dixonjowers
Aug 12 2013, 11:05 AM
While playing a casual round recently I encountered a situation that was new to me. This was with a group of 6 that are all PDGA members and play Open at many tournaments.

Player A on the card had a difficult putt from a knee from about 20-25 feet. He was on a wooded, tight green where most of the card had moved off to the next tee after holing out in order to get out of the way. We were about 50 feet away and did not have a great view of his lie or stroke. I saw that he missed the putt from spot A and landed in spot B. Player B cleaned up his final putt. I was talking to someone on our box and I saw Player A walking from spot B to spot A. I didn't see all that was happening and I assumed that he had missed his putt from spot B and landed near spot A. Player B said that Player called a falling putt on himself and was doing the putt again.

This didn't seem right but I wanted to consult the rule book before saying anything as this was a casual round. 2 holes later I had a chance to sit down and look up the rule. It clearly says that you cannot call yourself on a stance violation. After pointing this out, his rebuttal was that I should have called him on the falling putt. I said that I did not see the falling putt. He said, after much back and forth later that evening, that I was required to watch every throw in order to ensure conformity to the rules and that I was in violation of the courtesy rules by not watching his throws and that he will stroke me for it next time.

The way that I read the courtesy section of the rules was that a player needed to watch to ensure conformity to the rules and this would only come up if they were making a rules violation call on an event that they did not witness.

I guess the question is...Are you REQUIRED to watch every throw of every person on the card? If so, what is the penalty for not watching?

jconnell
Aug 12 2013, 01:26 PM
I guess the question is...Are you REQUIRED to watch every throw of every person on the card? If so, what is the penalty for not watching?

Required? Not exactly. Expected and encouraged to do so? Yes.

801.04 Courtesy
B. Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.
G. A player violating a courtesy rule may be warned by any affected player, even if from another group, or by an official. The player shall be assessed one penalty throw for each subsequent courtesy violation of any type in the same round. Repeated violations of courtesy rules may result in disqualification in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Competition Manual.

Should, not shall, so it is not required by rule.

This player would be within his rights to give a courtesy warning to you for not complying with part B of the courtesy rule. But I would think if he's going to give it to one of the group, he should give it to everyone who walked off before he was finished with the hole.


All that said, he was most definitely incorrect in calling the stance violation on himself, per the current rules. But even if we were still playing by the old rules that allowed self-calls, he would still have required a second of that call in order for it to stand (or did Player B second his call allowing for the re-throw?). Either way, he was wrong to re-throw that putt without a legitimate call. And he was wrong that players are required to watch at all times.

chris vandagriff
Aug 13 2013, 01:43 PM
I'm player b . I did not see the putt, only the result. Seems the rule stating all throws from an illegal stance will be disregarded gives opportunity for manipulation of the rules. I feel the player in question felt he was within the rules and this was not the case here. But..no falling putt/stance violation was called. Id like to see an amendment to this rule to the effect of missing a putt from an illegal stance would be allowed, or considered a practice stroke, eliminating the grey area that may allow a player to take advantage of this rule and give themselves a "2nd" chance at a missed putt.

iacas
Sep 03 2013, 11:52 AM
I'd like to see an amendment to this rule to the effect of missing a putt from an illegal stance would be allowed, or considered a practice stroke, eliminating the grey area that may allow a player to take advantage of this rule and give themselves a "2nd" chance at a missed putt.

I agree.

I played in my first PDGA event, and in the first round, on the eighth hole, the eventual winner of the MA2 division did something very similar to this.

He was a few feet from the basket, and stood in a straddle behind his mini. He set his disc on the edge of the basket, still holding the edge, and was going to flip it in with his hands, but he didn't flip hard enough and the disc started to fall out.

So the player tried to catch his disc (even though it had clearly left his hands), and fell flat on his face beside the basket in doing so. The disc was on the ground just in front of his outstretched hands.

He promptly called a falling putt on himself and everyone else looked at me (they all knew it was my first tournament, so I was just laying low, as I didn't want to be "Mr. Rules Enforcer" or anything.). I said, "dude, whatever" and shook my head. He re-putted (normally, just lobbing it a foot or two into the basket) and claimed his four with no penalties or anything.

We only had four or five holes left to go, so the odds of getting another penalty stroke were minimal.

I feel this player gamed the system. Ignore the fact that he can't call a foot fault on himself, what if a friend in the group had called it? Why should it be up to the group to call something on yourself?

In my opinion, he should have been called for a foot fault AND the result should stand. A one-stroke penalty is pretty severe. Let's do away with the warning for foot faults and just institute it right away - particularly for putts inside the circle.

I could see it going one of two ways, both of which would improve the rule IMO:


No warnings on any throw, ever, for a stance violation/foot fault.
No warnings for stance violations/foot faults inside the circle, one warning (so long as it's before any penalties incurred inside the circle) outside the circle.


There are no warnings in golf (except slow play, to give players a chance to get into position, and even then it's often because it would be unfair to penalize the entire group if one player is slow). You break a rule, you get a penalty.

I'd like to see more of that in disc golf.

araydallas
Sep 03 2013, 01:05 PM
I agree.

I played in my first PDGA event, and in the first round, on the eighth hole, the eventual winner of the MA2 division did something very similar to this.

He was a few feet from the basket, and stood in a straddle behind his mini. He set his disc on the edge of the basket, still holding the edge, and was going to flip it in with his hands, but he didn't flip hard enough and the disc started to fall out.

So the player tried to catch his disc (even though it had clearly left his hands), and fell flat on his face beside the basket in doing so. The disc was on the ground just in front of his outstretched hands.

He promptly called a falling putt on himself and everyone else looked at me (they all knew it was my first tournament, so I was just laying low, as I didn't want to be "Mr. Rules Enforcer" or anything.). I said, "dude, whatever" and shook my head. He re-putted (normally, just lobbing it a foot or two into the basket) and claimed his four with no penalties or anything.

We only had four or five holes left to go, so the odds of getting another penalty stroke were minimal.

I feel this player gamed the system. Ignore the fact that he can't call a foot fault on himself, what if a friend in the group had called it? Why should it be up to the group to call something on yourself?

In my opinion, he should have been called for a foot fault AND the result should stand. A one-stroke penalty is pretty severe. Let's do away with the warning for foot faults and just institute it right away - particularly for putts inside the circle.

I could see it going one of two ways, both of which would improve the rule IMO:


No warnings on any throw, ever, for a stance violation/foot fault.
No warnings for stance violations/foot faults inside the circle, one warning (so long as it's before any penalties incurred inside the circle) outside the circle.


There are no warnings in golf (except slow play, to give players a chance to get into position, and even then it's often because it would be unfair to penalize the entire group if one player is slow). You break a rule, you get a penalty.

I'd like to see more of that in disc golf.


I think that under the new (2013) rules, a player cannot call a stance violation on himself (which falling putt is such a call). That should not have been allowed. That loophole was closed to address situations exactly like that. Knowing the rule, when he fell, rather than "whatever dude," I would have said, "sorry, no falling putt on yourself...that shot counts, you're now throwing five from the new lie."

I don't think that, if properly called, a violation should be dependent upon whether the shot was executed poorly, mediocrely, or well. If they foot fault they foot fault, and if I call it then it should be prompt.

Personally, I like the rule as is. A warning is there because not every player who faults does so either knowingly or intentionally. I've foot-faulted losing my balance on putts -- some were made some were not. I've also been "called" for a foot fault and the players had trouble "explaining" what I did -- it was on a temp tee box marked only by the two flags in front and I was told I was "outside the perpendicular extension" because I knew I wasn't across the line. Those deserve a warning for first time IMO.

cgkdisc
Sep 03 2013, 02:12 PM
Perhaps the foot fault rule might work better if no rethrows were made but you simply did not count a "faulted" shot that went in. If the player foot faults, you count the warning and later a penalty on the second fault. Whatever throw they made still counts which in some cases may have been wild anyway if it merited a foot fault call. If their faulted shot goes in, you just add one additional throw "penalty" to their score.

wsfaplau
Sep 03 2013, 03:56 PM
Perhaps the foot fault rule might work better if no rethrows were made but you simply did not count a "faulted" shot that went in. If the player foot faults, you count the warning and later a penalty on the second fault. Whatever throw they made still counts which in some cases may have been wild anyway if it merited a foot fault call. If their faulted shot goes in, you just add one additional throw "penalty" to their score.

And stance violations (foot faults) that occur on non-putts?
Wouldn't a player get one "free" foot fault per round?

I play some courses with some pretty big trees. It would certainly help my score to "accidentally" miss my mark by 24" to the side so I can crush a shot 300 feet up the fairway and have the only consequence be a warning. Seems like a good deal to me.

Bad idea in my opinion.

cgkdisc
Sep 03 2013, 04:26 PM
Thanks, Pete. You played right into the reason we should also exclude the warning and go right to the penalty as iacas proposes similar to ball golf. So in your example, if the player stepped out to the side and rifled a shot down the opening, a foot fault call would result in a one shot penalty but the player would get that lie. That might prevent the player from doing such a thing. Of course if it were seen as subverting the rules, the player could also get DQ'd. It seems like no rule should allow a player a rethrow without penalty or get to keep a hole-out without penalty if they have committed an infraction. The only free rethrow that makes sense is when the player is not at fault such as intentional interference.

iacas
Sep 03 2013, 04:39 PM
Knowing the rule, when he fell, rather than "whatever dude," I would have said, "sorry, no falling putt on yourself...that shot counts, you're now throwing five from the new lie."

I knew the rule, yes, but was trying to "go with the flow" in my first tournament. I've read countless posts from people who will complain about the people who enforce the rules. There's a very laid back attitude towards the rules in disc golf, and while I am happy to enforce them upon myself, I'm not yet experienced enough to call them on others as I don't wish to be known as "that guy," if you know what I mean.

I wish the other members of the group would have stepped in, but they all had more tournament experience and said and did nothing.

I think honestly they might have been in so much shock over the balls of that guy to miss, then give himself a re-throw. :eek:

And in golf, the guy would have penalized himself, and if for some reason he had not, the three of us would have penalized him AND he'd be known as a cheat.

I don't think that, if properly called, a violation should be dependent upon whether the shot was executed poorly, mediocrely, or well. If they foot fault they foot fault, and if I call it then it should be prompt.

I don't think it should be either, but that's why I'm in favor of just giving a stroke, or perhaps adding a stroke and doing away with the warning if the shot is taken from inside one of the few designated areas (the circle) that DG offers. I'd throw away the re-throw thing too. Just add the stroke, regardless of the outcome.

Personally, I like the rule as is. A warning is there because not every player who faults does so either knowingly or intentionally.

So? Does that change the fact that they (or you) had a violation?

It's incumbent upon everyone playing to observe the rules for themselves. Not to be too blunt about it, but if you break the rule, you break the rule. Why should you be warned?

I've foot-faulted losing my balance on putts -- some were made some were not.

I'm with you in that I don't care about which ones go in or don't. If you fall, that's your fault, and you should be stroked, IMO.

Phil Mickelson or Adam Scott don't get to say "oops, I accidentally moved my ball a yard while taking practice swings, no harm, I'll put it back, just give me a warning." They're penalized, immediately.

I've also been "called" for a foot fault and the players had trouble "explaining" what I did -- it was on a temp tee box marked only by the two flags in front and I was told I was "outside the perpendicular extension" because I knew I wasn't across the line. Those deserve a warning for first time IMO.

I disagree. Either you broke the rule or you didn't. Disagreement isn't a reason to give a warning - it's a reason to discuss it and decide, as a group, if you should be penalized or not.

Perhaps the foot fault rule might work better if no rethrows were made but you simply did not count a "faulted" shot that went in. If the player foot faults, you count the warning and later a penalty on the second fault. Whatever throw they made still counts which in some cases may have been wild anyway if it merited a foot fault call. If their faulted shot goes in, you just add one additional throw "penalty" to their score.

That'd be fine, and seems like a modification (which I like) of my second option as it would mostly apply to shots from inside the circle.

In general, though, I prefer the first option I listed - just do away with warnings altogether. If that also means doing away with a re-throw, that's fine too - just add the penalty and move on.

And stance violations (foot faults) that occur on non-putts?
Wouldn't a player get one "free" foot fault per round?

I play some courses with some pretty big trees. It would certainly help my score to "accidentally" miss my mark by 24" to the side so I can crush a shot 300 feet up the fairway and have the only consequence be a warning. Seems like a good deal to me.

Bad idea in my opinion.

That's the way the rule currently works, except that you have to re-throw. But you're right, doing away with the re-throw would let you abuse the rule as you described.

You played right into the reason we should also exclude the warning and go right to the penalty as iacas proposes similar to ball golf.

Indeed.

So in your example, if the player stepped out to the side and rifled a shot down the opening, a foot fault call would result in a one shot penalty but the player would get that lie.

Right. So if there was really that much of an advantage, given the one stroke penalty, you could just throw your disc a few feet into the opening and throw from there with the same exact effect.

Except that perhaps nobody will notice if you step beside your marker on your original throw… That'd be the only advantage of trying to do it that way.

It seems like no rule should allow a player a rethrow without penalty or get to keep a hole-out without penalty if they have committed an infraction. The only free rethrow that makes sense is when the player is not at fault such as intentional interference.

At this point (pending further thought), I agree with that.

The whole "warning" system just feels odd to me.

wsfaplau
Sep 03 2013, 05:16 PM
Thanks, Pete. You played right into the reason we should also exclude the warning and go right to the penalty as iacas proposes similar to ball golf. So in your example, if the player stepped out to the side and rifled a shot down the opening, a foot fault call would result in a one shot penalty but the player would get that lie. That might prevent the player from doing such a thing. Of course if it were seen as subverting the rules, the player could also get DQ'd. It seems like no rule should allow a player a rethrow without penalty or get to keep a hole-out without penalty if they have committed an infraction. The only free rethrow that makes sense is when the player is not at fault such as intentional interference.

I think going right to the penalty would result in FEWER foot faults.
Not because folks would be more careful but because folks would be less likely to call all but the most blatant stance violations knowing a stroke is added on the first one.
If it is just a warning, folks are more likely to call it IMO.

Either way, my shot won't count. My stance violation 300 ft crush down the fairway went in the basket.

iacas
Sep 03 2013, 07:47 PM
I think going right to the penalty would result in FEWER foot faults.
Not because folks would be more careful but because folks would be less likely to call all but the most blatant stance violations knowing a stroke is added on the first one.
If it is just a warning, folks are more likely to call it IMO.

That's been disappointing to me in disc golf - that the same respect for the rules isn't there. In disc golf people seem to want to blame the person who calls the penalties, not the one who incurs them. :(

But that's a bit OT, so I'm done now.

wsfaplau
Sep 04 2013, 12:51 AM
.....people seem to want to blame the person who calls the penalties, not the one who incurs them. :(



yep, I see that too

JoakimBL
Sep 05 2013, 07:11 AM
I think going right to the penalty would result in FEWER foot faults.
Not because folks would be more careful but because folks would be less likely to call all but the most blatant stance violations knowing a stroke is added on the first one.
If it is just a warning, folks are more likely to call it IMO.



I'm not so sure. I think that one of the reasons foot faults don't get called is that it doesn't really matter anyway since it's just a warning. And if it's a bad throw, you don't wan't to give your opponent a do over.

bruceuk
Sep 05 2013, 01:34 PM
I'd prefer to go straight to a penalty and the throw stands, but I suspect there would be an absolute crud-storm for a couple of years with some bad arguments in the serious competitions. Part of the reason is that a lot of foot faults are tricky to see and hard to evidence post-throw.

See this thread for thoughts on the subject: http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=36544

krupicka
Sep 05 2013, 02:19 PM
If you require players to leave their foot at their mark until they demonstrate balance it is a lot easier for others to enforce stance violations.

wsfaplau
Sep 05 2013, 03:36 PM
I'm not so sure. I think that one of the reasons foot faults don't get called is that it doesn't really matter anyway since it's just a warning. And if it's a bad throw, you don't wan't to give your opponent a do over.

That is possible.

My thinking is a warning now generates only a slight amount of bad blood on the card.

To call a stance violation with a guaranteed penalty will be certain to generate significantly more bad blood and depending on who you are playing with the bad blood might impact how the person calling the penalty performs the rest of the round.

Lots of players will decide it just isn't worth the hassle.

Just an opinion.

iacas
Sep 05 2013, 05:01 PM
That is possible.

My thinking is a warning now generates only a slight amount of bad blood on the card.

To call a stance violation with a guaranteed penalty will be certain to generate significantly more bad blood and depending on who you are playing with the bad blood might impact how the person calling the penalty performs the rest of the round.

Lots of players will decide it just isn't worth the hassle.

Just an opinion.

The players violate a rule.

If they have "bad blood" or ill will towards you for calling that, well, they're small-minded jerks who should do more to worry about whether they're following the rules or not.

A golfer called on a rule does not feel ill will towards the official or player who pointed it out. He feels badly about his own actions, lack of knowledge, etc.

Disc golfers in general treat someone who expects the rules to be followed as a jerk. That needs to change.

Mashnut
Sep 05 2013, 06:16 PM
If you require players to leave their foot at their mark until they demonstrate balance it is a lot easier for others to enforce stance violations.

It's also a great way to destroy people's knees on fairway shots longer than a hundred feet. Even on stand still shots where my plant foot doesn't leave the ground, it can pivot away from the line of play on my follow through. A throw with any kind of run up would make that even worse.

krupicka
Sep 06 2013, 08:03 AM
At the USDGC, I sat at one hole and watched all the top 8 cards throw fairway drives (with run-ups). 80% of them already do this. It's not destroying their knees.

araydallas
Sep 06 2013, 09:23 AM
First, I do think you & I are on the same side of most of these issues, clearly on the situation you encountered. But there are a couple things I want to point out that are different, and therefore, I think, worthy of discussion.


So? Does that change the fact that they (or you) had a violation?

It's incumbent upon everyone playing to observe the rules for themselves. Not to be too blunt about it, but if you break the rule, you break the rule. Why should you be warned?

I agree that "not intending" to foot fault does not change whether or not I did. In basketball, most of the times I fouled an opponent was unintentional, but I do agree it should always be called and penalized as a foul. But the reason I brought it up, and why I believe a warning for the first violation is appropriate for this is because there are plenty of rules in just about every sport, some which are officiated and some which are self-policed (at least at some level) where there are warnings for certain violations. Football even classified these separately -- there are "violations" (which are handled differently), and "penalties." And in my judgment/opinion warning makes more sense in the case of a first stance violation.




I'm with you in that I don't care about which ones go in or don't. If you fall, that's your fault, and you should be stroked, IMO.

Phil Mickelson or Adam Scott don't get to say "oops, I accidentally moved my ball a yard while taking practice swings, no harm, I'll put it back, just give me a warning." They're penalized, immediately.

Obviously as a golf pro, you see a lot of the situations that should be parallel between the two sports. To me this area is clearly one that is not. In disc golf we NEVER truly "play it where it lies." We mark a spot which limits where we must stand (or otherwise contort), and then whether we then release the disc from exactly behind where the previous disc lay or from a different angle not behind with a supporting point behind where it lay, depends on the situation. In tennis Rafa Nadal wouldn't expect a point penalty the first time in a tense match with Djokovic, where after a crucial 20-stroke rally deep in the match he's perfectly set up for his opponent's shot which then luckily clips the net cord and trickles slowly over and as Nadal is hustling to get it, just can't and then in a frustrated reaction hits his racket hard on the ground one time.


I disagree. Either you broke the rule or you didn't. Disagreement isn't a reason to give a warning - it's a reason to discuss it and decide, as a group, if you should be penalized or not.

I agree that whether I broke a rule or not is a factual situation -- either I did or I didn't. One key issue in a self-officiated sport with lay people (whose level of training and understanding/application of rules varies greatly) is that people's interpretation of the rules is very different and often inaccurate. I'd bet I could put this situation up on a discussion board and get rulings all over the place on the one I was called on last year. Just a little background, on this situation we were about 8,9, maybe 10 holes in and teeing on a hole where the tee-box was natural grass/dirt and marked only with two flags. I had had no informal "watch your feet, you're getting close to_____"-kinda preventive officiating in any of the preceding holes. After my throw, one player immediately called a foot fault, the player in 2nd place who had a chance to catch me immediately seconds it, and the third player then immediately says, "I didn't think that was a foot fault." Like you, I'm just hoping to keep it a positive round [figuring I'm outnumbered so that's a group decision], so I ask them to tell me what I did so I wouldn't do whatever it was again -- I didn't want another call later and the penalty. What it evolves into is our discussion not of the rule, but of what "within the teeing area" means when you don't have a tee-pad. The two of them struggled explaining why it was a fault, and I wasn't going to move on until they told me what part of the rule I had broken and how. I could only surmise that their struggle either meant they wanted me to fault again or they couldn't explain it perhaps because they weren't sure it was a fault.



That's the way the rule currently works, except that you have to re-throw. But you're right, doing away with the re-throw would let you abuse the rule as you described.

...
At this point (pending further thought), I agree with that.

The whole "warning" system just feels odd to me.

Your use of "abusing" implies that there is intent. In earlier posts you claimed intent shouldn't matter or not. Perhaps you were simply referring to wfs's situation. But I believe intent should matter in the case of stance violations, even though it may be hard to judge in some cases.

All in all, many of these changes people want with this specific rule have to deal with people who do intentionally try to loophole the spirit of the rule or intent of the rule and argue what they are doing is within the letter. In most cases they are simply wrong.

wsfaplau
Sep 06 2013, 12:43 PM
If they have "bad blood" or ill will towards you for calling that, well, they're small-minded jerks who should do more to worry about whether they're following the rules or not.



ummmm .....OK.

Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact they are playing on cards all around the world and having to deal with that bad blood during the round is a big reason why folks don't call rules violations.

iacas
Sep 06 2013, 08:50 PM
Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact they are playing on cards all around the world and having to deal with that bad blood during the round is a big reason why folks don't call rules violations.

No, the reason "bad blood" exists is because people - even the "stars" of the sport, apparently, playing all around the world, can't take personal responsibility. There's a bizarre (to me) culture of blaming the person who CALLS a penalty, rather than blaming the person who COMMITS the penalty.

First, I do think you & I are on the same side of most of these issues, clearly on the situation you encountered. But there are a couple things I want to point out that are different, and therefore, I think, worthy of discussion.

OK.

I agree that "not intending" to foot fault does not change whether or not I did. In basketball, most of the times I fouled an opponent was unintentional, but I do agree it should always be called and penalized as a foul. But the reason I brought it up, and why I believe a warning for the first violation is appropriate for this is because there are plenty of rules in just about every sport, some which are officiated and some which are self-policed (at least at some level) where there are warnings for certain violations. Football even classified these separately -- there are "violations" (which are handled differently), and "penalties." And in my judgment/opinion warning makes more sense in the case of a first stance violation.

As you later note, I come from a golf background, and there's really no such thing.

If you want to warn someone (because they're CLOSE to violating a rule), take them to the side and say "be careful about your foot placement on your longer putts." If it's a violation, though, I say you just call them. It's their responsibility to follow the rules, and part of YOUR responsibility to uphold/enforce them. You have a duty to the rest of the field.

IMO, the whole "warning + rethrow" thing is ripe for gaming.

Obviously as a golf pro, you see a lot of the situations that should be parallel between the two sports. To me this area is clearly one that is not. In disc golf we NEVER truly "play it where it lies." We mark a spot which limits where we must stand (or otherwise contort), and then whether we then release the disc from exactly behind where the previous disc lay or from a different angle not behind with a supporting point behind where it lay, depends on the situation. In tennis Rafa Nadal wouldn't expect a point penalty the first time in a tense match with Djokovic, where after a crucial 20-stroke rally deep in the match he's perfectly set up for his opponent's shot which then luckily clips the net cord and trickles slowly over and as Nadal is hustling to get it, just can't and then in a frustrated reaction hits his racket hard on the ground one time.

I think that accidentally moving your golf ball is a lot more similar to a stance violation than slamming your racket on the ground.

I agree that whether I broke a rule or not is a factual situation -- either I did or I didn't. One key issue in a self-officiated sport with lay people (whose level of training and understanding/application of rules varies greatly) is that people's interpretation of the rules is very different and often inaccurate.

Good rules should be as free as possible of relying on "interpretation." They should be clear and easy to understand. And again, people need to take personal responsibility and know the rules and stop blaming the person who CALLS the rules infraction.

Just don't commit them.

Your use of "abusing" implies that there is intent. In earlier posts you claimed intent shouldn't matter or not. Perhaps you were simply referring to wf's situation. But I believe intent should matter in the case of stance violations, even though it may be hard to judge in some cases.

I'm not implying "intent" and I do not believe intent should matter at all, no.

You either break the rule or you don't. Intent isn't relevant here. Only cheaters intend to break the rules, but someone who breaks the rules should still be penalized den absent willful intent to break them.

araydallas
Sep 07 2013, 11:24 PM
You & I are spot on together on most of this. I'll leave our points of contention alone. While I agree that the "warning + re-throw" might be ripe for gaming, it's only gaming if the person is a real cheater. I've encountered them on the course, and most of the time they give away their "cheater-nature" early on -- at least that 's been my experience.

You seem, or at least I'm interpreting, to have thr philosophy that the rules should be as black and white as possible. Part of my background is as a sports official -- for football, baseball, and basketball for over 20 years, from pee wee leagues to Division I NCAA. Believe me there is no such thing. Many rules are black and white and many are subject to interpretation. Most team sports rule books have an "interpretations" section which accompany the rules, with the purpose of conveying the rule-makers intent behind the rule. As far as warnings go (as part of rules), baseball has the delay warning to batters after violation and the intentionally throwing at batters warnings that sometimes goes to specific pitchers and sometimes to the teams; basketball has the delay of game warning for defense violating touching the ball after a made basket or crossing the baseline on a press; football has the sideline warning for coaches or players outside of the team area, and a warning for wearing illegal equipment; tennis has the abuse of equipment warning. Football also has the violation (non-penalty) for the kicking team touching a punt for the receiving team does. Other sports may also, as well. All of those are "official calls" that the umpire/official must call, signal to the participants, and note with the scorekeeper. There is precedent for warnings prior to penalty in many sports. You may say all of those are also wrong, and I get that's your position. Simply put I understand where you stand on these calls in dg.

iacas
Sep 07 2013, 11:38 PM
You seem, or at least I'm interpreting, to have thr philosophy that the rules should be as black and white as possible. Part of my background is as a sports official -- for football, baseball, and basketball for over 20 years, from pee wee leagues to Division I NCAA. Believe me there is no such thing.

A lot of disc golf's rules are not "subject to interpretation." As with golf, you most often either break the rule, or you don't.

I don't particularly care about "warnings" that officials give for being outside the sideline area in football. I haven't seen those rules enforced, ever - except as warnings. They exist to keep coaches from being able to pursue a referee all over the place. The other examples follow suit.

And they're not the same thing, IMO.

Additionally, in many sports with officials, players are attempting to get away with things. Golf - and I believe disc golf - should or do hold themselves to different standards.

So no, I don't say the examples you provided are wrong, I just think they're poor comparisons to a sport that's played generally without officials and which relies on players to have the person responsibility.

And I likely reject the notion that the player would be a "cheat" as he'd be doing everything 100% within the rules as they currently stand.