Rip, Snort, Clint, Mitch and Johnny are all tied for the Open Pro lead ($100,000 first prize) at the end of regulation play. With ESPN cameras rolling, they all tee off on the first playoff hole. All five discs land three feet from the basket. Each player goes and marks his own lie.

Then Rip takes a stance at Snort�s marker and putts into the basket.

One second later, Clint and Mitch and Johnny and Snort all simultaneously call fouls on Rip. Clint calls, �Foot fault, 803.04A!� Mitch calls, �Practice throw, 803.01B!� Johnny calls, �He threw from another player�s lie, 803.10A!� Snort calls, �He didn�t correct his misplay before holing out, 801.04D!� An official seconds Clint�s foot-fault call.

What is Rip�s score on the hole?

:eek:

Whatever the correct answer is, the point of starting this thread is surely as a blatant plug for the Snap Ching Disc Golf Association. :rolleyes:

Oh my these guys are starting a discussion on the discussion board the nerve!

I have to say that when the Snapching rules were first trotted out my first reaction was how absurd but I have come along just far enough to actually consider playing a casual round or two using them just to see how it goes.

Anyway Biff gets a 4 on the hole throws taken + 2 throw penalty playing the hole to completion from the wrong lie. He played from another player's lie really straightforward if you ask me.

I have never thought that anything was absurd about it, and in fact, I have a ton of respect for the time these guys have put into testing their rules and scenarios, including the entire Rules Q&A. I have little doubt that their rules handily cover most scenarios and with a little tweaking could handle almost every scenario out there.

But (like others) in the end I question whether having a shorter set of rules which can be printed on a disc does virtually anything to enhance the sport of disc golf, make it more appealing to new players, grow the sport, etc. I'm just not convinced in the slightest that shorter necessarily means better.

And threads which are obviously designed to lampoon PDGA rules, and serve as a backdoor plugs for Snapching rules, aren't going to win over many folks, methinks. You win more flies with honey than vinegar.

Anyway Rip gets a 4 on the hole throws taken + 2 throw penalty playing the hole to completion from the wrong lie. He played from another player's lie really straightforward if you ask me.
But Rip has to rethrow the putt based on the seconded foot fault call which doesn't result in a penalty unless he had another foot fault infraction earlier. The misplay didn't occur before the foot fault call is enforced so is not considered.

What would make this simpler is the following proposal:
- Get rid of the foot fault warning. No Freebies.
- If you throw from someplace other than your lie, count the toss and rethrow from the correct lie.
- If it wasn't discovered until after a subsequent throw, +2 and move on.

This would make the penalty consistent for foot fault, throwing from another player's lie, and practice throws.

What would make this simpler is the following proposal:
- Get rid of the foot fault warning. No Freebies.
- If you throw from someplace other than your lie, count the toss and rethrow from the correct lie.
- If it wasn't discovered until after a subsequent throw, +2 and move on.

This would make the penalty consistent for foot fault, throwing from another player's lie, and practice throws.


The foot fault warning is the most ridiculous rule in disc golf. It makes no sense and I have long called for it's removal.

Jeff, thank you for your Post #4.


You�re right: our opinion about �shorter is better� isn�t important. Anyone who looks at the PDGA rulebook and Rules of SnapChing can easily form their own opinion about the impact on the game, of a 22-to-1 length differential.

The real question worth asking is: how well does each rule system govern play? To govern play well, a rule system needs to meet all of these standards:


� Each scenario generates one, and only one, solution.

� Each solution creates a game you want to play.

� Each rule feels fair.

� The rules create an interesting skill challenge, and they balance risk with reward in ways that spur intriguing strategy on the field of play.

� The rules are easy for average players to read.

� No rule needs interpretation. Players always can get the right result by applying each rule�s exact words.

� Rules never conflict, unless it�s clearly specified that one rule supersedes the other.


We�ve tried to hold ourselves to these standards, in writing Rules of SnapChing. Have we succeeded? That�s for you and other players to say. The proof is: go onto the field of play and see how it feels to use these rules, and see if they solve the scenarios that you experience, and see how you like the kind of disc golf that these rules create.

Lampoon? We apologize if our critiques of PDGA rules seem to be lampoons. We aim to be civil and reasonable in our critiques, but we stumble sometimes. DShelton called us on it, a while back, and he was right. We are trying to do better.

Yet it�s okay to ask, of a rule system, �What about such-and-such scenario?� If a rule system can�t clearly respond, then the rulewriters have work to do. It has been thirty years since the PDGA published its first set of rules. That�s a lot of time, to discover all the stuff that can happen on the field of play and to write clear rules. So if you putt out from another player�s marker, you�d think PDGA rules would give a clear, quick ruling on how to locate your lie and score your play. It�s not a trick question, it�s something that has happened to disc golfers thousands of times, even in World Championship play.

Likewise, if we tout Rules of SnapChing, we�d better be ready for everyone to pose scenarios to us and poke holes in our rules, to see whether we can take the gaff. That�s not lampooning, that�s fair critique and WE ARE ASKING FOR IT.

Jeff, we're eager to hear any advice you can give us, on how to use honey instead of vinegar. We want to make effective points, not just turn people off. So we thank you, in advance, for guidance. (If you don�t want to post it here in public, please send us a private email).


Mike & Matt :) :)

i can't tell what's the purpose of renaming the game. snapching? i think you would've been better off just posting it as an alternative set of rules for disc golf. or rather, a simpler version of the rules might be more appropriate. can you enlighten us as to why you did chose to rename the game?

you guys are dead on by the way. there is a simpler way to play the game and a need to get rid of all the poor rules decisions and precedents that have been made in the past. there definitely needs to be sound, fundamental standards from which play proceeds.

one is definitely--play it from where it lies. everyone seems to agree on this. what are the others? are there three? five? that, to me, would be a good starting point in rewriting the rulebook and making them more fluid. Additionally, a simple rubric defining which rules take precedent over others would be extremely helpful.

there are countless situations, as evidenced above, where the rules overlap and fall short in defining how play should proceed following a "situation." a lot is left up to interpretation and it doesn't seem to have to be this way. so besides, "play it from where it lies," what other standards should the rules follow? did you have any specifics in mind when making up the rules to "that which shall not be named?" :)

Mike,

I think most everyone would agree that a rule system governing play should meet certain standards, including reducing interpretation, generating as few as possible solutions to a scenario, not resulting in conflict between rules, etc. Clearly your above example shows a failure in the exisiting PDGA rules system that needs to be addressed, and I think most disc golfers are in 100% agreement with that.

I will also admit that I have failed you in that I have not yet gone onto the field of play to see how the Rules of SnapChing solve the scenarios that one experiences, and to see the kind of disc golf that these rules create.

However, I feel that the existing PDGA rules of play aren't so difficult for average players to read, nor are they so bloated that they should be scrapped entirely for a brand new set of rules. They also don't make the sport of disc golf any less fair or fun. Additionally, with your "TD discretion" clauses I intuitively feel that your rules open up MORE interpretation than the PDGA rules.

Mike, you guys have obviously put in boatloads of time and effort into your cause and I greatly respect that. If your point in starting this thread was simply to get an honest answer on a PDGA rules conflict and to help our rules committee members to fine tune and hone our rules, then I apologize for any assumptions on your motives. But knowing your cause, I don't think it's out of line to question the implications of starting a thread like this. As opposed to many other tin-foil-on-the-head conspiracy theorists around here, it seems like a natural leap of faith to question whether this thread is simply a plug for the Rules of SnapChing. And I feel that would definitely be a vinegar vs. honey method to attracting people to your cause.

Best regards,
-Jeff

Dscmn, thank you for your Post #9.


Why did we choose to rename the game? Here�s the story . . .

At first we didn�t rename it. When we first started trying to improve the rules, we thought of ourselves as disc golfers. The game we played was disc golf. The rules we played by were disc golf rules.

Then, for three reasons, we decided that our version of the game needed a different name.


COPYRIGHT

We respect copyrights that may exist on the name disc golf and on the PDGA rulebook. As we developed our rules, we saw that we were creating a slightly different game from disc golf. We wanted to be free to do this, without having to get permission from whoever held copyrights to disc golf or disc golf�s rules.


NOT GOLF

In our early attempts to tweak disc golf�s rules, we kept running into a stumbling block: there are ways that disc golf is not like golf, and if you try to emulate golf�s rules, you get awkward results on the disc golf field of play.

We decided that a game of flying discs by hand is different enough from a game of hitting balls with clubs, that it deserves its own rule system. Once we had that �aha!� realization, it freed us to write simple rules to govern a game of flying discs from point A to point Z, hitting a series of targets along the way.

If you look at three rulebooks side by side � PGA Rules of Golf, PDGA Rules of Disc Golf, and Rules of SnapChing � you�ll see that the first two are more alike than the latter two are. This is no accident. From the start, and still today, disc golf�s rulemakers have patterned disc golf�s rules on golf�s rules. We have done the opposite with SnapChing. If you read through Rules of SnapChing you�ll see almost no �golf think.� Aside from �tee� and �lie� � terms that we found hard to do without � our rules use very little golf (or even disc golf) jargon.

To help ourselves � and to help you, too � think �outside the box� and not be limited by preconceptions about golf and disc golf, we decided our game needed a name that didn�t carry disc golf�s baggage. Specifically, our game needed a name without the word �golf� in it.


DSCGLF

Matt and Mike were playing their favorite disc golf course one day, and Matt said, �I was in the Mini Mart, carrying my disc golf bag, and a guy saw it, and we had a conversation like this:�


�What�s that?�
�That�s for playing disc golf.�
�What?�
�Disc golf.�
�Golf? Uh . . .�
�No, disc golf.�
�What?�
�You know, Frisbee golf. Like golf, but you throw discs instead of hitting balls.�
�Throw what?�
�Frisbees, special Frisbees. See? They�re like Frisbees. You play it like golf.�
�What . . . uh . . . I never heard of that. Whaddya call it?�


Mike nodded, �Yeah, every disc golfer knows that story.�

�Well,� Matt mused, �how come people, who have never seen the game or heard of it, have such a hard time getting it when you try to tell them what disc golf is?�

Matt and Mike mulled the subject, and realized that the sound of the words �disc golf� confuses the ear. Humans can�t pronounce �hard c� and �hard g� together. So when a stranger hears you say �disc golf,� what he actually hears is �diss golf� or �disc off,� neither of which make sense to him. Then he looks in your bag and sees things that look to him like shallow bowls, not discs. He is having a hard time making a connection between what he sees and what he hears. So your conversation with him is an 11-step stumble that starts with �What�s that?� and ends with �Whaddya call it?�

Disc golf formerly went by other names like Frisbee golf, saucer golf, platter golf, sky golf, and folf. At some point � probably when entrepreneurs started manufacturing flying discs that weren�t Frisbees, and so the copyrighted name Frisbee became an issue � somebody who had influence in the game (maybe Steady Ed) said, �Let�s call it disc golf. That�s a name that can help people �get to know� a game that is sort of like golf, which you play by throwing things that look sort of like discs.�

But the name �disc golf� has had a hard time catching the public fancy.

Matt said, �If we�re inventing a game that�s a bit different from disc golf . . . let�s give it a less confusing name.�

�Like what?�

Matt tuned up his brain. �We need a name that strikes the ear in a fresh, ringing way, like Yatzee or Pacman. It doesn�t have to describe the game but it ought to evoke the spirit of playing it.�

Then Matt said, �How about if we use onomatopoeia?� (Matt talks this way when his brain is tuned up.) �You know, a name that mimics the sounds of the game.�

In fifteen seconds we named the new sport SnapChing.


* * *

Naturally you may think, �Hey, strangers won�t have any clue what SnapChing means, either.�

You�re right. Yet they�ll hear �SnapChing� more clearly than they�ll hear �disc golf,� and your conversation can go like this:


�What�s that?�
�That�s for playing SnapChing. It�s a game kinda like golf: you stand on a tee and you throw these things to hit a target. Man, they really fly! It�s a great game.�
�Yeah? What�s it called?�
�SnapChing. There�s 3,000 public SnapChing courses in parks all over America. Everybody can play. SnapChing is a lot of fun.�


Will the name SnapChing catch the public fancy? We don�t know yet. Based on the very small sample of disc golfers on this discussion site, it seems to resonate pretty well. The name is already sticking in your mind. You�re starting to get a sense of the game that has that name.


* * *

Play it from where it lies.

That�s a good start, Dscmn. Your mind is opening up to the possibilities of your favorite game. Keep thinking, and see what other basic standards you can come up with, on which to build good rules.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Matt and Mike were playing their favorite disc golf course one day, and Matt said, �I was in the Mini Mart, carrying my disc golf bag, and a guy saw it, and we had a conversation like this:�


�What�s that?�
�That�s for playing disc golf.�
�What?�
�Disc golf.�
�Golf? Uh . . .�
�No, disc golf.�
�What?�
�You know, Frisbee golf. Like golf, but you throw discs instead of hitting balls.�
�Throw what?�
�Frisbees, special Frisbees. See? They�re like Frisbees. You play it like golf.�
�What . . . uh . . . I never heard of that. Whaddya call it?�


Mike nodded, �Yeah, every disc golfer knows that story.�

�Well,� Matt mused, �how come people, who have never seen the game or heard of it, have such a hard time getting it when you try to tell them what disc golf is?�

Matt and Mike mulled the subject, and realized that the sound of the words �disc golf� confuses the ear. Humans can�t pronounce �hard c� and �hard g� together. So when a stranger hears you say �disc golf,� what he actually hears is �diss golf� or �disc off,� neither of which make sense to him. Then he looks in your bag and sees things that look to him like shallow bowls, not discs. He is having a hard time making a connection between what he sees and what he hears. So your conversation with him is an 11-step stumble that starts with �What�s that?� and ends with �Whaddya call it?�

Disc golf formerly went by other names like Frisbee golf, saucer golf, platter golf, sky golf, and folf. At some point � probably when entrepreneurs started manufacturing flying discs that weren�t Frisbees, and so the copyrighted name Frisbee became an issue � somebody who had influence in the game (maybe Steady Ed) said, �Let�s call it disc golf. That�s a name that can help people �get to know� a game that is sort of like golf, which you play by throwing things that look sort of like discs.�

But the name �disc golf� has had a hard time catching the public fancy.

Maybe it's just an accent thing, but I've never had an issue with people misunderstanding me when I say "disc golf". They might not be sure what I'm talking about, but further definition by using the term "frisbee golf" or "golf with frisbees" has never failed to get the idea across. People know and understand "frisbee" and they know and understand "golf". I really fail to see how renaming the game something completely odd like "snapching" will make the sport easier to market or explain to folks who've never heard of it.

Or maybe ball golf could be revitalized with the simplified rules of WhacPing...

Jeff, thank you for your Post #10.


Your critique is fair. And you are setting a good example of courteous reasoning. Thank you.


* * *


Let us probe farther into one thing you said.


With your "TD discretion" clauses I intuitively feel that your rules open up MORE interpretation than the PDGA rules.


A lot of folks on the �Open Letter� thread agree with you, Jeff.

Will SnapChingers, by themselves on the field of play, have a hard time reading and using our rules? Will players call the TD a lot? Will TDs have to go beyond the rules� actual words and invent reasons to rule one way or another? Will TDs make a lot of game-changing local rules that supersede Rules of SnapChing?

These are questions we can only guess about until people start going out and playing SnapChing. We�ll learn a ton of useful answers from the first few SnapChing tournaments. We�ll also learn a lot when groups of friends, or even when single individuals, go out to play casual SnapChing: do they find that these rules guide them sensibly on the field of play? Do they encounter a lot of situations where they can�t figure out the right ruling? Do they find themselves making up stuff to rule on the scenarios they get into?

Our aim was to write rules that anyone could use: apply the exact words of each rule, and you�ll be playing SnapChing as we meant to design it. For example:


Rule 3 describes what a �throw� is: �Release (not drop) a WSL-approved disc into air by hand during your play.�

Rule 7 tells how to locate the lie that a �throw� creates.

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

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


Those rules contain certain repetitions and subtle differences. Rules 3, 8 and 11 all govern discs released into air by hand. Rule 3 also says �WSL-approved� and �during your play.� Rule 7, which governs �throw� uses all of Rule 3�s wording. Rules 8 and 11 don�t say �WSL-approved.� Rule 8 doesn�t say �(not drop)� or �during your play.� We chose each rule�s exact words to get specific results on the field of play:


Scenario. During your play, you drop a disc from any stance. (See Rule 4: your play begins at the start signal, and ends when you hit your final target. Rule 4 is the basis for the phrase �during your play� in other rules.)


Ruling. According to Rule 3, you didn�t �throw.� So Rule 7 doesn�t locate a new lie. (Specifically, Rule 7 doesn�t advance your lie to the next tee if you drop your disc into the basket). You did release a disc into air by hand in a way that�s not a throw, so Rule 8 keeps your lie unchanged. Rule 11 excepts drops, so your score doesn�t change. Summary: you accomplish zero � including holing out � by dropping a disc.


Scenario. During your play, you take a correct stance at your lie and you lay your disc into the basket.


Ruling. According to Rule 3, you didn�t �throw� because the disc didn�t leave your hand and go through air. So Rule 7 doesn�t locate a new lie � which means you don�t advance to the next tee. You didn�t release a disc into air, so Rule 8 doesn�t apply. You didn�t release a disc into air, so Rule 11 doesn�t change your score. Summary: you accomplish zero � including holing out � by laying a disc down.


Scenario. During your play, you �throw.�


Ruling. Rule 7 locates your new lie: your lie advances (except if your disc first rests OB or crosses a no-fly line, in which case your lie is your just-canceled lie). Rule 11 scores you 1. Summary: throwing is how you advance through the course; and throwing well is how you advance through the course in low score.


Scenario: During your play, you toss a disc that�s not WSL-approved.


Ruling: According to Rule 3, it�s not a �throw� because the disc isn�t WSL-approved. So Rule 7 doesn�t locate a new lie. You did release a disc into air by hand in a way that�s not a throw, so Rule 8 keeps your lie unchanged. You did release a disc into air by hand, so Rule 11 scores you 1. Summary: if you throw illegal discs, your score goes up and you don�t advance through the course.


Scenario. You toss any disc, from any stance, before the start signal or after you hit your final target.


Ruling. According to Rule 3, you didn�t �throw� because it didn�t happen during your play. So Rule 7 doesn�t locate a new lie. You did release a disc into air by hand in a way that�s not a throw, so Rule 8 keeps your lie unchanged (which is moot, since you have no lie before or after a round). Rule 11 doesn�t apply to disc-releases that aren�t during your play, so your score doesn�t change. Summary: you can do anything you want with discs before the start signal, including practice during the �two minute warning.�


Scenario. During your play, you toss a disc by artificial device, rather than by hand.


Ruling. According to Rule 3, you didn�t �throw� because it wasn�t by hand. So Rule 7 doesn�t locate a new lie. Rule 8 doesn�t apply because you didn�t release the disc by hand. Rule 11 doesn�t apply because you didn�t release the disc by hand, so your score doesn�t change. Summary: you can�t accomplish anything by flying discs in ways that aren�t by hand.


Scenario. During your play, you release a disc into flight from anywhere that�s not a correct stance on your lie. (I.e., you play from a wrong stance on your lie; play another player�s lie; play from no lie at all; play a wrong tee; proceed from wrong target as if it were the right target; play from OB; play from anywhere but your prior lie after you go OB; play from anywhere but your prior lie after your disc crosses a no-fly line; play from anywhere but the next tee after you hole out at the right target; or skip holes or play holes out of sequence.)


Ruling. According to Rule 3, you didn�t �throw� because your stance was wrong. So Rule 7 doesn�t locate a new lie. You did release a disc into air by hand in a way that�s not a throw, so Rule 8 keeps your lie unchanged. You did release a disc into air by hand, so Rule 11 scores you 1. Summary: if you misplay the course, your score goes up and you don�t advance through the course.


Scenario. During your play, you toss a dead branch.


Ruling. According to Rule 3, you didn�t �throw� because it wasn�t a disc. So Rule 7 doesn�t locate a new lie. Rule 8 doesn�t apply because it wasn�t a disc. Rule 11 doesn�t change your score because it wasn�t a disc. Summary: throwing things that aren�t discs, does not affect your play.


That�s the game that we aim for our rules to create when you use each word at face value, with no interpretation. We�ve tried to write those rules clearly and precisely enough that everyone, all the time, can get those results without needing to call the TD.

However, if players go out on the course and don�t easily get these rules to create that game, then we need to find out why and write SnapChing�s rules better.

NOTE: we should be alert to the possibility that PDGA members, as they start playing SnapChing, may accidentally read into SnapChing�s rules some PDGA-rule info that isn�t there. Let�s keep in mind that millions of future players, who know nothing of PDGA rules, won�t have that particular problem.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Chuck, re Post #13:

:D :D :D :D :D :D

M&M