Nibbos
Mar 07 2011, 07:22 PM
Hi,

just seeking clarification of new re-throw rule and existing OB/drop zone/mandatory rules...

Example: From the tee there is a distance of 40m to clear before the first 'in-bounds' part of the fairway. Failure to reach in-bounds requires the next throw from the drop zone. But are you still given the option to re-throw from the tee, with a one stroke penalty?

The wording of 803.06 begins:

'At any time, a player may elect to rethrow from the previous lie...'

Does the phrase 'At any time' take precedence and ALWAYS gives the player the option to rethrow?

Furthermore, if the in-bounds line at 40m were to be described as a Mandatory, would rule 803.12 take precedence over 803.06?

'803.12 C. A disc that has missed the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory.'

Or, to complicate things, since the disc lands in an OB zone between the tee and the start of the fairway, should rule 803.09 take precedence, and hence this gives the option back to the player:

'803.09 B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or
(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or
(3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided.
These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).'

This last rule also suggests that a Drop Zone is always optional for the player affected, or can a Tournament Director insist that the Drop Zone is obligatory for players going OB from the tee and thus overrules 803.06 and 803.09 B (1)?

I'd be grateful if someone could help me out with this. Is there a hierarchy of PDGA Rules which states the 'pecking order' of the Rules in situations such as this?

Many thanks in advance.

Nibbos (UK)

cgkdisc
Mar 07 2011, 07:40 PM
I've already posed a scenario like this to the RC. I feel the Optional Rethrow rule always provides the player the option to rethrow from the previous lie. However, Gentry feels it's a problem if the rules don't allow TDs to restrict the next lie a player must use after going OB. We don't have an official ruling from the RC yet. But the current wording of the Optional Rethrow rule 803.06 would indicate that barring a new Rules Q&A to the contrary, the player may always take an Optional Rethrow from the previous lie.

DShelton
Mar 07 2011, 07:48 PM
The new re-throw rule do not affect the OB rules. It only affects the "unplayable" lie rule.

Now to answer your question:
A TD may make it mandatory that you re-throw from the drop zone if one is provided. Re-read 803.09 B(3) "These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition."

cgkdisc
Mar 07 2011, 07:50 PM
The new re-throw rule do not affect the OB rules. It only affects the "unplayable" lie rule.
Incorrect. The Optional Rethrow rule is global meaning it can "always" be an option for the player no matter where their shot lands. Check out the Optional Rethrow section approved by the RC in the Rules School story about the new rules for 2011: http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011 (http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011)

Nibbos
Mar 08 2011, 04:19 AM
I'm with cgkdisc on this one, at the moment.
The re-throw is ALWAYS an option, at any time during your round.
Should I pose my question to the RC or does your scenario cover the same issue?
Does the statement...

803.09 B(3) "These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition."

...allow for TDs to make the Drop Zone obligatory, thereby removing the option to rethrow?

How do I find out what the RC decide and how do I contact them?

Thanks for your replies so far.

Nibbos

cgkdisc
Mar 08 2011, 09:26 AM
I got a ruling this morning based on the current wording. The TD can only prevent a player from using the Optional Rethrow (such as forcing a player to mark their lie at the designated Drop Zone upon going OB) if they get a waiver from PDGA HQ.

DShelton
Mar 08 2011, 05:42 PM
Incorrect. The Optional Rethrow rule is global meaning it can "always" be an option for the player no matter where their shot lands. Check out the Optional Rethrow section approved by the RC in the Rules School story about the new rules for 2011: http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011 (http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011)

I'll meet you half way here. My first sentence was correct, but the second was incorrect. It has always been an option to re-throw from your previous lie for OB and for lost discs it was mandatory (stroke plus distance) unless a drop zone was provided. The "unplayable" rule has been renamed and broadened to cover more situations.

bruceuk
Mar 09 2011, 05:51 AM
Why the RC have seen fit to weaken the TDs design flexibility like this I have no idea.

The RC have frustrated me a little recently with what I consider to be illogical rulings, so much so that I applied for a role on the committee back in October, but I've heard nothing back.

My preferred take on this would have been that you can only take an optional rethrow once you actually have a lie. In the cases of OB and mando misses you do not have a lie until you have marked according to the rules, so at the designated dropzone, 1m from the OB line, within 4m from the mando, or wherever the TD has specified, as appropriate for the situation. You're playing 3 from there. If you don't like that option, then feel free to declare your rethrow, but you'll have to add 1 more to your score and play 4 from the tee or previous lie.

This would have been consistent and in line with previous good rulings on order of events, i.e. mando supersedes OB etc.

Edit: I agree that their ruling is consistent with the rule as written, I just would prefer the rule to be at the other end of the priority list

Edit 2: Maybe I'm off base with the shooting 4 thing, but I definitely think the TD should have the flexibility to mandate an outcome if you miss a mando or go OB off the tee, it's a course design matter to me, not a rules thing

J A B
Mar 09 2011, 02:17 PM
"Maybe I'm off base with the shooting 4 thing, but I definitely think the TD should have the flexibility to mandate an outcome if you miss a mando or go OB off the tee, it's a course design matter to me, not a rules thing"

Shooting 4? your tee shot can be "O.B." or "Missed Mando", one throw, one penalty, shooting three. I would not believe one shot can be both OB&MM.

imo

krupicka
Mar 09 2011, 02:34 PM
The most any errant shot should cost is 2 strokes or stroke + distance. Compounding penalties for a single throw was one of the things the latest rules update was trying to remove.

bruceuk
Mar 10 2011, 11:27 AM
I was full of cold yesterday, so I wasn't thinking/typing very clearly, my fault.

What I meant was I feel like the Optional Rethrow has been placed in the wrong place in the priority order, so that no matter what the outcome of the throw you can choose stroke and distance. This limits a TDs design options with regard to mandating an outcome off the tee.
I think they could have easily solved this by putting the rethrow in the order below (currently it is first on the list):
Mando supersedes OB supersedes Lost supersedes Optional Rethrow supersedes 2m

This would have retained the TDs design options with regards the first 3 on the list and met all their other stated goals in the rules school article.

If that was the case, then if you really really really didn't like the dropzone the TD gave you, you could buy your way back to the tee with another added stroke, which is where the hypothetical 'playing 4' came from...

I hope that's a bit clearer :/

cgkdisc
Mar 10 2011, 11:55 AM
I think the Optional Rethrow defends against poor design and course terrain that can't be easily modified versus handcuffing course designers and TDs. For example, one thing I hear discussed is the "unfairness" when a player who is putting near the pin, misses the putt and rolls 50 ft away OB or 100 ft down a hill into the woods, and they can re-putt with "only" a 1-thow penalty using previous lie or Optional Rethrow. Particularly sadistic TDs could force players to play from the last point IB on a hole if they were allowed to negate the Optional Rethrow rule when landing in a particular OB area.

dbld
Mar 10 2011, 10:38 PM
this doesnt make since to me, you as the putter have to weigh the dangers, or plan your lie on the previous shot, not to leave yourself on the high side thats golf it seems to me or if you dont trust your putting lay up

golf holes are often put on or near an edge where the ball can roll off and away that isnt considered poor course design is it

cgkdisc
Mar 10 2011, 11:05 PM
In ball golf, you may play your shot from your previous lie if your putt lips out and rolls into a hazard. Ball golf TDs cannot remove that option. What we're talking about here is whether disc golf TDs should have the right to remove that option from players which the Optional Rethrow rule provides, just like ball golf.

bruceuk
Mar 11 2011, 05:07 AM
A little intellectual honesty here please Chuck! How many times in your years playing golf have you ever heard of a TD doing any such thing?!

Other than the USDGC forcing S&D everywhere, the only occasions I have ever seen or heard of a TD limiting the players options it has without exception been from the tee shot.

jconnell
Mar 11 2011, 09:43 AM
A little intellectual honesty here please Chuck! How many times in your years playing golf have you ever heard of a TD doing any such thing?!

Other than the USDGC forcing S&D everywhere, the only occasions I have ever seen or heard of a TD limiting the players options it has without exception been from the tee shot.
I've played in and also run tournaments in which particular holes have drop zones designated for all out-of-bounds shots (regardless of where the shot originated). On those holes, the player has no choice but to use the drop zone. I also ran a tournament back in 2003 where all OB had to be played by S&D only. Played in a couple others similar events around the same time. The USDGC last year was hardly the first such instance of forced S&D, just the most visible to date.

Just because you haven't personally witnessed something, doesn't mean it rarely happens or is never done. It's a big world with a lot of tournaments, TDs, and points of view. I don't think it's all that intellectually honest to assume your personal views/experiences are the standard.

bruceuk
Mar 11 2011, 10:20 AM
I didn't say USDGC was the only or the first, just that it was the only one I was personally aware of. Would you disagree that it is rarely done, except on tee shots?

I think it's intellectually dishonest to counter my argument that the TD has had their design flexibility restricted with a hypothetical case of "sadistic TD" misusing that power.

At the end of the day I don't really care that much, I don't imagine the rethow will be used in place of a dropzone with any great regularity, I just feel that the rule would have been better placed as I described in #11

If it's going to remain as is, the RC should probably tweak the OB rule to remove the S&D option in the same manner as the mando rule; i.e. S&D is covered by Optional Rethrow, other options in the case of OB or mando are laid out in their specific rules

bravo
Mar 21 2011, 08:43 PM
ohhhh please let me tin cup this hole by allowing me to throw as often as i can from the tee (with additional strokes)for each attempt

lukasicek
Apr 04 2011, 07:40 PM
I would like to clarify mandatory rules as i believe i understand it correctly, but is allways better to ask. Rules section 803.12 Mandatories: A. -> Does this mean that in case disc will for short period of time pass mandatory and then move (rolling or flying ..) back in direction to tee then my next shot don't have to pass the madatory again?

Thank you

cgkdisc
Apr 04 2011, 08:07 PM
Correct. If the group can agree your disc crossed the mando on the "good" side at some point during your disc's flight, then you have completed the mando no matter where your disc eventually lands. In fact, it can land back in front of the mando toward the "missed" side and you can throw across the "missed" mando line on your next throw if you wish.

Let's say your disc crosses the good mando line and lands say a few feet across it. Then another player throws and in the mean time, a big wind gust picks up your disc and moves it back across the line 20 feet towards you. Your group determines where your disc first landed across the line on your throw and you play from there, not from where it landed after getting blown backwards.

bigchiz
Jul 16 2012, 10:32 PM
This year in casual leagues sometimes a mando is set and the tee is identified to double as the drop zone by the league director. So now a TD wants to use the same rule in a sanctioned tournament.

It had been my understanding that a drop zone is intended to be positioned so as to clear the mando requirement. However I am unable to find any previous comments on the topic and am bringing it up for review here.

Is it ok to have the tee be the drop zone which then requires the player who missed the mando to continue to attempt to make pass the mando, or should a separate drop zone be created so the player has a much great chance of passing the mando requirement?

jconnell
Jul 17 2012, 08:03 AM
This year in casual leagues sometimes a mando is set and the tee is identified to double as the drop zone by the league director. So now a TD wants to use the same rule in a sanctioned tournament.

It had been my understanding that a drop zone is intended to be positioned so as to clear the mando requirement. However I am unable to find any previous comments on the topic and am bringing it up for review here.

Is it ok to have the tee be the drop zone which then requires the player who missed the mando to continue to attempt to make pass the mando, or should a separate drop zone be created so the player has a much great chance of passing the mando requirement?

The rule only says that the next throw after a mandatory is missed is from the designated drop zone. There are no guidelines or requirements for where that drop zone must be located. A re-tee is perfectly acceptable.

IMO, a good mando is one that one has to work hard to miss (in other words, it's easy to make). If it's intended to be passed by a tee shot, then designating the tee as the drop zone doesn't seem outrageous at all.

It also makes perfect sense to me to play it in a tournament in the same way it's played normally (I assume league rules = normal course rules). It could be more confusing to many of the local players to change things just for the tournament.

bigchiz
Jul 18 2012, 11:59 PM
The situation in question here is that in leagues some mandos have been created to make the hole more difficult by setting up a "goal post" style double mando. The shot is required to go between two mature trees. This is now being in applied to a temp course for a sanctioned tournament at a different park.

Sounds like the re-tee is in deed an acceptable alternative to creating a drop zone near the mando(s) which would be easy to make.

Thanks!