Note that provisional throws can't be made if the player thinks their shot might be unplayable or might be suspended above 2m (if there's a penalty). The player may throw a provisional based on the possibility the throw might be lost. However, if the disc is found and the player decides they would rather take an unplayable penalty and rethrow, they have to go back and rethrow rather than use the provisional shot that was already thrown in the event the disc was lost.

While this may not make sense, the idea is that you can't take an unplayable penalty until you have a known lie. That's why it's called an unplayable "lie." If you allowed a player to call a disc unplayable from a distance, you might have a situation where the disc was actually above 2m in a tree where that penalty was in effect. The player must first take the 2m penalty, then decide whether they wish to take another penalty for an unplayable lie which they might decide to take within 5m of their lie rather than rethrow the shot from the previous lie.

I'll be waiting to hear about groups scrambling to find the player's orginal disc when a player throws their provisional in the basket for an apparent circle 3, which would have to either be rethrown if the disc was found or the player would have to throw their second shot from the found disc in the deep schule.

Right, throwing a provisional for a suspected unplayable, but fair in terms of being in bounds, lie would be considered circumventing the rules. Per Rule 803.06(A)(2) a player may throw again from the previous lie, taking a penalty throw. This is different then a provisional. Throwing from the previous lie should be done after determining that the lie is infact unplayable. I do not see this happening without a upclose inspection of the suspected unplayable lie.

<font color="red"> If a player in my group threw a shot and after seeing where it landed, determined it was unplayable, and threw another shot, I would question as to whether the original throw is infact unplayable or if they are just unhappy with the throw and would rather throw again. Granted the penalty stroke should deter this type of rule abuse, however I know of some people that would infact do this exact thing.</font> <font color="green">"Um, that lie is unplayable, I am choosing to throw from the previous lie." (Said player then proceeds to throw another shot perfectly landing it under the basket). This example would be for if the first shot was behind an obstacle making a 4 nearly impossible, say if the first throw went down an in bounds ravine that is a 2-3 shot escape from such obstacle. (4 would be the score from the re-thrown tee shot if the player were to make the proceeding putt). </font> Using a provisional throw, which I would deem illegal would be using the rules to improperly take advantage of the designed course. A ravine in my situation would have been playable, and safe (with access down to said area) it would have been a difficult recovery from such a lie, but playable and fair none-the-less. To me the player in this example is circumventing the rules. And would be subject to disqualification.

In the event where a player believes their disc to be lost after thrown. The option is taken to throw a provisional. My question is this.

1) The group searches for the disc, after three minutes, the disc has not been found and is considered lost. Does the provisional throw then count as the re-throw under the new rules for lost discs, and play can presume (with penalty) and the player does not have to walk back to the previously lie.

2) After the provisional is thrown, the group finds the disc within the three minutes. By default, doesn't the player have to play the original throw and not allowed the option to use the provisional throw? Then, at the lie of the original throw, is the player allowed to retrieve the disc thrown as the provisional? And would this have to be done within the 30 seconds allowed for making the throw once a clear/playable lie is established?

Also, if a player throws their shot and they believe it is OB, so they decided to throw another �provisional shot� what happens in these circumstances?

1) The player�s original throw is deemed out of bounds by the group.
A) Does the player have the option of taking either the provisional throw (plus 1 stroke penalty) or the original?
B) Does the player have to use the provisional throw as a �re-throw� per the rules of options in dealing with OB shots, plus the one stroke OB penalty?
C) Does the player have to use the original throw bring the disc back inbounds where it crossed the line, adding in the OB penalty?
2) The player�s throw is deemed in bounds by the group. Was the provisional legal, and does the player have the option of using either shot, or must they use the original lie?

Answer: Right there you have about seven good reasons why the riules committee should have left well enough alone.

Here are the scenarios for what happens (as I see it) under the new rules if a player elects to throw a provisional based on the concern the disc is lost, OB or missed a mando:

1) Disc is lost. Provisional must be used.
2) Disc is OB. Provisional must be used.
3) Disc misses a mando. No provisional should be thrown unless tee happens to be the drop zone for the mando. If the disc was determined to cross the missed mando line, then the provisional throw would be used.
4) Disc ends up above 2m and that penalty is in effect. Provisional would NOT be used. Player would mark lie below disc and receive a 1-throw penalty. Then, if player decided to relocate the lie based on playability, they would either move back up to 5m on the LOP and receive another 1-throw penalty. Or, they could receive the 1-throw penalty and go back to the original lie/tee and throw from there. Assuming it was their tee shot that ended up above 2m, their next throw would be their 4th.
5) Disc is found inbounds in a location where no penalty would be applied. Provisional would NOT be used. If after seeing the lie, the player decides not to play it from there, they either move back up to 5m on the LOP and receive a 1-throw penalty. Or, they choose to go back to the original lie and throw their next shot and receive a 1-throw penalty. Their provisional cannot be used. They must go back and throw again from the original lie.

That's how I see it for the revised rules. As Bruce points out, if there's a chance the disc is OB and throwing your next shot from where it went OB is probably better than reteeing, then don't throw a provisional.

Oh, here we go: at the very end of the provisional rule it says that you must complete the hole from whichever of the two lies is appropriate under the rules. So now we have the answer [if we did not before] that if you take a provisional and the original is lost, o.b. or mando missatory, you must play the provisional. You have waived the option to play the point of last in bounds or whatever. You can't waive off the provisional and use your other options once you've thrown one.

The Provisional: The Sucker Move of Disc Golf

Any lie may be declared unsafe, at any point, for any reason.

I agree that it would not be a provisional, but I don't see any reason a player couldn't declare a disc unplayable from a distance and go ahead with the rethrow from the last lie.

He would of course forfeait any chance that the first disc could be played, but there is no requirement for a detailed analysis of the disc.

In the case that a penalty stroke is applied for discs suspended above 2m, both the 2m stroke and the unplayable lie stroke should be applied.

I am having difficulty reading these threads lately, so I apologize if this has been answered. In some of the last posts, Chuck and Gary mentioned that if the 2m rule was in effect, the disc was suspended above 2m, the lie was declared unplayable and the player chose to throw from the original lie, then the player would add two penalty strokes before throwing from the original lie.

I was sent on a mission to get this question answered. Does everyone agree that is the answer?

ps. I for one, see this as somewhat inconsistent when compared to a throw that went OB and the player chose to rethrow from the original lie and only recieved one penalty throw.

The definition of "lie" is very clear and the rule is called unplayable "lie." The lie or where it will end up must be seen before the player can make their choice. Perhaps the Competition Director would grant an exemption if the course has no 2m penalty because the primary reason the provisional can't be thrown is the possibility the player ends up above 2m and would bypass the additional penalty that should be assessed if the disc isn't seen.

The main reason though is the provisional rule doesn't allow a throw to be made if the player wants to call an unplayable. (S)he can throw one based on the possibility of a lost disc but then the provisional doesn't count if the disc is found and the player elects to call the unplayable from there and use the provisional.

The difference is with OB, lost and mando, there's an automatic penalty and no choice about using the provisional. In the case where a player elects to use the unplayable once they see it, they already have the results of their provisional to compare with and then choose with more information than seems "fair." (Plus of course the 2m penalty problem where it exists.)

The answer is 'Yes' James, but we should remember Bruce's mantra that a provisional is usually a 'sucker' shot. If I'm taking a provisional, it's either going to be because I plan to immediately declare a lost disc (if the group allows it without looking) or because it had a high probability it went OB and the tee was the only option specified by the TD for the mark. Otherwise, I'm not throwing a provisional. I'll first check out where the disc is located. I've taken one unplayable penalty in 16 years of playing when the disc was so far in prickers that 5m didn't get me out. Even if I call an unplayble under the new rules, I would guess 9 out of 10 times in the next 160 years, I would throw from within the 5m behind the lie.

That is correct, but remember that only the thrower can declare the lie unplayable, and he does not have to. He can mark under the disc and just take the one throw penalty.

And that's why you don't want to have a provisional throw with it's results known so the player has a choice to use it or not after the 2m penalty. The player should be standing there and saying "Well, should I try to hack out from underneath the pine tree from here, take another penalty and move back up to 5m or go back to the tee (previous lie) and make a throw that I don't know the results of."

I'm not talking about provisionals. I am talking about throwing into the middle of thick schule, seeing the disc stuck above 2m, deciding that it might take three throws to get out, and calling it unplayable so that I can rethrow from a preferable lie.

Taking two throws seems inconsistent to me. If I throw into the creek, at a rather treacherous part of the creek, where a stance is problematic, I can choose to rethrow with only one stroke. I am not additionally penalized by the fact that my "where it entered OB" lie is unplayable.

If above two meters lie was called OB, then these two scenarios would be identical and both times I could choose to to rethrow from the previous lie with only a one throw penalty.

Since most people feel that "above 2m" is basically equivalent to "OB", it seems somewhat inconsistent that I take two strokes in one scenario and only one in the other scenario.

Chuck,

Maybe the confusion is coming from calling the re-throw_after_declaring_an_unplayable_lie a "provisional". It isn't. Once the player declares his shot unplayable (whether he has inspected the shot or not), his re-throw is the only shot that counts. He can't go to the original shot and say "Oh, this isn't so bad. I'll play this". He has to play the re-throw. If he does find his original shot is above 2M (and the rule is in effect), he will take an additional penalty stroke.

This is the way I interpret the new rule.

--Mike

I see your point James.

Let's suppose that a player has thrown a disc deep into the schule near OB and will be electing to throw from the previous lie under all circumstances. The 2m penalty is also in effect.

Possible rulings:
1) The disc is searched for and not found.
. Declare a lost disc and throw from the previous lie with 1 penalty throw.
2) The disc is searched for and found on the playing surface or below 2m.
. Declare an unplayable lie and throw from the previous lie with 1 penalty throw.
3) The disc is searched for and found to OB.
. The disc is OB, throw from the previous lie with 1 penalty throw.
4) The disc is searched for and found to be suspended above 2m.
. Apply a 1 throw penalty for above 2m to establish a lie on the playing surface.
. Determine the the lie on the playing surface is unplayable.
. Throw from the previous lie with a total of 2 penalty throws.
5) Get the card to agree that the previous throw is lost without searching.
. Throw from the previous lie with 1 penalty throw.

Is that basically what you said Chuck ?

The definition of "lie" is very clear and the rule is called unplayable "lie." The lie or where it will end up must be seen before the player can make their choice. ...

the definition is clear, but where does it say the lie or where it will end up "must be seen"? why cant a player say "ya know what, no matter where that sucker ends up and no matter where the lie might be, it is unplayable. i shall therefore retee throwing three."

The potential 2-shot penalty due to the possibility of also getting an unplayable lie was one of the reasons against the 2m rule in that thread. I'm not sayiong it's fair, but the 2-shot penalty would occur under the unlikely combination of those items.

The RC was correct in not including the unplayable lie as a reason for throwing a provisional because the lie was unknown. If the player in my group wants to throw a provisional based on the possibility of a lost disc, as a group member, that and OB are the only options I would be smart to agree to. It's not right to pit the group at odds with the player, if the disc is found and the player and group already know the outcome of the provisional shot. If the provisional is good, player might take the provisional, if it's not then he might try to play the original shot. That type of advance knowledge violates the mystery of the game.

IMO, the RC should have banished the 2m rule entirely, or relegated it to esoteric knowledge spoken only by sandal wearing crazies on cable tv access channels. :p However, since we are still stuck with it, they should have just called it OB. It would have ended a lot of confusion.

In the past (and present for that matter), people always refer to above 2m as being "OB." It isn't, and wasn't. The main effect of it not being OB is that with OB, one could rethrow from the previous lie with a one-throw penalty, but with 2M, one must play it beneath the suspended disc.

All in all, I see no reason not to call above 2m "OB." It would have been wise. It would have matched people's common perceptions and eliminated the inconsistencies mentioned above.

Gah, I agree with James on this. Next thing you know I'll be an Astros fan. Ick.

(In fact early on one of the 2m threads I mentioned this as an option, but it got Kighted.)

The potential 2-shot penalty due to the possibility of also getting an unplayable lie was one of the reasons against the 2m rule in that thread. I'm not sayiong it's fair, but the 2-shot penalty would occur under the unlikely combination of those items.

The RC was correct in not including the unplayable lie as a reason for throwing a provisional because the lie was unknown. If the player in my group wants to throw a provisional based on the possibility of a lost disc, as a group member, that and OB are the only options I would be smart to agree to. It's not right to pit the group at odds with the player, if the disc is found and the player and group already know the outcome of the provisional shot. If the provisional is good, player might take the provisional, if it's not then he might try to play the original shot. That type of advance knowledge violates the mystery of the game.

i wasnt talking about playing a provisional. i meant calling my lie unplayable and rethrowing. by doing so i would be forfeiting any right to throw from my original throw, regardless of how sweet it ended up.

i wasnt talking about playing a provisional. i meant calling my lie unplayable and rethrowing. by doing so i would be forfeiting any right to throw from my original throw, regardless of how sweet it ended up.




And I'm saying I wouldn't agree to that as one of the people in your group. I don't believe the rules allow anyone to essentially take a "do-over" and throw their 3rd shot regardless of where their first shot went. And if they shank their provisional OB, they would have the right under the rules to say, "Let's look at my first shot." The players in the group would be the suckers for allowing the provisional when it wasn't allowed.

One place I can see something like this happening is at the NDGC, and Buckhorn sounds like a candidate. We're going to allow players to proceed from the long Blue tee to the Red tee without making a throw on some of the water holes and they will be throwing their third shot from there. This way, players won't have to risk losing a disc when they know there's a good chance they can't clear the water that day. The result is the same and they can't end up any worse than that from these Blue tees. (BTW, the Red tee is the required drop zone if they go OB off the Blue tees anyway.)

I think you missed the point of his post.

There is no provisional to shank OB. There is no provisional associated with an unplayable lie, because there is no ruling to determine. The player is the sole judge of an unplayable lie. If he decides that the lie is unplayable without a close verification and re-tees the decision has already been made. Even if his first shot is later found to have kicked out of the schule and rolled to within 5' of the basket, he must stand by his previous declaration of unplayable lie.

All in all, I see no reason not to call above 2m "OB." It would have been wise. It would have matched people's common perceptions and eliminated the inconsistencies mentioned above.


Because it's not OB. If it was OB you would have to mark your shot the last place it was IB. Where would that be, 10 meters off the tee-pad?

Throw roller's for safety..... :cool::cool:

As I said earlier, in the absence of a 2m rule on the course, I could see the scenario where a player might be allowed to declare an unplayable from the tee. It would still need to be approved though, maybe via Q&A. With no 2m, all possible lies would result in no worse than the player declaring an unplayable from the tee. However, if the 2m rule is in effect, then the player would be able to wipe out an additional penalty in the event their tee shot ended above 2m. That's why (I believe) the provisional rule had to be written the way that it was.

First let me say I think leaving the player as the sole Judge as to whether his/her lie is unplayable is a mistake but as the rule is stated
It doesn't matter whether anyone in the group disagrees or agrees so if Chuck Kennedy was in my group and I decided to call my lie unplayable and take my re-throw and Chuck disagreed I would say good for you and take my re-throw.
No where that I can find does it say I have to look at my lie before I call it unplayable. Personally I would never do this but the rules say I could if I wanted to.

Good point, but it would have been easy enough to basically say this: you have two options; either play it directly below it, or from the previous lie.

Good point, but it would have been easy enough to basically say this: you have two options; either play it directly below it, or from the previous lie.


I preferred keeping it at all times and adding 5 meter relief no closer to the hole when the penalty was incurred.

First let me say I think leaving the player as the sole Judge as to whether his/her lie is unplayable is a mistake but as the rule is stated
It doesn't matter whether anyone in the group disagrees or agrees so if Chuck Kennedy was in my group and I decided to call my lie unplayable and take my re-throw and Chuck disagreed I would say good for you and take my re-throw.
No where that I can find does it say I have to look at my lie before I call it unplayable. Personally I would never do this but the rules say I could if I wanted to.

exactly. and if it was later found to be >2m up and the 2MR was in effect, then you'd have to add a stroke of course. but this is 100% permissible according to the rules.

First let me say I think leaving the player as the sole Judge as to whether his/her lie is unplayable is a mistake but as the rule is stated
It doesn't matter whether anyone in the group disagrees or agrees so if Chuck Kennedy was in my group and I decided to call my lie unplayable and take my re-throw and Chuck disagreed I would say good for you and take my re-throw.
No where that I can find does it say I have to look at my lie before I call it unplayable. Personally I would never do this but the rules say I could if I wanted to.

exactly. and if it was later found to be >2m up and the 2MR was in effect, then you'd have to add a stroke of course. but this is 100% permissible according to the rules.



Anything about Stroke and Distance , like in ball golf ?