foot to the dog leg must be on the lie when the disc is released.

PUTT THROW. Within 10 yards of the pole, a player may not step past the point of his lie in making his putt throw. Falling or jumping putts are not allowed.

COMPLETION OF A HOLE. A disc that comes to rest in the Disc Pole Hole basket constituted successful completion of that hole.

UNPLAYABLE LIE. Any disc that comes to rest more than 6 feet above the ground is considered an unplayable lie. After declaring an unplayable lie the disc must be thrown from the new lie on the ground, directly underneath the unplayable lie. (1 throw penalty.)

OUT OF BOUNDS. A throw that lands out of bounds must be played from the point where the disc went out of bounds. Water hazards and public roads are always out of bounds. (1 throw penalty.)

COURSE COURTESY. Don�t throw until the players ahead of you are out of range.


Tee off . . . and fly freely


� 1976 Disc Golf Association

Hoser
Nov 10 2010, 06:03 PM
Josh, thank you for Post #57.


You seem to fail to grasp my point. I'm not bothered that players didn't take the effort I did to read the rule book. I'm bothered by the fact that these players openly MOCK the fact that I have the rule book in hand and ready to use. That doesn't seem to me to be about their own desire or ability to read and comprehend the rules. (which, BTW, absolutely positively does NOT require a "re-tune" of the brain to understand unless you are a drooling moron) It's more like the "cool" kids laughing and making fun of the "geeks" in high school. It's the attitude that labels someone who knows the rules a "rules nazi" or a "rules dick", because the idea of knowing the rules is uncool and unfun. Making the rules simpler and "easier" to understand probably won't do anything to make them "cool" to follow.

Thanks for setting us straight on that, Josh. Yes, there�s no excuse for players mocking anybody who is trying to play the game right. One of us (Matt says not to tell which one) was a classic geek in high school, so we know exactly how it feels to be mocked for knowing stuff. It�s not cool. Not at all.

Maybe �making the rules simpler or easier to understand won�t do anything to make them cool to follow.� But . . . maybe it will. It�s too early to tell. Let�s keep watching, as more people become aware of our rules.

We respectfully disagree with your �drooling moron� assessment of players who have trouble understanding PDGA rules. We�ve got good friends, competent players who rarely drool, who can�t get past the glossary definition of �Approximate Lie.� And we�ve seen certified geniuses froth at the mouth trying to comprehend the Rule of Verticality.


Mike and Matt :confused: :confused:

jconnell
Nov 10 2010, 06:27 PM
We respectfully disagree with your �drooling moron� assessment of players who have trouble understanding PDGA rules. We�ve got good friends, competent players who rarely drool, who can�t get past the glossary definition of �Approximate Lie.� And we�ve seen certified geniuses froth at the mouth trying to comprehend the Rule of Verticality.


Mike and Matt :confused: :confused:
Yeah, "A lie established by the player's group in order to resume play" is extremely complicated and difficult to understand. One needs a freaking PhD to comprehend that. Give me a break.

You want to create a new game, fine, be my guest. But I think you can do it without making the PDGA rules of play out to be so difficult to comprehend they might as well have been written in Latin. It's an exaggeration that I do not think helps your argument at all.

tkieffer
Nov 10 2010, 06:29 PM
Tim, thank you for Post #53 and #54.


Thanks for showing us the BASIC REC RULES. Where did you find these?



I'm assuming your question is of a sarcastic nature. But in case it is not, the answer is obviously "on the web site to which I provided the link". A simple search pulls up many instances of the same.

DShelton
Nov 10 2010, 07:32 PM
The game is Ro-Sham-Bo, and its entire rulebook is this:


Signal rock, paper or scissors.
Rock breaks scissors. Scissors cut paper. Paper covers rock.
If you tie, do it again until somebody wins.

Try again the USARPS rules are at http://www.usarps.com/rules/ and make up about 300 to 400 words and the World RPS rules are at http://www.worldrps.com/gbasics.html#Responsibility and are about 350 to 500 words. ( haven't counted them, it's just a estimate)

As you expand the number of people in your sport, you have to start thinking of every situation that may arise and make a rule to handle it. In Snapching, you have the TD running all over the course making decisions that are covered in the complex rulebook that the PDGA puts out. This could slow the tournament down to a crawl with the TD running all over settling disputes, possibly on more than one card at a time.

The reason the new rule book (which you haven't quoted from and is the only one that matters) is so big and complex is because of the situations that have came up in the past. A rule was made or amended to cover that situation. In 20 years, it would be my guess that the rules of Snapching will be as overgrown and "burdensome" as the PDGA's rules.

DShelton
Nov 10 2010, 07:40 PM
Here's a quick one.

BASIC REC RULES (http://wsdga.org/Images/BasicRulesofPlay.pdf)

A bit out of date with #8 (two meter rule), but short, sweet, easy for new players.

Not ready for competition, but enough for someone to get started with the fun.

This last sentence sums it up. For the average run of the mill player wanting to go out to play a round of disc golf, you don't need to know too many rules, if any. The PDGA's complex rule book is for a player who wants to go to a tournament and play a round in a competitive fashion. That player wants to know that he can play a tournament in Sacramento, California and then play one in Atlanta, Georgia and the rules will be the same. All he has to worry about is the layout of the course and his own skill set.

rob
Nov 10 2010, 08:53 PM
This last sentence sums it up. For the average run of the mill player wanting to go out to play a round of disc golf, you don't need to know too many rules, if any. The PDGA's complex rule book is for a player who wants to go to a tournament and play a round in a competitive fashion. That player wants to know that he can play a tournament in Sacramento, California and then play one in Atlanta, Georgia and the rules will be the same. All he has to worry about is the layout of the course and his own skill set.

DING DING DING DING!!! WE have a winner!

davidsauls
Nov 11 2010, 08:42 AM
Having spent a day away from this forum and thought upon it, I'll go beyond scenarios and offer my opinion. For the two cents it's worth.

* You've indeed created a simpler set of rules.

* I don't find them necessary, though. While many of the PDGA rules can be improved, or have their wording improved, I don't find the rules to be overly complex. The basic rules covering 98% of situations can be grasped pretty quickly. Of the other 2%, I can virtually always find a solution in the rulebook I carry, quicker than I could summon a TD.

* I like some of your rules better than the disc golf versions.

* But I dislike more of them. The way snapching handles O.B. is one example that would often apply. I've played a few "buncr" holes (If you go O.B., no penalty, but must rethrow) and find this approach less fun than the disc golf rules.

* Snapching would work poorly in tournaments.

* But its fine for the casual player who wants to try it. (Heck, I see plenty of very casual players who are largely playing snapching....except they don't recognize O.B. at all, and pretty liberally move their lies when in water, briars, etc.). A local league could also give it a whirl.

Just my opinion, and I've been wrong once or twice in my life, maybe more. If you can give it a few test runs in tournaments---especially tournaments with a large turnout, including less-than-honorable strangers---you'll learn a lot, both good or bad.

Hoser
Nov 11 2010, 01:55 PM
DShelton, thank you for Posts #62 and #63.


We apologize to you, and to everyone else on this thread, for accidentally misleading you about something.

D says:


You have to start thinking of every situation that may arise and make a rule to handle it. In Snapching, you have the TD running all over the course making decisions . . .


We don�t mean for the TD to leave HQ and go to where the group is. Instead we mean for the TD to stay at HQ and make rulings from there, with the help of aides who roam the course to eyeball situations just as PDGA officials do in disc golf. These SnapChing aides don�t need certification as rules experts. All they need is a cell phone, to talk to the TD at HQ.

Here�s how SnapChing rulings would get made. Let�s look at the three basic kinds of rulings: questions of rule; questions of fact, and questions of behavior.


Questions of rule:


The foursome of Josh, DShelton, Rob and Pete is playing Hole #12. Pete�s tee shot ricochets off an OB spectator into the jaws of an IB dog who runs away and drops the disc into an OB creek and it washes ashore beside the basket. The group can�t agree where Pete�s lie is. They call the TD and describe the situation over the phone. The TD says:

�That disc rested four times: by Rule 10, the disc was deemed to rest at the instant the spectator altered its flight; by Rule 10, the disc was deemed to rest at the instant the dog altered its flight; by Rule 10, the disc was deemed to rest at the instant its thrown energy ended in water; and the disc stayed still two seconds on shore beside the basket.

�Rule 7 says the disc�s first rest locates the lie. The first rest was when the spectator altered the flight. So we�ll locate the lie according to where the disc was at that instant. The disc was OB at that instant. So, by Rule 7, Pete�s lie is his just-canceled lie: the tee.�

Pete goes back and throws from the tee.

When players call for a ruling in a situation where everyone agrees on the facts but disagrees on how to apply the rules to those facts, the TD can make her ruling, by herself, without leaving HQ. All she has to do is apply the rules to the facts. She doesn�t have to amend anything. She�s just helping the group play by the rules.



Questions of fact:


The foursome of Josh, DShelton, Rob and Pete is playing Hole #14. Pete tees off and his disc comes to rest 20� up in a tree that partly overhangs an OB creek. At this point, no one knows whether Pete�s disc is resting above OB or above IB. Then Josh tees off, and his disc hits Pete�s disc and both discs tumbled down, hit the ground, and bounce into the creek.

The group arrives at the creek and can�t agree whether Pete�s disc rested in the tree above IB or above OB. They call the TD and describe the situation. The TD says:

�Hang on, guys, I�m going to call an aide over to look at your situation.�

The TD cell-phones an aide who is patrolling that area of the course. The aide goes to Hole #14 and looks at the situation. The aide and the group get on the phone to the TD (who is still at HQ) and everybody gives the TD their opinion. The TD weighs all the testimony and makes a decision on whether Pete�s disc rested in the tree above IB or above OB. The TD�s decision prevails (see Rule 1) and the group uses Rule 7 to locate Pete�s lie.

When players call for a ruling in a situation where everyone agrees on the rules but disagrees on the facts, the TD can make her ruling without leaving HQ, with the help of witness testimony that may include an aide to eyeball the situation. This is like a PDGA official going to Hole #12 and making a ruling in disc golf, except the TD is making the decision from HQ by weighing all the input she gets from the players and from her aide (and the aide doesn�t have to be a rules expert).



Questions of behavior:


The foursome of Josh, DShelton, Rob and Pete is playing Hole #10. Pete is smoking. Josh, preparing to tee off, is bothered by the smoke. Josh asks Pete to move so his smoke won�t interfere. Pete says, �Aw, quit whining. A little smoke doesn�t make any difference.� Rob and DShelton agree with Josh. Pete refuses to move or quit smoking. Rob calls the TD and describes the situation and asks the TD to rule whether to DQ Pete for acting rude. The TD says:

�Give the phone to Pete.�

Rob gives his cell phone to Pete. Pete listens while the TD bends his ear, then he gives the phone back to Rob. The TD tells Rob her ruling. Rob tells the group, �The TD won�t DQ Pete now, but if he distracts anyone�s play with his smoke again, she�ll DQ him.�

The group plays on, with everyone knowing what Pete must do to stay in the game.

When players call for a ruling in a situation where everyone agrees on the facts and the rules but disagrees on whether a behavior is rude, the TD can make her ruling without leaving HQ. She uses her DQ power to either DQ a player whose rude action is unforgivable, or she can give a rude guy an earful to make him stop being rude.



We hope this process of �ruling from HQ� will work. As David Sauls has wisely pointed out, we�re going to learn a lot by running SnapChing tournaments.


Mike and Matt :o :o

davidsauls
Nov 11 2010, 02:09 PM
Uh, it may be different elsewhere, but around here we don't have any non-playing aides to eyeball situtions. It's hard enough to get aides at all, and those who do help, are bound to be playing. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, TDs are usually playing as well, in B-tiers & C-tiers.

Hoser
Nov 11 2010, 03:54 PM
DShelton, you brought up two other good points, in those same posts, that we�d like to address.


The PDGA's complex rule book is for a player who wants to go to a tournament and play a round in a competitive fashion. That player wants to know that he can play a tournament in Sacramento, California and then play one in Atlanta, Georgia and the rules will be the same.

We completely agree that all PDGA players need a single set of rules to play by.

But what if players are having trouble using the only official rules?

Several people posting on this thread say they have no problem understanding and using the PDGA rulebook. We hope lots of folks feel that easy with those rules. Yet in our many years of talking with players all over the country, we�ve heard countless laments to the contrary. If a significant number of players are having trouble understanding the PDGA rulebook, what is the best way to help them?

Some say the answer is to keep insisting that they read the rules. But decades of that strategy haven�t yet yielded good results.

Our approach, to help players who are having a hard time using the PDGA rules, is to demonstrate that simpler rules are possible to write, and that simpler rules can do an equally good job of governing the game.

D, we�re not asking you, or anyone, to play PDGA tournaments by SnapChing rules. We�re just suggesting that the whole PDGA membership�s experience of playing disc golf might improve if the game were played by a simpler rule system. And we�re showing one example of how a simpler rule system can work.


The reason the new rule book (which you haven't quoted from and is the only one that matters) is so big and complex is because of the situations that have came up in the past. A rule was made or amended to cover that situation. In 20 years, it would be my guess that the rules of Snapching will be as overgrown and "burdensome" as the PDGA's rules.


(We haven�t quoted from the 2011 rulebook because most members don�t yet have access to it. Rules Committee Chair Conrad Damon emailed us a copy and said the PDGA board of directors approved the new rulebook in early September and soon will post it at pdga.com and print the new rulebooks. As of today, pdga.com is still posting the 2006 rules.)

In the next 20 years, will SnapChing�s rules get overgrown and burdensome as they strive to cover new field-of-play situations that come up? That�s hard to say, until we see those situations develop.

We�ve written SnapChing�s rules to govern every field-of-play situation we�ve ever heard of or imagined in our forty years of tournament and casual play. If you don�t believe SnapChing�s rules can govern every field-of-play scenario, you can test us two ways:


� Click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/Solving%20field-of-play%20scenarios.html)to see SnapChing�s rules solve the scenarios that disc golfers sent to the PDGA�s FAQ/Q&A website. You�ll see SnapChing�s rulings and the RC rulings side by side. Judge for yourself which set of rules gives the clearest answers, and which set of rules might best help players solve their own scenarios on the field of play.

� Make up your own scenarios for SnapChing rules to solve. We�ll give it our best shot.


There�s no better way to prove or disprove the value of SnapChing rules, than by testing them to solve field-of-play scenarios.


Mike and Matt :) :)

Hoser
Nov 11 2010, 04:09 PM
David Sauls, thank you, as always, for your well-reasoned and courteous opinions.

We are eager to experience SnapChing from your TD�s viewpoint. We have mainly focused on the game from a player�s perspective, and you�re surely right that we�ll learn a lot about how SnapChing�s rules really work when we run SnapChing tournaments.


Mike and Matt :) :)

Hoser
Nov 11 2010, 04:15 PM
FOLKS, MIKE AND MATT WILL BE GONE FOR A WEEK, TAKING CARE OF OTHER BUSINESS. PLEASE KEEP POSTING YOUR COMMENTS AND FIELD-OF-PLAY QUESTIONS HERE ON THIS THREAD. WHEN WE GET BACK NEXT WEEKEND, WE�LL CATCH UP ON REPLYING TO YOU AND SOLVING YOUR SCENARIOS.

AND WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HELP!!

ENJOY OUR SNAPCHING WEBSITE: www.snapchingthegame.com (http://www.snapchingthegame.com). FIND OUT ABOUT THIS NEW GAME, AND HOW IT CAN IMPROVE YOUR EXPERIENCE OF PLAYING DISC GOLF.


Mike and Matt :D :D

davidsauls
Nov 11 2010, 04:27 PM
It just seems that a whole lot of snapching is dependent upon the TD's judgement---and being able to reach the TD when needed.

Here's another scenario; sadly, I've seen this happen, one way or another, a bunch of times.

TD states, or puts in writing, that "the creek on hole 5 is O.B.". I'm playing hole 10 and throw such a terribly horrible shot (my specialty) that I land in that selfsame creek.

Did the TD mean that that particular creek was O.B.....or that the creek was O.B. when playing hole 5? And if he didn't put it in writing (shame on him), what exactly were his words?

If I can't find the TD at that moment, what? Well, in Snapching I can consider it O.B. and haul myself back to the tee. Or consider it casual and play from there. Or wait. But if I guess wrong, I'm looking at a huge number of strokes.

In disc golf, I can play a provisional. Play it with relief from O.B. (without the long walk back to the tee), then play it as if the creek is casual. At the end of the round, find out what the TD really meant.

YES, the TD should be more specific with his local rules. TDs make mistakes. I mistyped a rule at my last tournament, causing a discussion just like this (my course has two layouts and 13 holes with O.B., so you can imagine the length of the groundrules). But it caused no harm because the player could play a provisional.

I've seen this many times in tournaments, where TDs weren't precise enough in declaring O.B. or other rules.

*

As you refine your snapching rules, I'd at least suggest that a misplay on one hole result means that particular hole must be replayed, not every throw from the misplay to the time it's found.

veganray
Nov 11 2010, 04:32 PM
Word on the street regarding M&M's "other business": their stellar work on the rules of SnapChing has prompted the Obama administration, in its infinite wisdom, to hire them to simplify the tax code. Good luck, boys; hope you can fit it on the back of a certified check for $13.7 trillion.

brock
Nov 12 2010, 01:36 AM
have fun taking care of business....

reallybadputter
Nov 23 2010, 11:25 PM
Hoser-

Again, a problem: Walnut Creek Park, Charlottesville VA. Arguably one of the best courses in Virginia. NO CELL PHONE SERVICE Well, if you go to 5 Blue or the 17th tee, you might get 1 bar.

The rules grow to cover situations as they become a problem. If I were to write the rules of baseball in one page lots of stuff would get left out. What happens on a grounder up the middle where the shortstop takes off his glove in frustration, throws it and hits the ball? Probably wouldn't make the cut in your 1-pager...

Football... I'm going for a 2-point conversion in a college game. Pass gets picked off by a defensive back. The DB runs it out of the endzone, then retreats back into his endzone looking for running room. He gets tackled. What's the ruling?

Answers: Ground rule triple and a 1-point safety...

Or should it be up to the TD/Umpire/Ref to make up the rule every time it happens? That's what it looks like you want to happen. Replace written rules with whimsy.

I agree the rules can be rewritten to be more clear. But it shouldn't be at the expense of coverage of situations. That's why ball golf has both a rule book and a huge book of 'Decisions on the Rules of Golf'

Hoser
Nov 24 2010, 09:03 PM
Reallybadputter, thank you for Post #74.


Your cell phone problem outfoxes our �call the TD� rule. We thought cell phone service is everywhere. Oops.


* * *


Plenty of people on this thread feel:


� SnapChing is a kiddie game, a sandlot game, it�s not for serious competition.

� Rules of SnapChing may cover simple field-of-play situations, but too many times you�d have to call the TD for rulings.


Reallybadputter, you said it well: �I agree that the rules can be rewritten to be more clear. But it shouldn�t be at the expense of coverage of situations.� Disc golfers should respect what you say. Your great examples of odd situations in baseball and football show that you understand the big picture of how rules work to �cover� a game. Your analytical mind can look at rules and see their strengths and weaknesses.

SO WE CHALLENGE YOU:

Think of disc golf field-of-play scenarios you�ve experienced, that your group had a really hard time solving by using PDGA rules. Pick your three most gnarly, complex examples. Post those scenarios here on this thread.

We�ll try to solve them here, with Rules of SnapChing. And we�ll just use our single page of 11 rules, no whimsy.

If our rules can�t handle your challenge, everyone on this thread will see it.

But if Rules of SnapChing DOES solve all three scenarios, clearer and quicker than the PDGA rulebook can do it, then maybe you�ll see our rules in a new light.

Reallybadputter, take your best shot.


Mike & Matt :D :D

cgkdisc
Nov 24 2010, 10:09 PM
A player has made two throws. On the next throw, the player throws his third shot from behind another player's disc that looks the same as his. The group says, "Hey, your disc is over here," and says he should abandon that throw and continue play from his disc. He does that and holes out in two more throws. What is his score using PDGA versus SnapChing rules? This actually happened at PW2007 in Highbridge.

Hoser
Nov 25 2010, 07:30 PM
Thank you, Chuck, for Post #76


GREAT SCENARIO! SnapChing�s rules can solve it easily. When PDGA disc golf rules try to solve it, they create a diabolical nightmare.


A player has made two throws. On the next throw, the player throws his third shot from behind another player's disc that looks the same as his. The group says, "Hey, your disc is over here," and says he should abandon that throw and continue play from his disc. He does that and holes out in two more throws. What is his score using PDGA versus SnapChing rules? This actually happened at PW2007 in Highbridge.


* * *


The SnapChing ruling


Click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) to print out SnapChing�s single page of rules. To learn more about SnapChing, click www.snapchingthegame.com (http://www.snapchingthegame.com).


(Throughout SnapChing�s rules, �throw� specifically means a disc flight that you release while your body is in correct relation to the field of play. [See Rule 3 for the complete �throw� definition.] So our ruling, below, uses other terms to describe wrong-stance shots.)


Applicable SnapChing rules:

Rule 3. This rule describes �throw.�

Rule 7. The new lie that your throw creates is a 1�-wide circle centered below where the disc first rests.

Rule 8. If you release a disc into air by hand in a way that�s not a throw, your lie doesn�t change.

Rule 11. You score 1 each time you release (not drop) a disc into air by hand during your play.




In the scenario, the thrower � let�s call him Chuck � starts the hole by making two throws (i.e., two flights that qualify under Rule 3). Rule 7 advances his lie on each throw.

Rule 11 scores 1 for any release (whether Rule 7 advances the lie or Rule 8 keeps the lie where it is). So Chuck scores 1 for each of his first two throws. Now he lies 2 at the lie that his second throw created.

Next he releases a flight from a wrong lie. That means he released the disc while he wasn�t in correct relation to the field of play: so his flight didn�t qualify as a �throw� under Rule 3.

On that non-throw flight, Rule 8 keeps Chuck�s lie where it is: his lie is still the lie that his second throw created. So now Chuck lies 3 at the lie his second throw created. His group advises him to resume play from that lie. Chuck does so � which means his fourth and fifth shots do qualify as �throws� under Rule 3. Rule 7 advances his lie on each of those two throws, the latter of which holes him out.

Rule 11 scores Chuck 1 for each of four throws, plus 1 for the non-throw flight release. There are no penalty strokes.

To summarize: the first flight advanced the lie; the second flight advanced the lie; the third flight didn�t advance the lie; the fourth flight advanced the lie; the fifth flight advanced the lie (and holed out); and all five flights scored 1 each.


ANSWER: Chuck scores 5.


* * *



The PDGA ruling (2006 rulebook)


Applicable rules:

Rule 804.03C (scoring). The player�s score on the hole is his total number of throws, including penalty throws.

Rule 801.04A (playing the stipulated course). It is the responsibility of the player to play the course correctly.

�Practice throw� definition. A practice throw is a flight that doesn�t change the player�s lie because it did not occur from the lie. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01B or 804.02A(2). [NOTE: no Rule 804.02A(2) exists. And no one-digit-substitution rule applies. Rather than speculate what rule the RC meant to cite, let�s focus solely on 803.01B.]

803.01B (practice throws). You get 1 penalty stroke for a practice throw.

803.03A-B (marking the lie). Each throw gives you a new lie, which may be below the resting disc or may be relocated by rule. [Rule 803.03 ignores the assumption that neither practice throws nor unused provisional throws give you a new lie.]

803.04A(1) (stance, subsequent to teeing off). As you release your disc into flight, you have to be touching the LOP within 30cm behind �the marker disc.� That must mean the thrower�s own marker.

803.04F-G (stance, subsequent to teeing off). A stance violation must be called within 3 seconds, and seconded, to be valid. On a valid stance call, you get a warning the first time, a penalty each subsequent time, and on every foul you have to throw next from your correct lie and the original throw doesn�t advance the lie.

803.10A (throwing from another player�s lie). A player who has thrown from another player�s lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player�s lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed.

803.13A (holing out). If a player fails to hole out on a hole, the TD can DQ him. If the TD doesn�t DQ, subrule (2) says the penalty for inadvertently failing to hole out is 2 penalty throws added to the number of throws plus penalty throws already taken on the hole. The hole shall then be considered completed.




In the scenario, Chuck starts the hole by making two throws. Rule 803.03 advances his lie on each throw. Rule 804.03C scores him 1 for each of those throws. So now Chuck lies 2 at the lie his second throw creates.

Then Chuck throws from a wrong stance, at a place that�s not his lie.

At this point, the applicable rules diverge in three different directions.


Direction #1:


Rule 803.04A(1) says Chuck�s third throw was a stance foul. Yet in the scenario, although the group knew Chuck threw from a wrong stance, no one called a stance foul within 3 seconds, so 803.04F-G can�t apply to give Chuck a warning or make him throw next from his correct lie.

Direction #1 is a dead end: 803.04 can�t locate Chuck�s new lie or score his play.



Direction #2:


803.01B, and the �practice throw� definition, do apply to Chuck�s throw from a place that�s not his lie. So Chuck�s third throw is a practice throw.

Now things get a bit confusing.

Neither 803.01B (practice throws), nor any other rule, says that the practice throw itself doesn�t count on Chuck�s score. A practice throw certainly is a throw, and 804.03C (scoring) counts every throw. So are we to score Chuck for both the practice throw and the penalty throw?

Maybe 803.01F (rule of fairness) can solve this � although there�s nothing inherently unfair about scoring both the practice throw and the penalty throw: it�s just another way to play the game. If we use the Rule of Fairness, the closest existing rule likely is 803.04G: Any throw that involves a validly called and seconded stance violation may not be used by the thrower. �May not be used� might mean either, or both, of: �it doesn�t create a new lie� or �it doesn�t count on the scorecard.� Heck, let�s not sweat the small stuff. Our gut tells us that it�s fairer not to score the practice throw, and to count only the 1 stroke penalty on Chuck�s score.

803.01B also doesn�t say whether Chuck�s practice throw creates a new lie for him to play from next. 803.03A says to mark the lie of each throw (and a practice throw surely is a throw). And none of 803.03B-C�s lie-relocation exceptions involve a practice throw. So under 803.03, it�s logical to conclude that a practice throw creates a new lie.

Of course we know that�s absurd, even though no rule supports our feeling. Golly, let�s go with our gut again: let�s ignore this conflict, too, and go with the well-worn practice of assuming that Chuck�s practice throw doesn�t create a new lie for him to play. That means Chuck�s lie is still where his second throw landed.

Now Chuck�s groupmates advise him to throw from where his second throw landed. He does so. He holes out in two more strokes.

Under Direction #2�s interpretation of the rules � including our two intuitive assumptions, neither of which is supported by the rulebook � Chuck scores 1 for each of his first, second, fourth and fifth throws, and he gets 1 penalty stroke (for a practice throw) for his third throw.


ANSWER: Chuck scores 5.



Direction #3:


Now we come to the fun part of the scenario.

PDGA rules provide a whole �nother answer via Rule 803.10A (throwing from another player�s lie). A player who has thrown from another player�s lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player�s lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed.

Chuck did indeed throw from another player�s lie. [BTW, Chuck gets no slack for similar-looking discs. Rule 802.01F (discs used in play) requires that each disc bear a unique mark. If Chuck didn�t notice the absence of his unique mark, that�s his problem. Rule 801.04A makes Chuck responsible to play the course correctly.]

Under Rule 803.10, Chuck should have ignored his group�s advice (�Play next from your own disc�). Instead he should have gone to where his wrong-lie throw landed and played the rest of the hole from there. Then if he had holed his fourth shot (which is parallel to the scenario), his score would have been four throws plus a two penalty throws, for a total score of 6 on the hole.

Before we describe the dire consequence of what actually DID happen in the scenario, it�s interesting to note that if Chuck had followed Rule 803.10A and played out from the wrong-lie shot, the implication would have been that the throw from the other guy�s lie � which also fits the definition of a practice throw � did count on Chuck�s score and did create a new lie. Back in our discussion of Direction #2, our gut told us that neither of those things was true.

Okay, back to the actual sad scenario. Let�s go to the point in time when Chuck has thrown his third shot from another guy�s lie. Chuck has made three throws and he has earned two penalty strokes, so he is lying 5 where that wrong-lie disc landed.

What happens next in the scenario? Chuck follows his group�s advice: he ignores Rule 803.10 and instead plays out the hole from the lie that his second throw created.

According to Rule 803.10, Chuck�s fourth shot � the shot he took from the lie that his second throw created � is both a stance foul and a practice throw. Nobody called a stance foul in 3 seconds, so let�s proceed with the practice throw angle.

If that fourth shot is a practice throw, then we assume (although, by now, we may be getting a little queasy making assumptions) that the fourth shot didn�t count on Chuck�s score, and that he does get 1 penalty throw for a practice throw, and that his correct lie is still where the disc that he threw from the other guy�s lie landed.

Then Chuck throws a fifth shot, which he thinks holes him out. This shot is a practice throw since it, too, was not thrown from where the disc that he threw from the other guy�s lie landed.

Chuck now thinks he has holed out. Actually he hasn�t. His hole-out shot couldn�t count to complete the hole because it was a practice throw (which, um, can�t hole out, right?), and so he is STILL PLAYING THE HOLE and he has accumulated, so far, three actual throws that scored 1 each (i.e., his first three throws), plus two penalty throws for two practice throws (his fourth and fifth shots), plus a two-stroke penalty for playing the wrong lie.

The scenario doesn�t say so, but the next thing that Chuck does is to either tee off on the next hole or turn in his scorecard. In either case, how do we score him on the hole in the scenario?

Rule 803.13A (holing out) answers that question. Since Chuck inadvertently failed to hole out, he adds 2 more penalty throws to the score he already has accumulated.

Let�s pull out the calculator and see what Chuck�s score is. Three throws plus two penalty throws plus another two-throw penalty plus another two-throw penalty . . . .


ANSWER: Chuck scores 9.



IMPORTANT NOTE: The PDGA ruling under Direction #2 and the PDGA ruling under Direction #3 are equally valid. No language in the applicable rules says that one process supersedes the other. So in order to rule either way, you have to ignore the validity of the other way.

Furthermore if a groupmate HAD made a valid stance call on Chuck�s third shot, then Direction #1 would have been equally as enforceable as, and in conflict with, both Direction #2 and Direction #3.


* * *


Chuck, you have said (Post #29), �What if complexity in the rules is a necessary part of creating a game that is more fun and interesting to play competitively?�

Our answer is to suggest that SnapChingers and disc golfers find your scenario equally competitively interesting to play. The difference, from a player�s point of view, is solely in the ease of locating the lie and scoring the play. In a few seconds, you can use SnapChing�s rules to find the single correct lie location and score, without calling the TD. Under PDGA rules, you�ll fall into a nest of snakes that will bite even officials and TDs. The difference has nothing to do with the game itself. It has everything to do with the differing complexity of the two rule systems.

And if �fun� is part of your equation for a great game, then notice that a SnapChinger�s experience in your scenario is equally as much fun as a disc golfer�s experience under the PDGA �practice throw� way of ruling; and a SnapChinger has way more fun than a disc golfer who plays under the PDGA �wrong player�s lie� way of ruling.

Chuck, that was a superb scenario. Keep �em coming.


Mike & Matt :) :)

cgkdisc
Nov 26 2010, 01:08 AM
The TD (me) and Competition Director decided to score it as a 7. We decided that playing the wrong lie and subsequently playing his original lie was one big mistake and penalties shouldn't be compounded for essentially the same incident. So we counted all throws the player made and added a 2-throw penalty. While SnapChing rules resolved the situation cleanly, I'm not sure players would feel that 5 was a fair score for what the player did.

(BTW, the player actually took a 2m penalty on his tee shot on the only hole at Highbridge where that rule is in effect. So he was not having a good day and actually scored an 8 with the 2m penalty.)

Hoser
Nov 26 2010, 01:51 PM
Chuck,


A 2M penalty on top of everything else? �Not having a good day,� indeed.


We want to ask you some questions about your ruling. For the sake of simplicity, let�s go back to your original scenario without the 2M penalty. And for the sake of being fair to you, personally, let�s call the poor sap Bubba.


The TD (me) and Competition Director decided to score it as a 7. We decided that playing the wrong lie and subsequently playing his original lie was one big mistake and penalties shouldn't be compounded for essentially the same incident. So we counted all throws the player made and added a 2-throw penalty.

First, the facts. (Chuck, correct us if we�re misunderstanding what you did.) When you and the Competition Director computed Bubba�s score:


� You didn�t score any penalty throws for �practice throw.� That means you counted each of Bubba�s five throws as a normal throw, and you didn�t rule that any of them were practice throws.

� You added a single 2-throw penalty.

� You considered the act of throwing from another player�s lie, and the subsequent act of throwing from Bubba�s own lie, one big mistake that deserved to be penalized just once, not twice.


Our questions are these:


� Under what rule did you decide that none of Bubba�s last three throws were practice throws?

� What was your 2-throw penalty for? If it was for playing another player�s lie, then what rule did you use to get around the fact that Bubba didn�t play out the hole from his third shot, as Rule 803.10 requires? If the 2-throw penalty was for failing to hole out, then what rule did you use to void 803.10�s 2-stroke penalty for playing another player�s lie?

� What rule supports your decision that playing another player�s lie, and then subsequently playing one�s own lie, are one big mistake that deserved to be penalized just once, not twice? If it�s the Rule of Fairness, what �closest existing rule� guided your sense of fairness in your decision?


We�re not criticizing your desire to give Bubba a score that seems fair. We�re just asking how a TD and a Competition Director arrived at your rulings, under PDGA rules of play.


* * *


While SnapChing rules resolved the situation cleanly, I'm not sure players would feel that 5 was a fair score for what the player did.

Chuck, that�s a thoughtful critique. To answer, we need to take you behind the scenes in our writing of Rules of SnapChing.

As we wrote SnapChing�s rules, we discovered a challenge that�s inherent in writing simple rules: you�re often trying to govern a wide range of related acts under a single rule. When you do that, odd results can happen.

Here�s an example. We wrote SnapChing�s OB rule this way: �If the whole disc first rests on or above out-of-bounds, your lie is your just canceled lie.� (In SnapChing, each correct-stance disc flight release cancels your lie and creates a new lie that�s based on where the disc lands. See Rule 6.)

Sometimes our simple OB rule gets wide-varying results.


� You tee off and land OB. Ruling: you are lying 1 on the tee.

� Your lie is ten feet from the basket. You putt for a score of 2. Your disc prangs off the basket and rolls 100� downhill and into an OB lake. Ruling: you are lying 2, ten feet from the basket.


Seeing this, we asked ourselves, �Which are we more willing to put up with, for the sake of creating a good game with simple rules? A simple OB rule that gives this range of results? Or a more complex OB rule that gives more uniform results?�

Our thinking went like this:


� Most of the time, our OB rule will create an interesting, challenging game by making you face the same risk/reward situation that you just bungled.

� In a small percent of field-of-play scenarios, a player will fare better by going OB than by not going OB. (For example, better than if the ten-foot pranged putt rolled 99� downhill and didn�t go in the lake.)

� Our brief, clear OB rule is easy to use in every OB situation.

� The choice, then, is between a brief, clear rule that yields uniform results 95% of the time, or a more complex rule that yields uniform results 100% of the time.

� Can we live with those 5% results? Do they prevent the game from feeling fun and challenging to play?


We tried to imagine all the �odd� scenarios that could happen under our OB rule, and how rare or frequent they were. Finally we decided that we felt okay living with those �odd� scenarios, for the sake of having a single clear OB rule.

We went through this same thought process as we wrote other rules. We favored simplicity whenever we were okay living with the odd results. And when we weren�t okay living with the odd results, we wrote the given rule in the simplest way that would get results we felt okay living with and playing by.

Is 5 a fair-feeling score for Bubba in your scenario? Likewise, would 6 feel fair if Bubba made two shots, instead of just one, that weren�t from his correct lie? Would 7 feel fair if he made three such shots? And so on. That�s the way our rules score you, and locate your lie, if you misplay. Does it feel fair? We could have chosen to write more complicated rules to govern misplays � for example, PDGA Rule 801.04, which puts a max 2-throw penalty on misplays � and that would have been an equally valid way to create the game.

Our rule of thumb, in writing SnapChing rules, was to write the simplest rules that would provide results we could live with and have fun playing by, that maintained the skill challenge of disc golf. In your scenario, Chuck, we can live with Bubba scoring 5. That score gives the whole field the message: pay attention to your lie.


Mike & Matt :) :)

cgkdisc
Nov 26 2010, 02:59 PM
Bubba made the mistake where the group felt he had holed out and took a practice throw. In the group's point of view, Bubba had played four throws properly and took one practice throw from another player's lie and threw a 5 (let's skip the 2m). We could accept that group's assessment of how the hole was played from a throwing standpoint but then add a 2-shot penalty for that mistaken interpretation ending up with a 7. In our view, the failure to hole out penalty should be applied when the disc does not go into the basket. Examples might be player is upset and walks off without putting out or player simply forgets to putt out. It shouldn't be applied when another penalty event leads to a "trick" rules interpretation like this where an apparent "hole out" in fact wasn't a hole out.

furniss
Nov 26 2010, 03:32 PM
Lets all quit the pdga and join the SnapChing tour lol...NOT!

davidsauls
Nov 26 2010, 04:36 PM
Plenty of people on this thread feel:


� SnapChing is a kiddie game, a sandlot game, it�s not for serious competition.

� Rules of SnapChing may cover simple field-of-play situations, but too many times you�d have to call the TD for rulings.




That about sums it up (except I wouldn't be so derisive about it being a kiddie game).

For tournaments, some of your solutions are simpler than PDGA rules, it's true, but could be quite cumbersome, and really slow down a tournament. No limit on time to play (unless the TD tells you to hurry along), waiting for a TD for a decision on many situations, effectively having to replay many holes following certain misplays, finding a drive O.B. and having to go 300-400' back to the tee and retee---these and others would really put a drag on a tournament.

*

I find it hard to recall a situation that was difficult to resolve with the PDGA book. But if you want some situations to test snapching against, look back through old rules threads where people actually debated what a rule meant.

(I'd do this, but I'm just sneaking posts in between work).

Hoser
Nov 26 2010, 05:02 PM
Chuck, re Post #80:


If our reasoning in Post #77 was correct under PDGA rules, then the TD can rule validly on your scenario in two different ways:


� Via the practice throw rule (803.01B), Bubba�s third shot (from the other guy�s lie) was a practice throw, and his fourth and fifth shots were from correct stances, and the fifth shot holed out, and Bubba scores 5.

� Via the wrong-player�s-lie rule (803.10A), Bubba�s fourth and fifth shots were practice throws since they weren�t thrown from the lie that Bubba�s third shot created, and Bubba�s final shot (a practice throw) didn�t qualify to hole out, and Bubba gets 2 penalty strokes for playing the wrong player�s lie and 2 more penalty strokes for failing to hole out before continuing play, and Bubba scores 9.


Each of those rulings would be consistent with a certain set of rules. And neither ruling supersedes the other, according to the applicable rules.

We still have a question about your ruling. You accepted the group�s assessment of how the hole was played, which means you made your ruling via the practice throw rule rather than the wrong-player�s-lie rule. That�s fine with us: it�s equally sensible to make your ruling under either rule. (You have the right to use the rules as they are written. It�s the RC�s job to write them so they don�t conflict with each other.)

But what was the 2-shot penalty for? For playing another player�s lie? If so, how you can invoke Rule 803.10A�s 2-shot penalty yet ignore 803.10A�s requirement that Bubba finish out the hole from his wrong-guy�s-lie throw? Are TD�s allowed to divvy up a rule that way?


Mike & Matt :confused: :(


PS: In SnapChing, if you sink a wrong-stance putt, or if you drop the disc into the basket or lay it in (drops and lay-ins don�t qualify, under Rule 3, as �throws�), you have not holed out and your lie is unchanged. (See Rule 8.)

davidsauls
Nov 26 2010, 05:04 PM
While it crosses my mind, I think we already discussed that DROTs & wedgies are covered in the technical standards (not available). The question is, if a debate occurs during a round because of a DROT (disc resting on top), and no one has the technical standards on hand or there is a debate about what they say---what happens? Another "call the TD"? If the TD can't be reached, are players stuck with doing what they think the technical standards say, at the risk of having to replay everything from that point on if they're wrong?

How are ties broken in snapching? Perhaps it's intuitive that it's by hole-by-hole sudden-death, but can it be determined by the snapching rules? (This applies to casual play and tournament play). Someone might hold out for CTP, or a minimum number of tie-breaker holes, or even an extra round.

Moving "stuff that's not attached" seems intuitive. But does this go to picnic tables and porta-johns? Cars (assuming you have access to the keys)---at Earlewood some players like to drive over a parking area, but a van parked there can block the route? How to determine whether these are permanently attached, or not?

I understand the no-fly line, but if it ends without a pole or other vertical object, how can you judge whether a throw crossed over the line, or beyond the end of the line, from a distance?

cgkdisc
Nov 26 2010, 05:17 PM
But what was the 2-shot penalty for? For playing another player’s lie? If so, how you can invoke Rule 803.10A’s 2-shot penalty yet ignore 803.10A’s requirement that Bubba finish out the hole from his wrong-guy’s-lie throw? Are TD’s allowed to divvy up a rule that way?
801.04D Playing the stipulated course. Essentially, the group allowed the player to play the hole a certain way and it turned out it was not the correct way. Two-throw penalty for misplaying a hole. Note that section B of this rule delineates how specific misplays be handled but those are not the only types of misplays 801.04 covers. Section D appears to be the appropriate call for what occurred even though it talks about holing out. As mentioned before, the group felt the player had done what was necessary to hole out so this was part of the misplay.

Hoser
Nov 26 2010, 05:32 PM
David, re Post #82: thank you, as always, for your courteous critique.


Your apprehension about SnapChing taking too long to play, deserves our deep thought. If experience shows that you�re right, we�ll make changes that speed play up. For now, please consider these three points:


� PDGA disc golf, too, lets OB players go back to the tee (though in both disc golf and SnapChing, this rule probably will be used mostly by players who invoke it before they ever leave the tee).

� PDGA disc golf requires groups to stand aside while awaiting rulings. (We know you�re worried that SnapChing will require many more rulings than disc golf. We doubt that it will, due to the clarity of SnapChing rules.)

� The lack of a 30-second rule may not slow SnapChing down at all. We suggest that the reason disc golfers generally throw within 30 seconds is not because of the 30-second rule (which no one pays attention to), it�s because PLAYERS WANNA THROW! Same with SnapChingers.


Your suggestion that we go back through other threads, and see how SnapChing would rule on the scenarios, is a great suggestion. We�ll do that.

In the meantime, we�ve already gone through the Q&As at pdga.com, and given SnapChing rulings on those scenarios (each of which the RC thought was worth picking out to rule on). Click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/Solving%20field-of-play%20scenarios.html) to see the SnapChing rulings, side by side with the RC�s rulings.

David, any rule system�s worth depends on the answers to three basic questions. (1) Can players use the rules without help? (2) Do the rules cover every scenario that can happen in the game? (3) When you apply all the rules consistently, do they produce a fun and challenging game?

The reason we�re asking disc golfers to challenge us with tough field-of-play scenarios for Rules of SnapChing to solve, is to answer those three questions. We hope you�ll offer a scenario or two of your own.


Mike & Matt :) :)

cgkdisc
Nov 26 2010, 11:08 PM
I think the fundamental problem with the SnapChing concept is it's out-of-step with player expectations for what the game of disc golf should be. I believe that the fundamental quest for the development of disc golf rules over the years has been to do whatever is needed to play the existing game of golf but with discs. So our rules have been tweaked and gotten more complex to better emulate the precepts and game play inherent in golf with whatever modifications are needed simply due to the differences between hitting a ball versus throwing a disc.

What is needed is a simplification, improved clarity and elimination of perceived conflicts in our current rulebook, not a completely new set of rules that provides a watered down version of our game simply because it might be more clear and reduces perceived inconsistencies. SnapChing has named its game different from disc golf but promotes it as perhaps a better version of disc golf. It stands alone as a game but has diverged too far from what I believe players consider the fundamental intent of our rules (even if they haven't been able to articulate it) which is to emulate the game play of ball golf the best we can. So, it's "disc golf lite" at best and may be fine as a separate game.

In the same way, the game played at the USDGC this year was "brutal disc golf," but not the game of disc golf as we've known it. Yes, throw and distance is a rule for certain situations in both ball golf and disc golf. However, the frequency those situations arise is relatively rare and occurs only on really offline shots, is not a threat on most shots on most holes such that it dominates the core play of the round. I believe SnapChing and USDGC 2010 have each strayed too far in opposite directions from the underlying game of "golf with discs" that our rules have shaped over the years.

Hoser
Nov 27 2010, 01:38 PM
Chuck, re Post #85:

[We also want to reply to your very thoughtful Post #87. We'll do that in a separate reply, later today.)


801.04D Playing the stipulated course. Essentially, the group allowed the player to play the hole a certain way and it turned out it was not the correct way. Two-throw penalty for misplaying a hole. Note that section B of this rule delineates how specific misplays be handled but those are not the only types of misplays 801.04 covers. Section D appears to be the appropriate call for what occurred even though it talks about holing out. As mentioned before, the group felt the player had done what was necessary to hole out so this was part of the misplay.

Why does Bubba deserve a 2-stroke penalty for a misplay, under Rule 801.04D?

That�s really a double question: (1) What misplay did Bubba commit? And (2) does 801.04D cover that particular misplay?


Rule 801.04D says, �In instances where a misplay is discovered after the pertinent hole or holes have been completed (holed out), the misplay shall not be replayed and the player shall receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay.�


When you read 801.04D by itself, the words �a misplay� make it look like 801.04D may cover all possible misplays of the course, including wrong stance, practice throw, and throwing from another player�s lie.

But when you read 801.04D in the context of the rest of 801.04, it looks more like �a misplay� refers only to the five kinds of misplay specified in 801.04B:


Rule 801.04B � �Specific types of misplay and penalty procedures for each� � tells how to play and how to score when you (1) play from a wrong tee, (2) misplay a mandatory, (3) play into a wrong target, (4) play from OB, or (5) skip holes or play holes out of sequence.


The RC could easily have written 801.04B to govern stance fouls, and practice throws, in addition to wrong tee, misplayed mandatory, wrong target, playing from OB, and playing holes in the wrong sequence. 801.04B�s �one if by land, two if by sea� governance can work reasonably for all eight of those misplays. Yet the RC chose to write separate rules to govern stance fouls, practice throws, and throwing from another player�s lie. Doesn�t that make you think that, if the RC has intended 801.04D to govern misplays other than the five specified in 801.04B, they would have said so much more clearly than �a misplay�?

Moreover, when you look at 801.04B and 801.04D together, they�re a matched pair designed to give each of 801.04B�s five specific misplays a maximum two-stroke penalty:


� 801.04B gives one penalty stroke for repairing any of four specified misplays after a single stroke but before completing the hole; and two penalty strokes for repairing any of those four misplays after two or more strokes but before completing the hole. (�Wrong target� is an anomaly � yet its treatment under 801.04B(3) exactly matches the way 801.04D penalizes it.)

� And 801.04D gives two penalty strokes for an any-number-of-shots instance of any of 801.04B's five specific misplays, that is discovered after the hole is completed.


Furthermore, what about the �double jeopardy� angle? Again, when you look at 801.04B and 801.04D as a matched pair, you see that the RC means to give a maximum two-stroke penalty for any of 801.04B�s five specific misplays, no matter how late the misplay is discovered. In other words, you get EITHER one penalty stroke for a single-shot misplay that�s discovered before you complete the hole OR two penalty strokes for a two-or-more-shot misplay that�s discovered before you complete the hole OR two penalty strokes for an any-number-of-shots misplay that�s discovered after you complete the hole. You never get TWO two-stroke penalties � under 801.04B and under 801.04D � for a misplay that�s discovered after completing the hole.

Chuck, even if you do extrapolate 801.04D to cover misplays that aren�t specified in 801.04B � an iffy extrapolation � you still are putting Bubba in double jeopardy (punishing him twice for the same crime) if you apply 801.04D�s two-stroke penalty to punish his �misplay� in the scenario.

Our Post #77 explained two equally legitimate ways � each completely supported by certain rules of play � to rule on how Bubba played out the hole after throwing from a place that wasn�t on his lie and that happened to be on another player�s lie. One way to rule is the �practice throw� (803.01B) way, which scores Bubba 5. The other is the �wrong player�s lie� (803.10A) way, which scores Bubba 9. Each of those scores already includes Bubba paying in full for his misplay. Why, then, would you ding Bubba an additional time, under 801.04D, for the same misplay? Particularly, why would you use 801.04D to double-hump Bubba under the �practice throw� way of ruling, since Bubba did discover his practice-throw misplay before he completed the hole?


Essentially, the group allowed the player to play the hole a certain way and it turned out it was not the correct way. Two-throw penalty for misplaying a hole.

Under the PDGA rulebook, there is no �the correct way,� but instead there are two equally correct (though conflicting) ways, for Bubba to play out the hole after he throws from a place that�s not on his lie and that happens to be on another player�s lie. Neither the �practice throw� way nor the �wrong player�s lie� way is more, or less, correct than the other. (The fact that the two ways conflict is the RC�s problem, not Bubba�s.)

Chuck, please say exactly what misplay Bubba committed, that deserves to be penalized once under its own specific rule and also penalized a second time, on top of that, via your �all misplays� extrapolation of 801.04D.


Mike & Matt.

cgkdisc
Nov 27 2010, 02:00 PM
The group counted four throws plus a practice throw for five. That was incorrect and the reason for the the 2-throw misplay penalty. Very straightforward. You're making it more complicated than necessary, which unfortunately is easy to do. It's also clear that 801.04B describes how those specific misplays should be handled. 801.04D is the umbrella rule that covers other misplays with a similar 2-throw penalty as those in 801.04B.

Hoser
Nov 27 2010, 10:38 PM
David, thank you for your Post #84.


If a debate occurs during a round because of a DROT (disc resting on top), and no one has the technical standards on hand or there is a debate about what they say---what happens? Another "call the TD"? If the TD can't be reached, are players stuck with doing what they think the technical standards say, at the risk of having to replay everything from that point on if they're wrong?

You raise a very good point.

The short answer to your question is, �Yes, that�s what happens.�

But that answer exposes a hard edge to SnapChing�s rules: A SnapChinger always has to know where her lie is, because every time she releases a flight from a wrong stance, it costs her 1 and her lie doesn�t advance. In your scenario, if she doesn�t know whether her DROT completes the hole, then she doesn�t know, under SnapChing Rule 7, whether her lie is under the basket or on the next tee.

We, like you, are bothered by the fact that a SnapChinger who doesn�t promptly fix her misplay can accumulate a horrible score without ever advancing her lie. And we, like you, worry that the tournament flow might be disrupted by SnapChingers having to go �far� back to correct their misplays (although PDGA disc golfers may face a similar hindrance under Rule 803.01D(5)).

David, we wandered a twisting road of logic before we decided on SnapChing�s way of dealing with misplays. We considered fixed penalties � as the PDGA has, over the years, used fixed penalties of two, three, four, or even six strokes to govern misplays. We considered giving a �default� score to a misplayed hole: score the player �par + X� with X being a number high enough to give you little or no hope of gaining competitive advantage by purposefully misplaying a tough hole. We finally concluded that every way, that we were able to imagine for scoring misplays, had some kind of big flaw in either expressing the rule clearly or in applying the rule to all scenarios to get consistently fair scores.

We reluctantly chose SnapChing�s way, principally because the rules that create it � Rules 8 and 11 � are very simple and always easy to apply. We don�t deny that SnapChing�s consequence of failing to fix a misplay can get harsh. We wish we�d been able to figure simple, easy-to-use rules to better handle all misplays.

Still, we expect that Rules 8 and 11 will motivate SnapChingers to pay close attention to their own stances and their competitors� stances, and that stance fouls will be called quickly. We anticipate that SnapChingers will be much more motivated to call fouls than PDGA disc golfers are. Because of the impact of Rules 8 and 11 on misplayers, a person who calls a stance foul is actually doing the fouler a favor, saving him from piling up unnecessary score. That�s a whole different social exchange than when a PDGA disc golfer calls a warning for a foul: the disc golf caller gets a social sink and the fouler gets off free. This �I hate how it feels to call a foul� atmosphere in disc golf is the main reason � much moreso than ignorance of PDGA rules � why disc golfers commonly choose not to call fouls. So we�ve tried to create a more supportive, courteous environment for SnapChingers to call fouls.


* * *


How are ties broken in snapching? Perhaps it's intuitive that it's by hole-by-hole sudden-death, but can it be determined by the snapching rules? (This applies to casual play and tournament play). Someone might hold out for CTP, or a minimum number of tie-breaker holes, or even an extra round.


If SnapChingers finish in a tie, then they have used Rules of SnapChing to playing the regulation course and now it�s up to the TD to make a local rule to govern how to break the tie. Sudden death, CTP, four-hole playoff, or an extra round, are all options the TD might choose. In casual play, the group decides. In a tournament, the TD decides � and she knows she�ll get an earful from the players if she decides something dumb like coin flip, RoShamBo, or a survivor-reality-show type of contest.


* * *


Moving "stuff that's not attached" seems intuitive. But does this go to picnic tables and porta-johns? Cars (assuming you have access to the keys)---at Earlewood some players like to drive over a parking area, but a van parked there can block the route? How to determine whether these are permanently attached, or not?


Good question. To answer it, we�ll take you behind the scenes in our writing of SnapChing�s obstacle rule.

The PDGA wants you to play the course as you find it (see Rule 803.01A). That means if a storm comes through the course before the round and scatters debris, then you must play the debris-strewn course without removing the debris during the round, except when the casual relief rule lets you move a few specific obstacles in a few specific ways.

We feel that the game is more fun and sensible if you play the course as it was designed. The designers created the course to be fun and challenging to play with certain features in place (i.e., stuff attached to the ground) and with no capricious (non-design) obstacles getting in the way of your stance, run-up, throwing motion, follow-through, flight path, or your strategy of how to play the course.

So we�ve written SnapChing�s obstacle rule (it�s the third �bullet� of the THROW definition in Rule 3) to guide you to play the course as it was designed. Our obstacle rule lets you restore the course design by freely moving stuff that�s not attached to the ground. And our rule encourages you to clean up the course as you go, to maintain the design. We think this makes the game more fun, and creates a more sensible skill challenge, than the PDGA�s �play the course as you find it� philosophy.

To answer your question:


� If an object is attached to the ground, you�re allowed to alter the object�s position it but you must replace it before you throw, except you�re allowed to take the least-displacing stance. For example, you can move branches aside as you approach your lie and take your stance within trees or bushes, provided that, except for being in the least-displacing stance, you reposition those branches before you release your disc into flight.

� If an object isn�t attached to the ground, you can move or remove the object without penalty, any time and anyplace and for any reason, no matter where the object is in relation to your lie or the target, and no matter when it got to where it is, and no matter what effect its removal may have on your play. In summary, you�re always allowed and encouraged to restore the course design.

� If you aren�t sure whether an object is attached to the ground or not, you�d better consult the TD before you try to remove it � because if you move attached stuff and don�t replace it before throwing, your next stance won�t be correct and your score will go up 1 but your lie won�t change.


An object�s size or mass has nothing to do with whether it�s attached to the ground. A leaf that�s lying on the ground, and a car that�s parked on the ground, are equally not attached to the ground. Some picnic tables are attached to the ground by the legs being buried into the ground or by a chain connecting the table to concrete that�s buried in the ground. Some picnic tables aren�t attached to the ground � and SnapChing considers such unattached tables not to be part of the course design, since their location is capricious. Porta-johns, if they�re true to their name, aren�t connected to the ground. (If you move one, be sure no one is inside at the time.) But anytime you�re not sure if something is attached to the ground, ask the TD to rule on it.

SnapChing doesn�t use the word �permanent� to describe whether something is attached to the ground. Stuff is either attached to the ground or it�s not. There�s no difference in how SnapChingers play obstacles that are permanently v. temporarily attached to the ground. For example: if a TD sets a movable (not attached) tee marker next to a temporary tee pad, you�re free to move that marker out of the way of your run-up or follow-through; but if the TD stakes a tee marker into the ground next to that same temporary tee, you must leave the marker in place as you throw.


* * *


I understand the no-fly line, but if it ends without a pole or other vertical object, how can you judge whether a throw crossed over the line, or beyond the end of the line, from a distance?


TDs know that if they create a no-fly line, they have to do it in a way so players can tell whether discs cross the line or not. A TD might accomplish this by marking the ends of the line with visible objects. Or the TD might declare, �The no-fly line starts and Tree X and runs straight through Tree Y, and the line keeps on running straight until it runs off the course.� You can go to Tree X, use line-of-sight to �see� the whole line run to and past Tree Y, and you can figure out whether your disc crossed the line on either side of Tree Y.

As you release your flight and watch your disc sail toward or around a no-fly line, you�ll have about the same difficulty knowing whether your disc did or didn�t cross the line, as a disc golfer has knowing whether his disc did or didn�t make the mando. When you to your disc, you may get more evidence. In cases where it�s a really close call, you�re going to have to proceed on the basis of your whole group agreeing one way or the other � and anyone who doesn�t agree is free to call the TD and plead his case. The TD will consider factual evidence, hear witness reports, and rule.


Thank you for your questions, David.


Matt & Mike :) :)

gdstour
Nov 28 2010, 09:10 PM
I admire anyone that tries to be unique or innovative and is willing to throw their ideas into the ring. I think opening up dialog on sensitive PDGA subjects like rules and regulations and the who's and hows of enforcement is a really good thing.

I'll be the first to agree our current system of enforcing existing rules and regulations is lacking quite a bit in terms of what is needed for a professional sport.
Its easy enough to create a really thick rule book that covers all of the bases, but from what I know and have seen first hand, enforcement and consistency in enforcement is one of the biggest problems and certainly needs to be addresses for the future of the sport.
Unfortunately it usually boils down to money and human resources that is a huge obstacle in professionalizing our sport and the consistent enforcement of the rules.
EX:
Giving the players the ability to change the outcome of a tournament because they feel their courtesy is being violated is going to escalate into more than just isolated incidents and needs to be addresses sooner than later. It too subjective to each players ( or TD's) opinion and from what Ive seen usaully backfires on the player calling a CV because of the added tension it creates. Courtesy violations of acts the effect the integrity of the game should only be called by TD's or officials.
On the other hand how many TD's will actually walk with a 4-some and start issuing rules violations for courtesy or foot faults?

Allowing local rules for a national organization that can/will change from event to event is unrealistic,,,,,, unless the TD has a GREAT BIG STACK of ADDED MONEY to hand out and skin as thick as a Rhyno :)


I think the list of willing and able TD's for events governed by the single page snapching rules would be awfully short.

Just to take a quick survey, is there anyone out there that would be willing to take entry fees and run a pdga X tier event using the snap ching rules? ( without the big stack of added money to give away of course )

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 12:26 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #87. What you are saying is extremely important. You are touching on the core of why you�re resisting �different� rules and why we believe they are necessary.


The fundamental quest for the development of disc golf rules over the years has been to do whatever is needed to play the existing game of golf but with discs.


The inventor(s) of Frisbee golf � whether it was Ed Headrick in 1966, trying to come up with ways to market the Frisbee, or Fred Morrison in the 1930s tossing cake tins with his girlfriend on Santa Monica beaches, or Harvard students throwing pie tins in the 1950s � thought of disc golf as another form of golf.

That was a natural thing to think. Golf was an established sport. Everybody knew the basics of the game. You stand on a tee and hit a ball with a club, then play the ball where it lies until you get it in the hole. Do that 18 times. Drink beer, go home, lie about your score.

Golf was a natural model for an opportunity to enjoy what �Steady� Ed Headrick (PDGA #0001) called �the marvelous sensation of throwing flying discs with power and accuracy.� It was easy to imagine playing golf by throwing discs by hand instead of hitting balls with clubs. You fling a disc through the air. You go to where it lands, and throw from there, trying to �get it in the hole.� Some early Frisbee golf targets actually resembled golf holes: a car tire lying on the ground or some other kind of �ground basket� for a disc to land in.

In those early days, there were mavericks who made up odd rules that didn�t fit golf yet played intriguingly with flying discs. Steady Ed was a bit of a maverick when he designed a target that was up off the ground. (Ed�s Pole Hole target addressed one of the many differences between golf and disc golf, namely that a three-foot comeback putt in golf is exciting but a three-foot comeback putt in disc golf is boring, so it makes sense to elevate the disc golf target so if you try to hole out and miss, you�re likely to land far enough away to make the comeback putt a challenge.)

Mostly, players kept thinking of Frisbee golf as �golf.� When the PDGA became the central authority for disc golf rules and published its first rulebook in 1980, that organization�s movers and shakers were firmly in the �disc golf = golf� camp. And they still are today.

In the 1970s, local clubs, or groups of pals out flinging Frisbees in the park, often made up Frisbee golf rules that would seem odd and non-golf-y by today�s PDGA standards. When PDGA rules took over in 1980, those odd rules faded away. Players who have discovered the game since 1980 have a hard time imagining disc golf as anything other than �a disc-y kind of golf.�

By contrast, players who learned the game in the 1970s � which includes the inventors of SnapChing � are able to stretch their minds to imagine different ways to play a �golf-type� disc game. We�re not so strapped into the notion that disc golf MUST be played as much like golf as possible.

To those who see disc golf only as �disc-y golf,� the concept of �other� rules, that aren�t like golf rules, must seem chaotic. It must feel like, �We�re in here, safe with our rules, and OUT THERE is chaos.�

But to those of us whose pioneer experience in Frisbee golf lets us imagine wider horizons, disc golf via the PDGA rulebook may feel like, �We�re in here, and it�s weird in here, so even if it�s chaotic OUT THERE it still may make sense to venture out and see if, somewhere in that chaos, there�s a better rule system for this great game.�

When SnapChing�s inventors started creating SnapChing, it wasn�t with the aim to build a new game. We were trying to figure out ways to improve the existing PDGA rulebook: write it clearer; repair conflicts in the rules; find a balance of reward and punishment that creates optimum skill-challenge strategy. (If you want to see how wildly the PDGA has thrashed, in search of that balance, check out the six-stroke penalties in the 1990 PDGA rulebook.)

As we tried to improve the existing PDGA rules, we thought deeply about the nature of a golf-type disc game, and gradually we realized that a disc-by-hand version of the game is necessarily is different in many ways from a ball-by-club version. And we realized that those differences need rules that are not exactly (or sometimes hardly at all) like golf rules.

At the same time, we realized how complicated it is to change any one rule in the PDGA rulebook. That rulebook is like a house of cards: to change the position of one, you have to prop up all the ones around it. That realization gave us great empathy for the Rules Committee�s task. And it let us understand why PDGA rules of play have swelled in thirty years from 1500 words to 8700 words: it takes a lot of verbiage to prop up all the little changes that have accumulated over those years.

Eventually we gave up trying to fix the existing rulebook. We stepped away to start from scratch, to imagine rules that would create the best possible golf-type disc game. That moment was liberating, scary, exhilarating and confusing: an emotional mix of �Better rules are possible!� and �Oh %#@, what have we gotten ourselves into?�

Drawing on our 1970s Frisbee golf experience and opening our minds to imagine rules that hadn�t yet been imagined, we still found it very hard to construct a whole new set of rules for a golf-type disc game. We�ve been struggling at it for fifteen years. In that time, we�ve thrown away hundreds of drafts that failed to clearly and precisely govern a game that felt to us, from our perspective of 40 years in the game, like the best possible golf-type disc game.

Rules of SnapChing comes close enough that we�re now willing to set it out for the public to gnaw on.

Our experience of creating Rules of SnapChing has let us see PDGA rules in a new light. We�re reminded of the phenomenon of a frog in hot water. If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will hop right out. But if you put a frog into a pot of cold water, and slowly heat that pan on a stove, the frog will incrementally adjust to the heat and won�t hop out. And he�ll eventually boil.

That�s what the PDGA rulebook looks like to us now. Disc golfers who have played for a long time (but not farther back than 1980) have gradually adjusted to the complexity of PDGA rules, not really noticing that the rulebook has swollen six-fold, and always thinking, �The PDGA is just about to get the rules right.�

Current players (some of them) accept that. But new players, just coming into the game, hesitate to jump into the boiling pot. The game looks attractive at first glance, and it�s great fun to fling discs with power and accuracy, but when new players see the PDGA rulebook, they shrink from it, just like they would jerk their hand out of boiling water.

We�re not casting blame. We�re just acknowledging that the closer you study golf and disc golf, the more you see that these games are different in many respects. As you delve into scenarios that have different aspects in golf than in disc golf, you see that golf�s rules often adapt to disc golf like an ill-fitting suit. You can cut and patch that suit all you want, but it�s never going to fit comfortably and it�s always going to look like a patched-up, Rube Goldberg version of golf.

So we�ve decided not to model SnapChing on golf. We�ve taken just the bare skeleton of golf � an 18-hole course, play from tee to target, play where it lies � and asked, �What rules can create the best fun and the most intriguing skill challenge, to flesh out this skeleton with flying discs?�

In answering that question, we�ve created a game that is slightly different from PDGA disc golf, to take away awkwardnesses that arise from trying to emulate golf, and to best balance challenge with fairness in the experience of throwing discs with power and accuracy. (Click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/snapchingVSdiscgolf.html) to see the specific differences between SnapChing and disc golf.)

Chuck, we�re not really trying to change your mind. It�s okay with us if you keep thinking of disc golf as a close cousin of golf, and if you insist on always trying to adapt golf�s rules to disc golf. Thousands of players agree with you, including the RC and the PDGA board of directors.

But thousands of other disc golfers strongly resist the PDGA rulebook. They refuse to read it. When they do read it, it confuses them so much that they just want to shut it and put it away and not be bound by it. They find the process of enforcing PDGA rules� fruitless warnings so socially distasteful that they just ignore fouls rather than call them. These players are as much a true representation of today�s disc golf, as are the players who think the PDGA rulebook is �good enough.�

And there are tens of millions of future potential disc golfers � or SnapChingers � who have never seen a PDGA rulebook. If you tell those folks to hop into the pot of boiling water, they�ll respond, �Are you out of your mind?�

We�ve developed Rules of SnapChing to show that another way is possible, maybe a better way, to play a golf-type disc game. Sure, a lot of disc golfers are going to resist that idea. And a lot more are going to say, �Hey, lemme see that!�


[SnapChing is] "disc golf lite" at best and may be fine as a separate game.

Chuck, you�ll probably never comprehend the precision and clarity of Rules of SnapChing until you and your friends go to your favorite course and play a few rounds of SnapChing. When you do that, you�ll get a different sense of this game. You may or may not like it. But you�ll realize that PDGA rules are only one viable way to play a golf-type disc game. SnapChing rules are another. And Dave Dunipace and other disc golfers are imagining still other versions.

For 30 years, no door has seemed open to seek alternate ways to play. Our public release of Rules of SnapChing is opening a door. We�re not saying that SnapChing is the ultimate answer or the best possible way to play a golf-type disc game. But we�ve put fifteen years of thought into trying to achieve that, and we invite you and all disc golfers � present and future � to give our game a try. What have you got to lose, except your preconceptions?


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 01:20 PM
GDSTOUR, thank you for your positive energy (Post #91) and creative thinking.

We�re hungry to organize SnapChing tournaments, but right now it�s hard for us to do that. Mike is stuck in New York City with no car. (His wife is CEO of Girl Scouts of the USA, and it will be next fall before she retires and she and Mike return to live in Nashville, TN). Matt is working full-time in Dallas, but he hopes to put some events together soon.

Our first SnapChing event may be to just bring a dozen foursomes together for a two-round contest. That should give us good info about how players are, or aren�t, able to use our rules, and how many rulings the TD will be called on to make.

A small event like that won�t need much prize money. It just needs players who are curious to see how the new game works. We think there is a pretty good pool of players in the Dallas area, who are disenchanted with the PDGA rulebook and who would be willing to experiment on a sunny afternoon with SnapChing. For prize money, we may dig into our own pockets or seek sponsorship from Steve Howle�s Lightning Discs.

Meanwhile, if anyone else wants to try running SnapChing events, we heartily encourage them!


* * *


We agree with you, that rule enforcement is a huge problem in PDGA disc golf.

But we DO NOT lay the blame on players� character deficiency or moral decay.

We believe two things drive disc golfers to ignore fouls rather than call them. One is the complexity of the rulebook, that makes players unsure how to rule even if they want to. The other is the presence of warnings in many rules. Anytime a disc golfer calls a warning on a competitor (for courtesy or any other foul), the caller gets a social stink and the fouler gets off free (and sometimes gets to take a mulligan). The wrong person gets punished.

Facing those two obstacles, disc golfers naturally shrink from enforcing rules.

What�s the solution? Write clear rules that have no warnings, and make those rules treat misplays in a way so foulers will welcome others to quickly call their fouls. Rules of SnapChing does exactly that.


David, please keep your ideas coming. And we invite you to offer tough field-of-play scenarios for Rules of SnapChing to solve.


Mike & Matt :) :)

cgkdisc
Nov 29 2010, 01:32 PM
Sorry Hoser, but no matter how clear the rules are for SnapChing, I don't believe course designers and risk/reward aficionados will be satisfied with the SnapChing version of a "golf" experience. SnapChing Rule 7 guts the game play of risk/reward challenges similar to golf where the player still progresses down the fairway if they fail in executing a variety of potential design hazards but get some form of penalty whether it be a shot, some loss of distance or both. SnapChing completely removes that element and any player choice for how they "take their medicine" with Snap Ching simply requiring a rethrow for any sort of hazard created whether OB, missed mando, above 2m, relief area or buncr.

I believe removing that core risk/reward element from golf is fatal in the SnapChing rules execution. Not only that, players in general will not have time to retrieve their disc and use it for the rethrow. That's another negative on the "fun" ledger.

davidsauls
Nov 29 2010, 02:03 PM
Our first SnapChing event may be to just bring a dozen foursomes together for a two-round contest. That should give us good info about how players are, or aren�t, able to use our rules, and how many rulings the TD will be called on to make.

A small event like that won�t need much prize money. It just needs players who are curious to see how the new game works. We think there is a pretty good pool of players in the Dallas area, who are disenchanted with the PDGA rulebook and who would be willing to experiment on a sunny afternoon with SnapChing. For prize money, we may dig into our own pockets or seek sponsorship from Steve Howle�s Lightning Discs.



That's definitely the way to shake things out. Semi-formal, local play, just playing for each other's entry fees.

I think you're wrong on rules enforcement, though. I don't think the rulebook has anything to do with it. It's the culture. I've seen many instances of stance and time violations where other players KNEW the rulebook and knew it was a violation, but chose to not call it because of the casual culture of disc golf.

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 02:16 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #94.


We agree with you, that retrieving discs may cause too much delay. We�re giving that more thought.


* * *


I don't believe course designers and risk/reward aficionados will be satisfied with the SnapChing version of a "golf" experience.


You�re probably right: people who are looking for a golf experience � the kind of penal way that golf rules govern play � may not like SnapChing.

On the other hand, a group of SnapChingers, walking off the course at the end of the day, will have had exactly as much skill challenge as if they�d played disc golf. They will have been exactly as motivated to throw with power and accuracy as disc golfers. They will have strategized as thoughtfully, to earn low score by making the most of SnapChing�s risk/reward balance, as disc golfers would strategize to play PDGA disc golf or golfers would strategize to play PGA golf.

SnapChing does feel different from golf and disc golf. It feels less punitive (if you don�t foul a lot of stances). You�ll score 49 instead of 51, after going OB twice in the round or after losing your lie once. You�ll get into fewer field-of-play situations that require you to thumb through 120 rules to figure out how to play.

We don�t yet have much testimony from SnapChingers, rating their satisfaction with the game. Our own experience has been really positive (and we are players who WILL stick our leg into a thorn bush). Hopefully other reports will be coming in soon.

Meanwhile we renew our invitation for you to go with your friends to your favorite course and play some SnapChing. Let us know how disappointing or rewarding the experience really feels to you.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 02:29 PM
David, thank you for your Post #95.


It would be interesting to conduct a poll of PDGA members, to find out, from those who aren't inclined to call fouls, why they resist.

Whatever their answer, this poll might give the PDGA information to take steps to cure the problem.


Writing clearer rules that encourage rule enforcement is a tough challenge, but we've tried in Rules of SnapChing.

Instilling character or curing moral flaws in players is way, way tougher.

Changing a culture is a stout challenge that may require carrot or stick or both.


Whatever the problem is, and whatever the solution, it's really important, to the viability and future potential of the sport, to solve it.


Mike & Matt :confused: :confused:

wsfaplau
Nov 29 2010, 03:09 PM
Mike and Matt,

I don't get to play much in the winter so I haven't had a chance to try snapching yet but I will. The rules seem to hold up to scenarios. I think just playing more will help workout potential kinks, like retrieving a thrown disc, will get worked out.

Lots of people won't be willing to even try it out but I think even more will.

What was the thinking that got you to the wording for rule 3?

cgkdisc
Nov 29 2010, 04:22 PM
You’re probably right: people who are looking for a golf experience – the kind of penal way that golf rules govern play – may not like SnapChing.
SnapChing penalizes with 1-shot rethrows with no proportionality to the player's throwing error. Golf penalizes proportional to the error by placing your next lie down the fairway close to the point where the error occurred. It's sometimes the equivalent of more than a 1-throw penalty, sometimes exactly 1 throw and sometimes less. And, the player can sometimes continue from a more interesting lie.

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 05:13 PM
Pete, thanks for your support in Post #98! As soon as you get to play some SnapChing, let us know how it goes.


What was the thinking that got you to the wording for rule 3?


Rule 3 was a great adventure to write. The �throw� definition drives all the rules of the game.

Our early drafts of Rules of SnapChing had a glossary. As we simplified our rules and steered our game away from golf terminology, we were able to whittle the glossary down to three terms: throw, lie and rest.

As you see in Rule 7, we found that we were able to define �lie� and �rest� easily within that rule.

That left �throw.� We wanted �throw� to mean this in SnapChing: whenever you see �throw� in a rule, you know it means a toss that can advance you along the field of play. And tosses that aren�t �throws� can�t advance you.

This turned out to be a hard thing to express simply and precisely. First we needed to answer six questions:

What is the object that is thrown?

It�s a disc. But �disc� can mean anything from a Frisbee to a coin. Let�s narrow it down. It�s a disc that the sport�s governing body (the World SnapChing League) approves for play: a WSL-approved disc. This means that if you toss an unapproved disc during a SnapChing tournament, it�s never a �throw� and it can�t advance your lie.

What is the required motion of the thrown object?

It�s either a flight or a roll. We decided that the disc must, for at least an instant after release, touch nothing but air, which means the following motions are never �throws�:


� Nudge your disc along the ground.

� Lay your disc down.


In thinking about �required motion,� we considered the PDGA definition of �throw�:

Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.
�Propulsion of a disc,� implies that the thrower exerts a force, maybe intentionally, that moves the disc. We wanted SnapChing rules to be as free as possible from depending on knowing anyone�s intent (we�ll explain, below). So we looked for a way to define �throw� that didn�t depend on knowing whether anyone exerted a force on the disc. We found this solution: divide all flight releases � i.e., all releases of a disc out of your hand and into the air � into drops (which never are throws) and non-drops (which, if they meet certain criteria, are throws). We drew the line at �drop� because a drop is the only form of disc-release-into-air that can�t bring you any information to improve your play. We�ll explain that in a moment. And we chose the word �release� because the instant of releasing a disc into flight is generally the key instant that matters in any rule about throws.

What is/are the necessary motion(s) of the thrower?

The necessary motion of the thrower is the motion that sets the disc into flight. Is it the swing of your arm? Clearing your hip? Your run-up? Your follow-through? On the field of play, we looked at throwing motions and saw that one instant stands out: the instant the disc leaves your hand and enters air. The act of release is what brings information about your nerves, muscles, strategy, and conditions on the course, that can improve your future play. No amount of practice or warm-up of the other parts of the throwing motion can bring you that information. So the act of release is the sole act that�s worth charging 1 on your scorecard. And the instant of release is the sole instant when any requirements (such as stance) about what does or doesn�t constitute a �throw� will matter.

We considered one more thing about the motion of releasing a disc into flight: how to release it. By hand? By foot? By artificial device? We decided to eliminate artificial devices because direct human contact with the disc, at the instant of release, is key to this game�s fun and skill challenge. (Although it might also be fun to invent a different game where you fly discs with the aid of launchers, radio-control flight adjusters, spin accelerators, etc.) As for using various parts of your body to initiate or extend a disc flight � such as tossing with your foot or bouncing a disc off your hip or knee or head or elbow � we decided to keep the game simple by limiting �throws� to �by hand,� which generally is the most effective way to fly discs with power and accuracy.

Does the thrower�s intent matter?

We�ve tried to eliminate, from SnapChing rules, any consideration of what anyone intends or believes or feels or thinks during play. Why? Because you can�t know for sure what�s on another person�s mind; and if you doubt what he claims, you�re doubting his honesty. Fortunately, rules can avoid that whole problem by simply governing what you DO. So we decided to define �throw� in relation to what you DO; then, whenever a �throw� rule comes into play, it�s irrelevant what�s on the thrower�s mind.

(The only SnapChing rules that may involve intent are the DQ offenses in Rule 2. The TD, alone, is empowered to decide whether a player�s actions deserve DQ.)

Does the distance or direction of the thrown disc�s travel matter?

Some PDGA rulebook revisions have linked your score, your lie, and maybe your intent, to very short distances that your disc travels after your hand releases it. We decided to draw the line between releases that affect your score/lie, and releases that don�t, this way: a disc release is either a drop or it�s not a drop. Unlike all other disc releases into air by hand, a drop can�t give you any information that can improve your future play. A drop is no more helpful to your play than tap dancing. The game is not served in any way by raising your score or moving your lie when you drop a disc.

So: exactly what makes a release a drop? Must the disc fall straight down? Can a drop happen while the thrower�s hand is in motion? Does it matter what distance or direction the disc moves before or after it hits the ground? In SnapChing, the answer is: a disc release into air by hand is a drop if the group agrees that it is. The group, seeing the release, can judge whether the release could give the thrower any info at all that can improve his future play. If they agree that it couldn�t give any such info, then it�s a drop and it doesn�t count in any way. If the group can�t agree, call the TD to rule.

When do throws count on your score?

Throws should count during competition, and not between rounds. Is there a way to say exactly when every player�s competition begins and ends? We decided that your throws start counting at the start signal and stop counting when you hit your last target. SnapChing�s rules refer to that period, between the start signal and hitting your last target (excepting TD suspensions of play), as �during your play.� Outside of the �during your play� period, you can do whatever you want and it won�t count on your score.


After answering those six questions that influence �what kind of toss can advance you along the field of play,� we began to define �throw� as a single act happening at a single instant. (We�re underlining, here, to show the separate elements that are packed into the rule.)

In these rules, �throw� = release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play.
Our adventure to define SnapChing�s key skill act was only beginning. We wanted �throw� to mean tosses that can advance you along the field of play (so-called legal tosses) and not tosses that don�t advance you (illegal tosses). So the �throw� definition also must specify every other thing that you�re required to do at the instant you release a flight: every detail about how you must position your body vis-�-vis the field of play.

First we decided to change disc golf�s requirement of where your �plant� foot goes. Instead of stepping on 30 centimeters of the line of play behind the marker, we honor Frisbee golf�s original �lie� concept by letting SnapChingers step on a 1�-wide circle (the size and shape of a 165g Frisbee at rest). A 1�-wide circle is big enough to reasonably hit on a run-up, and small enough to maintain the challenge of awkward lies.

Next we studied the PDGA stance rules. Those rules treat stance as three separate things: stance on a tee; stance subsequent to teeing off; and putting stance (within 10M).

Desiring to create simple rules, we wondered it might be possible to write a single rule with a single stance requirement that would work on all lies on the course. To do that, we�d have to do two things:


� Let �lie� mean �the place you must touch as you throw.� That would include tees and drop zones as well as lies on the fairway and on the green.

� Let falling putts count. (We�ll say more about that later.)


A single stance that could work for every lie on the course � tees, drop zones, fairways and putts � likely would resemble the PDGA stance at fairway lies:


� At the instant of release, touch your lie. (It�s not necessary to identify body parts or say what supports anything. Just require a body part to touch the lie.)

� At the instant of release, touch nothing closer to the target than your lie.

� At the instant of release, don�t touch OB.


This kind of all-purpose stance would change the game two ways. (1) On a tee or a drop zone, you could put your �off� foot beside or behind the tee or zone. (2) Falling putts would count.

We temporarily set aside the issue of falling putts, so we could study how this all-purpose stance requirement might fit into our definition of �throw�:

In these rules, �throw� = release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play, and at that instant:
� Touch your lie and nothing closer to the target.
� Don�t touch OB.

As we looked at that definition, we realized: for your disc release to advance you along the field of play, not only must you be in correct relation to the lie and the target, you also must in correct relation to features of the course that we call obstacles. This relation, too, ought to be covered in the �throw� definition.

We studied the PDGA treatment of obstacles. The overall concept that those rules create � and Rule 803.01A puts it into plain words � is that the PDGA wants disc golfers to play the course as you find it.

We decided that SnapChing would be a better playing experience if our rules guide you to play the course as it was designed.

What�s the difference? Imagine a newly-designed course, pristine, with all permanent (i.e., attached to the ground) features in place and no debris on the course. This course is in exactly the condition that the designers envision it to be played. Imagine playing this course � how it looks and feels, and how you strategize your throwing options.

Now imagine that a storm (or a bunch of sloppy humans) comes through and scatters fallen limbs and other debris on the course. Imagine your experience of playing this after-the-storm course if you aren�t allowed to clear the debris away. You won�t have as much fun. Capricious obstacles are hindering your stance, run-up, throwing motion, follow-through, flight path, and strategy. And the course has to stay cluttered, since you aren�t allowed to clean it up during play.

Throughout our development of SnapChing rules, we�ve tried to make the game as fun as possible, without sacrificing challenges inherent in the course design. Since each course is designed to create a good skill challenge when the course is clean and free of capricious (unattached) obstacles, we feel that it�s reasonable to always play the course in that condition, and always maintain that design by removing unattached stuff at any time, no matter when it got there and no matter where the item is located vis-�-vis your lie, the target, your stance, your run-up, your throwing motion, your follow-through or your intended flight path. We feel that the experience of playing the game is best for everyone, if everyone removes those items rather than play around them. And �play the course as it was designed,� unlike �play the course as you find it,� is good incentive to keep your course clean and orderly.

Therefore we decided to let SnapChingers move anything at any time, as long as, at the instant you release your disc into flight, you have replaced every attached-to-the-ground thing (i.e., every feature of the course design) that you�ve moved.

We made two exceptions about moving and not replacing stuff that�s attached to the ground. (1) We allow you to throw from the stance that least displaces things attached to the ground (just like in disc golf). (2) We allow you to trample grass and weeds. Grass is obvious: you can�t play the game without stepping on it. Weeds� seasonal presence contributes little or no value to the course design. And if the public has any opinion about weeds, it�s to get rid of them. We feel that the game plays more fun if weeds aren�t there.

Now we were ready to rule how a SnapChinger�s body must relate to obstacles at the instant she releases her disc into flight. Our �throw� definition became:

In these rules, �throw� = release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play, and at that instant:
� Touch your lie and nothing closer to the target.
� Don�t touch OB.
� Position your body to least displace things attached to the ground except grass and weeds; and already try to replace every other such thing you�ve moved.


Pete, there's more . . . but the thread software won't let us put it all in a single post. See our next post for the final chapter.

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 05:21 PM
[For Pete Kenny . . . continuation of our Post #100]


Our �throw� definition was almost complete. Just one thing was missing. Since correct stance, vis-�-vis your lie and the target and obstacles, is essential to the game, it�s also essential to mark each lie (except tees and drop zones, which mark themselves) so observers can judge your stance at your instant of release.

Disc golfers must stand �behind� the marker as they throw. We decided SnapChing should play likewise: the target-ward edge of your 1�-circle fairway lie should be marked so observers will know where the circle is when you plant your foot to throw.

In disc golf, if a mando creates an artificial dogleg between you and the target, you must mark and stand as if the mando object, not the basket, is the target. Yet no disc golf rule alters your stance when you play around natural doglegs or other obstacles. So, for simplicity of SnapChing�s stance rule, we decided that SnapChingers must orient their stance to the target on every throw, regardless of natural or artificial obstacles.

We added the final element to the �throw� definition:

In these rules, �throw� = release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play, and at that instant:
� Touch your lie and nothing closer to the target.
� Don�t touch OB.
� Position your body to least displace things attached to the ground except grass and weeds; and already try to replace every other such thing you�ve moved.
� Your lie�s target-ward edge is marked.

At a glance, this �throw� definition seems complex. But when you learn it, it�s easy to play by. In 66 words, �throw� tells SnapChingers everything they need to know about how to do the game�s key skill act while in correct position vis-�-vis the field of play � i.e., how to correctly release a disc into flight, plus all stance rules and obstacle rules and marking rules. (The PDGA rulebook gives you that same information in 1900 words.)

SnapChing�s �throw� definition streamlines all the SnapChing rules that govern structure of the game, order of play, locating lies, and scoring.
Specifically �throw� gives teeth to three SnapChing rules that guide you to correctly (if not accurately) release flights. Rule 7 locates the lie that each throw creates. Rule 8 keeps your lie from advancing when your disc-release isn�t a throw. Rule 11 scores you 1 each time you release a disc into flight, whether the release is a throw or not.

The �throw� definition partners with Rules 7, 8 and 11 to produce these results:


� If you release (not drop) an illegal disc into air by hand during your play, you score 1 and your lie doesn�t change.

� If you release any disc into air in any way that�s not by hand, you score 0 and your lie doesn�t change.

� If you move any disc in a way that doesn�t (for at least a moment after release) touch nothing but air (for example, if you set a disc into your bag), you score 0 and your lie doesn�t change.

� If you drop a disc, you score 0 and your lie doesn�t change.

� If you release any disc into air by hand from a wrong stance or while displacing obstacles wrongly, you score 1 and your lie doesn�t change. (This replaces all of disc golf�s misplay rules: the definition of practice throw; 803.01B practice throw; 801.04 playing the stipulated course; 803.10 throwing from another player�s lie; and 803.13A holing out.)

� If you lay or drop your disc into the basket, you score 0 and your lie hasn�t changed and you haven�t holed out. To hole out, you have to throw into the basket.


Finally, let�s talk about falling putts. Disc sports pioneer Dan �Stork� Roddick #0003 tells us that the rule to prohibit falling putts originated in 1974. Before then:


�You could run to your lie and take off as in the long jump, as long as you released prior to landing. An advantage for me in 1974 at the American Flying Disc Open in Rochester, that led to me winning the car by 17 strokes, was that I developed a falling putt that was very effective (and ugly): I stretched out [Stork is 6�6� tall with the wingspan of, well, a stork], dunked the disc, and fell on my face. But we agreed, on the spot, that we didn�t want to do that for the rest of our lives, and I believe the falling putt was never seen again.�


Disc golfers have always been a bit confused by the PDGA falling putt rule. Why is the distance 10M? Should it be shorter? Longer? Exactly how do you �demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole�? Is the falling putt rule really necessary at all? What would the game be like if falling putts were allowed? Is there any other kind of shot, at any other distance from the target, that should require any kind of stance restriction?

We haven�t yet fully field-tested, in all conditions of weather and terrain, how the game plays if falling putts are allowed without any penalty. We need more evidence from the field of play, on whether any stance variation on shots near targets is good or necessary for the game. If so, what variation of stance, and at what distance from the target? Veteran PDGA Rules Committee member and Masters/GM/SGM world champ Dr. Rick Voakes is working on interesting ideas, as are others on the RC and in the membership. It has been more than three decades since disc golfers seriously have discussed falling putts. We encourage open debate and sharing of opinions.

In writing SnapChing�s rules, we�ve generally found that simple rules can create a good game. And the stance rule is simpler without a falling putt prohibition. So we are introducing SnapChing as a game with a single stance requirement everywhere on the course. If we decide, later, that SnapChing needs to limit your stance options within some range of the target, we can tweak the �throw� definition to achieve that.


* * *

That�s the story of Rule 3, Pete. We started trying to define �throw� and ended up with a cogent definition that governs everything in the game about how to do the key skill act, plus stance, plus obstacles, plus marking lies � a �throw� concept that smoothly drives simple rules about everything in the game that involves throwing discs.


Mike & Matt :) :D

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 05:43 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #99


Golf penalizes proportional to the error by placing your next lie down the fairway close to the point where the error occurred. It's sometimes the equivalent of more than a 1-throw penalty, sometimes exactly 1 throw and sometimes less. And, the player can sometimes continue from a more interesting lie.

Chuck, you�re right, golf does use a rational way to proportion the penalty to the error.

SnapChing�s way to proportion the penalty to the error, if you land OB (no matter where you cross the OB line) or if you cross a no-fly line (no matter what part of the line you cross), is this: you have to conquer to same challenge you just blundered on. To say it in a Texas way, you have to get right back up on the horse that just bucked you off.

The resulting lie is pretty darned interesting, as you�re throwing from it a second (or more) time.

And the SnapChing penalty always equals (in distance) exactly 1 stroke � which is enough to guide you to develop skill to avoid making the error.


Mike & Matt :D :eek:

cgkdisc
Nov 29 2010, 06:02 PM
If a player was not able to execute whatever caused them to rethrow, why does it make sense to force them to rethrow the same shot they perhaps couldn't execute such as throwing over water? What then? At least PDGA rules allow the player to advance to a drop zone or the water's edge for a shorter throw over water or better angle. Essentially, SnapChing may force players into a Tin Cup scenario. Buckhorn and Clearwater are courses among others where situations like that are likely with SnapChing rules.

If a shot lands on what would normally be an inbounds bridge over OB water, does the player have to rethrow because their lie is above OB according to SnapChing rule 7?

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 07:17 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #103


If a player was not able to execute whatever caused them to rethrow, why does it make sense to force them to rethrow the same shot they perhaps couldn't execute such as throwing over water? What then? At least PDGA rules allow the player to advance to a drop zone or the water's edge for a shorter throw over water or better angle. Essentially, SnapChing may force players into a Tin Cup scenario. Buckhorn and Clearwater are courses among others where situations like that are likely with SnapChing rules.

Tin Cup wasn�t forced into anything. He had a choice, each time, to lay up short of the water and play his next shot across the water to the green. He chose to replay his original lie instead. (Wow, that was a great movie.)

One of us (Matt says not to tell which one) doesn�t have much of an arm, and so he had to make a tough choice in a tournament where a hilltop tee overlooked an OB lake enroute to the target. The lake began 100� in front of the tee and the water was 250� farther across. He couldn�t throw 350�, so he had to chip from the tee (arrwwkkk!) down 90� to the edge of the lake, then throw across on his second shot. This same guy, playing Pro GM at a PDGA World�s, faced a shot across 340� of OB water to the green � and the tee was right at the water�s edge. He couldn�t get across, and he couldn�t lay up for a shorter crossing. So he had to play around the lake in three shots (risking OB on every shot). Tough beans. (And those examples were disc golf, not SnapChing.)

In SnapChing (as in disc golf), anytime your shot might go OB or cross a no-fly line, you have a choice to either lay up safe and tackle the hazard on your next shot, or go for it and risk the foul. If you do go for it, and you foul, then you face the same choice again. Your risk/reward strategy is to decide wisely when to go for it and when to lay up.

Chuck, we hope no TD or course designer ever will create an impossible OB situation. SnapChing TDs do have the power to make local rules that supersede Rules of SnapChing, such as creating �short� tees, drop zones or alternate holes for geezers. There�s no excuse (except a broken arm) for a hole to exist that can�t possibly be played by careful strategy and execution.


If a shot lands on what would normally be an inbounds bridge over OB water, does the player have to rethrow because their lie is above OB according to SnapChing rule 7?

You say the bridge would normally be IB. We assume you mean that in PDGA disc golf, a foot-traffic bridge is normally considered part of the playing surface.

SnapChing doesn�t use the concept �playing surface,� nor is there any rule about bridges.

Rule 6 says your throw creates your new lie on the ground.

Rule 7 tells how to locate your lie if you land on or above IB or OB.

Rule 1 tells you to play by Rules of SnapChing as the TD amends. The TD can make local rules that supersede Rules of SnapChing.

The bridge in your scenario would be IB and playable if, and only if, the TD makes a local rule that says so. The TD�s local rule would supersede Rule 7. If the TD makes no local rule about the bridge, to supersede Rule 7, and you land on the bridge above OB water, you�d be OB and you must rethrow. (And if you land on the bridge above IB, your lie would be on the ground under the bridge, centered below your resting disc.)


Mike & Matt :) :)

cgkdisc
Nov 29 2010, 07:37 PM
If the TD is allowed to make local rules that supersede SnapChing rules, then a TD can simply run a SnapChing event where the TD declares the PDGA rulebook is used for all rules. :)

Hoser
Nov 29 2010, 08:08 PM
Chuck, it's interesting that you suggest that. GDSTOUR (Post #91) suggested running a PDGA x-tier event with SnapChing rules.

Yes, you're right, a SnapChing TD could run a tournament using PDGA rules. What a concept. Shine on, Chuck.


Mike & Matt :cool: :cool:

davidsauls
Nov 30 2010, 09:49 AM
Mike & Matt

One of your selling points for snapching is that the PDGA rulebook is too complicated, and that snapching rules can address virtually every playing situation that occurs.

My experience is that I've been playing disc golf for 15 years, PDGA tournaments for 14 years, and have played with lots of people of various skill levels and experience, from casual rounds with beginners through local league play. I've TDed a dozen events and assisted with many more.

There are a handful of basic disc golf rules that can be learned very quickly, that cover almost all playing situations. Basic principles on stance, falling putt, O.B. and relief, perhaps a few other things I can teach someone on their first time out. I can play many rounds without resorting to any rules beyond these.

I can't remember the last time something came up in play that sent us to the rulebook. Tournament procedures is another thing, but in actual play. It's not just a matter of being a rules expert---which I'm not---but that everyone I play with seems to know how to deal with casual relief or wedgies or whatever. (The last one I recall was several years ago when we couldn't remember whether relief was granted from fire ants, and had to look in the book).

I never recall being involved in a playing situation that wasn't easily resolved by the rulebook. I've seen posts from people who have, but I haven't.

I don't think the simplicity of snapching or the complexity of disc golf rules is enough of a selling point. You'll need to convince people that snapching is more fun/exciting/fair than disc golf. Unfortunately, one of the most prominent differences is the way O.B. is handled; for those of us playing on O.B.-heavy courses, snapching does not look very appealing. I've played and seen re-throw without penalty in a few instances and it wasn't that much fun....and I don't have to try trudging back to the tee when a drive is discovered to be O.B. to know that I don't want to do it.

There are parts of snapching I like more than the PDGA's disc golf rules, but they're not nearly attractive enough to tempt me to try it.

Hoser
Nov 30 2010, 12:07 PM
David, thank you for your Post #107. We always appreciate your critiques � regardless of whether you agree with us � because of the way you think things out and offer the benefit of your experience on the field of play and as a TD.

Like you, we�ve played countless tournament and casual rounds of disc golf without ever needing to check the rulebook. (And yet, every time you look down to see if your stance is correct, or ask a groupmate �Am I away?�, or replace a branch that you moved while trying to take a stance, you are consciously playing by the rules.) It�s a good thing that most disc golfers are able to do that, most of the time. And while you�re playing round after round of disc golf without needing rulings, you might wonder, �Why has disc golf ever needed a complicated rule system?�

And then you see, on this forum and on the Q&As, the scenarios that players have gotten into. And you see how the contributors to the forum, and the RC on the Q&As, go into long, convoluted reasoning to solve them.

We all tend to get caught up in the logic of our arguments about rules. But another remarkable thing is happening on these forum threads: we�re all carrying on two conversations at once. One conversation is about playing by the rules. Another conversation is about how each scenario ought to be resolved. The second conversation is powerful: players are thinking about what kind of game they want to play. (That feedback is important even if it comes from someone who obviously doesn�t understand the rulebook.) In that conversation, you see that some players want a more punitive, restrictive game. Others want a more easy-going game. Some want to govern play with their �common sense� (which may or may not be common or sensible). Some want a rigid rule system that answers all questions � and it�s more important to get a clear answer quickly than to like the result.

On these forum threads, we�re watching grassroots energy in action. It�s a wonderful process. Besides figuring out who�s �right,� people are stretching their minds to think about stuff and bounce ideas off each other. That creative thinking and communicating is great for the game (when it doesn�t degenerate into sniping and bullying). It can give the RC lots of valuable info as they strive to write rules that create a game that can gain wide public acceptance.

We�ve injected Rules of SnapChing into the mix, to stir the soup. To help folks think creatively about how they really want to play their favorite game.

Players should � and surely will � debate whether the rulings that they find, under either PDGA rules or Rules of SnapChing, satisfy their notion of what makes a good game. David, you said:


I don't think the simplicity of snapching or the complexity of disc golf rules is enough of a selling point. You'll need to convince people that snapching is more fun/exciting/fair than disc golf.

You�re absolutely right. Simplicity counts, but your second point counts more. That�s why we�ve encouraged you, and everyone on this forum, to offer scenarios for Rules of SnapChing to solve. The ease of finding a ruling is important, but it�s more important to see whether SnapChing�s rulings create a game that you�d rather play than PDGA disc golf. The subtle differences (click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/snapchingVSdiscgolf.html) to see a list of them) will color your experience of playing. How much fun are you having? How fair does the game feel to you? How well does the game challenge your athletic ability and your throwing strategy? How do you feel, socially and ethically, when you enforce rules?

All through our writing of SnapChing rules, the question we�ve constantly held right in front of our eyes is: does each rule create the game we want to play? We�ve tried to take a wide view, to create a game that lots of people would enjoy; and of course we�ve tried to satisfy our own personal view, based on 40 years on the field of play, of what a good and challenging golf-type disc game should be.

Have we succeeded? You and others on this thread surely will give us lots of feedback on that. For example, the questions that already have been raised about our OB rule and retrieving discs. And we�re really going to get an earful when folks realize SnapChing has no falling putt rule.

We�re going to take your advice and go back through the threads on this forum and make some SnapChing rulings, and bring those forward for everyone to say whether SnapChing�s rulings create the game they want to play.

Thanks for keeping us on our toes, David.


Mike & Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Nov 30 2010, 01:30 PM
Tip: Go back a few years in the rules discussions, when they were much more animated, before, uh, changes to this discussion board tamed it but also diminished the participation.

While ultimately I'm not interested in playing snapching, I'd vote for at least one of you to join the rules committee---IF I had a vote---to simplify disc golf rules in many, many places. If we could drag you off the snapching course, of course.

davidsauls
Nov 30 2010, 01:39 PM
Another thought on the proof is in the playing:

It's hard for me to think of scenarios where snapching may have problems because some of them may be where disc golf functions fine. Until you play by snapching---and wash your brain of the disc golf rules---it'll be hard to find the potential gaps in snapching.

And the real proof comes when you get cunning, conniving players who try to find loopholes they can exploit. I'm not sure about disc golf, but those are the ones who made the baseball rule book such a legal treatise.

Hoser
Nov 30 2010, 02:45 PM
David, thank you for your Posts #109 and #110.


In our upcoming �SnapChing Revue� of prior scenarios, we�ll start at the most recent threads and go back as far as they�re interesting. We�ll pick scenarios that are hard for PDGA rules to solve, and scenarios that reveal aspects of SnapChing that players may like or criticize.

BTW, if anybody wants to post scenarios, or otherwise air your laundry, on our SnapChing Forum, we won�t censor you!


* * *


David, you�re very kind to think that we might serve the sport as RC members.

However, there�s a reason we wouldn�t want to be on the RC. The RC�s job is specifically the one the PDGA board of directors has given them: patch and amplify the current rulebook. David, we tried for years to do that on our own, and finally gave up in favor of starting from scratch. (Starting from scratch wasn�t easy, either. We�ve been at it more than 10 years.)

We can serve disc golf, and help the RC consider its mission, better by letting Rules of Snapching be a visible independent model of what simple disc golf rules can look like.

The RC is a good, smart bunch of disc golfers. If they want to use our model to influence the rules they write, they can choose to do so. And if they want to go to the PDGA board of directors and say, �We want to do more than just patch and amplify the current rulebook � we want to step outside the box and write the best possible rules for disc golf,� then they can choose to do that, too.


* * *


Might SnapChing problems not be discovered via using Rules of SnapChing to rule on PDGA disc golf scenarios? We�re not sure about that. A SnapChing course is the same as a disc golf course, and the same kind of situations will come up in either game.

You�re definitely right about cunning, conniving players finding loopholes to exploit. A good rulebook MUST close those loopholes. We�re hoping that this forum�s cunning, conniving players will show us all the loopholes in Rules of SnapChing. We�ll be VERY INTERESTED to get that feedback.


Mike & Matt

davidsauls
Nov 30 2010, 03:41 PM
Might SnapChing problems not be discovered via using Rules of SnapChing to rule on PDGA disc golf scenarios? We�re not sure about that. A SnapChing course is the same as a disc golf course, and the same kind of situations will come up in either game.


My thought is that there might be scenarios that disc golf handles very easily, but snapching does not. If so, the difficulty is that, as a disc golfer or while playing disc golf, we wouldn't even think to test them against snapching. It's easier to see how snapching applies to situations that are problems in disc golf, than vice versa.

Of course, snapching may be airtight on those situations, too.

cgkdisc
Nov 30 2010, 03:50 PM
Of course, snapching may be airtight on those situations, too.
Depends on the TD. Slogan: SnapChing where TD's King.

wsfaplau
Nov 30 2010, 05:54 PM
Mike and Matt, Thanks

How long have you been working on the SnapChing rules?

Hoser
Nov 30 2010, 09:54 PM
Fifteen years, Kenny.

Mike & Matt :eek: :eek:

Hoser
Nov 30 2010, 09:55 PM
Sorry for calling you Kenny, Pete. It's been a long day.

M & M

Hoser
Dec 01 2010, 02:21 PM
David Sauls,

We�ve gone through the first 150 scenarios on this discussion forum (that�s five pages OF TITLES out of the total 33 pages OF TITLES that have been posted on the forum since 2003).

So far we�ve written SnapChing rulings on 35 intriguing scenarios.

We�re going to try to organize these into groups of five � on related topics, if possible � and we'll soon start posting those groups on a separate thread, and asking for feedback to help improve our rules.

Thank you again for your suggestion. We�re constantly amazed, as we go through current and past threads, at the sharp creativity of disc golfers� minds and the amazing stuff they get into on the field of play. And the more scenarios we go through, the more we notice two things:

(1) SnapChing rulings, compared to PDGA disc golf rulings, create a game that is equally challenging and often feels fairer and more fun.

(2) Disc golfers have a lot of strong feelings about the way disc golf should be played. Those feeling often disagree with PDGA rules (and sometimes with SnapChing rules, too). Although not all opinions are well-thought-out, there's still lots of �gold to mine� in these threads, about how disc golfers really want their game to be. It behooves both the Rules Committee and the SnapChing rulewriters to pay attention to this grassroots wisdom and glean good ideas to improve the sport.


Mike & Matt :) :)

cgkdisc
Dec 01 2010, 04:06 PM
I'd like a "gimme rule" where you don't putt within 2m of the basket. That would be more fun, faster and a little easier on older players.

pterodactyl
Dec 01 2010, 04:36 PM
I've always wanted to do that at a CVS tourney where there is a small "pick me up" circle around the basket.

Hoser
Dec 01 2010, 05:04 PM
Right on, guys. Hey, how about hiring a real young kid (for, say, a nickle a disc) to camp under the basket and pick our gimme discs up for us so we don't have to (crrreeeaaakkk) bend over to pick them up.

Mike & Matt :D :D

PS One of us (Matt says not to tell which one) isn't really that old. Sort of.

Hoser
Dec 02 2010, 11:01 AM
On second thought . . .

Possible problems with a �gimme� circle:


� It would require somebody (TD or staff) to physically draw a circle around each basket, and maybe redraw circles if rain or wear-and-tear obscure them during play.

� The �gimme� distance would have to be fair to the whole field in all kinds of weather and wind direction and on all terrain. If you�re a very short player putting radically uphill into a howling wind while standing on a jagged rain-slick rock or muddy incline, a 2M putt might not be a gimme.


Mike & Matt :confused: :(

lux4prez
Dec 02 2010, 11:02 PM
Good luck with the Snap Ching Disc Golf Association! There will be at least 2 members.

rhett
Dec 03 2010, 07:07 PM
I'd like a "gimme rule" where you don't putt within 2m of the basket. That would be more fun, faster and a little easier on older players.

Now I couldn't disagree with that sentiment more. For me, going with the alleged "speed of play" rules a few years ago really moved organized disc golf backwards from "sport" towards "game". One of the few cut-n-dry and simple to understand procedures of competition was the marking of the lie. There really was no way to mis-interpret the rule if you bothered to break out the book and read the rule. (People would still say "I thought it was cone behind the mini, but you can't get to that if you bother to read the rule.) Simple, precise, easy to follow. It also helped set the tone for sanctioned play versus a casual beer-n-pot round.

Eliminating the marking requirement under the guise of "speed of play" was a bad move IMO. How can you expect people to respect the stance rules when they don't even have to bother to mark their disc? An it's also actually slower whenever there's an obstacle present because the player that knows the rules will evaluate the un-marked lie versus the marked lie before deciding which to use. I do appreciate only having to bend over once to hole out when I'm close to the pin, but that doesn't overcome the negatives in my book.

Now Chuck is talking about how it would be nice to just pick up from 6 feet 6 inches away and not even bother putting out at all? Um, yeah...that will improve the level of competition. Whatever.

cgkdisc
Dec 03 2010, 07:36 PM
(I forgot the "tongue-in-cheek" icon)

Hoser
Dec 09 2010, 12:57 PM
As Tiger Woods and Graeme McDowell went head to head this past Sunday in the final round of golf�s Chevron World Challenge, we pondered how tournaments � golf or disc golf or SnapChing � need to keep play moving without delay.

Disc golfers have worried that SnapChing�s �rethrow for OB� rule (Rule 7) will delay tournaments as lots of players trudge back (once or even multiple times) to the tee after walking to their 400� drive only to find the disc OB.

In previous posts, we�ve defended the entertainment value of SnapChing�s �rethrow for OB,� but we haven�t addressed the problem of delay.
Our defense on the entertainment front is that SnapChing�s �rethrow only� OB relief is more exciting than the PDGA �triple option of rethrow, drop zone, or play where the disc entered OB,� because every time SnapChingers land OB, they have to climb right back up on the horse that just bucked them off: they have to strategize to conquer the same risk that they just blundered.

Now, to address the delay issue, let�s use the sport of golf as a model (which may surprise you if you know how staunchly we insist that SnapChing isn�t a clone of golf) because of what happened Sunday on Hole #17 at the CWC.

The 17th is a par 3, downhill to a small green guarded by trees. At greenside, to the golfers� left, is dense thigh-high fescue: you can�t possibly swing a club in that stuff. Tiger Woods, one stroke down and charging, teed off safely onto the green. Then leader Graeme McDowell shanked his tee shot into the fescue.

The good news is that a marshal located McDowell�s ball before the players reached the green � saving a 5 minute search. The bad news is that the ball was halfway to China. McDowell was in jail without parole.

Under golf�s rules, McDowell had three options (other than the impossibility of playing where he lay), each of which would leave him lying 2, shooting 3:


� Drop within 2 club lengths of his ball, no closer to the hole.

� Drop on the LOP, any distance behind his ball.

� Retee.


McDowell tried to find a place to drop within 2 club lengths. Though his ball was only a couple of feet into the hay, every possible 2-club relief was still in terminal fescue. So that option was out.

McDowell glanced back toward the tee. Not only did he not want to trudge back there, he also didn�t want to face the same challenge he�d just blundered � which could raise the ugly specter of landing in fescue again and lying 4 on the tee . . . McDowell dismissed the retee option.

That left one possible way to play the hole: on the LOP behind the ball. But on this hole, backing out of the fescue meant backing up behind thick trees to only one possible place, a nearby elevated tee. McDowell and his caddy climbed up to that tee and couldn�t find a good spot to drop. They slunk back down to the green. They climbed back up again and still couldn�t find a suitable spot. Came back down to the green. A quarter hour after arriving at the green, McDowell went back up a third time and spent another couple of minutes prowling back and forth to eyeball the LOP (trees were blocking his view of the green from his proposed drop point). He probably was reconsidering � as was still his option � going back to the tee. Eventually he did drop on the LOP, took his time addressing the ball, and finally he chipped over a tree toward the green. Amazingly, he landed near the hole and sank his bogey putt, instead of landing gnarly past the green or in the fescue again.

The whole catastrophe was great theater. Everyone in the gallery, everyone on TV, in short everyone but McDowell, loved every minute of it. Since this was the final group on the course, they weren�t holding up any groups behind them. First prize hung in the balance. Nobody was thinking about delay. Everybody was thinking about the challenge of playing to win.

We feel that SnapChing�s �rethrow� from OB provides excitement that is similarly good for the game. HOWEVER: does SnapChing�s requirement to rethrow, cause a delay that outweighs the value of that drama?

Part of the answer can be seen by looking at how PDGA disc golf handles OB. A disc golfer who goes OB has three options: rethrow; drop zone (if provided); or 1M inbounds from where the disc entered OB.

Some players have lobbied for disc golf rules to allow a fourth option: as in ball golf, drop backward as far you want along the LOP. The 2011 PDGA rulebook � which, as of January 1, is law of the land for disc golfers � provides 803.05C �optional relief� (previous PDGA rulebooks called it unplayable lie or unsafe lie � i.e., �too nasty for me�): A player may declare that he or she is taking optional relief. The lie may then be relocated to a new lie that is no closer to the hole, and on the line of play. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player�s score.

But 803.05C �optional relief� is only for IB lies. The rule doesn�t let you move back along the LOP from where your disc rests OB. 803.05C only relieves you along an LOP that runs through your lie. Anytime you land OB, you don�t have a lie until you take a penalty stroke and choose prior lie, drop zone, or where the disc entered OB. After you do that, you�re not going to also elect 803.05C and take another penalty stroke and relocate farther backwards. Fageddaboudit.

So disc golf offers three options to relieve landing OB. One option � rethrow � causes exactly the same delay as it would in SnapChing. Another option � mark where you entered OB � may cause delay if, after you discover that your disc is OB, you have to walk far back to reach the spot where it entered OB.

PDGA rules mitigate these delays by letting you play a provisional throw �in case I�m OB.� In writing SnapChing�s rules, we decided the game is most challenging if every flight results in a lie that you must play. In SnapChing you always pay 1 to get the unique information that a flight provides about your muscles, nerves, strategy, and conditions on the course � info that can help your subsequent play. SnapChingers never get that info for free, as disc golfers do via provisionals.

(Also, SnapChing�s "play every IB lie" saves time compared to disc golfers electing 803.06 �optional rethrow� to abandon an IB lie and walk back and play a prior lie.)

It�s true that the flow of play in SnapChing suffers a delay if you walk 400� to your disc and discover that it�s OB, and you have to go back to rethrow. It�s also true that PDGA disc golf suffers that same delay if a disc golfer elects to rethrow, and sometimes there�s a lesser delay if he elects �1M inbounds.� What�s not true is that SnapChing or disc golf might suffer ghastly delay if someone repeatedly drives into OB from a single tee and has to walk back and forth several times. The long trudge is only going to happen the first time, because your group will be down at the OB on your rethrows, watching each toss and hollering, �OB!�

But what about ski-slope holes, where you�ll scoot downhill 800� to locate your drive and, oops, it�s OB so now you have to climb the mountain again and again? This is a course design situation that a TD can solve by making a local rule for that hole, that supersedes Rule 7 by decreeing drop zone relief.

SUMMARY: We believe that SnapChing�s drama and intrigue of requiring a rethrow for going OB, outweighs the slight disadvantage in delay vis-�-vis the relief options in PDGA disc golf.


Mike & Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Dec 09 2010, 02:20 PM
In practice, disc golf rarely if ever has 3 options. Drop zones are rarely available and, when they are, they are frequently mandatory.

99% of the time, it's play-it-where-it-went-out. The long walk back to rethrow is almost never used, especially on tee shots. It's pretty rare that a disc goes OB and travels another 200' or 300' to the edge of getting back inbounds, forcing a player to walk back.

The real standard in comparison to snapching is playing the disc where it went out.

Hoser
Dec 09 2010, 04:07 PM
David, thank you for your Post #126.


The real standard in comparison to snapching is playing the disc where it went out.

Then the comparison is this:


On the one hand, there�s PDGA disc golf's OB relief (1M inbounds from where you went OB), in which your second shot presents a different, and usually easier, challenge than your first shot did; and which takes little time unless there�s argument about where you �went out.�

On the other hand, there�s SnapChing's OB relief (rethrow), in which your second shot�s challenge is as rigorous as the first; and it takes some time to go back to your prior lie.


Which rule creates a more interesting game?

It�s fun to argue in the abstract, but what really matters is how players experience both rules on the field of play. So far, we have little field-of-play testimony from SnapChingers. We hope to get more, as disc golfers print out Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) and go to their favorite course to try this version of the game.


Mike & Matt :) :)


PS: There�s an anomaly in the two games� rules (we�re not seriously putting this on the scales of the argument above, but it�s worth noting): sometimes your prior lie is closer to the target than where you go OB. For example, you putt 20� pin-high toward a sidehill basket. Your disc prangs off the basket and rolls 100� downhill into an OB lake. If you�re playing disc golf, your lie is 97� below the basket. If you�re playing SnapChing, your lie is 20� from the basket, pin high.

davidsauls
Dec 09 2010, 04:15 PM
I was only commenting on the comparison from a time point of view. In part, because I'm one who's said that several aspects of snapching would delay tournaments, perhaps severely.

Most of my disc golf is played on courses with LOTS of O.B., and it's easy for me to visualize playing those holes under snapching O.B. rules......and to realize that I'd rather not. Perhaps those courses would be set up differently for snapching (but that's a much more complex comparison).

cgkdisc
Dec 09 2010, 04:47 PM
PS: There’s an anomaly in the two games’ rules (we’re not seriously putting this on the scales of the argument above, but it’s worth noting): sometimes your prior lie is closer to the target than where you go OB. For example, you putt 20’ pin-high toward a sidehill basket. Your disc prangs off the basket and rolls 100’ downhill into an OB lake. If you’re playing disc golf, your lie is 97’ below the basket. If you’re playing SnapChing, your lie is 20’ from the basket, pin high.
In DG you can also rethrow from the previous lie in this example but you get penalized one extra throw versus SnapChing rules. Even if you don't go OB after rolling down the hill 100' into some nasty schule, you can return to the previous lie with a one throw penalty if you think that's better.

Hoser
Dec 09 2010, 06:40 PM
David, thank you for your Post #128.


Most of my disc golf is played on courses with LOTS of O.B., and it's easy for me to visualize playing those holes under snapching O.B. rules......and to realize that I'd rather not.

Most of our favorite courses have medium-to-little OB, and one course has none at all. (That course without any OB is plenty challenging.)

It has never crossed our minds to set up courses differently for SnapChing. We aimed our rules to work on all courses. Hmmm. Yeah, we need to get a good bit of SnapChing feedback from players on �lots of OB� courses.

David, some afternoon when you�re feeling froggy and no one is watching you, try a casual round of SnapChing on one of your �lots of OB� courses. See how it feels to play the course that way. Does it play as awkwardly as you expected? Does the rethrow challenge, and the scoring that encourages risk, affect your strategy, and if so, do you enjoy the difference in how you play? Please let us know. (You can send us a private email, if you don�t want your peers to rib you for playing SnapChing.)


Mike & Matt :D :D

Hoser
Dec 09 2010, 06:58 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #129


Even if you don't go OB after rolling down the hill 100' into some nasty schule, you can return to the previous lie with a one throw penalty if you think that's better.

Right. A disc golfer whose 20� deuce putt rolls downhill 100� into IB schule can choose to either play 3 from the schule or putt for 4 from 20�. A SnapChinger must play 3 from the schule. (The SnapChinger�s only relief option, under the last clause of Rule 7, is free �closest� relief if an IB lie is impossible or dangerous to play.)

Chuck, that�s an interesting difference from the OB lake scenario. Thanks for pointing that out.

As we strove to write simple rules that cover big sets of acts in SnapChing, we knew we might face squirrelly scenarios. Each time, we asked ourselves, �Are we willing to put up with that result, in order to keep the rule simple?� Sometimes the answer was no, which meant we had to either split the big set of acts into two smaller sets of more homogeneous acts, and write a different rule for each set; or sometimes we were able to reword the big-set rule to get a sensible result in the odd scenario. The more we simplified SnapChing�s rules, the more interesting our juggling challenge became, to generate acceptable results in every scenario.

As we wrote the OB rule, we asked, �For the sake of a very simple OB rule, are we willing to put up with the anomalies the rule produces when a disc prangs off a basket and rolls 100� downhill into either OB or IB schule?� Our answer was, yes: the game survives okay if SnapChingers get those results; it�s not worth writing multiple OB rules, or making a single one more complex, to get different results in those fairly rare situations.

You may notice that only one SnapChing rule contains any exceptions to the rule�s primary statement. That�s Rule 7, the lie location rule, which locates each lie under the resting disc except in four instances:


� When you hole out, your lie is the next tee.


(That rule � which PDGA disc golf has no parallel to � creates a game [described in Rule 4] where you play the course continually from lie to lie, hitting a series of targets along the way, without ever needing to think of the course being divided into holes. The only SnapChing rule that refers at all to the concept of holes, is Rule 11 that tells you to record your score after you hit each target.)


� When you go OB, your lie is your previous lie.

� When you cross a no-fly line, your lie is your previous lie.

� If you can�t throw at all (= correct stance at your IB lie) without injury, your lie is the closest 1�-wide circle where you can.


One of the guidelines we used, in writing SnapChing�s rules, is that rules are generally easier to use if they are inclusive and have no exceptions. In Rule 7, we reluctantly allowed exceptions for the sake of wrapping up all the game�s lie locations under a single rule.


Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton
Dec 09 2010, 07:03 PM
First off, theater is for the gallery and fans watching on TV. Players don't care for theater. They're out to beat the other people in their division. When we get hundreds of people watching in a gallery AND thousands watching on TV, then theater may be good.

Second, you insist that by making the player re-throw from their last lie, you are making them learn to overcome their mistake. However, in the example you give, a throw rolling downhill 100' into OB, the PDGA rules already state that I can re-throw from my last lie.

There is a course near me that has an OB area in which if you throw into it, you may not have a good shot at the basket from your relocated lie. Now you have to think, is it better for me to re-tee, facing the exact same situation or take the new lie, and not have a good shot. The second choice has made me better, because now I have learned alternate throwing techniques in order to overcome the problem. If I just had the option of re-teeing, all I do is become a better driver and not so well rounded.

This all just reminds me of the XFL. "What's the XFL?", some of you ask. Exactly.

davidsauls
Dec 10 2010, 12:09 PM
Most of our favorite courses have medium-to-little OB, and one course has none at all. (That course without any OB is plenty challenging.)

It has never crossed our minds to set up courses differently for SnapChing. We aimed our rules to work on all courses. Hmmm. Yeah, we need to get a good bit of SnapChing feedback from players on �lots of OB� courses.

David, some afternoon when you�re feeling froggy and no one is watching you, try a casual round of SnapChing on one of your �lots of OB� courses. See how it feels to play the course that way. Does it play as awkwardly as you expected? Does the rethrow challenge, and the scoring that encourages risk, affect your strategy, and if so, do you enjoy the difference in how you play? Please let us know. (You can send us a private email, if you don�t want your peers to rib you for playing SnapChing.)


Mike & Matt :D :D

Not necessary. We have a private course, and when considering layout changes we're pretty good at standing where our drive lands and imagining what the next shot would be if the basket were in the location under consideration. It's not that hard, when we go O.B., to stand at our new lie and imagine how differently it would play under snapching rules.

I think the fact that you play courses with relatively little O.B. illuminates why I think the snapching rule is a bigger deal than you do. The course I play most (Earlewood) has serious O.B. on about 8 holes. Our private course (Stoney Hill) has very serious O.B. on 12 holes---intentionally, designed to make use of PDGA rules to create risk/reward or just plain excitement.

So from the perspective of someone playing courses with lots of O.B., I'll point out that there are several different O.B. situations to consider how snapching would deal with them:

---Basket located near O.B., sometimes where a rollaway putt can go O.B. Strategy main change subtlely, but snapching would not cause signficant amount of delay vs. disc golf.

---O.B. near green, or at least far down fairway, where drive may land O.B. Same strategy, because it's mostly just muffed shots that go O.B. This is where you may not discover you're O.B. until you get to the disc, and have to trudge back.

---Drive has to clear signficant amount of O.B. Less worry in snapching because of lesser penalty; but it's the same throw either way. Next throw has signficant distance penalty either way; re-throw in snapching, or where it went out (often near tee) in disc golf. About the same amount of time involved, either way.

---Reward/punishment off the tee where player can choose risky route, trying to clear O.B., but likely to get a better score if it does., or a safer route. There aren't a heck of a lot of these. Definitely less risk in snapching, though.

I've watched the latter two (more or less) at USDGC, and we considered it for one of our holes on our course....but didn't seem like as much fun.

cgkdisc
Dec 10 2010, 09:39 PM
John Naismith's original draft for the Rules of Basketball was just auctioned off for $4.3 million. Hang on tight to your original SnapChing rules draft for your heirs...

Hoser
Dec 10 2010, 11:13 PM
Yeah, Chuck, we heard about that.

Matt has kept a computer file of hundreds of drafts of Rules of SnapChing that we've churned out over the past decade. Someday we're going to crack a bottle of champagne and thumb through them and laugh our buns off.


Mike & Matt :) :D


Man, it would be fun to see those original basketball rules!

Hoser
Dec 12 2010, 12:46 PM
David, thank you for your Post #133.


We�ve analyzed your three OB scenarios, to see how SnapChingers and PDGA disc golfers might play them differently. The results surprise us.


Scenario #1. OB near green, where your drive may land OB. This is where you may not discover you're OB until you get to the disc, and have to trudge back. [NOTE: for the sake of simplicity in each scenario, let�s assume that the OB is the only obstacle on each hole.]



Here�s how PDGA disc golfers and SnapChingers strategize their tee shots:


Disc golfer: If I land on the green, I�ll score 2 or 3.

SnapChinger: (same)

Disc golfer: If I land OB, I�ll be lying 2 where I entered OB, and I�ll score 3 if I make the putt, or 4 if I don�t.

SnapChinger: If I land OB, I�ll be lying 1 on the tee, facing the same challenge I have now. I�ll have to either risk OB again, hoping to land on the green and putt for 3; or lay up short of OB and chip to the green for 4. And if I re-tee into OB, I�m back to Square One, lying 2 on the tee. And so on.


Strategy summary. In this scenario, a SnapChinger will be a bit less likely, than a disc golfer, to go for the green on his tee shot. Disc golfers will score more 2s. And SnapChingers will score more 5s or higher.

Time summary. On average on this hole, SnapChing takes longer than disc golf. Some groups won�t go OB, so the average delay will be less than a single trudge-back per group. NOTE: No SnapChinger will trudge back more than once, since groupmates will remain at the green to watch the rethrow(s).


* * *


OB Scenario #2. There�s an OB area that you have to fly over. The OB starts 200� from the tee and ends 400� from the tee. If your drive clears the OB, your second shot can reach the green (and there�s no OB for the rest of the hole). If you lay up off the tee, your second shot will easily clear the OB but won�t reach the green.

Here�s how PDGA disc golfers and SnapChingers strategize their tee shots:


Disc golfer: If I drive across the OB, I�ll score 3 or 4.

SnapChinger: (same)

Disc golfer: If I lay up on my drive, I�ll score 4 or 5.

SnapChinger: (same)

Disc golfer: If I drive into OB, then I�ll be lying 2 just behind the OB and I�ll score 5 or 6.

SnapChinger: If I drive OB, I�ll be lying 1 on the tee and I�ll have to either risk driving OB again, to hope to score 4 or 5; or lay up short of OB, to score 5 or 6. And if I go OB from the tee again, I�ll be lying 2 on the tee, still in the same pickle.


Strategy summary. In this scenario, a SnapChinger may be bolder on his first tee shot, but if he drives OB, he may be cautious on his retee. The SnapChinger may have to struggle harder, than the disc golfer, to maintain his emotional balance to keep a lid on his score.

Time summary. On average on this hole, SnapChing takes little or no longer than disc golf.


* * *


OB Scenario #3. A hole�s design gives you two options: dogleg safe to the green (best score 3); or cut off the dogleg by teeing across OB (best score 2).

Here�s how PDGA disc golfers and SnapChingers strategize their tee shots:


Disc golfer: If I play the safe dogleg, I�ll score 3 or 4.

SnapChinger: (same)

Disc golfer: If I successfully cut the dogleg, I�ll score 2 or 3.

SnapChinger: (same)

Disc golfer: If I try to cut the dogleg but go OB, I�ll be lying 2 at the near edge of OB, and I�ll score 4 or 5.

SnapChinger: If I try to cut the dogleg but go OB, I�ll be lying 1 on the tee, and I�ll have to either risk the same shot I just failed to make (and if I succeed, I�ll score 3 or 4; but if I miss, I�ll be in the same pickle, one stroke worse) or play the safe dogleg (and score 4 or 5).


Strategy summary. In this scenario, a SnapChinger, compared to a disc golfer, may be bolder on his first tee shot but cautious on his retee, and he may have to struggle harder to maintain emotional balance to keep a lid on his score.

Time summary. On average on this hole, SnapChing takes little or no longer than disc golf.


* * *

We�ve also analyzed two more OB scenarios:


OB Scenario #4. OB street runs straight down the right side of the entire hole, and the tee and basket are tucked close to the street.

OB Scenario #5: You�ve made a good tee shot. Now you�re lying 1, pin high, 30� (or whatever distance makes your knees knock) from a sidehill basket. An OB lake looms 100� downhill. Your options are to putt for deuce or lay up under the basket for a gimme 3.

Rather than load you down with the details of the analyses here (you can imagine them for yourself), we�ll just say that, for these scenarios:

Strategy summary. Scenario #4 favors neither player, except the SnapChinger has more liability for a big score if he loses his emotional balance and keeps going OB. Scenario #5 favors neither player, except the SnapChinger may putt more relaxed and more boldly because he has less fear of prang-off into OB.

Time summary. In these two scenarios, SnapChinger will take longer than disc golf only when you can�t see, from the tee, a disc going OB near the basket.


* * *


CONCLUSIONS:

David, these analyses surprise us. We thought SnapChingers would generally score a bit lower than disc golfers on holes with OB. But in these scenarios, SnapChingers generally may score a bit higher.

About delay, it seems that the amount of trudge-back caused by SnapChing�s �rethrow for OB� rule won�t spoil the game.

The greatest difference, between SnapChingers and PDGA disc golfers playing OB holes, is this:

When a disc golfer goes OB, he�s disappointed. But he knew, from the tee, that if he did go OB, his next shot would be different and usually easier, and he�d reach the green in a manageable number of strokes.

A SnapChinger, planning his tee-off, thinks: �I�ve got two choices: play bold or safe. Bold play risks or rewards me a single stroke � intriguing, except if I go OB, a can of worms opens. Safe play avoids the risk and gets a middle score.�

When the SnapChinger takes the risk and lands OB, he faces a different problem from the disc golfer: instead of playing an easier next shot, he still has the same challenge he just failed to conquer. Now he�s thinking:


� I�m a better player than that.

� Everybody is watching, to see what I�ll do (and to see a train wreck).

� Okay, I learned from my mistake. Now I can do that shot better.

� Nuts, my focus is distracted by remembering the blunder I just made.

� Now that I�ve missed once, a lay up would be admitting defeat.

� Dang me, dang me, dang me, I should have laid up in the first place.

� I�ve lost a stroke, so now I�ve GOT TO play bold to catch up.

� I�m gonna make this drive if it kills me.


And when the SnapChinger re-tees into OB again, he�s thinking:


� @#&%!!


The emotions of a single SnapChinger are magnified when rival SnapChingers play OB holes. Now all the players venture into the Realm of Angst and each one handles the pressure according to his personality and his talent. Ego may supersede reason. Players may lose patience. The balance of strategy and emotion is critical. A �Tin Cup� meltdown can happen, where a SnapChinger decides he�s going to keep firing, from the same lie, until his bag is empty.

David, we�re looking forward to hearing how you experience SnapChing on your Stoney Hill course, especially if you bring along friends to play SnapChing on those OB holes with you.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Jroc
Dec 15 2010, 02:02 AM
Serious question...:) I mean, I work in a job that requires 10-15 emails a day. We are in the middle of major upgrades to our 2 core information systems, so some days Im responding to 30+ emails (im not a project lead...he deals with twice that many) and while most are short replies to changes made in testing or acknowledgment of other teams and their milestones...there are some emails that take me MANY minutes to write. Most all of the responses from you guys are very well thought out, articulate, and thought provoking. I sure wish I had as much free time on my hands as I percieve you guys do.

I'm really not being sarcastic here. I appriciate the premise you guys are working under. I just dont understand why your spending or have spent SOO much of you time over the years thinking about this. What is your goal with this? The answer may be buried in the 4+ pages of this thread somewhere...I just dont get it.

btw...judging by your PDGA#, you've been involved with disc golf for most of its exsitence. Thanks for your support over the years.

Hoser
Dec 15 2010, 05:25 PM
Jroc, thank you for your Post #137


I just don�t understand why you�re spending or have spent SOO much of your time over the years thinking about this. What is your goal with this?

For the record: Mike is retired; Matt runs his own small dot-com company, and all his employees are disc golfers.

Why have we spent so much time thinking about disc golf rules?

Because it�s FUN. Rules of SnapChing may look simple � 11 rules, just 400 words long � but it grew (actually, shrank) through hundreds of drafts. We would finish a draft that seemed to work, and we�d ask one of Matt�s employees what he thought, and he�d spot a reason that one of the rules didn�t always work right. And we�d go back to the drawing board.

Creating a disc golf rule system from scratch is the most intriguing, challenging project we�ve ever worked on. It took true friendship, unflinching honesty, and belief in each others� abilities and values. It took perseverance and an amazing amount of trial and error. It took long arguments and lots of field testing. It took vigorously setting, and striving to meet, standards of excellence.

We began with child-like appreciation for what Ed Headrick called the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy. We�ve always loved the game! It seems natural, to us, to do what we can to make the game as good as it can possibly be.

What is our goal?

Writing Rules of SnapChing has been so much fun, it has been worth it just for the doing. We feel like we�ve stalked the Mighty Mythical Rulabeest and brought home the horns. And we greatly enjoy going out and playing SnapChing � to us, it�s a better version of the game.

We are motivated in two ways � from an altruistic wish to help the sport; and from a �hey, look what we did� glee � to share Rules of SnapChing with the disc golf community. Only once before, since the game�s invention in the late 1960s, has a whole rule system for disc golf been written and delivered to the worldwide community of players. That was when Steady Ed did it in 1980: the first PDGA rulebook. Thirty years later, we�ve done it a second time.

We wouldn�t have done it if we felt PDGA rules were good enough to serve today�s and tomorrow�s players and to nurture the growth of the sport. But we are convinced, through our own attempts to understand the rulebook and also our misadventures with rules in competition (one of us lost two PDGA world championships in mis-ruled scenarios), that PDGA members need rules they can easily use, by themselves with no interpretation, on the field of play. The evidence � both anecdotal and via discussion threads � is overwhelming that disc golfers generally have a fuzzy grasp on PDGA rules. And we�re pretty sure it�s not because players are too lazy or pigheaded or weak-minded to read the rulebook.

We can�t prove that a muddy rulebook will hold disc golf back from becoming a major sport. But it�s hard to see how muddy rules can help that goal. The idea that �golf has a complicated rulebook, and golf is a major sport, so disc golf should have a complicated rulebook, too� is bull pucky to us.

If our new alternate rule system can precisely govern all situations on the field of play � a premise that disc golfers can test by sending us tough scenarios to solve on the �Open Letter� thread � it will prove that disc golf doesn�t need a complicated rulebook.

We hope that by making our new rules public, we�ll inspire PDGA members to think creatively about disc golf rules � to tap into all the practical wisdom that they�ve gathered in millions of rounds of play.

We hope the RC and the board of directors will look at Rules of SnapChing and realize ways to substantially improve PDGA rules.

We hope to get lots of people playing SnapChing, to help us further field-test our rules and improve them.

Many options are available for the first time, to disc golfers and to the PDGA, now that an alternate rule system exists and it shows the possibility that rules can be brief and precise. We hope to inspire people to explore those options, with the ultimate goal of enjoying the most marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy.


Mike & Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Dec 15 2010, 05:41 PM
Matt & Mike

Have I missed something, or do snapching rules not address intereference? Other than that contact with a live vertebrate establishes a new lie.

If my putt bounds off the basket and starts rolling away, can I stop it before it goes too far, establishing a new lie? That's not unfair---only turning in the wrong score is unfair. Would it be rude? "Rude" isn't defined, but it's not rude in my view.

Which brings me to playing defense. Can I play defense and knock down my snapching opponent's shot before it goes in the basket? That's not unfair---see above---besides, he can do it to me, if he's quick enough.

Or if my opponent's shot is heading towards O.B., can I catch it, saving him a lost disc and a rethrow and establishing a new lie? Surely that's not rude---it's courteous, though perhaps competitively foolish.

I read the rules and just can't find anything about this.

Other than the TD's definition of "rude", of course. Besides which, the TD can eject me for interference, but my opponent still gets the harm or benefit of my action.

----and, if I missed the rule while sneaking a peek during work, I apologize for the preceding verbiage.

throwinROCS
Dec 15 2010, 05:53 PM
--So, obviously, Snapching TDs can't play in their own tournament.

--Two friends can't go play Snapching because there's no TD to make rulings on things not on the putter.

--There's no time limit for calling a misplay?
So, I and the group see a definite misplay and collude to not tell the player for several holes. Then, we tell him that he had a misplay way back there and that all the throws after that count as "1" but his lie still remains on that first misplayed lie. He's mad. He calls the TD. TD comes over, hears the situation, DQ's us for being "rude." Then he tells the player that he indeed misplayed that shot and that all those throws do count, and that he also has to go back to that misplay and play from there.

What happens to all the groups backing up as we hash this out? Can they keep playing?

--What happens if the the TD doesn't have a cell phone or his battery dies or the course isn't within cell phone range?

--If the TDs can play, they can do whatever the hell they want and the only one they have to answer to is themselves.

Hoser
Dec 15 2010, 08:06 PM
David, thank you for your Post #139.


Have I missed something, or do snapching rules not address interference?

Your question brings us a wry grin.

We wrote SnapChing�s DQ rule (Rule 2) under the assumption that players would refrain from interfering with flights because they would know it was an unfair way to play. Yet, you�re right: in the absence of a rule that actually calls those acts rude, a deft catch or knock-down of a flight might be seen as just another strategy for playing the game.

Duhhh. We�re, um, chagrined.

Okay, go sit down and finish lunch, David. We�re thinking.

Urr.

All right. Let�s see how the scales of reality balance out.

Humans do have a tendency toward mischief. So, yeah, some guys might impulsively do little things, like maybe interfering with your flight, to stir you up.

On the other hand, most of us have learned, in kindergarten, a sense of fairness. So if you pull crap like that, (1) you�re going to get an earful and (2) you�d better watch your back.

In players� meetings, TDs can say, �There�s no rule specifically against interfering with flights, and you get no relief if somebody interferes with yours. But I�ll call flight-altering rude if you knowingly do it anytime except in self defense.� It will only take one DQ, for snagging someone�s flight, for the word to get around the country and the precedent to be set in players� minds. (As would have been the case if Dave Feldman had been stroked for putting while kneeling on a towel.)

There�s a lot of stuff that competitors can do, to interfere with your focus or the result of your flight. That stuff is rude � unless you agree in advance that it isn�t.

We�re reminded of a story a friend of ours told � it was Sparky Sparks, host of the world�s longest-running annual disc golf event, the Joseph P. Frisbie Memorial Invitational Folf Tournament (since May 6, 1976). Sparky told us, �I was playing ball golf with a guy who was better than I was, and he wanted to gamble. He offered me mulligans or strokes. I told him what I wanted was two gotchas.�

We asked, �Sparky, what�s a gotcha?�

�Well, when he�s in the middle of his downswing and I yell GOTCHA!! then he has to play from wherever his ball goes.�

�Wow, sounds interesting. How did you use your two gotchas?�

�Well, I used the first one on the third tee. And I never used the other one.�


You�re right, David, the devious art of focus-bending is an alternate way to play the game. Imagine a ball golf match where people heckle you or jerk around in your field of vision as you stroke the ball, like end-zone idiots at basketball games waving their arms and hollering during free throws. Yes, disc golf could be played that way, too.

But it�s more fun to play disc golf with focus. Everybody has a good sense of that truth. So even though humans tend toward mischief, they�ll also tend toward mutual courtesy to preserve everybody�s focus. That same courtesy will extend to not altering flights. It�s the golden rule in action. Sometimes you don�t have to write a rule, to inspire behavior that best serves the game.

The fact remains: SnapChing doesn�t have a rule to penalize (except DQ) flight-altering. And although the better side of human nature will likely keep people from egregious acts of basket-blocking or catching a disc while it�s hyzering over OB, it�s less clear how players will feel about, for example, asking a friend, �Go stand behind the basket. If my disc starts to roll in the river, kick it down.�

Again, it will only take one instance of a TD booting a guy who conspires to do that, to establish precedent and set a standard of behavior throughout the sport.

Finally, even if we agree that players will refrain from trying to alter flights, what relief should SnapChing give to a player whose flight is cut short by someone?

The "someone" is not likely to be a player or a nearby spectator: if anyone nearby is in your flight line or interfering with your focus, you�ll ask them to step aside or get behind you � which players will do, so as not to be rude. If a player down the fairway (whom you didn�t ask to move) accidentally happens to intersect the flight line of your disc � hey, you played unsafe by throwing before the playing area was clear!

Reminds us of another of Sparky�s stories. Sparky was playing disc golf with a guy who had a dog. On the first hole, the guy teed off and the dog ran and caught his disc in flight and ran to the basket and tenderly laid the disc into the pan. Sparky was really impressed that the dog knew which was the right basket. Sparky said to the guy, �Nice ace. I�ll give you ten dollars for that dog.�

�No sale. That�s a mighty valuable dog.�

�Yes it is. How about $50.�

�You�re not even in the ballpark.�

�Okay, how about a dime?�

�Whaddya mean, a dime? I already turned down fifty bucks, why would you offer me a dime?�

Sparky drawled, �Cost me less than a bullet.�


But we digress. To wrap up our thoughts on what relief to give the thrower, we feel that (A) you have control over the players around you, to keep them out of your flight line, and (B) if your disc does hit a player, those are the breaks for you (and you or he will be subject to DQ, depending on who the TD judges rude or unfair or unsafe), and (C) if your disc hits a spectator, that�s just something you and the spectator are going to have to put up with when the sport grows to include galleries.

(That gallery situation is a reality that ball golf faces, too. In golf, you play where your ball lies after it prangs off the bald head of the spectator and onto the cart path and down the path to the hot dog stand. In SnapChing Rule 10, your disc is deemed to rest at the instant it hits the spectator. We reason that you are responsible for your flight up to the point of impact, and that you are neither responsible for, nor entitled to, where the disc goes after that instant.)

David, how are we doing? Our answer bobbed and weaved a bit, and we sort of tried to distract you with humor . . . but do you feel satisfied, now, that your SnapChing experience will rarely involve being on either end of flight that�s altered by a live vertebrate? (Down, Fido!)


Mike & Matt :D :o

Hoser
Dec 15 2010, 09:19 PM
ThrowinROCS, thank you for your Post #140.


Obviously, Snapching TDs can't play in their own tournament.

If we�re right in our expectation that players will seldom need to call for rulings (because the rules are clear enough not to be confusing), then in a small event, the TD�s responsibility for rulings might be light enough to let him focus enough to play. That�s just a guess. We haven't yet done enough field testing, in tournaments, to be sure how that will work out. We hope soon to run some small events and get better information.

In larger events, a TD will probably have enough obligations (besides rulings) that he won�t be able to play anyway.


Two friends can't go play Snapching because there's no TD to make rulings on things not on the putter.

In casual play, the group becomes the TD and takes on the TD's power and responsibility to rule. If the group can�t reach agreement, social interaction (fistfight, bail out, or MRB) may solve the conflict.


There's no time limit for calling a misplay?

That�s right. And that creates an interesting dynamic, about calling misplays:

If you witness a misplay, and you don�t call it right away � or if you see someone about to misplay, and you don�t advise them to stop � you are being rude to them by allowing them to pile up unnecessary score. In SnapChing, it�s actually courteous to call misplays quick enough so extra strokes don�t pile up. Your opponents will thank you for that courtesy. So SnapChing has none of the slack rule enforcement (i.e., �I hate to call a foul, so I�ll just pretend I didn�t see it�) that plagues PDGA disc golf.


So, I and the group see a definite misplay and collude to not tell the player for several holes. Then, we tell him that he had a misplay way back there and that all the throws after that count as "1" but his lie still remains on that first misplayed lie. He's mad. He calls the TD. TD comes over, hears the situation, DQ's us for being "rude." Then he tells the player that he indeed misplayed that shot and that all those throws do count, and that he also has to go back to that misplay and play from there.

Right. Except the TD can boot you and your conspirators via phone. He doesn't need to come over and do it in person.

And what about the poor schlubb who misplayed three holes ago? When we wrote Rules of SnapChing, we had to decide whether to give that guy relief. Our dilemma was this: are players responsible, or not, for their own actions? If we give relief in one instance of not paying attention, what other instances will we have to relieve, too?

We decided this: you are responsible for your own play. Period. Yes, it will really bite to have to take an 11 on Hole #8 and have to replay #9 and #10. (Or DNF, if you choose to quit instead of play on with such an awful score.) And you�ll pay closer attention to your stance, for the rest of your SnapChing career. We admit: that�s a raw result. But it keeps a lid on a worse nest of snakes: the prospect of players feeling free to blunder and then whine for relief.

Finally, a TD can make a ruling that forgives strokes. But that�s a slippery slope for a TD to start down. And World SnapChing League trainers will caution TDs to use that power sparingly or risk their certification to run SnapChing tournaments.


What happens to all the groups backing up as we hash this out? Can they keep playing?

Good question. We don�t like the prospect of backups. Still, it�s like a disc golf tournament where a group stands aside to await a ruling while other groups play through, and then they hold up some groups when they jump back in.

If you�re wondering what happens to the groupmates: yeah, they have an interest to monitor the guy�s play, so they�d go with him and suspend their own play until he catches up to their lies.


What happens if the the TD doesn't have a cell phone or his battery dies or the course isn't within cell phone range?

David Sauls already nailed us on the �no cell phone coverage� scenario, which he says is a common problem on his private course in South Carolina. (One of us � Matt says not to say which one � grew up on North Carolina and knows how backward things can get in SC.) We admit that we expected that by the time people start playing SnapChing tournaments, cell phone coverage will be universal. If not, maybe walkie talkies can do the job, or loud voices, or very fast hired grade school kids. Or however disc golf tournaments used to handle rulings back in the dark ages before there were any cell phones.

As for charging batteries, a TD worth his salt is going to have a checklist, with �Charge my cell phone� up near the top. That�s especially essential for a TD who is playing in the tournament. If the TD is staying back at HQ, he may either have electricity available, or he may be able to charge his battery somewhere nearby during the break between rounds. Otherwise it�s back to depending on the checklist.

Good question. After the first time a TD gets embarrassed by the dead-battery fiasco, SnapChing TDs all over the country are going to figure out how to make sure it doesn�t happen to them.


If the TDs can play, they can do whatever the hell they want and the only one they have to answer to is themselves.

Not exactly. They be answering to their fellow players who will give them a serious fish-eye or a noogie or a wedgie (and we don�t mean a disc stuck in the side of the pan), and (B) the WSL can yank their TD certification.


ThrowinROCS, you�re a sharp questioner. Keep �em coming, you�re keeping us on our toes!

AND -- congratulations on your knowledge of SnapChing rules. Obviously you read the rules carefully, and understood them clearly. Send us a photo of yourself: you can be our posterboy to testify about how easy SnapChing rules are to understand!


Mike & Matt :D :D

davidsauls
Dec 16 2010, 08:56 AM
I admire your efforts, and your concise authoring of snapching rules. Some snapching rules I prefer to disc golf's---but many more I do not.

In my opinion, your claim that snapching rules cover anything that might happen on the playing field does not hold up. Many resolutions are to "call the TD". Others are based on what the TD said at the player's meeting or what rules the TD has established. The vague "rude" rule can be stretched to cover many things, but is so vague as to not be a rule at all. Yet other events must refer you to the technical standards (does a wedgie or DROT count?), or elsewhere.

Rules of a game should be certain enough that when I enter a tournament or host a visitor traveling through town for a casual round, I have a pretty good chance of knowing what they are.

*

Snapching does not require a scorecard to be turned in in a timely manner. Most tournaments have two rounds in a day, with an hour lunch break during which cards are turned in, verified, scoreboard updated, players re-ordered by score, and hole assignments made.

What about the person who takes the scorecard to lunch, and doesn't return until 5 minutes before the next round? Do we delay the other 89 players, with no sanction to the miscreant? Or is this another ill-defined "rude" behaviour? If so, where is the line between no-penalty and DQ---30 minutes? 45 minutes?

What if he does it on purpose because he's angry at the TD about a ruling? Or angry with his cardmates for playing defense?

*

How do you play snapching alone? When I play disc golf alone, I comply with disc golf rules because that's how I play tournaments. If I played snapching alone, I'd be my own TD and a law until myself, free to make it up as I go. So everyone playing snapching by themself is playing a different game. When I tell my brother I shot 58 today and he says he shot 56 yesterday, do either of us have any idea what the other is talking about?

*

Do you think a weakness of snapching is that the only penalty is DQ? Rude behaviour is either (1) OK, no penalty, or (2) DQ. Many sports have found that penalties between these two options help keep order and suppress bad behaviour. Imagine basketball with no fouls---anything's OK, unless the referee rules it "rude", then it's a DQ. Or football. Or most any other sport.

throwinROCS
Dec 16 2010, 10:39 AM
What happens if the the TD doesn't have a cell phone or his battery dies or the course isn't within cell phone range?

David Sauls already nailed us on the “no cell phone coverage” scenario, which he says is a common problem on his private course in South Carolina. (One of us – Matt says not to say which one – grew up on North Carolina and knows how backward things can get in SC.) We admit that we expected that by the time people start playing SnapChing tournaments, cell phone coverage will be universal. If not, maybe walkie talkies can do the job, or loud voices, or very fast hired grade school kids. Or however disc golf tournaments used to handle rulings back in the dark ages before there were any cell phones.


Ummm, that would be provisional shots, so a ruling could be made after the round.



It seems as though your rules have already had to be extended past your putter and onto all of these posts and reposts and will continue to expand until the need for a convenient, small 4"x5" pamphlet is needed for reference during play. I suggest that you organize and label it in such a way that sub-rulings based on rules be labeled sub-rule 4.01 and so on. That would make this whole SnapChing game a lot more simple.

TOURNEYPLAYER
Dec 16 2010, 11:37 AM
I feel dumber after reading this thread. i am not sure why someone is so intent ( and dedicated) to creating something that already exists. this reminds me of BASEKETBALL. I am going to refrain from ever opening this particular thread any further because it is going in circles and IMHO which isnt that humble Snapching is just a local version of DG and should be limited to casual play. just my 2 cents.


P.S. David you are ripping this thing apart and i laughed so hard at your interference post. DEFENSE!!! DEFENSE!!!!!

davidsauls
Dec 16 2010, 12:40 PM
P.S. David you are ripping this thing apart and i laughed so hard at your interference post. DEFENSE!!! DEFENSE!!!!!

In fairness, I'm not trying to rip it. I find it an interesting mental exercise, and offer observations that may help the snapchingers refine their concept.

It's easy to think of problems in disc golf rules and see how snapching handles them. It's harder to find problems in snapching rules, because my mind is full of disc golf and the disc golf solutions come to mind. What you need is some of the most cunning, conniving players, and some of the stupidest players, to really put it to test.

My background includes coaching basketball & baseball, where the rules were far more complex than disc golf, and where there was always some clever scoundrel searching for a loophole to exploit. Of course, the rules were so complex because of the clever scoundrels who had come earlier.

Hoser
Dec 16 2010, 01:12 PM
David, now you�ve got US laughing!


What snapching needs is some of the most cunning, conniving players, and some of the stupidest players, to really put it to test.

Amen, brother. Amen. Bring �em on. If Rules of SnapChing works for them, it�ll work for everyone else.

If connivers and fools reveal flaws in our rules, then we�ll work till we plug �em, and if we can�t: ___ �em. (Sorry, David, we lapsed into iambic hexameter.)


Mike & Matt :D :D


PS: We�ll reply to your questions in Post #143, later today.

Hoser
Dec 16 2010, 02:23 PM
David, thank you for your Post #143.


You�re giving us lots of good, challenging stuff to think about.

To keep our replies short, so readers� eyes won�t cross, we�re going to answer your post in two separate replies. Here�s the first.


In my opinion, your claim that snapching rules cover anything that might happen on the playing field does not hold up. Many resolutions are to "call the TD". Others are based on what the TD said at the player's meeting or what rules the TD has established. The vague "rude" rule can be stretched to cover many things, but is so vague as to not be a rule at all. Yet other events must refer you to the technical standards (does a wedgie or DROT count?), or elsewhere.

Rules of a game should be certain enough that when I enter a tournament or host a visitor traveling through town for a casual round, I have a pretty good chance of knowing what they are.

Of course your second paragraph is an essential truth. As you enter any event, you need to be confident that if you read the rulepage, and attend the player�s meeting to see if any local rules modify the rulepage, you�ll be playing the same game as your competitors. (For hosting an out-of-towner for casual play, see the discussion, in our second post later today, on your �Solo casual� question.)

Your first paragraph raises three questions. Please allow us to paraphrase.

Will TDs make so many weird local rules, that every tournament is a different game from every other tournament?
As we envision SnapChing competition under the World SnapChing League, the WSL will certify TDs to run tournaments only after training them on how to wield their TD power. That training will include guidelines on how to make local rules in ways that enhance, not dilute, Rules of SnapChing in special circumstances or course designs. In other words, WSL training will help TDs not to act like idiots or despots. A TD who gets out of line, vis-�-vis the WSL guidelines, will find himself hosting only backyard putting games of H.O.R.S.E..

The vague "rude" rule can be stretched to cover many things, but is so vague as to not be a rule at all.
This deserves an in-depth discussion, which we hope to get into soon on this thread � but, for now, let�s go with a shorter answer.

As we started working on a courtesy rule for SnapChing, we reviewed the PDGA model. If you look back at all nine PDGA rulebooks (1980 � 2011), you�ll see that the PDGA courtesy rule has gone through changes � first to more specifically detail the list of what is rude, and later to add to, or delete from, that list. (For example, the 1980, 1983, 1986 and 1988 rulebooks forbade �padiddling.� Later rulebooks removed that act from the list of rude stuff, which is good because lots of folks feel that padiddling should be allowed between consenting adults.)

The main challenge in writing courtesy rules, is that fair enforcement may need to consider the fouler�s intent. (�Intent� is the part of this discussion that�s worth a much fuller reply.) We�ve managed to remove �intent� from all the other rules of SnapChing. It can�t be removed from the courtesy rule � but at least questions of intent can be removed from the shoulders of players: Rule 2 puts all courtesy decisions into the hands of the TD, to judge whether the fouler deserves advice or DQ.

That�s an imperfect way for SnapChing to handle courtesy. Yet it encourages normal social interaction to fix minor discourtesy, with Rule 2 available to shift the problem to the TD instead of making a player be the bad guy by saying, �I�m giving you a courtesy warning.� (Warnings are another subject worth discussion. Disc golfers generally put up with, or ignore, plenty of fouls in order to avoid the social stink that you get if you give a courtesy warning.)

Any rule that lists fouls, always beg the question: �What about such-and-such similar act, that isn�t on the list?� As we designed SnapChing�s courtesy rule, we hoped that, rather than list fouls as the PDGA does, we�d find a way to govern courtesy under a single umbrella: all acts that disrupt orderly play.

As we boiled the PDGA list down, we realized that each act on the list was banned because it was rude. So we just said, �The TD can eject you if you act rude,� and left it up to the TD to run an orderly event.

(Yes, David, it is ironic that Rule 2, which condenses five lists of DQ-worthy acts into five broad classes of fouls, is actually a "list" rule itself.)

We agree that �rude� is vague. Only the experience of running some SnapChing events will show whether Rule 2 will produce results as good as what disc golf players and TDs get by using the PDGA courtesy rule. Since disc golfers commonly resist getting involved in warnings or penalties, disc golf�s real courtesy governance usually boils down to either informal social back-and-forth that resolves rudeness before it can escalate, or else DQ under 804.05. So, in practical terms, disc golf and SnapChing handle rudeness similarly. The main difference is that SnapChing creates an easier social climate by freeing players from having to formally enforce a rule that may involve intent.

David, we know this answer will seem incomplete to you. It�s going to take some field-testing to see if Rule 2 does, or doesn�t, create orderly, courteous play.

Yet other events must refer you to the technical standards (does a wedgie or DROT count?), or elsewhere.
Some tech questions, such as hole-out requirements, might fit either in the rules of play or in the tech manual (along with disc specs, regs on substances and devices, dress code, etc. � which, like wedgie or DROT, are things you need to know before you step onto Tee #1).

We�ve pared Rules of SnapChing down to rules of play that guide your action after the start horn blows. We assume that by the time the horn blows, you�ll already know, from reading the tech manual or from asking around, about the tech stuff that affects your participation in the tournament.

We haven�t yet messed with the PDGA tech specs, but when we do, we�ll likely rewrite SnapChing�s hole-out requirements this way:


A �pole basket� target is a Disc Pole Hole or other such target that�s built around a vertical pole and designed to catch and hold flying discs in either a set of flexible strands or a basket below.

To correctly hit this target, your whole thrown disc must rest touching nothing but the target (excluding its balancing base).



David, later today we�ll post a reply to your other questions from Post #143.


Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton
Dec 16 2010, 02:28 PM
Finally, a TD can make a ruling that forgives strokes. But that�s a slippery slope for a TD to start down. And World SnapChing League trainers will caution TDs to use that power sparingly or risk their certification to run SnapChing tournaments.

>SNIP<

If the TDs can play, they can do whatever the hell they want and the only one they have to answer to is themselves.

Not exactly. They be answering to their fellow players who will give them a serious fish-eye or a noogie or a wedgie (and we don�t mean a disc stuck in the side of the pan), and (B) the WSL can yank their TD certification.

But what happened to

Rule 1 lets the TD make local rules that override the rulebook. We�ve written a set of rules that creates an interesting game that�s fun and challenging to play. But if special circumstances on the course, or in the nature of the event, make it sensible for the TD to make local rules that override the rulebook, we specifically give the TD that power.

If a TD has to answer to a higher authority, the WSL, then they no longer have the authority to change the rules as they see fit, such as forgiving a player's misplay after someone waits too long to report it. Now we have to have more rules to cover those that the TD have no power to change.

davidsauls
Dec 16 2010, 02:35 PM
re: lost disc

Snapching rules say that "When your group agrees that your lie is lost...."

Does this mean when they agree with me that my lie is lost? Or when they agree with each other (majority opinion). There's no time limit for a search, and they can't apply a time limit to me, so can I look for my precious driver for as many hours as it may take? Or until someone summons the TD who shows up and tells me to move along, I'm holding up the tournament?

Suppose after a long search I agree that it's lost, accept their assignment of my new lie, play from there---and find my original throw suprisingly near the basket. Is my throw "unlost"? Or, once I throw from the assigned new lie, does that cancel the lie that would have been created by my original throw landing near the basket? Is there a conflict in the snapching rules on establishment of a new lie?

re: relief from unsafe lie (a lie that can't be thrown without causing injury).

What about landing near a poisonous snake? What's the nearest safe lie---or how far am I allowed to move from the poisonous snake? Someone scared of snakes might argue for 100' of relief, which is very favorable if it's in line towards the basket. Others might say, since there's no time limit, just wait however many hours it takes for the snake to move on.

Then we debate over whether that's really a copperhead, or a northern water snake. (At Stoney Hill, we shot & killed a copperhead, which gave us time to examine it and sadly determine that it was a harmless northern water snake). If I'm the thrower and I think it's poisonous, but my group thinks it's not and tells me to throw from 6" away from it (or move it if I can), what happens?

How about a grizzly bear? (Disc golf allows a re-throw with a penalty stroke, which isn't enough in my mind either. I like snapching....I can take a 2 mile relief if I want it!)

Hoser
Dec 16 2010, 03:34 PM
David, here�s further reply to your Post #143.


Snapching does not require a scorecard to be turned in in a timely manner. Most tournaments have two rounds in a day, with an hour lunch break during which cards are turned in, verified, scoreboard updated, players re-ordered by score, and hole assignments made.

What about the person who takes the scorecard to lunch, and doesn't return until 5 minutes before the next round? Do we delay the other 89 players, with no sanction to the miscreant? Or is this another ill-defined "rude" behaviour? If so, where is the line between no-penalty and DQ---30 minutes? 45 minutes?

What if he does it on purpose because he's angry at the TD about a ruling? Or angry with his cardmates for playing defense?

It�s enlightening to look at how the rule for scorecard return has evolved through the nine PDGA rulebooks in the past 30 years.


1980, 1983, 1986 & 1988. No mention of returning scorecards.

1990. You�re responsible to return your scorecard within 15 minutes after �completion of the round� (not defined). Foul: six stroke penalty.

1997, 2002, 2006 & 2011. You�re responsible to return your scorecard within 25 minutes after �in the director�s opinion, the last group on the course has completed their final hole and has had reasonable time to walk from their final hole to tournament HQ.� foul: two stroke penalty to each player on the late scorecard.


Gives you whiplash, doesn�t it? The 1990 rulebook � way more punitive than any other PDGA rulebook � levied three different 6-stroke penalties and a number of other multi-stroke dings (wrong addition was among those). It was as if an avenging angel swooped down upon the RC and demanded chastisement for the sins of all disc golfers. Come to think of it, Carlton Howard began his 20-year reign as RC chair shortly before the 1990 rulebook came out. Oh, well, best not to speculate.

Looking at the widely-varying PDGA score-reporting treatments, we realized that no rule or penalty is needed at all. Think about it: in the absence of a rule, what consequence comes to you and the TD if you don�t turn in your card at the end of a round? In the next round, the TD sticks you in a group of geezers and short-arms teeing off on Hole #18. (The rest of the field, and the schedule of play, aren�t affected at all by your tardiness.) The best you can hope for is to endure that round and quickly turn in both scorecards, to get grouped back with your peers and have a chance to win buckage and plaquage.

Scorecard return is self-regulating: your own self-interest motivates your prompt reporting of scores. If you are tardy, the TD is only mildly affected by figuring out which group of hacks to put you in for the next round.

Oh, but how about the other players on your card, who ask you to return the card and then you go to lunch instead? Well, you�ll get an earful from them after they play with weenie-arms in the next round. Whenever whole groups keep score on a single card, every SnapChinger will make sure the card gets returned right. If you earn the nickname �lunchmeat,� your groupmates will yank that card out of your hand and turn it in themselves.

As for angrily withholding a card: a player who intentionally doesn�t report his own scores, because he�s mad about something, is only hurting himself. A player who intentionally doesn�t turn in a group�s scorecard, because he wants to make his competitors suffer through an uninspiring group in the next round, is courting DQ for rudeness.


How do you play snapching alone? When I play disc golf alone, I comply with disc golf rules because that's how I play tournaments. If I played snapching alone, I'd be my own TD and a law unto myself, free to make it up as I go. So everyone playing snapching by themself is playing a different game. When I tell my brother I shot 58 today and he says he shot 56 yesterday, do either of us have any idea what the other is talking about?

In solo casual play, you become your own TD. If you want to give yourself 15 mulligans on a tough putt, you can do that � exactly the same as a solo casual disc golfer can.

In your particular case, since you like to comply with the rules, your �inner TD� is going to regulate you tight. If you and your brother know each other well, he�ll know that your �58� is a 58, and you�ll know that his �56� is, well, whatever you know it really is.

Let us put it another way: Rules of SnapChing, with no amendments, is the default way to play casual SnapChing. Just like disc golf. On the other hand, you as a solo, or your group by agreement, can amend those rules.


Do you think a weakness of snapching is that the only penalty is DQ? Rude behaviour is either (1) OK, no penalty, or (2) DQ. Many sports have found that penalties between these two options help keep order and suppress bad behaviour. Imagine basketball with no fouls---anything's OK, unless the referee rules it "rude", then it's a DQ. Or football. Or most any other sport.

In our early drafts of Rules of SnapChing, as we condensed sections of PDGA rules into simpler �big umbrella� rules, we saw that the number of �stroke� penalties was going down. The number got low enough that we wondered, �Is it possible to take all stroke penalties out of the game (leaving only DQ), so you can compute your score simply by adding up your flights?�

We analyzed each �stroke� penalty that we hadn�t yet eliminated. For example, the penalties for delay:


PDGA �delay� penalties are: one stroke for 30 seconds; two strokes for prematurely stopping play; par + 4 for failing to tee off in time; and one stroke (+ distance) for not finding your disc in 3 minutes.

We realized two things: if you block the flow of the tournament, you deserve to be removed; yet if you�re faced with �throw within X seconds or get the boot,� you can easily decide to throw before X expires.

So we felt okay about putting all forms of delay (except lost disc, which we handled in a different way without any penalty at all) under a single DQ rule, in which the TD always gives you a chance to throw quickly enough not to DQ.


We examined courtesy penalties the same way. We concluded that the one-stroke type of courtesy fouls can be handled in a social way without any penalty, with everyone being aware that Rule 2 can deal with a guy who keeps being rude. And if somebody is acting in ways that are seriously disrupting the game, the TD is right to remove him.

As we thought about which SnapChing acts deserve penalty, we found that we were able to remove each �stroke� penalty effectively, in one of three ways:


Remove the stroke penalty, but count the play on the scorecard. That�s how Rules 8 + 11 handle all misplays: you get no penalty strokes for misplays, but each flight counts on your score and your lie doesn�t change.

Remove the penalty entirely. We were able to do this for lost disc, disc above ground, score addition, scorecard return, and agreeing to play out of order.

Change the penalty to DQ. We were able to do this fairly in situations where serious fouls deserve DQ � rudeness, dangerous play, cheating, and tearing up the course � and, in the case of delay, a player can easily avoid the DQ by playing promptly after the TD puts him on the clock.


This is how SnapChing came to have no stroke penalties. We�re not saying that stroke penalties spoil disc golf. We just have a bias toward keeping SnapChing rules clean and simple; and removing stroke penalties is one facet of that.


Mike & Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Dec 16 2010, 03:48 PM
Your faith in players turning in scores promptly out of self-interest doesn't make sense to me. How much does it benefit a snapchinger to turn in the scorecard 10 minutes after the end of a round, compared to 50 minutes, except the latter inconveniences everyone else, especially the TD? I'd certainly not want to be the TD in such a circumstance. I think I'd apply the universal "rude" rule and boot the guy.

veganray
Dec 16 2010, 04:00 PM
i think i'd boot the guy and the snapching rules.

ftfy

davidsauls
Dec 16 2010, 04:16 PM
A couple more scenarios to contemplate (with apologies if I'm overlooking the applicable snapching rule)

This sounds farfetched but it's from a real-life event, as best as I recall, just slightly modified.

A top pro launches a drive way off course, and it goes into the fenced, no-trespassing area of the park's maintenance area. It should probably be O.B., but the TD did not declare it so, perhaps because he never conceived of a throw going there, or perhaps an oversight. Anyway, it's fenced and locked with barbed wire on the top.

Snapching? No relief because you could throw without injury IF you could get there. Is it lost? Some might say it is; some would say, since you can see exactly where it is, it's not lost. But it doesn't matter because your group would decide where the lost disc came to rest---and that's right where you see it, where it can't be played.

*

Or how about poison ivy? Can you take relief from it? Doesn't cause "injury" in the normal sense of the word. But if you interpret it to cause injury, do allergic people get relief, even if it gives them a better lie? If so, do we just take their word on the allergy, or can everyone claim potential allergy and take relief? And what if there's a dispute of whether it IS poison ivy---I know what it is but have seen a lot of people who don't.

*

Disc golf's odd and abusable "unplayable lie" rule at least gives an option in such cases. What's the snapching rule?

TOURNEYPLAYER
Dec 16 2010, 04:23 PM
i think i'd boot the guy and the snapching rules
ftfy


OUTSTANDING!!!! Could not have said it better myself!!:cool::cool::cool:

Hoser
Dec 16 2010, 08:01 PM
David, thank you for your Post #150.


re: lost disc

Snapching rules say that "When your group agrees that your lie is lost...."

Does this mean when they agree with me that my lie is lost? Or when they agree with each other (majority opinion). There's no time limit for a search, and they can't apply a time limit to me, so can I look for my precious driver for as many hours as it may take? Or until someone summons the TD who shows up and tells me to move along, I'm holding up the tournament?

David, let�s quickly clear up a small confusion. You misquoted the rule. But we do see where you got misled:

Rule 9: �If your lie is lost, your groupmates deem where your thrown disc first rests.�

At our SnapChing website, on the �Rules & Discussion� page, we briefly speak about each SnapChing rule. Under Rule 9, a paragraph begins, �When your group agrees that your lie is lost, your groupmates (and not you) will deem where your disc first rested.� [We should have chosen our words more carefully, in that webpage's discussion of Rule 9.]

When, exactly, is your lie lost? There�s no search limit, so the only way you�ll know your lie is lost is that everybody in the group says, �I can�t find it.� When the group agrees that nobody can find it, then Rule 9 kicks in: your groupmates deem where your disc first rests. Meanwhile, as long as someone in the group doesn�t agree that your lie is lost, the search goes on and Rule 9 isn�t in play.

Under SnapChing rules, SnapChingers will quickly figure out a certain strategy to maximize searches and avoid DQ in case the TD puts you on the clock. Here�s what you do. After you search a minute or so, you say to your group, �Hey, guys, give me a proposed spot, in case we can�t find it.� Your groupmates pick the spot where, if your lie is lost, they will deem your disc to first rest. You mark the lie of that spot. By this strategy, Rule 9 hasn�t yet kicked in, but you�re ready to throw as soon as it does.

You search a while longer, then decide to give up. You go to your deemed spot, take your next disc in hand and address the potential lie, and you ask, �Has anybody found it yet?� Your groupmates say no. You say, �Okay, it�s lost.� They agree. Now Rule 9 applies, and your �deem� lie is in play. You throw from your marker and the group proceeds to finish the hole.

Or, if the TD puts you on the clock while you�re searching, you can avoid DQ by quickly getting the group to agree that nobody can find your lie; then you go to the marked �deem� lie and throw before the clock dings.


Suppose after a long search I agree that it's lost, accept their assignment of my new lie, play from there---and find my original throw suprisingly near the basket. Is my throw "unlost"? Or, once I throw from the assigned new lie, does that cancel the lie that would have been created by my original throw landing near the basket? Is there a conflict in the snapching rules on establishment of a new lie?

You have found your original disc. But finding that disc or knowing where it landed is irrelevant since you�ve already followed the rules and established a known lie. According to Rule 6, your release of your second flight created a new lie, which Rule 7 located via where that second disc landed. Your first disc is a dead duck.

Remember the moment when you and your groupmates agreed that no one could find your lie? Up until that moment, your original thrown disc was �live.� But at the instant you agreed that no one could find your lie, your �deem� lie became in play. At the instant the �deem� spot becomes in play, then, by rule (Rule 9), that�s where your disc first rested. Done deal. Now Rule 7 locates your lie according to that spot.

David, at this point, do you still feel any doubt about where your lie is at every moment of this scenario? If so, please talk to us about it.

A possible way to make the ruling clearer, would be for us to eliminate Rule 9 and incorporate all the lost-lie info as a fifth �except� inside Rule 7. Ugh! We don�t want to do that. Rule 7 is crammed full as it is � it already has absorbed the OB rule, mando rule, hole-out rule and IB-injury rule.

Also Rules 9 and 10 are side by side on purpose as the only two rules that use the �deem� concept: each rule deems a disc to rest at an instant in time. If that instant is the disc�s first rest (which is always true for a lost lie, and it�s sometimes true when a disc breaks or its flight ends in water or a live vertebrate alters its flight) you locate the lie by plugging that �first rest� spot into Rule 7.

We�re interested to hear your further thoughts on this whole bag of duck feed.


re: relief from unsafe lie (a lie that can't be thrown without causing injury).

What about landing near a poisonous snake? What's the nearest safe lie---or how far am I allowed to move from the poisonous snake? Someone scared of snakes might argue for 100' of relief, which is very favorable if it's in line towards the basket. Others might say, since there's no time limit, just wait however many hours it takes for the snake to move on.

Then we debate over whether that's really a copperhead, or a northern water snake. (At Stoney Hill, we shot & killed a copperhead, which gave us time to examine it and sadly determine that it was a harmless northern water snake). If I'm the thrower and I think it's poisonous, but my group thinks it's not and tells me to throw from 6" away from it (or move it if I can), what happens?

How about a grizzly bear? (Disc golf allows a re-throw with a penalty stroke, which isn't enough in my mind either. I like snapching....I can take a 2 mile relief if I want it!)

Ah, the famous �snakes on a flight plane� movie.

SnapChingers are allowed to pick up loose sticks or branches and try to move the snake. No rule bars you from moving stuff that�s not attached to the ground.

Or, if the snake isn�t moveable, your lie becomes the closest 1�-circle lie where you�re not in snake danger. Sure, �snake danger� range is subjective and your group may powwow about it. (Group majority has no force; only unanimous agreement moves play forward.) Is the snake poisonous or not? Are you so scared of snakes that you�ll have a heart attack within 10M of it? The group negotiates. If agreement can�t be reached, then anyone can call the TD to rule. For example, you call the TD, who is sitting at HQ eating quiche. She asks, �Is the snake moving?� �Well, no, but it might. Looks like a fast snake.� �Okay, I�m ruling that you get the closest lie where your stance is 10� from the snake.� End of call. Your group agrees where that spot is. You mark it, and throw. You might want a pal to keep an eye on the snake while you�re addressing your lie.

But what if it�s a bear! (Oh my!) You�re darned right: you like SnapChing!


Mike & Matt :D :D

Hoser
Dec 16 2010, 08:06 PM
Vegan Ray and TOURNEYPLAYER,


Aw, gee, and we were SO looking foward to figgy pudding at your place Christmas Eve.


Mike & Matt :cool: :cool:

davidsauls
Dec 17 2010, 08:32 AM
..... The group negotiates. If agreement can�t be reached, then anyone can call the TD to rule.

This is not exactly my idea of a set of rules covering anything that happens on the field of play.

(After I posted the snake scenario, I realized I should have used hornets instead. This summer my disc landing about 20' from a huge hornets nest. It was calm, and I threw quickly and with extra adrenaline, but if it had been swarming it would have been another issue. It's hard to move a swarming hornet's nest! And it won't go away on its own and who knows how far those devils will chase you?)

davidsauls
Dec 17 2010, 09:17 AM
David, thank you for your Post #150.


re: lost disc

Snapching rules say that "When your group agrees that your lie is lost...."

Does this mean when they agree with me that my lie is lost? Or when they agree with each other (majority opinion). There's no time limit for a search, and they can't apply a time limit to me, so can I look for my precious driver for as many hours as it may take? Or until someone summons the TD who shows up and tells me to move along, I'm holding up the tournament?

David, let�s quickly clear up a small confusion. You misquoted the rule. But we do see where you got misled:

Rule 9: �If your lie is lost, your groupmates deem where your thrown disc first rests.�

At our SnapChing website, on the �Rules & Discussion� page, we briefly speak about each SnapChing rule. Under Rule 9, a paragraph begins, �When your group agrees that your lie is lost, your groupmates (and not you) will deem where your disc first rested.� [We should have chosen our words more carefully, in that webpage's discussion of Rule 9.]



I have assumed that the discussions/clarifications on that page have the rule of law. Many posts on this page have referred to them.

Restricted to the rules printed on the putter, there could be interpretations different from those in the rules discussion, opening up more holes.

For example, the rules say a TD can DQ a player for being "unfair". The discussion says the only thing "unfair" is reporting a score wrong. But if the rules discussion is not an actual rule, I can think of a lot more things that might fit the word "unfair". Unfortunately, other players and TDs might think of an entirely different list of "unfair" things.

DShelton
Dec 17 2010, 12:10 PM
It�s enlightening to look at how the rule for scorecard return has evolved through the nine PDGA rulebooks in the past 30 years.


1980, 1983, 1986 & 1988. No mention of returning scorecards.

1990. You�re responsible to return your scorecard within 15 minutes after �completion of the round� (not defined). Foul: six stroke penalty.

1997, 2002, 2006 & 2011. You�re responsible to return your scorecard within 25 minutes after �in the director�s opinion, the last group on the course has completed their final hole and has had reasonable time to walk from their final hole to tournament HQ.� foul: two stroke penalty to each player on the late scorecard.


Gives you whiplash, doesn�t it? The 1990 rulebook � way more punitive than any other PDGA rulebook � levied three different 6-stroke penalties and a number of other multi-stroke dings (wrong addition was among those). It was as if an avenging angel swooped down upon the RC and demanded chastisement for the sins of all disc golfers. Come to think of it, Carlton Howard began his 20-year reign as RC chair shortly before the 1990 rulebook came out. Oh, well, best not to speculate.

It's called evolution of the rules. Here's probably what happened:

In 1989, during a fairly important tournament, a disc golfer left for lunch and didn't turn in the scorcard. Since there was no rule concerning scorecards, the RC felt it necessary to write one. Then after a lengthy discussion, in 1996 they felt the rule as it stood was too punitive and didn't put the onus on the entire card to ensure the card was returned on time, so it was changed, again.

This is why you should not go back to older versions of the rules. Things change as new situations arise. Eventually, everything gets covered in the rules and only new technology issues have to be handled. It's conterproductive to go back and compare old versus new without asking why it was changed in the first place.

Also you have to think like a moron:
"If it's not specifically written in the rules," they say, "then how can you possibly penalize me for something the rule writers obviously felt didn't need penalized."

I guess in all of this, what I'm saying is, yes, disc golf at one time was a simple game with few rules, then the sport started to grow and morons started to play. They saw loop holes and ran through them. Those loopholes had to be patched up which caused more which in turn also needed patched. Now we have the rules we have today.

We no longer are a fringe sport with a few hundred playing that can get away with a few rules written out on a page like they were in 1984, but a sport on the verge of exploding onto the main stream sports world with thousands playing today. With that comes the need to ensure ALL rules are solid and moron proof, thus the need for the rulebook we have today. Is it perfect? Hell no, but it is a unifying document that will help propel the sport into the next evolution of the game, which will only get better.

In short, what would you do to make the rules better and more cohesive, instead of wanting to destroy the game and create a new one that will take it's place? That's a better way to use one's time. In fact, with a mind like yours, you could only do good in the RC. And before you say that you don't want to destroy disc golf, ask yourself this. If it had to be only one, which would it be? Disc golf or Snapching? If you answered disc golf, then snapching should be abandoned. If you answered snapching...

cgkdisc
Dec 17 2010, 12:23 PM
I believe the combined amount of text in the SnapChing Rules plus Q&As posted by Hoser have just about matched the amount of text in the PDGA Rulebook, Competition Manual and Rules Q&A. Looks like a virtual tie on text count. I believe the next post answer longer than 18 words from Hoser and the underpinnings for SnapChing will continue to unravel...

Hoser
Dec 17 2010, 01:50 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #161.


Arrggghhh. Quick � where�s that superglue??


Our aim, in writing SnapChing rules, has always been to write them clearly and precisely enough that an average player who doesn�t know anything about our backstory can apply each rule�s exact words � with no one else�s interpretation � and be playing SnapChing the way we designed it to be played.

We may or may not have succeeded.

As we�re rolling out the concept of a disc golf version that�s subtly different from PDGA disc golf, we know disc golfers will see our new rules through the lens of the rules you already know. Maybe you can �get� our new rules easier if we give you some info about the why, the logic, the cause-and-effect, even the trial-and-error of how we wrote rules certain ways.

It�s sort of like we�re inviting you to a party, and as you come in the door we�re coming over to shake your hand and take your coat and introduce you around and make a little bit of a fuss over you, to help you feel welcome into a place that�s different from the home you�ve been living in.

But, in the end, it�s either a good party and you�ll enjoy it, or it�s a dud and you�ll leave.

When you play by SnapChing�s rules as you see them, you�ll either see them the same way we do and you�ll be playing SnapChing, or you�ll see them differently than we do and you�ll be playing something else. It is OUR RESPONSIBLITY, NOT YOURS, to write the rules so you�ll always use them the way we aim for you to.

That�s how we see the responsibility of a rulewriter. And that�s why we have a bone to pick with the RC whenever they insist that it�s the players� responsibility to figure out how the RC sees the rules, rather than the RC�s responsibility to write rules clear enough for players to use correctly all by themselves on the field of play.

Chuck, we want you and others to dig deep to find �wrong� ways to use SnapChing�s rules. David Sauls said it right: we need the biggest scoundrels and the dumbest players to put our rules to the test. If our rules survive that test, we�ve done our job. If they don�t, then we�re in the same position as the RC is in now: our job isn�t finished.


Mike & Matt :) :)


PS: Sorry about "biggest scoundrels and dumbest players." (We can hear you wailing, "What? I resemble that remark!") We're pointing no fingers.

Hoser
Dec 17 2010, 02:05 PM
ThrowinROCS, thank you for your Post #144.


Ummm, that would be provisional shots, so a ruling could be made after the round.

ROCS, you�re right: provisional throws can let disc golfers keep playing without coming to agreement or getting a ruling from an official or the TD.

But SnapChing doesn�t allow provisionals. Here�s the story of why.

When we were designing SnapChing, we researched the history of how PDGA rules have governed group disagreements over the past 30 years.


1980, 1983, 1986 & 1988. Rules are enforced by two, three, or all of the members of a group (sometimes members of other groups can get involved, too), or an official. These rulebooks don�t say what to do if a group can�t agree and there�s no official to consult.

1990. Rules are enforced by �majority of the group or an official.� If no official is available, majority rules. Under this rulebook, players in the early and mid 1990s generally gave the thrower the benefit of the doubt if a group couldn�t reach majority decision � although only the courtesy rule specifically said to do that.

1997, 2002, 2006 & 2011. Group disagreement can be resolved three ways: (1) if the group can�t reach a majority decision, the benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower; (2) if the group reaches majority decision, the majority rules except anyone can call an official to overrule the group; (3) if you disagree with a majority of your group, on how to proceed, and no official is available, you can play provisionals.


Provisionals are comparatively recent in disc golf. Before the first provisional rule existed, Ken Climo already had won the PDGA World Championship six times.

As we pondered how provisionals might work in SnapChing, we weighed that option against two other standards of SnapChing:


� Pay 1 for each disc-flight release. Why? Because each flight release gives you info, about your muscles and nerves and strategy and the course conditions, that can help your future play. That�s always worth paying 1 for.

� Play the lie, unless relief is appropriate. We feel a bit more strongly, than the RC, about taking responsibility for the result of each throw. That�s why SnapChingers� only relief from an IB lie is Rule 7�s �injury� relief.


We decided, for the sake of skill challenge, to make SnapChing a game where you must play the result of each of your disc releases and pay 1 for each release. That eliminates provisionals from SnapChing. And to balance this stern test of skill, we designed Rule 1 to always let you get a TD ruling if your group can�t agree how to proceed. (But -- woops! -- as you and David Sauls point out, cell phonage isn�t yet ubiquitous.)

Also we designed SnapChing as a game where majority opinion has no force. A group agrees, or they don�t. If they don�t agree, call the TD to rule. Whenever a group disagrees, the question isn�t �How many of you vote for such-and-such ruling?� Instead the question is, �Did such-and-such act happen, or didn�t it?� SnapChing is a game of either/or, not of majority or consensus. The group ascertains the facts; or, if they can�t agree on the facts, they call the TD to rule. The TD rules via whatever evidence or testimony she can gather. The TD�s ruling prevails, and play resumes.

This system encourages groupmates to monitor each others� play. The better each player witnesses his groupmates� acts, the better the group can agree whether a certain act did or didn�t happen.

So SnapChing doesn�t allow provisionals. You pay 1 for each flight, and you are responsible to follow the rules on how to proceed after each flight you release.


Mike & Matt :) :)

veganray
Dec 17 2010, 02:15 PM
Mike & Matt,
You're definitely invited for figgy pudding at mine. The only catch is: instead of using the time-tested & multiply-refined recipe, I'll just take a bunch of random ingredients from my cupboard, throw 'em in a bowl, & bake for a random amount of time. If it doesn't work out, you can cell Santa on his cell & he'll work it all out.

cgkdisc
Dec 17 2010, 02:21 PM
Chuck, we want you and others to dig deep to find �wrong� ways to use SnapChing�s rules.
I think I speak for a lot of players who will start reading this thread, "We just don't care." Apathy abounds. If you wish SnapChing to become relevant in any way, do it the way other events like USDGC have introduced alternative rules formats - big money. I guarantee you'll have top players falling all over themselves SnapChinging their butts off practicing for a $10,000 first prize in a SnapChing Championship.

Hoser
Dec 17 2010, 02:35 PM
David, thank you for your Post #154.


A top pro launches a drive way off course, and it goes into the fenced, no-trespassing area of the park's maintenance area. It should probably be O.B., but the TD did not declare it so, perhaps because he never conceived of a throw going there, or perhaps an oversight. Anyway, it's fenced and locked with barbed wire on the top.

Snapching? No relief because you could throw without injury IF you could get there. Is it lost? Some might say it is; some would say, since you can see exactly where it is, it's not lost. But it doesn't matter because your group would decide where the lost disc came to rest---and that's right where you see it, where it can't be played.

We saw the video of that play, online. That was a WHALE OF A SHOT coming back out onto the fairway!

SnapChing ruling:

The disc isn�t OB.

The lie isn�t lost. You know where the disc is, so you know where the lie beneath it is; and you can figure out where the lie would be if you took relief under Rule 7�s last clause.

The thrower in this scenario either is able to get to the disc and take a stance there safely or he isn�t. In the video, he could and he did. But one of us (Matt says not to tell which one) is so old and decrepit that if he were in that thrower�s situation, he would whine mightily to invoke the �injury� relief in Rule 7�s last clause. When you see the climb the guy made, to get to his lie in that video, it looks reasonable for any group, or the TD, to agree that it�s not safe to go in there and throw. (Your scenario doesn�t say so, but there was a sign posted on or in the fenced enclosure, warning of some kind of gas hazard or legal reason not to be in there.)

In your scenario, if you do get relief under Rule 7�s last clause, it would (according to the video) be immediately behind the enclosure � meaning smack dab up against the fence � which is tough beans for your next shot since you�d have to hoik one around the fence or over the small building.


How about poison ivy? Can you take relief from it? Doesn't cause "injury" in the normal sense of the word. But if you interpret it to cause injury, do allergic people get relief, even if it gives them a better lie? If so, do we just take their word on the allergy, or can everyone claim potential allergy and take relief? And what if there's a dispute of whether it IS poison ivy---I know what it is but have seen a lot of people who don't.

Some folks are allergic to nothing, and they think anybody who claims allergy is a wuss. Some folks are deathly allergic to bee stings or snake bites. Most of us are allergic to poison ivy, and we dang well know the rash is an injury.

Poison ivy:

It doesn�t have to be there: if the maintenance folks or the sport club invest the right amount of money and effort, poison ivy can be eradicated from the course.

Where poison ivy does exist, its boundaries shift over time, so relief may differently affect scoring over time.

A disc golf or SnapChing course designer likely knows, long before tees are poured and baskets go into the ground, where poison ivy is an how relief might affect play. Holes can be designed to avoid the situation.


Relief from poison ivy, like relief from snakes on a flight plane, is a matter of group powwow. How allergic are you? Can you get in and out without touching leaf? Are surgical gloves or shoe covers available (yes, some players carry that stuff for just that reason)?

Rule 7 relief from poison ivy is equable to the whole field. Might the relief affect the outcome of the tournament? Maybe. Which is a greater value: "play where it lies" in the poison ivy, or guarantee everyone a safe tournament? We�ve designed SnapChing to honor both values, and when they conflict, we give the nod to safety.


Disc golf's odd and abusable "unplayable lie" rule at least gives an option in such cases. What's the snapching rule?

In SnapChing, you have no option, at any cost, to completely bail out of your IB lie. Your only relief option is the last clause of Rule 7. If you throw into jail and you can physically get in there and take a correct stance and make a minimal throw without hurting yourself, that�s what a SnapChinger must do. If you can�t, then you get enough relief so you barely can.

Some course designs may require greater relief: for example, a ski-slope hole where your 800� drive may drift a few degrees and end up IB in Bottomless Canyon. There, it makes sense for the TD to give players an option to throw from an accessible drop zone, rather than spend the day trying to locate errant discs. The TD's local relief rule might locate the drop zone far downhill, and add a scoring penalty in addition to scoring the original throw. Or the local rule might locate the drop zone just a little way down the slope from the tee, and give no scoring penalty.


Keep �em coming, David. You�re approaching lift-off � you�re just about ready to go out to Stoney Hill and play SnapChing.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Dec 17 2010, 03:17 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #165.


Apathy abounds.

Reminds us of a guy who was asked, �Do you think the greatest problem in today's society is ignorance, or apathy?�

�I don�t know, and I don�t care.�


Of course the lure of big money would be a powerful spark. We speculated 20 years ago � and it�s likely still true today � that if a gazillionaire, who wanted to own a sport franchise but couldn�t find one for sale, got wind of the opportunity to be forever known as The Father of a new sport, and if he was willing to put $10 million into events and prizes and promotion and infrastructure in the first two years, PDGA tournament players would jump ship en masse and the GDGA (Gazillionaire Disc Golf Association) would wipe out the PDGA in six weeks.

Never happen, right? Ask Woolworths, Sears, Kmart . . .

Even without big-prize incentive, something significant already is going on about SnapChing: 500 readers have hit on this �Open Letter� thread since Wednesday morning. Maybe they�re tuning in just to see us whack at each other. Or maybe they�re tuning in because they feel that PDGA rules need improvement and the first �other� rulebook may holds some clues.

A few dozen Big Arms will win all the big money in pro disc golf. All the other thousands � and potential millions � of players are in it for the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy. All they want out of the game is a chance to play by clear rules that create the best fun and best skill challenge.


Mike & Matt

Hoser
Dec 17 2010, 04:05 PM
David, thank you for your Posts #158 and #159.


Quote by M&M: "The group negotiates. If agreement can�t be reached, then anyone can call the TD to rule."

This is not exactly my idea of a set of rules covering anything that happens on the field of play.



Group negotiation always has been a feature of disc golf: figure out �where did it go OB?�; find and re-mark a prior lie; seek agreement after a foul call. Groups of SnapChingers do the same. SnapChing�s quorum is steeper than PDGA disc golf�s: the whole group, not just a majority, must agree. If unanimity can�t be reached, call the TD to settle the question.

We�ve aimed to write SnapChing�s rules in such a way that groups will reach agreement the vast majority (pun intended) of times and will seldom need to call the TD. We�re looking forward to practical feedback on this, via SnapChing tournaments.


After I posted the snake scenario, I realized I should have used hornets instead. This summer my disc landing about 20' from a huge hornets nest. It was calm, and I threw quickly and with extra adrenaline, but if it had been swarming it would have been another issue. It's hard to move a swarming hornet's nest! And it won't go away on its own and who knows how far those devils will chase you?

Yikes! Every veteran disc golfer has run into hornets. As soon as you find yourself in that scenario, your visceral reaction is, �Booger the rules, I�m outta here!� It�s a no-brainer: don�t damage yourself to play the game. (It�s SnapChing, not cage boxing.) The game�s rules should embrace that value. SnapChing Rule 7 lets you relocate beyond sting range. If a group can�t figure out where that is . . . ai ai aiiii, call the TD.


I have assumed that the discussions/clarifications on [the discussion page on the SnapChing website] have the rule of law. Many posts on this page have referred to them.

Restricted to the rules printed on the putter, there could be interpretations different from those in the rules discussion, opening up more holes.

For example, the rules say a TD can DQ a player for being "unfair". The discussion says the only thing "unfair" is reporting a score wrong. But if the rules discussion is not an actual rule, I can think of a lot more things that might fit the word "unfair". Unfortunately, other players and TDs might think of an entirely different list of "unfair" things.

David, as we were building the SnapChing website, we debated whether it made sense to include a discussion of the rules. After all, if we�d really done our job, the rules would be so clear and effective that players could just use them at face value.

Hmmmm. Maybe it was a mistake for us to put that discussion page on the website. It may be not only unnecessary, but distracting too. After all, the Q&A page does a better job of showing the rules in action.

Thanks for pointing out this problem, David. (Yes, we see how our discussion of �unfair� clouds the rule rather than illuminates it.)


Mike & Matt :o :o

Hoser
Dec 17 2010, 04:52 PM
David, thank you for your Post #152.


Your faith in players turning in scores promptly out of self-interest doesn't make sense to me. How much does it benefit a snapchinger to turn in the scorecard 10 minutes after the end of a round, compared to 50 minutes, except the latter inconveniences everyone else, especially the TD? I'd certainly not want to be the TD in such a circumstance. I think I'd apply the universal "rude" rule and boot the guy.

David, you�ve got more TD experience than we do, so please correct this if we�re wrong.

We�re assuming this scenario:


Between rounds, the TD sets the groups for the next round, according to the scores he has received. If Bubba�s card comes in after that, the TD dumps Bubba onto the last card in the field. The whole field starts the next round on schedule. When and if Bubba promptly reports his next scores to the TD, he can get back into a peer-scoring group for the following round.


Net result:


Bubba gets the memo: report your scores promptly. The TD yawns. The rest of the field plays as if nothing happened.


David, what are we missing?


Mike & Matt :confused:

cgkdisc
Dec 17 2010, 04:56 PM
Or maybe they’re tuning in because they feel that PDGA rules need improvement and the first “other” rulebook may holds some clues.
I think most feel the PDGA rules need improvement, not so much in the individual risk/reward structures, but in making sure they are consistent with each other and avoid conflicting interpretations. There's nothing revolutionary with the SnapChing rules. You've basically borrowed the USDGC 2008-9 buncr rule and have beaten it in the ground as the SnapChing game. The potential for "throw and distance" penalties on every shot ala USDGC 2010 is also overkill. USGA Golf and PDGA disc golf use a little bit of this rule, a dash of that rule and a tweak of those rules to produce what I suspect most have discovered is a richer and more varied golf experience, albeit a bit more complicated.

Hoser
Dec 17 2010, 05:44 PM
Chuck, thank you for your Post #170.


There's nothing revolutionary with the SnapChing rules. You've basically borrowed the USDGC 2008-9 buncr rule and have beaten it in the ground as the SnapChing game. The potential for "throw and distance" penalties on every shot ala USDGC 2010 is also overkill.

Chuck, any resemblance of SnapChing rules to USDGC rules is coincidental.

We might as well confess (with apologies to Harold Duvall & Co.): we�ve never been to USDGC. Haven�t seen any videos. Don�t know the course layout. Don�t know what a buncr is. Don�t know what is meant by �throw and distance penalties on every shot ala USDGC 2010.�

From your reaction, though, it sounds like these guys may have some interesting ideas.


Mike & Matt

davidsauls
Dec 17 2010, 05:53 PM
David, thank you for your Post #152.


Your faith in players turning in scores promptly out of self-interest doesn't make sense to me. How much does it benefit a snapchinger to turn in the scorecard 10 minutes after the end of a round, compared to 50 minutes, except the latter inconveniences everyone else, especially the TD? I'd certainly not want to be the TD in such a circumstance. I think I'd apply the universal "rude" rule and boot the guy.

David, you�ve got more TD experience than we do, so please correct this if we�re wrong.

We�re assuming this scenario:


Between rounds, the TD sets the groups for the next round, according to the scores he has received. If Bubba�s card comes in after that, the TD dumps Bubba onto the last card in the field. The whole field starts the next round on schedule. When and if Bubba promptly reports his next scores to the TD, he can get back into a peer-scoring group for the following round.


Net result:


Bubba gets the memo: report your scores promptly. The TD yawns. The rest of the field plays as if nothing happened.


David, what are we missing?


Mike & Matt :confused:

At least around here, and to my knowledge most places---

One card is kept for the entire group. So someone not returning a card promptly affects 4 or 5 players, not just himself.

If it's the 3rd round of a 4 round event, some of the players who should be on the lead card for the final event, might not be. There is a principle that you want all the leaders grouped together, so they can keep tabs on each other's scores.

cgkdisc
Dec 17 2010, 06:12 PM
Chuck, any resemblance of SnapChing rules to USDGC rules is coincidental. Ee might as well confess (with apologies to Harold Duvall & Co.): we’ve never been to USDGC. Haven’t seen any videos. Don’t know the course layout. Don’t know what a buncr is. Don’t know what is meant by “throw and distance penalties on every shot ala USDGC 2010.”

Both of these hazard options have been available for a long time in PDGA rules but not referred to as "buncr" and "throw and distance." A buncr is simply an identified location where if your disc lands in it you must relocate your lie per the buncr rule being applied whether it be line of play, drop zone or the USDGC version - rethrow. There's no penalty other than the relocation of your lie. This option has been available to course designers and TDs via the Special Conditions rule in the PDGA rulebook for quite a while. As I understand it, the "buncr rule with rethrow" is the core SnapChing rule for all throws where you land where you're not supposed to.

Throw and Distance penalty is the same as the ball golf rule where the player gets penalized 1-throw and also relocates to the previous lie if they land in a hazard or OB. It's esentially the 2008-9 USDGC buncr rule with rethrow plus a 1-throw penalty being added.

DShelton
Dec 17 2010, 06:19 PM
We�re assuming this scenario:


Between rounds, the TD sets the groups for the next round, according to the scores he has received. If Bubba�s card comes in after that, the TD dumps Bubba onto the last card in the field. The whole field starts the next round on schedule. When and if Bubba promptly reports his next scores to the TD, he can get back into a peer-scoring group for the following round.


The actual thing that will happen is that the player will holler and scream because there is nothing in the rules that says he MUST be placed on the last card or that he has to turn his card in on time. He will insist that he be placed where his score places him and he would be right. He will not only effect his placement and those on his card, he will also ruin the tournament for anyone that he is placed with unless he is placed where he scored. The story will be that since there is no rule against it, the TD was being an a** and hurt the player. That's the only story people will hear and it will affect the TD's future tournaments.

Jeff_LaG
Dec 17 2010, 06:25 PM
I think I speak for a lot of players who will start reading this thread, "We just don't care." Apathy abounds.

I don't really agree with this - I think, if anything, the whole Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) concept is at least bringing greater awareness to the issue of wording in our existing PDGA Rules of Play. Many, many disc golfers over the years have scrutinized our rules, offered suggestions to the rules committee on where they need revision and how to possibly revise them, and it's obviously working because we're getting official updates to our Rules more often now than ever before. But the fact that two guys still became so disillusioned with our rules and put in enormous amounts of effort to come up with their own set of rules speaks volumes, and is only going to generate more awareness and discussion over our Rules and make them better.

Or maybe they�re tuning in because they feel that PDGA rules need improvement and the first �other� rulebook may holds some clues.

Bingo! Totally agreed.

I believe the combined amount of text in the SnapChing Rules plus Q&As posted by Hoser have just about matched the amount of text in the PDGA Rulebook, Competition Manual and Rules Q&A. Looks like a virtual tie on text count.

On this I agree 100%. David Sauls and others have been peppering Mike & Matt with atypical disc golf scenarios and how the Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) address them. In many cases, the answers being given aren't 100% intuitive and not the exact same answers that others might come up with if they applied SnapChing rules themselves. When a basic tenet of a rules system is that players should not have to worry about interpretation or "intent of the rules" or "spirit of the rules" then SnapChing, like the PDGA rules, are flawed in that aspect. When the Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) internal tenet is that all of them are short enough to print on a putter, all these discussions should be proof that they really are not. Even on the SnapChing website, there's a page which describes how "These Specific Rule Differences Make SnapChing Improve on Disc Golf." (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/snapchingVSdiscgolf.html) A good case could be made that all of those differences are important enough, and non-intuitive enough, that they should be included in the official rules as well, or at least as a Q&A. Add this entire thread into that Q&A section and this all makes my brain hurt far worse than the PDGA Rules of Play!

So we're not easily solving every field-of-play question...there's still a lot of interpretation...the rules aren't so short as advertised...and it hurts my brain.

Where exactly are the advantages of the Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) over PDGA Rules of Play? :confused:

DShelton
Dec 17 2010, 06:27 PM
I also forgot to mention that in most states, when money is exchanged during a sporting event, that state's gambling laws kick in. In most laws it states that the rules must be fair and equal for all involved. By forcing the player to the last card without a viable rule stating why, you run up against the "fair and equal" phrasing of those laws.

DShelton
Dec 17 2010, 06:37 PM
On this I agree 100%. David Sauls and others have been peppering Mike & Matt with atypical disc golf scenarios and how the Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) address them. In many cases, the answers being given aren't 100% intuitive and not the exact same answers that others might come up with if they applied SnapChing rules themselves. When a basic tenet of a rules system is that players should not have to worry about interpretation or "intent of the rules" or "spirit of the rules" then SnapChing, like the PDGA rules, are flawed in that aspect. When the Rules of SnapChing (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) internal tenet is that all of them are short enough to print on a putter, all these discussions should be proof that they really are not. Even on the SnapChing website, there's a page which describes how "These Specific Rule Differences Make SnapChing Improve on Disc Golf." (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/snapchingVSdiscgolf.html) A good case could be made that all of those differences are important enough, and non-intuitive enough, that they should be included in the official rules as well, or at least as a Q&A. Add this entire thread into that Q&A section and this all makes my brain hurt far worse than the PDGA Rules of Play!

I have to agree too. If the rules were that simple, then it should take less than a paragraph to explain each scenario and be easy to understand. Instead it takes several and it is a chore to read each explanation. What's so simple about that? It sounded so straight forward to begin with, but as expected, as each new wrinkle is introduced, a new "non-rule" explanation is thrown out there and the rules have grown.

Hoser
Dec 18 2010, 04:58 PM
Jeff, thank you for your Post #175.


(David Sauls, we�re thinking about late scorecard return. Our conversation with you, about that, may take more than a couple of paragraphs, so we decided to address Jeff�s point first.)


Jeff says:


David Sauls and others have been peppering Mike & Matt with atypical disc golf scenarios and how the Rules of SnapChing address them. In many cases, the answers being given aren't 100% intuitive and not the exact same answers that others might come up with if they applied SnapChing rules themselves. When a basic tenet of a rules system is that players should not have to worry about interpretation or "intent of the rules" or "spirit of the rules" then SnapChing rules, like the PDGA rules, are flawed in that aspect.

We agree. It�s always our responsibility, as rulewriters, to cure any such flaw in our rules. We encourage everyone on this thread, without reserve, to find and expose those flaws, so we can get to work on curing them.


When the Rules of SnapChing internal tenet is that all of them are short enough to print on a putter, all these discussions should be proof that they really are not.

Much of our discussion on this thread is backstory on how SnapChing�s rules came to be, and why we decided to treat some aspects of disc golf differently from the PDGA, and how we got from point A to point Z in our reasoning.

We tell it not to shore up our rules, but to give you a taste of the labyrinth of thought that we (and the RC) go through to write rules to create a game. Not a single one of Rules of SnapChing�s 400 words is there by accident. We chose each one for a well-thought-out reason. That�s not to say that our reasons were right � and if they weren�t, you�ll help us realize that. In any case we hope our backstory lets you see our rules differently than if you thought we just threw stuff up against the wall to see what stuck.

For the remainder of this thread, whenever we respond at length to questions about how the rules work on the field of play, that�s where we�re coming from. The whole time, we are keeping in mind, as you are, that there�s no excuse for our rules not being able to stand alone without discussion.


Even on the SnapChing website, there's a page which describes how "These Specific Rule Differences Make SnapChing Improve on Disc Golf." A good case could be made that all of those differences are important enough, and non-intuitive enough, that they should be included in the official rules as well, or at least as a Q&A. Add this entire thread into that Q&A section and this all makes my brain hurt far worse than the PDGA Rules of Play!

So we're not easily solving every field-of-play question...there's still a lot of interpretation...the rules aren't so short as advertised...and it hurts my brain.

Sorry to make your brain hurt, Jeff.

But imagine a newbie who has never played disc golf and never seen the PDGA rulebook or heard anything about how to play disc golf. She is stepping onto the course to play SnapChing for the first time. She has the page of rules. She isn�t burdened with any baggage about how the game is supposed to go. She neither needs, nor would make any sense of, our website�s �differences� page. She just wants to see how SnapChing�s rules give her a chance to enjoy the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy.

There are millions, like her, who soon may be drawn to disc golf. Their brains won�t hurt the same way yours does, to consider SnapChing.

That�s not to say that Rules of SnapChing�s single page won�t make new players� brains hurt a little bit. But we�re hoping that this forum will help us figure ways to ease that pain. We won�t be disappointed if, after all the critiques are in, we�re able to make Rules of SnapChing player-friendly by doubling its length to two putters � still less than one-tenth the size and density of the PDGA rulebook.


Where exactly are the advantages of the Rules of SnapChing over PDGA Rules of Play?

The time has passed when that answer could be ours to give. The �Open Letter� thread is approaching 5000 hits. Hundreds or thousands of disc golfers already are forming their own opinions about what kind of rules their game needs.

The main advantage to the sport is that Rules of SnapChing exists. No longer is the PDGA rulebook the only framework for disc golfers to envision their game. The existence of another rule system stirs people to think about how to maximize their game�s potential. It may ruffle some status-quo feathers but it can�t be bad for the sport.


Mike & Matt :) :)

AndrewPfeiffer
Dec 19 2010, 01:39 PM
"The Spirit of the Game:
Disc Golf is played for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and abide by the rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all time, irrespective of how competitive they may be.
This is the spirit of the game of disc golf"

PDGA Competition Manual for disc golf events
copyright 2011

Hoser
Dec 19 2010, 08:30 PM
David, thank you for your Post #172


At least around here, and to my knowledge most places---

One card is kept for the entire group. So someone not returning a card promptly affects 4 or 5 players, not just himself.

If it's the 3rd round of a 4 round event, some of the players who should be on the lead card for the final event, might not be. There is a principle that you want all the leaders grouped together, so they can keep tabs on each other's scores.

Our tournament experience has mostly been with individual cards. Hmmm.


* * *

Few acts that players do before or between rounds are essential to the conduct of a tournament. Aside from being courteous and respecting the course (see SnapChing Rule 2), two others are important: learn local-rule stuff from the TD; and report scores to the TD.

(How about adding scores? That�s not an issue for SnapChingers. SnapChing doesn�t penalize players� wrong addition or make players add their own scores at all. We�ll be glad to talk more about this in a later post.)

SnapChing doesn�t penalize you if you fail to learn local-rule stuff from the TD. It�s in your own self-interest to get that info. If your ignorance boosts your score, you�ll create your own penalty.

So � what about reporting scores? What penalty (if any) is needed to get scores reported in time for the TD to group players for the next round (especially the lead groups) without stressing the TD, the players, and the schedule of play?

As we noted in Post #151, the PDGA has figured out since 1980 that six penalty strokes is too big, and zero penalty strokes is too little, and two penalty strokes is just right.

SnapChing�s rulewriters feel that players are so self-motivated to get grouped correctly, that no penalty is needed to get them to report scores promptly.

To evaluate those points of view, let�s first decide: when is �too late�? Is it some arbitrary time after Moment X (which begs a question that the PDGA definition of �completion of a round� leaves hanging: if Moment X isn�t known to all players, how can you know when your �last possible prompt moment� is)? Or is it when the TD has added all the scores and is ready to reshuffle the groups? Or is it when the TD releases players to take their cards out to their holes for the next round? Or is it the start horn for the next round?

We suggest that it�s probably either when the TD is ready to reshuffle the groups, or when the TD releases players to their holes for the next round.

(For the following logic, assume that all but one player reports scores promptly. Later we�ll worry about what happens when multiple players report late.)

If there�s a way that the TD can easily deal with Bubba reporting his scores after the grouping has begun but before the TD releases the players, then �too late� can be at the time the TD releases the players. We suggest this process:


Players use individual cards.

The TD uses a scoreboard display that has little slot-racks he can slip scorecards into, showing each card�s top (the player�s name and total score). It�s quick and easy to stick cards into these slots or move cards from slot to slot.

If Bubba played in the lead group in Round 3, and hasn�t turned in his card by the time the TD groups players for Round 4, the TD can arrange the scoreboard with an empty slot in Group #1. If Bubba hands in his card before the TD releases players to their holes, the TD can quickly reshuffle the top cards to put Bubba into his proper order.

Or the TD can group the scoreboard into foursomes as if Bubba didn�t exist. Then if Bubba hands in his scores before the TD releases players to their holes, the TD can make the lead group a fivesome, and Bubba�s Round 3 score puts him in or near the lead group.

Or, if the TD can discover what Bubba scored in Round 3, then the TD can set the board with an empty slot where Bubba�s card should be. Then if Bubba shows up in time to hand in his Round 3 score and get to his tee, no problem; or if Bubba is a no-show, the TD will put him on the clock on his first tee and DQ him if he doesn�t tee off before the clock dings.


Our logic, up to this point, suggests that the job of a prompt-reporting rule is to make it acceptably rare that Bubba will report his unknown scores later than when the TD releases players to their holes for the next round.

We know that a two-stroke penalty doesn�t always get the job done. We know that there were instances, when the 1990 rulebook was in force (1990 � 1997), that a six-stroke penalty didn�t get the job done, either; and the penalty was so awful that the RC decided, in 1997 revision, to lower the penalty to two strokes. And we know that under the 1980, 1983, 1986 and 1988 rulebooks, PDGA tournaments (including eight Worlds) were contested without any rule to regulate scorecard return, and TDs apparently weren�t distressed enough to put big pressure on the RC to regulate prompt scorecard return.

We don�t know why the 1990 rulebook suddenly created a six-stroke penalty for failing to return a card within 15 minutes after the round. It seems unlikely that TDs were pressing the RC for such a severe rule. And we don�t how or why the RC in 1997 decided to reduce the penalty to two strokes and extend the time to 25 minutes.

Back to the question of whether SnapChing needs a rule to inspire prompt score reporting. If Bubba knows that the consequence of late reporting is that he�ll be grouped with short-arms for the next round, is his self-interest strong enough to get him to report his scores promptly even if there�s no penalty for lateness?

We�re not sure. We don�t know how tardy players will be if there�s no penalty v. two penalty strokes. (If any TDs from 1980 � 1990 can tell us how much of a problem late reporting was during that period, or how TDs motivated players to report promptly, we�d appreciate it.)

All of the reasoning, above, is about Bubba alone turning in his scores late. The problem magnifies if more than one player turns in his card late, or if Bubba goes to lunch with his whole group�s scorecards in his pocket.

David � and everyone else � what solution do you recommend? If you were designing the game we�ve designed, what rule would you modify or add, to make late scorecard return an acceptably rare occurrence?


Mike & Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Dec 20 2010, 09:16 AM
David � and everyone else � what solution do you recommend? If you were designing the game we�ve designed, what rule would you modify or add, to make late scorecard return an acceptably rare occurrence?


Mike & Matt :) :)

I dunno. The snapching ethos seems to include (1) no time limits, (2) no penalties other than DQ, and (3) the TD is king. So of course the TD could, at each event, state his requirement for return of scorecards, under penalty of DQ. Then again, that's one more mark against snapching to me---additional rules set by the TD, varying at each event.

Since players don't need to add their scores, they can return cards much quicker. (Around here, one card contains scores for everyone in a group, and there's a conference while several players check all the scores on a card). But it greatly increases the time it takes the TD to handle the cards, since he has to tally all the scores. To a TD might say, "If I've tallied all the cards that were turned in promptly, any ones outstanding are DQ." Because that's likely to be at least 30 minutes to get the card in.

One flaw of snapching is, Who would want to TD it? Being a TD in disc golf is sometimes thankless, and TD burnout's a problem. Snapching makes it worse:

---TD must add scorecards (in a 90-player, 4 round event, that's 360 scores).
---No time limits mean long rounds, perhaps much longer rounds.
---TD is reponsible for any rules beyond those specified in snapching.
---TD must be on hand, reachable by cellphone, to make rulings throughout the event.
---TD likely to catch a lot more grief from players over TD's judgements and rulings; he can't just go to specific wording in the PDGA book as his defense.
---Only penalty in many cases is DQ. Who wants to DQ players? Who wants to DQ one player who's traveled with 3 others to the event? Heck, disc golf TDs are reluctant to DQ people for illegal drug use as it is; who wants the confrontation of DQing someone for being rude?

So beyond whether it would be fun to play snapching---or as fun as disc golf---it wouldn't be fun at all to TD.

Hoser
Dec 21 2010, 12:05 PM
David, thank you for your Post #181


One more mark against snapching to me---additional rules set by the TD, varying at each event.

Rule 1: Play by Rules of SnapChing as the TD amends.

Those last four words have convinced a lot of folks that SnapChing TDs will run amok, making local rules that create absurd versions of SnapChing. You won�t know, from event to event, what game you�re signing up to play.

Our aim is the opposite: the World SnapChing League will accredit TDs on the basis of training in how to make local rules sensibly adapt Rules of SnapChing to special conditions or course design. If no special conditions or course design exist, the only local rules a TD may need are �OB is here� and �There�s a no-fly line on Hole #7.� When TDs follow WSL guidelines in making local rules, then players can arrive at a new event with this feeling: �I know Rules of SnapChing. Now let�s see what�s special at this course.�


One flaw of snapching is, Who would want to TD it? Being a TD in disc golf is sometimes thankless, and TD burnout's a problem. Snapching makes it worse.

David, we hope you don�t burn out. Let�s look at your concerns in detail:


TD must add scorecards (in a 90-player, 4 round event, that's 360 scores).

Yes. Isn�t that what all TDs, and their staff, do at every PDGA tournament?


No time limits mean long rounds, perhaps much longer rounds.

Let�s consider the six kinds of delay that the PDGA rulebook governs:


� Slow throwing (the 30 second rule).

� Late arrival on a tee.

� Quitting during play.

� Searching for lost discs.

� Retrieving thrown discs, to rethrow.

� Late scorecard return.


Slow throwing. We�ve never, in 40 years of tournament and casual play, seen a 30-second penalty given. Yet play proceeds fast enough for groups and for the field � because players want to fling it! We doubt that SnapChing throws will take longer, on average, than PDGA disc golf throws.

Late arrival on a tee. A disc golfer who doesn�t tee off within 30 seconds after it�s his turn, gets �par + 4� score on that hole. When a SnapChinger is absent on a tee, the group calls the TD: the TD puts the absent player on the clock; if the clock dings before the player tees off, the TD may DQ him. In this rare kind of delay, SnapChing may take a minute or more longer than PDGA disc golf.

Quitting during play. If conditions are stormy and the TD hasn�t suspended play, a prolonged negotiation may go on within the group. �We can�t play in this.� �Well, the TD didn�t blow the horn yet.� �Yeah, but maybe we can�t hear it in all this racket.� �Maybe it�s not hailing at HQ.� �Well, what�re we gonna do?� �Let�s take shelter under that tree.� �I dunno, we ought to keep playing.� Players consult their rulebooks, which get soaked in the storm before they can locate the rule and read the 8-point type. Eventually, in order to levy a two-stroke penalty (804.04), the TD has to get involved.

In SnapChing, if a whole group stops in a stormy situation, a group behind may call the TD, �Hey, those guys are holding up play.� The TD can decide whether to put the delaying group on the clock. Or, if only one group member wants to stop playing, anybody in the group can call the TD to ask how to proceed. The TD will either put the delaying player on the clock or decide to suspend play.

Quitting takes about the same time to govern in SnapChing and PDGA disc golf.

Searching for lost discs. The PDGA gives disc golfers 3 minutes to search, after (1) the player arrives where the group last saw the disc and (2) the whole group is searching and (3) two players or an official start the clock. Since the clock rarely starts until you�ve already been looking for your disc a while and you�ve called everyone together to search, the actual search time to find a lost disc is likely 6 minutes or more from when you arrived.

SnapChing doesn�t specify a time limit, to search for lost lies. But since there�s no penalty for losing a lie, you�re not motivated to search a very long time. Also, if your search blocks the tournament flow, anyone on the course can call the TD and the TD can put you on the clock to end your search.

PDGA disc golfers and SnapChingers will spend about equal time searching.

Retrieving discs, to rethrow � and also �trudging back� to rethrow. Because of SnapChing�s �rethrow� OB relief, SnapChingers will rethrow more often than disc golfers. On a previous post, we calculated that, on holes with OB, SnapChingers will take some fraction of �one trudge-back,� per group, longer to play the hole than PDGA disc golfers would. In order not to aggravate this delay, Rules of SnapChing may need to add a no-retrieval rule.

Late scorecard return. Rules of SnapChing may need to add a prompt scorecard return rule.

SUMMARY: Under the current Rules of SnapChing, three things may make SnapChing�s pace of play slower than PDGA disc golf: rethrowing; retrieving discs to rethrow; and late scorecard return. Four other delays � per-throw time, late arrival on tees, quitting during play, and �lost� searches � will take about the same time in SnapChing as in disc golf. And remember, PDGA disc golf has these delays: trudging back to rethrow (1) after losing a disc and (2) after electing to rethrow when you go OB and (3) when you take optional rethrows.

What�s the net difference? How much longer does a SnapChing tournament round take? If we can remove �retrieve discs� and �late scorecard return� from the SnapChing delays, the one remaining delay will be rethrows. On a course that has OB on eight holes, the added time will be some fraction of eight trudge-backs per round � minus trudge-backs that happen in PDGA disc golf play.

David, here�s a very rough guess: 15 minutes per round on an average course.


TD must be on hand, reachable by cellphone, to make rulings throughout the event.

Yes. We�ve written Rules of SnapChing to work for big events where the TD likely will be too busy to play.

In smaller events, if the TD wants to play, he�ll need to deal with receiving phone calls for rulings. Will that distract him and his group? It depends on how many calls, and whether the TD�s phone vibrates or rings.

We�re optimistic that players will find Rules of SnapChing so easy to use, that they�ll seldom need to call the TD for rulings.


TD likely to catch a lot more grief from players over TD's judgments and rulings; he can't just go to specific wording in the PDGA book as his defense.

If the TD is ruling on a question of fact (did Bubba foot-fault?), then he evaluates the facts as best he can and applies the specific wording of Rules of SnapChing or his own local rules to those facts. The only grief he�ll get for that, is from players who either see the facts differently or don�t like the rule.

If a ruling is about behavior or intent under Rule 2: our concept of being a SnapChing TD is that you get training from the World SnapChing League that encourages you to use Rule 2 to set courtesy standards that are healthy for the sport. Over time, precedents will become common knowledge: players can get away with X but not Y.

We don�t want to create a detailed �rudeness� rule for SnapChing, for 3 reasons:


� The rule would likely be a �list� rule. List rules always beg the question, �What about such-and-such, that isn�t on the list?�

� The rule would tend to grow tediously long, to include acts that distract the most sensitive players.

� A given rude act may be an intentional distraction that deserves DQ. Or it may result from inattention or bad judgment, not deserving DQ. The TD needs flexibility to govern both kinds of acts by giving advice or DQ.



Only penalty in many cases is DQ. Who wants to DQ players? Who wants to DQ one player who's traveled with 3 others to the event? Heck, disc golf TDs are reluctant to DQ people for illegal drug use as it is; who wants the confrontation of DQing someone for being rude?

No one wants the confrontation of DQ. It feels bad for the DQ-er, the DQ-ee, the group, and the whole field. Yet DQ may be necessary. And it�s the TD�s call.

The distance of travel to the event, or the number of pals in the car, can�t be factors in whether to DQ. A DQ rule has to treat everyone equally.

Unfortunately PDGA disc golf has become a culture of �I don�t want to get involved in calling fouls.� Disc golfers' resistance to rule enforcement makes a TD feel especially awkward when it�s his job to do it.

Rules of SnapChing � with clearer rules and no warnings � creates a culture of better respect for rule enforcement. In this culture, SnapChingers more easily handle minor discourtesy in a social way within the group, and SnapChing TDs suffer less stress for disciplining really bad behavior.


David, does this post help you feel more optimistic about being a SnapChing TD?


Mike & Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Dec 21 2010, 12:26 PM
No.

Don't have time to address all this, but

Counting scores

It takes much longer to count scores scratch than to check scores. Counting from scratch you have to be more careful, and recount them to make sure you've done it right. Best if someone checks after you. In checking scores under PDGA rules you can breeze through and, if the first pass you get the same answer as the player did, 99.9% of the time it means the scorecard was right to begin with.

I've checked them as a TD and TD's assistant. I've been part of the group totalling and checking the totals of cards before turning them in (which is what the TD would be doing in snapching). There's a significant difference, especially if you magnify it by the size of a tournament field.

Delays

True that the PDGA time limits for throwing and searching are rarely enforced to the letter of the law. But their existence creates a pressure to comply---or at least come close. Absent this, searches could go on forever. And on gusty days, some players would wait MUCH longer than 30 seconds for a favorable break in the wind.

Remember that I play on some OB-heavy courses. I played in a foursome on Sunday at Stoney Hill, casual, with probably 10 drives or long second shots going OB. Some of them could be determined to be OB from the tee, eliminating a trudge back but still lengthening the play of the hole; some not.

TD Rules

It seems a lot of your explanations on this thread involved TD's judgement or TD-created rules (special rules for drop zones or other OB situations, beyond just declaring what's OB, etc.)

****

Snapching may be fun for casual play, among a group of like-minded and goodwilled players. It would probably work for local league play. It doesn't look appealing for tournament play, though.

****

And yet, there are some things I like. No "falling putt" rule (same stance everywhere), and removing debris wherever encountered (playing the course as intended). These are simplifications I'd be happy to see in disc golf.

Hoser
Dec 21 2010, 12:39 PM
David, as always, thank you for your thoughtful input. We'll continue to respectfully mull what you say.


MEANWHILE, BOYS AND GIRLS, WE'RE TAKING A HOLIDAY BREAK. HOPE EVERYBODY HAS FUN THIS CHRISTMAS. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THIS THREAD AFTER DECEMBER 28.


Mike & Matt :D :D


PS: Brock, we hope you'll come up with another choice photo . . .

davidsauls
Dec 21 2010, 01:26 PM
Enjoy your Christmas....and I'll leave this footnote to my previous post.

It's an imperfect analogy---aren't they all?---but the PDGA time limits on throwing or searching for discs operate like speed limits. Many people comply. Some stretch them a little, knowing they almost certainly won't get penalized, but there's always the possibility. Some flout them. Personal safety and concern for others also moderate behaviour, but without the speed limits the roads would undoubtedly be a mess.

DShelton
Dec 21 2010, 02:44 PM
David, thank you for your Post #181


One more mark against snapching to me---additional rules set by the TD, varying at each event.

Rule 1: Play by Rules of SnapChing as the TD amends.

Those last four words have convinced a lot of folks that SnapChing TDs will run amok, making local rules that create absurd versions of SnapChing. You won�t know, from event to event, what game you�re signing up to play.

Our aim is the opposite: the World SnapChing League will accredit TDs on the basis of training in how to make local rules sensibly adapt Rules of SnapChing to special conditions or course design. If no special conditions or course design exist, the only local rules a TD may need are �OB is here� and �There�s a no-fly line on Hole #7.� When TDs follow WSL guidelines in making local rules, then players can arrive at a new event with this feeling: �I know Rules of SnapChing. Now let�s see what�s special at this course.�

If the rules were easy to understand, there would be no need to train a TD on the use of the rules. By having the need to train them, you are saying that the rules truly are confusing for a player to use.

ishkatbible
Dec 21 2010, 03:31 PM
why are we still trying to say snapching is wrong? haven't you guys had enough already?

plain and simple... if there was ever an "intro to disc golf" or "rules for casual play" it would be called Snapching!

krazyeye
Dec 21 2010, 05:51 PM
DING DING DING. We have a winner!!!

james_mccaine
Dec 21 2010, 06:28 PM
I haven't read much of the thread, but isn't it being promoted as an alternative to the existing rules, or as an improvement?

If the answer is yes, then it seems like questioning is appropriate.

Jeff_LaG
Dec 21 2010, 07:03 PM
I haven't read much of the thread, but isn't it being promoted as an alternative to the existing rules, or as an improvement?

If the answer is yes, then it seems like questioning is appropriate.

It's being promoted as an alternative to the existing rules. But as a very important side benefit, I think it's highlighting that our existing PDGA Rules of Play need to be improved.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't see a majority of the responses in this thread as trying to "say SnapChing is wrong." I think most people are just having a tough time seeing how these rules are an improvement on the existing PDGA rules.

wsfaplau
Dec 21 2010, 08:14 PM
I believe the combined amount of text in the SnapChing Rules plus Q&As posted by Hoser have just about matched the amount of text in the PDGA Rulebook, Competition Manual and Rules Q&A. Looks like a virtual tie on text count. I believe the next post answer longer than 18 words from Hoser and the underpinnings for SnapChing will continue to unravel...

Mildly humorous Chuck but not a valid comparison. Apples to oranges.
If you want to count the words Matt and Mike have spent in this forum explaining the SnapChing Rules you will also have to count the words spent explaining the PDGA rules in this forum.

Not even close. Snapching is far less wordy. So lets narrow the gap, let's just count the words YOU have spent explaining the PDGA rules in this forum. SnapChing is still the CliffsNotes version to your War and Peace.

cgkdisc
Dec 21 2010, 08:38 PM
My words aren't necessary to play disc golf. Those rulings made by Hoser are necessary. In fact, the still-to-be-written SnapChing TD guidebook will likely end up larger than the PDGA Rules Q&A.

krazyeye
Dec 21 2010, 09:53 PM
The last three posts prove the point ish was making and I made way the heck back there somewhere. Snapching would be a great intro to disc golf.

I should print some sheets of the snapching rules for all of the people I know that are unwilling to read the rule book (all 25 tiny pages of it).

Then if they have a question from thier sheet I will hand them my "book".

davidsauls
Dec 22 2010, 10:45 AM
I haven't read much of the thread, but isn't it being promoted as an alternative to the existing rules, or as an improvement?

If the answer is yes, then it seems like questioning is appropriate.

Yes, it is.

And, as a cure for the complex disc golf rule book, as a way disc golf should be or could have been.

The authors claim the simple snapching rules will cover every situation that occurs on the course, and invite readers to provide test cases.

*

I see it as an interesting hypothetical, with some concepts that disc golf might use to simplify our rules, but not as a viable alternative. Gotta credit them for the effort, though.

DShelton
Dec 22 2010, 12:43 PM
The last three posts prove the point ish was making and I made way the heck back there somewhere. Snapching would be a great intro to disc golf.

I should print some sheets of the snapching rules for all of the people I know that are unwilling to read the rule book (all 25 tiny pages of it).

Then if they have a question from thier sheet I will hand them my "book".

Then you'll have people complaining , when they play in a sanctioned event or a tournament, they get a penalty stroke for going OB or for losing a disc. Snapching does not give penalty strokes for anything.

Besides, it was Hoser that said that Snapching is NOT disc golf and we should not even look at ball golf for a comparison. Snapching is intended to be a whole new animal.

DShelton
Dec 22 2010, 12:56 PM
My words aren't necessary to play disc golf. Those rulings made by Hoser are necessary. In fact, the still-to-be-written SnapChing TD guidebook will likely end up larger than the PDGA Rules Q&A.

Also it was presented as a simple set of rules. All one needed was the rules on the back of the putter. It was also stated that the individual or group is the TD when playing alone. So now if someone wants to play Snapching they have to use the TD guide as well as the rules on the putter, plus any interpretations found here. They've strayed from the original hyper-simple rules, just as many said they would, in order to cover all contingencies. They've also proven what many have tried to point out; when situations arise that the rules don't cover, the rules must evolve and get more complicated in response.

I think their efforts are noble and they would help the disc golf community more if they would make a bid for the RC (they'd have my vote) instead of trying to re-create something that has evolved beyond the simple game it once was.

Jeff_LaG
Dec 22 2010, 01:16 PM
^ I think this sums it up just about perfectly.

This isn't about the simple act of counting the words Mike has used in this thread to describe SnapChing, or those which Chuck has used over the last decade on his interpretations of the PDGA rules.

It comes down to the fact that when David Sauls presents a rules scenario, neither he nor anyone else (besides Hoser) can respond with an immediate and intuitively obvious ruling using the existing Rules of SnapChing. Since he wrote the rules and is the resident expert, we end up needing Mike's (Hoser's) interpretations, and if that is happening, then either an additional SnapChing Q&A is likely warranted or at least considerable revision to the Rules of SnapChing. When all is said and done I think it will be easy to see that we are looking at a rules system which won't easily solve every field-of-play question...leaves a lot open to interpretation...won't be short enough to print on one putter let alone 5, and if attempted to consume by new players in one sitting, will make their head spin. On that basis, it's hard to see how these rules are an improvement on the existing PDGA rules.

tkieffer
Dec 22 2010, 01:52 PM
The last three posts prove the point ish was making and I made way the heck back there somewhere. Snapching would be a great intro to disc golf.

I should print some sheets of the snapching rules for all of the people I know that are unwilling to read the rule book (all 25 tiny pages of it).

Then if they have a question from thier sheet I will hand them my "book".

Give them this instead. Much better targeted for the person starting out. No TD required. Eliminate rule #8 first if it suits you.

BASIC REC RULES (http://wsdga.org/Images/BasicRulesofPlay.pdf)

Jeff_LaG
Dec 22 2010, 02:04 PM
Give them this instead. Much better targeted for the person starting out. No TD required. Eliminate rule #8 first if it suits you.

BASIC REC RULES (http://wsdga.org/Images/BasicRulesofPlay.pdf)

These are nice basic rules for recreational golfers but to need to be updated:

1) Replace "stroke" with throw. We're not ball golfers and don't stroke at a ball, we throw a disc.
2) The 2m rule is no longer in effect by default. Players should just throw from the ground directly underneath the suspended disc.
3) Breaking branches from trees and plants is a major problem with rec players. I have been around this sport for 15 years and have seen some rec courses go from some of the mostly tightly wooded I've ever played to fairways as wide as a boulevard. Breaking branches should be considered vandalism, and not a two-throw penalty. The object should be to get new players thinking right from the get-go to just play as it lies and leave the course and its defenses alone.

tkieffer
Dec 22 2010, 02:11 PM
Yes, reading #8 again shows a part that should remain or be reworded somewhat. But the point is that simplfied rules already exist.

As for throws vs. strokes, I don't have a problem with the wording. For the new players, 'stroke' may be easier to coorelate to what they already know about golf.

tkieffer
Dec 22 2010, 02:18 PM
Another source for simplified rules that you can buy and install on your course.

DGA BASIC REC RULES (http://www.discgolfassoc.com/equipment/images/tee-signs/tee-sign-rules600.jpg)

Seems to be a rather saturated market.

Jeff_LaG
Dec 22 2010, 02:25 PM
Another source for simplified rules that you can buy and install on your course.

DGA BASIC REC RULES (http://www.discgolfassoc.com/equipment/images/tee-signs/tee-sign-rules600.jpg)

Seems to be a rather saturated market.

Those are an even better set of rules, other than some very confusing language about 'dog legs' which seems to be a misnomer for mandatories. I wonder if that one is really even needed anymore since in my experience, as proper course design is being implemented, mandos are becoming increasingly more rare.

DShelton
Dec 22 2010, 03:03 PM
^ I think this sums it up just about perfectly.

This isn't about the simple act of counting the words Mike has used in this thread to describe SnapChing, or those which Chuck has used over the last decade on his interpretations of the PDGA rules.

It comes down to the fact that when David Sauls presents a rules scenario, neither he nor anyone else (besides Hoser) can respond with an immediate and intuitively obvious ruling using the existing Rules of SnapChing. Since he wrote the rules and is the resident expert, we end up needing Mike's (Hoser's) interpretations, and if that is happening, then either an additional SnapChing Q&A is likely warranted or at least considerable revision to the Rules of SnapChing. When all is said and done I think it will be easy to see that we are looking at a rules system which won't easily solve every field-of-play question...leaves a lot open to interpretation...won't be short enough to print on one putter let alone 5, and if attempted to consume by new players in one sitting, will make their head spin. On that basis, it's hard to see how these rules are an improvement on the existing PDGA rules.

And what has really grated is how it started as

Problem on the course

Rule #1 that covers problem

Rule #2 that covers problem

and a short explanation

and has extended to

Problem on the course

Lengthy explanation dealing with past rules of the PDGA, a few jokes and a ruling without rule #'s and a general confusion left afterwards.

My head hurts after one of those long meandering explanations and I really don't understand any better what the ruling was.

Hoser
Jan 04 2011, 08:54 PM
David, thank you for your Post #185.


PDGA time limits on throwing or searching for discs operate like speed limits. Many people comply. Some stretch them a little, knowing they almost certainly won't get penalized, but there's always the possibility. Some flout them. Personal safety and concern for others also moderate behaviour, but without the speed limits the roads would undoubtedly be a mess.

You�re saying that disc golfers generally throw within 30 seconds because the 30-second rule is in the rulebook, even though no one ever gets the penalty. And you�re saying if the rule weren�t there, players would take longer to throw.

We�ve wondered about that. Does the mere presence of the 30-second rule spur prompt play? There�s a way to find out: ditch the rule and see what happens.

In our SnapChing play, with no 30-second rule, we�ve found that SnapChingers throw at the same pace as when they play PDGA disc golf. The thing that prompts their play is this: they wanna fling it. They crave the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy.


* * *


We do agree with you � in a different way, though, and it really worries us � that the presence of the 30-second rule affects how players play the game.

Players universally disrespect and ignore the 30-second rule. No one ever times anyone�s throw. No one ever gives an official warning, let alone a penalty, for slow throwing. No one fears consequences for throwing slow: they know there�s never a penalty.

We wonder: if there�s a rule in the rulebook that everyone disrespects and ignores, what impact does this make on the way players respect and obey other rules? If everyone feels free to flout one rule, is it human nature for everyone to be tempted to stretch or bend other rules, or let infractions slide?

Many times in these threads, we hear people moan that players don�t enforce rules. It seems disc golf has become a culture of �I don�t want to get involved in rule enforcement.� David, we�re not saying that the 30-second rule creates this culture; but it�s a vivid symptom of it.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Jan 04 2011, 08:58 PM
Iskabible (Post #187) and Krazyeye (Post #193):


�Intro to disc golf�

Let us teach you the card game Texas Hold�Em. Its rules are so simple and easy, anyone can learn to play in five minutes, and you�re ready to enjoy casual Texas Hold�Em for the rest of your life. Think of this quick lesson as your �intro to poker.�

Then come sit down with us and put $1000 on the table and let�s play Texas Hold�Em � by those same simple and easy rules � until one guy has all the money.


Mike & Matt :cool: :cool:

krazyeye
Jan 04 2011, 10:19 PM
Iskabible (Post #187) and Krazyeye (Post #193):


�Intro to disc golf�

Let us teach you the card game Texas Hold�Em. Its rules are so simple and easy, anyone can learn to play in five minutes, and you�re ready to enjoy casual Texas Hold�Em for the rest of your life. Think of this quick lesson as your �intro to poker.�

Then come sit down with us and put $1000 on the table and let�s play Texas Hold�Em � by those same simple and easy rules � until one guy has all the money.


Mike & Matt :cool: :cool:

The only thing that I see in that analogy is stupid card players are just as dangerous as stupid disc golfers.

davidsauls
Jan 05 2011, 08:24 AM
To see the 30-second rule being applied without being called, play a tournament on a gusty day. Some players would stand on the tee for minutes, waiting for a calm moment in the wind, if the 30-second rule wasn't lurking.

In snapching, if I were on the tee waiting for favorable winds, and you asked me to please proceed and throw, which of us might get DQ'd for being rude?

jconnell
Jan 05 2011, 09:24 AM
Players universally disrespect and ignore the 30-second rule. No one ever times anyone�s throw. No one ever gives an official warning, let alone a penalty, for slow throwing. No one fears consequences for throwing slow: they know there�s never a penalty.

We wonder: if there�s a rule in the rulebook that everyone disrespects and ignores, what impact does this make on the way players respect and obey other rules? If everyone feels free to flout one rule, is it human nature for everyone to be tempted to stretch or bend other rules, or let infractions slide?

Many times in these threads, we hear people moan that players don�t enforce rules. It seems disc golf has become a culture of �I don�t want to get involved in rule enforcement.� David, we�re not saying that the 30-second rule creates this culture; but it�s a vivid symptom of it.


Mike & Matt :) :)
Please, stop using absolutes when arguing against a particular PDGA rule. Your personal experience is NOT universal. I have timed players. I have warned players for slow play. I have seen others warn players for slow play. I have seen TDs act to speed up slow players, including warnings and penalties. So your claim that "no one ever" times players' throws or warns players for excessive time is incorrect. Do most people tend to shy away from enforcing some rules? Absolutely, no question.

But I'll reiterate again that the cause of slack rules enforcement is not the rules, it's the attitude of the players. Changing the rules is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's not going to patch the iceberg sized hole in the hull. The culture, as you refer to it, IS the problem. Changing the rules doesn't change the culture. Changing the attitude does.

Hoser
Jan 05 2011, 03:17 PM
DShelton, thank you for your Post #196.


I think their efforts are noble and they would help the disc golf community more if they would make a bid for the RC (they'd have my vote) instead of trying to re-create something that has evolved beyond the simple game it once was.

Thank you for the RC suggestion, and your vote.

We feel that we can do more, for the future of disc golf and for the RC, by staying independent and grassroots. It�s a choice between being a minority voice on the RC, or freely expressing that all PDGA members have a voice in disc golf rules.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Jan 05 2011, 04:57 PM
Jeff, thank you for your Post #197.


When David Sauls presents a rules scenario, neither he nor anyone else (besides Hoser) can respond with an immediate and intuitively obvious ruling using the existing Rules of SnapChing. Since he wrote the rules and is the resident expert, we end up needing Mike's (Hoser's) interpretations, and if that is happening, then either an additional SnapChing Q&A is likely warranted or at least considerable revision to the Rules of SnapChing.

Jeff, you know how to cut to the chase, and we appreciate it.

We began this thread by saying Rules of SnapChing is a rule system that anyone can use without help. And then we made a mistake: we tried to help too much.

It�s not enough to solve every scenario by US TELLING YOU which SnapChing rules apply. That just proves that we know how to use Rules of SnapChing to solve the scenario. What we really should be doing, for David and anyone else who presents a scenario, is to say, �Good scenario. Look at Rules of SnapChing and tell us how you�d rule.� Their answers would show if players understand our rules; and we could get to work to fix what needs fixing.

So we apologize for not giving everyone more opportunity to make your own sense of our rules. To add value to our apology, we offer you three interesting scenarios. We invite everyone to PRINT (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) our single-page Rules of SnapChing, and rule on these scenarios. All we ask is that you (1) forget about how the PDGA would rule and (2) apply each SnapChing rule�s exact words and (3) cite each SnapChing rule that supports your rulings.


Scenario #1. Bubba�s disc lands 30� up in a tree. Before any groupmate can arrive to help, and before Bubba marks his lie, Bubba flings a rock and knocks the disc down and it rolls into the fairway. Where is Bubba�s lie, and how does the group locate it?


Scenario #2. Bubba�s disc lands in vines. He and his group go to the disc. Bubba takes a stance that least displaces stuff attached to the ground. He says, �Does this look okay?� The group agrees that it does. Then Bubba lets fly, and at the instant of release, the movement of his legs further displaces the vines he�s standing in. Where is Bubba�s lie?


Scenario #3. Bubba marks his tee shot in mud 40� from the basket. He lays a disc behind his marker, kneels on that disc in an otherwise correct stance, and throws his putter into the basket. Where is Bubba�s lie, and what is his score, so far, on that hole?


Your answers will be very revealing, about whether SnapChing�s rules are clear or not.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Jan 05 2011, 06:06 PM
David, thank you for your Post #207.


To see the 30-second rule being applied without being called, play a tournament on a gusty day. Some players would stand on the tee for minutes, waiting for a calm moment in the wind, if the 30-second rule wasn't lurking.

In snapching, if I were on the tee waiting for favorable winds, and you asked me to please proceed and throw, which of us might get DQ'd for being rude?

Notwithstanding our own nearly-forty-year experience of zero slow-play penalties, Jconnell (Post #208) reports that he and others have sometimes called 30-second warnings and penalties. (Sorry, Josh, about saying �never.�)

And we�re well aware that some players will delay for better wind.

Let us try to answer you directly, from both a player�s and a TD�s perspective.

You asked, can it be rude to ask someone to play faster? Well, if you nag someone, �Come on, throw. Come on, throw. Come on, throw. Come on, throw!� and you make it hard for him to focus, that could be rude of you. On the other hand, if you courteously suggest, once, �We�d appreciate it if you�d not take so long to throw,� that�s not rude at all. After you ask, the player can ignore you, which may be rude. Or he can argue back at you; that may be rude, or he may have a valid point. Or he can take your advice, and throw faster. It�s a social process that seeks its own level according to the pace and personalities of the players in each group. And it�s always easy, before the process deteriorates to rudeness, to call the TD and say, �How shall we proceed?�

Now suppose you are a SnapChing TD. Your sole reason to put players on the clock is to keep the tournament flowing smoothly. As long as the tournament is flowing smoothly, you have no interest in timing anyone�s play. You have sent aides (if not officials) out to roam the course, to keep an eye out for bottlenecks. And now you get a call from a player on Hole #8: �Bubba is taking way too long to throw. He keeps waiting for the wind to die.�

You�re going to ask the caller some questions, to find out if Bubba�s slow play is blocking the tournament flow. Is the group ahead still playing on Hole #8? Is the group behind waiting on Tee #8? And you may call an aide: �Go to Hole #8 and report the situation to me.�

If you find that Bubba�s slow play isn�t blocking the tournament flow, you�ll let Bubba take his time. But if you find that his slow play is blocking the flow, you�ll put him on the clock (probably by having an aide time him).


* * *


Have you ever wondered where disc golf�s 30-second rule originated? There�s no such rule in golf. Why did disc golf�s pioneers, who generally patterned their game after golf, make such a departure in the slow-play rule?

We have a theory. We suspect that when Steady Ed and his cronies were inventing Frisbee golf in the late 1960s, there was a Bubba in their group who irritated them by playing slow and waiting for favorable wind. So Ed and the rest of the boys watched how other players were playing, and they concluded, �Looks like almost all of them throw within 30 seconds. Okay, then, 30 seconds seems like a good time limit. Let�s make it a rule, so we can get Bubba to hurry up.�

If you think that�s an unlikely genesis for the 30-second rule, ask Stork Roddick (PDGA #0003) how the �overheight� rule got set at 2M.


Mike & Matt :) :D

Hoser
Jan 05 2011, 11:33 PM
Josh, thank you for your Post #208.


Do most people tend to shy away from enforcing some rules? Absolutely, no question. But I'll reiterate again that the cause of slack rules enforcement is not the rules, it's the attitude of the players. Changing the rules is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's not going to patch the iceberg sized hole in the hull. The culture, as you refer to it, IS the problem. Changing the rules doesn't change the culture. Changing the attitude does.

Josh, we agree about the culture. But how did the culture get this way, and what can be done do improve it?

Is human nature too flawed to be fixed? Are we all just sinners who are bound to cheat if we can get away with it? If so, the only option may be to make rules so tough that no one who breaks them can stay in the game, and no one who fails to enforce them can, either.

Is the culture flawed because the sport�s original core players were hippies? Is hippies� disregard for authority the reason that players slack off about enforcing rules? If so, maybe dress codes and higher greens fees may drive out the undesirable element and court a higher class of players. (Although we suspect that the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy kindles the same endorphins in both classes.)

Was there ever a golden age of Frisbee golf, when players were more honest and true to the rules? If so, what has brought disc golf to its sorry present state?

Should the PDGA give stronger direction? For example, insist that every tournament have an official walk with each group (and make those officials pass more than 70% on their certification tests)? If players can�t be trusted to enforce rules, then maybe an official on each group can get the job done.

How about instant replay? It�s coming: any gallery of a dozen fans, today, is carrying a couple of video-capable cell phones.

Josh, what do you think the solution is? How would you change this culture? What actually will work, to get players to enforce rules?


Mike & Matt :confused: :confused:

jconnell
Jan 06 2011, 10:31 AM
Josh, what do you think the solution is? How would you change this culture? What actually will work, to get players to enforce rules?
Well, I know the way that won't work is changing the rules around. If they're ignoring and disregarding the rules as written, I can't imagine re-writing them for "clarity" or "fairness" or "simplicity" or whatever is going to make them suddenly pay attention.

The solution is to lead by example. Is that something that's going to cause an instantaneous world-wide sea change? Of course not. But like with anything, one has to start somewhere. I start at the beginning. Every new player I introduce to or have an opportunity to mentor/tutor in the game gets an education in the rules of the game. I don't hesitate to point out to a casual/recreational player on the course when they do something incorrectly, especially in regard to stance (falling putts and liberal marking/stance are common).

I have, for the last 8 years, run a series of beginner-oriented (players with little to no tournament experience) tournaments whose focus is on teaching the rules and playing by the rules. Every entrant gets a disc, a mini, and a rule book when they sign up. The tournament begins with a 30-minute rules clinic where we go over the basics from tee to green. Then during the tournament itself, players are encouraged to consult their rule book whenever necessary. In the second round, I try to place a volunteer "veteran" in each playing group to answer questions and more importantly, to set an example. I'm proud to say that some of the "graduates" of this series are now among the regular crowd seen at nearly every tournament in the area, setting a great example for others.

The education idea doesn't stop when I'm playing in tournaments. Whether the player I'm with is new or a longtime veteran, I don't let things slide simply to keep the mood in the group happy. If a player foot faults, I'll call it. If they take too much time, I'll point it out. Even if I see a player edging close to a violation (lining up off the mark or with a foot OB or while holding branches out of the way, etc), I'll point it out so they don't commit a violation. Sometimes it's met with thanks and acceptance, sometimes it's met with disdain and anger. Doesn't matter to me as long as I know I am correct and I believe they'll learn something (even if they do it begrudgingly).

My hope is that others will take my lead and start being more aware and making calls when necessary, and also become an example to others. I'm already seeing a raised rules awareness in most players that wasn't there a few years ago. It starts from the bottom. Get the new players involved and aware from the start and eventually it's not a matter of changing old players and their old ways, it's creating a new generation of players for which knowing, following, and calling the rules is the accepted way of playing the game.

Hoser
Jan 06 2011, 11:51 AM
Josh, thank you for your Post #213.


Get the new players involved and aware from the start and eventually it's not a matter of changing old players and their old ways, it's creating a new generation of players for which knowing, following, and calling the rules is the accepted way of playing the game.

Great answer. Thank you. Keep up the good work!


We admire your purpose and your dedication. We wish there were hundred or thousands more of you, willing to teach the game hands-on and imbue respect for rules. We hope you�ll continue for years to come. And we respectfully suggest that your task would be easier if your new players were learning a rule system that is 96% briefer, free of conflicting rules, has no socially-awkward warnings, and is designed so rule enforcement is courteous because it saves strokes.


Mike & Matt :) :)


PS: This morning, January 6, 2011, the new US Congress is reading aloud the entire US Constitution: the original document, plus the first ten amendments that are the Bill of Rights, plus all seventeen further amendments. These are the rules for running America. If you were to read aloud the PDGA rules of play at the same pace, you�d still be churning along when Congress finishes up and takes its lunch break.

davidsauls
Jan 06 2011, 12:23 PM
....but if you read aloud all the Federal laws that actually do the governing, you be reading until...........................

jconnell
Jan 06 2011, 12:42 PM
PS: This morning, January 6, 2011, the new US Congress is reading aloud the entire US Constitution: the original document, plus the first ten amendments that are the Bill of Rights, plus all seventeen further amendments. These are the rules for running America. If you were to read aloud the PDGA rules of play at the same pace, you�d still be churning along when Congress finishes up and takes its lunch break.
The US Constitution = ~7600 words, the PDGA rulebook = ~9000 words. Fair enough. But where in the Constitution does it make murder illegal? Or treason? Or copyright infringement? Does it address taxation? Social services?

So yes, the Constitution is the framework by which our country is run, but it's not the sole body of laws and rules, is it? There are literally thousands of laws and resolutions on the books as well, and that's just on the federal level. I think you add all those into your equation and suddenly the PDGA rule book isn't such an onerous body. Even the combined Rules of Play and Competition Manual pales in comparison.

Short and simple isn't the answer. Clarity, yes. But clarity isn't always short and simple. This crusade against the length of the PDGA rules compared to your Snapching "fits on a putter" rules doesn't really fly as a benefit. Especially when you decide to ignore the pages and pages of clarifications and explanations of each rule on your site and on this thread alone in boasting of the simplicity of your rules.

Hoser
Jan 06 2011, 02:52 PM
Josh, thank you for your Post #216.


Of course your point is valid, that the rules for running America involve much more federal (not to mention state and local) legislation than just the Constitution.

But here�s the point that you and we really are pondering: Is disc golf such a complex game that it requires the current PDGA rulebook, plus extensive tutelage of newbies, plus the RC�s Q&A or some other official �scenario� backup document, plus the Rules School?

If the answer is Yes, then disc golfers will just have to plow along and do the best they can with the status quo � even though many threads on this discussion forum show that this approach isn�t working very well.

If the answer may be No, then it makes sense to step away from the status quo and take a fresh look at how to govern the game.

When we decided to write a new set of rules, rather than revise PDGA rules, we took this attitude: a game of throwing discs from point A to point Z, hitting a series of targets along the way, is not necessarily a complex game; and it�s not golf; and there is no intrinsic value in long, dense rules.

We still feel that those things are true. And we�re offering Rules of SnapChing as one example of simpler rules for the game. We would be VERY interested to see a dozen, or a hundred, other players produce original rule systems that create fun, intriguing game(s) to enjoy the marvelous sensation of flying discs with power and accuracy. PDGA members, with their countless hours of experience on the field of play, have a lot of grassroots wisdom and creativity to offer to the future millions of folks who may be drawn to this game.


Mike & Matt :) :)

davidsauls
Jan 06 2011, 03:14 PM
Just curious---how complex are the rules for track & field? A footrace from one line to another is pretty simple. My brother and I can do it with very few words. Oh, maybe something about false starts. And preliminary signals from the starter (not tipping off a racer). And staying in lanes. And whether crossing the finishing line means touching the ground on the other side first, or breaking a vertical plane. Maybe something about uniforms. Or shoes. Or enhancing devices. Or substances. Or interference. Or, or, or....

I'm probably very wrong, but I suspect there are considerable rules covering a simple sprint. More than "first person from start line to finish line, play fair, disputes decided by official."

jconnell
Jan 06 2011, 03:33 PM
But here�s the point that you and we really are pondering: Is disc golf such a complex game that it requires the current PDGA rulebook, plus extensive tutelage of newbies, plus the RC�s Q&A or some other official �scenario� backup document, plus the Rules School?
If we're talking about competitive disc golf that is seeking to grow into a global game, then yes, it is such a complex game. Did ball golf get to the point it is at now by simplifying and shrinking the rules of play as they went? Or did the rules evolve, grow, and become more detailed/complex to better govern a growing and increasingly diverse set of players and settings? Same question but applied to tennis, soccer, basketball, rugby, or any other sport played around the globe. I can't think of any example of a sport that didn't become more complex as it grew.

But if your goal is to keep disc golf (or snapching) as a localized and relatively small game in which there is no universality from region to region, then by all means, a short and overly simplified set of rules is probably the way to go.

DShelton
Jan 06 2011, 06:48 PM
Just curious---how complex are the rules for track & field? A footrace from one line to another is pretty simple. My brother and I can do it with very few words. Oh, maybe something about false starts. And preliminary signals from the starter (not tipping off a racer). And staying in lanes. And whether crossing the finishing line means touching the ground on the other side first, or breaking a vertical plane. Maybe something about uniforms. Or shoes. Or enhancing devices. Or substances. Or interference. Or, or, or....

I'm probably very wrong, but I suspect there are considerable rules covering a simple sprint. More than "first person from start line to finish line, play fair, disputes decided by official."

I just downloaded the rules for USATF and I lost count at 20 pages.
Here are those rules http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2010/2010rules.pdf if you want to count the rules for track yourself.

Hoser
Jan 08 2011, 01:48 PM
Josh, thank you for your post #219.


If we're talking about competitive disc golf that is seeking to grow into a global game, then yes, it is such a complex game.

I can't think of any example of a sport that didn't become more complex as it grew.

If your goal is to keep disc golf (or snapching) as a localized and relatively small game in which there is no universality from region to region, then by all means, a short and overly simplified set of rules is probably the way to go.

Many disc golfers assume � probably based on the 35-year-old DGA rec rules � that any rule system as brief as Rules of SnapChing can govern only the casual game of yesteryear.

We disagree. We�ve designed Rules of SnapChing to govern a game exactly as complex (though slightly different) as today�s tournament disc golf � to resolve every issue that comes up between the start horn and your final hole-out. If SnapChingers were to compete at the level that disc golfers now do, Rules of SnapChing would govern the SnapChing tournaments more precisely than PDGA rules of play now govern disc golf tournaments.

Don�t let Rules of SnapChing�s brevity fool you into thinking these are toy rules. These rules govern serious sport. If you go to your favorite disc golf course and play SnapChing by precisely applying each rule�s exact words in every scenario, you�ll find that out for yourself.


Mike & Matt

ishkatbible
Jan 09 2011, 12:57 AM
Iskabible (Post #187) and Krazyeye (Post #193):


�Intro to disc golf�

Let us teach you the card game Texas Hold�Em. Its rules are so simple and easy, anyone can learn to play in five minutes, and you�re ready to enjoy casual Texas Hold�Em for the rest of your life. Think of this quick lesson as your �intro to poker.�

Then come sit down with us and put $1000 on the table and let�s play Texas Hold�Em � by those same simple and easy rules � until one guy has all the money.


Mike & Matt :cool: :cool:

difference between disc golf and hold'em... if available, i WOULD throw a grand down on poker

hazard
Jan 09 2011, 03:39 AM
Your answers will be very revealing, about whether SnapChing’s rules are clear or not.


Mike & Matt :) :)[/QUOTE]

I'll take a crack at this, and I deliberately have neither read any further in the thread nor read back to review any of the earlier parts any more than what I can remember off the top of my head from when I read through it a week or two ago. I am also going to mention what I think is the correct ruling according to the PDGA rules, and whether I'd have to whip out my rulebook to check anything if I saw it in a tournament. I'm doing that not to compare how easy the rule sets are to use, but to provide a basis for stating afterward whether I think the SnapChing rules have an advantage over the PDGA ones for that particular situation, or vice versa. I'm not going to spend much time looking up rules though...a quick look at most.


Scenario #1. Bubba’s disc lands 30’ up in a tree. Before any groupmate can arrive to help, and before Bubba marks his lie, Bubba flings a rock and knocks the disc down and it rolls into the fairway. Where is Bubba’s lie, and how does the group locate it?
SnapChing: Bubba's lie is centered directly below where the disc rested in the tree (Rule 7). Bubba's groupmates determine where that was, since by knocking the disc down without marking his lie his lie has effectively been lost (rule 9). No further ruling is required and no penalties are applied unless there is disagreement regarding the lie or Bubba's actions are suggested to be rude or unfair.
PDGA: Bubba's lie is the same as under SnapChing rules, except for being a line segment instead of a filled circle. It is determined the same way (group decision), except that Bubba is part of the group determining where his lie was. Bubba is assessed a warning (assuming this is his first marking violation) or a penalty stroke (if it was not). No further ruling is required unless there is a disagreement regarding the lie, the two-meter rule is in effect, or Bubba's actions are suggested to be a willful circumvention of the rules. I would have to thumb through my rulebook to make sure I had all that right and to determine whether anything else seemed to apply. In fact, at first I was thinking that this counted toward the warning/penalty for stance violations; I'd forgotten there was a separate section for marking violations.
Advantage: In this particular case, I like the fact that the SnapChing rules better, by a slim margin, despite the fact that as best I can remember without looking up anything except the fact that marking violations are separate from stance violations, in most cases the only difference would be the definition of the lie. The brevity of the SnapChing rules makes it easier to be sure I haven't overlooked anything else, whereas with the PDGA rules I'd want to check several sections to be sure I hadn't missed something.



Scenario #2. Bubba’s disc lands in vines. He and his group go to the disc. Bubba takes a stance that least displaces stuff attached to the ground. He says, “Does this look okay?” The group agrees that it does. Then Bubba lets fly, and at the instant of release, the movement of his legs further displaces the vines he’s standing in. Where is Bubba’s lie?
SnapChing: The scenario does not make it clear whether the vines are weeds or not. If they are, Bubba's lie is where his disc landed (rule 3). If not, his lie has not moved (rule 8). I'm inclined to assume the latter since, if the vines were weeds, Bubba wouldn't have needed to care whether he was displacing them in the first place.
PDGA: I had to look this part up. It is legal for Bubba's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle (803.05A). Bubba's lie is where his disc landed.
Advantage: Neither, within the limits of this scenario.



Scenario #3. Bubba marks his tee shot in mud 40’ from the basket. He lays a disc behind his marker, kneels on that disc in an otherwise correct stance, and throws his putter into the basket. Where is Bubba’s lie, and what is his score, so far, on that hole?
SnapChing: Going strictly by that one-page rule document, Bubba's lie has not moved and his score on the hole so far is 2, because according to rule 6 his lie was atop any object touching the ground at the time the disc came to rest, not any object placed there afterward. If I'm remembering right from other parts of the discussion, though, Snap-Ching is supposed to allow "building a lie," which would mean his lie is on the next tee pad and his score on that hole is currently 0.
PDGA: I don't think Bubba's lie technically exists, because in the PDGA rules I don't think the teeing area is considered a lie, but his next throw is from the next teeing area and his score on the upcoming hole is 0. However, I would strongly advise Bubba to play a provisional on the assumption that he has committed a stance violation and to check with the TD after the round, because (And yes, I did pull out the rulebook to check on this) according to the rulebook the supporting point behind his marker had to touch the playing surface, and while as best I can recall without looking it up the latest from the RC was that you could put something down to protect your knee, I'm not sure if there were limitations on exactly what you could put down.
Advantage: PDGA. Without consulting external sources, I come up with the same ruling for both. Trying to remember what external sources have said, I am more uncertain about the PDGA ruling. However, if I had that uncertainty on the course, (and I am aware that this is at odds with one of the tenets of SnapChing, which is the repeated assertion that the information gained by tossing a disc is always worth a stroke) I prefer the ability to use a provisional over having to choose between calling the TD to make sure we got it right, or letting Bubba keep playing and possibly accumulate a huge score for getting it wrong.

Of course, if I'm not mistaken...if we were really concerned about it and couldn't reach the TD for some reason, in Snap-Ching Bubba could still toss again from the same spot, without kneeling on the disc, play out that shot, and move on. The end result is that all the tosses involved add to his score, regardless of which were actual throws and which were non-throw releases, and when he reaches the next tee it's his correct lie either way. More expensive than a provisional, but better than not finding out for several more holes which would have been the correct play. I realize that's not how SnapChing is supposed to work, but I hadn't thought before about the fact that it was even theoretically possible.

Hoser
Jan 11 2011, 10:45 AM
Hazard (Bob Weston), thank you for your Post #233.


I'll take a crack at this.

Bob, thanks for offering your rulings on the three SnapChing scenarios from Post #210. You do understand Rules of SnapChing very clearly. In one place, you actually understand better than we do.

We appreciate how you compared the rulings (and the effort of finding them) for SnapChing and for PDGA disc golf.

We were hoping several more folks would try to solve the scenarios � but maybe your clear analysis spoke for them, so they didn�t feel a need to post here. Still, we hope lots of you silent folks, who have been following this thread without posting, also printed out Rules of SnapChing [click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf)] and arrived at the same rulings that Bob found.


* * *


SCENARIO #1. You nailed it, Bob.


* * *


SCENARIO #2. You nailed this one, too. (BTW, the vines aren�t weeds.)

You noticed a big difference between the stance rules in SnapChing and PDGA disc golf. It�s worth talking about here, because it shows a tougher challenge in playing out of shule.

First let�s look at the SnapChing stance rule and the PDGA stance rules:


SnapChing Rule 3. In these rules, �throw� = release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play, and at that instant:

� Touch your lie and nothing closer to the target.

� Don�t touch out-of-bounds.

� Position your body to least displace things attached to the ground except grass and weeds; and already try to replace every other such thing you�ve moved.


PDGA 803.04A. When the disc is released, a player must:

1. Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc; and

2. Have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and

3. Have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.


PDGA 803.05A. A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player�s throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.

SnapChing Rule 3 shows your position vis-�-vis your lie and vis-�-vis obstacles, at the instant of release.

PDGA Rule 803.04A shows your position vis-�-vis your lie (but not vis-�-vis obstacles) at the instant of release.

PDGA Rule 803.05A�s first sentence is, �A player must choose the stance which results in the least movement of any obstacle.� What is �the stance�? It seems to refer to 803.04A�s body-position (at your lie) at the instant of release.

But 803.05A�s second sentence � �Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion� � makes �legal stance� appear to be a stance that you get into before you make your throwing motion. Otherwise why would 803.05A say that once you�re in that stance, you may not move stuff in order to make room to throw?

803.05A�s third sentence � �It is legal for a player�s throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle� � indicates that after you get into a least-displacing �ready� position, it�s okay for your throwing motion to move you into a more-displacing stance at the instant of release.

So disc golfers think of stance in two ways: (1) your body position vis-�-vis your lie, at the instant of release; and (2) your body position vis-�-vis obstacles, just before you start your throwing motion.

Therefore in Scenario #2 most disc golfers would read PDGA rules to mean that Bubba�s stance was legal in both ways, and so his lie does advance.

In SnapChing, though, Bubba was not in the least-displacing stance at the instant of release, so his lie does not advance.

SnapChing�s stance is entirely connected to the instant of release. This may make SnapChing more challenging, than PDGA disc golf, if you land in shule.


* * *


SCENARIO #3.

Bob, this is the place where you understood our rules better than we did.


SnapChing Rule 6. Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground and atop any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground.

When you saw the phrase �any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground,� here�s what it meant to you: any object or pile that�s present when the lie on the ground is created; but not any object or pile that�s moved onto the lie after the throw.

Your way of reading Rule 6 lets players reduce a stance but not build a stance. For example, if your disc lands on a pile of wood chips or gravel, or on a layer of leaves, you can remove any of that pile and your lie will still be atop what�s left (directly above the lie on the ground). But if you lay a disc on a ground-level lie, then no lie will exist atop the disc. And if you stand or kneel on that disc to throw, your stance is wrong because you aren�t touching your lie.

We wrote Rule 6 assuming that everyone would read the phrase �any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground� to mean any object or pile that is present anytime while the ground-level lie exists. For example, if you mark your ground-level lie and then lay a disc onto that lie, your lie now also exists atop the disc. So you can build a stance. (Which is convenient, because otherwise you couldn�t play in shoes and socks.)

Bob, we can�t argue with your reading of the rule. It�s our job, as rulewriters, to write each rule so there�s only one way you can read it: the way we intend. If we didn�t write Rule 6 clearly enough to achieve that, then we�ve still got work to do.

Can ANYONE suggest a wording for Rule 6, to clearly say that SnapChingers are allowed to build as well as reduce a stance?


* * *


And finally, Bob, you came up with a trick we�d never thought of:


Of course, if I'm not mistaken...if we were really concerned about it and couldn't reach the TD for some reason, in Snap-Ching Bubba could still toss again from the same spot, without kneeling on the disc, play out that shot, and move on. The end result is that all the tosses involved add to his score, regardless of which were actual throws and which were non-throw releases, and when he reaches the next tee it's his correct lie either way. More expensive than a provisional, but better than not finding out for several more holes which would have been the correct play. I realize that's not how SnapChing is supposed to work, but I hadn't thought before about the fact that it was even theoretically possible.

That�s an intriguing idea: if you can�t locate the TD for a ruling, then �play out the hole both ways.� You�ll sacrifice one or two strokes but you�ll guarantee that you can play the rest of the course without compounding a misplay.

Bob, your strategy does stop the bleeding. But we don�t mean for SnapChingers to have to bleed that way. We envision that a group will always wait for the TD to rule, before playing on. The worst consequence of waiting is that the TD may put you on the clock � which can only happen if the TD gets in touch, and of course then the TD can give you the ruling.

(If a TD gets so busy making rulings, that the flow of the tournament gets backed up as players wait, then SnapChing tournaments may need a system of officials like PDGA disc golf has.)


Bob, thanks again for testing our rules. You�ve taught us things that can help to make SnapChing a better game.


Mike & Matt :) :)

hazard
Jan 12 2011, 12:08 AM
Hazard (Bob Weston), thank you for your Post #233.


I'll take a crack at this.

SCENARIO #3.

Bob, this is the place where you understood our rules better than we did.


SnapChing Rule 6. Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground and atop any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground.

When you saw the phrase �any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground,� here�s what it meant to you: any object or pile that�s present when the lie on the ground is created; but not any object or pile that�s moved onto the lie after the throw.

Your way of reading Rule 6 lets players reduce a stance but not build a stance. For example, if your disc lands on a pile of wood chips or gravel, or on a layer of leaves, you can remove any of that pile and your lie will still be atop what�s left (directly above the lie on the ground). But if you lay a disc on a ground-level lie, then no lie will exist atop the disc. And if you stand or kneel on that disc to throw, your stance is wrong because you aren�t touching your lie.

We wrote Rule 6 assuming that everyone would read the phrase �any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground� to mean any object or pile that is present anytime while the ground-level lie exists. For example, if you mark your ground-level lie and then lay a disc onto that lie, your lie now also exists atop the disc. So you can build a stance. (Which is convenient, because otherwise you couldn�t play in shoes and socks.)

Bob, we can�t argue with your reading of the rule. It�s our job, as rulewriters, to write each rule so there�s only one way you can read it: the way we intend. If we didn�t write Rule 6 clearly enough to achieve that, then we�ve still got work to do.

Can ANYONE suggest a wording for Rule 6, to clearly say that SnapChingers are allowed to build as well as reduce a stance?



Yes, I tend to be very literal-minded when trying to evaluate something like this.

I'm not sure what I think would be the best way to change the phrasing so that it unequivocally says what you intend it to say. Wording can be tricky; for example, going by the PDGA rulebook and nothing else, I would conclude that a towel tied around the knee (or a kneepad) was fair game but a towel (or pad) laid flat on the ground was not. And I tend toward overly technical language sometimes. Here's my best attempt so far, I think:

(Appended to rule 6) If any object or pile that is allowed to be moved in accordance with rule 3 is moved away from or onto your lie, your lie is still considered to be on top of all such objects present.



* * *


And finally, Bob, you came up with a trick we�d never thought of:


Of course, if I'm not mistaken...if we were really concerned about it and couldn't reach the TD for some reason, in Snap-Ching Bubba could still toss again from the same spot, without kneeling on the disc, play out that shot, and move on. The end result is that all the tosses involved add to his score, regardless of which were actual throws and which were non-throw releases, and when he reaches the next tee it's his correct lie either way. More expensive than a provisional, but better than not finding out for several more holes which would have been the correct play. I realize that's not how SnapChing is supposed to work, but I hadn't thought before about the fact that it was even theoretically possible.

That�s an intriguing idea: if you can�t locate the TD for a ruling, then �play out the hole both ways.� You�ll sacrifice one or two strokes but you�ll guarantee that you can play the rest of the course without compounding a misplay.

Bob, your strategy does stop the bleeding. But we don�t mean for SnapChingers to have to bleed that way. We envision that a group will always wait for the TD to rule, before playing on. The worst consequence of waiting is that the TD may put you on the clock � which can only happen if the TD gets in touch, and of course then the TD can give you the ruling.

(If a TD gets so busy making rulings, that the flow of the tournament gets backed up as players wait, then SnapChing tournaments may need a system of officials like PDGA disc golf has.)


Well, like some of the other folks who have commented, I count among my concerns about them the reliance on constant availability of the TD, the effects of TD consultation on flow of play, and the potential for "bleeding" as you put it in the case of a misruling by the group. The provisional rule in PDGA play is actually one of my favorite rules in the book, largely because it provides an escape from uncertainty that does not require waiting for immediate official intervention.

Unfortunately, the value I place on that ability is at odds with the SnapChing tenet that any release is worth a stroke, and of course with SnapChing's reliance on the availability of that immediate official intervention. Using rule 1 to impose the PDGA's provisional rule was my first thought on the subject, and this is my second...it's a point of considerable interest to me, since two of my favorite courses have spotty cell coverage at best and layouts not conducive to a TD wandering to provide rulings. Courses with poor cell coverage aren't uncommon here in North Carolina. In fact, I think all the NC courses I really like that I think probably do have pretty solid coverage with all major carriers are in Charlotte.

Possible solutions to this might include a staff of deputies and handheld radios, which I think is what the SnapChing philosophy would probably favor, but the above suggestion does at least provide an alternative that doesn't require Rule 1 or additional staff or equipment. Were someone to try to run a trial Snap-Ching event on such a course and lack the resources for a better solution, I think the approach I outlined would work, possibly combined with a local rule to make it a true provisional.

Hoser
Jan 12 2011, 02:02 PM
Bob, thank you for your Post #225.


Your suggestion, for how to change Rule 6 to allow building a stance, does say essentially the right stuff:


(Appended to rule 6) If any object or pile that is allowed to be moved in accordance with rule 3 is moved away from or onto your lie, your lie is still considered to be on top of all such objects present.

You�ve done exactly as we do, whenever we write a rule: the first step is to say it all, without economizing on words. Get all the information down.

That�s the first step. The next step is to say it briefly and precisely � a challenge that takes some work, but it�s worth it. That�s how we pared our 3,000-word first draft of Rules of SnapChing down to the current 400 words.

Okay, here�s the current Rule 6:

Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground and atop any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground.
And here is Rule 6 with your added part:


Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground and atop any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground. If any object or pile that is allowed to be moved in accordance with rule 3 is moved away from or onto your lie, your lie is still considered to be on top of all such objects present.
And here�s an example of how we might try to say the same stuff briefer:

Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground and atop any object or pile (present or added) directly above and touching that spot of ground.
We�re not saying that�s our final solution. We�re still open to suggestion.

Since you�re an analytic-minded guy, you might appreciate a backstage look at the thinking that went into writing Rule 6. This was a tough SnapChing rule to write. At first, we aimed to say just two things:


� Every lie is on the ground.

� At a certain instant, your lie becomes null in one place and becomes operative in another place.


So we could have written Rule 6 like this: Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground.

Meanwhile, we also were dealing with the issue of building stance. Our first idea was to ban all stance building. But what about the concept of wearing shoes?


Idea: play barefoot. Problem: too uncomfortable, too dangerous, too harsh in cold weather, and it limits how hard you can throw.

Idea: write a rule that says shoes and socks are part of your body. Problem: you�d also have to rule that every other kind of clothing is part of your body, or else you couldn�t throw from a kneeling or lying stance. And can you draw a line between clothes that are �normal� and clothes that are �too extra� (cleated shoe soles, pull-over boots, knee pad, elbow pads, gloves). Or can you draw a line between �stance-building items that are clothes� and �stance building items that are not clothes� � a line that blurs depending on how you attach the item to your body.


Hmmm. Is the other extreme better � allow ALL stance building? Well, then players could climb up on picnic tables, roofs and trees.

We decided that some, but not all, stance building must be allowed.

Earlier in this thread, we told the story of how we decided not to use �hollow� items to build stance, but only to use objects or piles that continuously touch in a vertical line all the way from the lie on the ground up to the top of the object or pile. This puts a reasonable limit on stance building, because the higher you build (using stuff that is available and movable on the course or stuff you�ve carried with you), the less �throwable� your stance gets.

What about stance reducing? Rule 3 allows you to remove unattached objects. So you should be allowed to remove fallen branches or sweep away leaves or gravel, to "unbuild" a stance to, or toward, your ground-level lie.

After we boiled down our stance-building concept to these limits, we looked to see where the rule belonged in our rulebook. Rule 6 says each lie is on the ground. Yet when you build a stance, your lie becomes �up off the ground.� We realized (as detailed earlier in this thread) that building a stance creates a dual lie: the lie is BOTH on the ground AND atop the stance-building object or pile. And Rule 6 is the place to say both things.

That�s how we eventually settled on the following expression to cancel and create lies, and to build and reduce stances:

Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground and atop any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground.
We thought the rule was finished . . . until you showed us that it could be read to exclude stuff that�s added onto the lie after the throw. Grrrr � but thank you. So now we�ll keep working on the rule until it �reads right.�


* * *


Like some of the other folks who have commented, I count among my concerns the reliance on constant availability of the TD, the effects of TD consultation on flow of play, and the potential for "bleeding" as you put it in the case of a misruling by the group. The provisional rule in PDGA play is actually one of my favorite rules in the book, largely because it provides an escape from uncertainty that does not require waiting for immediate official intervention.

Unfortunately, the value I place on that ability is at odds with the SnapChing tenet that any release is worth a stroke.

Bob, you�ve suggested two solutions:


Let the TD use Rule 1 to make a local rule permitting provisionals.

Try to improve communication between players and the TD, so no one will have to wait long for rulings.


Rule 1 does allow the TD to make a local rule permitting provisionals. But we feel strongly that each flight-release is worth a fee of 1. And the way we envision World SnapChing League training and certification of TDs, the WSL would give TDs guidelines about what kind of local rules are wise, and one guideline likely would be, �Don�t allows provisionals unless you GOTTA.�

Better communication is a better solution. As you suggest, a staff of deputies with handheld radios can supplement spotty cell phone coverage. SnapChing could adopt all, or some version, of the PDGA system of officials and appeals (including standing aside to await a ruling, which is how all PDGA events were conducted from 1980 to 1997 when the provisional rule first appeared). Also, it�s a fair bet that the constantly-redoubling pace of technology will produce universal cell phone coverage before SnapChing can become a major sport.

Bob, let�s assume, for the sake of all further discussion on this thread, that SnapChing will find a way to guarantee prompt rulings. Let�s assume that SnapChingers always will promptly get a ruling that �stops the bleeding� by letting you keep playing without worrying about piling up score.

If we proceed on that assumption, it'll let us focus our discussion on whether Rules of SnapChing does, or doesn�t, create a good game and govern it well.


Bob, please keep giving us your input!


Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton
Jan 12 2011, 02:27 PM
Possible solutions to this might include a staff of deputies and handheld radios, which I think is what the SnapChing philosophy would probably favor

The problem I see with this is that most of the smaller tournaments (aka non-sanctioned) are usually ran by one person, with little or no help at all. Where is the extra help to come from?

For instance, at a fundraiser to help put in a new course in a nearby city, the TD was helped by only me. I did a lot of the work during the tournament because he was busy talking to the Parks Department about the temp course we laid out. I would NOT have been able to go out into the field because I was nursing a torn meniscus in my knee (which is why I didn't play in the tournament like everyone else) and the TD wouldn't have because of the talks he was engaged in. Just the two of us to run the entire tournament.

Hoser
Jan 12 2011, 03:03 PM
DShelton, thank you for your Post #227.


The problem I see with this is that most of the smaller tournaments (aka non-sanctioned) are usually ran by one person, with little or no help at all. Where is the extra help to come from?

Yes, you�re right. We agree, it�s a problem. And it looks like it�s the same problem for small PDGA disc golf events (sanctioned or not) as for small SnapChing events.

At your fund-raiser tournament, how did you and the TD handle calls for rulings? Were there any officials?

Hope your knee is better.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Jan 13 2011, 02:49 PM
To all TDs:


We�re asking for your TD experience with late scorecard return. Your feedback can influence how SnapChing handles this issue.

If you�ve ever had a player (or a group) fail to turn in the scorecard on time:


What penalty did you apply?

Did the late return cause you trouble?

How did you group those player(s) for the next round?

Did you delay the start of the next round?

What way do you think is most sensible, to deal with this issue?



* * *


To all players:

If you were in charge of writing a �late scorecard return� rule:


What way do you think would be best, to deal with late scorecard return?

When a player turns in a card late, what do you think should be done with him after he gets the penalty? Specifically, how should he be grouped for the next round?



Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton
Jan 13 2011, 06:43 PM
At your fund-raiser tournament, how did you and the TD handle calls for rulings? Were there any officials?

Hope your knee is better.


Mike & Matt :) :)

I had surgery and should be out on the course soon, thanks for the concern.

There was only 2 people running the entire tournament, the TD and me, no officials or extra help. As for rulings, almost all the players have access to PDGA rulebooks and know how to make rulings from that and if a problem was to arise, they know to take provisionals and let the TD rule after the round.

Hoser
Jan 13 2011, 08:31 PM
DShelton, thank you for your Post #230.


If a problem was to arise, they know to take provisionals and let the TD rule after the round.

This makes us wonder about something. Please pardon us if this question is na�ve � our age and aches and other diversions have severely limited our PDGA tournament participation in the past 15 years (since before the provisional rule came into disc golf in the 1997 rulebook).

Our question is this:

When a situation arises on the field of play and a group doesn�t fully agree on how to proceed, which of these things is most likely to happen:


Someone calls for an official, and the group stands aside to await a ruling.

Someone calls for an official, and if there isn�t one readily at hand, the group uses provisionals rather than wait for an official to arrive.

No one calls for an official. The group uses provisionals and lets the TD sort out the question later.


Here�s what we�re getting at: are players tending to use provisionals as a way to not wait at all for rulings? That is, are provisionals becoming the preferred way to resolve situations on the field of play, instead of calling officials? And are players even using provisionals to deal with questions that don�t rise to the level of anyone being willing to call an official for a ruling?

Bob Weston, these questions are for you, too, since you said the provisional rule is one of your favorites. In fact, we�d like to hear from anyone who has played tournaments enough in the last few years to notice whether provisionals are getting used more and more, and officials are getting used less and less.

SnapChing scores 1 for each disc flight release, and SnapChing uses no provisionals, because we feel that each flight gives you valuable info that can improve your play. So now we�re wondering if PDGA players are using provisionals enough that it is having the effect of making players feel less responsible for throwing right the first time?

Thank you, everyone, for information about this.


Mike & Matt :) :)

hazard
Jan 13 2011, 09:04 PM
I had surgery and should be out on the course soon, thanks for the concern.

There was only 2 people running the entire tournament, the TD and me, no officials or extra help. As for rulings, almost all the players have access to PDGA rulebooks and know how to make rulings from that and if a problem was to arise, they know to take provisionals and let the TD rule after the round.

This is a good example of why I was exploring the possibilities of the "Paid Provisional" and pondering the circumstances under which I would consider the use of a true provisional to be advisable.

The expressed goals of SnapChing include reducing the amount of material involved in "access to rulebooks" and increasing the likelihood of "know how to make rulings." I believe it has specifically been suggested that ultimately the reduced rule volume and the simplicity of those rules is supposed to reduce, or at least not to increase, the occurrence of "if a problem was to arise." I actually see real uncertainty about rulings very rarely, so that's a pretty high standard to meet in my opinion.

However, as SnapChing currently stands, the only readily apparent fallbacks if inadequate staff and equipment can be provided to make immediate TD rulings...are either a Rule 1 application or the "paid provisional" alternative I proposed. That makes SnapChing less accessible for people wanting to run minor tournaments in low-cell-coverage areas where limited staff is available.

I know you said to assume that SnapChing will somehow manage to guarantee access to prompt rulings, but In light of these observations, within the assumed context of an eventually well-established SnapChing community, I am inclined to suggest that the teaching of "Don't allow provisionals unless you gotta" be specifically accompanied by mention that all efforts to recruit adequate staff and technology to guarantee access to prompt rulings is one of the rare cases of "you gotta," especially in the case of small local tournaments and especially in attempts to introduce SnapChing to new players. Obviously, however, staff and radios or cell phones are preferable when they can be found.

Meanwhile, an attentive and careful player will realize that since it is the result of applying the rules without any modification, the "paid provisional" technique is essentially available to any player who for some reason considers those strokes preferable to waiting for a TD ruling. As someone whose arm can get cold and whose nerves can get shot from delay rather quickly, I can imagine deciding it would be worth a couple of extra strokes to go on and keep playing rather than standing aside to wait, if I were certain that one of the two alternatives I would play as provisionals in PDGA play were correct.

...Having said that, and more relevantly having made my suggestion regarding the specifics of when "you gotta" allow provisionals, I am now willing to conduct any further discussions on the aforementioned assumption that prompt rulings will somehow always be provided. I think we have established the premises that providing those rulings may sometimes be challenging, but that there are ways to deal with that challenge when it arises, with the TD's last resort being a local provisional rule and the player's last resort being to pay a few extra strokes for the certainty of not accumulating more than the few through a misplay; that's enough to satisfy me.

hazard
Jan 13 2011, 10:16 PM
DShelton, thank you for your Post #230.


If a problem was to arise, they know to take provisionals and let the TD rule after the round.

This makes us wonder about something. Please pardon us if this question is na�ve � our age and aches and other diversions have severely limited our PDGA tournament participation in the past 15 years (since before the provisional rule came into disc golf in the 1997 rulebook).

Our question is this:

When a situation arises on the field of play and a group doesn�t fully agree on how to proceed, which of these things is most likely to happen:


Someone calls for an official, and the group stands aside to await a ruling.

Someone calls for an official, and if there isn�t one readily at hand, the group uses provisionals rather than wait for an official to arrive.

No one calls for an official. The group uses provisionals and lets the TD sort out the question later.


Here�s what we�re getting at: are players tending to use provisionals as a way to not wait at all for rulings? That is, are provisionals becoming the preferred way to resolve situations on the field of play, instead of calling officials? And are players even using provisionals to deal with questions that don�t rise to the level of anyone being willing to call an official for a ruling?

Bob Weston, these questions are for you, too, since you said the provisional rule is one of your favorites. In fact, we�d like to hear from anyone who has played tournaments enough in the last few years to notice whether provisionals are getting used more and more, and officials are getting used less and less.

SnapChing scores 1 for each disc flight release, and SnapChing uses no provisionals, because we feel that each flight gives you valuable info that can improve your play. So now we�re wondering if PDGA players are using provisionals enough that it is having the effect of making players feel less responsible for throwing right the first time?

Thank you, everyone, for information about this.


Mike & Matt :) :)

The rules state "The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower's lie and a provisional would speed play or when the thrower questions the group's or official's ruling." (803.01C)

Based on my observations and experience:

If the TD is readily at hand, the group will ask the TD. If there is a certified official readily at hand, the group will ask the official, especially if the official is actually helping run the tournament.

However, if the official isn't sure, or none is available, or the group isn't convinced (or more accurately if the player isn't convinced), it is more likely for the player to use a provisional than for them to call the TD or an official. This is particularly true if the tournament director is playing in the tournament, which it seems to me used to be relatively common but is becoming somewhat less so. I have seen provisionals used perhaps a dozen times or so, probably less, but while I have seen a group stop to get a ruling from a TD or official when one happened to be immediately available, I have never seen a group stand aside to wait for a ruling long enough for another group to end up playing through. Apparently the de facto standard when using a provisional to appeal the group's or an official's ruling is that if the TD is not right there he is not considered "readily available."

The other use of provisionals is to facilitate the speed and flow of play, and to answer your second question, it might be that you would put it that way.

At most tournaments, if there is a situation where, for example, it is difficult to determine from the tee where a shot landed, there will hopefully be a spotter. Suppose a tee shot is over a body of water or a ravine with a long walk to get to the main fairway via bridge or some such. Suppose there is a broad landing area on the far side, but tall plants obscuring the side with a better angle on the basket, or heavy brush adjacent to the fairway on that side, or something like that. I suppose there might be players out there who would take the riskier shot closer to the obscured side...knowing that if the disc skips to where they can't see it they can go ahead and take a provisional from the tee in case it is out of bounds or lost rather than walking all the way around and possibly having to walk back, or waiting for the rest of the group to walk around and signal whether a rethrow was necessary. I think in most cases, people who take the riskier shot would have done so anyway, and I would tend to believe that even in cases where the availability of the provisional would affect that decision, the player would be more concerned with being able to take the risk/reward without having to worry about the walk or delay in addition to the strokes than with getting an extra toss in for free, but the free toss is still there.

However, that's the closest I can think of to a case where using a provisional might make a player feel "less responsible" for playing right the first time. Most provisionals are used when a throw that the player would have thrown that way anyhow winds up in a situation in which the group is not sure of the disc's status. One that I can recall, for example, was taken because neither the group nor an official helping with the tournament who happened to be nearby remembered whether the tournament director had said if a certain strung-off out-of-bounds area was supposed to be out of bounds for the whole course or only for the hole on which it was expected to come into play. A player in my group whose drive went wildly astray landed just past the string marking an out-of-bounds ravine on a different hole. My brother-in-law and I urged the other player (who ended up in a playoff with me for the division, if I recall correctly) to use the provisional rule to make certain of having a valid score...I don't think he was aware that it was an option until we brought it up.

davidsauls
Jan 14 2011, 12:05 PM
Our question is this:

When a situation arises on the field of play and a group doesn�t fully agree on how to proceed, which of these things is most likely to happen:


Someone calls for an official, and the group stands aside to await a ruling.

Someone calls for an official, and if there isn�t one readily at hand, the group uses provisionals rather than wait for an official to arrive.

No one calls for an official. The group uses provisionals and lets the TD sort out the question later.


Here�s what we�re getting at: are players tending to use provisionals as a way to not wait at all for rulings? That is, are provisionals becoming the preferred way to resolve situations on the field of play, instead of calling officials? And are players even using provisionals to deal with questions that don�t rise to the level of anyone being willing to call an official for a ruling?



I'll volunteer my experience, as well. (About a dozen tournaments TD'd, about two dozens assisted, plus all those I've played). With the disclaimer that customs may vary by region.

I've never heard of a group standing aside for a ruling, or seeking out an official. I've known people to ask an official if they noticed one within asking distance, though.

I've almost never seen or heard of a dispute of PDGA rules reaching the TD.

I've played a lot of provisionals, though. Surprisingly often, the player ends up with the same score on his initial play and provisional play, and it's a wash.

Most of the provisionals, course misplays, and disputes that have come to me have involved, not PDGA rules, but local rules, usually definitions of out-of-bounds, or drop zones, etc. (Far too many involve people who didn't listen at the players' meeting, or didn't read the handout provided them. A couple have involved poor wording on the handout I provided as TD).

Hoser
Jan 14 2011, 12:07 PM
Bob, thank you for your Post #232.


I am now willing to conduct any further discussions on the aforementioned assumption that prompt rulings will somehow always be provided. I think we have established the premises that providing those rulings may sometimes be challenging, but that there are ways to deal with that challenge when it arises, with the TD's last resort being a local provisional rule and the player's last resort being to pay a few extra strokes for the certainty of not accumulating more than the few through a misplay; that's enough to satisfy me.

Thank you. You�re a generous guy, to go along with our assumption that SnapChing events can somehow provide prompt rulings to all players. We understand your concern that players in smaller SnapChing or PDGA disc golf events might be stymied by inadequate staff and equipment for rulings. We don�t yet have the answers to all those situations. But the reason we ask you to set those concerns aside, is that they involve adjusting the tournament infrastructure rather than adjusting the rules of play . . . unless you want the rules to allow provisionals, so players can proceed without a ruling.

We designed Rules of SnapChing to work in two basic circumstances: a big tournament that has adequate staff for quick rulings (i.e., if the TD can�t handle that load, then use the PDGA system of officials and appeals); and casual play, where you use exactly the same set of rules but you or your group act as TD for the purpose of applying rules or making local rules.

We admit that we didn�t give much thought to how our rules would work in a small event with limited staff and technology glitches � although we did hope that our rules were clear enough that players seldom would need to call for a ruling.

Maybe we�ve overestimated the clarity of our rules. Maybe players will seek more rulings than we thought. Maybe a TD�s workload is too heavy to let him give rulings quickly. Maybe technology doesn�t let our concept work. If any of these things are true, that�s a problem that we need to address.

If such a problem exists, there are two ways to solve it. One is to improve the tournament�s infrastructure. The other is to change the rules of play to give players a fair way to proceed if they can�t get a quick ruling.

Bob, you know we prefer to solve the problem by improving the infrastructure, rather than by allowing provisionals in SnapChing. Let us tell you why.

As we were learning Frisbee golf in the 1970s, we began as many novices do: we thought the game was most fun if you always get a free stance to make a powerful shot with no obstacles in the way. But with experience, we came to realize that the game really is most fun if you accept the challenge of tough lies and of hole designs that put obstacles in your way. We became the kind of player who will put a leg into a thorn bush rather than fudge on a stance (even when no one is watching). This isn�t a brag, it�s just a recognition that this is the most rewarding way to compete at this game: play where you lie, unless there�s a good reason to get relief.

When we invented SnapChing, we constantly asked each other, �What kind of game do you want?� In other words, what�s the balance of risk and reward, of comfort and challenge, that creates the best possible version of a game where you throw discs from point A to point Z, hitting a series of targets along the way?

The RC has been asking itself that question for 30 years, and they�ve come up with a lot of different answers. For example, there was the �playable/favorable lie� idea in the 1980s. (Does anyone remember the infamous graphic in the 1988 rulebook?) The essence of that rule was that if you got into any of several sticky lies, you were entitled to free relief to a place, no closer to the hole, where you could stand fully IB and have �room to make a full and unencumbered throw toward the hole, with no hazards to the flight of the disc closer than 3M to the player.�

That�s the way PDGA disc golf was played for nearly a decade. And it worked. Our point, in saying this, is that many ways �work� to play disc golf. Some ways are more fun and interesting than others. It�s not a question of right or wrong, it�s just a question of �what kind of game do you want to play.�

As we invented SnapChing, we stepped aside from all the precedents of early Frisbee golf and 30 years of PDGA rulebooks, and we tried to write rules that create the best possible version of the game. We gravitated toward rules that fit our �stick your leg in the thorn bush� ethos, because we felt (and we still feel) that as long as you don�t injure yourself, the game is most fun and most interesting and most constructively challenging if you play the course as it was designed and you take reasonable responsibility for the result of each of your disc flights.

Bob, that may help you understand why we created a game where you score 1 for every disc flight release and you don�t use provisionals.

How about �don�t use provisionals unless you GOTTA�? GOTTA would have to be a situation where waiting for a ruling would mean the tournament can�t finish at a reasonable time. We suggest that that�s a rare, rare occurance.

Bob, we do enjoy the way you reason things out and how you look at all the angles. Your concepts of �paid provisionals� or a �GOTTA� local rule are intriguing; they show a lot of creativity and love of the game. We hope SnapChingers never have to use provisionals in any way; but we encourage you to keep thinking creatively about how best to play the game.


* * *


As someone whose arm can get cold and whose nerves can get shot from delay rather quickly, I can imagine deciding it would be worth a couple of extra strokes to go on and keep playing rather than standing aside to wait, if I were certain that one of the two alternatives I would play as provisionals in PDGA play were correct.

We, too, fight a running battle with age and infirmity. Our geezer quotient is alarming. Cold arms and shot nerves are our game du jour. But the idea of choosing to add strokes, by playing �paid provisionals,� gives us a bad enough cramp that we�ll probably choose to wait until the TD gets around to giving us a ruling. If we live that long.


Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton
Jan 14 2011, 06:22 PM
Most of the provisionals, course misplays, and disputes that have come to me have involved, not PDGA rules, but local rules, usually definitions of out-of-bounds, or drop zones, etc. (Far too many involve people who didn't listen at the players' meeting, or didn't read the handout provided them. A couple have involved poor wording on the handout I provided as TD).

The same thing applies here. In all the tournaments I've played, I've only seen a provisional used a couple of times and each time it was because someone didn't listen at the players' meeting and disagreed with the group's ruling on a play out on the course. Never have I seen a provisional used for a misunderstanding of a PDGA rule.

DShelton
Jan 14 2011, 06:36 PM
We admit that we didn�t give much thought to how our rules would work in a small event with limited staff and technology glitches � although we did hope that our rules were clear enough that players seldom would need to call for a ruling.

And that's why the rules aren't very good. For any "grassroots" way of creating a new game, you have to start with the small events and work up to the larger events. The concept has to work for a group of 40 players, in 3 divisions, scattered around a 2 mile long course, run only by one guy, before it can work for a group of 140 players, in six divisions, on 2 courses run by a staff of 20 people.

hazard
Jan 14 2011, 09:12 PM
The same thing applies here. In all the tournaments I've played, I've only seen a provisional used a couple of times and each time it was because someone didn't listen at the players' meeting and disagreed with the group's ruling on a play out on the course. Never have I seen a provisional used for a misunderstanding of a PDGA rule.

I can remember at least one provisional I've seen taken due to a dispute over a PDGA rule...specifically, I think it was a disagreement over the correct ruling for a disc that completely crossed a mandatory line as foul and then ricocheted back to a point on the near side of the mandatory. As it happens, the SnapChing rule for the equivalent situation is pretty darn clear. Of course, I thought 803.12B was pretty clear as well, but...again, if I remember correctly...that turned out to be one of the very few times that my brother-in-law and I have disagreed on a ruling, and the TD ruled as my brother-in-law would have. (Neither of us was the player involved, though.)

I can't remember any other cases where the provisional was primarily concerned with the rules themselves rather than with the course or speed of play, though.


By the way, something that occurred to me a few minutes ago: One factor that will help a little bit with coping at those smaller tournaments, even with poor cell coverage, is that the fewer groups there are, the fewer two-way radios you'd need to supply one to each card, and even if you take advantage of a sparsely populated course to spread the groups out a little, it may be a little more likely for the TD and whatever small staff may be available to be within a hole or two's range (I also expect it to be more likely that the TD will play when the tournament is a small one). In short, smaller tournaments will need less investment of equipment and manpower. One catch to this, of course, is that one might have to limit the field to preregistration only to be absolutely certain of having the ratio of resources to players one felt was needed. Most TDs prefer preregistratiosn when they can have them anyhow, and I as a player prefer to preregister if I know far enough in advance that I intend to play.

Hoser
Jan 18 2011, 10:41 AM
DShelton,

Re: your Post #94 (responding to Mike�s Post #86) on the �2011 Rules Update� thread.


You do know you are not helping the cause of Snapching here. Instead it hurts it. Every time I see something like this in a discussion of PDGA rules, it only makes me hate the game of Snapching that much more.

You have been both a critic and (sometimes) supporter of our efforts. Your voice probably speaks for a lot of silent readers: you see value in the concept of writing better rules; but something about the way we�re putting that concept in public view is irritating you.

We admit that we�re not marketing experts. We�re two ordinary guys who have spent fifteen years tooling a rule system for a sport we love, and we�re showing that rule system to disc golfers as best we can. No one in the PDGA ever before has had the opportunity to see how an alternative rule system can work in their sport. The sudden appearance of a new set of rules is bound to be a confusing experience that stirs things up.

You know, from the tone of our responses, that we�re not in it to bully anyone (including the RC, whose members and whose dedication we respect). We genuinely feel that the current PDGA rules are flawed in ways that poorly serve the membership and the growth of the sport, and we�re offering our rule system as an example of how grassroots creativity may address those flaws more productively than the RC (restricted by the PDGA board) can.

From time to time, folks on this thread have advised us how to present our case better. Now we ask you to do that, too.

When you read our Post #86 on the �2011 Rules Update� thread, what made you mad? To put the question another way: if someone else�s thread is addressing a problem that PDGA rules don�t clearly solve, and if we see that Rules of SnapChing solves or illuminates that problem, do you see any way for us to say so without raising your hackles?

Thank you for any input you can give. By all means, don�t restrict your answer to only our question, if there�s more you feel like saying. When we say �grassroots creativity,� that includes you.


Mike & Matt

DShelton
Jan 18 2011, 07:00 PM
When you read our Post #86 on the �2011 Rules Update� thread, what made you mad? To put the question another way: if someone else�s thread is addressing a problem that PDGA rules don�t clearly solve, and if we see that Rules of SnapChing solves or illuminates that problem, do you see any way for us to say so without raising your hackles?

Thank you for any input you can give. By all means, don�t restrict your answer to only our question, if there�s more you feel like saying. When we say �grassroots creativity,� that includes you.


Mike & Matt

Here's my opinion. This is a forum for PDGA rules. When someone asks a question about a PDGA rule, it serves no one to throw out a rule for another game and could confuse things more. A new person, who comes to this forum to seek an answer to a question or watches us discuss a rule, will see the rule for Snapching and they'll think it is a "rule" for the PDGA when in actuality it is not. They will then take it to a tournament and it will be up to people like you and me to explain why it is not a rule.

Another thing that irritates me a little is the fact that you used the PDGA's own message board to start a "revolution" of sorts. Discussing changes one would make is great and appreciated, but to create a new sport, which is close to the same as disc golf, and then every thread that pops up you taut how much better your sport is than disc golf makes me think you'd rather see the PDGA disappear and your sport take over.

I've suggested before that you should work your way into the RC. This is because, unlike you think, changes will only take place from within. By disassociating yourself from the PDGA, you allow the organization to marginalize and eventually discount what you have to say.

I'm not saying what you are doing is wrong, in fact I think it is commendable. I just think the methods you are using to achieve your goals could be better.

Hoser
Jan 19 2011, 12:22 PM
DShelton, thank you for your Post #240.


There are two reasons why we introduced SnapChing as a new game.

One was to honor copyrights and trademarks that the PDGA has, or may have, on its rules and its organization and even on the name �disc golf.� When we brought our new rules to public view, we didn�t want lawsuits to shut the door to discussion. So we gave our version of disc golf, and our suggestion of a World SnapChing League, a new name for the sake of legal differentiation.

The second reason � way more important � is to help readers leap a difficult hurdle: to think about the game as a unique game (not golf) where new rules are possible. If you�ve only known one set of rules, or if you�ve only known golf as a model for those rules, it�s not easy to consider another way of seeing the game. A new name can help players open their minds and tap into their own creativity to think about disc golf stuff in new ways that current rules give them no language to express.

For those two reasons, we�ve often said �SnapChing v. PDGA disc golf� when discussing disc golf rules on this forum. Yet both games are disc golf. Anyone who goes to a disc golf course and plays a round of SnapChing sees that this is true. Unless you go OB or cross a no-fly line or lose your lie, you might play all day and never see any difference between the SnapChing version of disc golf and the PDGA version of disc golf. They�re the same game.


This is a forum for PDGA rules.

Yes, it is. Sometimes it�s a forum to help each other understand PDGA rules. Sometimes, when rules are tough to understand, it�s a forum to try to improve PDGA rules. You�ll often see players suggest general ways to improve the wording of a rule, or to resolve conflicts between rules, or to urge the RC to change rules. That�s a healthy conversation.

We have come into that conversation in an unusual way: we offer specific, rather than general, solutions. For example, in the �2011 Rules Update� thread, Pete and Chuck were talking about PDGA stance rules and the confusion players feel about them. In the normal way that players post on the forum, Pete and Chuck were saying things like, �Yes, that�s a problem that needs working on� and �The RC is going to address that.� We entered the conversation, laid out an analytical view of the problem, and suggested a specific rule change to solve it.

Specific input may seem strange on this forum. Up until the introduction of Rules of SnapChing, players who wanted to respond to problems they were having in using PDGA rules, could only speak in terms of those rules themselves. Now there exists a different way to discuss disc golf. When we talk about SnapChing solutions to disc golf rules, the �SnapChing� expression may sound strange � yet we�re really talking about PDGA rules as they are and as they have the potential to become.


When someone asks a question about a PDGA rule, it serves no one to throw out a rule for another game and could confuse things more.

We agree with you � except we�re not throwing out rules for another game. We�re suggesting different ways to play disc golf.

Are our rules radical? Not really: if you review the nine PDGA rulebooks (1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2011), you�ll see a range of change, in 30 years of disc golf rules, that�s way broader than the difference between Rules of SnapChing and the 2011 PDGA rulebook. (We invite you to discover that this is true, as we did � if you aren�t able to find all those rulebooks at pdga.com or elsewhere online, email Mike privately and we�ll send you the digital text of all of them.)


A new person, who comes to this forum to seek an answer to a question or watches us discuss a rule, will see the rule for Snapching and they'll think it is a "rule" for the PDGA when in actuality it is not. They will then take it to a tournament and it will be up to people like you and me to explain why it is not a rule.

We sure don�t want to give new players that impression � that�s why we�ve been framing our discussions in terms of �SnapChing� rules and �PDGA disc golf� rules. Of course players in PDGA events use PDGA rules.


Another thing that irritates me a little is the fact that you used the PDGA's own message board to start a "revolution" of sorts. Discussing changes one would make is great and appreciated, but to create a new sport, which is close to the same as disc golf, and then every thread that pops up you tout how much better your sport is than disc golf makes me think you'd rather see the PDGA disappear and your sport take over.

Do we hope to spur players to think about how to improve PDGA rules? Yes. Do we hope the RC will be influenced by our ideas for improving the game? Yes. Are we trying to usurp the game of disc golf and replace it with SnapChing? No, not even a little bit. We�re trying to improve the game of disc golf.

Are we causing confusion now? Probably so. But keep in mind that the PDGA currently has about 15,000 active members (source: PDGA board meeting minutes) yet the PDGA hopes to attract tens of millions of new players. Those potential new players outnumber today�s active members by more than 1000 to 1. We feel that now is a reasonable time to risk confusing a few thousand players for the sake of spurring the PDGA to provide better rules for the incoming millions.

That�s not about takeover. It�s about sensible improvement to spur the growth of the sport of disc golf.


I've suggested before that you should work your way into the RC. This is because, unlike you think, changes will only take place from within. By disassociating yourself from the PDGA, you allow the organization to marginalize and eventually discount what you have to say.

You are right: change will only take place from within. But if the PDGA is paying as much attention to grassroots wisdom as the members deserve, PDGA decisions will be influenced by the conversations on this forum. There�s value, for the growth of the sport, in each member�s opinion; and no one who suggests a way to improve the sport, is being disloyal to the PDGA.

Disc golf is a very young sport. It�s like a young puppy, frolicking around, yapping, gnawing on stuff, pooping in awkward places, being delightful, being obstreperous, trying to catch up to the size of its own paws, trying to find its balance. The PDGA staff and board need input from all directions � even input that�s out of the box � to help them manage the growth.

Might the PDGA marginalize what we say about SnapChing? Yes. But the PDGA can�t marginalize what its members think. And 7000 hits on this thread show that members are interested in a SnapChing view of disc golf. They may not agree, and they may not like us butting in, but there�s huge creativity going on in their minds as they imagine, �Well, what about this?� The PDGA, at this stage in the growth of the sport, can hardly afford to ignore the value of its members� creative thought, from the perspective of their millions of hours of experience on the field of play.


I'm not saying what you are doing is wrong, in fact I think it is commendable. I just think the methods you are using to achieve your goals could be better.

Thank you, for both your words of encouragement and your suggestion that we use better methods. We�ll give it a lot of thought, DShelton. Please keep your input coming.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Jeff_LaG
Jan 19 2011, 04:21 PM
Mike,

Every one of your points you make above is 100% valid. But I can practically guarantee you that though I agree completely on these points, the average message board user will not be as accommodating. When they see your Rules of SnapChing being mentioned in a totally separate PDGA Rules Discussion thread, it is going to stick out like those really annoying TV commercials that are twice as loud as the program you are watching. And you're not going to get the benefit of those fancy TVs which automatically regulate the volume of the TV to a constant level.

To wit, old timers around here may remember a guy named Dr. Fred who came up with a new basket design - attached below. In a prehistoric version of the PDGA DISCussion Board in the late 90s and the early 2000s, he used to engage in disc golf debates and inevitably work a not-so-subtle plug for his baskets into every conversation. It was kind of like the wife in the Jim Carrey movie "The Truman show" who would randomly turn to the camera and show off various items she recently purchased. Seriously, despite your best efforts, every time you mention your Rules of SnapChing in other places it's going to come off like you are engaging in "product placement" to support your cause.

You win more flies with honey than vinegar, Mike. When people open this Open Letter to the PDGA and All Members (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=1447218#post1447218) thread, they know exactly what they are getting into. When you bring up Rules of SnapChing in other threads though, you are going to stick out and be welcomed about as much as a door-to-door salesman. I firmly believe it is only going to hurt, and not help, your cause.

My $.02
-Jeff

veganray
Jan 19 2011, 04:33 PM
You win more flies with honey than vinegar

------------------------------------

Again, it continues to boggle the mind why someone who seeks to put down all things PDGA continues to renew.

If you're so unhappy with the PDGA, then please, don't renew in 2010. The PDGA will work to grow the sport of disc golf just fine, and without your negativity dragging it down.

if you renew each year seemingly only to publicly attack the efforts of volunteers & employees on this forum; then please, don't renew in 2010. The sport will grow just fine without you.

If you are so unhappy with the marketing and the PDGA in general, then please, don't renew next year.

------------------------------------

:confused:

Hoser
Jan 20 2011, 12:58 PM
Jeff, thank you for your Post #242.


Dr. Fred�s basket
Truman�s wife
Door-to-door salesmen
Twice-as-loud TV commercials (ouch)

Yeah, we get your point (and you got us to laugh, too). You�re an eloquent guy, Jeff. We appreciate your $.02.


Here�s a possible solution. If someone else's thread presents a rule problem, and if Rules of SnapChing can show a way to solve that problem or can illuminate it to the benefit of the sport of disc golf, we�ll put the following post onto that thread:


Re Jeff�s Post #X:

Please see the �Open Letter to the PDGA� thread, Post #Y.

Mike & Matt


Readers can skip past if they�re not interested. Or they can look on our thread and see another facet of the discussion.

Jeff, does that work for you? Or can you suggest a better approach?

Thanks again for your input.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Hoser
Jan 20 2011, 01:53 PM
Bob and David, thank you for your feedback (Posts #233, 234 and 238) on provisionals. That�s helpful.

Would anybody else care to chime in, to tell about personal experience with provisionals, or to talk about how provisionals do or don�t serve the game?


Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton
Jan 20 2011, 07:43 PM
This is a forum for PDGA rules.

Yes, it is. Sometimes it�s a forum to help each other understand PDGA rules. Sometimes, when rules are tough to understand, it�s a forum to try to improve PDGA rules. You�ll often see players suggest general ways to improve the wording of a rule, or to resolve conflicts between rules, or to urge the RC to change rules. That�s a healthy conversation.

We have come into that conversation in an unusual way: we offer specific, rather than general, solutions.

But the purpose is not to give a solution, but an interpretation. If a situation isn't covered by the rules, then a solution would be appropriate. But the post in question was discussing a rule that was already in place.




We agree with you � except we�re not throwing out rules for another game. We�re suggesting different ways to play disc golf.

Yet, you start your explaination with

"There are two reasons why we introduced SnapChing as a new game."

No matter how you justify the reasons for the name or rules, you are throwing out rules for a different game.



Are our rules radical? Not really: if you review the nine PDGA rulebooks (1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2011), you�ll see a range of change, in 30 years of disc golf rules, that�s way broader than the difference between Rules of SnapChing and the 2011 PDGA rulebook. (We invite you to discover that this is true, as we did � if you aren�t able to find all those rulebooks at pdga.com or elsewhere online, email Mike privately and we�ll send you the digital text of all of them.)

The reason each of these rules are more complicated than the last is because some knucklehead finds a loophole and exploits it. In 30 years, I'm sure your set of rules will look as bloated and someone will be complaining that they are too complicated and needs to be simplified. They'll point to your "rules on a putter" and say "see they didn't need all these rules when they first started".


We sure don�t want to give new players that impression � that�s why we�ve been framing our discussions in terms of �SnapChing� rules and �PDGA disc golf� rules. Of course players in PDGA events use PDGA rules.

Yes, PDGA events use PDGA rules, but that doesn't stop some new player from seeing your rules in a discuss of a PDGA rule and think they are PDGA rules too.


That�s not about takeover. It�s about sensible improvement to spur the growth of the sport of disc golf.

That it may be, but it feels like a takeover when in every thread we see you touting how Snapching is far superior to PDGA disc golf.


Might the PDGA marginalize what we say about SnapChing? Yes. But the PDGA can�t marginalize what its members think. And 7000 hits on this thread show that members are interested in a SnapChing view of disc golf.

The number of hits isn't a good gauge of the interest in Snapching. What is, is the number of people you can get out to a tournament next year after using the rules of Snapching in a number of tournaments this year.

pterodactyl
Jan 21 2011, 12:20 PM
User has thread on "Ignore".

Hoser
Jan 21 2011, 01:21 PM
DShelton, thank you for your Post #246.


But the purpose [of discussions on this forum] is not to give a solution, but an interpretation. If a situation isn't covered by the rules, then a solution would be appropriate. But the post in question was discussing a rule that was already in place.

We appreciate your viewpoint that this forum isn�t an appropriate place to present �outside of PDGA rules� suggestions for governing field-of-play situations or for resolving imprecisions or conflicts that may exist in PDGA rules. And this forum is for interpreting rules that are in place, not for offering innovative ways to create rules that need less interpretation.

We�ll meet you halfway on this. On every other thread on this forum, we may offer our $.02 about what a given PDGA rule means, or how it does or doesn�t interact with other PDGA rules to govern scenarios, but � as we said to Jeff in Post #244 � we�ll stop offering SnapChing solutions on those threads. Instead we�ll say, �See further comment on the Open Letter thread,� and everyone will have the choice to ignore that or to come over to this thread and read it.


No matter how you justify the reasons for the name or rules, you are throwing out rules for a different game.

A lot of disc golfers feel similarly about the USDGC. But it�s still disc golf. And so is SnapChing.


The reason each of these rules are more complicated than the last is because some knucklehead finds a loophole and exploits it. In 30 years, I'm sure your set of rules will look as bloated.

There are three solutions to the knucklehead problem:


� Ban knuckleheads and ignore loopholes.

� Patch each loophole.

� Write rules that have no loopholes.


If the third solution is impossible, then maybe you�re right about how bloated our rules will look in 30 years.

We are actively, daily, asking every PDGA member to search out loopholes in our rules so we can rewrite the rules loophole-free. It would be interesting to see the PDGA ask for, and respond to, that same input from its members.


Yes, PDGA events use PDGA rules, but that doesn't stop some new player from seeing your rules in a discussion of a PDGA rule and think they are PDGA rules too.

See our Post #244. We hope this settles your concern.


It feels like a takeover when in every thread we see you touting how Snapching is far superior to PDGA disc golf.

See our Post #244. We�ll confine future touting to the Open Letter thread.

(Maybe our posts on this thread should include a disclaimer, like ads for new pharmaceuticals do: �Do not use these rules if you�re in a PDGA event or if you are operating heavy discs. Seek immediate RC help if you experience a rule solution that lasts more than four hours.�)


The number of hits isn't a good gauge of the interest in Snapching. What is, is the number of people you can get out to a tournament next year after using the rules of Snapching in a number of tournaments this year.

Can�t argue with you there. Time will tell.


Thank you again for your input, DShelton. Your particular mix of creative thought, assertive opinion, and cynicism and doubt, is an interesting flavor in the SnapChing discussion.


Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton
Jan 21 2011, 06:05 PM
as we said to Jeff in Post #244 � we�ll stop offering SnapChing solutions on those threads. Instead we�ll say, �See further comment on the Open Letter thread,� and everyone will have the choice to ignore that or to come over to this thread and read it.

That will still come off as annoying. It's like the product placement ads today. They don't make a big deal of it, but you know when it happens and it stops the action for a bit.


There are three solutions to the knucklehead problem:


� Ban knuckleheads and ignore loopholes.

� Patch each loophole.

� Write rules that have no loopholes.


If the third solution is impossible, then maybe you�re right about how bloated our rules will look in 30 years.

We are actively, daily, asking every PDGA member to search out loopholes in our rules so we can rewrite the rules loophole-free. It would be interesting to see the PDGA ask for, and respond to, that same input from its members.

#2 and #3 is exactly what the PDGA has tried to do over the years. Yet you put them down for it. If you published each re-write of your rules, it would have the same effect. Someone can go to them and show how they've expanded with each rewrite.

The number of hits isn't a good gauge of the interest in Snapching. What is, is the number of people you can get out to a tournament next year after using the rules of Snapching in a number of tournaments this year.

Can�t argue with you there. Time will tell.

This is the ultimate solution. Get a group of people together, give them your rules and then have a tournament. Then another and another and another. If your numbers grow, then you have something.

Jeff_LaG
Jan 21 2011, 06:06 PM
(Maybe our posts on this thread should include a disclaimer, like ads for new pharmaceuticals do: �Do not use these rules if you�re in a PDGA event or if you are operating heavy discs. Seek immediate RC help if you experience a rule solution that lasts more than four hours.�)



Now DAT wuz funny. :D