bruceuk
Sep 11 2012, 07:26 PM
I can now present the 2013 rules in html format:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rules2013.html

A summary of the changes is here:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rule-changes.txt

wsfaplau
Sep 11 2012, 08:04 PM
Awesome, thanks Bruce.

OK, I'll start.

Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

jconnell
Sep 11 2012, 08:18 PM
I can now present the 2013 rules in html format:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rules2013.html

A summary of the changes is here:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/rule-changes.txt

Thank you for posting these.

Just took a cursory glance through the new text of the rule book. Plenty of good changes.

One thing jumped out to me as ripe for potential abuse, and that is the "Omitted Hole" rule (803.03 G. 6.). If a player comes up to a hole for which they feel they will throw a high number of throws, they could skip it, call it omitted, and take par+4 and perhaps take a score lower than they would if they played it. Or perhaps a hole with a water hazard that a player prefers to skip so they don't lose discs. A seven might be better than tin-cupping four discs into the water and taking a double digit score.

I understand the reasoning behind the rule though...for instances where an emergency arises and the player must step away but can also return. But perhaps that belongs under the discretionary rules as a call for the TD to make on a case by case basis. The point being that it should be incumbent on the players to play every hole on the course regardless of difficulty, and I think the omitted hole rule gives players a loop hole to intentionally skip holes, potentially without consequence. Granted, it's a loophole that will be advantageous in only a very few and probably very rare occasions, but a loophole just the same.

I'll need to read the new book more thoroughly to make any further comments.

krupicka
Sep 11 2012, 09:10 PM
Now that only a single player needs to call a stance violation for the first offense since it is only a warning (801.01E), why is the text "Stance violations may not be...seconded by the thrower" in 802.04E needed?

krupicka
Sep 11 2012, 09:12 PM
801.01F+801.04G Was it intentional that courtesy violations now require a second? Same question for a practice throw.

krupicka
Sep 11 2012, 09:23 PM
According to 804.04D we now need to get approval from the Tour Manager when we feel that it is better on a hole to restrict relief for OB to a drop zone. I realize that many pro's disliked throw and distance at the USDGC, but is it really necessary to for me to be submitting my course info sheet on every tournament I run to the tour director for approval? There is usually a hole or two where limiting the OB options makes sense.

Of course it also seems that based on 805.03.B, if the area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone.

krupicka
Sep 11 2012, 09:25 PM
It seems that a number of items have been moved to the competition manual. I assume a new competition manual will also be ready soon.

krupicka
Sep 11 2012, 09:29 PM
With all of the things moved to the competition manual (e.g. start of play), why was a late scorecard left in the rules and not moved to the competition manual?

wsfaplau
Sep 12 2012, 03:17 AM
When will the Q&As be redone?

wsfaplau
Sep 12 2012, 03:19 AM
If someone questions the legality of my putter I can't use it again until the TD or an official approves it?

wsfaplau
Sep 12 2012, 03:28 AM
Krupika mentioned this on another thread and I want to reiterate it here.

The point of this feedback is to constructively offer feedback with the sole intent of helping make the rules as solid as possible. The Rules Committee has a difficult task in writing rules for our sport. I applaud what they are doing and feel everyone else should as well.

The posting of these new rules is a great opportunity for members to get a chance to provide feedback before the rules are implemented. This opportunity hasn't been presented before.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. Please take the feedback in the positive manner it is given.

JoakimBL
Sep 12 2012, 05:39 AM
I have not read the entire rules, just the summary of Changes.

It strikes me as odd, that the definition of thrower have been removed, yet "thrower" is used repeatedly in the rule changes?

If a second is not needed if the violation only results in a warning, is there anything stopping me form calling violations on my cardmates on the first hole, even if they are not violating a rule? Obviously I could get a curtesy violation, if it's obvious what I'm doing, but If say that I call 30 seconds after 25 seconds, it's not obvious, and the rest of the group can do nothing? That doesn't sit right with me, since it opens up all kinds of doors for angle shooting.

JoakimBL
Sep 12 2012, 05:43 AM
If someone questions the legality of my putter I can't use it again until the TD or an official approves it?

That doesn't seem well thought out. Just an inocent questing when a player is ready to drive: "Is that disc legal?" and he has to pick another disc! Repeat as needed.

bruceuk
Sep 12 2012, 06:28 AM
I'll try to cover these in order, apologies if I miss any. Incidentally, it would be helpful if you could reference the rule you're questioning :)

Awesome, thanks Bruce.

OK, I'll start.

Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

That remains in the Competition manual, so not sure how you've come to that one.


One thing jumped out to me as ripe for potential abuse, and that is the "Omitted Hole" rule (803.03 G. 6.). If a player comes up to a hole for which they feel they will throw a high number of throws, they could skip it, call it omitted, and take par+4 and perhaps take a score lower than they would if they played it. Or perhaps a hole with a water hazard that a player prefers to skip so they don't lose discs. A seven might be better than tin-cupping four discs into the water and taking a double digit score.

We did discuss the various ways in which you might gain advantage by intentional misplay, and felt that it was adequately covered by 803.03 F.

Now that only a single player needs to call a stance violation for the first offense since it is only a warning (801.01E), why is the text "Stance violations may not be...seconded by the thrower" in 802.04E needed?

Given the previous loophole it's simpler I think to rule the player out in this instance than have a long winded rule about how you can't warn, but can call or second if there's a penalty.

801.01F+801.04G Was it intentional that courtesy violations now require a second? Same question for a practice throw.

Yes, we wanted to adopt as close as possible to a single approach to applying the rules, hence section 801.01

According to 804.04D we now need to get approval from the Tour Manager when we feel that it is better on a hole to restrict relief for OB to a drop zone. I realize that many pro's disliked throw and distance at the USDGC, but is it really necessary to for me to be submitting my course info sheet on every tournament I run to the tour director for approval? There is usually a hole or two where limiting the OB options makes sense.

Of course it also seems that based on 805.03.B, if the area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone.

That was a Board decision.

It seems that a number of items have been moved to the competition manual. I assume a new competition manual will also be ready soon.

Competitions Manual is a different committee I'm not on, so can't help you there.

With all of the things moved to the competition manual (e.g. start of play), why was a late scorecard left in the rules and not moved to the competition manual?

There are so many aspects of scoring that are fundamental, it was felt best to retain it.

When will the Q&As be redone?

QAs are here: http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2013/qanda.html
Worth noting that I think 8 still needs updating to reflect returning the disc to it's approximate position, rather than playing from the resulting lie. which would therefore mean that you DO get the 2m penalty if it's in play, I've dropped a note to Conrad.

If someone questions the legality of my putter I can't use it again until the TD or an official approves it?

This is just a reformulation of the 2011 rule: "Discs must be specifically approved by the director if questioned by another player or an official."
I think if someone queried a clearly legal disc and you presented your case to the Director, they would be subject to Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating.

If a second is not needed if the violation only results in a warning, is there anything stopping me form calling violations on my cardmates on the first hole, even if they are not violating a rule? Obviously I could get a curtesy violation, if it's obvious what I'm doing, but If say that I call 30 seconds after 25 seconds, it's not obvious, and the rest of the group can do nothing? That doesn't sit right with me, since it opens up all kinds of doors for angle shooting.

Yes, Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating

JoakimBL
Sep 12 2012, 08:11 AM
Yes, Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating

I'm not disagreeing or trying to be difficult, but that can be a very hard line to draw. Is the guy calling the first stance violation or 30 seconds, doing it because he believes it to be correct, or is he trying to gain an advantage?

Comp manual 3.3 5: Cheating could also just have been the answer to the problem of calling violations on yourself to get a mulligan. However, previously you needed an ally to help you cheat, now, you can do it without a second.
IMHO this is poorly thought out.

krupicka
Sep 12 2012, 08:33 AM
Bruce, thank you for posting the rules and answering our questions. I appreciate it. Would you care to comment on the OB vs. Special Conditions part of my question. Is this a correct understanding?

804.04D+805.03B It also seems that based on 805.03.B, if an area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone without Tour Manager approval.

bruceuk
Sep 12 2012, 09:27 AM
Bruce, thank you for posting the rules and answering our questions. I appreciate it. Would you care to comment on the OB vs. Special Conditions part of my question. Is this a correct understanding?

804.04D+805.03B It also seems that based on 805.03.B, if an area is declared as a special condition area rather than Out-of-bounds a TD can limit relief to a drop zone without Tour Manager approval.

Yes, that seems correct to me. I'll raise it.

krupicka
Sep 12 2012, 11:05 AM
The problem is I don't think you want to get rid of the option for a TD to declare special condition areas. If this gets changed, then it also needs to be reconciled with casual relief areas as often Special Conditions are what are used to justify handling those areas with lie options that are different than just move back on the line of play. Without the muddying of the Tour Manager getting involved, the three categories (OB, Casual Relief area, special condition areas) gives TDs have reasonable authority to declare an area with the following characteristics:
- penalty vs no penalty
Lie options (pick one or more)
- on line of play
- drop zone
- where last IB.
- previous lie
The local TD is best to determine what is appropriate on this continuum for their course design.

bruceuk
Sep 12 2012, 11:12 AM
I agree, but the board removed the OB options from the TD

krupicka
Sep 12 2012, 11:19 AM
I guess my point in that last post is that if the Special Conditions rule changes, there may be other unintended side effects that can ripple into handling of casual relief areas.

bruceuk
Sep 12 2012, 11:51 AM
It may be as simple as removing the option to add penalty strokes from the special conditions.

futurecollisions
Sep 12 2012, 11:56 AM
Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

Glad to see this

jconnell
Sep 12 2012, 12:07 PM
Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

Glad to see this
As Bruce pointed out up thread, I don't think the new rule book says anything about this one way or the other. It's something that would be covered by the Competition Manual. And Bruce seems to indicate that it the 2-minute warning has not gone away.

jconnell
Sep 12 2012, 08:30 PM
You know what I would love to see in the next edition of the rule book? Elimination of the sentence "Players whose scorecards are turned in unsigned accept responsibility for the scores recorded." from newly numbered rule 805.02 F.

It's time to start requiring signing or initialing scorecards at the end of the round again. I can't count how many times I've encountered players asking what they shot or questioning their posted scores after the card has been turned in with the excuse of "I never saw the card to add/verify it". Requiring the initialing/signing forces all players to take full responsibility for their cards and their scores with no excuses.

bombmk
Sep 13 2012, 05:24 AM
You know what I would love to see in the next edition of the rule book? Elimination of the sentence "Players whose scorecards are turned in unsigned accept responsibility for the scores recorded." from newly numbered rule 805.02 F.

It's time to start requiring signing or initialing scorecards at the end of the round again. I can't count how many times I've encountered players asking what they shot or questioning their posted scores after the card has been turned in with the excuse of "I never saw the card to add/verify it". Requiring the initialing/signing forces all players to take full responsibility for their cards and their scores with no excuses.

There are no excuses today either. And they have full responsibility today as well. Regardless of a the signature or not.

The only way to enforce it would be to punish the absence of a signature. A completely bureaucratic reason. It serves no practical purpose other than to train people in some behaviour that the rules are already, potentially, punishing them for not following.

All the rulebook needs to say is that the player is solely reponsible for turning his/her scorecard in and the scores on it. If the score is wrong, you want to punish the player extra for not signing it?

krupicka
Sep 13 2012, 08:40 AM
801.01.E+802.04.E

The way I read this only a single player needs to issue a warning on a stance violation and thus the thrower needs to rethrow their shot based solely on this single call. Since there is no second required on this, wouldn't this be ripe for abuse? I can see someone sinking a long jump putt on a hole and another player claiming they foot faulted by releasing the disc too late. Sort of a let's see you do that again type call. What recourse is in this situation? Can the rest of the group overrule the warning if they were watching (which they probably weren't but that's another topic)?

Part of this lies in that most warnings in the rules are just warnings and a single call is probably sufficient. If the warning is called, it's noted on the scorecard and play continues on. In the case of a foot fault, it is a warning + rethrow. Thus this affects play (and possibly score).

bruceuk
Sep 13 2012, 09:36 AM
There is an endemic culture of not calling violations throughout DG worldwide, stance violations, time and probably courtesy are the prime culprits, and the move to a single person warning is part of trying to resolve that. If I can warn you on it myself, the rest of the card will be alert and available for seconding it in subsequent cases. Currently the first warning is typically one person seeing it and having an informal word, which I think lends itself to personal 1-2-1 conflict, and does nothing to alert the group to look for a formal infraction.

In terms of recourse you have the option of invoking 801.01 C, get a ruling or take a provisional if no official is available. False or tactical calling is cheating, and if the rest of your group supports you I would expect the TD to make that call.

cgkdisc
Sep 13 2012, 09:55 AM
It looks like the "who is an official" still hasn't been clarified which still allows certified officials in the gallery to make calls. Perhaps the definition for Official could have included "authorized by the TD" wording to clarify that?

bruceuk
Sep 13 2012, 09:56 AM
I think that is one for the competition manual, rather than rules of play

cgkdisc
Sep 13 2012, 10:02 AM
I would think the rules of play either shouldn't have the word "official" in it at all since they aren't needed/involved in rec play anyway. Or, if the word official is included like it has been for a long time, then the full explanation should be included.

jconnell
Sep 13 2012, 10:23 AM
There are no excuses today either. And they have full responsibility today as well. Regardless of a the signature or not.

The only way to enforce it would be to punish the absence of a signature. A completely bureaucratic reason. It serves no practical purpose other than to train people in some behaviour that the rules are already, potentially, punishing them for not following.

All the rulebook needs to say is that the player is solely reponsible for turning his/her scorecard in and the scores on it. If the score is wrong, you want to punish the player extra for not signing it?

Not really looking to punish anyone, just force an action by players that I feel most have become too lax on over the years. I can't count the number of times where a cardmate has disappeared after his last putt, leaving the rest of us to total his card and turn it in for him. If he had to stick around to sign the card, at least it takes the responsibility off the other players to get his card right. I know the book says the player is solely responsible for his card, signature or not, but that doesn't stop players from putting that responsibility on them groupmates, leaving them in a potentially awkward or uncomfortable position. Perhaps what it will take is an occasion or two of that departed player's card being turned in unadded to convince him to take responsibility for it? I know I've been tempted. A more unscrupulous person might actually do it just to gain an advantage on the player.

As for enforcement...requiring the signature would mean the card can't be turned in without it. If the card is late, it's punished for that reason. Players don't want a penalty for a late card, so they'll make sure everyone signs. Everyone checks their card and signs, and there's no bellyaching that "I didn't see the card" or my favorite "what did I shoot?"

krupicka
Sep 13 2012, 10:40 AM
801.01.E+802.04.E
I can see someone sinking a long jump putt on a hole and another player claiming they foot faulted by releasing the disc too late.

Part of this lies in that most warnings in the rules are just warnings and a single call is probably sufficient. If the warning is called, it's noted on the scorecard and play continues on. In the case of a foot fault, it is a warning + rethrow. Thus this affects play (and possibly score).

There is an endemic culture of not calling violations throughout DG worldwide, stance violations, time and probably courtesy are the prime culprits, and the move to a single person warning is part of trying to resolve that. If I can warn you on it myself, the rest of the card will be alert and available for seconding it in subsequent cases. Currently the first warning is typically one person seeing it and having an informal word, which I think lends itself to personal 1-2-1 conflict, and does nothing to alert the group to look for a formal infraction.

In terms of recourse you have the option of invoking 801.01 C, get a ruling or take a provisional if no official is available. False or tactical calling is cheating, and if the rest of your group supports you I would expect the TD to make that call.

In the case I'm envisioning calling the TD over won't help. The player calling the warning is the only witness to the infraction. His card mates weren't paying attention, and the player will defend himself to the death. An illegal jump putt is very subjective and difficult to demonstrate later whether or not it was indeed legal (Video replay is already verboten by the BOD). I would think that if a single player has the ability to issue a warning on a foot fault, then it should be only a warning and a rethrow is not required. Otherwise get rid of the warning on a foot fault altogether and make the first occurrence a penalty (then it is in line with a practice throw which then becomes the same thing).

I think only needing a single player for a warning is a good thing if the effect is a warning only. In essence with a foot fault, it isn't just a warning, but it is a warning+rethrow penalty. In this case there really needs to be a second.

bombmk
Sep 13 2012, 10:48 AM
As for enforcement...requiring the signature would mean the card can't be turned in without it. If the card is late, it's punished for that reason. Players don't want a penalty for a late card, so they'll make sure everyone signs.

So if someone runs off anyways, everyone on the card is punished?
All just to prevent a player from not checking his score, which he will be punished for anyways, if it is not correct?

I don't really see there being a more reasonable approach than just affirming that the responsibility is on the player for what his card says when it is turned in.

cgkdisc
Sep 13 2012, 10:49 AM
I think only needing a single player for a warning is a good thing if the effect is a warning only. In essence with a foot fault, it isn't just a warning, but it is a warning+rethrow penalty. In this case there really needs to be a second.

I agree. Not only would a "second" reduce the chance of the vindictive "rethrow upon calling a fault after a spectacular long putt is made," it would also reduce the chance of the free mulligan call that has not yet been eliminated where a buddy can call a warning/rethrow when a player shanks a tee shot and makes it look enough like a foot fault for their buddy to call it.

bombmk
Sep 13 2012, 10:55 AM
---
804.02 E:

If, after a mandatory has been passed, a subsequent throw crosses the mandatory line on the correct side but in the reverse direction, the mandatory has no longer been passed. The player must still pass the mandatory on the correct side. A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole.

---

What does the part in bold mean exactly?

It can't be right the way I read it - because in my world it is absolutely possible for two lies being connected by a straight line going the wrong way around a mandatory, while the throws having passed on the right side.

cgkdisc
Sep 13 2012, 11:01 AM
It looks like the intent was more along the lines of "The flight line connecting the lies..."

bruceuk
Sep 13 2012, 11:22 AM
It looks like the intent was more along the lines of "The flight line connecting the lies..."

Yes, the line the disc took, rather than a straight line.

jconnell
Sep 13 2012, 11:31 AM
So if someone runs off anyways, everyone on the card is punished?
All just to prevent a player from not checking his score, which he will be punished for anyways, if it is not correct?

I don't really see there being a more reasonable approach than just affirming that the responsibility is on the player for what his card says when it is turned in.
Okay then, an unsigned score is subject to a 2-stroke penalty for the player who leaves the card unsigned, period. Punishment for an unsigned scorecard in golf is disqualification. The player MUST verify and attest to his own score. Don't see why players shouldn't be held to the same kind of standard in disc golf.

Players shouldn't be left with the responsibility of totaling and turning in other players' scorecards (IMO, all players should have to return to tournament central with the cards, but I'll settle for requiring the signature). If a player can't be bothered to total his card and sign it himself, the card should be turned in untotaled for that player.

bruceuk
Sep 13 2012, 11:45 AM
If a player can't be bothered to total his card himself, the card should be turned in untotaled for that player.

I deleted 2 words and we have the current situation. Adding a signature requirement will just add a lot of strokes to a lot of players for no real benefit that I can see.

ERicJ
Sep 13 2012, 12:10 PM
In the case I'm envisioning calling the TD over won't help. The player calling the warning is the only witness to the infraction. His card mates weren't paying attention, and the player will defend himself to the death. An illegal jump putt is very subjective and difficult to demonstrate later whether or not it was indeed legal (Video replay is already verboten by the BOD). I would think that if a single player has the ability to issue a warning on a foot fault, then it should be only a warning and a rethrow is not required. Otherwise get rid of the warning on a foot fault altogether and make the first occurrence a penalty (then it is in line with a practice throw which then becomes the same thing).

I think only needing a single player for a warning is a good thing if the effect is a warning only. In essence with a foot fault, it isn't just a warning, but it is a warning+rethrow penalty. In this case there really needs to be a second.
Totally agree with the quotes in red.

The as-proposed written rule is ripe for abuse. The defense that "it's cheating" to maliciously call a marginal foot fault to force a re-throw may be true, but it's effectively irrelevant in reality. It's one player's word vs. another. After the fact, no one else is going to be able to rule one way or the other whether the player released a disc early [without imagery/video].

If you fall back on "benefit of the doubt to the thrower" then the call never happened at all. Then all any thrower has to say is "wasn't a foot fault" and it nullifies the call. You're back to needing a second cardmate to enforce the call anyway.

A solo call of a stance violation should be a warning without rethrow.

bruceuk
Sep 13 2012, 01:12 PM
I confess I've never been particularly convinced by the hypothetical buddies who have plotted together to cheat, much as I'm unconvinced by the hypothetical malicious infraction callers.

Virtually nobody calls the glaringly obvious violations, let alone the false or marginal ones, and one of the reasons is that there is little point as it's nigh on impossible to get it seconded. If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?

Longer term the aim will be to remove the warning/re-throw altogether, but in order for that to happen we need to tidy up the stance rules so that infractions are clear and easy to call. We have been throwing around some ideas on this for a while, and I'll start a separate thread to discuss that at some point.

bruce_brakel
Sep 13 2012, 03:17 PM
It looks like the intent was more along the lines of "The flight line connecting the lies..."So is this a vetting of the rules so that mistakes can be changed? Or will this gem be in the rules until the PDGA uses up 10,000 rulebooks? :D

cgkdisc
Sep 13 2012, 03:52 PM
I thought I heard the new rules were already at the printer. But I find that somewhat surprising since I don't think the Competition Committee has completed their changes to be in sync with the new rules (unless maybe those changes were already made at the PDGA office?)

bruce_brakel
Sep 13 2012, 04:05 PM
I don't think the Competition Committee was involved in anything to do with drafting changes to the Competition Manual.

ERicJ
Sep 13 2012, 04:20 PM
If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?
Nope.

futurecollisions
Sep 14 2012, 12:36 AM
If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?

dangerous comment here, whoever you are, i hope you aren't in charge or have any kind of influence, this is the last thing we need

bruceuk
Sep 14 2012, 04:52 AM
How quickly we descend from thanks and constructive criticism to personal insults, and all for posing a hypothetical question.

FWIW I agree and would prefer to have a second for rethrows or no rethrow for warning, but here I thought we were having a discussion. Wrong ironically named forum I guess.

krupicka
Sep 14 2012, 08:07 AM
If we exchange a world where 99% of violations are ignored for one where more are called but we have a small number of false positives, does that not seem like an overall win?

Bruce, I don't want to belabor this point, but this comment did get rub me the wrong way. It may be due to my point of view based on the American Justice system or the ongoing Innocence Project here locally. I realize a disc golf penalty is not the same thing as Death Row, but I thought I would help explain the strong reaction here by some to that statement.

I appreciate you taking the time (and a few lumps) in discussing the new rule changes. Do you know if it is a done deal with the 2013 rules as presented (i.e. rule books printed) or is there still a chance some of these issues can be corrected/changed/tweaked?

bruceuk
Sep 14 2012, 08:53 AM
My understanding is that they are being formatted for the printers and that it may be too late to implement any changes. I am saddened by that, I'm new to the process and I thought we had more time. I also could have posted these several weeks ago, but didn't know I could. Next time around I'll do better.

As I started the post, I don't give much credence to the posited 'dirty cheater' who is looking for every loophole to ruthlessly exploit on the course. After all, the DC buddies could have been merrily calling false violations on others after good shots just as easily as on each other after bad ones. So I don't really believe you will get malicious false positives.

Let me try and rephrase it in a less contentious way, and sorry if I offend any north american morality system I'm unaware of! :D

All hypothetical:

Imagine a world where DG is on TV.
Currently you have a stance violation test system that is (generously) 1% accurate on fairway throws. That is 99% of violations are unpunished.
On putts it may be significantly better (the group is nearby, generally watching, overbalancing can be obvious), so lets call it 50% accurate there.
The watching viewer can see every violation.

Based on my purely personal anecdotal observations, I'm close enough to observe and be able to warn players on fairway throws at least a third of the time (based on a card of 4 people, I'm usually close enough to at least one of the three to see). Assuming I now warn on every violation the system accuracy goes up to 25%. If my card mates do the same, we're certainly above 50%, I'd say we ought to be shooting for 75%+. Putting may only increase to 60%.
BUT, every so often a call is made that is wrong.
The watching viewer can see every violation, called or otherwise, and the miscalls.

Which looks better? Miscalls and marginal calls happen all the time in sport, from dodgy penalties to pass interference. My contention is that the latter situation makes our sport look more professional to an outside observer. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

See the poll not too far from here for a real life TV example of where this would have lead to improved accuracy and viewer perception.

Karl
Sep 14 2012, 09:11 AM
Bruce,

Not picking on you but your statement...
"It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction."
...has me thinking that this attitude is wonderful IFFFFF perfection (or REALLY close to it) can eventually be attained. But that will never be the case for the rules we presently have. There are too many gaping holes to just bandaide things.
It may take severe changes to really refine the rules so that the "no calls" and "debatables" are taken out. Do we continue to 'tweak' the present rules (and MAYBE make them better by a couple of percent every time we reassess) or should we step back - after 37 years of trial - and REALLY assess "what works and what doesn't"?
I vote for the latter.

Karl

bruceuk
Sep 14 2012, 09:49 AM
As per a previous post, we have been tossing around severe changes to the stance rules for this reason, but it was considered too much work in one go to restructure the rules and look at major changes.

Additionally the BOD are a little change-averse because they perceive the player base to be change-averse, which means it is much easier to get incremental change approved.

krupicka
Sep 14 2012, 10:04 AM
I guess I'm less concerned about a cheating incident but more about tempers on the course. When a single player can issue a warning and it is purely a warning, I can see the warned player being annoyed, but living with it and being a little more careful next time. If a single player can cause another player to have to rethrow a shot, I can see a few arguments, flared tempers, and then possible tit-for-tat retribution against the player who called the first foot fault. It may make players even less likely to call a stance violation!

One of the benefits to having a second on a call like a foot fault is that it is that there is now at least a bit of consensus and not a one v. one argument. Under the current rules, a stance violation call without a second is like a pure warning. That option is no longer the case with the 2013 rules.

bruceuk
Sep 14 2012, 10:19 AM
I understand that concern.

Of course if you remove the rethrow, you have the possibility of someone having a tricky 8m headwind putt for the title, leaning into it too much and following through. Doesn't matter that the whole finals card, gallery, sponsors et al saw it, the putt still stands. Not sure that's an ideal picture either!

jimimc
Sep 14 2012, 10:50 AM
804.02 E:

If, after a mandatory has been passed, a subsequent throw crosses the mandatory line on the correct side but in the reverse direction, the mandatory has no longer been passed. The player must still pass the mandatory on the correct side. A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole.


Does this mean if my throw passes a mandatory on the correct side hits a tree then rolls back through the mandatory, that I now have missed the mandatory? I know it sounds strange, but this actually happened in a tournament. One person called it a missed mandatory, while the others ruled it a made mandatory, play on.

krupicka
Sep 14 2012, 10:54 AM
Under the previous rules that was the correct interpretation.

2011 rules - "Once the disc has completely passed the mandatory line on the correct side (even if it subsequently re-crosses the line), the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole"

jimimc
Sep 14 2012, 11:16 AM
And now it would be a missed mando?

bruceuk
Sep 14 2012, 11:22 AM
Not missed, but not made. You still have to correctly pass it on your next throw. If however it rolls back on the incorrect side, you have made the mando and can play any way you choose.

Imagine your disc has a piece of string attached to it and tied to the tee post, if after your throw you pull the string taut and it passes the correct side of the mando, you're all good. If not, then you're not.

cgkdisc
Sep 14 2012, 11:23 AM
Your disc now has to land past the made mando side before you've made the mando. If your disc passes it then bounces back across the made mando side, you have not made the mando.

bruceuk: this seems unclear as stated below:

Once you pass the mando, can you throw around the wrong side of it if for some reason that would be a good route? Or if your throw passes the mando on the good side, hits a tree and comes back across the bad side line you stated you still made the mando using the string theory. Do you still have to throw around the good side on your next shot?

bruceuk
Sep 14 2012, 11:37 AM
if your throw passes the mando on the good side, hits a tree and comes back across the bad side line you stated you still made the mando using the string theory. Do you still have to throw around the good side on your next shot?

No, go any way you choose.

The reason being that the bad side mando line extends to infinity, and it is possible to have a dogleg whereby the basket is tee side of the line.

futurecollisions
Sep 14 2012, 11:42 AM
How quickly we descend from thanks and constructive criticism to personal insults, and all for posing a hypothetical question.

FWIW I agree and would prefer to have a second for rethrows or no rethrow for warning, but here I thought we were having a discussion. Wrong ironically named forum I guess.

Bruce I apologize if that came across as a personal attack, it was not meant to. Your statement there does bother me though and I hope this is not the direction of the PDGA to assume a punishment mentality

cgkdisc
Sep 14 2012, 11:46 AM
Why the need for this text regarding connecting lies? "A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole."

It seems like the flight line will always fulfill this statement by default when players pass the mando properly. It seems to just muddle the clarity in the rule and in fact make players believe they can't throw across the wrong side of the mando once they have passed it properly.

bruceuk
Sep 14 2012, 11:50 AM
Accepted. And it isn't. My personal aim is to make the stance easier to achieve, to reduce violations, but that is another thread that I'll start next week when I don't have a tournament to TD :D

ERicJ
Sep 14 2012, 11:52 AM
I understand that concern.

Of course if you remove the rethrow, you have the possibility of someone having a tricky 8m headwind putt for the title, leaning into it too much and following through. Doesn't matter that the whole finals card, gallery, sponsors et al saw it, the putt still stands. Not sure that's an ideal picture either!
So make the rule like this:

A solo i.e., un-seconded, initial stance violation call is a warning without rethrow.

An initial stance violation call that is seconded is a warning with rethrow.

Problem solved, right?

bombmk
Sep 14 2012, 02:06 PM
Why the need for this text regarding connecting lies? "A line connecting the lies for the hole must pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole."

It seems like the flight line will always fulfill this statement by default when players pass the mando properly. It seems to just muddle the clarity in the rule and in fact make players believe they can't throw across the wrong side of the mando once they have passed it properly.

I think that paragraph was an attempt to clarify the new rule. I think they missed the mando on it, though. :)

stevenpwest
Sep 14 2012, 06:09 PM
I got two versions from your link. Which one is approved: July 16 or July 28?

JenniferB
Sep 16 2012, 09:55 AM
Yes, that seems correct to me. I'll raise it.

I sure hope not. 804 says the options for relief can be limited as a special condition with approval of the TM. 805 then lays down some requirements for special conditions, not a loop hole for when a "special condition" can be permitted for limiting relief options.

I don't see where a TD could say, "this island I've drawn around this pin is a 'special condition' requiring a mandatory retee unless you land safely. It's not 'OB.' It's a 'special condition,' so I don't need permission from the tour manager."

If that's allowed, then the rule change has no teeth at all. Sure, the TD can declare a drop zone and specify whether a penalty is assessed for using it, all without TD approval. But saying an area can be declared as not OB, but that limited relief from the area is mandated as a "special condition" sounds like complete BS to me.

davidsauls
Sep 16 2012, 10:19 AM
re: Required drop zones for O.B.

Since TDs must get approval from the Tour Manager, has thought been given to how this process will play out?

Will it be just a matter of requesting it as a rules variation on the sanctioning agreement? (I.E., "On Hole 11, a drop zone will be required for all shots going O.B."). Or will we need to submit more---hole descriptions, diagrams, rationale for requiring drop zone?

wsfaplau
Sep 19 2012, 07:25 PM
Looks like you can now keep putting right up to the start signal instead of having to stop at the 2 minute warning

I saw the practice throw definition and saw it was during the round. I assumed the 2 minute part had been dropped. I didn't look in the comp manual. I now see the definition in the old rules matches the new one.

I was wrong. It is no different.

As for it being too late to make any changes that is disappointing but I appreciate you intended for it to be different. Next time.

stevenpwest
Oct 06 2012, 08:47 PM
I'd just like to point out that this set of rules is a great improvement. There are far fewer redundancies and conflicting restatements, more consistent nomenclature, and far fewer logical loose ends. Just defining "position" as opposed to "lie" is a huge improvement.

We may never even realize how much better these are, because no one notices problems once they go away.

reallybadputter
Oct 08 2012, 10:44 AM
801.02.D A disc that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

While I don't carry one regularly any more, when I used to carry a Discraft UltraStar (ultimate disc) I'd get someone asking about its legality at least a few times a year... So if that happens, should I now write down two scores on every hole that I throw it on? (Like any other disputed ruling, one with the penalty, and one without, and then have to go to the TD after the round for a ruling.)

jconnell
Oct 08 2012, 12:47 PM
801.02.D A disc that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

While I don't carry one regularly any more, when I used to carry a Discraft UltraStar (ultimate disc) I'd get someone asking about its legality at least a few times a year... So if that happens, should I now write down two scores on every hole that I throw it on? (Like any other disputed ruling, one with the penalty, and one without, and then have to go to the TD after the round for a ruling.)

I wouldn't think so. The player would have to provide a reason to question its illegality other than he "doesn't think it's on the approved disc list". Otherwise, what's to stop a player from questioning any disc's legality and rendering it useless to its owner for the remainder of the round? "I don't think your Aviar is approved as PDGA legal...stop putting with it until we consult the TD." It's ridiculous.

If I were a player carrying a legal disc that players might question whether it is approved for play, like an Ultrastar, I'd have a copy of the approved discs list in my bag to whip out and show the doubters. It shouldn't be necessary, but if you're encountering a few uninformed folks a year on the matter, it might be worth the hassle.

cgkdisc
Oct 08 2012, 12:56 PM
I think where the problem might occur is if a player say hands the Aviar back to its owner when pulling discs out of the basket after putting out and says, "Ya know that Aviar feels a little too heavy. I think we need to wait and see what the TD says to make sure it's legal." Then what? It's an "innocent" request and the TD is unlikely to have a scale.

wsfaplau
Oct 08 2012, 05:31 PM
I wouldn't think so. The player would have to provide a reason to question its illegality other than he "doesn't think it's on the approved disc list". Otherwise, what's to stop a player from questioning any disc's legality and rendering it useless to its owner for the remainder of the round? "I don't think your Aviar is approved as PDGA legal...stop putting with it until we consult the TD." It's ridiculous.

If I were a player carrying a legal disc that players might question whether it is approved for play, like an Ultrastar, I'd have a copy of the approved discs list in my bag to whip out and show the doubters. It shouldn't be necessary, but if you're encountering a few uninformed folks a year on the matter, it might be worth the hassle.

I disagree, the rule seems pretty straight forward to me. The disc was questioned. That meets the criteria the rule put forth. There is nothing that says there has to be a reason.

I think it is a bad rule.

Martin_Bohn
Oct 08 2012, 06:20 PM
I think where the problem might occur is if a player say hands the Aviar back to its owner when pulling discs out of the basket after putting out and says, "Ya know that Aviar feels a little too heavy. I think we need to wait and see what the TD says to make sure it's legal." Then what? It's an "innocent" request and the TD is unlikely to have a scale.

now that you mention it that could be a problem. that players' arm isnt a scale either. he's working the other player. which is pretty lame if thats all he can come up with. you know towards the end of a tourney round my mini feels like its overweight. :)

jconnell
Oct 08 2012, 06:52 PM
I disagree, the rule seems pretty straight forward to me. The disc was questioned. That meets the criteria the rule put forth. There is nothing that says there has to be a reason.

I think it is a bad rule.

No question, Pete. I agree that it's a poor rule if it leaves open the opportunity for players to "work" each other by declaring perfectly legal discs questionable with no reason or evidence required. Seems a shame that all a player has to do is ask "is that disc legal?" even as a legitimate question (which for an Ultrastar is common), and the disc's owner is forced to put it away until he can ask the TD for approval. Especially if the answer can be given and the inquiring player's question nullified with a quick look at the approved disc list, no TD input required.

Though now that this point has been brought up, I'm looking forward to tooling on our local Epic throwers after the start of the year. :p

cgkdisc
Oct 08 2012, 07:05 PM
Smartphones can legally be used in 2013 so you might want to save a link to the Approved disc page. Now they just need to develop an app and phone sensor to plug in the USB port to weigh discs.

ERicJ
Oct 08 2012, 10:53 PM
Smartphones can legally be used in 2013 so you might want to save a link to the Approved disc page. Now they just need to develop an app and phone sensor to plug in the USB port to weigh discs.
Weigh Max BX-500 BlackBox (http://www.amazon.com/Weigh-Max-BlackBox-Digital-Jewelry/dp/B0021SXJ70) FTW.

[outdated ebay link removed]
About the size of a deck of playing cards, so it easily fits in your pocket.I just got mine in the mail today. I love it. It is perfect. You do need to place on cup on top to see the reading, but it takes 1 button and 1 second to zero the scale and you can weigh a disc in about 2 seconds!!

Highly recommended. Cheap, portable, easy to use.
Add really accurate to the list of props too.

I have access to an ASTM E617 (http://www.astm.org/Standards/E617.htm) Class 6 (http://www.troemner.com/pdf/HandbookMetricToleranceChartANSI_ASTM_NISTONLY.pdf ) weight set and used that to calibrate my Weighmax Black Box scale to be dead on balls accurate (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104952/quotes). After calibration every weight combination I tried from 1g up to 500g read out exactly what it should have been to 0.1g on the scale.

E.g. Class 6 weights at 170g are +/- 20mg (or +/- 0.01%), and the scale read "170.0g".

Prior to calibration the Black Box was off by ~1g at 500g range.

JoakimBL
Oct 09 2012, 02:03 PM
The list of approved discs is pretty useless. Many discs don't have any markings to identify what it is. And how is a TD equipped to identify a worn disc with no markings and maybe a custom dye job? The only kind of illegal disc he can accurately judge is discs with damage, and maybe some kind of modified disc.

jconnell
Oct 09 2012, 05:32 PM
The list of approved discs is pretty useless. Many discs don't have any markings to identify what it is. And how is a TD equipped to identify a worn disc with no markings and maybe a custom dye job? The only kind of illegal disc he can accurately judge is discs with damage, and maybe some kind of modified disc.

I understand the idea of not being able to identify a particular model because stamps have worn off or what have you, but how many non-PDGA approved flying discs are there that could be mistaken for a golf disc?

Besides, most manufacturers have their company name molded into the discs somewhere, so even if the model is indeterminate, at least the manufacturer is identifiable. And how many of these manufacturers have unapproved or disapproved discs on the market? QuestAT, I suppose, with the Turbo Putt (not that that isn't easily identifiable) Any others?

So if the model is in question, there's usually an easy way to verify its manufacturer, and from there I would ask the player to identify the model. I've known plenty of casual recreational players that have no idea what the disc they're throwing is, but I've met very few tournament players who couldn't answer the question "what type of disc is that?" about any disc they owned. At that point, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the player that the disc he's claiming is a Valkyrie is a Valkyrie, especially if the disc has the name "Innova" molded somewhere on its underside.

ERicJ
Oct 09 2012, 06:27 PM
And how many of these manufacturers have unapproved or disapproved discs on the market? QuestAT, I suppose, with the Turbo Putt (not that that isn't easily identifiable) Any others?
Off the top of my head:
Discraft Nuke+ (protos only?)
Gateway Ninja
Innova XB (protos only)
Quest Wheel
None of the Black Jax light up discs are approved.

cgkdisc
Oct 09 2012, 06:38 PM
Lots of current Ace Race discs out there but they are identified unless someone takes off the stamp.

JenniferB
Oct 10 2012, 09:44 AM
The illegal disc question rule also presents a case of mutually assured destruction, so a player who tries to work another player using this rule is subject to being worked in return. Expect to see a case of two players questioning every single disc in each others' bags. The only question is when. I have January 1st in the pool. :-)

ERicJ
Oct 10 2012, 08:30 PM
The illegal disc question rule also presents a case of mutually assured destruction, so a player who tries to work another player using this rule is subject to being worked in return. Expect to see a case of two players questioning every single disc in each others' bags. The only question is when. I have January 1st in the pool. :-)
Better get the TD to approve all your discs before the round starts.

The PDGA can then supply TD's with "PDGA Approved" stickers that they can hand out to players to put on discs that the TD has specifically checked prior to each event. The sticker of course violates the PDGA rule that prevents you from making any post production modifications to the disc. :D

JenniferB
Oct 27 2012, 10:38 PM
Regarding the change to the mando rules stating that players will now, by default, throw from the previous lie if no drop zone is provided, I think the new rule is a bad idea. Mandos are supposed to be used for safety reasons, such as avoiding taking a line that passes through a playground or picnic pavilion, or another fairway or tee. That's the original purpose (and only valid purpose imho) of mandos. Given that, if someone just missed the mando, thereby demonstrating an inability to avoid putting others at risk, the last thing you want is for them to throw the same shot again from the same place. Much better, in my view, to have them automatically move to the default drop zone at the mando and throw from there. Granted, in a tournament, TDs can mark drop zones if safety is a real concern. But this rule change is going to promote unsafe casual play at every course that has properly designed mandos. I think this decision is one of the worst decisions the rules committee could have made.

araydallas
Oct 27 2012, 10:56 PM
Regarding the change to the mando rules stating that players will now, by default, throw from the previous lie if no drop zone is provided, I think the new rule is a bad idea. Mandos are supposed to be used for safety reasons, such as avoiding taking a line that passes through a playground or picnic pavilion, or another fairway or tee. That's the original purpose (and only valid purpose imho) of mandos. Given that, if someone just missed the mando, thereby demonstrating an inability to avoid putting others at risk, the last thing you want is for them to throw the same shot again from the same place. Much better, in my view, to have them automatically move to the default drop zone at the mando and throw from there. Granted, in a tournament, TDs can mark drop zones if safety is a real concern. But this rule change is going to promote unsafe casual play at every course that has properly designed mandos. I think this decision is one of the worst decisions the rules committee could have made.

I agree. Especially since I have seen many times mandatories are used to shape lines of play, not simply for safety's sake.

Now that being said, the RC doesn't monitor this site. I suggest this thought be sent to them. Perhaps they thought the rule would force TD's to make sure they marked the drop zones.

JenniferB
Oct 28 2012, 08:46 AM
Perhaps they thought the rule would force TD's to make sure they marked the drop zones.

Ha! Good luck with that. It's hard enough to get TDs to mark tees, put water out on the course, or paint OB. I think TDs will more likely let the previous lie rule prevail even when the mando is clearly there for safety reasons, or legal reasons for that matter. Then you'll have tournament players climbing fences and getting courses pulled, among other things.

cgkdisc
Oct 28 2012, 09:02 AM
Mandos should never be placed for direct safety reasons because they will not stop errant shots from going into a playground or picnic area. That would be a poor hole design in the first place. While not a fan of the new change versus the previous default drop zone, it should not increase safety problems (just scores) if the hole is designed properly in the first place.

jconnell
Oct 28 2012, 07:28 PM
The only good mando is one that a player has to try hard in order to miss it. If a player can "just miss" their line and miss the mando, the mando is poorly located or the hole is poorly designed.

I do disagree with the argument about casual play. In my experience, most casual/non-tournament playing folks don't pay attention to things like mandos or OB anyway. No rule changes are going to change the way they (mis)play a course.

JenniferB
Dec 22 2012, 07:14 AM
If someone questions the legality of my putter I can't use it again until the TD or an official approves it?

I just noticed the rule says "unless subsequently approved by the director," not "until subsequently approved by the director."

A disc that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

I think that means you can keep using the disc until the director says it is illegal, but you are assuming the risk of taking penalty throws or even being disqualified if the director subsequently rules the disc illegal.

wsfaplau
Dec 22 2012, 11:59 AM
That is a possible interpretation but not the only one

DShelton
Dec 24 2012, 12:03 AM
The way I read it is that the disc is illegal once it is questioned by a player or official. You can't use it. If the Director later says it isn't, then you can return to using it.

PhattD
Dec 24 2012, 02:37 PM
Thank you for posting these.

Just took a cursory glance through the new text of the rule book. Plenty of good changes.

One thing jumped out to me as ripe for potential abuse, and that is the "Omitted Hole" rule (803.03 G. 6.). If a player comes up to a hole for which they feel they will throw a high number of throws, they could skip it, call it omitted, and take par+4 and perhaps take a score lower than they would if they played it. Or perhaps a hole with a water hazard that a player prefers to skip so they don't lose discs. A seven might be better than tin-cupping four discs into the water and taking a double digit score.

I understand the reasoning behind the rule though...for instances where an emergency arises and the player must step away but can also return. But perhaps that belongs under the discretionary rules as a call for the TD to make on a case by case basis. The point being that it should be incumbent on the players to play every hole on the course regardless of difficulty, and I think the omitted hole rule gives players a loop hole to intentionally skip holes, potentially without consequence. Granted, it's a loophole that will be advantageous in only a very few and probably very rare occasions, but a loophole just the same.

I'll need to read the new book more thoroughly to make any further comments.

What are the chances that someone, for whom par +4 is likely to be better than what they actually shoot, is actually going to have any bearing on the people score well enough to cash? I understand that it is technically possible but I guess I'd have to say show me someone actually doing it in a way that unfairly benefits them before I'm gonna care.

davidsauls
Dec 25 2012, 07:44 PM
I just noticed the rule says "unless subsequently approved by the director," not "until subsequently approved by the director."



I think that means you can keep using the disc until the director says it is illegal, but you are assuming the risk of taking penalty throws or even being disqualified if the director subsequently rules the disc illegal.


My reading would be that you can't use it. "Until" would imply that the disc will be approved by the TD; "unless" that it may or may not be.

wsfaplau
Dec 25 2012, 08:42 PM
There is another option. The group can stand aside, let the the other groups play through, and go find the TD who will then make the call.

Nobody will be happy but that is one way to handle it.

JoakimBL
Dec 26 2012, 05:13 AM
My reading would be that you can't use it. "Until" would imply that the disc will be approved by the TD; "unless" that it may or may not be.

But that interpretation makes less sense. What would be the point? If that was the case, it would make much more sense that the TD needed to approve all discs prior to the round.
Granted, I read the rule that way too at first, but thinking about it, it just makes more sense the other way.

davidsauls
Dec 26 2012, 08:46 AM
But that interpretation makes less sense. What would be the point? If that was the case, it would make much more sense that the TD needed to approve all discs prior to the round.
Granted, I read the rule that way too at first, but thinking about it, it just makes more sense the other way.

I'm talking about a literal reading of what the words say, not what the Rules Committee may have intended, nor how it's likely to be invoked.

"Is illegal" implies an immediate change in status, and "subsequently" implies a change in status sometime in the future.

The most generous interpretation I see is that the player continues using the disc, and the when the TD subsequently approves it, that approval is retroactive back to the moment when the disc declared illegal.

I haven't read the entire revised rulebook so don't know if other rules apply. Short of that, this looks to me to be a poorly-worded rule.

The assumption is probably that a disc can't be questioned except for specific reasons---non-approved model, weight not marked, no identifying mark, broken plate, etc. Is the rule clear on this?

JoakimBL
Dec 26 2012, 02:34 PM
I actually think the wording is fine. As JenB points out, the disc is only illegal, if it isn't approved by the the TD at some point in time, after it the legality has been questioned. If the TD approves the disc after the round, the disc was never illegal to use.

However, there is a risk associated with using the disc after it has been questioned, that may or may not have been intentional. If you lose the disc, the TD cannot approve it, and it then becomes illegal, and you risk beeing DQ'ed. If the disc gets damaged to the point where it becomes illegal after it has been questioned, what then?

wsfaplau
Dec 26 2012, 06:12 PM
I'm not sure how the wording is fine if it still leaves unanswered questions and is open to multiple conflicting interpretations.

Here is yet another option. That might be better than stepping aside until you can get a ruling.

Just play provisionals on the holes you used that disc on.

Of course sending a question to the rules committee would clear it up.
I'll send one off and post the response

JoakimBL
Dec 27 2012, 01:56 PM
Writing rules that cannot be msinterpreted by those who lack reading comprehension skills is impossible. (No offense to anyone here intended at all) I agree there are some details that could use som clarification, but to me the rule is pretty cut and dry. The rule says unless, NOT until. If the TD approves the disc it is not and have not been illegal to use.
However, it should be clarified what the procedure should be for making the TD approve the disc. Who is responsible? How do you make sure the disc that is checked is the exact same as the one questioned and how do you keep track of the throws used by each questioned disc and the possible resulting penalties. But that is not the rules so much as the competition manual I think. If those questions aren't answered in the competition manual, which I don't remember reading, maybe the RC haven't thought this rule through enough? But I still think the rule is pretty clear, if you read it literally.

wsfaplau
Jan 03 2013, 04:02 PM
I heard back from the rules committee.

Paraphrasing...

This isn't new. Last year's rules say basically the same thing.
They see it as a minor issue that wasn't prioritized to clean up but might in the future.
While it might seem to give power to a malicious player it would be a hard thing to pull off.
A TD or PDGA could discipline a player who abuses the rule and since so few unapproved discs are around it would be hard to convince anyone you really thought a particular disc was illegal.

iacas
Jan 04 2013, 05:04 PM
A TD or PDGA could discipline a player who abuses the rule and since so few unapproved discs are around it would be hard to convince anyone you really thought a particular disc was illegal.

Can you be certain of the bold part?

There are a fair number of overweight Wizards and Aviars and other putters out there. They're technically illegal.

Any disc which has had its "original flight characteristics altered" is also technically an illegal disc (with no reasonable method to verify).

wsfaplau
Jan 07 2013, 11:47 AM
The only thing I am certain of is that I accurately paraphrased what I heard back from the rules committee and didn't offer my own opinion.

16670
Jan 07 2013, 01:49 PM
hypothetical sitiation-
Frank,Tom,Bill,and Dave are playing a sanctioned tournament round.They have played many tournament rounds together but not always on the same card.Frank and Tom have had issues with each other before and prefer to not have to play together.But Frank and Tom both get along fine with Bill and Dave.Lets assume its the final round and this is the lead card. Frank and Tom are tied for 3rd with Bill and Dave well ahead fighting for the lead on hole 18. Hole 18 is not an easy birdie almost everyone gets a 3 slightly uphill 450' with a few smaller trees along the sides Bill and Dave both throw good shots to 100-140' short and to the right of the pin.Frank throws a good shot to 130' but towards the left side.Tom then throws and hits one of the trees on the left 200' back.They all start to walk down the fairway headed to there discs Frank and Tom kinda towards the left Bill and Dave kinda to the right.Tom gets to his disc that is under the tree everyone stops waits,Tom gets down a knee and throws a forehand that holes out from 200".Frank turns around and tells Bill and Dave" i called him on a footfault before it even hit the basket did you hear me?" Now lets say that both Bill and Dave wear earbuds with music while playing. Tom says he didnt footfault and that Frank never called him on anything.Frank swears on his mother that he did.whats the call?
Could anyone tell me how this couldnt happen with the current rule?

I think if the first occurance is not seconded there should not be a re-throw but only a warning
If the first occurance is seconded then a re-throw and the warning are called for

wsfaplau
Jan 07 2013, 05:54 PM
Yes, this could happen and there are countless other ways a devious player(s) could impact someone in the way you describe, however, I've been playing for a long time and have never heard of such deviousness. And as a former chair of the PDGA disciplinary committee I have heard my share of incident reports.

But yes, in theory, that could happen.

I like your suggestion though.

jconnell
Jan 07 2013, 06:25 PM
Yes, this could happen and there are countless other ways a devious player(s) could impact someone in the way you describe, however, I've been playing for a long time and have never heard of such deviousness. And as a former chair of the PDGA disciplinary committee I have heard my share of incident reports.

But yes, in theory, that could happen.

I like your suggestion though.

Such deviousness couldn't be accomplished as described in years past because prior to last Tuesday, in order to validly call and enforce a stance violation, one required a second. Frank would have needed assistance from Bill or Dave or even Tom in order for the call to stand. If he didn't get it, no foul and the group moves on.

Now, if it's the first violation of the round for the offending player, no second is needed. Frank says he called the violation, so Tom has to re-throw. Doesn't matter if Tom didn't hear him initially and it doesn't matter if Bill and Dave saw the violation or heard the call. Frank called it, which is all that is necessary according to the way the rule is now written.

I think that's a situation ripe for abuse. I'm sure the go to defense will be that if a player "abuses" this rule, he's subject to DQ or discipline for mis-using the rules. Good luck proving the "abuse". It can only happen once per round, so it will be hard to even trace whether it's habitual. And doesn't the mere threat of it being perceived to be one player working another mean that players are going to be even more hesitant to make legitimate calls than they might have been in the past when it did require two witnesses? This new rule is really not a step forward and it certainly isn't going to make stance violations easier to call.

cwmwhipp
Jan 07 2013, 07:05 PM
801.03 Artificial Devices

During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may directly assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin (such as gloves, tape, bandages, or gauze) and medical items (such as knee or ankle braces). Placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed. An item such as a towel or a pad may be placed on the lie as long as it is not greater than one centimeter in thickness when compressed.

A device that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

A player shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed at any time during a round to be using an illegal artificial device. A player who repeatedly uses an illegal device may be subject to disqualification in accordance with Section 3.3 of the PDGA Competition Manual.

Can we now use range finders or something similar during a round? These were previously not allowed but I see no mention of them now.

wsfaplau
Jan 07 2013, 07:08 PM
801.03 Artificial Devices

During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may directly assist in making a throw, except those devices that reduce or control abrasion to the skin (such as gloves, tape, bandages, or gauze) and medical items (such as knee or ankle braces). Placing an object as a directional aid is not allowed. An item such as a towel or a pad may be placed on the lie as long as it is not greater than one centimeter in thickness when compressed.

A device that is questioned by another player or an official is illegal unless it is subsequently approved by the Director.

A player shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed at any time during a round to be using an illegal artificial device. A player who repeatedly uses an illegal device may be subject to disqualification in accordance with Section 3.3 of the PDGA Competition Manual.

Can we now use range finders or something similar during a round? These were previously not allowed but I see no mention of them now.

yes you may

wsfaplau
Jan 07 2013, 07:10 PM
Such deviousness couldn't be accomplished as described in years past because prior to last Tuesday, in order to validly call and enforce a stance violation, one required a second. Frank would have needed assistance from Bill or Dave or even Tom in order for the call to stand. If he didn't get it, no foul and the group moves on.

Now, if it's the first violation of the round for the offending player, no second is needed. Frank says he called the violation, so Tom has to re-throw. Doesn't matter if Tom didn't hear him initially and it doesn't matter if Bill and Dave saw the violation or heard the call. Frank called it, which is all that is necessary according to the way the rule is now written.

I think that's a situation ripe for abuse. I'm sure the go to defense will be that if a player "abuses" this rule, he's subject to DQ or discipline for mis-using the rules. Good luck proving the "abuse". It can only happen once per round, so it will be hard to even trace whether it's habitual. And doesn't the mere threat of it being perceived to be one player working another mean that players are going to be even more hesitant to make legitimate calls than they might have been in the past when it did require two witnesses? This new rule is really not a step forward and it certainly isn't going to make stance violations easier to call.


The deviousness could have happened in the past with a guy and a buddy and didn't.
Only time will tell how this plays out but I don't think it will be much of an issue.

We'll see though

scarson
Jan 09 2013, 11:57 PM
It appears that an error has been made regarding the omission of a definition for falling putt in the rule book. The Summary of Rules Changes states that a definition was added for Falling Putt. However, it looks like the definition for Putt (falling) from the 2012 rules was removed and not replaced with a falling putt definition.

Does the definition from 2012 remain the same for 2013?

scarson
Jan 09 2013, 11:58 PM
For an mobile friendly version of the PDGA Rules please check out (and bookmark) http://m.4pdga.com

Please let me know if anyone notices any problems with this version.

JoakimBL
Jan 10 2013, 06:26 AM
[...]Doesn't matter if Tom didn't hear him initially and it doesn't matter if Bill and Dave saw the violation or heard the call. Frank called it, which is all that is necessary according to the way the rule is now written.
[...]
Where do you read that it doesn't matter if anyone heard the initial call? I'll argue if no one heard a valid call, it wasn't called.

jconnell
Jan 10 2013, 08:53 AM
Where do you read that it doesn't matter if anyone heard the initial call? I'll argue if no one heard a valid call, it wasn't called.

No one heard the initial call, but it seems to me that he's making the case he made a call, which to me is enough to say he made the call. Remember, they removed the 3-second rule, replacing it with "promptly". He made the call "promptly", and because the initial call apparently went unheard, he's repeating the call, also "promptly". This hypothetical doesn't say he waited until 10 minutes later to argue, I have to assume he's doing it immediately after the shot in question. He's not going to let the player pick up his mark and his bag and start walking away if he's trying to argue there was a violation.

I guess my counter question should be where do you see that the initial call has to be heard to be valid? If that's a requirement, perhaps the earbud wearing players deserve courtesy violations for failing to listen...or maybe earbuds and music players should be disallowed so that players can hear calls in situations like this. (just to be clear, I'm not advocating banning earbuds and the like, just demonstrating that it isn't 100% on the calling player to ensure he's heard when making a call)

Bottom line is this...the initial call does not have to be THE call. If no one heard that, his repeating it to be heard is just as valid a call as the first one, especially with the 3-second limitation no longer in place.

JoakimBL
Jan 10 2013, 11:45 AM
I'm guessing my argument is that exactly because of the situation you describe you have to make the initial call in such a way that there cannot be a dispute over whether or not the call was made "promptly" and not just after it was observed to go in the basket and it would suit the calling player to call a fault.
To be clear, I think it's a bad rule change all together, but there is no need to make it worse by allowing a call to stand, just because someone claims they called it properly. I'm not saying your interpretation is not valid, just that it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, so it's just your interpretation

jconnell
Jan 10 2013, 02:47 PM
I'm guessing my argument is that exactly because of the situation you describe you have to make the initial call in such a way that there cannot be a dispute over whether or not the call was made "promptly" and not just after it was observed to go in the basket and it would suit the calling player to call a fault.
To be clear, I think it's a bad rule change all together, but there is no need to make it worse by allowing a call to stand, just because someone claims they called it properly. I'm not saying your interpretation is not valid, just that it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, so it's just your interpretation

It also is not (and has never been) explicitly stated in the rules that the outcome of the shot means anything in terms of the validity of the call. I know that's what the whole 3 second thing was intended to do when it was there, but it seems to me that removing the exact time element from the rule is intended to relax the timing required to make a call. Therefore, whether the player made the initial unheard call at all is irrelevant to whether or not calling the violation again so that it can be heard is valid.

Unless the player making the call is waiting for maximum effect and allowing the throwing player to remove his mark and move away from the position before making (or re-iterating) the call, I don't think promptness is at issue.

All that said, I agree that the changes to this rule are poorly thought out. Both the removal of the 3-second window and the removal of the need for a second in the case of first offense of the round do more to cloud and complicate the application of the rules than to simplify and streamline them.

araydallas
Jan 10 2013, 06:09 PM
It appears that an error has been made regarding the omission of a definition for falling putt in the rule book. The Summary of Rules Changes states that a definition was added for Falling Putt. However, it looks like the definition for Putt (falling) from the 2012 rules was removed and not replaced with a falling putt definition.

Does the definition from 2012 remain the same for 2013?

See Definitions in rule 800.02

jconnell
Jan 10 2013, 06:47 PM
scarson is right. The only appearance of the term "falling putt" in the book appears in the summary of changes section. It does not appear in the Definitions nor in the sections of the book that address stance.

araydallas
Jan 10 2013, 08:36 PM
scarson is right. The only appearance of the term "falling putt" in the book appears in the summary of changes section. It does not appear in the Definitions nor in the sections of the book that address stance.

I see now. I have the mobile version and "Falling putt" was *asterisked, indicating it was inadvertently left out of the hard copy version.

cdamon
Jan 10 2013, 10:20 PM
Hello everyone. I'm the chair of the Rules Committee and the primary author of the 2013 revision of the
rulebook. I'm not on this forum very often, so I'll make a few points that I hope will help clarify the
discussion and then I'll sign off:

- It's great to see lively discussion of the changes. There weren't a whole lot of actual rule changes,
since the main focus was to improve the rulebook as a document. In my opinion, there weren't any major
rule changes. I don't mind reading criticism at all - I'm more interested in the substance of it. My
hope is that the disc golf community will regard this revision as a significant improvement.

- Folks like bruceuk, Chuck Kennedy, Pete Kenny, and Steve West have done a lot over the years to help
the sport in various ways. (I'm probably omitting some names, that's from a quick scan of this thread).
It's healthy to disagree with them (especially Chuck :)), just bear in mind that they've already put in a
lot of time and effort working with the PDGA to advance disc golf in a number of ways.

- The rules can always be improved. I agree that the rules on questioning an illegal disc or an
illegal artificial device should be clarified. The current interpretation I saw is correct: the item
is only illegal once the TD says it is. We should also consider how the single-person warning applies
to a stance violation, since there is a rethrow component to the handling of the violation. That was
overlooked. Pete is correct in stating that one goal of the rewrite is to make players less reluctant
to make rule calls.

- Good catch by scarson on the discrepancy regarding the definition of Falling Putt between the description of
changes and the Definitions section. The changes description is wrong; the definition was removed because
it does not appear in the rules.

- There will always be a point at which a rule breaks down, whether it's from malicious intent, an
unusual combination of circumstances, misapplication of the rules, etc. If the rules considered all
possible scenarios, they'd be a hundred pages long and no one would carry or use them. They're intended
to cover the vast majority of real-life situations. There's a section that recommends
extrapolating from the closest applicable rule for situations that are not explicitly covered. That,
together with appeals, provisionals, and escalation to the TD, gives us a pretty good safety net.

- The 2013 revision is done and printed, so the best way to phrase comments is as something to consider
for the next revision.

- Another forum for feedback is the PDGA contact form. A note to the Rules Committee comes to me,
and I'll generally reply fairly soon and copy the rest of the committee. Feel free to use that for
any rules-related question, including questions about the motivation behind specific changes. Note
that there's a separate contact form for competition-related questions.


-Conrad

Captain Bad
Jan 11 2013, 12:23 PM
I went to take the Official's Exam today, but it said it was still based on the 2011 rulebook. If I take the 2011 exam now, will it be valid? Is there a plan to release a 2013 Rules-based exam in the near future? If so, should I just wait until it's released to take the test?

jconnell
Jan 11 2013, 12:33 PM
I went to take the Official's Exam today, but it said it was still based on the 2011 rulebook. If I take the 2011 exam now, will it be valid? Is there a plan to release a 2013 Rules-based exam in the near future? If so, should I just wait until it's released to take the test?

They're not requiring those that passed the exam in 2011 or 2012 to re-test for 2013, so I think you'll be good to take the 2011 test. I just hope you have a copy of the 2011 book to which you can refer if need be, since it's obviously no longer available online. (and oddly, they've removed the link to the history of the rules page that had every version of the book dating back to the beginning available for browsing)

wsfaplau
Jan 11 2013, 02:03 PM
.... because of the situation you describe you have to make the initial call in such a way that there cannot be a dispute over whether or not the call was made "promptly" and not just after it was observed to go in the basket and it would suit the calling player to call a fault.
...

Give players penalty flags they can throw like football coaches to get a review!!!

araydallas
Jan 14 2013, 09:36 AM
I'm guessing my argument is that exactly because of the situation you describe you have to make the initial call in such a way that there cannot be a dispute over whether or not the call was made "promptly" and not just after it was observed to go in the basket and it would suit the calling player to call a fault.
To be clear, I think it's a bad rule change all together, but there is no need to make it worse by allowing a call to stand, just because someone claims they called it properly. I'm not saying your interpretation is not valid, just that it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, so it's just your interpretation

It also is not (and has never been) explicitly stated in the rules that the outcome of the shot means anything in terms of the validity of the call. I know that's what the whole 3 second thing was intended to do when it was there, but it seems to me that removing the exact time element from the rule is intended to relax the timing required to make a call. Therefore, whether the player made the initial unheard call at all is irrelevant to whether or not calling the violation again so that it can be heard is valid.

Unless the player making the call is waiting for maximum effect and allowing the throwing player to remove his mark and move away from the position before making (or re-iterating) the call, I don't think promptness is at issue.

All that said, I agree that the changes to this rule are poorly thought out. Both the removal of the 3-second window and the removal of the need for a second in the case of first offense of the round do more to cloud and complicate the application of the rules than to simplify and streamline them.

Give players penalty flags they can throw like football coaches to get a review!!!

Given all those comments, I do see the confusion and possible arguments that might ensue. I know Pete was "semi-"joking but perhaps some type of visible signal along with the verbal call could be a way to make it clear that you're calling a violation. Maybe a fist in the air, maybe pointing at the thrower & marker, or something like that. It wouldn't be required, but just like one way of demonstrating balance inside the circle is to put both feet on the ground behind the marker and picking it up, one way to verify a violation is called is the "double fist pump in the air" or some similar signal together with the prompt verbal call.

pterodactyl
Jan 14 2013, 04:15 PM
Do the discount double-check move!

PhattD
Jan 14 2013, 11:12 PM
There are no excuses today either. And they have full responsibility today as well. Regardless of a the signature or not.

The only way to enforce it would be to punish the absence of a signature. A completely bureaucratic reason. It serves no practical purpose other than to train people in some behaviour that the rules are already, potentially, punishing them for not following.

All the rulebook needs to say is that the player is solely reponsible for turning his/her scorecard in and the scores on it. If the score is wrong, you want to punish the player extra for not signing it?

Requiring initials or a signature would prevent someone from heading up to tourney central with the card while you're cleaning up a short putt and turning in the card before you had a chance to look at it. I wouldn't have a problem with someone telling me the card got turned in before he looked at it and wants to check his score. If you sign it or initial it first then you clearly had a chance to look it over.

NateB
Feb 18 2013, 01:38 PM
Is the "line of play" still defined as a line drawn from the target through the center of the disc or marker if the hole is horse shoe shaped?

krupicka
Feb 18 2013, 01:49 PM
The line of play is still the line drawn from the target through the center of the disc regardless of the shape of the fairway (except of course if there is a Mando).

NateB
Feb 20 2013, 04:42 PM
There is no mention of mando in the definition of line of play.

krupicka
Feb 20 2013, 06:15 PM
It's not in the definitions, but it is in 804.02.F
The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory.

jconnell
Feb 20 2013, 06:21 PM
There is no mention of mando in the definition of line of play.

Per 800.02, the line of play is "[t]he imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond."

Per 804.02F, "the nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory."

JenniferB
Apr 05 2013, 06:53 PM
If the legality of a player's disc is questioned. May the player take a provisional to play a hole using the the disc, and thus suffer no penalty if the disc is subsequently declared illegal by the TD?

jconnell
Apr 05 2013, 08:08 PM
If the legality of a player's disc is questioned. May the player take a provisional to play a hole using the the disc, and thus suffer no penalty if the disc is subsequently declared illegal by the TD?

No. If an illegal disc is used in play, the throw counts and it is penalized. If the player disputes the ruling of the group (in other words, he wants to throw the disc in question), then he does so at the risk of being penalized for it if the TD agrees that the disc is illegal.

It isn't a matter of the disc's position being in dispute and each side of the dispute results in a different position from which the player establishes his lie. The lie remains the same whether the disc is declared legal or illegal. A provisional is superfluous.

JenniferB
Apr 05 2013, 09:01 PM
What if a player's disc is challenged, so he throws a different disc, but then there is a dispute whether it lands ob and the player declares a provisional and uses the challenged disc for the provisional. Then it turns out the disc is illegal and his disc did land OB. The provisional throw doesn't count, but does the player still take 2 penalty throws?

jconnell
Apr 05 2013, 10:38 PM
What if a player's disc is challenged, so he throws a different disc, but then there is a dispute whether it lands ob and the player declares a provisional and uses the challenged disc for the provisional. Then it turns out the disc is illegal and his disc did land OB. The provisional throw doesn't count, but does the player still take 2 penalty throws?

Provisional shots that aren't counted can't really be penalized, since by discarding them, it is as if they never happened. But in your proposed scenario, there should be two sets of provisional throws, one as if the initial shot was in-bounds, one as if the initial shot was out-of-bounds. So choose wisely when deciding which set of provisional shots on which to use the illegal disc. If that set is the one that counts, it warrants the additional two-throw penalty.

JoakimBL
Apr 07 2013, 04:32 PM
No. If an illegal disc is used in play, the throw counts and it is penalized. If the player disputes the ruling of the group (in other words, he wants to throw the disc in question), then he does so at the risk of being penalized for it if the TD agrees that the disc is illegal.

It isn't a matter of the disc's position being in dispute and each side of the dispute results in a different position from which the player establishes his lie. The lie remains the same whether the disc is declared legal or illegal. A provisional is superfluous.

If your interpretation is correct, and I'm not in agreement that it is, instead of throwing the provisional, the player should just call an official and get a ruling.

bigchiz
Mar 17 2014, 05:29 PM
I sure hope not. 804 says the options for relief can be limited as a special condition with approval of the TM. 805 then lays down some requirements for special conditions, not a loop hole for when a "special condition" can be permitted for limiting relief options.

I don't see where a TD could say, "this island I've drawn around this pin is a 'special condition' requiring a mandatory retee unless you land safely. It's not 'OB.' It's a 'special condition,' so I don't need permission from the tour manager."

If that's allowed, then the rule change has no teeth at all. Sure, the TD can declare a drop zone and specify whether a penalty is assessed for using it, all without TD approval. But saying an area can be declared as not OB, but that limited relief from the area is mandated as a "special condition" sounds like complete BS to me.

Didn't see a response to the question.

I will be attending a tournament this weekend with drawn circle to create an island hole. TD says when throwing from the tee the disc must come to rest in the circle, otherwise you go to the drop zone and keep trying until the disc comes to rest on the island. Furthermore, once on the island and a disc rolls off the island the lie is marked up to a meter from where the disc went off the island. ... Careful not to call it an OB line since this is a "special condition", and also don't say the disc landed in the circle because it can land there then skip out and still not meet the special condition of coming to rest within the circle.

Is this all ok?

ERicJ
Mar 18 2014, 03:15 PM
803.03 Misplay
[...]
G. Types of misplay:

1. Incorrect Lie. The player has:
A. Teed off from a teeing area that is not the correct teeing area for the current hole; or, [...]

If no subsequent throws have been made after the misplayed throw, the player shall continue play from the correct lie and be assessed a one-throw penalty for the misplay. If an additional throw or throws have been made after the misplayed throw, the player shall complete the hole being played and be assessed a two-throw penalty for the misplay. So if a player tees from the wrong box, immediately discovers his mistake, tees from the correct box, and hits a putt... what is the correct score: 3 or 4?

The rule does not say explicitly if the throw from the wrong box is to be counted or not. Rule 803.03.G.8 explicitly says the extra throws on an extra hole are not counted.

cgkdisc
Mar 19 2014, 12:51 AM
Didn't see a response to the question.

I will be attending a tournament this weekend with drawn circle to create an island hole. TD says when throwing from the tee the disc must come to rest in the circle, otherwise you go to the drop zone and keep trying until the disc comes to rest on the island. Furthermore, once on the island and a disc rolls off the island the lie is marked up to a meter from where the disc went off the island. ... Careful not to call it an OB line since this is a "special condition", and also don't say the disc landed in the circle because it can land there then skip out and still not meet the special condition of coming to rest within the circle.

Is this all ok?
Perhaps a better way to phrase the rules on that hole would be to say that everyplace other than the island and the Tee are OB. If your tee shot or any throw from the drop zone lands OB, regardless how it gets there, your next throw must be from the drop zone. That way, if a shot thrown once on the island goes OB, you play normal OB rules either where it went out or perhaps a rethrow from your lie if that's better. This isn't a Special Condition setup, just the requirement to get a waiver from the Tour Manager when you restrict options upon going OB 804.04D(3).

cgkdisc
Mar 19 2014, 12:59 AM
So if a player tees from the wrong box, immediately discovers his mistake, tees from the correct box, and hits a putt... what is the correct score: 3 or 4?

The rule does not say explicitly if the throw from the wrong box is to be counted or not. Rule 803.03.G.8 explicitly says the extra throws on an extra hole are not counted.
Should be scored a three if I'm understanding that the player started to play a tournament hole from the wrong tee either on that hole or perhaps another hole's tee. You essentially count that as a practice throw plus the two shots taken once playing from the correct tee.

803.03G.8 applies when typically a group plays and completes an extra hole not part of the layout for that round. They played 19 holes instead of 18 let's say. They get a 2-shot penalty added to their correct 18 holes they played but don't count the throws actually made on the extra hole.

abee1010
Mar 19 2014, 10:23 AM
So in the latest update to the rules last year there is a little blurb in the Summary of Rule Changes at the end that says, "GPS devices are no longer disallowed." My interpretation of this is that it is now OK to get distance to the hole from a GPS app such as Udisc. I have talked to another player that interprets this differently based on the way an earlier sentence in the paragraph reads. Here is the full paragraph, "Carrying an illegal disc is no longer punishable by itself. You have to throw it for there to be a penalty. The same goes for an illegal device. You are allowed to use a towel or pad on a lie. GPS devices are no longer disallowed." I interpret these as 4 stand alone statements, but he thought the GPS statement was still referencing the previous statement saying you can carry it but not use it.

The Udisc app is the 1st I have found that has a GPS feature that will give you distance to hole and it is a great tool to have. I would like to get an official ruling on this topic from the PDGA before using a GPS in a tournament.

Thanks!

-- ABee #18512

cgkdisc
Mar 19 2014, 03:01 PM
You can essentially use any technology now like GPS, cell phones, ipods, and rangefinders except for those that enhance your physical ability to throw (like bionic arm attachment). The technology is limited in other rules such as not making distracting noise or using audio/video/camera recordings for rulings.

abee1010
Mar 19 2014, 03:21 PM
Wonderful, thanks for clarifying Chuck! Maybe we could make this more obvious in the next revision of the rules. Almost every pro player I have talked to about it still thinks GPS use is illegal, glad to hear it's not though.

cgkdisc
Mar 19 2014, 04:29 PM
Once the PDGA produced the scoring app, it was apparent the RC would need to at least allow smartphones and IPod touches to use it. And we know the phones have GPS that would be hard to prevent players from also using during a round. So their decision was to allow technology but they perhaps made the wording a little too subtle in the revised rule.

bigchiz
Mar 19 2014, 05:10 PM
Perhaps a better way to phrase the rules on that hole would be to say that everyplace other than the island and the Tee are OB. If your tee shot or any throw from the drop zone lands OB, regardless how it gets there, your next throw must be from the drop zone. That way, if a shot thrown once on the island goes OB, you play normal OB rules either where it went out or perhaps a rethrow from your lie if that's better. This isn't a Special Condition setup, just the requirement to get a waiver from the Tour Manager when you restrict options upon going OB 804.04D(3).

Thanks Chuck! I'll pass the info along to the TD and hopefully nip this issue in the bud before others in the region think they can do the same setup without first getting consent from the tour manager.

JoakimBL
Apr 27 2014, 08:46 AM
So in the latest update to the rules last year there is a little blurb in the Summary of Rule Changes at the end that says, "GPS devices are no longer disallowed." My interpretation of this is that it is now OK to get distance to the hole from a GPS app such as Udisc. I have talked to another player that interprets this differently based on the way an earlier sentence in the paragraph reads. Here is the full paragraph, "Carrying an illegal disc is no longer punishable by itself. You have to throw it for there to be a penalty. The same goes for an illegal device. You are allowed to use a towel or pad on a lie. GPS devices are no longer disallowed." I interpret these as 4 stand alone statements, but he thought the GPS statement was still referencing the previous statement saying you can carry it but not use it.

-- ABee #18512

I think you should tell the other players to not just read the summary of rule changes, but the entire rule book. That should clear up any confusion, and also, those are the official rules after all. It's better to point at those, than an answer on a message board, even if it is the official PDGA message board. ;)

abee1010
Apr 28 2014, 04:43 PM
I think you should tell the other players to not just read the summary of rule changes, but the entire rule book. That should clear up any confusion, and also, those are the official rules after all. It's better to point at those, than an answer on a message board, even if it is the official PDGA message board. ;)

Thanks for chiming in, but your comment is not really applicable in this situation. There is no mention of GPS whatsoever in the full rule book, it is ONLY in the summary of changes section. So reading the 'entire rule book' as you suggest would not help. I assume future revisions of the rulebook will have no mention of GPS at all and it should be assumed GPS is legal because the rules do not specifically state otherwise. In this case, it is specifically the text in the summary of changes that is leading to the confusion on this topic. The players I have discussed this with have been playing this game competitively for a long time and of course have read the entire rule book as have I, we just want to make sure we get this right! That is the purpose of this thread, to provide clarity in these situations where the rulebook is not crystal clear on a topic.

JoakimBL
Apr 29 2014, 09:18 AM
It does not mention laser rangefinders, radar and other specific devices either. What makes GPS special? The rules in their entirety does not disallow the use of measuring devices capable of measuring longer than 10 m. as the previous revision did, if I recall correctly. So If you were to read the current rules and never had read the old rules, there would be no issue at all. If somebody told you, that you could not use your GPS, they would no be able to find anywhere in the current rules that would disallow you to do that (outside of the summary, which isn't really part of the rules as such). So I think my comment is applicable.
I have no problem that you wan't clarification on the issue. But I do have a problem with players not reading the rules, and enforcing rules that don't exist.

ERicJ
Sep 03 2014, 11:04 AM
Aren't the two sections in red below contradictory?

[2013] Changes

[...]
Only one witness is required for a violation that results in a warning. Confirmation from a second person is required for a violation that results in a penalty throw. If a throw is subject to more than one violation, the one with the most severe penalty is applied. For example, a throw from an illegal stance that goes OB is penalized for being OB. Ties are broken by chronological order of the violations. For example, a throw that goes OB and then crosses the wrong side of a mandatory is OB.
--http://www.pdga.com/rules



802.04 Throwing from a Stance



A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.
When the disc is released, a player must:

Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point in contact with the marker disc or any object (including the playing surface) closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds.


Supporting point contact with or beyond the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released, except when putting.
Putting: Any throw from within 10 meters of the target, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the target, is a putt. Supporting point contact closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released is a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target.
A player shall receive a warning for the first stance violation in the round. Subsequent stance violations in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty. Stance violations may not be called or seconded by the thrower.
Any throw made from an illegal stance is disregarded. A re-throw must be taken from the original lie, prior to subsequent play by others in the group.

--http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/802-basic-rules-of-play/80204-throwing-from-a-stance

krupicka
Sep 03 2014, 12:07 PM
Is the summary of changes considered a part of the rules?

I disagree with the example of chronological order example, "For example, a throw that goes OB and then crosses the wrong side of a mandatory is OB."

A disc is not OB until ti comes to rest in an OB area. The mando is violated based on the flight of the disc. Chronologically the flight of the disc comes before the resting location of the disc and therefore a disc that crossed the wrong side of the mandatory should be the first violation regardless if the disc comes to rest in an in bounds or out of bounds area.

ERicJ
Sep 03 2014, 12:20 PM
Is the summary of changes considered a part of the rules?
Doubtful. But I'm looking for confirmation that the example cited is not valid as it contradicts the written rules.

I disagree with the example of chronological order example, "For example, a throw that goes OB and then crosses the wrong side of a mandatory is OB."

A disc is not OB until ti comes to rest in an OB area. The mando is violated based on the flight of the disc. Chronologically the flight of the disc comes before the resting location of the disc and therefore a disc that crossed the wrong side of the mandatory should be the first violation regardless if the disc comes to rest in an in bounds or out of bounds area.
A disc has not missed a Mando until it "establishes a position completely beyond the mandatory line" aka come to rest. Neither OB nor Mando penalty is in effect until a disc establishes position. So if you first crossed OB, then missed a Mando, then came to rest... they're saying the OB ruling would apply.

cgkdisc
Sep 03 2014, 09:43 PM
I understand Krupicka's concern and agree the RC made things more complicated in the current rules when eliminating the original order of penalty priority. Read section D in this Mando Rules School update where the Lost disc with missed mando goes against the OB/Mando principle just covered:
http://www.pdga.com/rules-school-mandatory-update-80402

JoakimBL
Sep 09 2014, 07:33 AM
Is there an update on the rules in the works?
There seems to be so many problems with the current rule book, that I don't understand that it doesn't seem to bother anyone in charge.
The definition of supporting point that makes certain types of falling putt allowed inside 10 meters, and the rules about mandatories which requires a law degree and that you were in the room when the rules were created to interpret correctly seems to be the worst.

cgkdisc
Sep 09 2014, 10:00 AM
The only thing that gets the rules revision process underway is a request from the PDGA Board to the Rules Committee, typically near the beginning of the year so they have time to get it ready to start the next year. That request was not made early this year so no rules revision in the works that I'm aware of.

cdamon
Nov 17 2014, 02:20 PM
That's correct. My hope is that we'll have a 2016 revision.