Pages : [1] 2

krupicka
Apr 27 2011, 08:53 AM
Caught this one in the board minutes:

That rule 803.09 B(3) be amended to read, �Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition only by prior approval of the PDGA Tour Manager.�, and that it be implemented on 1/1/2012.

Motion passes unanimously.

Why? There are certain holes where it makes a lot of sense for the TD to restrict relief and remove the option where the disc was last in bounds. For example on obstructed views where it is not easily determined where it went OB, OB close to the basket, Hole 17 at Winthrop etc. Why should the Tour Manager be involved in these course decisions?

Patrick P
Apr 27 2011, 12:42 PM
Really, a TD has to get permission now on how a course is to be played out? What direction is the PDGA going with this, would like to hear their side. I guess they also need to change the definition then of a drop zone.

Drop Zone: An area on the course, as designated by the course designer or director, from which play is resumed after the preceding shot (1) was thrown out-of-bounds

To read: Drop Zone: An area on the course, as designated by the course designer or director and approved by the PDGA Tour Manager...

Next, we will need PDGA inspectors to come out before we put a course in the ground for PDGA use.

jconnell
Apr 27 2011, 02:18 PM
I know there have been conspiracy theories that with so many of the Board's members being touring pros, there'd be a bias in their decision making toward the touring pro. Generally, I tried to believe that it would not be an issue, but lo and behold, here is an example of the touring pros dictating based on their bias.

There is absolutely NO REASON for the Tour Manager to be involved in design elements of a course. None. Especially when the language of the rule has ALWAYS allowed for designer/TD freedom without approval. And the only reason I can figure for this decision is the touring pros prefer fewer special rules and twists so they don't have to strain their poor little brains when they are playing a new course in a new town. Doesn't matter if there's been a ton of thought and planning put into the design of a hole that takes advantage of the special conditions allowed by the rule book. They don't want to be bothered reading the program or the caddy notes or the tee sign to make sure they are playing the hole/course properly.

More than once, I've encountered a "controversy" at a tournament involving a special condition such as limiting the OB options on a hole, and usually at the heart of the complaint was a highly-rated (touring, if you will) pro from out of town who didn't want to play the hole the way it was designed. One example from an A-tier event I played last year. The hole in question featured an island green about 45 feet in diameter, surrounded by a paved park road about 8-10 feet wide. The rule on the hole was that any OB shot that landed on the road was to be played from the drop zone provided. The DZ was on the "mainland" of the fairway, about 50 feet from the basket. The shape of the land, though, allowed for there to be places one could land in-bounds, not on the island, that left one with a closer shot at the basket than the drop zone.

During the first round, a player (a highly-rated, out of town, "touring" pro) landed in such a place on his approach. When he attempted to hit his putt from that spot, he missed and the disc rolled off the island and OB. He immediately lined up to re-throw from his previous spot since it was only about 25 feet from the basket and was informed by the volunteer spotter on the hole that he had to go to the drop zone. The player tried to argue, but the astute spotter had his player program and showed the player the rule. He went to the drop zone where he proceeded to throw OB again before laying up and taking what turned out to be a double-OB 7.

From there, the player voiced his displeasure at the spotter, his group, and any other players that would listen the rest of the round, then took his case to the TD after the round. He was, of course, shot down, but he wasn't without support from a couple other hot shot out-of-town "touring" pros who insisted that the TD wasn't allowed to restrict the player's options like that.

The player felt "screwed", but in truth, the only reason he felt "screwed" is because he failed to read the tournament documentation (the player program and tee sign both held the details) or listen at the players meeting (assuming he attended the meeting in the first place) where the special condition was noted and explained. Had he done so, perhaps he would not have run that first throw so aggressively and would not have ended up OB and having to go to the drop zone in the first place. It wasn't the first time I've witnessed players frustrated by their own oversight but trying to place the blame anywhere but on themselves.

The attitude I've encountered with many "touring" players is that they believe they know more than the locals: more about running tournaments, more about designing courses, more about the rules of play. Not only that, but that they deserve the deference of the TD/staff/club because they have the "experience" of doing what they do week in and week out. This motion fits right in with that attitude. The local-yokel TD needs to have his hand held by the Tour Manager so he doesn't do anything "stupid" that messes with the touring players' ability to force fit their game on every course they encounter.

It hardly seems appropriate that a course that has been in existence for years as designed suddenly needs special approval in order to continue to be played, as designed, in a PDGA event.

Patrick P
Apr 27 2011, 03:51 PM
During the first round, a player (a highly-rated, out of town, "touring" pro) landed in such a place on his approach. When he attempted to hit his putt from that spot, he missed and the disc rolled off the island and OB. He immediately lined up to re-throw from his previous spot since it was only about 25 feet from the basket and was informed by the volunteer spotter on the hole that he had to go to the drop zone.

This example is one reason I can understand why some board members who are pros are attempting to change the rule then.

1. I believe that the player has the option to call an unplayable lie and re-throw from his previous lie, not at the drop zone. So I think the ruling on the field was incorrect.

2. If it's stated that at anytime, no matter what, if you go off the island into OB, you must throw from the DZ, then I think that is complete rubbish. I only have a very limited amount of experience with these "must land on island or else take a penalty shot and throw from drop zone" holes, and I think they are gimmicky. At many other island holes, if you hit the island and go OB, you take your shot from where it was last in bounds, meter in, penalty stroke. Or you have the optional rethrow with penalty.

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think the DZ was designed for this. I would say if you completely missed the island hole, then you would throw from the DZ. or if you missed a Mando, then you throw from the DZ.

So, I do see why there might be some changing to the rule, to remove these gimmicky holes to prevent the confusion as to how to play them correctly.

krupicka
Apr 27 2011, 04:05 PM
In light of the Optional Rethrow rule, I can understand that the previous lie option should not be restricted without very good reason. But the last place in bounds option should be able to be restricted without authorization from HQ.

Jeff_LaG
Apr 27 2011, 04:13 PM
There's some additional background info into Josh's above example, which may or may not relate to the board motion, but certainly adds some insight.

To begin with, I'm 99% sure that the above incident took place at the Eric. C. Yetter Champions Cup (http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/15337), which has been run as a PDGA 'A' Tier SuperTour event for more than a decade!

The bulk of the Tyler State Park course (http://www.pdga.com/course_ratings/15337) was designed by former Masters World Champion and one of the top disc golfers period in the Mid-Atlantic region, Joe Mela. (http://www.pdga.com/player_stats/16952) Joe also designed the world class Tinicum Park course (http://www.pdga.com/course_ratings_by_course/100) which was used in Pro Worlds 2005. So any talk of a "local-yokel" course designer is bubkus. To be fair, the hole in question was on the temporary course part of the tournament and is not part of the permanent course. However, it is my understanding that this hole (AND OB rules!) have been in place for several years if not five years or more so this was hardly something new.

Furthermore, the tournament director of the event was Andrew "Big Dog" Sweeton, who has been involved with running this event and other large tournaments, serving as president of local and regional disc golf clubs, and involved with disc golf at all levels for more than a decade. So any talk of a "local-yokel" tournament director is bubkus.

And finally, to add an additional layer of intrigue to this issue, the TD is now the new PDGA Tour Manager (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-tour-manager).

Bottom line is that you chalk this issue up to another example of Children on Tour (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=35412) who can't deal with his own poor play and instead chooses to bring down players, tournament staff, spectators and everyone around him. One of the main reasons disc golf isn't bigger is because of the poor behavior and actions of these golfers. http://www.pdga.com/discussion/images/icons/icon13.gif

jconnell
Apr 27 2011, 05:15 PM
There's some additional background info into Josh's above example, which may or may not relate to the board motion, but certainly adds some insight.

To begin with, I'm 99% sure that the above incident took place at the Eric. C. Yetter Champions Cup (http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/15337), which has been run as a PDGA 'A' Tier SuperTour event for more than a decade!

The bulk of the Tyler State Park course (http://www.pdga.com/course_ratings/15337) was designed by former Masters World Champion and one of the top disc golfers period in the Mid-Atlantic region, Joe Mela. (http://www.pdga.com/player_stats/16952) Joe also designed the world class Tinicum Park course (http://www.pdga.com/course_ratings_by_course/100) which was used in Pro Worlds 2005. So any talk of a "local-yokel" course designer is bubkus. To be fair, the hole in question was on the temporary course part of the tournament and is not part of the permanent course. However, it is my understanding that this hole (AND OB rules!) have been in place for several years if not five years or more so this was hardly something new.

Furthermore, the tournament director of the event was Andrew "Big Dog" Sweeton, who has been involved with running this event and other large tournaments, serving as president of local and regional disc golf clubs, and involved with disc golf at all levels for more than a decade. So any talk of a "local-yokel" tournament director is bubkus.

And finally, to add an additional layer of intrigue to this issue, the TD is now the new PDGA Tour Manager (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-tour-manager).

Bottom line is that you chalk this issue up to another example of Children on Tour (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=35412) who can't deal with his own poor play and instead chooses to bring down players, tournament staff, spectators and everyone around him. One of the main reasons disc golf isn't bigger is because of the poor behavior and actions of these golfers. http://www.pdga.com/discussion/images/icons/icon13.gif
Didn't really want to get into the specifics, but you've got most of it correct. But the hole in question is not a temporary hole, but one of the 27 permanent holes. It is relatively new (re-designed to its current state probably 3-4 years ago), but has been played the same way since it was installed.

I'm fairly certain the player in question was making his first trip to the event, so there was no claim of having played the hole differently in the past. BUT, some of the players that spoke up in support of the player and tried to argue that the DZ restriction was unfair or incorrect were players who have attended the event and/or played the course multiple times in the past. THAT was the part that bothered me most about the situation...that players that should have known better (both the special condition AND the fact that the rules of play allowed for it) didn't show themselves to know anything.

And now it appears that rather than support the local TD/club/designer, the BOD is cow-towing to the touring player that wants to avoid having to learn to play a course as intended.

This example is one reason I can understand why some board members who are pros are attempting to change the rule then.

1. I believe that the player has the option to call an unplayable lie and re-throw from his previous lie, not at the drop zone. So I think the ruling on the field was incorrect.
That may indeed have been an option, but the ruling on the course was absolutely dead on correct. The player's next legal lie in this situation was the drop zone. So to declare an unplayable would be to declare his drop zone lie unplayable. So he'd be taking a two-throw penalty to re-throw from the previous lie in that case (one for the OB, one for the unplayable). This is one of the reasons why the rule was re-written and re-christened Optional Re-throw, so there wouldn't be cases of double penalties.

But even if one disagrees with the double-penalty aspect, and thinks the player could just declare an unplayable for the same one-throw penalty, it's still UP TO THE PLAYER to make that call. As it was, the player wasn't arguing for an unplayable, he was arguing that he didn't have to go to the drop zone because it was against the rules to restrict his options (which is 1000% dead wrong).


2. If it's stated that at anytime, no matter what, if you go off the island into OB, you must throw from the DZ, then I think that is complete rubbish. I only have a very limited amount of experience with these "must land on island or else take a penalty shot and throw from drop zone" holes, and I think they are gimmicky. At many other island holes, if you hit the island and go OB, you take your shot from where it was last in bounds, meter in, penalty stroke. Or you have the optional rethrow with penalty.

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think the DZ was designed for this. I would say if you completely missed the island hole, then you would throw from the DZ. or if you missed a Mando, then you throw from the DZ.

So, I do see why there might be some changing to the rule, to remove these gimmicky holes to prevent the confusion as to how to play them correctly.
Change the rule to prevent confusion that is caused by players who fail to pay attention to the rules? There was no confusion by the 100+ players who read the player program, read the caddy notes, or attended the players' meeting. Only confusion by the player(s) who did not read the program or caddy notes or attend the players' meeting or did but decided that the rules shouldn't apply to them because they don't work to their advantage.

If the rule wasn't designed for exactly what it was used for in this case, then why is the rule written the way it is? The rule was that any shot that ended up in the OB road was to be played from the drop zone. The player's shot ended up in the OB road. He goes to the drop zone. What's confusing about that? Let's be clear...the player wasn't confused about his predicament, he was unhappy with the outcome. Big big difference.

And holy crap, do I hate the "gimmick" argument. Every single thing about our sport could be argued as "gimmicky". All OB areas are gimmicks. All mandos are gimmicks. If we want to eliminate "gimmicks" from the sport, we'd be left with an open field, 18 tees, and 18 targets. Hell, the target itself is a gimmick: wedgies count...no wait, they don't count anymore...unless you see it wedge from the inside or you don't see how it got wedged at all, then it counts.

There is nothing gimmicky about limiting the OB options to a drop zone. No more gimmicky than having the OB there in the first place. It's part of the risk/reward of the hole in this case. If a player gets "screwed" because he failed to take into account the special condition, that's his own **** fault.

Patrick P
Apr 27 2011, 06:24 PM
The example above illustrates another hole design on a temp course out here on the west coast.

Summertime Open, temp course in Sylmar, hole 17 is the "ISLAND HOLE". This hole, however, does not have street OBs. What it does have is three made up islands, two of which are surrounded by a concrete curb, and the 3rd island is roped off with the basket in the middle. The straight shot to the basket is approx 200ft. 100ft in front there are two trees 10ft apart, with the drop zone in the middle of these trees. It took about 5 minutes or so to explain how this hole was to be played after many questions. Even when players arrived at the hole, it seemed as if we were playing a hole at the goofy golf course trying to make sure we understood the rules correctly. You must land in the islands to be safe. Any shot outside of these three islands is OB and then you must throw from the DZ. The two trees next to the DZ are not mandatory. My first attempt at this temp hole resulted in an 8, where many other players also recorded record high scores, some into double digits. The whole discussion after the round was "how'd you play hole 17, what you get?"

One could argue, the hole was explained in depth question-after-question in the players meeting and in 4-5 sentences on the player's card. One should be able to assess the risk/reward of this hole and either go for the 3rd island and attempt a birdie, or play safe and throw out to the other bigger island holes, lay up, get your par, and move on (which I did on my 2nd round).

There are PDGA rules that define how you would normally play this hole without the added cheerio effect (I didn't say the "g" word), if one was not accustomed to the TD's special instructions.

If a player went OB then:
- 1) you play from your previous lie (803.09B1)
- 2) you play from a lie 1m last in bounds (803.09B2)
- 3) or Optional Rethrow (803.06) same as 1 above

Why does a certain hole need to gain so much extra attention from the remaining 35 holes on the course? Why does there have to be these additional instructions to play this hole? Is this just a fluke hole?

You're playing on a stellar course and then you come up to this peculiar hole with everyone scratching their heads wondering what to do. Yeah, hindsight I could say, okay just land on the islands or else throw from the DZ. But my feeling along with many other players in the event, was that this hole was such a distraction to the overall course, and I personally would not have added it to an otherwise very well designed temp course.

There also happened to be a true island hole, (hole 4, I believe on this temp course), that is 100% surrounded by concrete. If a player goes over the island, well guess what, you get to play from where it last crossed in bounds. Not even touching ground, missing the island entirely, and your putting 15ft from the basket for a 3P. So two "island" holes completely played differently.

In my limited experience of playing just over 800 different holes, I just think that holes such as this are gimmicky, yes I said it, and are a complete distraction from the normal play of disc golf. I could see how a touring pro that's never played on this hole before could become frustrated at the design and the additional TD instructions on how to properly play it. So I can see where the BoD is coming from, and maybe their intention is to prevent these "g" holes from being designed in the first place.

jconnell
Apr 27 2011, 07:38 PM
So I can see where the BoD is coming from, and maybe their intention is to prevent these "g" holes from being designed in the first place.
The BOD should NOT be in the business of designing courses, nor should the rule book. That's my problem with the motion.

I feel that many changes have been made to the rule book in the last 10 years or so that take the task of course design out of the rule book and put it in the hands of the people building the courses and running the events where it belongs (i.e. the people who KNOW the course/terrain best). Some examples of rules changes that took course design out of the book include the change to the 2M rule and the addition of OB options (when I started playing, previous lie and drop zones were not options if you threw OB). The rule book provides the tools for design, but it should not dictate design. Forcing a design element to be approved before use is dictating course design.

As for my objection to arguing "gimmicks", it isn't the word that bothers me so clever semantics doesn't do a whole lot to assuage me. It's the idea that certain "gimmicks" are perfectly fine (like I said, all OB is a gimmick) but others are "wrong" or "stupid". Who determines who's judgment is more "correct" in determining what is ok and what is wrong? IMO, it shouldn't be anyone who is coming in and seeing a course for the first time, or someone who has never seen the course at all.

Boo hoo hoo to the touring pros that don't want to have to pay attention and heaven forbid, think about the risk/reward factor of a hole with a special condition. Boo hoo hoo that maybe the local players have a minute advantage because they've had experience and practice with a special condition. My experience has been that if the touring pros had their druthers, every course would be the same so no one would ever be caught in an unfamiliar/uncomfortable/undesirable situation on the course. No hole would ever be designed in a way that inhibited a player's strengths or forced them to think outside the box in any way. Hyzer bomb, putt, hyzer bomb, putt, hyzer bomb, putt. Boring.

There are PDGA rules that define how you would normally play this hole without the added cheerio effect (I didn't say the "g" word), if one was not accustomed to the TD's special instructions.

If a player went OB then:
- 1) you play from your previous lie (803.09B1)
- 2) you play from a lie 1m last in bounds (803.09B2)
- 3) or Optional Rethrow (803.06) same as 1 above
You forgot:
- 4) you play from the designated drop zone if provided (803.09B3)

And of course, the rule as written for the last 10 freaking years notes that these options can always be limited by the tournament director, so I think we're past the point where a player should ever be surprised when they are, be it on one hole or an entire course (like the USDGC last year).

But it shouldn't matter if they are "accustomed to the TD's special instructions" or not. It's on them to be sure of the course they are playing.
801.04 Playing the Stipulated Course

A. It is the responsibility of the player to play the course correctly. Before play begins, players shall attend the players' meeting and ask about any special conditions that may exist on the course, including extra holes, alternate teeing areas, alternate hole placements, out-of-bounds areas, and mandatories.
Being aware of a required drop zone on a hole should be no different than being aware of any OB area or any mando or any alternate tee/hole placement that exists on a course. If they are caught unaware when the information was provided readily, it's their own fault and no one else's. This new motion appears to me to be an attempt to pass the buck and stifle local flavor out of every course.

It's unnecessary.

Patrick P
Apr 27 2011, 08:13 PM
I don't have the knowledge as to the original intent of adding the DZ. In almost every circumstance that I have come across, the DZ is used when a player misses a mando. And so the player is relocated to a spot by the mando in a somewhat favorable position but with only one penalty (rather than forcing the player to wrap around with no penalty).

It's like, hey you missed the mando, you get a penalty, but will set you up at a lie that seems playable without any additional penalty.

But for a TD to additionally penalize a player by preventing them from utilizing the rules as they are, seems to be a double whammy. In these very rare circumstances, a TD is saying to a player, hey you have no option to throw from the last spot in bounds and you also can't call an optional rethrow, intentionally excluding two defined rules in the book. You get penalized for throwing the shot OB and now you get penalized by having to go back to a drop zone, which by these two examples mentioned here are further away from the last spot IB.

I guess it really comes down to good course design, and I'll readily admit I have little experience in this category. I would try to design a course that would prevent this occurring all-together. I'm all for allowing locals and directors to design their course without big brother intervention, but sometimes its pushed to the edge, and maybe that's why the BoD feels the need to step in.

futurecollisions
Apr 27 2011, 11:55 PM
What is with all the Pro bashing? It seems to me that all this unnecessary OB comes from some kind of animosity towards 1000+ rated players. Jealousy perhaps, taken out on the pros by lesser rated players and TD's.

Like Patrick said, good course design can take care of all these things. You don't need to add OB to your tournaments, it doesn't make the course any better, it doesn't elevate the sport and its not more fun, its annoying.

gotcha
Apr 28 2011, 09:31 AM
...good course design can take care of all these things. You don't need to add OB to your tournaments, it doesn't make the course any better, it doesn't elevate the sport and its not more fun, its annoying.

"good course design" often includes the addition of OB for various reasons....safety, challenge, interest, etc. Winthrop Gold, one of the more favorited courses on the planet by top professionals, would be an extremely lame and not-so-challenging course if not for the OB. The same is applicable to many other courses and/or specific holes where the addition of OB has added character/challenge to what would otherwise be a boring disc golf hole.

Jeff_LaG
Apr 28 2011, 12:23 PM
What is with all the Pro bashing? It seems to me that all this unnecessary OB comes from some kind of animosity towards 1000+ rated players. Jealousy perhaps, taken out on the pros by lesser rated players and TD's.

I think the intent of these course design features is not jealousy of their skills, but raising the stakes and making for risk/reward scenarios which reward smart play and punish aggressive & risky play. You know, bring some actual golf decisions into the mix, and to prevent tournaments from being, as described previously, extremely lame and not-so-challenging. Nobody likes to see players shoot a 39 on an 18 hole course in Supertours, NTs, and Pro Worlds.

Like Patrick said, good course design can take care of all these things. You don't need to add OB to your tournaments, it doesn't make the course any better, it doesn't elevate the sport and its not more fun, its annoying.

In some areas of this country, there just aren't enough ample opportunities for challenging course design without the use of OB, artificial or natural. In Pennsylvania, New England and North Carolina for example where we have plenty of woods and elevation changes, it's not needed as much. In other areas of the country which are flat & open, it's often a necessity. The trick is to do tastefully, and I think sometimes it can be pushed too close to the edge and be not so fun, annoying, and even gimmicky.

Patrick P
Apr 28 2011, 12:59 PM
I don't have an issue with OB. We've had several courses in the San Diego area on ball golf courses, and as nerve racking some of the OB lines are, they do add an additional element to the game. Emerald Isle golf course (disc golf no more) had greens and bunkers as OB. On many holes the basket was past the green and you had to play smart. You either would lay up before the green and throw a precise upshot, or take the risk and drive past the green with OB lines behind the basket. I'm fine with these risk/reward elements to the game. I don't find them gimmicky and that's what gives some courses their unique appeal. Some would say this course was frustrating, but if you strategized correctly it was a heck of a challenging and fun course.

My issue is when TDs start taking it too far. As I said before, it has been an extreme rarity that I have encountered holes that I consider gimmicky, maybe 2 out of 800. Just don't push the envelope and have one hole that seems to stick out like the freak show attraction at an amusement park. My initial post in this discussion was that I wasn't too happy that the BoD will flex its powers in course design, but if TDs are giving them a reason too, then the finger pointing should be directed at the TDs.

This is not the first discussion here in regards to TDs designing a DZ hole that attempts to circumvent the use of current rules, disallowing 1) previous lie throws and 2) throwing from last spot in bounds. I think maybe this is the reason the BoD stepped in place as it does bring into question how far a TD can go to calling his own shots and overriding PDGA rules.

On a side note, earlier in this discussion, it was mentioned that TDs have the discretion to enforce the 2m rule. I have to say this is a very strange call the PDGA has given to TDs and I'm not entirely sure why that is the case. I vote for the 2m rule to be in effect at all PDGA events, strip away the TD call on this, IMHO.

heernt
Apr 28 2011, 01:16 PM
Why the bashing Connel? Even with my small brain, I'd be happy to play your rules, you're dad must have been a "traveling pro" and beat you when you were a kid. If I ever travel to you're home course, I'm not even going to ask, I'm just going to give you a nice big hug and tell you everything is going to be OK, whatever division you're in. Please don't generalize....
Other than that, good conversation, between the "traveling pro" bashing.

And the 2m rule is not in effect unless the TD calls the 2m as in effect. There is an earlier thread about the 2m rule originally being only for specific holes, however to reduce confusion, TD's starting saying it is in effect for all holes, which was abusing the original rule, which is why it is not in effect unless the TD says it is.

gotcha
Apr 29 2011, 10:58 AM
This is not the first discussion here in regards to TDs designing a DZ hole that attempts to circumvent the use of current rules, disallowing 1) previous lie throws and 2) throwing from last spot in bounds. I think maybe this is the reason the BoD stepped in place as it does bring into question how far a TD can go to calling his own shots and overriding PDGA rules.

Designating a drop zone is not done to "circumvent the use of current rules". A drop zone is simply a specific ground rule applicable to a particular hole. Ground rules can be established for specific holes or entire courses. One can even designate the 2M penalty rule in effect for one particular hole.

Patrick P
Apr 29 2011, 03:57 PM
Designating a drop zone is not done to "circumvent the use of current rules". A drop zone is simply a specific ground rule applicable to a particular hole. Ground rules can be established for specific holes or entire courses. One can even designate the 2M penalty rule in effect for one particular hole. I'm not saying that having a DZ for a hole is circumventing the rules. I'm saying that when a TD designs a DZ hole that prevents a player from following PDGA rules 803.06 and 803.09B, this is where I believe the controversy lies.

803.06 Optional Rethrow: <b>At any time</b>, a player may elect to rethrow from 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. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

803.06 clearly states, "<b>At any time...</b>". When a TD states that you must use the DZ if you go OB, that I believe is wrong and is why I say the TD is circumventing the rules.

803.09B Out-of-Bounds: A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. <b>The player may elect to play the next shot from</b>:
(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).

Key statement here, "<b>The player may elect to play the next shot from:</b>". That's right the player has three choices per 803.09B. 1) Previous lie, 2) last IB, or 3) DZ. So again, having the TD tell me that I must use the DZ if I go OB is circumventing the rules again.


And lastly to support my position even further, under 804.01D Special Conditions it states:

No rules may be stipulated which conflict with the PDGA Rules of Play, unless approved by the Tour Manager of the PDGA.

So really no change actually needs to be made to 803.09B(3). It already states under special conditions that rules coming into conflict with current PDGA rules, must be approved by the Tour Manager anyway.

So to reiterate, in the two examples presented in this discussion, the TD attempted to flex their powers by disallowing two clear PDGA rules. Hence, why the BoD has taken action to step in and review these DZ holes.

That's why I believe TD's should re-evaluate course design when using a DZ. In most cases I experienced the DZ is a more favorable lie after receiving a penalty stroke when a player either misses a Mando or goes OB. However, some TDs are using the DZ as an additional penalty in cases of going OB on island holes and taking a player back farther from their previous lie or last spot IB. I don't think this was the original intent of the DZ and why the BoD is now looking closer at TD's who are attempting to overstep the original intent of the DZ.

After all this discussion, I'm wondering if this was just a test to see who really knows how to read the current rules in place. Maybe the addition to 803.09B(3) is to help explain the current rules in place a little easier and to eliminate confusion.

quickdisc
Apr 29 2011, 04:46 PM
After all this discussion, I'm wondering if this was just a test to see who really knows how to read the current rules in place. Maybe the addition to 803.09B(3) is to help explain the current rules in place a little easier and to eliminate confusion.

Some will still try to circumvent the current rules though to their Favor.


I'm still Laughing...............Disc Golfers paying attention..................Some don't even attend the players meeting.

DShelton
Apr 29 2011, 06:49 PM
After all this discussion, I'm wondering if this was just a test to see who really knows how to read the current rules in place. Maybe the addition to 803.09B(3) is to help explain the current rules in place a little easier and to eliminate confusion.

You are forgetting the last sentence of 803.09B(3)

803.09B Out-of-Bounds: 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).

So a TD CAN limit where you can take your OB shot from as long as he announces it during the players' meeting, etc.

However, on the optional rethrow, you're right, no one can limit when you can take that. In the example given, (OB shot) you can take the optional rethrow instead of throwing from the drop zone. You DO however, have to take the OB penalty and then take the penalty for taking the optional rethrow. Why? Because after you throw OB, your new lie is at the DZ with a one stroke penalty. If you do not wish to throw from there, you can take the optional rethrow and throw from your previous lie, at a one stroke penalty. Now you have to weigh the fact that you can take a one stroke penalty and throw from the DZ or take a two stroke penalty and rethrow.

Patrick P
Apr 29 2011, 08:33 PM
After I read 803.09B several times, I'll admit that the last sentence under 803.09B(3) did throw me off because the way 803.09B was subdivided and the last sentence seemed to pertain to only 803.09B(3). Not to say that it should be written as below, but if it was, then I wouldn't been thrown off:

803.09B Out-of-Bounds: 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). Oh semantics, I blame it on the fact I am a lefty in a righty world, so there.

Anyhow, I still don't see how you can still draw your conclusion here:

However, on the optional rethrow, you're right, no one can limit when you can take that. In the example given, (OB shot) you can take the optional rethrow instead of throwing from the drop zone. You DO however, have to take the OB penalty and then take the penalty for taking the optional rethrow. Why? Because after you throw OB, your new lie is at the DZ with a one stroke penalty. If you do not wish to throw from there, you can take the optional rethrow and throw from your previous lie, at a one stroke penalty. Now you have to weigh the fact that you can take a one stroke penalty and throw from the DZ or take a two stroke penalty and rethrow.

I feel like I'm playing <b>Frogger</b> after reading your statement over and over. Bounce over here, no bounce back over here.

Even though 803.09B(1) and 803.06 are the same result, I still think the player can technically elect to call an optional rethrow as per 803.06 at any time. If 803.09B was intended to limit the use of 803.06 then it should clearly say that. If that's its true intent then 803.06B should be re-written as follows:


803.09B Out-of-Bounds: 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 in accordance with 803.06 (Optional Rethrow); 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).

cgkdisc
Apr 30 2011, 12:17 AM
The trigger behind this Board's rule approval tweak has nothing to do with anything mentioned here. But there's certainly been some interesting dialog here regarding the implications of the change.

quickdisc
Apr 30 2011, 02:52 PM
This is why I will carry my current rules book just in case !

DShelton
Apr 30 2011, 06:01 PM
I feel like I'm playing <b>Frogger</b> after reading your statement over and over. Bounce over here, no bounce back over here.

Even though 803.09B(1) and 803.06 are the same result, I still think the player can technically elect to call an optional rethrow as per 803.06 at any time. If 803.09B was intended to limit the use of 803.06 then it should clearly say that. If that's its true intent then 803.06B should be re-written as follows:

In the case mentioned, the TD made a special condition that if you throw OB on that hole, you had to move directly to the DZ and that was your only option. This means you now have a one stroke penalty for an OB. At that point you can elect to take your optional rethrow. However, if you do, you take an additional stoke for the Optional Rethrow. There's nothing that limits the use of the Optional Rethrow, you just have to take the penalty that goes along with it.

I think this is the scenario (penalty on top of penalty) that the BOD is trying to avoid when they say a TD can't limit the OB options without prior approval.

BTW, in your rewrite of the rule, the TD could do away with the Optional Rethrow on OB holes, which he should not be able to do, by eliminating #1 as a special condition.

Patrick P
May 01 2011, 03:48 AM
In the case mentioned, the TD made a special condition that if you throw OB on that hole, you had to move directly to the DZ and that was your only option. This means you now have a one stroke penalty for an OB. At that point you can elect to take your optional rethrow. However, if you do, you take an additional stoke for the Optional Rethrow. There's nothing that limits the use of the Optional Rethrow, you just have to take the penalty that goes along with it.

I think this is the scenario (penalty on top of penalty) that the BOD is trying to avoid when they say a TD can't limit the OB options without prior approval.

BTW, in your rewrite of the rule, the TD could do away with the Optional Rethrow on OB holes, which he should not be able to do, by eliminating #1 as a special condition.

I called Konami and their seriously interested in your ideas for the new version of Frogger. You should call them <b>at any time</b>.

DShelton
May 01 2011, 09:59 AM
I called Konami and their seriously interested in your ideas for the new version of Frogger. You should call them <b>at any time</b>.

I don't understand what it is you find confusing. I put the scenario as simply as I can.

By telling a player that all the OB options except using a drop zone are eliminated (as per 803.09[ b ]) , the player is forced into taking an additional penalty in order to use the Optional Rethrow (as per 803.06). Thus you have a one stroke penalty for OB but then are forced into taking an additional one stroke penalty for using the Optional Rethrow to throw from your previous lie.

jconnell
May 01 2011, 12:49 PM
Why the bashing Connel? Even with my small brain, I'd be happy to play your rules, you're dad must have been a "traveling pro" and beat you when you were a kid. If I ever travel to you're home course, I'm not even going to ask, I'm just going to give you a nice big hug and tell you everything is going to be OK, whatever division you're in. Please don't generalize....
Other than that, good conversation, between the "traveling pro" bashing.

And the 2m rule is not in effect unless the TD calls the 2m as in effect. There is an earlier thread about the 2m rule originally being only for specific holes, however to reduce confusion, TD's starting saying it is in effect for all holes, which was abusing the original rule, which is why it is not in effect unless the TD says it is.
I'm not generalizing. I'm going off of actual experiences, and not just with traveling/touring pros. Traveling pros are definitely not the only ones who fit my criticisms, but because they seem to be held to a higher standard (and they make up over half the body that voted in favor of this motion), I hold them up too and single them out here.

I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph. There's never been an issue of the 2M rule being abused that I'm aware of. Originally, the 2M rule/penalty was always in effect no matter the circumstances or wishes of the TD or course designer. It was the rule book dictating design of the course by forcing all shots over 2M to be penalized. The rule was changed in 2006 so that it was no longer in play by default, and that TDs could implement it in any way they see fit, either on the entire course or on individual holes/obstacles/etc. A change for the better, though the wording in the 2011 book is a bit more awkward than it was in the 2006 edition (another subject for another thread).

The trigger behind this Board's rule approval tweak has nothing to do with anything mentioned here. But there's certainly been some interesting dialog here regarding the implications of the change.
So what was the trigger, if not some attempt to reign in or control some "renegade" course designers or TDs that the players on the BOD (or some party(ies) they're advocating for) disagreed with while on tour?

Seems like a needless layer of bureaucracy that likely will be ignored/overlooked until a disgruntled player wants to bring a complaint after getting "screwed" by a perfectly reasonable special condition they didn't pay close enough attention to negotiate properly.

cgkdisc
May 01 2011, 07:38 PM
As I understand it, the reason behind the Board action was to prevent blanket "throw & distance" penalties on fairways lined or created with OB on most holes from happening again in a PDGA sanctioned event without at least oversight approval on the request. The target for the action wasn't the appropriate use of drop zones unless they happen to all be identified as the previous lie/tee.

jconnell
May 01 2011, 08:06 PM
As I understand it, the reason behind the Board action was to prevent blanket "throw & distance" penalties on fairways lined or created with OB on most holes from happening again in a PDGA sanctioned event without at least oversight approval on the request. The target for the action wasn't the appropriate use of drop zones unless they happen to all be identified as the previous lie/tee.
So it is an attempt to reign in or control some "renegade" course designers or TDs, as I suggested, just not for the specific reason I mentioned as an example.

Still ultra mega lame.

cgkdisc
May 01 2011, 10:07 PM
PDGA sanctioning should imply a certain set of standards for things like entry fees, payouts and division options which have been reasonably well established. Course setups should have been part of those standards long ago considering how fundamental that is to the game. Now a few restrictions are coming in to maintain the integrity of what the game entails. There's still quite a ways to go considering the wide range of baskets and tees allowed, for example.

krupicka
May 01 2011, 10:13 PM
Just because the a number of players thought that the USDGC went overboard, I still don't see the point of having the tour manager approve every time where a TD wants to restrict (i.e. remove) the option of last place in bounds on some holes. It seems like overkill. (Kind of reminds me of some moves many politicians make in reaction to the latest news of the day).

cgkdisc
May 02 2011, 12:01 AM
I asked and dealing with the occasional drop zones was not the purpose of their action. But it looks like the wording might need to be rewritten to clarify it.

keithjohnson
May 02 2011, 01:43 AM
This was originally written 2 hours ago, but was delayed in posting due to watching the news on Bin Laden for the last 2 hours.

PLAYERS should NEVER be able to dictate what a designer or TD wishes to do with a course as long as it was following the established rules.

Allowing the players on the BOD to make player based decisions overiding what is already allowed in the rulebook because 1 TD tried something different in 2010 and now also for 2011 has killed (in thier opinions) their large cash cow payday in OCT - seems like an EXTREME abuse of powers - and that they would not be asked to abstain on a decision of this magnitude (which changes a JUST CHANGED rulebook) is also sad to see.

Are we now going to have to take another Exam in 2012 to replace our "good for 3 years" officials test we just took?

I for one will not shell out $600-$700 a year for sanctioning and insurance as I have for the last 4 years to have to call the "Big Dog" and ask if I can pretty please use a design feature I wish to use every 6 weeks for each of my Events.

This is unacceptable pandering to people that are upset with a TD that has been for years the TD to who most of them get to enter some Events for free, get free plastic, and get bonuses from their performances from his company because he did something different (but within the rules).

I'm also extremely curious why just moments after being defeated 4-3 (as opposed to 3-2 as stated in the minutes) the EXACT wording (made larger for clarity) of the previous motion with the addition of "and that it be implemented on 1/1/2012." caused 4 people to change their minds as evidenced below in the March minutes at the end of the teleconference.

Will those 4 people kindly explain their reasons? Andrews, Decker, Korver and Leiviska all said no just moments earlier.

MOTION (Nesbitt/Feldberg)
That rule 803.09 B(3) be amended to read, �Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options
may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition only by prior approval of the PDGA Tour Manager.
Yes: Feldberg, Nesbitt, Jenkins,
No: Andrews, Leiviska, Decker, Korver
Motion fails � 3-2

MOTION (Nesbitt/Feldberg)
That all rules variances related to PDGA Majors be approved by the PDGA Board of Directors.
Yes: Nesbitt, Korver, Decker, Feldberg, Jenkins, Andrews, Leiviska
Motion passes unanimously

MOTION (Nesbitt/Andrews)
That rule 803.09 B(3) be amended to read, �Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options
may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition only by prior approval of the PDGA Tour Manager.�, and that it be implemented on 1/1/2012.
Yes: Nesbitt, Korver, Decker, Feldberg, Jenkins, Andrews, Leiviska
Motion passes unanimously

havasuDG
May 02 2011, 04:42 AM
Considering that the Motion states -MOTION (Nesbitt/Feldberg)
That all rules variances related to PDGA Majors be approved by the PDGA Board of Directors.
Why does this need to become a rule change with all the potential fallout, and the obvious backlash? How about if theyre looking for a change they change the tour standards for majors, and amend this change into that document instead of cluttering our rulebook?

jconnell
May 02 2011, 09:46 AM
Will those 4 people kindly explain their reasons? Andrews, Decker, Korver and Leiviska all said no just moments earlier.
My assumption in reading that was that the only objection to the first motion was they didn't want to implement it immediately for 2011. The reason I assume that is that Todd Andrews voted no, but then co-sponsored the new motion amended with the 1/1/12 start date. If there was something else they objected to, I would expect that to be reflected in the new motion's wording.

It's sad that the reaction to, apparently, one tournament has been over-blown into a stupid decision that potentially affects hundreds of events.

denny1210
May 02 2011, 01:25 PM
I need to disagree with the prevalent interpretation of the optional re-throw rule on this thread. I believe that players always have the right to take stroke and distance and not be double-penalized with double stroke and distance. This rule emulates, whether by design or not, ball golf where players always have the option for S&D.

803.06 Optional Rethrow:
At any time, a player may elect to rethrow
from 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.
The original throw plus one penalty throw
are counted in the player's score.

I posit that once a disc is thrown, the player temporarily ceases to have a "lie". The spot that they just threw from instantly becomes the "previous lie". A disc that is out of bounds does not have a lie until it has been determined where that should be (DZ or not, no difference) and the new lie has been appropriately marked. The player is the one to make the determination in the case of out of bounds, given his/her options under the rules where that new lie should be.

Appropriate penalty "The original throw plus one penalty throw
are counted in the player's score." NOT two strokes plus distance.

Other thoughts:
TD's should be given a pretty long leash regarding drop zones, special conditions, etc. without having to call Appling every five minutes, majors and NT's being the exceptions. The Tour Director's time can be much better spent doing things like, soliciting tour sponsorship, for example.

Winthrop Gold will be known historically as one of our biggest steps forward, competitive course design-wise. It combined multi-shot holes, distance, accuracy, strategy, and a beautiful landscape to provide a true test of golf at the highest level. It is not, however, the be-all of course design. WG is a course that only has fairways and OB. It does not have any "rough". With everything that is great about it, this short-coming shows that opportunity yet remains to continue to raise the bar.

DShelton
May 02 2011, 07:30 PM
I need to disagree with the prevalent interpretation of the optional re-throw rule on this thread. I believe that players always have the right to take stroke and distance and not be double-penalized with double stroke and distance. [snip]

I posit that once a disc is thrown, the player temporarily ceases to have a "lie". The spot that they just threw from instantly becomes the "previous lie". A disc that is out of bounds does not have a lie until it has been determined where that should be (DZ or not, no difference) and the new lie has been appropriately marked. The player is the one to make the determination in the case of out of bounds, given his/her options under the rules where that new lie should be.

Appropriate penalty "The original throw plus one penalty throw
are counted in the player's score." NOT two strokes plus distance.

What I've been showing is why the BOD might want to limit the TD chose of limiting a player's options as far as OB. If you throw OB and your only chose is the DZ, then that makes your new lie the DZ with a 1 stroke penalty.

If you do not like that lie, then you can take your optional rethrow and return to your previous lie, prior to the OB shot, with another one stroke penalty.

You now have a two stroke penalty (one for OB and one for Optional Rethrow) for something that should only be a one stroke penalty for OB.

^^^IMHO, this is what the BOD is trying to stop.

denny1210
May 02 2011, 08:22 PM
I'm arguing that the TD cannot take away the S&D option under the current rules. It makes no difference if a DZ is designated or not.

krupicka
May 02 2011, 10:04 PM
I would have to agree. The optional rethrow rule trumps the others even if a TD limits options for OB relief.

Patrick P
May 03 2011, 05:10 AM
I would have to agree. The optional rethrow rule trumps the others even if a TD limits options for OB relief. Bingo, absolutely correct. 803.06 clearly states a player can <b>AT ANY TIME</b> call an optional rethrow. 803.09B3 only pertains to 803.09B(1-3). A TD does not have any authority to overide rules that conflict with PDGA Rules of Play as stated in 804.01D.

The player always has the option to rethrow and no TD can take this decision away from a player. This may not be the reason why the BoD is modifying the rule. Either way it addresses this issue and the examples illustrated in this discussion have demonstrated that TDs are attempting to overstep their boundaries.

jconnell
May 03 2011, 12:57 PM
Bingo, absolutely correct. 803.06 clearly states a player can <b>AT ANY TIME</b> call an optional rethrow. 803.09B3 only pertains to 803.09B(1-3). A TD does not have any authority to overide rules that conflict with PDGA Rules of Play as stated in 804.01D.

The player always has the option to rethrow and no TD can take this decision away from a player. This may not be the reason why the BoD is modifying the rule. Either way it addresses this issue and the examples illustrated in this discussion have demonstrated that TDs are attempting to overstep their boundaries.
The modified rule here is absolutely unrelated to the Optional Re-throw rule. Let's try to keep in mind that the examples in this thread are from prior to 2011, and the Optional Re-throw rule has only existed since January 1, 2011. So using the Optional Re-throw rule was not an option available to the players in those examples. Prior to this year, the Unplayable Lie rule was in its place. The Unplayable Lie rule did not "trump" a special condition limiting OB options. One must have a lie to declare it unplayable. If the special condition dictated that one's next lie after an OB shot was the drop zone, then the drop zone is what the player is declaring "unplayable". The unplayable penalty would come after and thus in addition to the OB penalty assessed, not in lieu of it.

That's no longer the case with the Optional Re-throw, thus it does somewhat negate cases of special conditions limiting OB options. But only if the player is rules-savvy enough to declare an Optional Re-throw. The presence of the Optional Re-throw doesn't necessarily make limiting OB options needless. In my experience with drop zones, often that limitation is giving the player the most preferable lie possible.

Patrick P
May 03 2011, 03:32 PM
The modified rule here is absolutely unrelated to the Optional Re-throw rule. Let's try to keep in mind that the examples in this thread are from prior to 2011, and the Optional Re-throw rule has only existed since January 1, 2011. So using the Optional Re-throw rule was not an option available to the players in those examples. Prior to this year, the Unplayable Lie rule was in its place. The Unplayable Lie rule did not "trump" a special condition limiting OB options. One must have a lie to declare it unplayable. If the special condition dictated that one's next lie after an OB shot was the drop zone, then the drop zone is what the player is declaring "unplayable". The unplayable penalty would come after and thus in addition to the OB penalty assessed, not in lieu of it.

That's no longer the case with the Optional Re-throw, thus it does somewhat negate cases of special conditions limiting OB options. But only if the player is rules-savvy enough to declare an Optional Re-throw. The presence of the Optional Re-throw doesn't necessarily make limiting OB options needless. In my experience with drop zones, often that limitation is giving the player the most preferable lie possible. Outstanding and agree 100%. I see there is a major difference between calling an unplayable lie and the optional rethrow (added in 2011). I'm glad the optional rethrow has replaced the unplayable lie call. In these rare circumstances prior to 2011, I always felt that the TD restriction obstructed the correct play, and felt the unplayable lie call was to give a person a chance to rethrow their shot, but not properly worded. Now, with the Optional Rethrow this problem is addressed. I'm curious to see how this will play out and if a TD attempts to overide the Optional rethrow on DZ holes. I agree, most often the DZ spot is favorable such as on a bad OB drive or missed mando. That's what I think the DZ should be used for, not on these island holes where you may be 20ft out from the basket, have an unfortunate mishap (roll OB), and now you have to go further back to a DZ with already a penalty. Can't wait to see how hole #17 at the Summertime Open in Sylmar,CA will be played out now.

denny1210
May 03 2011, 06:18 PM
The modified rule here is absolutely unrelated to the Optional Re-throw rule. Let's try to keep in mind that the examples in this thread are from prior to 2011, and the Optional Re-throw rule has only existed since January 1, 2011. So using the Optional Re-throw rule was not an option available to the players in those examples. Prior to this year, the Unplayable Lie rule was in its place. The Unplayable Lie rule did not "trump" a special condition limiting OB options. One must have a lie to declare it unplayable. If the special condition dictated that one's next lie after an OB shot was the drop zone, then the drop zone is what the player is declaring "unplayable". The unplayable penalty would come after and thus in addition to the OB penalty assessed, not in lieu of it.

That's no longer the case with the Optional Re-throw, thus it does somewhat negate cases of special conditions limiting OB options. But only if the player is rules-savvy enough to declare an Optional Re-throw. The presence of the Optional Re-throw doesn't necessarily make limiting OB options needless. In my experience with drop zones, often that limitation is giving the player the most preferable lie possible.

agree, thanks for the clarification.

DShelton
May 03 2011, 07:23 PM
I have to disagree. You have to look at the OB rule separately from the Option Rethrow. Assume that the TD has a Special Condition, so that the OB rule now reads:

A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player must play the next shot from within the designated Drop Zone.

Your lie now is at the Drop Zone with a one stroke penalty. You have no other chose but to take it to the Drop Zone because of the Special Condition. You can not use your previous lie because that is not a chose under the Special Condition the TD has expressed.

If you don not like that lie, your only chose now is to take an Option Rethrow under 803.06, go back to your previous lie and rethrow with a one stroke penalty. That's two penalties for that hole.

As it stands until 2012, a TD can force you to throw from a DZ or take an extra penalty and throw from your previous lie.

As you said though, the DZ usually is the best option because it will usually help negate the OB, but not always.

krupicka
May 03 2011, 07:57 PM
I think this makes it pretty clear:
The "unplayable lie" rule has been reformulated into an "optional rethrow" rule. It is now clear that penalty strokes are not added if the rethrow option is taken, so that double jeopardy is avoided.

and this:

At any time, a player may elect to rethrow from 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. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

Note that this at any time. This rule is not in reference to a new lie, but to the previous throw itself. This is pretty clear.

jconnell
May 03 2011, 08:06 PM
I have to disagree. You have to look at the OB rule separately from the Option Rethrow. Assume that the TD has a Special Condition, so that the OB rule now reads:



Your lie now is at the Drop Zone with a one stroke penalty. You have no other chose but to take it to the Drop Zone because of the Special Condition. You can not use your previous lie because that is not a chose under the Special Condition the TD has expressed.

If you don not like that lie, your only chose now is to take an Option Rethrow under 803.06, go back to your previous lie and rethrow with a one stroke penalty. That's two penalties for that hole.

As it stands until 2012, a TD can force you to throw from a DZ or take an extra penalty and throw from your previous lie.

As you said though, the DZ usually is the best option because it will usually help negate the OB, but not always.
What you are saying applied to the old Unplayable Lie rule, it does not apply to the Optional Rethrow rule. The Optional Rethrow rule states:At any time, a player may elect to rethrow from 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. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.
Note it makes no mention of a lie. Just that at any time, a throw can be disregarded and rethrown with a one-throw penalty added. It's like a mulligan, but it isn't free.

So it can be used in lieu of an OB penalty (whether or not the OB options are limited), or in lieu of a missed mandatory (meaning you rethrow rather than go to the designated drop zone), or at any other time.


And I think this needs to be restated. It isn't "until 2012", a TD can limit OB options. Even after 1/1/2012, the TD will be able to limit OB options, they just need Tour Manager approval to do so. I believe that anyone who assumes the Tour Manager will deny TD requests to utilize their ability to limit OB options is going to find themselves sorely disappointed.

DShelton
May 04 2011, 05:44 PM
Note it makes no mention of a lie. Just that at any time, a throw can be disregarded and rethrown with a one-throw penalty added. It's like a mulligan, but it isn't free.

So it can be used in lieu of an OB penalty (whether or not the OB options are limited), or in lieu of a missed mandatory (meaning you rethrow rather than go to the designated drop zone), or at any other time.

Ok, I understand now and stand corrected. I had the whole lie thing in my head and couldn't see the trees for the forest.

And I think this needs to be restated. It isn't "until 2012", a TD can limit OB options. Even after 1/1/2012, the TD will be able to limit OB options, they just need Tour Manager approval to do so. I believe that anyone who assumes the Tour Manager will deny TD requests to utilize their ability to limit OB options is going to find themselves sorely disappointed.

I too don't see too many TD's being denied a Special Condition.

JenniferB
May 18 2011, 06:46 PM
I have played a tournament with a temp island hole out so far that none of the women in my division (Int) could reach the island. Imagine if the TD forced us to retee instead of designating a drop zone?

I have played a tournament where the tees were moved to positions on a couple of holes where we were forced to throw over deep water with a DZ on the other side. Every woman in the division (Open) put their drives in the water on one hole. It sure did generate a lot of disc sales for the TD as we scrambled to replace our drivers between rounds. Imagine how many more it would have generated if the TD had not designated a DZ, and had specified that we must retee?

So far, I haven't seen anything as bad as it could be, but with TDs trying to make lots of temp holes in limited space to accomodate two player pools, it's easy to see how things are already getting out of hand, and will likely worsen if something isn't done.

Gimmickyness aside (I keep looking for the windmill hole) I'm personally glad the PDGA is doing something to make TDs think twice about implementing mandatory retees and DZs. I think it's easy for TD's to get carried away with the creativity, and they don't always think through all of the consequences.

Big Easy
May 19 2011, 01:09 AM
There is a temp tee on the right side of the road and...
the basket is on the left side of the road...
If the OB rules state that the road and right is OB...
is this considered Kosher per PDGA rules ???
Give me a should out...
Thanks
D.P. :D

cgkdisc
May 19 2011, 01:14 AM
Yes. The tee is considered inbounds. If your tee shot never crosses the road IB and your throw ends up OB, you retee throwing your third shot.

JenniferB
May 19 2011, 08:25 AM
Yes. The tee is considered inbounds. If your tee shot never crosses the road IB and your throw ends up OB, you retee throwing your third shot.

We played one of those holes in a recent tournament. One of the ladies on my card, who has an excellent putt and approach game but isn't long off the tee, had to retee 5 times and took a quintiple circle 12 on that hole. I understand we are not allowed to retrieve our discs before we retee; is that correct? I wondered what would have happenend if she had run out of discs? Would she have had to DNF? Could we have lent her discs from our bags? Could we have retrieved her discs for her? Is there anything we could do under the rules to complete a hole if the hole design and unexpected conditions (e.g., 40 mph winds) conspire to make a hole impossible for a player to complete?

krupicka
May 19 2011, 09:14 AM
Unless the TD placed a stipulation in the special conditions that the OB discs could not be retrieved until you were successful, a player can retrieve your disc. Players are allowed to borrow discs (even from other players).

What should happen here is the TD needs to have a little foresight that not everyone may have sufficient distance to make it. For an island type hole at my tournament, players have two attempts to make it IB. If they can't make it on their second shot, the proceed to a drop zone. This keeps the spirit of the hole, but doesn't exasperate those that may never make it.

cgkdisc
May 19 2011, 09:30 AM
For an island type hole at my tournament, players have two attempts to make it IB.
Even that is not really appropriate. No design involving hazards (versus actual OB off the property) should require a retee (optional retee, yes). Ball golf does not require a retee when landing in a hazard (even though some players prefer to retee) and there's no reason we should be more punitive than ball golf. Drop zones rule and players should immediately be allowed to move to them (or last point IB) upon going OB.

Big Easy
May 19 2011, 02:30 PM
Just as a point of reference... @ the US Masters in Huntsville...
The last hole was an island hole and if not safe after 2 throws
then you go to the drop zone...
This question is about my tourney and I had considered the 2 throws condition...
But the rule I am using is if not In Bounds on 1st throw proceed to the drop zone.
Thanks for the input.
D.P. :D

cgkdisc
May 19 2011, 09:20 PM
Had I been asked to check out the course layout for US Masters like I do for the PDGA for some other Majors, I may have persuaded them to just have one OB then go to DZ.

JenniferB
Sep 19 2011, 03:17 PM
USWDGC last weekend had an island hole and layup zone with mandatory retee unless the first throw lands safely. Catrina Allen took a 22 on this hole the first round, instead of the easy 3 obtainable by laying up in the drop zone on the first throw. Instead of DNFing, she valiantly battled her way back to 6th with play that would have put her in 2nd had she not taken those 19 extra throws in the first round.

A lady on my card also threw a 14 on that hole the first round. I layed up the whole time, but only because I had played a bagtag on that layout and taken a 12 on the same hole trying to land safely on the island. I think that it takes a while to realize and accept that a tournament hole really does present an unfair challenge that will severly punish the kind of tenacity exhibited by players of skill.

Will the change to the rules taking effect next year require permission from the Tour Director in order to implement this kind of hole in the future? If so, will that put an end to these types of holes, or are they likely to continue to appear in Majors and NTs?

jconnell
Sep 19 2011, 03:41 PM
Will the change to the rules taking effect next year require permission from the Tour Director in order to implement this kind of hole in the future? If so, will that put an end to these types of holes, or are they likely to continue to appear in Majors and NTs?
The proposed change would require the Tour Manager to approve those holes. However, I don't think it will come close to putting an end to such holes. The current Tour Manager ran an A-tier event for years that featured a hole with an island green with a required drop zone (as I described upthread). I doubt he's going to do a 180 on his view of such holes just because the board decided it should be up to him instead of the people on the ground at the event to determine the best way to play a disc golf hole.

I don't think it's a flaw in the hole design that caused Cat to score a 22. You say yourself that there's a place to lay up and get the safe 3. Sorry, it's not "tenacity" nor admirable to keep bombing drives at an island green and failing to stay on, it's plain stupidity. I don't fault her going for it on the initial drive to get the two. That's aggressive play sometimes necessary to compete at the highest level. But to keep going for it after that is foolish. Lay-up and get the 5. Save yourself 17 strokes. If 19 fewer strokes puts her in 2nd, then 17 fewer gets her no worse than 4th, right?

johnbiscoe
Sep 19 2011, 09:44 PM
never mind

bruce_brakel
Sep 20 2011, 02:26 AM
and there's no reason we should be more punitive than ball golf.

Golf unplayable: 2 club lengths lateral relief with one stroke penalty.
Disc golf: stroke and distance

eupher61
Sep 20 2011, 09:45 AM
I guess I've never come across a situation where restricting the options in this way would be a good thing.

But, for Kat Allen, yeah...fool me once, etc. But, fool me 6 times or more...

bravo
Oct 18 2011, 01:48 AM
all island or accross water shots should have a bailout zone for safe play.
not as glorious to lay up but it can produce a lower score.
being stubborn and emptying ones bag is not the tds fault.
if a hole allows a bailout location and a player doesnt have the ability to play for the glory then that player should play as the course is designed by laying up in the bailout area.

go18under
Oct 18 2011, 09:36 AM
Even that is not really appropriate. No design involving hazards (versus actual OB off the property) should require a retee (optional retee, yes). Ball golf does not require a retee when landing in a hazard (even though some players prefer to retee) and there's no reason we should be more punitive than ball golf. Drop zones rule and players should immediately be allowed to move to them (or last point IB) upon going OB.

Preach on Chuck. I agree with this 100%. You don't see professional ball golfers "retee" very often at all. It hurts the flow...making a player re-throw a shot they already failed to execute the first time, is brutal to watch sometimes, and often unfair in the spirit of competition....imo

krupicka
Oct 18 2011, 10:23 AM
It looks like the method Chuck is going to employ to discourage T&D is similar to the way the federal government encourages certain behaviors from the states by withholding federal money. He doesn't have enough leverage to tell the USDGC not use T&D, but he can do everything in his power to withhold ratings from the players. Nice.

cgkdisc
Oct 18 2011, 10:51 AM
The question is whether some modification of any game is enough different such that it's incorrect/inappropriate/inaccurate to compare stats. For example, we don't rate rounds that involve mulligans. However, the correlation between the ranking of players by ratings and their ranking after the mulligan event is equivalent to the correlation we see with regular events. In other words, all mulligans seem to do is proportionally reduce scores in a way that reduces the SSA. But ratings would be "valid" if we rated them. But we don't plan to do mulligan round ratings because it's a different format of the game.

In the case of T&D, the 2010 USDGC correlation between the initial ratings rank and final rank was significantly worse than any USDGC prior to that. In addition, another parameter we looked at is how many propagators shot more than 60 points below their rating. We do not include props in the final SSA/ratings calculation if they shoot more than 60 points below their rating. The average for all PDGA events is 4.5% of props not being used to rate a round. The USDGC history is only 2.7% of props not being used from 2002-2008. In 2009 with the buncr rule, it was 6.7%. In 2010 with the T&D rule, it was 11.7% of props being dropped because they shot more than 60 points below their rating. We don't have the stats for 2011 yet but I expect it will be even higher, maybe even 20%. At a certain point, you have to say that a game is enough different that stats from one can't properly be applied to the new version.

krupicka
Oct 18 2011, 11:07 AM
I would not compare stats from 2011 to 2010 as the demographic of players in the USDGC is significantly different. With many players playing in the USDGC for the first time along with a focus on a player pack vs payouts for placing can change a players approach to the event enough that it may also have a factor in how they perform.

cgkdisc
Oct 18 2011, 11:29 AM
I would agree that 2010 & 2011 are different. But we probably shouldn't have done ratings for 2010 and used those rankings as a Major in the World Rankings. But last year we didn't know what we know now regarding the stats differences.

Angst
Oct 18 2011, 02:13 PM
Stroke and Distance was summed up almost perfectly by a Swede I played with at the 2010 USDGC. He said "I did not take 2 weeks of vacation, spend $1000s of dollars and fly halfway around the world to play with my Roc all day. Stroke and distance sucks."

jackinkc
Oct 18 2011, 08:07 PM
http://www.pdga.com/announcements/2012-smoking-policy


Once the PDGA pays to ensure that its top players make enough money to warrant an existence, I would not have an issue with how they control player behavior as much.

We currently play for the money from each others pocket, and the work that the local community and volunteers did to bring the disc golf event to the area.

The PDGA in my mind does very little to support the events, and although they have a hand in the Majors, without the sweat, equity and dedication of the local devoted staff, their events would fail.

Once they come to that realization, maybe then in my mind they would be able to enforce rules that are not against the local laws of the land, which in essence is what they are doing.

I wonder what individual rights and freedoms you really give up to play for the people's money that are on your card, and what legal ramifications there are from this.

It is yet again an example in my mind of the PDGA not following the laws of the land, nay, ignoring them, and instead giving directives that are clearly agains the law.

Although they do discuss the rulings on the tobacco from smoking, chewing, electric light up, nicotine patches are not discussed, so why the ruling? Is it only a perception component? How contradictive.

Its one of the silliest examples of the PDGA law being above that of societies.

Is the PDGA a better society than the majority of America, and the world, and if so, how is it so big that it won't afford a staff to be paid in its "major events"? You do this, you do this for free, and you do it our way, or you fail as a person to give your community that chance. (nominal fees if they are paid, never a true value on the actual work done is ever paid to the staff)

Wow......its really tough to support a group that is thinking along these lines.

Rememer please, I am a non-smoker, I used to smoke (up to 3-5 packs a day) and I don't let people smoke in my house.......I used to throw away cigarettes from friends in order to force the to quit.

I would never infringe on another person's right to light up by something so American in a public place where it isn't outlawed. I think this is a boundary that is horrible.

It stinks more than a cigarette does, and its a horrible message to a group of people that realistically are good, and make decisions appropriately.

Its personal choice. They are taking away personal choice, that to date is not illegal, horribly unhealthy, absolutely, horribly stinky, yes, I hate it, but that still doesn't make it right!

Patrick P
Oct 18 2011, 08:46 PM
http://www.pdga.com/announcements/2012-smoking-policy


Once the PDGA.... If you ever go to Singapore make sure you don't bring any bubblegum.

Patrick P
Oct 18 2011, 08:49 PM
For example, we don't rate rounds that involve mulligans. Uh actually PDGA does rate mulligan rounds. I have two rounds rated this year with the use of mulligans. And after reporting it to the TD three times, discussing it in the forum multiple times, and emailing the PDGA Tour manager with no response, I guess I'll just keep my mulligan rated rounds so that everytime you make this statement, I will have the proof to counter you.

cgkdisc
Oct 19 2011, 01:33 AM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2011-10-18/ussenators-urge-baseball-to-ban-tobacco

jackinkc
Oct 19 2011, 11:27 AM
Chuck,

I get that other major sports want to ban it as an image issue, but utlimately its a health issue as well.

I am not saying it is good to smoke, I am simply saying why does the current PDGA rules feel the need to infringe on a personal choice when they really only supplies rules that are played loosely by.

We don't govern ourselves in accordance as we should, the PDGA is not an organization that creates events, they piggy back on events in the making (though I hear that could change, bravo for that) so why on earth are they preventing something that is NOT ILLEGAL from participation in events?

I am scratching my head on this. It seems to me in all honesty that there are so many other items that need to be enforced. To say you can't have a cigarette or a chew, but you are not going to enforce a patch if a player has one, WHAT IS THE POINT?

Its only about PERCEPTION is my issue, if you want to ban nicotine, then BAN NICOTINE, don't fancy foot around this.

Its a perception issue CLEARLY, and as such there are SOOOOOOOOOOO many other perceptions that need to be handled with our sport that this is really teh bottom feeder, and to make it so, well just is absurd.

I still have NO IDEA what survey Rebecca is referencing in regards to the logic behind this.

I never saw it, I never heard of it.....having played in a Major and Ran Majors and NT's over the last 5 yrs, never saw anything like that for a survey....so who did they send this information to?

If "IF" its illegal in the park

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-23/us/new.york.smoking.ban_1_smoking-on-public-beaches-smoking-ban-secondhand-smoke?_s=PM:US

I am ENTIRELY for this, but if it's not illegal in the land that you are playing on, why does the PDGA feel that they are better than the law, and more importantly why is it only the "appearance of nicotine intake systems" not the actual nicotine itself.

Its absurd, and I don't see how it ultimately helps anyone, other than making the grumpy smokers even more grumpy on my card.....

This may make some of our players happier...
http://everythinggolf.blogs.heraldtribune.com/11481/pga-tour-player-admits-smoking-weed-during-competition/

We already took off alcohol, and I understand that from a variety point of views. It creates situations that can easily get out of control. I don't agree with it though, but I get it, and in most of the parks alcohol is illegal, so....thats ok. It is also illegal to be in public intoxicated, and without the proper control on the intake (which isn't monitored) can cause people to get to that point. So it has to be stopped.

The above reference, its illegal in most states. Medicinal issues aside, its still illegal from a federal and most state's stance, so that has to be consistent. Until the entire nicotine delivery systems are outlawed, and that it is entirely illegal, there is no reason that the PDGA should think that they are above the law.

That is my ultimate beef with this. They feel that they (a selected few that I am still scratching my head with the reasoning over) are better and can make personal choices, I have never heard of someone nicotining or rushing so bad from cigarettes that they killed or caused injuries to anyone other than themselves. (second hand studies are minimal with outdoor smokers, as would be our case)

Eradicate the weak.

16670
Oct 19 2011, 12:20 PM
like ive said its not a health issue its a image issue.you know how everyone when they here your a discgolfer the first thing that pops into there head is "o he smokes cigarettes and chews tobacco" i think we all know what they really say!!! if it was a health issue how can a e-cig that expells WATER VAPOR be banned?

Rhyno
Oct 20 2011, 03:49 PM
http://www.pdga.com/announcements/2012-smoking-policy


Once the PDGA pays to ensure that its top players make enough money to warrant an existence, I would not have an issue with how they control player behavior as much.

We currently play for the money from each others pocket, and the work that the local community and volunteers did to bring the disc golf event to the area.

The PDGA in my mind does very little to support the events, and although they have a hand in the Majors, without the sweat, equity and dedication of the local devoted staff, their events would fail.

Once they come to that realization, maybe then in my mind they would be able to enforce rules that are not against the local laws of the land, which in essence is what they are doing.

I wonder what individual rights and freedoms you really give up to play for the people's money that are on your card, and what legal ramifications there are from this.

It is yet again an example in my mind of the PDGA not following the laws of the land, nay, ignoring them, and instead giving directives that are clearly agains the law.




The beginning of the end of the PDGA as we know it! I welcome the newly incorporated United States Disc Golf Association!!!

Board has been created... Bylaws are being developed... An organization that if used correctly will take all of the said impropriety out of the hands of the PDGA board and into the USDGA! If not... then the USDGA will become an AM only organization and it will thrive because AM's Money belongs to the AM's!!!

underparmike
Oct 20 2011, 11:23 PM
http://www.pdga.com/announcements/2012-smoking-policy

You do this, you do this for free, and you do it our way, or you fail as a person to give your community that chance. (nominal fees if they are paid, never a true value on the actual work done is ever paid to the staff)

Wow......its really tough to support a group that is thinking along these lines.



But communism is working so well in China! It's an economic powerhouse. You mean it took you this long to recognize the pDGA's brand?

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/images/communist-party-poster.jpg

underparmike
Oct 20 2011, 11:25 PM
The beginning of the end of the PDGA as we know it! I welcome the newly incorporated United States Disc Golf Association!!!

Board has been created... Bylaws are being developed... An organization that if used correctly will take all of the said impropriety out of the hands of the PDGA board and into the USDGA! If not... then the USDGA will become an AM only organization and it will thrive because AM's Money belongs to the AM's!!!


Get me some $50 insurance and I'm in!

eupher61
Oct 22 2011, 01:30 PM
Just remember that the rule book and the contents thereof are �PDGA.

ishkatbible
Oct 23 2011, 11:13 AM
Just remember that the rule book and the contents thereof are �PDGA.

so does that mean that disc will not only need t osay "pdga approved" but "pdga & usdga approved"

lol. sort of like snap ching... all pdga approved discs are usdga approved

seewhere
Oct 24 2011, 07:03 PM
about time they ban smoking.. if i can drink a beer while i play then smokers cant smoke.. they are both vices.. just saying ... this needed to happen along time ago when they started trying to tell the disc golfer how to live their OWN lives. time to plau alot more unsantioned tournaments and the ones that i play sanctione just pay the $10 instead of the outrageous $75

Rhyno
Nov 01 2011, 01:02 PM
so does that mean that disc will not only need t osay "pdga approved" but "pdga & usdga approved"

lol. sort of like snap ching... all pdga approved discs are usdga approved

no... if all works out as planned... there would be one organization that is recognized as the owner of the rules and the standards... Hopefully that would be the USDGA... then the PDGA could focus on what it needs to focus on... promoting the Professional aspect of our sport. Hiring a Fundraising coordinator to bring in big $$$ for every Pro Tour event.

The USDGA could handle the ams and all of the logistics of the sport.

The thought process is to create an elite level of Play that will draw spectators, which in turn brings out sponsors... and more $$$. It would be great to see 10 to 15 Pro tournaments that have a purse of $100k + every tournament. Then you get more Ams want to go pro.. you get more players wanting to be a part of the organization.

It's coming... not soon enough... but it is coming!!!! If the PDGA decides they want to be a part of this then Disc golf as a sport will grow exponentially and even quicker then it has... also member retention will increase as well. On the flip side.. if the PDGA choose to ignore what is going on then it could mean hard times are on the horizon!!!

Just saying!!!

tkieffer
Nov 01 2011, 03:06 PM
The United States Deaf Golf Association is going to handle all the ams as well as the rules and standards?

tkieffer
Nov 01 2011, 03:11 PM
Or perhaps that's the United States Durum Growers Association.

Of course there's always that pesky little problem of calling any govening body of a world wide association 'the United States ..........'

james_mccaine
Nov 01 2011, 04:11 PM
The thought process is to create an elite level of Play that will draw spectators, which in turn brings out sponsors... and more $$$. It would be great to see 10 to 15 Pro tournaments that have a purse of $100k + every tournament. Then you get more Ams want to go pro.. you get more players wanting to be a part of the organization.

It's coming... not soon enough... but it is coming!!!! If the PDGA decides they want to be a part of this then Disc golf as a sport will grow exponentially and even quicker then it has... also member retention will increase as well. On the flip side.. if the PDGA choose to ignore what is going on then it could mean hard times are on the horizon!!!

Just saying!!!

I've been around a long time and my honest assessment is that this sport isn't much closer to having significant spectators now than it was 25 years ago. I've been critical of this organization for a long time, but there is little they could do to bring this vision to fruition. Most of the productive things they could do would be met with displeasure by the members anyway. This sport/activity is looking more like a dead end as each year passes.

underparmike
Nov 02 2011, 06:55 PM
I disagree with you that the sport is a dead end James. It's never going to attract the money that the pro ball golf tours do, but I think the day is approaching when there will be more disc golfers than ball golfers.

The pDGA took a step in the right direction by boosting the payouts at the 2011 Pro Worlds. It was the first step in a long journey perhaps, and most members haven't disagreed for years with that plan. It's good that the pDGA finally listened. And with the detonation of the USDGC this year, it was very timely indeed. There's just enough money out on the pDGA tour to keep hope alive, which is all anyone can ask for. We've got to let the public catch up to disc golf before a better tour will emerge.

Wow, that was a lot of cliches for one sitting. My old English professors would surely flunk me for this post. Fortunately none of them will ever be able to load this page because this website is so broken!

Rhyno
Nov 03 2011, 05:10 PM
Or perhaps that's the United States Durum Growers Association.

Of course there's always that pesky little problem of calling any govening body of a world wide association 'the United States ..........'

Never said anything about the USDGA being a world wide governing body... just in the US... as for your comment on standards and rules.. it's just an option... very similar to the way things are handled in the ball golf world... the USGA governs all of that while the PGA is just for the touring PRO's...as should it be with us... granted we don't have that many touring Pros... however... Add ten 100k total purse tournaments and an end of the year even worth 250k and I will guarantee you to fill up every open event.

Ok... now the question remains... how do we get to this point.. well first of all, there needs to be change...and I'm not talking about the Obama kind! The kind of change where the PDGA separates itself from the AM's... becomes more charitable and I'm not just talking about EDGE... and goes out and does what many local clubs are doing on their own and raising CASH to fund their events... Re-evaluate their staff and include a position responsible for inking sponsorship deals.

So let me ask all of you one last question.... With the major disc manufacturer's revenue being in the millions of dollars each year, who is making all the money in this sport???

tkieffer
Nov 03 2011, 07:13 PM
"The USDGA could handle the ams and all of the logistics of the sport"

Wouldn't that imply a bit larger scope than just one country?

As for who might be making money, so? Are you suggesting they become benevolent to the point of distributing a large chunk of it to a very small percentage of those who play the sport? Why? What would be the business model that would justify this?

eupher61
Nov 03 2011, 10:55 PM
Um...maybe the ams who want this are in a minority? Maybe even the pros who want this are in a minority?

davidsauls
Nov 04 2011, 08:36 AM
"PDGA separates itself from the Ams...."?

The PDGA IS Ams. It's a membership organization, run by the membership. 70% of the membership is classified as Ams, and less than 5% can be considered "professionals" in any practical sense.

It would be easier for the Touring Pros to separate themselves from the PDGA.
(And that's highly unlikely to work, either).

go18under
Nov 04 2011, 12:10 PM
The PDGA and the ADGA can be run by our current leaders. It's a matter of focus, the PDGA is focused on growing disc golf, which amateurs are the majority.

Take some of the half mill they have in the bank and hire some serious marketing/sales people to approach Nike/Under Armor/ESPN/any outdoor equipment company/etc aggressively.

Establishing a game plan to sell and market our top players will be challenging, but the individuals are there....Barsby/Nikko/Mcbeth/Shusterick/Feldy/Doss/Val/Avery/Climo/Schultz

All I'm asking is that we at least try to be serious advancing the professional side of our sport.

About the smoking ban.....I don't like it, but I understand it.

cgkdisc
Nov 04 2011, 12:26 PM
If the big money is available, the big sponsors will be knocking on our door and we'll just have to open it. No amount of money spent trying to raise money makes any sense without the eyeballs to sell the sponsors. You can hire the biggest hulks around but they can't push a rope much better than the 90-lb weakling.

If Rhyno thinks the pro tour and mega sponsorship is where the action is for the PDGA, I'm surprised he wouldn't focus the USDGA on that market segment for his new org if that's where the money is...

Rhyno
Nov 04 2011, 01:47 PM
If the big money is available, the big sponsors will be knocking on our door and we'll just have to open it. No amount of money spent trying to raise money makes any sense without the eyeballs to sell the sponsors. You can hire the biggest hulks around but they can't push a rope much better than the 90-lb weakling.

If Rhyno thinks the pro tour and mega sponsorship is where the action is for the PDGA, I'm surprised he wouldn't focus the USDGA on that market segment for his new org if that's where the money is...

That's part of the problem...waiting for the sponsors to come knock on your door... it isn't going to happen... you have to show them how their support will make them more money... of course I haven't spoken with anyone at the PDGA that is capable of accomplishing this... I truly believe the comfort of doing business as usual will eventually kill the momentum the PDGA started... based on member retention... the PDGA is slowly killing itself...

Already started that process... but you see... the USDGA isn't about the money... it's about the sport... I have already approached a major sponsor for a Semi Pro tour as well... this would only include players rated 950-989. At the moment we are looking into 5 semi pro events with 5k added cash to each. This tour would be similar to the Hooters tour in ball golf. I haven't finalized that deal yet but we are close.

Here's the thing... I am a member of the PDGA... and proud to be one... even getting bashed in the Southern Nationals circles because I'm proud to be a member. However, with that being said I am tired of being part of the problem and want to be part of the solution. I ran for a board position but to no avail... I stated to those who voted for me that if I wasn't elected I would still do my best to try and be part of the solution. I really do feel modeling our organization(s) after the PGA and USGA.

I've had many conversations regarding this and of course the argument is the ball golf has been around for over 400 years and the PGA has been in existence since 1916, we can't compete because we are so young... I understand this argument but feel as though it's just an excuse... it's time to start soliciting those sponsors.. proving to them the numbers we have and how much it's grown...

One of the options the USDGA has to offer is I hope to make it very attractive to those casual once a week golfers... kind of like when my son and I joined the USGA... it was cheap and it was cool to be part of it. Those golfers I speak with in my area are intimidated by the Professional Disc Golf Association... as much as I plead against that... still pricing is too steep for that recreational golfer. At my home course and club alone I would say the ratio from member to non member (casual golfer) is 5 to 1. Tapping in to is difficult, but we are making strides... having a casual type membership seems to be the way to go for these golfers... similar to the USDGA...

I would love for the USDGA to partner with the PDGA to work towards fixing the membership issues and help them find a way to create an elite tour that would draw spectators and major sponsors.

So... with all this being said... I truly want to be part of the solution...and not more part of the problem... I will tell you... business as usual... won't work much longer.....

davidsauls
Nov 04 2011, 02:09 PM
Rhyno, despite my doubts, if you succeed I'll be applauding. If you pull off the semi-pro tour with 5K added cash to each event, I'd even recommend that you work for the PDGA on a commission basis and get those big sponsors.

How 'bout help the rest of us out and share the sales pitch. Why would a business throw $5,000 into an event that 100, maybe 200 people will see (mostly the participants)? Don't hold me to it, but I think I read the major sponsors at golf events pay about 20 cents per viewer, gallery & TV combined. How would you convince a company that putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into disc golf will generate millions of viewers?

Rhyno
Nov 04 2011, 03:28 PM
Rhyno, despite my doubts, if you succeed I'll be applauding. If you pull off the semi-pro tour with 5K added cash to each event, I'd even recommend that you work for the PDGA on a commission basis and get those big sponsors.

How 'bout help the rest of us out and share the sales pitch. Why would a business throw $5,000 into an event that 100, maybe 200 people will see (mostly the participants)? Don't hold me to it, but I think I read the major sponsors at golf events pay about 20 cents per viewer, gallery & TV combined. How would you convince a company that putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into disc golf will generate millions of viewers?

I can tell you how I am getting this done.. it's simple... the company I'm reaching out to will have a booth(s) at every event... since most of these events will be held in public parks that are utilized by more than just disc golfers, they will be able to peddle their products at said events. In addition, 100% of their donation is considered to be an advertising expense which is 100% tax deductible. It's a win win situations for both parties.

davidsauls
Nov 04 2011, 04:19 PM
Awesome. I can't conceive how the dollars work out, but I'll await the fruition of this project and then be even more impressed.

eupher61
Nov 04 2011, 04:28 PM
There seems to be a decided lack of understanding of how big promotion works.

They don't want to create the attraction for the event, they want to buy into an event with a huge audience and help it get huger. If Nike, Reebok, whoever, wanted to get into the disc golf business, don't you think they'd be there by now? No, I guess you don't...

cgkdisc
Nov 04 2011, 05:23 PM
Rhyno - ...the USDGA isn't about the money... it's about the sport... I have already approached a major sponsor for a Semi Pro tour as well... this would only include players rated 950-989. At the moment we are looking into 5 semi pro events with 5k added cash to each.
Note that Rhyno has a 963 rating... hmmm...

Rhyno
Nov 04 2011, 09:18 PM
Note that Rhyno has a 963 rating... hmmm...

Note that as a promoter I won't be playing in these events. There will not be a Masters division offered... this will be strictly for those Advanced players who don't think they can compete at the pro level and for those pros who still need to work harder toward making that elite status... oh that's right... we don't have anything like that at the pdga... anyone can enter an NT event.

I get it... I'm not trying to pick apart what we currently have... it's definitely better than nothing... but change needs to happen...

so if promoting a Semi Pro tour or an AM only organization moves us forward in the right direction then AWESOME... if this fails... then I can say I gave it a gallant effort!!!

So... Chuck let me ask you this... what point were you trying to make by putting my rating out there? Trying to discredit me or my reasoning behind this? Mark my words... when I do get these events going... I will not participate in any of them. I will be assisting with running them.

cgkdisc
Nov 04 2011, 09:31 PM
Just poking a bit like what happens in some D-Board posts. Regardless whether you would benefit, you must feel that second tier pros at your level have been neglected by the current system even though merch award values for Advanced players in this range are cited as too lucrative.

chappyfade
Nov 05 2011, 10:46 AM
The pDGA took a step in the right direction by boosting the payouts at the 2011 Pro Worlds. It was the first step in a long journey perhaps, and most members haven't disagreed for years with that plan. !

A little hint. The PDGA has very little to do with what the purse is at any event or Worlds, other than setting some minimum standards which everyone has access to. The purse is generally determined by the host club, and that is usually determined by how much sponsorship money they can pull in. Santa Cruz apparently did very well in that regard, so the purse was bigger this year, so kudos to Tom Schot. The PDGA did not "decide" to just pay people more at Worlds. The host club did a great job fundraising, and likely made that decision
without much outside direction.

cgkdisc
Nov 05 2011, 11:19 AM
Not correct for Pro Worlds, Chappy. For Worlds, the PDGA has guaranteed at least 25% cash added to Pro Worlds purses since 2007 to take some money raising pressure off hosts. I believe it's ended up real close to 25% added since 2007 including 2011 if you do the math. Whatever sponsor money host clubs generated mostly went toward running the event with varying levels of contributions toward the added cash. The PDGA sometimes had to chip in whatever additional money was needed to reach 25% added.

It was just a bigger total purse in 2011 because there were 432 versus the typical number of 300 pros in previous years. So the 25% guarantee for added cash in 2011 meant the PDGA would potentially have to backstop a 33% larger dollar amount than normal. Since the pro payout has been 125% of base entry fees since 2007 (and sometimes before then), you don't really know how much of the added cash has come from hosts' efforts and how much from the PDGA without digging further. However, since no Pro Worlds payout has been more than 125%, it means no host has yet generated enough sponsorship to pay more than 125% even though we've had two Pro/Am Worlds since 2007.

Rhyno
Nov 05 2011, 12:44 PM
Just poking a bit like what happens in some D-Board posts. Regardless whether you would benefit, you must feel that second tier pros at your level have been neglected by the current system even though merch award values for Advanced players in this range are cited as too lucrative.

poked fun taken... Just wanted to be sure that was your intention... It's hard to tell inflection in prose.

I just started playing pro... I don't feel neglected... but feel with the discs and courses we have currently (for the most part) don't allow for the second tier pro so to speak to compete with the elite pros. I know I have plenty aspects of my game that I could work on to maybe get better... but my current standard of living and income wouldn't allow for me to put in the time and effort to become that elite pro and compete on that level... now... with that being said... if we had more course that evened the field so to speak and of course payouts and endorsements that could support a family... I would love to compete for a living.

As for the Advanced golfers... well... that is an animal all in itself... I really don't have the answer... but I would like to figure out what we could do to make this better for everyone. By creating the USDGA, and putting my ideas out there... I hope to invoke some more creative thinking in others....

Thanks Chuck...I do appreciate your comments!

Rhyno
Nov 05 2011, 12:52 PM
Not correct for Pro Worlds, Chappy. For Worlds, the PDGA has guaranteed at least 25% cash added to Pro Worlds purses since 2007 to take some money raising pressure off hosts. I believe it's ended up real close to 25% added since 2007 including 2011 if you do the math. Whatever sponsor money host clubs generated mostly went toward running the event with varying levels of contributions toward the added cash. The PDGA sometimes had to chip in whatever additional money was needed to reach 25% added.

It was just a bigger total purse in 2011 because there were 432 versus the typical number of 300 pros in previous years. So the 25% guarantee for added cash in 2011 meant the PDGA would potentially have to backstop a 33% larger dollar amount than normal. Since the pro payout has been 125% of base entry fees since 2007 (and sometimes before then), you don't really know how much of the added cash has come from hosts' efforts and how much from the PDGA without digging further. However, since no Pro Worlds payout has been more than 125%, it means no host has yet generated enough sponsorship to pay more than 125% even though we've had two Pro/Am Worlds since 2007.

Great Info! As a member of a tournament committee, I understand and appreciate the undertaking of fundraising. Although on a much smaller scale, since 2006 our little B tier has paid out at or over 250% every year to both PRO's and Am's. It does help that we treat our fundraising like it is a Major event and not a B Tier. This is the reason I sugguest that the PDGA do more about Running the Events..at least the NT and Majors. One group committed to raising funds for these tournaments year round could do wonders for added cash.

Again... I don't assume or pretend that this is an easy undertaking...heck if we had enough quality courses, I would love to put a bid in for Worlds.

I go back to my statment early on this thread that the PDGA should create and hire a commissioned Business Consultant that is responsible for generating the funds to not only add cash to these tournaments, but to help offset the funds used from membership for operating expenses.

TeePeeKny
Nov 08 2011, 09:30 AM
Rules ? So say you throw a disc in the road at riverside and Before you get to it a car hits it and knocks it back in. Would that still be counted as ob?

2. Ok if it comes to rest in a tree 30ft up, and by the time you get down to it ,it falls out is it good or OB, the 3 m rule in play at the time

cgkdisc
Nov 08 2011, 09:54 AM
In both cases, the disc is inbounds. See Interference rule 803.07B for the first question (OB is not a playing surface) and rule 803.08D for the second question.

TeePeeKny
Nov 08 2011, 11:24 AM
I would like some clearfication on this Please Disc throw from drive. Lands in a street {at rest } Car hits said disc Knocks it back in play Rolls under basket
1. play it as safe birdy
2. try and determan where the car hit it take releaf 1m play make your shot
OB 3

underparmike
Nov 08 2011, 11:55 AM
Hey Chappy, here's a hint for you! Don't question anything I post. :)

TeePeek, if the disc came to rest before the car hit it, then it would be OB and played with 1m "releaf" from where it was last in-bounds.

cgkdisc
Nov 08 2011, 11:57 AM
Disc is at rest but it's OB and not on a playing surface. The rules indicate that only discs on a playing surface or on the basket are replaced if moved (other than intentionally). So until a player gets to their thrown disc, whether suspended in the air or OB or even on the wrong side of a mando, if the disc's position changes to inbounds due to an act of nature (wind, gravity) or being struck/moved accidentally (not intentionally) to an inbounds position, that's okay and the player plays it there.

In fact it's marked wherever it ends up which may be OB. The point is, the disc can move to another position if not on the playing surface or basket until the player gets there to mark it. The only exception might be at the USDGC where you have a spotter who flags the shot OB and you proceed to retee. Once you've reteed, a car drives by and knocks your first throw back inbounds. No luck there since your disc was officially declared OB and you played your next throw.

cgkdisc
Nov 08 2011, 11:57 AM
underparmike - TeePeek, if the disc came to rest before the car hit it, then it would be OB and played with 1m "releaf" from where it was last in-bounds.
Nope. See my answer above.

bruce_brakel
Nov 08 2011, 12:39 PM
Chuck's answer is correct, because it is Chuck's answer. However, the rules do actually say,

"A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area."

If the road is out of bounds and the disc came to rest, the rules would regard it as out of bounds. The rules say nothing about a disc only being allowed to come to rest on the playing surface, as far as i can tell.

pterodactyl
Nov 08 2011, 12:53 PM
If your disc is deemed "at rest" on an OB path or beyond, then the call would be OB. No act of any god or natural/unnatural phenomenon can change that call. If a disc falls out of a 2m area before you can mark it, then it is not a penalty.

Sorry Chuck.

TeePeeKny
Nov 08 2011, 12:57 PM
Thank you sir: if you have FB please go see the thread in Tulsa disc golf group

cgkdisc
Nov 08 2011, 01:08 PM
The disc is not declared OB until the player gets there to declare it OB in the same way a disc above 2m is not declared above 2m until the player gets there UNLESS there's an official deputized to make the call for speed of play due to rethrow requirement on the hole like USDGC. For example, let's say the OB area was blind and the group comes upon the disc lying inbounds. Another person comes up to the group and says, "You should have seen it. A car came by and knocked your disc in the street back onto the grass." The group could not make the OB call per Bruce's post because they weren't there yet to make that call. Benefit of the doubt to the player meaning player has the right to get to the disc to confirm along with the group that a disc is IB or OB even if it can maybe be seen from the tee. We already have a rule indicating that the group must confirm whether a player's disc is IB or OB when it lands near OB or the disc is declared OB meaning the group must be progressing down the fairway to do that.

pterodactyl
Nov 08 2011, 02:44 PM
Chuck, in your scenario it sounds like the other player was able to tell the group that the disc was at rest and OB. If nobody sees it happen then no call can be made. Furthermore, that would be one crappily designed hole where you are throwing blindly near a street full of automobiles.
There are also times when a disc may actually float to a safe spot on a creek and nobody sees it. No OB call can be made there either. On the other hand, I have thrown shots barely safe near the edge of water with a slippery slope and waves. I asked the group if my safe shot was "at rest" and they all agreed. Now if the disc ends up fully surrounded by water before I can arrive to mark and take my meter the shot is still in bounds and safe.

chappyfade
Nov 09 2011, 12:30 AM
Not correct for Pro Worlds, Chappy. For Worlds, the PDGA has guaranteed at least 25% cash added to Pro Worlds purses since 2007 to take some money raising pressure off hosts. I believe it's ended up real close to 25% added since 2007 including 2011 if you do the math. Whatever sponsor money host clubs generated mostly went toward running the event with varying levels of contributions toward the added cash. The PDGA sometimes had to chip in whatever additional money was needed to reach 25% added.

It was just a bigger total purse in 2011 because there were 432 versus the typical number of 300 pros in previous years. So the 25% guarantee for added cash in 2011 meant the PDGA would potentially have to backstop a 33% larger dollar amount than normal. Since the pro payout has been 125% of base entry fees since 2007 (and sometimes before then), you don't really know how much of the added cash has come from hosts' efforts and how much from the PDGA without digging further. However, since no Pro Worlds payout has been more than 125%, it means no host has yet generated enough sponsorship to pay more than 125% even though we've had two Pro/Am Worlds since 2007.

The 100+ plus extra players or so could account for the extra purse $$$, that's certainly plausible and likely.

As far as your other statement about guaranteeing 25% added cash, I'll have to look at my Worlds agreement from 2009, but I don't recall that being in there, and it certainly was never brought up by either KCFDC or PDGA in our discussions. PDGA did not add 25% back to the purse in 2009, that's for sure, at not in added cash. My rough figures would put their added cash to the purse at 12%, and they got $10 a head from the entry fees (a lot of which probably went to BEI for processing fees, I know, but not everyone paid by credit card).

Now I'm not saying we didn't add about 25%..it seems to me that's about where we were at, and that's part of the minimum standards I was talking about in my original post. PDGA's cash contribution was $10,000, and our purse was $83K if memory serves, so that would be a touch over 12%. (PDGA certainly contributed in non-cash ways, like handling registration and providing marshals)

Now if you're counting Pro Worlds being run by themselves or Pro Worlds being run concurrently with Am Worlds as different animals, then I wouldn't have any information about that, but I'm not sure why the guarantee would be any different. While you certainly can gain some $$$ by running Am Worlds concurrently, you are working extra hard to do that, so in my opinion, that IS more fundraising by the host club. Anyone who's run a combined Worlds has certainly earned those funds, and then some.

However, my main point was pretty much confirmed by you. PDGA did not just "decide" to increase the purse. I assumed the extra $$$ came from sponsorship, you correctly pointed out that the $$$ came from more entry fees. Still, it's the home club that typically determines what the purse is, not the PDGA, although the club has to at least meet PDGA minimum standards.

chappyfade
Nov 09 2011, 12:35 AM
Hey Chappy, here's a hint for you! Don't question anything I post. :)

TeePeek, if the disc came to rest before the car hit it, then it would be OB and played with 1m "releaf" from where it was last in-bounds.

Come on Mikey, if your posts weren't so "questionable", I wouldn't have to question your posts! :D

All in good fun, sir.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 12:56 AM
The PDGA added various amounts of cash as needed to help hosts make it to 125% payout in each Worlds since 2007. That's been the minimum payout goal each year but it may not have been a requirement in the agreement.

underparmike
Nov 09 2011, 08:53 AM
Chuck, TeePeek said in his question that the disc was "at rest." That means that the group must have seen it come to rest. If the group determines the disc is at rest and it's OB, then a subsequent car knocking it back in bounds means nothing.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 09:25 AM
Doesn't matter in a similar way the group might see a player's disc above 2m from the tee. It's not officially declared above 2m until the player gets there to confirm and mark it. Same with missing a mando unless there's an official making the missded mando call.

A disc being "at rest" as seen from where a player just made the throw only has a reference in the Interference rule if it's "at rest" on/in the basket or on a playing surface (which cannot be in an OB area by definition). The OB rule does use the term "at rest" but the implication is that it's when the player and group have gotten to its location to confirm IB/OB UNLESS, as I stated earlier, there's an official specifically there to make the OB call because the rules on that hole require a rethrow if a player goes OB such as at the USDGC. Even then, officials have sometimes made a mistake on the OB call so a player would be smart to call their retee a provisional until they get to their disc just in case.

chappyfade
Nov 09 2011, 11:04 AM
The PDGA added various amounts of cash as needed to help hosts make it to 125% payout in each Worlds since 2007. That's been the minimum payout goal each year but it may not have been a requirement in the agreement.

I can only speak for the 2009 Worlds, but this was never discussed between KCFDC and PDGA. It may have very well been the case in 2007 in your Worlds at Highbridge, and for Larry in 2008, and every Worlds after 2009, but it was not the case in 2009. The PDGA added a flat amount in our case, with no purse guarantees.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 11:38 AM
But you did pay out 125% in 2009. I'm pretty sure Gentry was involved in the payout calculations as he has been for Pro Worlds except for the past two years where BG continued the recent 125% tradition.

chappyfade
Nov 09 2011, 01:21 PM
But you did pay out 125% in 2009. I'm pretty sure Gentry was involved in the payout calculations as he has been for Pro Worlds except for the past two years where BG continued the recent 125% tradition.

Yes, but I was the person that set the overall payout number for the purse, not Gentry.

I guess my point is that while we definitely paid 125%, the PDGA did not guarantee 125% if we came up short, and the number that we paid was not up to PDGA, other than we had to hit a minimum standard...although I don't remember there being any real teeth in the contract if we had fallen short. It's simply good business to at least meet agreed-to standards. Now had we fallen short of that number, it's not clear what PDGA would have done; that's the road not traveled (apologies to Robert Frost). There was certainly nothing written anywhere that the PDGA would have picked up the check for the difference if we fell short of 125%, nor was there any implicit understanding that there was a guarantee.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 02:20 PM
Gentry had no reason to raise the issue since you came forth with what turned out to be 125%. Not sure if you had come in with 120% whether the PDGA would have chipped in or not but they had been monitoring that number for a while as part of recent Worlds tradition whether you knew it or not.

underparmike
Nov 09 2011, 03:05 PM
Chuck you are dead wrong, and are doing a great disservice to the 12 people that still read this forum by not admitting your error. Read the rule as it is written:

803.09 Out-of-bounds
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and
completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area.


Where does it say if someone or something kicks it back IB once the group had decided the disc was at rest that it isn't a penalty? It doesn't. Don't give us that BS about waiting until the group gets in the immediate area.

Chuck if you attempted to break this rule by your nonsensical argument at an event where I was the TD, I would DQ you for cheating, and report you to pDGA HQ.

underparmike
Nov 09 2011, 03:25 PM
I mean think about what you are advocating Chuck. Let's say it's the finals of Worlds and someone shanks one OB. Under your completely erroneous interpretation of the OB rule, any spectator could grab the disc after it comes to rest (but before the group arrives at the disc) and move it back IB to help that player! Is that the spirit of the game Chuck? No. In fact, said spectator under your erroneous interpretation Chuck could just take the OB disc and proceed all the way down the fairway and drop the disc into the basket, and that would be legal according to you Chuck!

Chuck, the rules are not like your ratings, you can not just make them up on the fly.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 03:32 PM
I absolutely agree with 803.09 BUT the player is not required to make that call until the player and the group get to the disc to make the call (with the exception of the official I noted before). Until the group gets there, the disc is live and can move just like a disc suspended above ground. If the RC had wanted the disc in OB to not be moved, it would have specifically included it in the Interference rule 803.07 like it did for disc at rest on a basket and on the playing surface, but it did not do so. The only exception is in rule 803.03F when OB is water. If the disc gets moved by the action of the wind or water, it's position is replaced to where it first landed. However, if a sea otter grabs a floating disc and drags it to the shore and deposits it there, the disc would be inbounds.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 03:36 PM
underparmike - Under your completely erroneous interpretation of the OB rule, any spectator could grab the disc after it comes to rest (but before the group arrives at the disc) and move it back IB to help that player! Is that the spirit of the game Chuck?
No they can't. The difference is whether moving a disc at rest is done intentionally or not. It's very clear in the Interference rule that a disc intentionally moved is marked at the point the intentional interference occurs - in your example, that would have been OB. Unintentional movement can occur before a player gets there to mark it unless the disc is on the playing surface or on the basket per 803.07B. By definition, above/below the playing surface, anywhere OB and the area on the missed side of a mando are not playing surfaces because a player is not allowed to take a stance there. The disc is live in those areas until the player/group gets there to mark the lie.

underparmike
Nov 09 2011, 04:49 PM
Chuck, you are really making a fool of yourself now. The OB rule says absolutely nothing about the players or group getting to the disc like the 2m rule does. Your claim that the disc is live is 100% false. If the RC intended the status of an OB disc to be determined just like the 2m rule, the RC would have put that into the OB rule, just as they did for the 2m rule. Either the RC is a careless bunch of fools like you in this case, or they wrote the rules as they intended them to be used.

pterodactyl
Nov 09 2011, 05:01 PM
It doesn't matter if a mermaid deposits the floating disc in bounds...it's still OB. Once a disc begins to float, it's OB. The rules are very clear on this and other situations.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 05:08 PM
The OB rule doesn't say when it must be called just what the rule is when the player gets to where the disc is located and can see the result of the shot to make the call. There's no requirement that an OB call be made from the tee. In fact, the OB rule 803.08D provides for any uncertainty that the call be made when the player and a group member get to the disc. In the case where a disc is thrown and it's flying or rolling thru OB and it inadvertently gets struck by a moving vehicle back inbounds, the Interference rule indicates the disc is played where it lands which would be IB. Same as this discussion if it gets struck back IB while at rest. All the OB rule states is that the disc be at rest in the OB area at the time OB is declared. The player gets to determine when that call is made by getting to their disc along with confirmation of a group member unless that option is removed by the TD who has an official making the call.

cgkdisc
Nov 09 2011, 05:12 PM
pterodactyl - It doesn't matter if a mermaid deposits the floating disc in bounds...it's still OB. Once a disc begins to float, it's OB.
Nope. Read it closely. All that rule says is the disc can't be moved from that position by wind or the action of the water. The wash from a passing motor boat can't move its position but a frollicking dog (not owned by the thrower) could pick it up and bring it back inbounds before the player and group get there.

underparmike
Nov 09 2011, 05:57 PM
The OB rule does say when it must be called Chuck, when the disc is at rest. It's cut and dry. If the group sees the disc come to rest, and it is OB, anything that happens after that is of no concern.

If the group can not see that the disc is at rest or not at rest, only then would Chuck's argument hold.

pterodactyl
Nov 09 2011, 06:17 PM
I think I need to tie both of my shoes...twice... because here comes a car/boat.

cgkdisc
Nov 10 2011, 11:07 AM
We have no disagreement about what constitutes OB, just WHEN it must be called.

Players have the right to get to where their disc landed in most cases before any ruling needs to be made. There are only a few rulings per the rulebook related to the next lie of a disc that MUST be made by the group from the tee, presuming the full flight of the disc can be seen, and those are pretty limited. Examples would be whether a shot passed the good side of a mando, watching a disc wedge in the basket and stance violations. There are optional calls the player may choose to call from the tee such as a provisional, an optional rethrow or retee due to OB but these options are in control of the player UNLESS there's a deputized spotter making the OB call because retee is required on that hole if you go OB.

For all other calls relating to the player's next lie, the player and group progress to where their discs land to see what rules are involved for marking their lies. A disc might be lost and the player goes back to retee (if they didn't choose a provisional for that contingency), they might get solid object relief, they might have gotten lucky and the disc fell down from the time they threw to when they got there, they might get casual relief, they might get to move an IB disc up to 1m from OB, they might call an optional rethrow, they might need to measure if their disc is above 2m if that penalty is in effect, they decide whether to mark with a mini or use their thrown disc as the marker OR they might see or confirm AT THAT MOMENT AND NOT BEFORE what they may have seen from the tee that their disc ended up OB.

None of these calls have to be made from the tee and many can't be made until players get to their disc. Just because you can see some of these situations from the tee does not require the player to make the call or decide what to do from the tee. Players get the courtesy to progress to their discs to make the call or confirm what they suspected. Until then, the location of their discs is "live" unless locked down by the rule which says discs on the playing surface or on the basket can be declared "at rest" from a distance if they can be seen. A disc in OB is not on a playing surface so its position is "live" until the call is made.

underparmike
Nov 10 2011, 01:03 PM
Chuck, you are making that up, and no matter how many times you attempt to rewrite the rules in this thread, you will be wrong. I am truly embarrassed that you have no respect for the OB rule which is plain and simple and clear. Your pathetic attempt to circumvent the spirit of the OB rule is a disgrace to the sport and to all your past accomplishments.

cgkdisc
Nov 10 2011, 01:11 PM
Sorry UPM, you're just wrong on this one. The player is in control of when most calls pertaining to their throw are made. It's fundamental to the game. Benefit of the doubt to player. Simple as that. You may have some points regarding lack of clarity in some rules but not here.

JimKelly
Nov 10 2011, 02:08 PM
The only exception is in rule 803.03F when OB is water. If the disc gets moved by the action of the wind or water, it's position is replaced to where it first landed. However, if a sea otter grabs a floating disc and drags it to the shore and deposits it there, the disc would be inbounds.

If the sea otter grabs a "floating" disc wouldn't that be considered OB 803.03 F.

803.03 F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

underparmike
Nov 10 2011, 02:15 PM
Chuck I am stunned that you believe the player can overrule the group. You are clearly forgetting rule 801.01A:

Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.

You are making an incredible and unbelievable assertion that it can take the length of time needed to walk down a fairway for a disc to come to rest. If you are claiming that the group in no circumstance at all can make the ruling that a disc has come to rest until they arrive at the disc, you need to be replaced as the unofficial rules expert you portray. You are opening the rulebook to wild and erroneous interpretations and I insist that you consult the Rules Committee immediately so that you can be corrected.

cgkdisc
Nov 10 2011, 03:41 PM
Having written the posted Rules School stories on the Interference and OB rules for the Rules Committee I'm pretty certain of the interpretations here. But I'll be glad to seek confirmation from the RC. I'm not disagreeing that the group should observe compliance with the rules. But they confirm or correct what the player calls when it's the player's turn to make the call except for the limited instances I mentioned in the previous post where the call is made immediately from the tee such as passing the mando on the good side.

There are three time segments to consider in this situation:
1. The time from when the player throws until it's potentially their turn again if other players in the group still need to tee off. If the vehicle hits the disc at rest in OB during this time period and kicks it in, there's no question the disc is now inbounds by the time it potentially becomes the player's turn because no call regarding the player's lie has to be made at minimum until it's their turn. Again, the exception would be if there's an official spotter making the call so the player has to rethrow like USDGC.
2. The time from when the players leave the tee until the player(s) who are out make their throw(s). Again if the player who potentially threw OB is not the next to play, the player and group do not yet make the call on the player's lie and a car could kick the disc back inbounds during this time period.
3. It's now the player's turn and the player plus at least one group member proceeds to where the disc is located. I would say that the official call of OB is not made until the player marks their lie. Just like with the 2m rule, the player can't unduly delay marking thier lie. If the car comes along and kicks the disc inbounds before the mark is made, I believe the player gets the IB call.

I'd be surprised if the RC didn't agree with at least the first 2 time periods and they should agree with the third one. The loophole which I have no reason to believe wasn't intentional is that the Interference rule 803.07B doesn't cover discs at rest in an OB area, just those that are on a playing surface or on the basket. There's no question that this issue is first a case of consulting the Interference rule before considering the OB rule since we have a car striking the disc before it's that player's turn again.

I'm not saying your and other posters point of view isn't maybe how it should be. I'm just posting what I believe the combination of rules currently indicates.

underparmike
Nov 10 2011, 04:46 PM
I can not believe that you are claiming that somehow the rulebook says that once a disc is OB it is not on the playing surface. What do you call this surface then Chuck?

Sure, you can't take a stance on the OB surface, but indisputably the RC never meant for players to be able to say that once a disc goes OB it is impossible to determine if it is at rest because of the definition of "playing surface."

The interference rule applies to discs in OB areas just as it does to those that are IB. Your claim that it does not apply to OB discs is ludicrous!

Again Chuck, think of the disservice you are doing to the sport by forgetting Rule 803.01.F:

F . Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in
accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the
principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.

Come on Chuck, use that big brain of yours and don't open the door for players to uselessly question logical rules. Get the RC to tighten up the rulebook in the future, but don't set a precedent by claiming that the rules do not apply to OB surfaces.

cgkdisc
Nov 10 2011, 06:27 PM
The "playing surface" has a precise definition as does "on the target" which are specifically used in the Interference rule 803.07B. Any disc location that does not meet one of those two definitions is excluded from the "at rest" clause of 803.07B in the case of Interference. A disc at rest sitting OB, across the bad side of the mando line or above or below the playing surface is not "officially at rest" according to the RC in the case where a player has not yet marked for their next throw. So even if everyone in the group or official says a player's disc is OB just after they throw a shot, it's only OB if it's still there when the player goes to mark their lie on the off chance it gets knocked back inbounds.

You try to use the fairness rule here but the RC has already clarified fairness for us. Why is it more fair for a disc to fall down out of a tree inbounds before a player gets there to mark it when the 2m rule is in effect than it is for a fluke situation where a car knocks an OB disc back inbounds? Note that the Interference rule 803.07B directly deals with fairness because it prevents "good lies" on the playing surface and target from getting moved before you get there and allows potentially bad or precarious lies above or below ground, OB or on the bad side of a mando to "get lucky" and end up inbounds before the players get there. How much more fair can that be for dealing with fluky stuff? I think the RC may have been sharper on the rules here than even they might realize.

jobwilson
Nov 10 2011, 08:16 PM
I have a question: a couple weeks ago I played a round. I threw a disc that I was certain would be OB or at least on the right side of the fairway. The disc landed in a blind spot and I have no idea what happened. When I went to look for the disc, I couldn't find it. Turns out it was on the opposite side of the fairway. To get to that location, it would have had to hit the ground and roll about 150' around a hillside.

My belief is that someone on a moped picked it up and tossed it around to the other side, but I have no proof. What would be the ruling in that case?

cgkdisc
Nov 10 2011, 08:24 PM
Pretty much have to play it where it lies unless you have enough proof that it was tampered with.

ishkatbible
Nov 11 2011, 10:18 AM
I have a question: a couple weeks ago I played a round. I threw a disc that I was certain would be OB or at least on the right side of the fairway. The disc landed in a blind spot and I have no idea what happened. When I went to look for the disc, I couldn't find it. Turns out it was on the opposite side of the fairway. To get to that location, it would have had to hit the ground and roll about 150' around a hillside.

My belief is that someone on a moped picked it up and tossed it around to the other side, but I have no proof. What would be the ruling in that case?

rollers happen... had the same thing happen last night in a casual round of night golf. disc turned over and went into a creek, so we thought... no one was around to move the disc but yeah it was at least 100' on the other side of the fairway. we couldn't see it since it rolled around a hill.

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 10:37 AM
Chuck, you didn't answer my question, which was what is the name of this mythical OB area? You're trying to divert attention from the fact that you don't want to give the correct answer in which you have to admit you are wrong, like a bad politician.

The "playing surface" has a precise definition as does "on the target" which are specifically used in the Interference rule 803.07B. Any disc location that does not meet one of those two definitions is excluded from the "at rest" clause of 803.07B in the case of Interference.

Where oh where in the rulebook Chuck would a player go to learn of this exclusion Chuck? Remember, your secret late-night meetings with the RC are not transcribed into the rulebook. Show us where it says in the rule book that there are these exceptions. If you can not, you are claiming something that is not written in the rules, and therefore does not apply.

A disc at rest sitting OB, across the bad side of the mando line or above or below the playing surface is not "officially at rest" according to the RC in the case where a player has not yet marked for their next throw. So even if everyone in the group or official says a player's disc is OB just after they throw a shot, it's only OB if it's still there when the player goes to mark their lie on the off chance it gets knocked back inbounds.


That statement is patently false. If the RC meant that, they would have clearly explained that in Rule 803.09.A. Instead of asking players to follow the rule exactly as it is written, you are requiring players to know of some secret RC meeting where the "intent" of the rules was discussed over cocktails that were billed to the membership. I repeat Chuck, you are defiling the rules and the pDGA and all of disc golf if you are telling us that the pDGA's Rules Of Play can not be taken at face value.

You try to use the fairness rule here but the RC has already clarified fairness for us. Why is it more fair for a disc to fall down out of a tree inbounds before a player gets there to mark it when the 2m rule is in effect than it is for a fluke situation where a car knocks an OB disc back inbounds?

Because that is how the rules are written. That is how any logical TD who reads the rules will conclude. Remember most TDs are not privy to membership-funded wine-drinking contests with the RC where they passionately grope about for the "intent" of the rules.

Further Chuck, when I brought up 801.03.F, the "Rule of Fairness" I even put in bold type the part of that rule which I wanted you to remember: Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness. That is the principle that allows any reasonable and logical player to conclude that "If a disc at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official." (from Rule 803.07.B)

A logical extension of the rule, that a disc that is moved when at rest on the playing surface that is IB shall be returned to its original position, would be that a disc that is on the playing surface that is OB shall also be returned.

But let's just run with your crazy definition of the timeline Chuck---say a player throws a disc that comes to rest IB. You claim it is impossible from the tee to determine if the disc came to rest. So if this IB disc is then moved by a passing out-of-control vehicle that strays onto the fairway and kicks it into a thorn-covered ravine before the group leaves the tee, the player will have to assume that the disc landed in the ravine, and play from there. Why? Because according to Chuck the group is not qualified to make judgments of discs in the fairway from the tee, so they obviously can not make a judgment that a car veered onto the fairway and knocked the at-rest IB disc into the ravine.

That's what you are trying to force us to swallow Chuck.

Note that the Interference rule 803.07B directly deals with fairness because it prevents "good lies" on the playing surface and target from getting moved before you get there and allows potentially bad or precarious lies above or below ground, OB or on the bad side of a mando to "get lucky" and end up inbounds before the players get there. How much more fair can that be for dealing with fluky stuff? I think the RC may have been sharper on the rules here than even they might realize.

Only when you use your imagination to the extent that you believe that the group is not qualified to judge from the tee if a disc has come to rest.

cgkdisc
Nov 11 2011, 11:03 AM
Sorry Mike. I never said the group couldn't judge whether a disc had come to rest from the tee. The group can say a disc has come to rest OB, IB on playing surface or basket and above/below the playing surface any time they want. However, an "at rest" call is not locked down "officially" until the group gets to the player's disc in the case the disc gets interfered with and is above/below the playing surface or OB or across the bad side of the mando line. This is explicitly covered in 803.07B since none of these locations is on the playing surface or the basket by actual definition in section 800.

So call a player's disc OB all you want from the tee if you can see it. However, the interference rule 803.07B specifically excludes discs OB and above/below the playing surface from being pinned down officially as "at rest" until it's time for the player to mark their shot unless the player wishes to agree earlier that their shot is OB and retee or an official requirees them to do so because that's the rule on the hole.

There's no late night behind the scenes RC conferences involved here. Just taking what's exactly written in the rules to make the call. You have just read the rules incorrectly.

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 11:28 AM
I have not read anything incorrectly. There is nothing in the rulebook that says "locked down" or "officially". The rule says clearly and simply and in the most noble way, "A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area."

Where does it say "locked down when the players arrive at the disc"? It doesn't. You continue to confuse the 2M rule with the OB rule. There is absolutely no body of evidence anywhere that links the two rules. I also asked you to get the RC's take on this yet you suspiciously (despite all your inside connections to the RC) have refused to produce their "official" interpretation of the meaning of this scenario.

For the third time Chuck, I am asking you for a direct answer to the question, "What is the name of the surface/area where discs come to rest OB, if it is not, as you claim, the playing surface?"

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 11:32 AM
Also answer this question Chuck: If a spotter was on this hole, and the spotter was certain that the disc was at rest in the OB area before the vehicle kicked it back in, what is the ruling?

cgkdisc
Nov 11 2011, 12:01 PM
Strictly depends on whether the spotter was deputized to make the call like at the USDGC where the throw & distance penalty was involved and a player had to rethrow from the previous lie/tee. But let's say it was normal OB rules where the player could play from the last point IB if they wanted to. The player tees off and the shot hooks into the street. The player and group can't see it but there's spotter who waves to the group that the shot went OB. The spotter does not retrieve the disc from the street so the player can see it as he walks towards his next lie.

But before the group gets there, a car comes along and knocks the disc back inbounds. As I read the 803.07B interference rule, the disc may have been called OB initially by the spotter but it's not locked down in the event its location gets accidentally interfered with just like a tee shot that's initially suspended in a tree at rest but later drops to the ground before the player gets there.

You asked why the RC wrote a rule about the disc dropping out of a tree scenario in the 2m rule section and not about an OB disc location changing in the OB rule. Just consider the likelihood of each. Discs are way more likely to drop out of a tree randomly (and eliminate a potential 2m penalty) than an OB disc is to move for some reason, and even then, accidentally get bumped to an IB position. Most of us have seen cars drive near or over discs in streets but rarely do the discs move much. The RC did write about an OB disc not being able to move in water once initially at rest but only due the action of wind or water, not some other interfering agent. The RC didn't cover OB movement in the OB rule but indirectly by excluding it in the 803.07B Interference rule.

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 12:07 PM
http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: I'll answer the question. You want answers?




http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike: I think I am entitled to them!




http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck [raising voice]: You want answers???




http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike [yelling]: I WANT THE TRUTH!



http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[pauses]

Son, I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that playing surface, you need me on that playing surface. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom to invent rules that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Either way, I don't give a **** what you think you are entitled to.


http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike: At the RC meeting, did you order the bottle of Chateau Red?



http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: I did the job I...



http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike: DID YOU ORDER THE CHATEAU RED???



http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: You're **** right I did! And it was good, it had a musty flavor. And after we drank it, the RC gave me something, something they have enjoyed together for years...the secret knowledge of the rules that mere mortals like you will never understand. That we can not explain it without appearing to be wrong is of no consequence!

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 12:20 PM
But before the group gets there, a car comes along and knocks the disc back inbounds. As I read the 803.07B interference rule, the disc may have been called OB initially by the spotter but it's not locked down in the event its location gets accidentally interfered with just like a tee shot that's initially suspended in a tree at rest but later drops to the ground before the player gets there.




It is "locked down" Chuck. Rule 803.07.B states: "If a disc at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official."

If it is moved, intentionally or not, the disc shall be replaced its original location, which was OB. If the street is not the "playing surface" as you claim, then where is the rule that tells me where to mark a disc not on the playing surface?

I grow tired of asking but for the 4th time I will: "What is the name of the surface/area where discs come to rest OB, if it is not, as you claim, the playing surface?"

cgkdisc
Nov 11 2011, 01:25 PM
I believe these are the defined locations a disc can end up in disc golf: Playing surface, on/in the target, inbounds above or below the playing surface. And what's leftover could be called penalty positions as a generic term for the locations not defined. These include OB, past wrong side of mando, above 2m or lost. So to answer your question directly, a disc at rest on an OB street is in a (potential) penalty position since it's not a playing surface, on/in the target or inbounds above/below a playing surface. The Interference rule 803.07B provides that discs at rest inbounds above/below a playingsurface or in a penalty position to accidentally be interfered with and change their position before a player marks their lie.

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 03:14 PM
So let's review. You are basing your incorrect opinion on the definition of something that is not in the rules anywhere at all. Your opinion is based on a term known only in your wild imagination as a "penalty position," a term that is not defined in the rules nor any rules Q & A.

Your continued insistence on making up rules and definitions Chuck is very disturbing. Again, I repeat, that if you or any player at an event where I am the TD attempts to circumvent the rules by making up rules or definitions, I will immediately DQ them for cheating and I will report them to the pDGA.

This is a very dark day for the pDGA, to have Chuck out here telling the world that it is okay to make up definitions and rules. If the pDGA follows down Chuck's path, soon it will become impossible for any rules to be enforced.

I am appalled.

cgkdisc
Nov 11 2011, 03:34 PM
Not making up definitions. The penalty position locations are all individually defined in the rulebook: OB, Above 2m, Past bad side of mando and Lost. These are not undefined locations. I'm just suggesting they all could be gathered under an umbrella term called Penalty Positions for ease of discussion. It's clear that none of these four penalty positions is a legal playing surface, inbounds above/below a playing surface or in/on the target, correct?

Let's try this example for your ruling. A player tees off and yanks his drive so it appears to be stuck at rest in a tree located OB about 10 feet up. A spotter yells to the group where it is and the remaining two players in the group tee off. The group is walking down the fairway and the disc falls out of the tree and rolls back inbounds when the group is still 80 feet away from getting to the disc. What's your call? Is the disc now inbounds? Would it make any difference if the 2m penalty was in effect? Why shouldn't your call be the same as when a car kicks a disc OB in the street back inbounds?

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 04:33 PM
Chuck, it's good that you are now asking questions so that we can help you learn the rules. Now that we have agreed that a disc can come to rest on the playing surface and be OB, I will answer your other rules questions.

Not making up definitions. The penalty position locations are all individually defined in the rulebook: OB, Above 2m, Past bad side of mando and Lost. These are not undefined locations. I'm just suggesting they all could be gathered under an umbrella term called Penalty Positions for ease of discussion. It's clear that none of these four penalty positions is a legal playing surface, inbounds above/below a playing surface or in/on the target, correct?

That is clear. That is correct. You've finally used the proper term: legal playing surface.


Let's try this example for your ruling. A player tees off and yanks his drive so it appears to be stuck at rest in a tree located OB about 10 feet up. A spotter yells to the group where it is and the remaining two players in the group tee off. The group is walking down the fairway and the disc falls out of the tree and rolls back inbounds when the group is still 80 feet away from getting to the disc. What's your call? Is the disc now inbounds? Would it make any difference if the 2m penalty was in effect?


Great scenario Chuck. Since the disc is first at rest above the playing surface, Rule 803.08 will apply. Since trees are defined in this rule as an object capable of holding a disc above the playing surface and also capable of losing this hold before the player arrives at the disc (to the thrower's advantage), the disc will be marked where it came to rest inbounds.

It makes no difference whether the 2M penalty is in effect; although 803.08C-E pertain "only if" the 2M rule is in effect, we have no option but to learn from these three rules that the disc above the playing surface rule takes precedence over the the OB rules, section 803.09. I believe this is the only logical way one can make this ruling, as at first glance in this scenario, either rule might be applied first. But since the rules say that discs can come to rest in trees and then fall out of the trees, and there is a specific rule for trees and other objects above the playing surface, we must conclude that the RC intended for 803.08 to take precedence over 803.09.


Why shouldn't your call be the same as when a car kicks a disc OB in the street back inbounds?


The call is not the same, because the disc in the street is on the playing surface, not above it.

If the disc was in this OB tree above the playing surface (whether 1M above or 2M or 20M or any height) and a car struck the tree and it then fell inbounds before the player got there, then the player could play it from the inbounds spot where it finally came to rest.

cgkdisc
Nov 11 2011, 04:50 PM
Then the disagreement here is whether an OB street constitutes a playing surface or not to be considered at rest in the Interference rule 803.07B. So it looks like if we get this clarified by the RC that it is not a playing surface, then my logic makes sense. If indeed the RC considers an OB street a playing surface, then you would be correct. That appears to be the fundamental issue here. Fair enough?

underparmike
Nov 11 2011, 05:57 PM
I think there is more than one fundamental issue. In fact, the RC might say that an OB street is not a playing surface, and that a disc can come to rest in an OB street that is not a playing surface. That wouldn't settle the disagreement you are having with reality.

I request you ask the original question from TeePeeKny with all its spelling errors, and the following question while you're at it:

"Can part of a playing surface be OB? (I say yes). If not, please explain, and indicate where in the rules this surface is defined."

DShelton
Nov 11 2011, 09:14 PM
I just sent an email to the RC stating the following

There is a discussion going on in the boards about a disc landing in OB that is hit by a car. Here is the situation:

A a player throws his disc and the group sees the disc come down and land on an OB road. Before another player throws a car drives by and hits the disc and it flies back into the IB area.

What is the ruling? Is the disc IB and played as IB or does it get replaced into the OB area and played as OB?

Hopefully that will settle this disagreement about the OB status change.

underparmike
Nov 12 2011, 07:04 AM
Actually Mr. Shelton, I already posed the question to the RC and here's the answer from Conrad Damon I received:

"Getting hit by a car does not change the disc's lie. It was at rest on the playing surface, OB.



-Conrad"

DShelton
Nov 12 2011, 10:56 AM
That's the same response I got. Sorry, Chuck. You're wrong on this one.


It is played as OB. The relevant rule is 803.07.B, which stipulates that a disc that was at rest that is moved is returned to its previous location. In this case, that location is OB. Getting hit by a car does not change the lie.

-Conrad

bruce_brakel
Nov 12 2011, 11:14 AM
Your continued insistence on making up rules and definitions Chuck is very disturbing. See this is the difference between us: you find this disturbing and appalling; I find it comfortably familiar. :D

cgkdisc
Nov 12 2011, 11:24 AM
If I am wrong then the Playing Surface definition and Interference rules are incorrect. I believe Conrad will be reconsidering his answer. We will see.

denny1210
Nov 12 2011, 11:58 AM
Actually Mr. Shelton, I already posed the question to the RC and here's the answer from Conrad Damon I received:

"Getting hit by a car does not change the disc's lie. It was at rest on the playing surface, OB.



-Conrad"

definitely worth the price of admission. my only regret is that i hadn't made any popcorn.

JoakimBL
Nov 12 2011, 02:41 PM
Definition of Playing Surface

Playing Surface: A surface, generally
the ground, which is capable of supporting
the player and from which a stance may
reasonably be taken. In cases where it is
unclear whether a surface is the playing
surface, the decision shall be made by the
tournament director or a course official

Can an illegal stance be reasonable? If not, Out of Bounds is not the playing surface

However, from 803.08:
If the point directly
below the disc above the playing surface is an
out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared
out-of-bounds and marked and penalized
in accordance with 803.09

So wheter or not OB is considered the playing surface is open to intepretation, but the interference rule is still poorly worded. While we can discus wheter or not a road surface is a playing surface, the disc can land OB, but clearly not "on the playing surface". If it's in a tree, and somebody throws it inbounds. On a car. In a house. On the roof of a house. On a park bench or table. In these situations, the rules are clear. The disc shall not be relocated.

So in order to keep the rules consistent, I'm actually in favor of Chucks interpretation, even though I don't think that makes much sense. Clearly the RC has to define playing surface more clearly AND rewrite the Interference rule so that it's consistent.

wsfaplau
Nov 13 2011, 03:15 AM
http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: I'll answer the question. You want answers?




http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike: I think I am entitled to them!




http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck [raising voice]: You want answers???




http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike [yelling]: I WANT THE TRUTH!



http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[pauses]

Son, I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that playing surface, you need me on that playing surface. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom to invent rules that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Either way, I don't give a **** what you think you are entitled to.


http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike: At the RC meeting, did you order the bottle of Chateau Red?



http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: I did the job I...



http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35523/cuts/a-few-good-men-quotes_288x288.jpg
Mike: DID YOU ORDER THE CHATEAU RED???



http://www.mikemccleary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jessup0422_E_20100423143143.jpg
Chuck: You're **** right I did! And it was good, it had a musty flavor. And after we drank it, the RC gave me something, something they have enjoyed together for years...the secret knowledge of the rules that mere mortals like you will never understand. That we can not explain it without appearing to be wrong is of no consequence!


UPM that was your best post ever.

go18under
Nov 13 2011, 09:45 AM
If the big money is available, the big sponsors will be knocking on our door and we'll just have to open it. No amount of money spent trying to raise money makes any sense without the eyeballs to sell the sponsors. You can hire the biggest hulks around but they can't push a rope much better than the 90-lb weakling.

If Rhyno thinks the pro tour and mega sponsorship is where the action is for the PDGA, I'm surprised he wouldn't focus the USDGA on that market segment for his new org if that's where the money is...

Chuck, were the big sponsors knocking on the NBA's door back in the 70's?? No. They had talented sales people selling their product......it didn't work very well, so they started selling and marketing certain individual players....Dr J, Magic, Bird. That changed the future and perception of a sport known for drug use, pimps, and uneducated minorities/hippies. Sound familiar?


Jackie Moon needs to run the PDGA:)

cgkdisc
Nov 13 2011, 10:20 AM
What's different is they actually had enough spectators at the events so those talented sales people had something to sell. It was simply a matter of discovering who those customers were (demographics) so the proper sponsors could be courted. The first goal if you're to spend money on sales people is to have a product of value they can sell. We've got the demographic info, just not enough spectators to matter.

PhattD
Nov 13 2011, 10:26 AM
Chuck, were the big sponsors knocking on the NBA's door back in the 70's?? No. They had talented sales people selling their product......it didn't work very well, so they started selling and marketing certain individual players....Dr J, Magic, Bird. That changed the future and perception of a sport known for drug use, pimps, and uneducated minorities/hippies. Sound familiar?


Jackie Moon needs to run the PDGA:)

Companies sponsor events in order to advertise. The value of the sponsorship is directly proportional to how many potential customers can be reached. The NBA back in the 70's still had a bigger market for one game than disc golf can pull for an entire year. Think about it. If Keen comes in and sponsors a tournament how much extra product are they really gonna sell than if they had just stayed out? 1 or 2 pairs of shoes? Maybe nothing they will never make their money back on the sponsorship. Right now people can go see disc golf for free, and they don't. Why would a Nike sponsorship and a bigger tournament all of a sudden make people want to pay money to watch. The big sports are fast paced and exciting to watch, disc golf is not. And if a non disc golfer wants to see a slow paced sport where carefully executed shots are what's important they will just watch regular golf. Disc golfers will generally play rather than watch the sport. If you are so sure that a big sponsor can make money with disc golf, contact one and sell the idea to them. These companies are trying to make a profit if your plan has any merit whatsoever they will listen. The truth of the matter is that disc golf is a players sport. There is currently no money in disc golf other than what the players bring to the table. Much like soft ball, I think it will always be a players sport.

johnbiscoe
Nov 13 2011, 10:37 AM
correct!!!! dg=softball- it can reach the point where almost everyone recognizes it and millions play it but it is never going to make good tv. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that .

denny1210
Nov 13 2011, 12:40 PM
Chuck, were the big sponsors knocking on the NBA's door back in the 70's?? No. They had talented sales people selling their product......it didn't work very well, so they started selling and marketing certain individual players....Dr J, Magic, Bird. That changed the future and perception of a sport known for drug use, pimps, and uneducated minorities/hippies. Sound familiar?

"I sure could go for a good steak!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEEtqb4R3w

go18under
Nov 14 2011, 10:50 AM
What's different is they actually had enough spectators at the events so those talented sales people had something to sell. It was simply a matter of discovering who those customers were (demographics) so the proper sponsors could be courted. The first goal if you're to spend money on sales people is to have a product of value they can sell. We've got the demographic info, just not enough spectators to matter.

I agree that basketball was an easier sport to watch and sell. Having said that, good sales people create value, as well as pain. Change doesn't happen unless something hurts or is uncomfortable......that's the key to sales. I'm not sure the PDGA is feeling, or creating enough pain to make that change.....the PDGA will become the ABA, if they keep on the current path.

Investing money into local Parks departments might be a better fit for PDGA sanctioned tournaments, Amateurs only!! They are properly staffed and excel at managing leagues/clinics/tournaments for people of all ages, and especially children. Parents look to Parks Departments for kid activities year round. If kids are collecting the new Avery Jenkins Topps cards now, and they have an avenue with the local parks department to follow that dream of being like him, things will be different in 10 years.

Let the local clubs run the Pro/Semi-Pro events.....that will create enough pain for Pros to work harder to find sponsor money, and focus more on image and marketing themselves. If all the profits from Amateur tournaments are going to funding youth leagues/tournaments/clinics year round in every city, including trophies/team shirts/new courses/management services, things will start to change, and sponsors will want to be involved....first locally, then nationally.

Bottom line, we need more kids actively involved. The Collegiate Disc Golf Championship should be the PDGA's flagship product right now....imo

Patrick P
Nov 14 2011, 01:05 PM
Players are assigned to cards & holes prior to the first round. Between the two minute warning and start, a player decides to switch himself to another card with another player prior to start. What is the ruling?

cgkdisc
Nov 14 2011, 01:20 PM
While sometimes reconfiguring groups may be necessary in the event one or more players don't show up to a hole, players may not regroup themselves simply based on their preference. This could fall under both Player Misconduct in the Competition Manual and failure to play the stipulated course in the rules. As TD, I would consider assigning a 2-throw penalty to each player for misplay of the course with each player starting on the wrong tee (801.04E).

Patrick P
Nov 14 2011, 01:29 PM
...

jobwilson
Nov 14 2011, 01:36 PM
In theory, could each player be given a 4+Par penalty for not being at their assigned hole and then a +2 at the end for not playing the stipulated course?

denny1210
Nov 14 2011, 01:45 PM
While sometimes reconfiguring groups may be necessary in the event one or more players don't show up to a hole, players may not regroup themselves simply based on their preference. This could fall under both Player Misconduct in the Competition Manual and failure to play the stipulated course in the rules. As TD, I would consider assigning a 2-throw penalty to each player for misplay of the course with each player starting on the wrong tee (801.04E).

2-throw penalty seems reasonable. I wouldn't blame a TD, however, for making it a DQ.

jconnell
Nov 14 2011, 02:05 PM
In theory, could each player be given a 4+Par penalty for not being at their assigned hole and then a +2 at the end for not playing the stipulated course?
I don't think you can do both in this case. The reason being that par+4 is reserved for players who arrive late, and the point at which they stop getting par+4 and start recording scores is when they join their assigned group. If the player is in another group, he can't technically join his assigned group at any point. By that view, he didn't play any course, let alone the stipulated course, so tacking on the two-throw penalty at the end wouldn't fit.

I agree with the assessment that a two-throw penalty is in order at the very least. However, 801.04 F states:
A player who deliberately misplays the course to gain competitive advantage has violated section 3.3 of the Competition Manual [Player Misconduct] and shall be penalized in accordance with this section.

Patrick reports that the player initiating the change did so because he did not want to start on a "tough" hole. That to me sounds like he was trying to gain competitive advantage with the unauthorized change of tee assignment, and therefore is subject to disqualification.

Patrick P
Nov 14 2011, 03:50 PM
It didn't actually happen, just curious to know what the ruling is?

cgkdisc
Nov 14 2011, 04:38 PM
Not sure why the other player agreed to switch in those circumstances? Considering a few of us who have posted think a 2-shot penalty is about right for doing this, I wonder how many players might want to switch cards at certain times if they knew it only cost them 2 shots?

jobwilson
Nov 14 2011, 04:51 PM
I think if he knowingly did it to gain an unfair advantage, then DQ is in order.

Patrick P
Nov 14 2011, 05:07 PM
I would say at the minimum the player should have been assessed a 2-stroke penalty at the end of the first round.

pterodactyl
Nov 14 2011, 05:43 PM
And the guy went on to win the tourney and the new Arroyo basket? Sounds like that needs to be reported to the PDGA. Eliminate the cheaters.

Patrick P
Nov 14 2011, 05:59 PM
I think if this happened they should bring it up at the end of the round.

cgkdisc
Nov 14 2011, 07:46 PM
I didn't mention it but I would have liked to issue a tournament warning to the other players on the two cards for allowing this switch. But at this point, the "Tournament Warning" has not yet been defined for the rulebook. A Tournament Warning could only be issued by the TD or marshal. It would essentially be a blanket courtesy warning such that any warnable transgression the player made later in the event would result in a penalty.

underparmike
Nov 14 2011, 08:37 PM
If I am wrong then the Playing Surface definition and Interference rules are incorrect. I believe Conrad will be reconsidering his answer. We will see.


You are wrong, and yet the Playing Surface definition and Interference rules are correct.

The RC could remove the words "and from which a stance may reasonably be taken" from the definition of playing surface. That would make the definition of playing surface as simply a surface capable of holding the weight of the player. Then no wonky nerds could possibly assume that an OB area is not the playing surface.

Would that work for you Chuck?

Conrad would be wise not to reconsider his answer. He made the correct ruling based on years and years of past decisions. It was an easy and intuitive call. However, being that Conrad is the leader of the team who inflicted upon the sport the dumbest rule ever ("if you see it go through the side it doesn't count but if you don't see it then it does") then he might be foolish enough to rewrite the rules to earn another late-night back rub from his disciple.

cgkdisc
Nov 14 2011, 08:58 PM
It's a bigger issue than simply declaring that there's such a thing as a playing surface in OB. The RC is caught in a tough place now that they've seen the implications from these examples. I'll await their reconsideration. If the disc in OB can accidentally be moved, as I believe it can, they do not need to change any rules or defintions. It's the correct ruling based on the rules as written. If they say the disc in the road is OB no matter any accidental interference, then they've overturned an existing rule and have to figure how to rectify that and not get crossed up with some other rule implications.

underparmike
Nov 14 2011, 09:20 PM
Allow me to chime in on the other sub-topic:


Scenario: In a PDGA sanctioned event, players are assigned to cards & holes prior to the first round. Between the two minute warning and start, a player decides to switch himself to another card with another player prior to start. Is this permittable?

While this is "permittable", each player will score par +4 on every hole, plus the number of total throws they make in their incorrect group. (Competition Manual Rule 1.5.A). The TD assigned the players to specific holes, and if a player does not throw at his assigned hole 30 seconds after it becomes his turn to throw, a score of par plus four is to be entered for that hole for that player. If the players never return to their properly assigned group, they will get par +4 recorded for every hole...and since they are making practice throws in a different part of the course during the entire round, they will get their recorded score in the wrong group added to their par +4 times 18 hole score.

In addition, the player who asked to move to the other card should be DQ'ed, for violation of Competition Manual Rule 3.3(5). The other player will not be DQ'ed, as he was not "willfully" attempting to circumvent the rules of play.

The other players in both groups get no penalty, not even a warning.

Finally, to answer the question "Should action be taken even after the event has ended?"

The answer is no. If the TD did not make the correct ruling by the time the awards were distributed, then there is nothing that can or should be done, according to Rule 804.03.G(1):

(1) Penalty throws may be assessed at whatever time the infraction is discovered until the director declares the tournament officially over or all awards have been distributed.

underparmike
Nov 14 2011, 09:28 PM
It's a bigger issue than simply declaring that there's such a thing as a playing surface in OB. The RC is caught in a tough place now that they've seen the implications from these examples. I'll await their reconsideration. If the disc in OB can accidentally be moved, as I believe it can, they do not need to change any rules or defintions. It's the correct ruling based on the rules as written. If they say the disc in the road is OB no matter any accidental interference, then they've overturned an existing rule and have to figure how to rectify that and not get crossed up with some other rule implications.


The RC has already ruled, and ruled properly. They are not in a tough place at all. Just because you discovered a situation that is not perfectly crystalline for your twisted logic, does not mean that all the rules are unenforceable.

Yes, in the next edition, have them clarify that a disc can be at rest in an OB area. Or have them eliminate the words "and from which a stance may reasonably be taken" from the definition of playing surface. I'm all for clarifying rules to the tightest degree possible.

cgkdisc
Nov 14 2011, 09:48 PM
The RC is only the first rung in the ladder. They're still looking it over despite your email from Conrad. The Competition Director is the next level up to review the ruling if necessary.

underparmike
Nov 14 2011, 10:26 PM
It's gonna take a lot of Chateau Red and back rubs for them to overturn 30+ years of disc golf precedence.

I suggest you catch the next flight to Augusta and try to work your late-night magic. :)

If the Competition Director is foolish enough to overrule Conrad on this one, we might as well do this to the rulebook:

http://www.ck12.org/about/images/stories/burning_book.jpg

cgkdisc
Nov 14 2011, 10:52 PM
Sorry, Mike but you admit that the rulebook needs to be changed to meet your ruling. Even Conrad admitted it in his email to me and recognized their problem with the playing surface definition conflict in their initial ruling. The correct ruling does not require any change in the current rules.

BTW, this rule has been all over the map in the history of the PDGA. Here's this rule section in the 1990 book: B. If a disc at rest or a marker disc is moved, the disc or marker will be replaced as close as possible to the original lie, as determined by a majority of the group or an official, with these exceptions: a disc that rests in an out-of-bounds area or is in a lie above ground shall be marked from its new location if it is moved by an outside agent, such as the wind or a competitively thrown disc.

underparmike
Nov 14 2011, 11:45 PM
I didn't admit that Chuck. Would you please tell me the name of the mind-altering substance you are taking that is producing your wild and vivid hallucinations? I would like to experiment with it in the future when I'm not explaining the rules or Td'ing.

Again, the playing surface can have areas that are OB. It is not a major flaw in the rulebook at all, and needs only a minor clarification, not a complete rewrite. It is so instinctive that the playing surface can have areas that are OB that it wasn't necessary to clarify this until you started taking hallucinogens.

cgkdisc
Nov 15 2011, 12:36 AM
The ground in OB cannot be a playing surface. A playing surface must be inbounds if a player can take a stance there. Otherwise, there's no reason a player couldn't have a plant foot in OB when they throw. And yet the stance rule does not allow that.

Patrick P
Nov 15 2011, 04:34 AM
This back and forth discussion about OB having a playing surface doesn't hold water at all. I don't know what rulebook your reading, but it clearly states:

Playing Surface: A surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance may reasonably be taken. In cases where it is unclear whether a surface is the playing surface, the decision shall be made by the tournament director or a course official.

You can not take a legal stance in OB, thus OB does not have a playing surface, period. Lay off the koolaid.

krupicka
Nov 15 2011, 08:51 AM
The point of the playing surface definition is not to exclude OB, but to try to give a reasonable definition which excludes things like large branches of trees which are capable of supporting the player..

cgkdisc
Nov 15 2011, 08:58 AM
However, using the word 'stance' in the definition of playing surface limits it to inbounds since 'stance' is defined only as an inbounds location. My point in this discussion is that the rules as currently written exclude OB as having a playing surface regardless whether that was intended or not. Change the wording in the next rules update and I would agree with UPM. But we're talking about what the rules say for now.

krupicka
Nov 15 2011, 10:31 AM
A stance can be made OB. It is still a stance. A legal stance can only be made IB. If a player throws with one foot OB they are called for a stance violation, not for a stance absence.

dscmn
Nov 15 2011, 10:37 AM
You've tied yourself up in this one Chuck, time to unravel. "Stance" is not defined in the rulebook. Check the definitions section of the rulebook, it's not there.

The word "stance" (in the definition of playing surface) is used to define a playing surface as Krupicka points out. The description has nothing whatsoever to do with out-of-bounds.

And, it never once mentions in the definition for playing surface that the stance has to be legal so it's fine as it is, not good or even mediocre by any stretch of the imagination of rule making, but fine. (Would replacing "stance" with another term like "throwing position" make it conform to your standards?)

If it's koolaid that we're drinking by believing that the playing surface is the same from one inch of ground to the other than I'd hate to know what's being consumed to believe that a playing surface doesn't exist from one inch of ground to another. What do you guys use to retrieve your disc from OB, a spaceship? Let's not forget about common sense.

JoakimBL
Nov 15 2011, 10:46 AM
So you guys think a illegal stance is a reasonable stance?

cgkdisc
Nov 15 2011, 10:46 AM
You've tied yourself up in this one Chuck, time to unravel. "Stance" is not defined in the rulebook. Check the definitions section of the rulebook, it's not there.

All definitions are not in the Definitions.
803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. 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 (except as specified in 803.04 E); 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.

dscmn
Nov 15 2011, 10:59 AM
So you guys think a illegal stance is a reasonable stance?

a "reasonable stance" was obviously referring to the physical nature of the stance and not the legality of the stance. That extrapolation is yours.

"All definitions are not in the Definitions." For a reason. So people don't take them so literally at all times that their use elsewhere in the rulebook would create some to believe that the ground was no longer the playing surface and a spaceship would be required to retrieve an OB disc.

cgkdisc
Nov 15 2011, 11:14 AM
Think about why the rules use the term "playing surface" instead of just "surface" or "ground." The word "playing" helps clarify that it's a surface upon which play can be performed which we know must be inbounds. If a playing surface was simply any surface where a person is capable of walking or standing, what I just wrote would be a sufficient definition without saying anything about a taking a stance.

dscmn
Nov 15 2011, 11:19 AM
I have thought about it. It's because it sounds fancier and more official than ground. But since 100% of all disc golf courses are built on a playing surface more commonly referred to as ground it doesn't matter what they call it because we all know what it is--the ground. Play takes place out-of-bounds as well, I've witnessed it. Should players be penalized for playing from OB areas?

stevenpwest
Nov 15 2011, 12:24 PM
If there cannot be playing surface in OB, why these phrases?

"803.08 A If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area..."

"803.08 C. If a disc has come to rest above two meters...This penalty applies only if the disc is above in-bounds."

However, I don't think it is relevant whether the OB is a playing surface or not, a disc does not need to get to the playing surface (or, OB surface) to be considered OB.

"803.09 A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area."

I read that to mean it is OB when it comes to rest, whether it comes to rest on, under, or above the playing surface. Done.

If it is later moved, it is either covered by the next rule or not, but it doesn't matter. It was, and still is, OB.

"803.07 B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official."

cgkdisc
Nov 15 2011, 12:45 PM
If the staus of the disc can be pinned down by the group before a player gets to the disc, there would be no reason for the sections to discuss what to do about discs in specific locations if it's interfered with or drops from above ground. Once you go down that path with specific rulings, it implies that a disc's location status is not necessarily pinned down until you get to it unless exactly specified by rule. Which would make sense because players should have the right to actually see and confirm where their disc is located when they get to it and not before unless the player not the group makes that choice.

underparmike
Nov 15 2011, 12:56 PM
All definitions are not in the Definitions.
803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. 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 (except as specified in 803.04 E); 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.

Ah Chuck, you have contradicted your own twisted logic with that post.

You have repeatedly claimed that the RC intended for discs in OB to not be at rest until the player arrives at the disc based on your (false) assertion that the RC intended the OB rule to be interpreted just like the 2M rule; that is, you claim that by definition an OB area is not the playing surface.

You claim that the playing surface can only be in-bounds, yet if this was the case, then sentence (3) in the stance rule would not need to be written at all, because by your (false) definition, a stance can not be taken OB.

So why did the RC include sentence (3) in this rule?

cgkdisc
Nov 15 2011, 01:14 PM
It's a circular logic definition where each word is used in the other definition, i.e. chicken or the egg coming first. No necessarily ideal wording all around but the "not OB" had to get there in either one or the other definition to close the loop.

underparmike
Nov 15 2011, 01:27 PM
That makes zero sense. Please dig your hole deeper so that I can understand what the heck you just tried to say. You'd be wise to refer to actual rules and definitions in the rulebook in your next response if you don't intend to appear to be full of nonsense. Thanks

cgkdisc
Nov 15 2011, 01:36 PM
Stance is used to define Playing Surface and Playing Surface is used to define Stance. The characteristics imparted to stance then apply to playing surface and vice versa, i.e. if not being OB is a characteristic of stance then it becomes a characteristic of playing surface unless expressly stated otherwise. That's the missing link in the playing surface definition which you have agreed is missing along with Conrad. But it's not there yet.

underparmike
Nov 15 2011, 02:55 PM
Funny thing Chuck...since you pointed out that 803.04.A(3) says that a player's stance must be not only on the playing surface but also IB, I am no longer in agreement that the definition of playing surface needs to be revised. The rule is clear evidence that a disc or player can be on the playing surface and be OB.

Rule 803.04.A(3) is all one needs to disprove your fallacious reasoning. I hope Conrad is informed. It sure would be nice to see him descend from his ivory tower to join this debate.

dscmn
Nov 15 2011, 10:10 PM
Stance is used to define Playing Surface and Playing Surface is used to define Stance. The characteristics imparted to stance then apply to playing surface and vice versa, i.e. if not being OB is a characteristic of stance then it becomes a characteristic of playing surface unless expressly stated otherwise. That's the missing link in the playing surface definition which you have agreed is missing along with Conrad. But it's not there yet.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Does this characteristic sharing apply to any two rules or only for these two rules specifically? How can the playing surface line up with "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?" That is a characteristic of stance just like being inbounds, correct?

bruceuk
Nov 16 2011, 04:37 AM
A few others have mentioned it already but it needs stressing IMO:
"803.08 A If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area."

That statement is logically impossible if OB cannot be considered a playing surface.

JimKelly
Nov 16 2011, 10:26 AM
"The only exception is in rule 803.03F when OB is water. If the disc gets moved by the action of the wind or water, it's position is replaced to where it first landed. However, if a sea otter grabs a floating disc and drags it to the shore and deposits it there, the disc would be inbounds." cgkdisc.

If the sea otter grabs a "floating" disc wouldn't that be considered OB 803.03 F?

803.03 F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

JoakimBL
Nov 16 2011, 10:50 AM
Funny thing Chuck...since you pointed out that 803.04.A(3) says that a player's stance must be not only on the playing surface but also IB, I am no longer in agreement that the definition of playing surface needs to be revised. The rule is clear evidence that a disc or player can be on the playing surface and be OB.


Not is it not. The rule states you must have at least one surporting point on the playing surface directly behind your marker, AND no supporting point must be OB. That is not the same as what you are saying above.


A few others have mentioned it already but it needs stressing IMO:
"803.08 A If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area."

That statement is logically impossible if OB cannot be considered a playing surface.

I think I was first to point it out, but I actually disagree with you.
Altitude is often measured with reference to sea level. But 5000 feet above sea level does not require you to be directly above the Ocean. Consider a disc stuck in a tree above a hole in the ground. The hole is not the playing surface, but clearly the disc is still above the playing surface.
However, I do agree that this is a strong hint, that it was intended for the ground in OB areas to be considered the playing surface, but the definition of playing surface is such, that it at least is open to interpretation whether or not it is. If it was as obvious as some claim, we would not have this debate.

underparmike
Nov 16 2011, 03:14 PM
Joakim, the rule does state that, agreed. Above, I stated a lot so I'm not sure upon what point you say I may be contradicting myself.

Let's get our stories straight before Chuck returns from his emergency rules summit with Conrad, of course paid with pDGA funds :)

underparmike
Nov 16 2011, 03:17 PM
Joakim, the rule does state that, agreed. Above, I stated a lot so I'm not sure upon what point you say I may be contradicting myself.

Let's get our stories straight before Chuck returns from his emergency rules summit with Conrad, of course paid with pDGA funds :)

davidsauls
Nov 16 2011, 03:39 PM
If a car can knock a disc that came to rest O.B. back in play---and it not be ruled O.B.---can a spectator toss it back in play?

wforest
Nov 16 2011, 04:45 PM
Just remember that the rule book and the contents thereof are �PDGA.

.
.
... not really a positive "bragging point" ...

wforest
Nov 16 2011, 07:35 PM
... and along-those-lines-of-thought ; IF there is a 're-write' or 'revision' of the Official Rules in the works (needed) : consider this ... we need to ditch the Rule about the "wedged disc" into the side-of-the-Basket ... flying-in-from-outside ? ... flying-out-from-inside ? ... either one is supported by the entrapment-device (ie basket) ... simple ... as before ... revert to a better policy ... that disc counts as IN ... period ...
.
.
... (maybe noted pages-before ... I hadn't perused this thread) ...
.
.
... but ... imo ... the 2011 rendition-and-explanations-and-descriptions of this Rule are fraught with peril ...

bruce_brakel
Nov 17 2011, 01:26 AM
If a car can knock a disc that came to rest O.B. back in play---and it not be ruled O.B.---can a spectator toss it back in play?Logically, the obvious answer is yes, since all conditionals with a false predicate are true. E.g., if pigs can fly, Chuck's interpretation of the rules is always correct. ;)

davidsauls
Nov 17 2011, 08:28 AM
I've no idea myself---this thread has lost me in legalisms and word parsing to cover an incident uncommon enough that I've never seen it happen. Intuitively, O.B. is a playing surface designated by the TD O.B., a disc can come to rest there, and once at rest is O.B., period. Whether a very literal ruling of the book agrees, I defer to the passionate debaters.

But if a car can knock a disc resting O.B. back into play and make it non-O.B., and it follows that a spectactor can too, would that allow me to station some buddies in the gallery at the USDGC to rescue me from my O.B. shots? Could they grab my disc before the group arrives to determine it at rest, and relocate it inbounds, under the basket? (Assuming, of course, that the spotters and marshalls don't declare it O.B.)

Ah, I must be misreading the posts advocating that interference can't occur in O.B. Or maybe just the coffee isn't working yet.

Karl
Nov 17 2011, 10:43 AM
No David, I'm sure your coffee is working correctly - you're just being a diplomat. And while we all know the wording of the rules could be improved (a lot...and not necessarily by making it more detailed, but by making it simpler!), what bothers me most about this whole scenario is that someone - whom a LOT of people take his word as 'gospel' (although they shouldn't until they verify each and every case separately) - would take a stance that totally flies in the face of logic.

Karl

jamidanger
Nov 17 2011, 12:26 PM
i'd like to thread drift just a tad as far as the supporting point of a stance in OB, i get called on this frequently since i have long legs and relief is only 1 meter. when i play my lie, my back leg is OB, and upon release, i lift the foot so as NOT to be a supporting point upon release thereby having all my supporting points inbounds - can i say "quit calling me on a stance violation before i putt!" ?

pterodactyl
Nov 17 2011, 12:50 PM
What you are doing is perfectly legal.

davidsauls
Nov 17 2011, 01:01 PM
No David, I'm sure your coffee is working correctly - you're just being a diplomat. And while we all know the wording of the rules could be improved (a lot...and not necessarily by making it more detailed, but by making it simpler!), what bothers me most about this whole scenario is that someone - whom a LOT of people take his word as 'gospel' (although they shouldn't until they verify each and every case separately) - would take a stance that totally flies in the face of logic.

Karl

I'm hedging because I'm not sure I understand what Chuck and others are stating....and even if I am, I might be completely overlooking some other rules in my scenario. I do that a lot.

Personally I find rules debates instructive---to clarify the effect of multiple, perhaps conflicting rules, to identify faulting wording in the book, and to get a better idea how to handle unusual circumstances before they occur. If Chuck relentlessly argues this line and is proven right, or judged right by the rules committee, then perhaps we've identified a flaw that should be addressed in the next rules revision. If not, well, there's still value in vigorously testing a rule and proving that the more absurb possiblities are, in fact, wrong. Much better to wrestle it to death here, than at a tournament.

ERicJ
Nov 18 2011, 01:37 AM
But if a car can knock a disc resting O.B. back into play and make it non-O.B., and it follows that a spectactor can too, would that allow me to station some buddies in the gallery at the USDGC to rescue me from my O.B. shots? Could they grab my disc before the group arrives to determine it at rest, and relocate it inbounds, under the basket? (Assuming, of course, that the spotters and marshalls don't declare it O.B.)

Ah, I must be misreading the posts advocating that interference can't occur in O.B. Or maybe just the coffee isn't working yet.

I believe Chuck already addressed that issue:

I mean think about what you are advocating Chuck. Let's say it's the finals of Worlds and someone shanks one OB. Under your completely erroneous interpretation of the OB rule, any spectator could grab the disc after it comes to rest (but before the group arrives at the disc) and move it back IB to help that player! Is that the spirit of the game Chuck? No. In fact, said spectator under your erroneous interpretation Chuck could just take the OB disc and proceed all the way down the fairway and drop the disc into the basket, and that would be legal according to you Chuck!
No they can't. The difference is whether moving a disc at rest is done intentionally or not. It's very clear in the Interference rule that a disc intentionally moved is marked at the point the intentional interference occurs - in your example, that would have been OB. Unintentional movement can occur before a player gets there to mark it unless the disc is on the playing surface or on the basket per 803.07B. By definition, above/below the playing surface, anywhere OB and the area on the missed side of a mando are not playing surfaces because a player is not allowed to take a stance there. The disc is live in those areas until the player/group gets there to mark the lie.

davidsauls
Nov 18 2011, 09:30 AM
Thanks. I figured I was missing something. I read the the intentional interference as only applying to a disc in motion---"deflected....or caught and moved...." Probably reading it too literally (like "reasonable stance" meaning "legal stance" in the playing surface definition?). Or perhaps, since group hasn't arrived to declare disc at rest, it's theoretically still in motion while sitting on the non-playing surface of O.B.?

I'll stick with my disclaimer that I really have no idea on this rule interpretation, but an relieved that it almost never happens.

JimKelly
Nov 19 2011, 07:44 PM
. However, if a sea otter grabs a floating disc and drags it to the shore and deposits it there, the disc would be inbounds.

If the sea otter grabs a "floating" disc wouldn't that be considered OB 803.03 F?

803.03 F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

dscmn
Nov 19 2011, 08:01 PM
yup.

cgkdisc
Nov 19 2011, 09:04 PM
If the sea otter grabs a "floating" disc wouldn't that be considered OB 803.03 F? 803.03 F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.
How do you get that when 803.07B indicates that a disc at rest is only replaced if the disc is on a playing surface or the target? Even if you buy the RC claim that the ground in OB was supposed to be a "playing surface" certainly the water surface would not be a playing surface except maybe when it's ice.

JimKelly
Nov 19 2011, 09:51 PM
How do you get that when 803.07B indicates that a disc at rest is only replaced if the disc is on a playing surface or the target? Even if you buy the RC claim that the ground in OB was supposed to be a "playing surface" certainly the water surface would not be a playing surface except maybe when it's ice.



803.03 F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

The rule 803.03 is clearly for a disc landing in water.

cgkdisc
Nov 19 2011, 10:00 PM
No disagreement that the disc is at rest before it gets interfered with. But if the disc hasn't been retrieved or marked by the player yet, that's why we have rule 803.07B to tell us what to do if interference occurs.

dscmn
Nov 19 2011, 10:12 PM
yup, the rules suck, we all know that. hopefully they are changed for the better and with reality in mind. i'd rather the water be considered a playing surface than pretend that OB is some separate, surfaceless, undefinable place that we all know is just ground. and sometimes water.

dscmn
Nov 19 2011, 10:27 PM
803.07B--just change it to inbounds playing surface...problem solved?

cgkdisc
Nov 19 2011, 10:55 PM
I think I'd like to see the rules take a different tack on interference. Once a disc is seen to be at rest from its own energy, whether above/below or on an IB or OB surface, it can't be moved by an animal, person, object or vehicle whether accidental or intentional. The only thing that could move a disc at rest is a natural force such as wind, water or gravity (but hopefully not an earthquake). We allow discs to be acted on by natural forces during flight and I think the game should be consistently about dealing with natural forces until you actually get to your lie.

If this was the direction the rules took in a future revision, you wouldn't have to worry about whether a disc was at rest IB or OB if a person or dog accidentally/intentionally picked up the disc from the ground or suspended on a bush and moved it or if another disc or car knocked it around. It would be placed back where the group or spotter saw it stop.

This would flip-flop the rule about a disc landing in water which would still be live if the wind, gravity and water moved it until the player got there to mark it. However, a boat/vehicle, dog or otter could not move it just like they couldn't move a disc on land. We currently allow wind, rain and gravity to act on a disc above ground before the player gets there to mark it. Allowing the same natural forces to act on a disc in water would make a disc above ground and in water consistent in how they are handled. If you're going to allow natural forces to act before a player gets there for just some locations as the current rules are set up, it only seems fair to have a consistent approach for all locations.

I believe this would allow consistent handling of the contested situations we've been discussing upthread and it wouldn't matter whether a playing surface was IB and/or OB and whether a disc was on it or not.

BTW, it appears this is how ball golf handles interference based on their rules which are much more elaborate than DG. A ball at rest can be moved by wind, water and gravity but not another person, animal, object/ball or vehicle.

dscmn
Nov 20 2011, 12:35 AM
i agree. much cleaner. is that something the RC is considering?

where i see the most interpretation and diversity of opinion is with a disc out-of-bounds in water. the rule is inadequate for what can happen especially with rocky streams. "completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area" leaves too much to interpretation. many players can discover quite an elaborate peninsula of rocks and debris to prove that their disc is not surrounded by water.

i'd prefer a more punitive but simpler rule where the disc only has to be touching OB water to be considered OB. i'd even consider the suspended above the water on rocks disc as inbounds. what do you think?

cgkdisc
Nov 20 2011, 12:48 AM
Maybe we could reduce the problem by avoiding a water/land interface as an OB line whenever possible. All OB areas would have to be marked in some other way with stakes or flush to the ground markers.

JimKelly
Nov 20 2011, 01:51 AM
No disagreement that the disc is at rest before it gets interfered with. But if the disc hasn't been retrieved or marked by the player yet, that's why we have rule 803.07B to tell us what to do if interference occurs.

Interference can only be applied before but not after the disc comes to rest "floating" in OB water.

cgkdisc
Nov 20 2011, 09:49 AM
Not correct. Interference specifically addresses what happens when a disc at rest is interfered with and that can occur up until the player gets to their disc to mark it or the player, not just the group, chooses to call the disc OB. Otherwise, there would be no need for that 803.07B Interference rule because it would mean discs at rest in any location would be fixed once they stop. But that's not the case per the current rule.

JimKelly
Nov 20 2011, 10:32 AM
Not correct. Interference specifically addresses what happens when a disc at rest is interfered with and that can occur up until the player gets to their disc to mark it or the player, not just the group, chooses to call the disc OB. Otherwise, there would be no need for that 803.07B Interference rule because it would mean discs at rest in any location would be fixed once they stop. But that's not the case per the current rule.

803.07 a Interference uses specific examples of disc still in movement that are interfered with.

Once the disc comes to rest in the water "floating" this will eliminate the use of the interference rule.

803.07b gets applied on the playing surface or target. Based on your earlier post OB is not considered playing surface.

803.03 f gets applied only after disc is "floating" at rest in OB water. All examples given in 803.07a are clearly written for interference before disc is at rest.

cgkdisc
Nov 20 2011, 11:06 AM
OB water is definitely not a playing surface except maybe when ice. Thus, 803.07B indicates that a disc at rest in OB water can accidentally be moved (otter, dog, disc, motor boat) before the player gets there to mark it in the same way a disc at rest above the playing surface can be accidentally knocked down before the player gets there to mark it. In fact, why would 803.03F regarding water only state that wind and water can't change the position of a floating disc versus just stating nothing can act on it to change its position?

JimKelly
Nov 20 2011, 12:50 PM
OB water is definitely not a playing surface except maybe when ice. Thus, 803.07B indicates that a disc at rest in OB water can accidentally be moved (otter, dog, disc, motor boat)

803.07 b only talks about playing surface or target. It does not contain anything about disc at rest in OB water. 803.07 b can only be applied to playing surface and target.

803.07 a can only be applied in OB water before it comes to rest "floating". All examples of interference are based on a disc in motion or playing surface and target.

803.03 f instantly comes into action once floating occurs in OB water.

cgkdisc
Nov 20 2011, 01:21 PM
Sorry, Jim. That's not correct. The Interference rule is a blanket rule that covers intentional, incidental or accidental movement of any disc in play meaning a player's throw that is still moving or has come to rest before the player gets to the disc. As I pointed out before, if in fact the RC wanted a disc at rest to remain in whatever location it lands, no matter what happened to move it before the player gets to it, they could simply have stated such. But they didn't. We have special rules for when a disc is potentially at rest above/below the playing surface, landing in water and specific wording in Interference rule 803.07B exactly stating the playing surface and the target, and by inference, excluding locations that are not playing surface or target.

Check out how detailed the ball golf rule is on this. And the following is only about a ball at rest, not interfering with a ball that's moving. That's Rule 19. http://golf.about.com/cs/rulesofgolf/a/rule18.htm

JimKelly
Nov 20 2011, 02:36 PM
Sorry, Jim. That's not correct. The Interference rule is a blanket rule that covers intentional, incidental or accidental movement of any disc in play meaning a player's throw that is still moving or has come to rest before the player gets to the disc. As I pointed out before, if in fact the RC wanted a disc at rest to remain in whatever location it lands, no matter what happened to move it before the player gets to it, they could simply have stated such. But they didn't. We have special rules for when a disc is potentially at rest above/below the playing surface, landing in water and specific wording in Interference rule 803.07B exactly stating the playing surface and the target, and by inference, excluding locations that are not playing surface or target.

Interesting point of view, I'm just going to stick with the black and white rules inside the PDGA rule book.

Thank you for your feedback and time.

cgkdisc
Nov 20 2011, 03:00 PM
I believe that's what's being cited in this discussion. No gray area interpretation required.

eupher61
Nov 24 2011, 03:55 AM
What would be best is if players would simply be honest about it. If it's OB, and you see it definitively go OB (say, into the street, or the otter water) it's OB. Period. Don't let the car or the otter help you. Be honest, use good sportsmanship. All this minutia may be fun to some, but is it really getting anywhere? After all, Chuck isn't the ultimate authority. But, face it, he is possibly the best-informed person around on rules matters. What some call "his opinion" is opinion based on years of watching these things. IS he right 100% of the time? Nope. But, instead of whining about it here incessantly, talk to the RC or CD. Get it straight instead of repeatedly telling a person you think he's an idiot (or, just saying he's an idiot--libelous? slanderous?) Playing Surface. That doesn't mean Non-Playing Surface. How can it? In Bounds--Playing Surface. Out of Bounds--NON playing surface. Simple and logical. Quit trying to make this rocket science.

futurecollisions
Nov 24 2011, 09:20 AM
Until I get to the disc and mark it, it is not In Bounds or Out of Bounds. If I tee off first, my disc lands on the edge of a hill, stays there while everyone else tees off, and a gust of wind lifts it and it ends up rolling down the hill and goes OB, what do you think the group is going to call that? The same thing applies for my disc that rolls in the street, and while im walking towards it, a car hits it and knocks it back In Bounds, I am going to play it as in.

dscmn
Nov 24 2011, 10:36 AM
Playing Surface. That doesn't mean Non-Playing Surface. How can it? In Bounds--Playing Surface. Out of Bounds--NON playing surface. Simple and logical. Quit trying to make this rocket science.

So some friends and I decide we want our friend to win the tournament. We follow him in the lead group and when his disc goes OB we pick it up and move it IB. What's the call?

cgkdisc
Nov 24 2011, 11:07 AM
Intentional Interference. Disc gets replaced at the point it was touched. Intentional interference has never been in question in this discussion. It's accidental or inadvertent interference that's been the problem to sort out based on where the disc lands.

dscmn
Nov 24 2011, 11:40 AM
It's not on the playing surface, so that rule doesn't apply. Happy Thanksgiving.

It was neither deflected nor caught and moved. That part doesn't apply either.

Well, if OB is not a playing surface, the rules need a bunch of cleaning up. Replacing a disc applies to discs on the playing suface or in the basket. OB is neither.

cgkdisc
Nov 24 2011, 12:07 PM
If nothing else, this discussion indicates the current rules in this area need to be reviewed and tweaked for better consistency and clarity.

dscmn
Nov 24 2011, 01:46 PM
I would suggest that the playing surface be defined as the ground (including both inbounds and out-of-bounds surfaces) and then use the qualifiers inbounds or out-of-bounds when necessary. Flexibility.