please take a look at this scenerio and tell me if this is true:

on hole one of a tournament a player drives and lands within 10 meters. they miss their putt, but never establish a stance behind their lie (falling putt). another player calls them on it, it gets seconded by another player. so they putt it again and make it.

this is all legit by the rules.
they get to card a 2, but had 3 throws.

please tell me there is another rule out there that superceeds this...

Nope. It is a 2. The next time that the player makes a falling putt though, it is a stroke.

The first time is a warning, after that you get a stroke and have to reputt. I even think this is true even if he makes a stance violation on a later hole(I am pretty sure about this part).

If he wanted, the player could even retrieve his putter to re-do the putt.

But if he has a stance violation outside of 10 meters, he cannot use the disc he just threw.

Sounds right. However, the offending player receives a warning, and any stance infraction after that comes with a one throw penalty. So they have to finish the round knowing that one slip could be an extra throw penalty.

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!!!!!!!! You mean someone actually CALLED a foot fault. Thats the hardest part to believe. Good god there is hope for our sport. Atleast there are other people out there who are willing to call people out when they break the rules.

The only strange thing I see in your post is "but never establish a stance behind their lie (falling putt)."

I have no idea what "never establish a stance behind their lie" means, but since you say it was a falling putt, then I will assume it was a falling putt and not some other rules violation.

A falling putt is a stance violation. A validly called and seconded stance violation cannot be used as a throw. The first violation per player per round is a warning, after that warning it is a stroke each time.

So if the thrower had no stance violations up to that point in the round, then yes a 2 is the correct score. The rules for practice throw penalties specifically exclude penalizing shots like this that are re-thrown per the rules.


Personally, I would like to see the falling-putt rule re-written to state that if the falling putt is missed the throw is used. This is mainly because people are hesitant to call a falling putt on a miss because it rewards the violator with another putt attempt.

So they have to finish the round knowing that one slip could be an extra throw penalty.



What I don't like is the converse of that. If you need to hit your last putt, and grip lock it and know you missed, you can just start walking towards the basket before getting into a stance and hope to get called on it.

hopefully he meant..."kept his balance" otherwise wouldn't that be a practice throw?

What I don't like is the converse of that. If you need to hit your last putt, and grip lock it and know you missed, you can just start walking towards the basket before getting into a stance and hope to get called on it.

one person still has to call the violation, and another has to 2nd it. good luck getting the call when you miss the puTT

The only strange thing I see in your post is "but never establish a stance behind their lie (falling putt)."

I have no idea what "never establish a stance behind their lie" means, but since you say it was a falling putt, then I will assume it was a falling putt and not some other rules violation.

A falling putt is a stance violation. A validly called and seconded stance violation cannot be used as a throw. The first violation per player per round is a warning, after that warning it is a stroke each time.

So if the thrower had no stance violations up to that point in the round, then yes a 2 is the correct score. The rules for practice throw penalties specifically exclude penalizing shots like this that are re-thrown per the rules.


Personally, I would like to see the falling-putt rule re-written to state that if the falling putt is missed the throw is used. This is mainly because people are hesitant to call a falling putt on a miss because it rewards the violator with another putt attempt.



you did the correct translation of what i meant to communicate. furthermore, i agree with your asseement of how the rule should read.

I had a similar situation happen to me during a league round last year but not on a putt.

I had previously called a violation of some sort on a player(i forget what for) I tee off and appearently stepped out of the box. The player I had called a violation on before quickly calls the box vioaltion (payback time :) ) another guy seconds the call. Well the hole is 600 feet and my drive smacked a limb on the very first tree approximatly 150 feet from the tee. I go to my bag and grab another disc out to redrive and they are like" what are you doing" I told them they should go learn the rules and re-drove. My second drive lands good and I end up taking an easy 3 whereas had I kept my first shot I would certainly have had a 4 if not a 5.

i had a funny thing happen this weekend on the foot fault topic. on saturday afternoon i noticed that one guy was consistantly over his mark or to the side of his mark on his second drives and approaches. on one short water hole he marked his OB lie even with his disc, which was sunk pin-high. shoulda marked it about 6-8 meters shorter. he took a circle 3, while the rest of the card was over the hill marking their own lies - he wasnt even the away player! so anyway the point is he was one of the most sloppy players i've seen in a while, and bordered on being an outright cheater.

we were on the DFL card together on sunday morning. on the second hole i was laying on the side of a rough hill with another 500 to go on a long hole. i tried a roller, messed up my footing on the bumpy hill, no kidding, the guy came over and called me on it! i just started laughing. not that i hadnt fouled - i had. but after his shenanigans the day before i was shocked that he had the nads to draw attention to feet. we had some "words" for each other.

then on his very next throw, from a flat, smooth grassy field, he overstepped by about a foot! so of course i called him on it, gave him an official warning. guess what... he was pizzed in a big way! and had a bunch of words for me. :D said the whole thing was my fault, and that i shouldnt be calling stuff like that.

now, i'm not perfect with my footing. on one step upshots i am. but i know sometimes on the long ones with a five step, i can push a little too hard on that last step and go over. actually my most common mistake is to step on the mini, not grossly over it. and i am not excusing myself, or lobbying for lenience. i have worked hard to eliminate the side-steps that a lot of players do.

but that being said, i also feel there's a range of approaches one can take when dealing with infractions. the approach i take is somewhat situational. on a beautiful sunday morning, in the last round on the DFL card, i would prolly try to make friends with the offender first, then talk about footwork... not necessarily call him out officially. i know that will offend the purists out there, but too bad.

i checked later with my friends who play with him regularly and they pretty much universally told me that he's like that all the time... looking to mess with your head if he sees you as his competition, blatantly stepping over or to the side of his mark, and yes taking liberties like his OB mark when he thinks he can get away with it.

anyway, i'm still laughing at his audacity. and looking forward to making my own footwork 100% right on, so i can call his every mistake the next time we meet :D

If you are on the last card, you are probabling battling to be "not DFL" with each other. Which puts you in the same position as being chased by a hungry bear. You don't have to beat the field, you just have to incur fewer penalties than the other guy. :)

Sounds like a good opportunity to play "penalty stroke golf" was missed. :D

I had a guy on my card several years ago who started calling rules on people just to mess with their heads and try to gain advantage. Except he didn't exactly know all the rules. (He would call them authoritatively like he knew them, so you would believe him if you didn't know the rules.) Let's juts say I had a really good time that round, and his game really went to [*****]. :)

ah, that guy is everywhere i guess :)

my guy was the also only one who refused to offer congrats when i nailed a 125 footer for a birdie-4 on a 900' uphill par 5 :D

i offered to either call a truce with him or play it his way - thats when he told me it was all my fault. i just made sure i was as clean as possible and let it go. too nice a day in too nice a place to sweat it.

Using rules as payback is about the worst act of sportsmanship I have ever heard of. If I ever suspected anyone of trying such a thing I would do my best to have the person disqualified from the event and sanctioned by the PDGA and any local and regional clubs.

Rules are to ensure fair play, not to undermine it. I think that you guys bragging about using it for payback should be ashamed of yourselves and commit yourself to defending our rules of play not to abusing them and the sport we love.

My 2 cents.
DGRZ#005

Using rules as payback is about the worst act of sportsmanship I have ever heard of. If I ever suspected anyone of trying such a thing I would do my best to have the person disqualified from the event and sanctioned by the PDGA and any local and regional clubs.

Rules are to ensure fair play, not to undermine it. I think that you guys bragging about using it for payback should be ashamed of yourselves and commit yourself to defending our rules of play not to abusing them and the sport we love.

My 2 cents.
DGRZ#005


If someone wants to come out hard calling rules infraction to mess with the heads of me and/or others on my card, then they had better be **** sure that they are playing 100% clean because I *WILL* call them on every single thing they do wrong.

And if they want to come out hard calling rules infractions to mess with our heads and then they get the rules wrong that they are trying to call, I consider it my duty to educate them about every single rule they fail to 100% comply with. Including courtesy violations for calling non-rules rules.

I don't consider that "payback". I consider it my duty to educate the uninformed mind-game wannabes as to just exactly what the official PDGA rules of play are. It almost never happens out there, but it does happen. And rather than get all ****** off by it, I choose to enjoy the situation. :)

what rhett said. i guess from the quoted post we should assume that the poster believes that calling all infractions is somehow not the thing to do? hmmm... kinda strange for a DGRZ, doncha think?

I agree with the tenor of your post Rhett.


If someone wants to come out hard calling rules infraction to mess with the heads of me and/or others on my card, then they had better be **** sure that they are playing 100% clean because I *WILL* call them on every single thing they do wrong.



But if I suspect that someone is doing that I will have an immediate and private (so as to remove the "for show" aspect) discussion about such a tactic and that such behavior, if clearly the case, is grounds for disqualification and that I personally will make it my business to secure PDGA sanctions against that player.

In 25 years of playing I have only seen such a thing once and it was resolved before we left for the day.

Hope that clarifies my position. I just don't want to see, even well intentioned, back and forth spiteful rule calling. A it is wrong, B it is essentially lowering yourself to their level (which should be avoided).

Rhett is right. Duty to the rules is primary. If "payback" occurs, it is only a secondary result of enforcing the rules. Don't like it? Too bad. Stop breaking rules and it won't happen.

Personally, I think talking in private to a player you feel is using the rules as payback has a low probability of being productive, unless you are the TD. It may backfire on you if the other player considers it overt rudeness to be accused of such, and could earn you a courtesy warning. I totally understand the urge to talk to the offender, but I think it would be more properly related to the TD.

now, i'm not perfect with my footing. on one step upshots i am. but i know sometimes on the long ones with a five step, i can push a little too hard on that last step and go over. actually my most common mistake is to step on the mini, not grossly over it. and i am not excusing myself, or lobbying for lenience. i have worked hard to eliminate the side-steps that a lot of players do.



That is the most common foot fault problem I deal with, often I end up with some contact behind the mini (I'm not sure if it is from follow through or occurs at the hit). Since some holes are 1000 feet long, there are times when a bit of a run-up for the second (or even third) shot is necessary. I'd like to see the rule ammended to say you have to be within 1 meter on the line-of-play behind your mini. It seems to me that would make infractions rarer -- and more likely to be called.

That's a great idea RobJ. This sport is still in the infancy stage and why not make it player friendly?

I like a distinction between tee shots, regular shots, and putts.

Tee shots give you the most freedom to grip it and rip it: juts keep your feet within this huge box when you let go.

Regular shots require you to "play it where it lies", which we have defined as meaning that you put your foot (most often, but it can be a hand or a chin or wahtever) where the previous throw landed.

Putts are even more restricted, requiring you to demonstrate balance before advancing.

I personally like the difference.

How do you feel about changing the rule on what you call "regular shots" to allow 1 meter instead of 30cm? That would make the rule far easier to comply with on long approach shots (300 feet or further away from the pin) without any significant downside that I can envision.

Earlier you talked about a guy who tried to get in your head by citing rules of play. In such a scenario, I would love to have you in my group. The rules can be complicated and for those of us who aren't as enlightened about them as you are it would be very helpful if they were as simple as possible.

For like $3.00 you can have a PDGA rulebook in your group every round you play! ;)

I carry one in my bag. That is a lot different than knowing the ins and outs. I've never been in a group where anyone has been called for anything. When someone tries to get in my head, I'd love to be as knowledgeable about the rules as Rhett. Pulling out my rule book and trying to study it on the spot, is doable but awkward. I am going to read it again before going to BG this weekend...

Just pulling your chain :D. It's always a good idea to read and re-read your rulebook often. That way when someone tries to railroad you with non-rules rules, you can turn to the page that shows they are full of sh*t, then you can explain that calling non-rules rules is a courtesy violation, and they are dangerously close to getting a warning.

:D

How do you feel about changing the rule on what you call "regular shots" to allow 1 meter instead of 30cm? [QUOTE]
That would make the rule far easier to comply with on long approach shots (300 feet or further away from the pin) without any significant downside that I can envision.

Dumbing down the rules to accommodate players' laziness or indifference is a terrible idea.

The ability to place a supporting point within 30 cm of the lie on the LOP when taking a run-up is every bit as much a learned skill as are putting, driving, throwing forehand, the X-step, etc. If a player is not capable of complying with the 30 cm requirement when taking a run-up, s/he either needs to spend more time working on her/his run-up or to dispense with the run-up.

How do you feel about changing the rule on what you call "regular shots" to allow 1 meter instead of 30cm?


I feel that a change like that makes tee-shots and "regular shots" nearly identical. And I like that they are different. :)

I am going to read it again before going to BG this weekend...


That's a very good idea. It's only like 40 little quarter-pages long. I think the key is to read it a few times. Not so much to memorize it as to get more familiar with what stuff is in there and about where it is located, so that you can look rules fairly quickly on the odd occasion when they come into play.

Chiming in on the rules argument threads also helps out a lot in getting familiar with the rules. :)

You don't have to do what Jim Garnett does to be knowledgable about the rules. (Which is read the rule book every night before you go to bed.) :D Just be familiar enough with the book to be able to find the right section when needed on the course.

Felix, thanks for joining the discussion. I am thinking of the times when I play a 1000 foot hole (hole 15 at Idlewild) and want to get off a huge second shot. Often the slope of the land isn't flat. One meter would be much more doable than 30cm, and I don't see any downside to the change. If it is skilled footwork which you like -- would you like the rule changed to 10cm? :confused:

I played Ultimate and can throw pretty far flat-footed. It's not that I can't meet the 30cm requirement. It is more about what actually transpires in play. When I first started playing I heard from many players not to worry about it -- that noone would call you for a foot fault as long as you were *behind* your marker. imo, 1 meter makes a lot more sense. Were courses shorter when this rule was crafted?

Thanks for the pointers Rhett. Let me ask you a question. If no announcements are made by the TD -- if you land on a bridge is whether or not you are OB dependent upon whether you are or are not above an OB area (water)? Or is a bridge IB unless declared OB? Also, if something isnt declared OB by the TD at the meeting -- is it automaticly not OB regardless of Tee Signs, common local practice, etc?
Finally if I throw by an OB creek and land half way in the water and halfway on land -- but am underneath an eroded area above which is also land -- can I relocate verticly up anywhere within 1 meters along the line perpendicular to OB?

sorry to ask them but there is no "Rhett''s clarifications" section of the Rulebook (i wish there were) and I may need to know during an upcoming A tier :D

please take a look at this scenerio and tell me if this is true:

on hole one of a tournament a player drives and lands within 10 meters. they miss their putt, but never establish a stance behind their lie (falling putt). another player calls them on it, it gets seconded by another player. so they putt it again and make it.

this is all legit by the rules.
they get to card a 2, but had 3 throws.

please tell me there is another rule out there that superceeds this...



You only make the call if they make it. If they miss wait to call them later on a diffrent hole if they do it again and make it. :D:D

It sounds like you have read all the rules debate threads, rob. You should know how you would rule in those grey-area scenarios already. :)

Actually Rhett, when I first came to the board I used to shake my head at how anyone could be such rule fanatics and get into discussions about things like DROT's without an end in sight :D i thought I'd never get into such a discussion :D please don't shove my posts about the 2 meter rule into my face :D unless you promise to re-read them all :eek:

1. The under the bank scenario I'd rule play it above on the playing surface within 1 meter of OB on the line perpendicular to where your disc lies half in and half out of water (no penalty). Quoting the online rules <font color="blue"> 803.02:

C. If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie is marked by placing a mini marker disc up to one meter away from, and perpendicular to, the nearest out-of-bounds line. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole.

D. The Rule of Verticality: The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane. Where a player's lie is marked from a particular point within one meter of the out-of-bounds line pursuant to the rules, the one-meter relief may be taken from the particular point upward or downward along the vertical plane. </font>

2. The resting on bridge scenario would depend on whether the area below is OB or IB -- unless the TD declares the bridge OB or IB (a playing surface)? Quoting online rule <font color="blue"> 803.07 --

A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08. If the playing surface directly below the disc is inside a tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle. </font>

Is a bridge a solid obstacle or part of the playing surface?

3. Finally I think all OB has to be declared by the TD at the meeting or on a map the TD gives everyone. (?) But I am not sure and can't find where in the rule book it addresses how what is and isn't OB is determined...?

By the way -- there are a lot of things explicitly stated in the rules which i used to think were gray areas. Thanks for reminding me to actually read the rules :)

3. Finally I think all OB has to be declared by the TD at the meeting or on a map the TD gives everyone. (?) But I am not sure and can't find where in the rule book it addresses how what is and isn't OB is determined...?


The TD is supposed to declare all OBs, but in reality you will be hard pressed to prevail in a situation where the TD failed to mention as OB a lake that everyone always plays and has always played as OB. It won't matter that you are right. That is the real world, not here in the hypothetical world. :)


From the glossary:

Out-of-bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself in-bounds.



From the glossary definition, it seems pretty evident to me that an OB cannot exist without the director designating it. :)

Thanks for the lake scenario example. TD's do a lot so I could see how they might let that announcement slip. However -- it would be a slip to not declare all OB areas OB.

Now what about a bridge not discussed or declared? Is it a playing surface or is its IB/OB status dependent upon what is underneathe it? In other words, a disc landing on a bridge over an OB creek would be OB if vertically below it is surrounded by water and IB if it is on the bridge above land. (?)

That's how I interpret it, if the TD didn't say anything about the bridge in the player meeting.

Thanks for the lake scenario example. TD's do a lot so I could see how they might let that announcement slip. However -- it would be a slip to not declare all OB areas OB.

Now what about a bridge not discussed or declared? Is it a playing surface or is its IB/OB status dependent upon what is underneathe it? In other words, a disc landing on a bridge over an OB creek would be OB if vertically below it is surrounded by water and IB if it is on the bridge above land. (?)

The issue has already been addressed ny the RC in the Rules Q&amp;A under "Bridge Over OB."


I am thinking of the times when I play a 1000 foot hole (hole 15 at Idlewild) and want to get off a huge second shot. Often the slope of the land isn't flat. One meter would be much more doable than 30cm, and I don't see any downside to the change. If it is skilled footwork which you like -- would you like the rule changed to 10cm? :confused:

I personally would have no objection to reducing the allowable distance from 30 cm to 10 cm since reducing the distance would bring the rule into closer conformity with the principle of playing the disc where it lies, whereas expanding the distance from 30 cm to 1m is, in fact, a move away from that principle.

You say you don't see any downside to changing the allowable distance from 30 cm to 1 m. While it is arguable that an additional 70 cm would not make a significant difference on a wide open throw, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that an additional 70 cm would not make a significant difference on a lie where the thrown disc came to rest against a tree, under a bush, inside a tangle of vines, or behind an in-bounds obstacle. So the choice is between a single stance rule for all lies, regardless of the presence or absence of obstruction, or different stance rules for obstructed and unobstructed lies. While there are indeed circumstances where multiple rules are necessary to address different circumstances (so, e.g., 803.04 Obstacles and Relief), in my judgement, this is not one of those situations.


It's not that I can't meet the 30cm requirement. It is more about what actually transpires in play. When I first started playing I heard from many players not to worry about it -- that noone would call you for a foot fault as long as you were *behind* your marker.

Maybe if, instead of pandering to those who are either too indifferent or too lazy to learn how to play by the rules in sanctioned competition, people actually started calling rules violations when they occurred, players would actually start paying attention to their foot placement on run-ups and the problem of non-conformity to the 30 cm requirement would largely disappear..


imo, 1 meter makes a lot more sense.

On what grounds? So far, the only rationale you have offered is that expanding the allowable zone from 30 cm to 1 m makes it easier to comply with the rule. If ease of compliance is the primary rationale, why stop at 1 m? Why not allow 1.5 or 2, or even 5 m?

Against that, I would argue that, given the fundamental principle of "playing the disc where it lies," the 30 cm allowance make more sense than 1 m as the distance within which a reasonably coordinated, reasonably accomplished player should be able to land consistently when making a throw.

Against that, I would argue that, given the fundamental principle of "playing the disc where it lies," the 30 cm allowance make more sense than 1 m as the distance within which a reasonably coordinated, reasonably accomplished player should be able to land consistently when making a throw.


I agree with everything you posted except the last conclusion.

30 cm is about the size of a Wham-O 165, which was a popular disc golf disc way way way back in the day. 30 cm represents playing it where it lies; it's not just some "reasonable measure.". :)

I agree with Annie and Rhett; the existing provision is adequate.

"Give an inch...
Take a mile..."

We, in DG, don't play it where it lies, we play it from where it lay (correct English to go along with correct interpretation... ;) )(and event then we play it on the playing surface below where it lay). The 30 cm line is as good as we are going to get without at physical object that we must be in contact with at release.

Against that, I would argue that, given the fundamental principle of "playing the disc where it lies," the 30 cm allowance make more sense than 1 m as the distance within which a reasonably coordinated, reasonably accomplished player should be able to land consistently when making a throw.


I agree with everything you posted except the last conclusion.

30 cm is about the size of a Wham-O 165, which was a popular disc golf disc way way way back in the day. 30 cm represents playing it where it lies; it's not just some "reasonable measure.". :)

If that is indeed the basis for the 30 cm allowance, then perhaps the distance should be reduced to 22cm since the popular discs these days typically measure no more than 8.5" (22.59 cm) in diameter. :eek:

Ultrastars are still PDGA legal though.

You say you don't see any downside to changing the allowable distance from 30 cm to 1 m. While it is arguable that an additional 70 cm would not make a significant difference on a wide open throw, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that an additional 70 cm would not make a significant difference on a lie where the thrown disc came to rest against a tree, under a bush, inside a tangle of vines, or behind an in-bounds obstacle. So the choice is between a single stance rule for all lies, regardless of the presence or absence of obstruction, or different stance rules for obstructed and unobstructed lies. While there are indeed circumstances where multiple rules are necessary to address different circumstances (so, e.g., 803.04 Obstacles and Relief), in my judgement, this is not one of those situations.



I agree with you. I hadn't thought it through and was thinking of the 'wide-open' shot scenario. My home course is highly wooded, and yet I failed to consider the problems allowing up to 1 meter would entail. Thanks for pointing that out.


Against that, I would argue that, given the fundamental principle of "playing the disc where it lies," the 30 cm allowance make more sense than 1 m as the distance within which a reasonably coordinated, reasonably accomplished player should be able to land consistently when making a throw.



well, now that you put it like that -- i agre with you :D

So if one waits to call a falling putt until a putt is made (forcing a rethrow)...is this rules' abuse? :confused: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Falling putt and foot fault i believe are treated the same. Must be made within 2 seconds after the violation is commited and then there must be a second in the group if i am not mistaken. So unless the putt is a 5 ft i would say you would have to call it before the putt goes in.

Stance call must be made within 3 seconds. It must also be seconded if done from someone within the group. An official can make the call without a second.

Falling putt and foot fault i believe are treated the same.



A truer thing was never said. No one ever calls either.

I'm trying to find where in our rulebook it says:


Must only be muttered under ones breath to another player.

:p

If one makes the call on a miss, then the 'perp' has another chance to make it...! :p

An official can make the call without a second.


Is this an 'official' official...or just an official that happens to be playing the tourney 'and' on the same card?

I believe the rule needs to be amended to state that if the fault occurs and putt is missed, there will be no re-throw. It is suppossed to be a penalty, but if the second putt is made then the other players are the ones that are penalized not the violator.

Any official, including one who happens to be spectating (as I interpret the rule), unless said official is playing in the same division. And IIRC the TD has the ability to overrule the official.

I tend to agree with this, but what about non-putt foot faults? Are the people calling the infraction allowed to determine if the shot sucks and prevent a rethrow?

You've got your 2-3 seconds to make 'that' judgment call... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

yes, the audible play by play is like this: snap of release---"foot"----whaaack-----"ball season is gonna be great this year, don't ya think. Oh and sorry about that tree." :p

Just to clarify, a PDGA Certified Official may make a call without a second unless s/he is playing in the tournament and playing in the same division as the rule violator.

A certified official is allowed to make the call like any other player if they are playing in the same division, but a call in that circumstance needs to be seconded.

Just to clarify, a PDGA Certified Official may make a call without a second

As may non-certified officials empowered by the director to act as spotters for that purpose (803.09.D).

As may non-certified officials empowered by the director to act as spotters for that purpose (803.09.D).


The "Throwing from another player's lie" rule doesn't mention officials or spotters. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Oh, you mean 804.09! :) :D:)

As may non-certified officials empowered by the director to act as spotters for that purpose (803.09.D).


The "Throwing from another player's lie" rule doesn't mention officials or spotters. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Oh, you mean 804.09! :) :D:)


While amusing, you had to be the ACE hole and point out the mistake didn't ya? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

As may non-certified officials empowered by the director to act as spotters for that purpose (803.09.D).


The "Throwing from another player's lie" rule doesn't mention officials or spotters. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Oh, you mean 804.09! :) :D:)

MADE YOU LOOK! MADE YOU LOOK! NYAH, NYAH! MADE YOU LOOK! :p :p :p

What's a falling putt?

What's a falling putt?

RTFR.

What's a falling putt?

RTFR.




Wait, what?