OK, either I'm retarded, or the new rules are vague and confusing. But we have been discusing the new '06 rules at our local course almost everytime we play. So here's my questions:
1) If you throw OB, for example from the tee, then it is a 1 stroke penaly AND retee? Yes or No
2) The OB line IS OB? So if any part of your disc is touching OB, it is OB? Yes or No
3) If Question 1 is yes, can you retrieve your OB disc to throw it for your retee?
4) If Question 3 is no, are you disqualified if you run out of discs?
5) If Question 4 is yes, how many people will be DQ at Z-Boaz and USDGC this year?

BTW, I know there is another thread for '06 rules changes, but its 29 pages, and that's 20 more than I care to fumble through to get the answers. :mad:
And this one is better, cause its real! :D

I thought you knew all these answers Nick??!? :D

OK, either I'm retarded, or the new rules are vague and confusing. But we have been discusing the new '06 rules at our local course almost everytime we play. So here's my questions:
1) If you throw OB, for example from the tee, then it is a 1 stroke penaly AND retee? Yes or No
2) The OB line IS OB? So if any part of your disc is touching OB, it is OB? Yes or No
3) If Question 1 is yes, can you retrieve your OB disc to throw it for your retee?
4) If Question 3 is no, are you disqualified if you run out of discs?
5) If Question 4 is yes, how many people will be DQ at Z-Boaz and USDGC this year?


Well lets hear it Nick!

OK, either I'm retarded, or the new rules are vague and confusing. But we have been discusing the new '06 rules at our local course almost everytime we play. So here's my questions:
1) If you throw OB, for example from the tee, then it is a 1 stroke penaly AND retee? Yes or No <font color="red"> Yes and No, it is your choice to retee or take it 1 meter where it went out. UNLESS there is a drop zone for those that go OB. </font>
2) The OB line IS OB? So if any part of your disc is touching OB, it is OB? Yes or No <font color="red"> No, if ANY part of your disc is touching in bounds, you are safe, take your meter and play on. </font>




I will let the rule zelots answer the rest

1) Maybe. There are other options unless restricted by the TD.
2) No, the disc must still be surrounded by OB to be OB.
3) Yes, I don't see anything that forbids that, but it removes the need for provisionals except for ruling disputes.
4) N/A
5) N/A

(you can always buy/borrow new discs during a round)

Hey Colin -

1) The rules summary is somewhat misleading, but if you go to the rule itself, the answer is pretty clear. The options after throwing OB are the same now as they were last year. Generally, retee is an option unless this option is eliminated by the TD.

2) No. The disc must still be completely surrounded by OB to be OB just like last year. The only change is that the OB line itself is now out instead of in.

3) Depends. I am not sure that 803.04H refers to this situation. I personally do not think so, but some folks may interpret this differently. I do believe 801.03 (Excessive Time) applies, so you would theoretically need to get the disc within 30 deconds.

4) No. There is no rule against your group mates supplying you with all the discs you need.

5) Hopefully none.

Take care,
Harold

Ok, thanks guys. That clears up alot.
BTW, Ganzel, you are wrong once again. Retee is not mandatory!

3) Depends. I am not sure that 803.04H refers to this situation. I personally do not think so, but some folks may interpret this differently. I do believe 801.03 (Excessive Time) applies, so you would theoretically need to get the disc within 30 deconds.


the 30 second clock starts ticking when the player arrivess at the lie and everything is reasonably clear of distractions/danger(pedestrians)/etc. if i walk up the fairway and find my disc is OB i am not at my lie yet. if i declare that my lie is the teebox, then my 30 seconds doesnt start until i arrive at the teebox (again). unless retreiving the disc requried an inordinate amount of time, grabbing it quickly and then proceeding back to the teebox should not be a 30second violation.

on some holes around here the TD regularly instructs players who have gone inot certain OB areas that they must NOT retrieve their disc during the round, but rather proceed to the drop zone a keep it moving. however, in the absense of such a specific ruling, the disc should be retrievable.

It is also worth noting that going down to retreive a possibly lost disc to use for a provisional throw either starts to prove the disc is lost (and therefore not retreivable for use in the provisional throw), or negates the need to throw a provisional since the disc is then found.

My question is in the case of possible OB. Does taking a provisional throw when the disc may have gone OB remove the option of playing the disc from where it was last IB ?

Do you need to state which of the three options you are going to use prior to throwing a provisional for the case of OB ?

BTW, I know there is another thread for '06 rules changes, but its 29 pages, and that's 20 more than I care to fumble through to get the answers. :mad:
And this one is better, cause its real! :D



If you edit your settings, you should be able to have a better message board experience.

Click on My Home
Then Edit Display preferences (bottom of page)

Choose the following for your display:
Which style sheet (skin) do you want to use for your display: Infopop
Default display mode: Flat mode
Default view: Collapsed threads
Total parent posts to show per page: 99
Total posts to show on one page when viewing a post in flat mode: 99
TextArea columns: 60
TextArea rows: 5

Try that and see if that works better for you.

To backup the retrieving disc point, as the benefit of the doubt goes to the player, you could always say that you want to establish that it is OB before reteeing, then go find the disc, state that it is, indeed OB, pick it up and bring it back and see if you can't hit a circle 3.

Taking a provisional locks you into having this argument afterwards when you decide you would rather play it from where it was last in bounds. So then you will have to take the other kind of provisional to complete the hole both ways.

Another example why taking the new kind of provisional is almost always a sucker move, almost never to your benefit.

I don't understand why that's a sucker move bruce? You don't have to take the provisional. I guess I'm just not understanding your argument.

I think the provisional must be used if your original tee shot did end up OB. If the player actually had the option to mark and throw within 1m from where disc went OB, then throwing from the tee again (provisional throw) might not be what you would choose, but you're locked in with the provisional throw already being made.

Bruce's point is there's no reason to throw a provisional unless you won't have a choice but to retee if your tee shot is OB (TD specified), or you've already decided reteeing is what you would do if your disc is OB.

It is also worth noting that going down to retreive a possibly lost disc to use for a provisional throw either starts to prove the disc is lost (and therefore not retreivable for use in the provisional throw), or negates the need to throw a provisional since the disc is then found.

My question is in the case of possible OB. Does taking a provisional throw when the disc may have gone OB remove the option of playing the disc from where it was last IB ?

Do you need to state which of the three options you are going to use prior to throwing a provisional for the case of OB ?



Wait, has the wording of the lost disc rule been changed with respect to the searching process?

I have a question- when you throw your tee shot on a blind hole what happens if you cant find it?

you MUST go back and retee.

thats what I thought, thanks

I think the provisional must be used if your original tee shot did end up OB. If the player actually had the option to mark and throw within 1m from where disc went OB, then throwing from the tee again (provisional throw) might not be what you would choose, but you're locked in with the provisional throw already being made.

Bruce's point is there's no reason to throw a provisional unless you won't have a choice but to retee if your tee shot is OB (TD specified), or you've already decided reteeing is what you would do if your disc is OB.

from what i understand, you are not locked into the provisional. you are never forced to take a provisional, its a choice

If you read back a bit, you'll see that this was a case where a provisional had already been thrown. In the case at hand, the provisional had to be used since it had already been thrown.

That's exactly the point. If you choose to throw a provisional, you are stating that the re-throw from the previous lie is the option you wish to use if the disc is found to be OB.

It would be unfair to see how the shot from the previous lie worked out before deciding which OB placement option (last IB/previous lie/drop zone) you wanted to use.

i understand, what im saying is that if you call a provisional AND make the provisional throw, you are not forced to take it. you can choose whether or not to take it regardless of the outcome of the 1st shot (or the shot you took the provisional because of).

you can choose whether or not to take it regardless of the outcome of the 1st shot (or the shot you took the provisional because of).





???????????????

If you choose to throw a provisional because your disc may have ended up lost or OB -- if the disc is found OB or lost you are locked into the provisional period.

It was thrown in the provision that it is lost or OB, therefore if it turns up lost or OB you have to use the provisional

I stand corrected. I had seen a write-up of the OB rule that clarified the use of provisional at some point that said the provisional must be used, but I don't see that wording in the rules as printed.

As the rules are written, you should be able to still have the option of taking the disc where last IB (a legal lie) or the result of the provisional throw. If the disc is not OB, you have no choice.

no, you have the option

TThanks... this is what i was trying to say. i said "regardless of outcome" but obviously if the original shot was in bounds, you have to take that.

I'm never agreeing to that on my card. If someone thinks they are OB and wishes to take a provisional, I am getting a verbal agreement that before they throw, they agree to use the provisional should the disc actually be OB.

I might be over-ruled by the group, but I see no reason to interpret the rules the way you just implied.

no, you have the option



i find that very difficult to believe. if you're right then one could throw a provisional everytime they go OB just to see if it might yield preferential results.

unless you explicitly say this is a provisional throw for lost disc status only -- if it ends up OB you are locked into your provisional.

if you do explicitly state that the provisional is only for the provision that your disc is lost -- then you can not use your provsional for OB status. you can choose to go back and re-throw however or take the disc where it was last IB

James, How do you interpret the rules to prevent that ?

I remembered reading once where the provisional must be played, but can not find any such statement in the rules as currently printed.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that rule should be used this way, but can't find anything in the rules that makes it that way.

The current rule is:
[803.02.C.1.c (provisional may be used if) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules. ]

This states that the player must play from the appropriate lie according to the rules. The rules for OB discs allow three options. The provisional is used to save time (not requiring the player to return to the previous lie to exercise that option of the OB choices).

From a fairness point of view, the player should not be able to see how the throw from the previous lie turned out before deciding to throw from the last place IB, from the RC point of view of making provisionals save time, no other interpretation makes much sense. If they require the player to make a definate decision about which option they will be using, very few players will opt to take a provisional for OB unless the only option (restricted by the TD) for OB is to re-tee.

I think you answered your own question, Gary. What part of the rule backs up James' interpretation? It's in the rule you quoted.


803.01C (1) To save time: A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules.



If you throw a provisional because your original shot may be OB and it is found to be OB, the group can determine that you chose, with the use of a provisional, to use the previous lie option in the OB rule. James stated that he's getting a verbal agreement from the player that if the disc is found OB, he is choosing to re-throw from his previous lie by throwing the provisional in the first place. Were I in James' place or in his group, I'd agree with his interpretation and make the player take his provisional lie upon finding his original shot OB.

--Josh

I'm never agreeing to that on my card. If someone thinks they are OB and wishes to take a provisional, I am getting a verbal agreement that before they throw, they agree to use the provisional should the disc actually be OB.

I might be over-ruled by the group, but I see no reason to interpret the rules the way you just implied.

i agree with James also. its as if the player got to the disc, found it to be OB, then chose to rethrow from the previous spot. thats all good under the rules. but once that provi is thrown, the player loses the right to play from the last OB spot.

Are these "interpretations" of the rule? Or is this what, as deemed by the rules committee, the rule actually says? This rule is very confusing and seems like a really easy way to "screw" players for keeping up with speed of play.
The way you guys have explained the rule, I am never going to throw a provisional! Even if it means having to take a really long time to find my disc, and have to go back to the teepad and retee.

There is nothing there that states that the first throw (where last IB) is not a legal lie and no longer an option.

It does specify that the player will not play the hole to completion from both lies, only from the one deemed appropriate.

The kicker is the first part of the rule. All of 803.01.C.1 deals with "To save time:". All of the subparts should be looked at with that in mind.

If a player knows that they will be locked into the result of the provisional throw without regard to the to playability of the "last IB" spot (when not restricted), no one will ever use a provisional to expedite play. They will always go to their disc and check out the playability of the last IB spot before deciding to return to the previous lie to use that option.

In this case we have two bad options:
1) The RC meant this rule to be used in a broader range of situations and the player still have the choice of lies after taking a provisional off the tee.

2) The RC meant this rule to only be applicable in only a few situations and the player must use the provisional onece thrown if the first throw is indeed OB.


Pros/cons
1) Use of Provisional not required:
*Pro: Speed of Play - More players would opt for this use if the decision of placement option could be delayed until the status of the disc (and last IB option) was examined.
*Con: Unfair - The player is able to see the outcome of the previous lie option before being forced to choose between the previous lie and last IB.

2) Use of provisional indicates choice of "previous lie":
*Pro: Fairness - The player shouldn't be able to examine the outcome of a shot before they decide if they are going to use that shot or not.
*Con: Very limited applicability: If use of the provisional equates to making the decision to use the "previous lie" option prior to examining the "last IB" lie, very few situations turn up where it is useful for the player to throw a provisional.

Also remember the paragraph in the back of the rulebook (in the Summary of Rules Changes section) implies that the PDGA expects the rule to be used more freely under the new rules.

Clarified and expanded the explanation of Provisional Throws. You can use them to play holes in alternate ways (carding both scores) to settle rules disputes and you can use them when you think it might save time. (Lost disc, OB disc, etc.) Again, provisional throws can really come in handy.

I don't see this as problematic, at least in the situations I anticipate.

Break down the total OB situations. In my experience, most times (70% of greater), the group knows for sure whether the disc is IB or OB. On situations where there is uncertainty, it usually involves a known place where the disc entered OB and some uncertainty is the disc made it back in bounds (across the pond, down the river or road aways). In these cases, the players invariably will go to the place where their disc went OB and then throw a provisional. There will be no subsequent choice of lies, only the question of if the first disc is truly OB or not. I always assumed that these situations are the time savers envisioned by the rule, and they would not fall under the argument at hand.

James, you bring up a third use of the provisional.

The throw in question here is the "previous lie" option of OB.

The provisional is used to save the time required to walk back to the previous lie if that option is chosen. If the previous lie is not the tee, another player needs to go back as well to establish an approximate lie.

If the rule is interpreted in such a way that the provisional if taken declares the player's intention of taking the previous lie option if the first shot is OB, no player should take a provisional in this situation.

You don't know that you will not have a shot from your last IB spot until you look at it.

You should not be able to see the outcome of a shot before you decide whether that shot counts or not.

You can not save time by using provisionals off the tee in the case of OB unless the rule is useful for players that are currently standing on the tee box. If that is the stated purpose of provisionals in that situation, the rules should be interpreted to support the stated purpose.

<font color="Blue">Again, I agree with you on how the hole should be played and that choosing to throw a provisional off the tee should be a declaration of intent to use that throw if the original throw is found to be OB. I can't find definate wording in the rules to support that position, and several "clues" that point the other way.</font>

803.01.c.1: "When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules."

803.09.b: "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)."


the key is the use of OR in 803.09. what it means is that a player can choose ONE of the available choices (dropzones being not always designated).

this means that if a player has already thrown a provi because he wasnt sure if the the first shot was OB or not, then he has ALREADY made his choice, and, according to 803.01.c.1 must "shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules".

not some third throw.

hence, bruce's coment about certain provisionals being a sucker's move - it takes away the option of playing where the disc went OB.

803.01.c.1: "When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules."

Speak of the Devil! The critical language in there is "shall" and "two". Once you throw the provisional you shall, must, are obligated to, take whichever of the two throws is appropriate. You no longer have any other options. If the rule intended to leave open the drop zone or one meter from last in bounds, the rules committee would have used a permissive term like "may." This is not interpretation any more than interpeting the use of the word "red" to exclude the color blue. "May" and "shall" have different meanings in ordinary English and we must assume that terms not defined in the glossary are used with their ordinary meaning.

Any time you throw a "time saving" provisional it is a sucker move unless you really don't have it in you to walk back up the hill. (A) You foreclose any other options you might have had. (B) You pass on the opportunity to have lots of spotters watch your second throw, because they'll all volunteer to stay right there and spot. (C) You pass on the opportunity to completely bollix up the tournament flow, thus demonstrating how dumb the new rule is.

But now we have the one caveat: if you trick your group into starting to look for your disc and then half way into the looking go back and throw your provisional, you get spotters and potentially a much long time period in which your group is looking. Unless, I'm in your group. I won't fall for that trick.

I could dig up where I read the "must play" part I saw earlier, but my contention here is that if that is how the rule is meant to read, the use of provisionals on OB is basically limited to holes where the TD has limited the OB options to re-tee and you are just throwing from the "last-IB" and "previous lie" at the same time so no choice is made.

803.09 applies to discs that are "considered out-of-bounds".

The provisional rule of this type apply to saving time. If the rule is to allow the saving of time, it must be set up so that it is reasonable to use it. It is unreasonable for a player to limit their choices by making a decision before seeing their lie.

With a provisional, the player has already taken the time of going back to the previous lie if that is the decision, thus saving time. The player is also standing at or near the last IB spot if that is the decision. Maybe a drop zone ?

Though I agree that the player should not be able to choose between a spot and a shot already completed, it is the only way that a provisional for OB (except where the TD has already removed the choices) becomes a reasonable option for the player and the only way it could save time.

I would love an RC opinion that states obviously one way or the other. In this case, the Q&A is again littered with special conditions that make a general interpretation impossible. The example for OB includes a hole where the TD has restricted the OB to re-tee only. The only option where a provisional makes sense with either interpretation.

It's also not the player's choice to throw a provisional. The majority of the group has to agree "that it will save time." My position would be that it will only save time if the player doesn't get to choose between the Prov vs 1m IB and would agree to allow the player to throw the provisional only if they used it.

The other interesting can of worms opened if the player is allowed to choose the Prov or not would be if the tee happened to be specified as the drop zone. Let's say the player doesn't like 1m in or the Prov. Would you let them say they're going to take their third option and "throw from the drop zone" which would be a do-over for the Prov?

check this out: the thrower decides at the 1:30 minute mark to go back to the teepad. at the 2:15 he is sizing up his second teeshot. at 2:16 his disc is found in-bounds by someone who stayed behind on the fairway. concurrently at 2:16 the thrower is in his runup and hears someone yell something. at 2:17 the thrower releases his second teeshot.

at 2:18 the thrower is issued a penalty stroke for a practice throw - which his second teeshot was as per 803.01.b "B. Practice Throws. A player who throws a practice throw or an extra throw with any disc any time after the start of his or her round and prior to his or her finishing the last hole of the round (except for throws that must be re-thrown in accordance with the rules, provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3), or throws during a suspension or postponement of play) shall receive one penalty throw. The practice throw or extra throw must be observed by any two players or an official." (remember, the disc was found inbounds and there is no option for a provi for a found inbound disc.)

and dont forget that at 2:18.01 the thrower is assessed a courtesy warning for failing to aid in the search for a lost disc.

now THAT would be cool! :D

I never bought into the provisionals for specified purposes argument. If you take a provisional for any reason from the previous lie, and the ruling is a throw from the previous lie (OB, lost disc, unplayable lie), you have already thrown from the previous lie. There is your spot.

The other interesting can of worms opened if the player is allowed to choose the Prov or not would be if the tee happened to be specified as the drop zone. Let's say the player doesn't like 1m in or the Prov. Would you let them say they're going to take their third option and "throw from the drop zone" which would be a do-over for the Prov?

absolutely! but only after they had taken the time to walk up the fairway again and made an honest determination. its all about speed of play, afterall :D

there you go again Pat, leaving no stone unturned in the effort to paint a rule change you disagree with in the best possible light /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ok guys, after hearing these explanations and scenarios, (which were, indeed, all very eloquently and intelligently explained ((i mean that seriously))), i have a question and comment.
1) What in God's holy name was the old rule????
2) To avoid all this confusion and law-speak rhetoric, why not make all holes with OB have a specified drop zone in tournament play? I know that would suck, but at least it'd be clear.

People are exploring the periphery of this rule, and like every rule in every human endevour, it can be criticized based on some weird outlier scenarios, but, for the majority of scenarios, the new rule will certainly improve the speed of play.

For OB, if we see that my weak throw is close to the edge, but might still be wet, I can now go to the edge of the lake where I went in and throw a provisional rather than walk around the lake and back. This is the most common scenario and the new rule will save time.

For lost discs, the use of a provisional would only be used when someone threw it into the deep shule, where no group members want to look and no thrower wants to play from. So, everyone is happy with a provisional and it saves time from the inevitable walk back and throw.

All in all, other than the typical "initiation" of this rule change by the zealots testing its boundaries, the freer use of provisionals seems like a no-brainer improvement.

aren't you worried you will be banned for making so much sense? :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

there you go again Pat, leaving no stone unturned in the effort to paint a rule change you disagree with in the best possible light /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

well, Rob, as Mark Twain once commented "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." :D so give it a century or so - you'll come around. :D

i'm going to have to give you a century to come around on the elimination of the 2 meter rule /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

For lost discs, the use of a provisional would only be used when someone threw it into the deep shule, where no group members want to look and no thrower wants to play from. So, everyone is happy with a provisional and it saves time from the inevitable walk back and throw.

with all due respect James, that seems to be a complete and deliberate misuse of the rule. you MUST still look for the disc! if its found the only options are to play it there (including any additional penalty for 2MR if applicable), or take a stroke and get up to 5M relief on the LOP.

but to just shrug your shoulders and say "well shucks fellas its gonna take me six strokes to get out of that shule and besides you all dont really wanna go help search in that nasty mess so i think i'll throw a provisional", and then follow that up with not even searching for the disc should result in an instant DQ for at least the player and possibly the entire card!

actually its the other way around rob. but in this case the conservatives got control and only waited 20 years to overturn the visionaries :cool:
ps. the visionaries are still in power in texas (disc golf anyway) and norcal from what i hear

if its found the only options are to play it there (including any additional penalty for 2MR if applicable), or take a stroke and get up to 5M relief on the LOP.




One additional option, Pat, is to re-throw from the previous lie with a 1 stroke penalty (803.06(A). So he can say, "Shucks, that's unplayable" and immediately take his re-throw from the tee. He only needs to find the disc to determine if any other penalties (ie 2MR) apply.

--Mike

there you go again Pat, leaving no stone unturned in the effort to paint a rule change you disagree with in the best possible light /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



I don't view it as that - he merely related his experience at a tournament, and that of someone else at the tournament.
Yes, it's just two single data points and some of you can dismiss it as that, but I join Pat in finding it disconcerting that this happened on the very first HOLE of the very first event with the new rules in effect. This rule, intended to save time, is doing just exactly the opposite.

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/thelung-el.jpg

good point. my mistake. as you point out though you still must look for the disc.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For lost discs, the use of a provisional would only be used when someone threw it into the deep shule, where no group members want to look and no thrower wants to play from. So, everyone is happy with a provisional and it saves time from the inevitable walk back and throw.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

with all due respect James, that seems to be a complete and deliberate misuse of the rule. you MUST still look for the disc! if its found the only options are to play it there (including any additional penalty for 2MR if applicable), or take a stroke and get up to 5M relief on the LOP.



Yeah, I wrote that pretty poorly. Basically, I assume that everyone will look for the disc, BUT, knowing the degree of schule that they are dealing with, most group members realize that they will not find it in three minutes and let the guy throw a provisional in anticipation of a likely lost disc. Of course, everyone is required to look, but we all know that the thickness, thorniness and danger of the search area will effect how hard people look.

803.01C (1) To save time: A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules.





The way the rule reads, you have to satisfy a, b, and c to get the privilege of throwing a provisional. Then once you throw it, you have agreed to allow the group to decide which throw is the appropriate one from which to proceed play. If you disagree with the group, you can always throw from both and let the TD decide at the end of the round.

I don't view it as that - he merely related his experience at a tournament, and that of someone else at the tournament.
Yes, it's just two single data points and some of you can dismiss it as that, but I join Pat in finding it disconcerting that this happened on the very first HOLE of the very first event with the new rules in effect. This rule, intended to save time, is doing just exactly the opposite.



Browsing quickly through this thread, I must have missed it, but what are you referring to?

i think he means this http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&amp;%20Standards&amp;Number=50 1639&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=486022&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post501 639 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&amp;%20Standards&amp;Number=50 1639&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=486022&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post501 567)

Well, I read that, and read the people piling on, but I really don't get the criticism of the freer use of provisional. Like I said before, it a no-brainer improvement, if not abused.

What you are really criticizing in that example is the balance between the extra time required to go back and retee vs. the uncertainty of playing it where the group last last saw it. It's hardly a legitimate criticism of the provisional.

Besides, even though I have some doubts about the lost disc rule, that hole provides a good example FOR the change. Last year, DEPENDING ON YOUR GROUP MAKEUP, it was likely that people would say that the last place they saw it was fifteen feet from the basket and the guy gets a easy three after the penalty. To top it off, he probably gets to putt from a wide open grassy area, an area that his disc clearly cannot be lost in. It's debatable whether that is fair, just as it is debatable whether reteeing is fair.

its a very legitimite criticism. along with its overly punitive nature.

I personally still think that in the majority of cases of lost discs that I have seen, stroke and distance was overly punitive and approximated last location seen was far from kind...even when a disc has been lost in the middle of a fairway because no one could find it under the leaves, only once has it ever been an easy putt from the last place we all thought we saw it. I do recognize the faults inherent in that particular now-defunct rule, but unlike some people (such as Nick, I believe...I may be wrong) I never thought the judgment call to be more dangerous than the one in determining where a disc was last in bounds. In comparing the old rule and the new, I find myself comparing an unfair advantage to the thrower that I've never seen occur but that could have (an easy par resulting from a shot wild enough to cause the loss of a disc) with something that, to me, seems more unfair (a near-perfect throw that finds just the wrong pile of leaves resulting in, at best, probably a bogey--and at worst, a chance to foul up the drive and wind up with a triple or worse). The impression I have from some of the previous discussion is not exactly that Nick and similar thinkers believe the latter case is better justified...Nick seems more of the opinion that either entire parks should be raked before events (I'm exaggerating) or that in regions such as the one in which I play it should be common practice to have at least one or two spotters on every hole in autumn (I'm exaggerating less). Personally I am quite content to play by the rules whether I agree with them or not, but I do reserve the right to disagree with people regarding which version of the lost disc rule is more likely to have a result I consider unfair.

To be fair (in a different sense of the word), the last time I had to take a lost disc penalty, stroke and distance actually would have been kinder than the approximated lie...the reason we didn't find it was because we were looking three times too far from the basket, way back in a bunch of trees instead of next to another guy's disc two bushes away from the basket.

It occurs to me, however, that my opinion regarding which version of the rule itself is more fair and my opinion regarding which one more often has a fair result may not match up very well...

I tend to agree with you and Pat. However, I do think the other side has some merit.

Pat, the criticism that I labeled as "not legitimate" was regarding the use of provisionals. Once the lost disc rule was decided upon (whether one agrees with it or not), the freer use of provisionals was a wise decision by the rules committee. It was also a very wise decision in the cases of OB discs, as long as people don't attempt to abuse it for their advantage.

no problem there. i have never been shy with using provisionals; i think they are cool and tended to solve problems while minimizing the angst on the card. the biggest problem i see with some of the newer uses is the spaghetti logic that must be untangled to figure out if the provi or the original shot is the shot of record, and also the possibility of nested provis (which makes my brain hurt)

At Bowling Green a couple of years ago I lost what would have been a drop in putt for birdie. It was on that hole at Hobson towards the end of the course where you play out of the woods with a right turning shot and the basket is blindly tucked in some trees on the right, maybe hole 14? The entire area had knee deep leaves. We gave it a good look. I played lost disc about 30 feet short, missed the putt low, and the putter landed right on top of the lost disc.

I'm not sure why that great throw on a poorly groomed hole is now deserving of what will often be a three-throw penalty, but a horrible throw that would get stuck up in the honeysuckles on that hole should go unpenalized.

At Bowling Green a couple of years ago I lost what would have been a drop in putt for birdie. It was on that hole at Hobson towards the end of the course where you play out of the woods with a right turning shot and the basket is blindly tucked in some trees on the right, maybe hole 14? The entire area had knee deep leaves. We gave it a good look. I played lost disc about 30 feet short, missed the putt low, and the putter landed right on top of the lost disc.

I'm not sure why that great throw on a poorly groomed hole is now deserving of what will often be a three-throw penalty, but a horrible throw that would get stuck up in the honeysuckles on that hole should go unpenalized.



That is a great example Bruce, I couldn't agree more.

Of course an argument could be made about not using a spotter, but in general, this is a classic example of why many people disagree with the new rule changes. http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/thelung-el.jpg

Steelers? Seahawks? It doesn't seem like a Superbowl Sunday without the Patriots. We ARE spoiled.

I dig the Patriots.

Chargers had a chance to get to the playoffs , but didn't . http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif

What the HeLL happened to the Eagles ?

I think the provisional must be used if your original tee shot did end up OB. If the player actually had the option to mark and throw within 1m from where disc went OB, then throwing from the tee again (provisional throw) might not be what you would choose, but you're locked in with the provisional throw already being made.

Bruce's point is there's no reason to throw a provisional unless you won't have a choice but to retee if your tee shot is OB (TD specified), or you've already decided reteeing is what you would do if your disc is OB.



The provisional wouldn't necessaily have to be thrown from the tee. It might be thrown from 1m from where the disc was presumably last inbounds.

SCENARIO: For the sake of argument, I'm playing a hole where I throw across a body of water to a pin 350 ft. away. There is 100 ft. of inbounds ground from tee to water's edge, the water covers another 200 ft., and then there's 50 more ft. from the water's far side to the pin. Let's say also that the OB line is not actually the wter's edge, but a clearly painted line all the around the pond.

I, being more weenies an arm than I used to be, throw a drive almost across the water. It skips off the water and bounces BARELY on to the bank on the pin side of the pond. There's a good chance my disc is inbounds, but because the OB line is the painted line, my disc might be totally dry, but still OB because it's inside the painted line.

In this case, I might choose to go 100 ft. down to the line by the water's edge, and play a provisional from there. It wouldn't necessarily be from the tee. OR, if the TD provided a drop zone for the hole, I might play a provisional from there. The provisional wouldn't necessarily have to come from the tee.

Chap

In my experience, this will almost always be the scenario, and is why the freer use of provisional was a no-brainer good idea that will save time.

Lets just all agree if the player in this case retees as a provisional, that shot will be taken if the disc is truly OB. He has forfeited the option of going to the lake's edge and throwing a provisional.

That could happen, but the choice to throw a provisional is not 100% yours. The group must agree to it.

I agree with that.

What if there is no majority in the group...an even # of card-mates 'for' & 'against'? Does the player in question have a vote?

I would think so. Since the point of it is to cover the two most likely scenarios so the TD can pick the right one after the round. The primary point is that there is a disagreement concerning how to proceed.

If the player refuses to play a provisional from where the group says he/she should and it later turns out that they were right, then additional penalties could result for not playing the hole properly. Same for if the individual was not permitted by the group from playing the hole with a provisional shot from where he/she thought it should be played.

I think the guiding idea is: "Better safe than sorry."

Abuse of this rule, as with any rule, is pretty easy to detect and I can't think of a single golfer I know who would like a rep as a cheater, can you?

I would like to point out that the playing of a provisional is up to the card when it is used to save time (803.01.C.1).

In other situations, where the provisional is used as an appeal or when the player disagrees with the group or officials decision (803.01.C 2 & 3) the player alone makes the decision to play the provisional.

Makes sense and for the speed of play.

In other situations, where the provisional is used as an appeal or when the player disagrees with the group or officials decision (803.01.C 2 & 3) the player alone makes the decision to play the provisional.



Absolutely.

Yes, they are able to "choose" not to play from where the group rules they should take their next shot, but they are risking playing the course incorrectly, which is an automatic 2 throw penalty if the TD later determines that they played the hole incorrectly.

Better to be safe, don't you think?

Correction, they may choose to play from both where the card decides the correct lie is and where they believe the correct lie is, but they can't play only the one they think is correct if the card rules otherwise.

If they do not play from the lie the card ruled as correct (regardless of the TDs later determination), they have played the course incorrectly.


803.01.C.1.c When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules.