Chris Claring, Chris Greenleaf, and Chris Sprague, all from Iowa and playing in the USDGC (really) are in the same group (not really) and are almost done with their 4th round on the Winthrop Gold course. Claring is up first on the famous #17 "island" hole and expertly places his finesse Banshee within the circle. Greenleaf follows suit. Sprague griplocks and drills the first tree on the right. The group watches as Sprague's disc bounces back with back spin and rolls back towards the tee, finally coming to rest on the dirt in front of the tee, just barely touching the pad. "Ouch!", bemoan Chris and Chris as Chris reaches in his bag for another Aviar.

Sprague lets loose his 2nd throw and it heads dead on a line for the chains. Time slows down as the three watch the disc settle gently in the chains and it sticks. "I'm feeling the strangest sense of deja vu", says Sprague. Leaf and Claring each tap in and head to the next tee.

Leaf gets the scores, "Greenleaf with a 2, Claring?"
"2", replies Claring.
"Sprague?"
"2", Sprague says proudly.
"Huh?", Leaf and Claring cry in unison.

Does Sprague get his 2?

OK, I will play the straight man :o

Sprague gets his deuce.

(My momma once told me "If a man tells you he can ...(insert something seemingly impossible here)... then don't bet because he will win the bet.)

OK, now win the bet :D

Whoa, stop the press I believe that if you do not hit the green there you probably have to re tee or go to a drop zone, so let's just say that Sprague get's a circle 3, and that's my final answer. ;)

OK, maybe not my final answer.

If the drive does not land on the island there is probably some sort of a special condition that has perhaps two options, a re tee option or a penalty + a drop zone, all pure speculation on my part never having been down there.
I'm going to say that the other two players would point out to Sprague that he had not completed the hole yet and that in addition to whatever the usual choices he had to take a one stroke penalty for a practice throw, then state how he was going to finish the hole. If he says that WAS my re tee, well I concur a conundrum and all I have done is muddy the waters
Perhaps I should just ask Hawk :D:confused:

The short answer is no.

The intention of that hole is that once the tee shot is released, the only place inbounds is the green area. Every place in the world is OB, including the tee pad. The question is whether the rules allow an area's OB status to be time dependent when specified by the TD. I would say 'Yes' considering it's not uncommon for a fairway to be IB when playing the hole and OB when playing another hole becasue it's across an OB street. So, I say the score is a 3 on the assumption that the TD specified that only the green is IB once a player releases the tee shot.

The stated rule for that hole is that the disc must come to rest inside the bales to be IB. The teebox is not within the bales so it is OB by rule once the throw is released.

The teebox is also the dropzone for the first three OB shots this hole.

If sprague argeed for a 2 I think I would have to give him the duece. Since you cannot throw from OB, the teepad would have to be "in-bounce" now, whether or not the TD meant to have the teepad magically become OB once the player throws doesn't really matter since he never mentioned it in the first place. Maybe something to mention in the future, by the way, I think you have too much time on your hands for even thinking of this situation!

Didnt Sprague get a circle-3 on that hole on a round last year?

"I'm feeling the strangest sense of deja vu", says Sprague.

yes, but he didn't land his first shot on the teepad, I think it was more like the water ?

Since you cannot throw from OB, the teepad would have to be "in-bounce"...



Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You are not allowed to throw from OB after you mark your disc. There is nothing in the rules about OB and support points in relation to the drive.

I know this because La Mirada has the "magic" tee-pads that suddenly becone OB once you throw. Except that I researched the rules and found that those tee-pads don't have to be "magic" to act like that.

well that's no fun, I want to throw from a magical teepad!

La Mirada has the "magic" tee-pads that suddenly become OB once you throw.

In the movie version they will also fly and be telepathic.

Actually, Sprague got an ace on the hole. He was called for a miss-tee by the other 2 players on his first shot.

hmm

Actually it was a circle 3 on #17 in 2002.

Good question. We would have ruled it as a 3 since the ground rules state that everything outside the bales is OB. Hole 17 is played as a special condition per 804.01 C. We asked for and received a special condition waiver to allow the the ground rule for hole 17 to trump the stance rule 803.03 A (3). Rhett's logic would not apply in this situation since the subsequent throw is not a tee-off even though it is occurs from the tee pad.

Take care,

Harold

well, I think it's kinda like the 2 meter rule, If I hit a tree and kick back to the tee pad, I deserve an extra stroke! losing distance is not penalty enough! :)

As the TD, you can limit the options of the OB thrower to one: re-throw the shot. Since the previous spot was the tee-pad the re-throw is a re-tee and all stance rules that pertain to teeing off would apply. :)

As the TD, you can limit the options of the OB thrower to one: re-throw the shot. Since the previous spot was the tee-pad the re-throw is a re-tee and all stance rules that pertain to teeing off would apply. :)

I'm not sure I agree.

As I see it, the re-throw takes place from the designated drop zone, which, in this scenario, coincides with the teepad, rather than from the teepad. In light of that, it is at least arguable that since the rethrow occurs subsequent to teeing off, 803.03 (Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off) should apply to the rethrow unless the Special Condition specifies that 803.01 (Teeing Off) be applied instead.

I had not previously considered teeing from an OB area, and I am glad that Rhett enlightened me to this possibility. However it does not apply in this case since a retee is still subsequent to tee-off. That is one of the reasons why we needed the special condition.

Take care,

Harold

I'm not sure I agree.

Yeah, but it is Mr. Duvall's tournament so were just going to have to play by his rules if we get in! :D

However it does not apply in this case since a retee is still subsequent to tee-off.



I respectfully disagree with that opinion. :)

A re-tee is a tee shot throwing 3. (or 5, or 7, or 9, etc.)

These are not my rules, these are the rules. The second throw is a shot subsequent to tee that is from the drop zone which happens, in this case, to be a tee pad. Applying the tee off rules in this situation would be a deliberate misapplication of the rules.

Take care,


Harold

This is coverec at length in another thread. Jim! Your search skills are needed!

I'm not sure I agree.

Yeah, but it is Mr. Duvall's tournament so were just going to have to play by his rules if we get in! :D

Bruce, I presumed that even a lawyer would have the brains to figure out from the remainder of my post that I was not disagreeing with Mr. Duvall's rules (or ruling, in this case), but with Rhett's understanding that subsequent throws from the teepad-cum-drop zone are governed by 803.01 rather than 803.03. (I mean, I did quote Rhett's post within mine.) Guess I'm giving lawyers too much credit. :D

The second throw is a shot subsequent to tee that is from the drop zone which happens, in this case, to be a tee pad.



This is not always correct. We'll forget for now that it is not defined how to proceed with play from a drop zone (do you place a mini in the DZ or do you use the DZ as a tee-pad? The glossary definition of drop zone implies that it is a tee area as you are to mark the DZ as you would a tee) and move on to the problem here: harold is calling the tee-pad the drop zone per option 3 below and I am calling option 1 where you throw from your previous lie.


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



If you want to call the tee-pad the DZ, then are you requiring the player to place a mini in the tee-box and land their supporting point within 30cm on the LOP? If so, then you and I just plain do things differently. :) I prefer to restrict the option to only "option 1", whereby the player throws from the previous spot, that spot being the tee-pad where all teeing-off stance rules apply.


Here is the ambiguous answer from the Rules Q&A about this very topic:

Rule Question: Reteeing after an OB drive
Erik Robinson of Lansing, MI writes:
I am questioning why a person who enters a hazard (e.g. any disc thrown into an area designated as out-of-bounds (O.B.), such as an O.B. river or pond) would have to throw the disc within 1 meter from where it crossed into the O.B. area? Why can't he/she be able to take one penalty stroke and re-drive from the pad?

Applicable rules:
803.08B (Out-of-Bounds)
804.01 (Special Conditions)

Dear Erik:

Normally in this case, the player CAN re-drive from the tee if he/she so chooses. The player actually has 3 options after throwing his/her tee shot OB:

1) The player can choose to play the disc from the previous lie. The previous lie in this case is the tee pad.

2) The player can play from a spot up to 1 meter from where the point the player's tee shot was last in-bounds.

3) The player can play from within a designated Drop Zone, if the TD (Tournament Director) has designated one for this hole.

Each of these options carries a one-throw penalty.

The TD can also limit any or all of these options as a special condition under rule 804.01.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Carlton Howard
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Dr. Rick Voakes
Joe Garcia
John Chapman





The answer says "re-drive" implying that the tee-shot rules apply, but it does not say that specifically. I believe it makes the most sense (passes the "comon sense rule") to follow the rules of teeing off when electing to throw from the previous lie when the previous lie was the tee-pad.

i think charging the OB player a penalty stroke plus making them throw from the previous spot, the IB line, or the drop zone is double punishment. we need to abolish this BS type of rule. taking the distance is penalty enough! after all, the player is NOT where he wanted to be already! that is plenty of problem there is no reason to compund the penalty by adding a stroke.

Rhett, please surrender your DGRZ card immediately, pending review by DGRZ 001. :D


'll forget for now that it is not defined how to proceed with play from a drop zone

It's not defined for the very good reason that drop zones fall into the category of Special Conditions (804.01.B), with play proceeding as per the TD's instructions:
The drop zone may be utilized in special conditions. The director must announce prior to the tournament how it is to be used and if a penalty throw is to be assessed. ...

The phrase "how it is used" requires a TD to establish not only a drop zone's location and under what conditions one uses it, but also how one plays from the drop zone, including the pertinent stance rules. So even if a TD specifies that throws from the drop zone are governed by 803.01 rather than 803.03, it does not change the fact that the throws are shots subsequent to teeing off rather than tee shots.


The glossary definition of drop zone implies that it is a tee area as you are to mark the DZ as you would a tee)

Sorry, but the definition does no such thing; it tells you how to mark it, but not how to play it. Marking something in a manner similar to a tee area and it being a tee area are two different things. Abraham Lincoln used to ask people, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?" and, after the person said, "Five," would answer, "No, four. Just because you call the tail a leg doesn't make it one." Similar logic applies here: just because a drop zone is marked like a tee area doesn't make it, or necessarily imply that it should be played like, one.

i think charging the OB player a penalty stroke plus making them throw from the previous spot, the IB line, or the drop zone is double punishment. we need to abolish this BS type of rule. taking the distance is penalty enough! after all, the player is NOT where he wanted to be already! that is plenty of problem there is no reason to compund the penalty by adding a stroke.


Are you setting a trap, sandalman?

all in the name of "consistency" :)

Bruce, I presumed that even a lawyer would have the brains to figure out from the remainder of my post that I was not disagreeing with Mr. Duvall's rules (or ruling, in this case), but with Rhett's understanding that subsequent throws from the teepad-cum-drop zone are governed by 803.01 rather than 803.03. (I mean, I did quote Rhett's post within mine.) Guess I'm giving lawyers too much credit. :D

I don't always read this stuff very closely, or take it as seriously as others might be. I was just making a little joke but if it was not funny, it won't get funny by trying to explain it.

fore,

You ignored my main point and dedicated a huge post to minutia. Have you been attending the Nick Knight School of Debate? :)

So....if you elect option one of the OB rule and choose or are limited to throwing from the previous lie, what do you do if that lie was the tee-pad?

My opinion is that the tee-pad is a valid lie that is governed under specific stance rules. The language "subsequent to tee off" is from a time when re-teeing was not an option. The Rules Q&A ambiguously states that you "re-drive" in this scenario, implying that you re-tee, which I read as using the tee-shot stance rules.

Rhett, I'm not clear whether you are trying to make a point or trying to ask a question.

The literal language of the rule would not allow a re-drive from the tee pad unless it had been specified as a drop zone. Option 1 would not cover the tee pad since the tee pad is not a lie evidenced by a mini.

It is not clear to me that the rules committee thought about this when replying to the inquiry. They just ignore the language, "...as evidenced by the marker disc, or if the marker disc has been moved..." Their answer contradicts the plain language of the rule.

It is something that could be clarified in the 2006 rules rewrite.

That you do not need to mark with a mini when throwing from a drop zone, and that you throw from a drop zone as if it were a tee, is clarified in the current draft of the 2006 rules rewrite.

Fore - Lawyer bashing is a popular pastime in America and way too many of them deserve it, but Bruce seems like a nice, articulate guy. I would have expected a more creative, intelligent approach from you.

Agreed Bruce. One has to have a sense of humour in order to understand funny things.

Bruce, I presumed that even a lawyer would have the brains to figure out from the remainder of my post that I was not disagreeing with Mr. Duvall's rules (or ruling, in this case), but with Rhett's understanding that subsequent throws from the teepad-cum-drop zone are governed by 803.01 rather than 803.03. (I mean, I did quote Rhett's post within mine.) Guess I'm giving lawyers too much credit. :D

I don't always read this stuff very closely, or take it as seriously as others might be. I was just making a little joke but if it was not funny, it won't get funny by trying to explain it.

Boy, Bruce, you seem awfully thin-skinned these days. You lift one sentence out of my post and make a joke on it (and, yes, I got the joke); I make a crack about lawyers in what was intended as a similar, bantering tone (hence, the smiley), but for some reason you miss it completely. You're right about one thing, though, a joke doesn't get any funnier if you have to explain it.

And Mike: talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Of all people, I'd have expected you to recognize the tone of my crack. I guess I'll have to start using [humor on] [/humor off] tags in future post. :(

I can not speak for the other members of the Rules Committee, but I do not feel that the language 803.08 B (1) precludes the use of a tee pad for option 1. �The previous lie� is the controlling language. The additional phrasing � as evidence by �� simply describes the most likely previous lie.

We (the rules committee) should clarify this in the new rules. Until then, TD�s can follow Bruce�s suggestion to limit the options to option 3 and to designate the tee pad as the drop zone. This is the solution we chose for Winthrop Gold #17 � The hole in the original question. However, we still needed a special condition to play the hole the way we intended since the retee is still a shot subsequent to teeing off subject to the in-bounds requirements of 803.03 A (3). 803.03 A (3) needed to be waived so that the subsequent throws (retees) could be from OB.

Take care,

Harold

why couldnt you declare that the area of the teepad was also an inbounds area, or a dropzone? that way the waiver wouldnt be required would it?

You ignored my main point and dedicated a huge post to minutia. Have you been attending the Nick Knight School of Debate? :)

Are you kidding me? Whom do you think Nick learned from. :p


So....if you elect option one of the OB rule and choose or are limited to throwing from the previous lie, what do you do if that lie was the tee-pad?

If one interprets the rules strictly (as is my inclination), electing option 1 is not, in fact, possible from the teepad, for the reasons Bruce outlines. I had written four paragraphs in my earlier post arguing that to be the case, and that the RC's response in the Q&A was incorrect because they had ignored (or overlooked) the phrase "as evidence by the marker disc," but decided to drop it because it took the focus away from the main point, viz., that it is the TD's responsibility to determine what stance rules apply to throws from a drop zone.

(I would also argue that, logically, when a TD establishes a particular, specific, location from which a player must throw that is different than where the player's thrown disc came to rest or last crossed into OB, the TD has defined a de facto drop zone, whether or not the TD chooses to call it such.)


The Rules Q&A ambiguously states that you "re-drive" in this scenario, implying that you re-tee

Rhett, I think you're confusing�or, perhaps, merely conflating�the terminology we use to describe the situation under discussion with what, in fact, is taking place.

While we are wont, as a matter of convenience, to call any throw taken from the teepad a "tee shot," in point of fact, not every throw from taken the teepad is a tee shot. If, for example, a player's initial throw on a hole hits an obstacle in front of the teepad and the disc ricochets or rolls backward and comes to rest on the teepad, the player will be re-driving (i.e., throwing a second drive) from the teepad for his/her second throw, but will not be re-teeing (i.e., teeing off again).

Strictly speaking, to "re-tee" is to tee off again. Without having gone over rules with a fine-toothed comb, there are only two circumstance of which I am aware in which a player is permitted or required to re-tee, ([/i]i.e.[/i], to re-throw her/his tee shot, viz.: (1) when a validly called stance violation has been made (803.03.G via 803.01.B); (2) when a misplay is discovered after the initial throw but before a subsequent throw (801.04.B(1), (5)).

803.01.A specifically stipulates that play begins on a hole with the player throwing from within the teeing area. 803.02.A stipulates that after each throw (including the throw that begins play; hereinunder, "tee shot"), the lie must be marked before a subsequent throw may occur. (While in the case of a thrown disc that comes to rest OB, the marked lie may be the drop zone, it does not change the fact that the tee shot has already occurred and no additional tee shots (re-tees) can occur.) From this, it follows that any throw that is not the throw that begins play on a hole cannot, by rule, be a tee shot, and that, excepting the two circumstances noted above, any other throw taken from the tee is not a tee shot, but a subsequent throw. Consequently, those additional throws from the teepad are not "re-tees," but simply throws, nothing more and nothing less. (And, in fact, 803.08.B specifically states that "the player may elect to play the next shot from: ...," so there is no question that, in this circumstance, the re-throw is not a re-[/]tee[/i], but a subsequent throw which, owing to a special condition, is taken from the teepad.)

To summarize: a second (or third, fourth, fifth, etc) throw from the teepad is not, strictly speaking, a re-tee since it does not begin play on the hole; rather, it is a continuation of play on the hole (which, in this scenario, it is scored as the third/fifth/seventh/etc throw). So while it may be necessary, on occasion, to make one or more additional throws from the teepad, such as in an OB situation or in the case of a disc that comes to rest on the teepad, those throws are not re-tees, but re- (i.e.,additional) throws from the teepad. (They're not "do-overs," they're "do agains.") Consequently, I believe that, in the absence of a special condition directing otherwise, both the letter and the spirit of the rules dictate that the stance conditions stipulated in 803.03 apply to re-throws from the teepad.

So, in regard to their terminology, the RC is correct when they say that a player may "re-drive" from the tee [N.B. not "re-tee"], though, for the reasons Bruce alludes to, I believe they jumped too hastily to�or at least did not explicate the logic by which they arrived at�the conclusion that the previous lie was the tee pad.

I can not speak for the other members of the Rules Committee, but I do not feel that the language 803.08 B (1) precludes the use of a tee pad for option 1. �The previous lie� is the controlling language. The additional phrasing � as evidence by �� simply describes the most likely previous lie.

Thanks for explaining your interpretation of the contested phrase, Harold. While I am inclined to accept your explanation, I would note that it would strengthen the argument for reading the clause disjunctively if there were a comma separating "The previous lie" from "as evidenced by the marker disc ...." Without a comma separating the phrases, the clause is most naturally construed as a single thought-unit rather than as two, so perhaps a comma should be inserted in the appropriate place during the rules revision process.

Nice post.

I think we can start by throwing out consideration of the bonked drive that rolls onto the teepad. The next throw would obviously be marked by a mini and is not really what we are talking about. :)

Please correct me if I this wrong, but my understanding of fore and Harold's positions is this: if you throw a tee-shot that ends up OB, and the TD has not declared the tee-pad to be the drop zone, then the player must place a mini on the tee-pad and observe the "30cm on the LOP" stance rules on the subsequent shot if s/he decides to throw from the previous spot. Furthermore, the thrower does not have the option to throw from the previous spot if the teepad is OB.

Does this correctly summarize your positions?

This entire argument is not a conundrum, it's silly.

Please correct me if I this wrong, but my understanding of fore and Harold's positions is this: if you throw a tee-shot that ends up OB, and the TD has not declared the tee-pad to be the drop zone, then the player must place a mini on the tee-pad and observe the "30cm on the LOP" stance rules on the subsequent shot if s/he decides to throw from the previous spot.

I can't answer for Harold, but, assuming for the sake of argument that throwing from the previous lie is indeed a valid option (and I still have some reservations about that) that would indeed my position, based on my view that, while 803.08.B does grant a player the option of throwing from the previous lie, it does not specifically grant, and there is nothing in the wording of 803.08.B from which to infer that it grants, the player the previous lie's stance.

Having said that, it strikes me that a plausible (or at least, a not implausible: there is a difference) argument could be made that, since a player may throw his/her tee shot from anywhere within the teeing area, the lie consists of the entire teeing area, rather than simply the point on which the player is standing when the disc is released or the point at which the disc last crossed into OB. If that argument is accepted, one might reasonably (or, not unreasonably) infer that the entire teeing area would also be the lie for the subsequent throw as well.

Granting that, if it can be shown that the stance requirements of 803.01.A are a special case or subset of the requirements in 803.03.A, it strikes me that a not implausible corollary argument might (and I stress "might": I haven't really thought it through at this point) then be constructed that would permit the stance rules of 803.01 to apply to the subsequent throw from the teeing area.

(I'll have butter and maple syrup with my waffle. :DSeriously, I'm more-or-less thinking out loud here, since the possibility of the alternative argument only occurred to me as I was responding to your request for clarification of my position, hence my reluctance to commit myself to its plausibility.)


Furthermore, the thrower does not have the option to throw from the previous spot if the teepad is OB.

That is correct, based on my reading of 803.03.A(3). (As a point of clarification, my reading of the Rules leads me to believe that on a tee shot (a throw that begins play on a hole), the categories of IB/OB are irrelevant with respect to the teeing area: that is, one simply throws one's tee shot from the appointed teeing area, without regard to whether a thrown disc that comes to rest in that area would be considered IB or OB. A similar consideration applies to drop zones.)

Now that we're clear on that.... ;)

In my world, "re-teeing" passes the common sense test when your tee-shot ends up OB and the TD has not restricted your options to exclude throwing from the previous lie. It makes sense to me that when your previous lie was the tee-pad for your tee-shot, if you throw from that previous lie again due to OB-ness that the stance rules for teeing off would apply. It just makes sense.

You aren't getting any undue advantage because you are still throwing 3 (or 5, or 7, etc). It doesn't matter if the tee-pad is OB. The options for OB are to throw again from where you were, throw from where you were last over fair ground, or to throw from the designated drop zone if there is one. Option 1, throwing from your last lie, just doesn't make any sense if you are not allowed to re-tee an OB tee-shot. It just seems silly to not have that option.

I think it is just an oversight from when the rules were revised to allow the 3 options for OB shots. It makes too little sense for the re-tee to have been intentionally outlawed.

IMHO.

In my world, "re-teeing" passes the common sense test when your tee-shot ends up OB and the TD has not restricted your options to exclude throwing from the previous lie. It makes sense to me that when your previous lie was the tee-pad for your tee-shot, if you throw from that previous lie again due to OB-ness that the stance rules for teeing off would apply. It just makes sense.

You aren't getting any undue advantage because you are still throwing 3 (or 5, or 7, etc).

I'm somewhat bemused to hear you make that argument. If memory serves, you and I are in agreement that it does indeed make a difference whether or not, on throws from the fairway involving a run-up, one attempts to place a supporting point within 30 cm on the LOP directly behind the marker disc, not touching the marker disc or any point closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker. To be consistent, I would have expected you to adopt the same stance on re-throws made from the teeing area as well.


It doesn't matter if the tee-pad is OB.

It doesn't matter for the purpose of teeing off, since teeing off requires only that the throw be made from within the teeing area. For all subsequent throws, it does matter because 803.03.A(3) specifically requires that a player have all supporting points in-bounds when the disc is released. Consequently, if the teeing area is, in fact, OB, no legal stance can be taken on it for the purpose of making a throw subseqent to teeing off unless the area occupied by the teepad is governed by a special condition permitting it to be used for subsequent throws. Unless the terms of the special condition extend to the pertinent stance requirements, my position is that 803.03 applies by default (see below).


The options for OB are to throw again from where you were, throw from where you were last over fair ground, or to throw from the designated drop zone if there is one. Option 1, throwing from your last lie, just doesn't make any sense if you are not allowed to re-tee an OB tee-shot. It just seems silly to not have that option.

Even if re-throwing from the previous lie (teeing area) is permitted in this circumstance, there is a material difference between the tee shot and the re-throw, namely, that the first throw is a tee shot and the second is a throw subsequent to teeing off. Even if, for the sake of convenience, one calls the second throw a "re-tee," it does not change the fact that it is a throw subsequent to teeing off.

803.01 governs only teeing off, defined within as the throw that begins play on a hole, while 803.03 specifically governs throws subsequent to teeing off. Given that, my position is that 803.03 is the default stance rule for all subsequent throws on a hole, including elective and required re-throws from the teepad, unless a special condition has been set specifically directing otherwise.

(It is possible to set just that special condition without making the teepad a drop zone, e.g., "If your tee shot goes OB, you may play your next shot from the teepad or where it was last IB. If you elect to play from the teepad, play it using the rules for teeing off." (If, on the other hand, the TD restricts a player to re-throwing from the teepad, the TD has designated a de facto drop zone (whether or not s/he calls it a drop zone), and, consequently, must indicate which stance rules apply.)

I cannot speak for Felix, but yours is not a correct summarization of my position. As I wrote up thread:

1. I believe that Option 1 is still available since the tee pad is the previous lie; but
2. The language is not as clear as it should have been written; so
3. The TD can avoid the unclear language by specifying the tee pad as the Option 3 drop zone.

If relying on Option 1, a player must understand the rules that determine the location of the lie as well as the rules that govern the legal stance from the lie. The definition of lie is very broad � �The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.� Since the previous lie was the tee pad where the player could have chosen any spot from which to throw, the broad definition of lie allows the player selecting Option 1 to use any legal spot on the tee pad.

Once the proper location is determined, the correct stance rules needs to be applied. While 803.01 and 803.03 can be considered, 803.00 E encourages �a logical extension of the closest existing rule.� 803.03 � Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off is the closer of the two. Clearly, the stance being taken is subsequent to the tee-off that went OB.

In contrast, 803.01 � Teeing Off � is only nominally applicable. Option 1 does not specify a �ReTee� or �Tee Off Again.� It is only by coincidence that the Tee Pad is the previous lie. And the idea of a previous lie, which is the essence of Option 1, is inconsistent with the opening sentence of 803.01, �Play shall begin on each hole ��.

Since 803.03 controls, all the player�s supporting points must be in-bounds when employing 803.08 B Option 1 to make a throw subsequent to a tee off that went OB. Unless, of course, the hole is played under a special condition, which is the case for Winthrop Gold #17.

Take care,

Harold

I disagree. :)

alrighty then....... it's settled!
:D