Here�s one from a recent A-tier event that, while legal, just doesn�t pass the sniff test.

A player overthrows a hole with a steep hill behind the basket. He then takes a provisional throw that he parks right underneath the pin. After advancing on the hole, the first disc is located and easily reached, but is in a position where making a 4 would be difficult at best. As per 803.06 the player declares that lie to be unplayable. He then takes his provisional throw with the one throw penalty. This leaves him a drop-in 4.

Now my .02:

The problem as I see it is that the player knows the result of his would-be re-tee. If he were then throwing 3 off the tee AFTER he declared his lie to be unplayable, then there would be no sure score to fall back on if his original throw looked too challenging. However, with the provisional already thrown the player then has a choice between a four foot putt for 4 and shooting 2 from a long way away, well below the basket with no line at all through the trees.

One quick fix would be requiring all throws that are a result of a player declaring the lie unplayable be thrown after that declaration. Whatever the solution, it would be nice if this kind of play wasn�t part of the game.

In your example you didn't provide the reason for the provisional. What was the reason?

As I was not in the group I do not know what reason was actually given, but 803.01 C (1) would be perfectly reasonable given the likelihood of a lost disc with that particular shot.

I believe that has some significance; as the reason for the provisional must be decided upon by the player an the group prior to the provisional throw being made.

If a player were to watch the disc vanish into a thicket of thorns and say, without ever finding the disc that he wants to throw a provisional "in case" he declares the disc "unplayable" is not something I, as a member of his group or an official, would agree to. He would need to locate the disc and then decide that it was "unplayable", since as has been discussed numerous times lost disc, OB and every other rule (practically) supercedes "unplayable lie" (i.e. you can't declare a lost disc as "unplayable".

So to put it in simple terms, you may not take a provisional throw because you think your lie might be unplayable and if you threw your provision under the agreed understanding that you did so because you or the group felt that it might have been OB or lost you can't use that provisional shot for an unagreed upon reason.

It comes down to where or not our rules allow a player to declare a lie unplayable before they know the status of the lie. In my opinion, and in reading over the rules, that is not permitted and it certainly seems to not conform to the "Rule of Fairness". (And purposefully or knowingly cheating is grounds for DQing.)

Why don't you shoot a note off to the PDGA RC and see what they say? It is a good question.

You can always declare a shot unplayable and immediately make your next throw without seeing the results of your first shot. However, it's not a provisional. There's no choice involved if/when you find your first disc. You must use your second (provisional) throw.

We already went thru this scenario before when dealing with the lost disc rule. A player cannot throw a provisional that can be used to defeat the 2m penalty unless the disc ends up actually lost. If the player finds their disc above 2m, they must take that penalty and play from there. Or, they can use the provisional plus the unplayable penalty so they would be lying 4 where their provisional disc landed.

As you quite correctly point out, under the current rules, a player can declare any shot unplayable. And �The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable.� (803.06) Unlike in your examples of O.B. or lost disc, there is no additional penalty to be dealt with. Since the disc was found in bounds there is no rule being defeated. At that point any player would be perfectly within their rights to go back to the tee and be shooting 3.

The appropriateness of a provisional throw and how it is used is then at issue. Given the hole and where the shot went, I would think that any reasonable group would allow a provisional under 803.01 C (1). And as the rules says �The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play�� As far as I can tell there is nothing in the rules requiring a provisional shot to be used for the reason it was initially taken (in this case, possibility of a lost disc).

Again, its not that I think anything happened against the rules. I just think that the application of the rules in this case leads to an unfair situation.

To simplify:

1) Player throws. Disc lands out of sight and could potentially be lost, so he throws a provisional.

2) Provisional is parked.

3) After spotting the first throw down a cliff, player declares his first throw unplayable, so he takes the provisional lie.

Cheating? I don't think so--I think the only question here is whether he's allowed to switch the role of the provisional from lost disc to unplayable lie. Would he need to rethrow a 3rd time?

Smells funny.. well.. uh.. yeah.

To simplify:

1) Player throws. Disc lands out of sight and could potentially be lost, so he throws a provisional.

2) Provisional is parked.

3) After spotting the first throw down a cliff, player declares his first throw unplayable, so he takes the provisional lie.

Cheating? I don't think so--I think the only question here is whether he's allowed to switch the role of the provisional from lost disc to unplayable lie. Would he need to rethrow a 3rd time?

Smells funny.. well.. uh.. yeah.



My understanding is that yes the provisional must match the violation it was meant to address. Unplayable is not a violation, more than a pure choice. Perhaps they could decide that they are going to declare the first throw Unplayable, but then they would have to, as Chuck says, go with the provisional throw.

Still it makes you wonder that the player wouldn't be allowed to check the status of the first throw. Provisional entails a questioning of the status or rule, so if they check and it is not unplayable...well.

Again, this is an interesting question, write to the PDGA RC and get your answer...

Asking the RC doesn't make much sense here. If they were to allow this scenario, by extension, players would be allowed to take a provisional throw for every throw they make with no consequences. "Hey, looks like I'm not sure I'll want my shot. I'm taking a provisional." That can't happen without the game being brought to its knees by dozens of extra throws per round. Having a practice throw penalty makes no sense at that point.

The way I saw it (I was there) -- because his disc went over a cliff (and out of sight) where many others have indeed lost their discs -- throwing a provisional was an excellent idea.

I believe the situation was not "hey, I might not like my shot" but "hey, I might not be able to find my shot" -- which is valid. But then the provisional was repurposed.

I believe the question boils down to: Can you throw a provisional for a lost disc and then if you discover a different situation -- (unplayable lie, TD has 2 meter rule is in effect, etc) where you have the option of re-teeing, can you instead use your provisional lie? Or do you have to go throw a third drive from the tee?

Because the group has to agree to allow a provisional throw for this type of situation in the first place 803.01C(1), players won't be allowed to take provisionals everywhere on the course because groups won't allow it. A player is only allowed to throw a provisional at their own choice when a ruling is in dispute 803.01C(2)&(3). In this case, there's no dispute before the the throw is made so the group has control over whether the player can throw a provisional.

The fact that a player knows they have a drop in shouldn't be a reason to disallow a provisional just because it gets used for an unplayable versus lost or OB disc. The very reason a player chooses to take an unplayable lie in the first place is based on their judgment that they will get a better or same score on the hole than they would by playing from that spot. So this player would likely have taken an unplayable lie regardless whether they knew the result of their rethrow in advance. In this particular case, it paid off with a 4 versus a likely 5 or more.

Let's say the player was not allowed to use the provisional, there's a good chance he would have taken an unplayable lie and rethrown anyway with a good chance at a 4 anyway. And considering that one purpose of the provisional throw is to speed play, it works as intended in this case.

I think many players are uncomfortable with the fact that another player is allowed to escape a nasty situation by using the unplayable lie rule. This is especially true when they see the player get a better score than what they might have had otherwise if they had to hack thru the schule. However, if players on balance didn't regularly get better or the same scores by using the unplayable rule as they might have gotten otherwise, there would be no need for the unplayable rule because no one would use it.

We discussed this last weekend and and agreed that a simple solution to combat abuse would be to make the penalty for "unplayable lie" 2 throws instead of 1.

I've taken advantage of this rule because I didn't want to climb down a cliff for my disc. If the penalty was 2 throws instead of 1, I probably would have made the climb.

If you take the rethrow option, it's like a 2-throw penalty already.

A player overthrows a hole with a steep hill behind the basket. He then takes a provisional throw that he parks right underneath the pin. After advancing on the hole, the first disc is located and easily reached, but is in a position where making a 4 would be difficult at best. As per 803.06 the player declares that lie to be unplayable. He then takes his provisional throw with the one throw penalty. This leaves him a drop-in 4.




This is really simple.

Player A threw his provisional presumably to save time of having to go back to the original lie to rethrow after his disc was found to be lost. However, since the original throw was found, that negated the need for the provisional throw. Player A should have proceeded from the lie of the original throw.

Escape from a bad shot is certainly one aspect that would bother some players, but the part that is seriously troublesome to me is the choice between taking the first shot and taking a known quantity (in this case a 4). There is quite a difference between that choice and choosing between your first shot and a re-tee shooting 3.

The 2 throw penalty would probably solve 99% of it. You would only run into a problem if someone would have a hard time making 5 from their first drive and the second one was parked. If it were not for speed of play and the serious advantage of throwing the same shot three times I might be in favor of a re-tee after the unplayable lie call, but this seems like the most workable solution.

OK, I have the scenario sunk into me thick head. Player A is using his provisional as the throw after declaring an unplayable lie on the original throw.

I think the rule is perfectly fine as it is. The player was penalized a stroke + the distance, which is essentially a double penalty. Credit the player for parking it from the original lie. Good save.

This whole lost disc rule reminds me of a government run project. The slogan should be "Making simple things complicated"

I beg the RC to readdress and simplify this rule for 2007. And also other rules that are too "subjective" IMHO.

I beg the RC to readdress and simplify this rule for 2007. And also other rules that are too "subjective" IMHO.



Any ideas? The lost disc rule is probably the simplest and most intuitive of all the rules and is certainly a lot less subjective than it used to be. I don't know what could be more simple than rethrow with a penalty.

Sure I have an idea. Any hole that has a high likely hood of lost discs should have a drop zone.

Sure I have an idea. Any hole that has a high likely hood of lost discs should have a drop zone.



Like the tee?

What about holes that don't have a necessarily high likelyhood of losing discs? People still lose them no matter where they are. And what do you do for par 5 holes? Several drop zones?

Silly me, here I am thinking unplayable lie was put in for safety reasons only; next to a cliff, next to a snake/gator, deep in a Russian Olive/wild roses/cactus, etc.
Not, 'I don't want to hike/climb down there' or 'There's too many bushes and trees to call that playable.'
It seems to me that if it comes down to a decision to play a disc or not because of the ugliness of it, not the risk of danger in retrieving it, then there should be a penalty that offsets that choice at least 2 strokes.

It seems to me that if it comes down to a decision to play a disc or not because of the ugliness of it, not the risk of danger in retrieving it, then there should be a penalty that offsets that choice at least 2 strokes.


...and you should then lose the use of that disc for the remainder of the round (at least!). :eek:

You make it sound like taking an unplayable lie penalty is some common event like getting an OB penalty. Players bend over backwards not to take any kind of penalty so it has to be really bad for a player to choose a penalty and return to the previous lie. I can recall taking only one unplayable penalty in 17 years and I've had as many as 17 OB penalties in one event (USDGC). So, to make it sound like players are getting some great deal where they'll line up to 'take advantage' of an unplayable penalty just isn't realistic.

Interesting. Nick is right. You cannot take a provisional for a potentially unplayable disc. A disc is not unplayable until the player says it is. Once he says it is, then his options apply. Playing from an earlier thrown provisional is not one of the options. Declaring it might be unplayable and throwing a provisional is not an option either.

The scenario fails the smell test because it is not allowed under the rules.

The provisional was not being made for an unplaybale lie but a possible lost disc because it couldn't be seen. Repurposing a provisional after later determining a disc is not lost but unplayable is not against the rules and speeds play. Again, this is an uncommon situation that does not need an uncommon solution.

OK, try this.

Player A throws into a potential OB or lost situation.

He throws a provisional for the possible lost disc.

Scenario 1: the disc is found OB.
Does the player have any options on how to play the OB, or is he required to use the provisional re-tee ?

Scenario 2: the disc is found , but in a very bad location.
The player opts for an unplayable lie. Does he still have both options, and if he chooses the re-tee option, is he required to use the existing provisional re-tee ?


There is nothing in the rules now that require a player to re-purpose a provisional, so the player could declare that the original provisional was for a lost disc, and that he now wants to go back and re-tee for the unplayable lie (because he doesn't like the lie he got from the first provisional).

But, Chuck, it's a sad reality that, as more and more get into playing the game seriously, more and more ways to circumvent the rules will be tried. Especially American society has deemed sports to be competitive, and that has come to mean win at all costs, in far too many instances. Just because you play the game with the right attitude and respect for the rules doesn't mean everyone does.

The question at hand keeps getting addressed and restated, even as I'm typing this! But, one essence of it is, Can a provisional be thrown for ONE stated purpose, then used for a DIFFERENT one?

If it's not lost, not OB, but in a tough spot, that's not in the spirit of the rule, and will be taken advantage of.

The reason for a provisional in the case of lost disc and even potential OB is speed of play. That should be the primary decision aspect. If a disc ends up OB, the provisional becomes the player's shot. If it's lost it becomes the player's shot. If the player chooses to take an unplayable, it becomes the player's shot.

That's why Bruce considers the provisional throw for this situation a sucker shot. The only time to risk it is if lost disc is the only outcome for which you would use it.

If it's not lost, not OB, but in a tough spot, that's not in the spirit of the rule, and will be taken advantage of.



Getting a penalty and losing distance is not taking advantage of anything. Most players will not choose this option even if the odds are better than trying to hack out of a situation. If anything, the player should be rewarded for making the proper choice in the rare situations when it arises just like pros who pitch out of trouble into the fairway and take their safe four when the rest of us try the hero shot from 10 feet off the fairway in deep schule and end up with our 5 or more...

This is the way I'm understanding it:

Player drives, and takes a provisional throw because he thinks the original throw may be lost, according to 803.01 C.(1)

Original throw is found. The provisional throw is no longer valid, right? It's not lost and it's not OB. He MUST use the original throw.

At that point, player declares his lie to be Unplayable. According to 803.06 A. (2) he may return to his previous lie (the teepad) and is laying two. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player’s score.

He must then return to his previous lie and throw a new shot.

The existence of the provisional shot and speed of play trumps the option to go back and take more time to throw another shot. By not making the provisional the required choice, it introduces yet another situation where the player could take the provisional or throw another one if choosing the unplayable gives them an option to improve their lie with an additional throw.

The existence of the provisional shot and speed of play trumps the option to go back and take more time to throw another shot. By not making the provisional the required choice, it introduces yet another situation where the player could take the provisional or throw another one if choosing the unplayable gives them an option to improve their lie with an additional throw.



Chuck, that all sounds quite logical. However, you seem to be arguing that it is in fact the only way the situation can be played, when in reality the wording of the rules in this regard is not crystal clear.

from what it sounds like the "speed of play" is the escape cause. just about anything can be said to be "speed of play"... even if it turns out that it made play slower. such as wide guideline leave a lot of wiggle room for a lot a purposes.

btw, someone asked is a provisional thrown for reason A could be repurposed and used for reason B.

absolutely.

otherwise a disc last seen flying over the trees in front of the pond would need to be provisionalized twice. once for the lost disc, and once for the OB off the tee (assuming TD made that announcement). you could probably construct realistic scenarios where one would need to throw (and track) a half dozen provis. i think the spirit of the provi is something, hey there is or could be a question... lets throw the provi just in case. not in case of something specific, but rather just in case.

Can I take a provisional any time I shank a drive? It seems to me that knowing the rules would give me a tremendous advantage if I could throw the next shot before I had to decide whether to use it or not.

Say I shank a drive behind a big bush on a totally reachable hole. A smart golfer would take a provisional in case s/he decided that they didn't like that lie. If you "ace", it's a slam dunk that you declare the first drive unplayable and you take your 3-p and move on. If you park it with the 2nd drive, then you can decide whether to risk the difficult escape shot or just take the drop-in four. If you gack the 2nd drive, then it's also a no-brainer to climb inside that bush and take your chances with the first drive.

It's a tremendous advantage to know the outcome of the shot before you declare an undesirable lie.

The existence of the provisional shot and speed of play trumps the option to go back and take more time to throw another shot. By not making the provisional the required choice, it introduces yet another situation where the player could take the provisional or throw another one if choosing the unplayable gives them an option to improve their lie with an additional throw.

the instant the disc is found, the provisional ceases to exist.

While that's true, I would expect the RC to come down the same way. The player was taking advantage of the situation to make another throw when one had been made already. This is also not something the RC is likely to rule on since it would happen rarely. The interesting thing would be if the player decides to take an unplayable by moving up to 5m back. Would he be forced to take the provisional instead? I say 'yes' since we already know the player has to take the provisional in the event the original throw went OB versus playing from the last point IB or going to the drop zone if provided.

the instant the disc is found, the provisional ceases to exist.



Yes, as it relates to the original purpose. However, it does exist as it relates to speeding play should the player choose an unplayable.

I can see the following scenario happening though. Another player finds the provisional thrower's original disc. Another player says, "Should I pick up the provisional disc?" The thrower says, "Sure," as he makes his way to his original throw. He then says, "I think I need to take an unplayable and head back to the tee." Now what?

If I'm another player in the group, I'll lobby to make the player throw from what was their provisional lie by relocating it best as possible with the help of the player in the group who picked it up. The group waiting on the tee will also appreciate that move.

It seems to me that knowing the rules would give me a tremendous advantage



Uh, DUR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which leads back to the sucker move of throwing a provisional prior to knowing how you would prefer to play the shot.

If the fact that you threw a provisional limited your options for OB and unplayable lie to the previous lie and therefore the existing provisional throw, who would choose to throw one ?

If the fact that you threw a provisional limited your options for OB and unplayable lie to the previous lie and therefore the existing provisional throw, who would choose to throw one ?



It certainly limits the option to specific circumstances to use it where it makes sense which I think should be the reason for its use anyway.

Which leads back to the sucker move of throwing a provisional prior to knowing how you would prefer to play the shot.

If the fact that you threw a provisional limited your options for OB and unplayable lie to the previous lie and therefore the existing provisional throw, who would choose to throw one ?



You're assuming that the provisional shot is always going to park itself under the basket. Now, if the player shanks the provisional as well, we're not having this conversation.

You know, this guy (rightly) threw the provisional (with the group's blessing, mind you) with speed of play in mind. He's already facing a penalty stroke as it is. Good for him that he parked it and was able to get out of a bigger jam.

the instant the disc is found, the provisional ceases to exist.



Yes, as it relates to the original purpose. However, it does exist as it relates to speeding play should the player choose an unplayable.

I can see the following scenario happening though. Another player finds the provisional thrower's original disc. Another player says, "Should I pick up the provisional disc?" The thrower says, "Sure," as he makes his way to his original throw. He then says, "I think I need to take an unplayable and head back to the tee." Now what?

If I'm another player in the group, I'll lobby to make the player throw from what was their provisional lie by relocating it best as possible with the help of the player in the group who picked it up. The group waiting on the tee will also appreciate that move.



There are scenarios mentioned which suggest the advantage goes to the to the player who knows how to manipulate the rules - rather than playing by them.

Also, as mentioned earlier, the group agrees to a provisional taken for a specific purpose. The player then decides to use the provisional for a purpose other than that agreed to by the group. This is wrong.

If this possible abuse is going to be very rare, then the occurence of the player picking up their 'lost-disc-provisional' (since he can't use it as an unplayable lie provisional) returning to previous lie to take an 'unplayable-lie-provisional' will very rarely may impact speed of play.

There are scenarios mentioned which suggest the advantage goes to the to the player who knows how to manipulate the rules - rather than playing by them.


or using the rules to their advantage...


Also, as mentioned earlier, the group agrees to a provisional taken for a specific purpose

.
the purpose of speeding play in the face of a penalty calling for a rethrow...


The player then decides to use the provisional for a purpose other than that agreed to by the group. This is wrong.


Not really. He took the provisional in the interest of speeding play assuming he'd be taking a penalty of stroke and distance. The unplayable lie requires the same action, which he already took.


If this possible abuse is going to be very rare, then the occurence of the player picking up their 'lost-disc-provisional' (since he can't use it as an unplayable lie provisional) returning to previous lie to take an 'unplayable-lie-provisional' will very rarely may impact speed of play.



Following that same line, if it's so rare, I don't see the need for a revision of the rule.

I don't see a need for a change, just a clarification that any stroke and distance provisional must be used in the case of any stroke and distance penalty thereby eliminating any ambiguity. I would also like to see it clearly stated that taking a stroke and distance provisional does or does not remove all other options for playing the discovered lie.

Do you still have the option of playing 1m in from where you went OB if you already know what your previous lie option looks like ?

Do you still have the option of 5m on LOP for an unplayable lie if you already know what your previous lie option looks like ?

Ah, see how rereading the rules brings clarity to a situation? I have changed my position and here's why:

Upon rereading the rule for taking a provisional throw, provisional throws are only allowed (when in the interest of speeding play), in the case of uncertain status relating to loss, OB or missed mando. My interpretation of that would be that the provisional throw is only viable if the disc is determined to be lost, OB or to have missed a mando. Once the initial throw's status has been determined to be neither lost, OB nor missed mando, that provisional throw is negated.

That's how I read the rule as well, however Chuck does make a valid point on the intent of the rule.

I feel uncomfortable with any re-purposing of any provisional throw, expecially when there is a choice involved. A player should not have a choice when one of the outcomes is already determined. That is why when a player uses a provisional in the case of OB, they no longer have the option of playing 1m from last IB. The provisional is the shot they will use if the disc is determiend to be OB.


Adding unplayable lie to the list of things that a player may use a provisional for is allowing a player to see the result before a decision is made.

I fully support a player's ability to pre-determine that a lie is unplayable and re-tee prior to examining the lie, but that is not a provisional.

The existence of the provisional shot and speed of play trumps the option to go back and take more time to throw another shot. By not making the provisional the required choice, it introduces yet another situation where the player could take the provisional or throw another one if choosing the unplayable gives them an option to improve their lie with an additional throw.

The use of a provisional in conjunction with a potentially unplayable lie is not an option allowed by the rules. The rules allow for the use of a provisional when the status of a disc is uncertain, and it might be o.b. or lost, and your group agrees it would save more time.

Throwing from the location of a previously thrown provisional is not an option for an unplayable lie. Your options for relocating an unplayable lie are, up to five meters straight back from the target, or relocating to the previous lie. In either case you count your throw and take a one-throw penalty.

There is no option in the rules ever to use a provisional in conjunction with an unplayable lie.

I'm not that excited about the rules issue. I just want people to see my new signature. :D

Throwing from the location of a previously thrown provisional is not an option for an unplayable lie.



The Fairness rule 803.01F extends the provisional rule to cover this unplayable situation, especially considering that speed of play is still the issue once a player declares an unplayable and has a provisional throw available for use.

I had a reply all typed out and ready to send. Then I realized Chuck is just trolling.

I had a reply all typed out and ready to send. Then I realized Chuck is just trolling.

If he is not trolling, he's nuts. :cool: If the rule of fairness makes up new options for unplayable lies, it also reinstates the old option of five meters lateral relief.

I'm just posting because it makes me happy to see my signature line. :D

Sorry but I'll keep hammering the fairness rule to cover all of the uncommon situations not experessly covered by the rules. The Fairness rule is there for that purpose. There's no excuse for a player to go back and make another throw if there's a provisional throw already thrown. Throwing a provisional should be a reluctant choice in the first place if there's any validity to preventing practice throws in the sport. The RC was reluctantly forced to do the provisional rule for speed of play and to allow a player to not be prevented from getting a fair ruling when perhaps in a hostile group.

Provisionals are a necessary evil in relation to our restriction on practice throws. Taking another throw in this unlikely situation adds insult to injury. The only time the player would not want to take their original provisional in the event they call an unplayable would be if the shot was terrible. Allowing them a 'do over' wastes time and compounds a bad situation created by the player's originally poor throw AND their poor provisional.

Sorry but I'll keep hammering the fairness rule to cover all of the uncommon situations not experessly covered by the rules. The Fairness rule is there for that purpose. There's no excuse for a player to go back and make another throw if there's a provisional throw already thrown. Throwing a provisional should be a reluctant choice in the first place if there's any validity to preventing practice throws in the sport. The RC was reluctantly forced to do the provisional rule for speed of play and to allow a player to not be prevented from getting a fair ruling when perhaps in a hostile group.

Provisionals are a necessary evil in relation to our restriction on practice throws. Taking another throw in this unlikely situation adds insult to injury. The only time the player would not want to take their original provisional in the event they call an unplayable would be if the shot was terrible. Allowing them a 'do over' wastes time and compounds a bad situation created by the player's originally poor throw AND their poor provisional.



But since there is nothing in the rules that says the single provisional is to be used for all possible situations, there is nothing to keep the player from picking up the provisional when the disc is found and then declaring an unplayable lie and re-teeing. I would not be able to point out a rule in the book that clearly said this was not allowed, and would even be inclined to agree that he could not use the OB provisional he had previously thrown.

The lack of clear intention is the problem, not anyone's current interpretation. Either interpretation would work as long as it was clear.

Of course, the group cannot require the player to play the provisional in this situation because the player has the right to throw another provisional shot based on a disputed ruling this time and let the TD determine whether another throw was warranted.

To be clear, I don't want to "get over" and I don't want to "abuse the rules."

But I want to know how they work so I can make the best choices during play.

So if I shank my drive, according to Chuck I can throw a provisional in case I want to declare an unplayable lie, thereby "speeding play" because I won't have to hike all the way back to the teebox if I do indeed declare an unplayable lie.

And then I also get the humongous benefit on knowing the result of my next shot before deciding whether or not I should use it.

Is this correct, Chuck?

According to Chuck. But according to what is actually in the rules, you'd be cheating. You might have to take me off ignore and read my post thatquotes the rules. Chuck isn't quoting any rules.

You aren't on ignore. But Chuck has been around the PDGA a long time, and when he posts his rules interpretations people tend to follow them.

Chuck isn't quoting any rules.



Wrong. You forgot the "Fairness" Rule.

So if I shank my drive, according to Chuck I can throw a provisional in case I want to declare an unplayable lie, thereby "speeding play" because I won't have to hike all the way back to the teebox if I do indeed declare an unplayable lie.



No. I've never said you could throw the provisional based on the possibility of calling an unplayable. You can throw one (if the group agrees) based on the possibility that the disc might be lost (or OB or a missed mando).

Should you decide to declare your throw unplayable, I'm citing the Fairness rule 803.01, in addition to the intent of the provisional rule to speed play, that your provisional throw should be used in this case versus throwing another shot from the tee.

any player who throws a provisional without first absolutely making sure one is needed is a complete and total fool.

there is no requirement to speed play. the only speed requirement is to throw within 30 seconds of arriving at your lie and having it be free of distractions.

do not throw provis unless you know with utter certainty that one is needed, regardless of anything you read here or any pressure your group puts on you. there is no rule that requires a provisional before leaving the tee and searching for the disc.

any player who throws a provisional without first absolutely making sure one is needed is a complete and total fool.

do not throw provis unless you know with utter certainty that one is needed



If you are absolutely sure and know with utter certainty that a disc missed the mando, is OB, is lost, or is unplayable than it's not a provisional. The whole point of a provisional is for exactly those times when you don't know. If you are absolutely certain of any of those conditions, then it's not a provisional.

Although provisionals are not required by the rules to speed play, I know I'd rather throw one then have to climb back up a 600 foot hill after not finding my disc.

What do you do when you find your first shot and lose your provisional ?

i'd rather than keep my options open and climb the hill. but thats just me.

btw, point taken on the provis. what i meant is that until the disc is actually declared lost or whatever, the players interests are not in throwing a provi. unless you value the avoidance of the walk back to the tee more than your options as a player, avoid the provi until absolutely necessary.

Also, as mentioned earlier, the group agrees to a provisional taken for a specific purpose


the purpose of speeding play in the face of a penalty calling for a rethrow...



The specific purpose of the provisional is to speed play in case the disc is lost. The disc is not lost.


The player then decides to use the provisional for a purpose other than that agreed to by the group. This is wrong.



Not really. He took the provisional in the interest of speeding play assuming he'd be taking a penalty of stroke and distance. The unplayable lie requires the same action, which he already took.



According to a player in the group the idea was that he took the provisional in case his disc was lost. The disc wasn't lost. The provisional is no longer available for use.

Under the unplayable lie rule, the player is permitted to return to the previous lie and re-throw. There's no provision for a provisional. The choice of one of multiple lies based solely on the decision of the player affected violates the Fairness rule.


If this possible abuse is going to be very rare, then the occurence of the player picking up their 'lost-disc-provisional' (since he can't use it as an unplayable lie provisional) returning to previous lie to take an 'unplayable-lie-provisional' will very rarely may impact speed of play.




Following that same line, if it's so rare, I don't see the need for a revision of the rule.



Agreed. A rule revision isn't necessary. Following the letter and spirit of the rules will be enough.

Rarity may defeat the speed of play argument but it fails to defeat the fairness argument; seeing that a person takes two shots and picks the best one. The proper series of events should be that he finds his disc but declares it unplayable then follows the unplayable rule which is to re-throw from the previous lie.

The rule makes no mention of a provisional for an unplayable lie; it very specifically mentions three cases where a provisional is appropriate -
803.01.C.1.cthe original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. An unplayable lie moves back on LOP up to 5 meters OR to the previous lie. These are the only two options provided.

If you are absolutely sure and know with utter certainty that a disc missed the mando, is OB, is lost, or is unplayable than it's not a provisional. The whole point of a provisional is for exactly those times when you don't know. If you are absolutely certain of any of those conditions, then it's not a provisional.




The rules make very clear distinction between provisional throws and re-throws. AFTER declaring an unplayable lie, the player may re-throw. There is no mention anywhere in the rules about using a provisional in case the player decides his lie is unplayable. There are three very specific cases where provisionals are permitted and recommended (when a disc may be OB, lost, or missed mando).

The rule makes no mention of a provisional for an unplayable lie; it very specifically mentions three cases where a provisional is appropriate -
803.01.C.1.cthe original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. An unplayable lie moves back on LOP up to 5 meters OR to the previous lie. These are the only two options provided.



It is also stacked with ANDed conditions.


<font color="blue">
803.01 - General
C - Provisional Throws
(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.</font>



Thus three things must happen to throw a provisional for the purpose of saving time.

1) The status of the disc can not be immediately determined.
2) The group must agree that it will potentially save time.
3) The original throw may be OB, lost, or have missed a mando.

The way the rule has been stacked, just because I may not like it isn't a valid reason to take a provisional.

Now for the second question.

If a player has taken a provisional in accordance with the above listed rule, and then decides that he wants to declare an unplayable lie is he:

1) restricted to the previously thrown provisional as his only option as with an OB situation ?
2) allowed a choice of the 5m on LOP or the existing provisional throw ?
3) allowed a choice of the 5m on LOP or returning to the previous lie and throwing with penalty as specified in 803.06 ?
4) allowed a choice of the 5m on LOP, the previously thrown provisional, or returning to the previously lie and throwing with penalty as specifiec in 803.06 ?

Option 3 is strictly by the rules. Option 2 is what I'd be inclined to allow. Option 1 is what it will likely be if the RC formally deals with this situation.

The unplayable rule would never be written to include the minuscule chance that a discarded provisional throw might be available for use. The fact it's not in there doesn't mean that the Fairness rule isn't available to stitch together an appropriate call where the player either gets the 5m back on LOP or gets the discarded provisional in the event he calls an unplayable.

I like speed of play , as long as the group agrees on it.

All three of the stated reasons for using a provisional (OB, lost, missed mando) have in common that their status can be definitively answered yes or no.

Is the disc OB or lost?
No - play it as it lies
Yes - play the provisional

In the case of determining whether or not a lie is "unplayable", that question will be answered differently by many people. This is not best shot doubles, folks, a player should never be given the choice between two discs. I could see, as a stretch, a player throws a disc off the edge of a steep hill and says, "I'll take a provisional throw for the case of that disc being unplayable, and I'll let you (the group) make the determination of whether or not it's actually playable based solely on it's lie and not having anything to do with the quality of my provisional throw.

Some sort of "fairness" rule is written into many sports. That rule gives the td the discretion to utilize their critical thinking skills to find answers to situations whose details aren't specifically spelled out in the rules. It is not intended to allow td's to make up whatever rules they'd like either by creating a corollary of a real rule or just pulling one out of their backside.

I find it troubling that there is such a willingness to take concepts that make sense and could legitimately be written into the rules in future revisions and adopt them as if they actually are written into the existing version of the rules when they, in fact, are not.

I also have found that, some of our sport's elders rely heavily on their disc golf status having held various positions, worked on many courses, run many tournaments, etc. to "persuade" others of their point of view in the face of reality-based facts to the contrary. This point became crystal clear to me after reading my friend Gregg's article "Stupid Courses" in which he states flatly that anyone with less than ten years disc golf experience should never be allowed to design a course. Well, it's a good thing for the sport that his wish in that regard won't ever come true or we wouldn't have any Fly-18's or Players Cups.

. . . but I digress.

I find it troubling that there is such a willingness to take concepts that make sense and could legitimately be written into the rules in future revisions and adopt them as if they actually are written into the existing version of the rules when they, in fact, are not.




That's called making the hard decisions. They come up all the time at big events and players should appreciate the fact that there are experienced people helping make those calls. Gentry, Chappy and the marshals had several touchy calls to make at Am Worlds that were not black &amp; white from the rulebook.

This point became crystal clear to me after reading my friend Gregg's article "Stupid Courses" in which he states flatly that anyone with less than ten years disc golf experience should never be allowed to design a course. Well, it's a good thing for the sport that his wish in that regard won't ever come true or we wouldn't have any Fly-18's or Players Cups.



I'd say the jury's still out. I also would modify Greg's statement to "an inexperienced player should not be designing a course by themself without experienced oversight." Steady Ed himself oversaw my first design at North Valley.

I'd say the jury's still out.


On what?
Fly-18's are good for the sport?
Players Cup?

p.s. I just spoke with Gregg and told him about how I used his article tangentially to make a point on a discussion thread and he had two comments:
1) He forgot to include the part about every rule having an exception, but he just thinks that too many people think that they are the exception
and
2) He's given me carte blanche to quote him at will whether or not it's relevant as long as I promise to never break into his van and steal his stash of John Houck beard trimmings, Elmer's glue, and plywood that he uses to map out holes prior to firing up his chainsaw. Speaking of chainsaw, watching him stand on a five inch diamater tree limb 17 ft. in the air and cut branches over his head was much scarier than anything I've ever seen on the Discovery channel. Hope the players are happy come Orlando Open time.

. . . but, once again, I digress . . .

Speaking of chainsaw, watching him stand on a five inch diamater tree limb 17 ft. in the air and cut branches over his head was much scarier than anything I've ever seen on the Discovery channel.



Hopefully he doesn't have to juggle one unexpectedly...

This point became crystal clear to me after reading my friend Gregg's article "Stupid Courses" in which he states flatly that anyone with less than ten years disc golf experience should never be allowed to design a course. Well, it's a good thing for the sport that his wish in that regard won't ever come true or we wouldn't have any Fly-18's or Players Cups.



I'd say the jury's still out. I also would modify Greg's statement to "an inexperienced player should not be designing a course by themself without experienced oversight." Steady Ed himself oversaw my first design at North Valley.



I agree, and would add to this that I don't believe there is anyone who should design a golf course completely alone. There are always going to be elements and features of a property that one will miss, but another pair of eyes will see. The person in charge may not incorporate them into the design, but at least they were made aware of them during the design process.

<font color="blue">
803.01 - General
C - Provisional Throws
(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.</font>



Thus three things must happen to throw a provisional for the purpose of saving time.

1) The status of the disc can not be immediately determined.
2) The group must agree that it will potentially save time.
3) The original throw may be OB, lost, or have missed a mando.



And the way I then interpret that is, if the original conditions are not met (the throw is not OB, lost or missed the mando) then the group deems the original throw the appropriate lie, and the provisional inappropriate. When the disc is found, it is the appropriate lie; the provisional throw is then not valid and cannot be used for any other purpose.

I agree with the statement, "an inexperienced player should not be designing a course by themself without experienced oversight." It's called mentorship, and in many cases it's missing from disc golf. There are many instances where we have volunteers re-inventing the wheel with regards to pitching courses to parks. In some cases it seems that the area "course design guru" does not want to take an aspiring designer under their wing for fear that they will lose future design projects. Another example that illustrates the need for disc golf mentorship is when a strong club takes a dive after "the disc golf guy" gets burned out or moves to a new area and there is a leadership vacuum.

As the position of course designer evolves it will be important to stress mentorship as an ethical obligation that will help standardize important design features like safety, flow, minimal environmental impact, multiple tees designed specifically for skill levels, etc. This is not to say that we should standardize "personality" elements like aesthetic vision, flavor of challenges, etc.

. . . oh boy, what's the name of this thread? big time digression . . .

the provisional throw is then not valid and cannot be used for any other purpose.




The rules do not say that. The throw is not needed for its original purpose but it still exists and happens to be a potential unexpected resource as it relates to a possible unplayable lie call.

the provisional throw is then not valid and cannot be used for any other purpose.




The rules do not say that. The throw is not needed for its original purpose but it still exists and happens to be a potential unexpected resource as it relates to a possible unplayable lie call.



Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if you throw a provisional thinking your original throw is lost, but later find it and it is unplayable, you cannot use the provisional. You must proceed under 803.06.

the provisional throw is then not valid and cannot be used for any other purpose.




The rules do not say that. The throw is not needed for its original purpose but it still exists and happens to be a potential unexpected resource as it relates to a possible unplayable lie call.



If the rules allowed provisionals for "unplayable lie", which they don't, then players would be tempted to thow a "provisional for unplayable lie" any time they threw into an undesireable location, knowing that when they got to their lie they'd have the option of declaring it unplayable if they thought they'd be better off taking the penalty and provisional. And aside from giving players a free option to choose between two definitive outcomes, it also gives them a free practice throw if they want to get a bad shot out of their minds.

The intent of the rule is to help the group save time, but not allow the player an avenue to circumvent the integrity of the game.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if you throw a provisional thinking your original throw is lost, but later find it and it is unplayable, you cannot use the provisional.



There's no rule that says the provisional throw, once discarded for its original purpose cannot be used for another purpose.

And Denny, we already covered your issue earlier. The group has to agree to your request for throwing a provisional so the case of lots of throws being made based on the potential for an unplayble lie just won't happen.

There is a rule that specifies your options after declaring an unplayable lie. Playing from a previously thrown provisional thrown for some other purpose is not an option. Playing from a previously thrown provisional thrown in case the disc might be unplayable is also not an option. The specification of a set of options implies the exclusion of other options.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if you throw a provisional thinking your original throw is lost, but later find it and it is unplayable, you cannot use the provisional.



There's no rule that says the provisional throw, once discarded for its original purpose cannot be used for another purpose.



And there's no rule saying that it can be used for another purpose either. The provisional rule clearly states the circumstances under which provisional throws are appropriate. Any other use or circumstances are by default, inappropriate.

Again, Chuck, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Can you provide a scenario under which a discarded provisional throw may be used for another purpose (other than fanning yourself in the heat)?

The specification of a set of options implies the exclusion of other options.




Not according to our head RC man Carlton. His consistent remark has been, "If it's not expressly excluded/forbidden by the rules, it's likely an option."

As I pointed out before, the unplabale rule would never be written to include the outside, unexpected chance of a discarded provisional throw being available. But it's not excluded as a potential creative solution for this unlikely occurence. Speed of play, aversion to practice throws and Fairness all point to the use of the discarded provisional as an appropriate option to handle this unlikely occurence. Thus, the choice of option 2 in Gary's post earlier.

I think that's a comment that could come back to haunt Carlton. The rules are not comprehensive enough to expressly forbid/exclude everything not intended to be allowed.

That being said, a player's attempted use of a discarded provisional could be grounds for DQ under 804.05(A)(3)

That being said, a player's attempted use of a discarded provisional could be grounds for DQ under 804.05(A)(3)




Cheating can be called on items in the rules and this situation isn't.

Actually, under Carlton's purported edict, cheating can be called for anything since doing so is not expressly forbidden/excluded in the rules. And if I'm the TD, my decision is final.

And if I'm the TD, my decision is final.




Not exactly. Competition Director is final.

Speed of play, aversion to practice throws and Fairness all point to the use of the discarded provisional as an appropriate option to handle this unlikely occurence.



To me, it should seem obvious that speed of play does not trump spirit of play and fairness. As has been pointed out, calling an unplayable lie in order to use a pre-thrown (and possibly parked) provisional throw is just about as unfair as it gets. Additionally, I stand by the following:


The specification of a set of options implies the exclusion of other options.




The provisional rule clearly states the circumstances under which provisional throws are appropriate. Any other use or circumstances are by default, inappropriate.



Perhaps implicit language needs to be added to the next Rules revision to say so, but to me, it seems quite straightforward and obvious that if a provisional throw is deemed inapproriate, it is invalid at that point.

inappropriate:
Unsuitable or improper.
not in keeping with what is correct or proper

As has been pointed out, calling an unplayable lie in order to use a pre-thrown (and possibly parked) provisional throw is just about as unfair as it gets.



We've gone beyond this initial example. I think the current issue is whether the player should be forced to use their provisional regardless of where it landed (if taking an unplayable), not whether he gets an advantage in this instance. If spirit of play is the trump for speed of play, not throwing another shot should be the decision independent of where the provisional ended up. It's certainly closer to the spirit of "play it where it lies."

Fair enough Chuck, but that involves an appeal heard long after the tournament is over. The rule book says the decision of the director shall be final. Director is defined in the rule book as the person in charge of the tournament or event, or the course director in multi-site tournaments.

As has been pointed out, calling an unplayable lie in order to use a pre-thrown (and possibly parked) provisional throw is just about as unfair as it gets.



We've gone beyond this initial example. I think the current issue is whether the player should be forced to use their provisional regardless of where it landed (if taking an unplayable), not whether he gets an advantage in this instance. If spirit of play is the trump for speed of play, not throwing another shot should be the decision independent of where the provisional ended up. It's certainly closer to the spirit of "play it where it lies."



I don't think a group can force a player to use his/her provisional because that player can always disagree with the group or an official. In that scenario, you play both what the group says to play and what you want to play. However, when it gets to the TD, he/she can force the player to accept the score pursuant to the ruling he/she thinks is appropriate, unless that player appeals to the Comp. Director and gets it reversed and remanded.

Which is what I said earlier.

Which is what I said earlier.



It appears you and I are talking about the difference between using a discarded provisional throw and successfully using a discarded provisional throw. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance of being DQ'd.

Which is what I said earlier.



It appears you and I are talking about the difference between using a discarded provisional throw and successfully using a discarded provisional throw. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance of being DQ'd.



It should never reach a DQ level.

Either the group would agree that the player was correct in using the previously thrown provisional and there would be nothing appealed to the TD, or the group would rule the player could not use the previously throw provisional in that manner and the player would throw from the previous lie. If the player and group disagree, the player has the option of playing the hole out from both positions and letting the TD decide which score to use, but that is not cheating.

I'd like to see this issue resolved so that cheating accusations would never even be considered.

I'm usually not very interested in Rules discussions but I feel very strongly about this one. To me, it just seems so obvious that a provisional throw is for a disc that is assumed lost, OB, or for a missed mando and ONLY for those purposes, and otherwise negated. To decide otherwise would open up such a huge can of worms! I'm hoping that the Rules Committee does the right thing here.

Which is what I said earlier.



It appears you and I are talking about the difference between using a discarded provisional throw and successfully using a discarded provisional throw. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance of being DQ'd.



It should never reach a DQ level.

Either the group would agree that the player was correct in using the previously thrown provisional and there would be nothing appealed to the TD, or the group would rule the player could not use the previously throw provisional in that manner and the player would throw from the previous lie. If the player and group disagree, the player has the option of playing the hole out from both positions and letting the TD decide which score to use, but that is not cheating.



I would agree. No cheating in that scenario. My point was that there was nothing in the rules preventing a TD from declaring such an act as cheating pursuant to the "if it's not prohibited or excluded it's legal" line of thought, to which I do not subscribe.

Jeff, I think you're getting hung up on the outcome of the provisional and not looking at the potential ruling independent of its outcome. This example is almost the extreme best possible (what if provisional had been an ace!) result for the provisional. The fact is, the player has made another throw that could sensibly be used in the event the unplayable call is made by the player. Obviously, the player has an advantage in knowing where the provisional is located to determine whether to try and throw out or not. But this is true with other penalty calls.

You know exactly where your possible lies will be in the case you throw OB. It can usually be previous lie or where it went OB or even a drop zone sometimes. Are you saying we should flip a coin each time a player goes OB so they can't take their best option?

Which is what I said earlier.



It appears you and I are talking about the difference between using a discarded provisional throw and successfully using a discarded provisional throw. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance of being DQ'd.



It should never reach a DQ level.

Either the group would agree that the player was correct in using the previously thrown provisional and there would be nothing appealed to the TD, or the group would rule the player could not use the previously throw provisional in that manner and the player would throw from the previous lie. If the player and group disagree, the player has the option of playing the hole out from both positions and letting the TD decide which score to use, but that is not cheating.



I went back a read through the previous entries. My point about potentially being DQ'd was under the scenario of a player throwing a provisional thinking the original throw was lost, then finding the original throw within bounds, but declaring it unplayable, then proceeding to play from the provisional against the group ruling. The procedure for unplayable lie is clear and does not include using a provisional, discarded or not. I might be inclined to consider that an attempt to circumvent the rules, if brought to me as a TD or official.

I agree with you on the grounds that using a provisional for an unplayable lie violates the spirit of the game.

I believe taking another shot from the tee upon calling an unplayable violates the spirit even more than using the discarded provisional for more than one reason.

I believe taking another shot from the tee upon calling an unplayable violates the spirit even more than using the discarded provisional for more than one reason.


What? You think the current PDGA Rules of Play violate the spirit of the game? By definition, I don't think that's possible. But what the heck, the current 2-meter non-rule most definitely violates the spirit of the game, so maybe you're right...

If I were playing a casual round with friends and a player had thrown a provi for OB that turned out to be unplayable, then of course I'd let them use that provi and not have to walk back. I'd also give them any putt inside 10 ft. and let them throw a mulligan drive off the first tee if they wanted. In casual golf of any kind the rules are bent and new scoring methods are created all the time.

But in tournament disc golf, where we've been provided a rule book, the game should be played with as strict an interpretation of those rules as possible. Yes, there are tough judgment calls that directors need to make, but allowing a provisional for a situation that the rule was not created for is an example of a td inventing a rule, not interpreting one. It'd be like the heat arresting someone "for smiling on a cloudy day".

Now that we've all opened this provisional can of worms and made a big ole mess on the table, I've got to point out one other problem with the rule: provisional for missing a mando?
First of all, if you can't determine from the tee if someone made a mando, then it's a bad mando, and second if it can't be determined from the tee whether a mando was made or not, then it it'll still be impossible to determine once you get up to the mando. A disc could have cleared the mando and then deflected so that it would appear as if it didn't make the mando and vice versa. The mando business should be taken out of the language and relegated to the same status as unplayable, under which 99% of td's will follow the rule book, although 1% will still invent rules as they see fit.

I almost agreed with the mando being unnecessary but I think it still makes sense to allow a provi if the tee is the drop zone. A clearly visible throw on the wrong side of the mando might land near the line but not be easily visible from say 100 feet away. Once the group walks up to see the disc, it can reasonably be determined whether it crossed the line or not and the provi may have saved some time.

Jeff, I think you're getting hung up on the outcome of the provisional and not looking at the potential ruling independent of its outcome. This example is almost the extreme best possible (what if provisional had been an ace!) result for the provisional. The fact is, the player has made another throw that could sensibly be used in the event the unplayable call is made by the player. Obviously, the player has an advantage in knowing where the provisional is located to determine whether to try and throw out or not. But this is true with other penalty calls.

You know exactly where your possible lies will be in the case you throw OB. It can usually be previous lie or where it went OB or even a drop zone sometimes. Are you saying we should flip a coin each time a player goes OB so they can't take their best option?



I'm saying that the provisional should only be used for its intended purpose: when a disc may be lost or OB. That's what our rules specify. I cannot understand why it's being interpreted differently.

I'm also saying that the dynamics of a situation change entirely when you allow this rules breach. How often do you throw an extra shot during a casual round that's not your 'real' shot, and ends up being exceptional? When the 'pressure' is off, how often do people make that second putt or that good drive? Often! Compare that to the correct situation when you call an unplayable lie and then have to go back and throw a new shot. You know that you've already taken two penalty strokes, and this is now your 'official' shot, and the 'pressure' is on.

If everyone gets the opportunity to throw a provisional shot when they shank one off into the schule, that 'extreme best possible result' for the provisional may be used more often than you think and become the norm, and not the exception.

or the td could save time by not making a mando that you can't easily see from the tee or the group could save time by sending a spotter. and if saving time is really that huge a priority, the drop zone for missing a mando would always be within a few paces of the mando itself and we'd save the time of ever throwing a provisional, particularly one that could either miss the mando or have an uncertain status resulting in yet another throw.

If everyone gets the opportunity to throw a provisional shot when they shank one off into the schule, that 'extreme best possible result' for the provisional may be used more often than you think and become the norm, and not the exception.



The group controls whether you can throw a provi for this situation. You also are way overestimating the potential for abuse because we're still talking about the equivalent of a 2-shot penalty willingly taken. Players do everything possible not to take even a 1-shot penalty. This whole example where the guy parks the provi shot is a flukey bonus for him like a tree branch knocking you down to the basket as your hot shot flies high over the basket.

If there are holes where this is a regular situation, it would seem like a design issue or one where asking the Comp Director for the option to use a drop zone much farther forward for a lost disc would be worthwhile.

or the td could save time by not making a mando that you can't easily see from the tee or the group could save time by sending a spotter. and if saving time is really that huge a priority, the drop zone for missing a mando would always be within a few paces of the mando itself and we'd save the time of ever throwing a provisional, particularly one that could either miss the mando or have an uncertain status resulting in yet another throw.



Agreed. But the RC had to cover the scenarios where perhaps the TD or designer wasn't as clever.

As for the mandy provisional, if the TD does his due diligence and paints the missed-mandy line, you can nail that mandy and deflect down the line and not be able to tell if the disc is across the line or not from the tee.

OK guys, point taken, although I've come to the opinion that a mando is something that should be rarely missed and close enough to the tee that walking back 20-50 ft. isn't enough of a consideration to merit a provi. (yes, I did design a hole with a mando about 150 ft. off the tee for the Springtime on the Suwannee tournament, and I learned enough from the tourney to say that I probably won't do that again.)

There are still two important differences between missing the mando and an unplayable lie:
1) "did I miss the mando?" is a question that can be definitively answered yes or no by the group, whereas the unplayable lie is a matter of opinion
and
2) one situation is covered under the rules and one situation is not,
but "sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse".

I agree. When you walk up to the throw that whacked the mandy tree, you can look at it and make a determination about it.

The unplayable lie is a decision that the thrower makes. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the game for the thrower to know the outcome of the next shot before making that decision.

The unplayable lie is a decision that the thrower makes. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the game for the thrower to know the outcome of the next shot before making that decision.



That ship has sailed already as I pointed out regarding OB. The player knows exactly where up to three of their next lie options are when taking an OB penalty. Are we going to make that a random determination each time or force TDs to specify one option for each OB?

No, the player gets to choose between their OB options that have been spelled out by the rules, just like they get the option to play the disc as it lies or seek the relief granted under the rules for the unplayable lie. They do not, however, get extra options that are not provided for in the rules, but that some td's think should be in the rules.

My point regarding OB options is that using the claim that the player has a known position for the discarded provisional is not a valid argument against using it for this special circumstance.

This issue has been sent to the RC along with the other two items posted from Am Worlds.

That ship has sailed already as I pointed out regarding OB. The player knows exactly where up to three of their next lie options are when taking an OB penalty. Are we going to make that a random determination each time or force TDs to specify one option for each OB?



I guess Chuck is referring to this post he made:
You know exactly where your possible lies will be in the case you throw OB. It can usually be previous lie or where it went OB or even a drop zone sometimes. Are you saying we should flip a coin each time a player goes OB so they can't take their best option?



I guess I don't understand what you are saying. The only way the three-option OB rule is even remotely similar to this situation is if you are saying that a player may throw a provisional if they are unsure of their OB/IB status, and then when they find out they are OB they still get to choose between last IB/DZ/already thrown provi.

Is that what you are saying Chuck? Because if it is, then I 10000% disagree with this interpretation for the same reasons.

If you are unsure of your OB/IB status and choose to throw a provisional from the previous lie before advancing down the fairway, then I say it is quite clear that you *WILL* use that provisional throw if your disc is in fact OB. Once you elect to take the provisional, you have chosen that option if you are OB. You don't get to choose anymore. You are either IB and throwing from IB, or you are OB and throwing from the provisional. No other options allowed.

Chuck, do you disagree with that? If you don't disagree, then your whole OB thing here has nothing to do with unplayable lies and provisionals.

Forget about provisionals for a moment. If you throw OB, you sometimes have up to three choices for where you may play your next lie correct? You know exactly where they are. You choose the one that you deem best for your situation.

All I'm saying is that those who are upset about players being able to use a discarded provisional for an unplayable, because they know where their next lie could be compared with taking up to 5m back or throwing again, are worrying about something that we already have in terms of players having up to three known choices for their lie after going OB.

If using the discarded provisional is ultimately deemed inappropriate for this scenario by the RC, then we should also seriously consider removing any player choices for OB and leave all those decisions to the TD for each OB area.

Maybe we should have a stroke and distance rule like ball golf then.

I agree that OB should be stroke and distance and that most of our current OB's should be reclassified as hazards. I think that we should model our rules as much as possible after the rules of golf and make deviations only when they would fit our particular game significantly better. In golf, you may take a provisional shot for lost ball or OB.

If the original ball is neither lost nor out of bounds, the player must abandon the provisional ball and continue playing the original ball. If he makes any further strokes at the provisional ball, he is playing a wrong ball and the provisions of Rule 15 apply.


I believe that our rules need to be changed to accomodate this situation, but I do not believe that provisionals should be allowed for unplayable lies. I do think that the words "on the line of play" should be removed from the relief options. I also think that the relief should be granted up to ten meters as long as it's not nearer the hole. That would cover the vast majority of cases and would be equitable. The player would still be penalized one stroke for having taken the relief and very few players would have to make the walk back to throw from their previous lie. If an area that big is all truly unplayable, then it should be OB.

All I'm saying is that those who are upset about players being able to use a discarded provisional for an unplayable, because they know where their next lie could be compared with taking up to 5m back or throwing again, are worrying about something that we already have in terms of players having up to three known choices for their lie after going OB.


I completely disagree with the statement that we already have the same thing with the current OB rule.

Here's a nugget from the USGA rulebook if we're borrowing from ball golf. Under 27-2b regarding Provisional Ball, which is allowed when a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be OB, "If he makes a stroke with the provisional ball from a place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point nearer the hole than that place, the original ball is lost and the provisional ball becomes the ball in play." In other words, in ball golf, the player can proceed to play the provisional shot and by doing so, makes their original shot defined as a lost ball by default regardless whether it actually was lost. That's the situation in our disc golf example that started this thread. No declaration of unplayable would be required.

I'm not saying that's specifically allowed by our written rules. But ball golf is providing a precedent for that interpretation when we don't have the option in writing (yet).

Here's a nugget from the USGA rulebook if we're borrowing from ball golf. Under 27-2b regarding Provisional Ball, which is allowed when a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be OB, "If he makes a stroke with the provisional ball from a place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point nearer the hole than that place, the original ball is lost and the provisional ball becomes the ball in play." In other words, in ball golf, the player can proceed to play the provisional shot and by doing so, makes their original shot defined as a lost ball by default regardless whether it actually was lost. That's the situation in our disc golf example that started this thread. No declaration of unplayable would be required.

I'm not saying that's specifically allowed by our written rules. But ball golf is providing a precedent for that interpretation when we don't have the option in writing (yet).



The USGA rule seems to be more like the old PDGA rule for a lost disc where you mark your lie where the group agrees the lie ought to be.

Is it such that the USGA rule does not mention a procedure for declaring a ball lost as the PDGA rule does? Also, is there a penalty for dropping a ball and playing a provisional?

Chuck:
That's complete crazy talk.

Everyone:
Let's all pretend that I'm Willis and Chuck's Arnold on Different Strokes:
"Arnold, you keep talkin' like that and I'm gonna tell Mr. D. and he's gonna send you back to the orphanage!"

Ball golf hypothetical: I hit a sweet 290 yard draw up the left side that I'm pretty darn sure got around the corner on the dogleg and has left me a 7 iron into the par 5. My playing partner Mr. Roolz Eckspurt suggests I play a provisional "just in case". I'm aggravated by his suggestion and dump the ball just off the front of the tee box into the water hazard. I then re-tee, hitting 5 with the provisional and slice it into the rough on the right about 220 off the tee. The junk is really thick over there and it takes me 3 more swings to get it back to the fairway (now lying 8 with the provisional ball) Next, I finally hit a sweet shot into the greenside bunker (now lying 9 with the provisional ball) As we walk up a little further we see my first drive sittin' up pretty in the rough 175 yards from the pin, perfect for a flyer 7-iron, which I hit to the back of the green, now lying 2 /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The point of that ramble was that once a provisional has been played in golf, that ball will continue to be hit until the player reaches the area where the first ball may be. After looking for the ball unsuccesfully or finding it OB, the provisional ball now becomes the ball in play and the player continues with that ball until they hole out. (or lose that one too) In the case of the player continuing to play the provisional and forgetting to look for the first ball, once they've past the location where the first ball is thought to be it's too late.

Now, this example has nothing to do with the story that initiated this thread. Once the disc is found IB, the provisional disc ceases to have a status that is different from any of the remaining discs in the player's bag. If, however, the player that threw the disc over the cliff had said, "that disc is lost! I'll play 3 from here", then that disc has become the disc in play and the disc thought to have gone over the cliff, even if it were found to have hit a stump and not gone over the cliff, would no longer be an option.

After looking for the ball unsuccesfully or finding it OB, the provisional ball now becomes the ball in play and the player continues with that ball until they hole out.



That's one option. But the wording of the rule is very clear that the player can turn the original ball into a de facto "lost" ball just by hitting the provisional sequence when the provi is near or beyond the original ball. Not crazy talk but the ball golf rule.

USGA Rule 27-2 c. When Provisional Ball To Be Abandoned
If the original ball is neither lost nor out of bounds, the player must abandon the provisional ball and continue playing the original ball. If he makes any further strokes at the provisional ball, he is playing a wrong ball and the provisions of Rule 15 apply.




Rule 15-3 Wrong Ball
b. Stroke Play
If a competitor makes a stroke or Strokes at a wrong ball that is not in a hazard, he incurs a penalty of two strokes.
There is no penalty if a competitor makes a stroke at a wrong ball in a hazard. Any Strokes made at a wrong ball in a hazard do not count in the competitor’s score.
The competitor must correct his mistake by playing the correct ball or by proceeding under the Rules. If he fails to correct his mistake before making a stroke on the next teeing ground, or in the case of the last hole of the round, fails to declare his intention to correct his mistake before leaving the putting green, he is disqualified



Summary: If a player plays a provisional for lost ball or OB, then finds the ball, but takes another swing at the provisional ball, the penalty is two strokes and they must play the correct ball. If they do not correct the mistake before starting the next hole, they are DQ'd.

There's no need for the clause in 27-2b regarding the ball becoming the ball in play unless that option is allowed. The distinction between 27-2b and 27-2C is apparently whether the player or someone in the group actually finds the ball before the player continues playing the provisional sequence. If the ball is found before the player continues the provi sequence, 27-2c for wrong ball is invoked if the player continues. However, if he continues the provi sequence at or past the spot near where the original ball might be, before the original is found, then the provi sequence becomes the ball in play. A player can essentially abandon the search for the ball and just play the provi sequence.

In our case of the unplayable disc, it was found, so applying the ball golf rule would still mean the provi couldn't be used. However, should our players be allowed to abandon any search and just take the provisional sequene with penalty?

27-b was not written to give a player an option. It was written to cover 2 contingencies:
1) The player forgets about their first and, upon remembering, realizes that they've past the spot where the ball was thought to be. At that point it's too late to go back and look, the provisional has become the ball in play.
2) The player thinks they haven't gotten to the spot yet, hits the provisional again, and heads forward to look for the ball, then a fellow player spots the ball behind the player. Same deal.

Does the player have the right to end the search for the original ball at some point before the five minute mark and declare it lost? Yes, but in most cases it will cost them at least one stroke to do so. Even if they find the ball in a bad lie, it's likely that they'd be able to advance the ball back to the fairway and save a stroke over the s&d penalty. In the case that the player saw their ball was deep in some pampas grass without any ground to drop on within two clublengths, they wouldn't be able to play from the provisional ball. They'd have to walk back to the previous lie and play from there. If they looked into the bush, saw the ball, said they couldn't find it, declared it lost, and continued to play the provisional they'd have played the wrong ball. If some pesky SI photographer had walked over and looked into that bush and saw the ball was clearly visible they'd probably be DQ'd.

As far as our game, I don't believe that there's any requirement to force a player to slash through nasty bushes until someone called three minutes. At any point prior to to seeing the disc a player can abandon the search and declare it lost. Once they make that declaration, however, they cannot take it back and play the disc if it is found subsequently.

In the case of this thread, the player doesn't have an obligation to climb down the face of a cliff to find their disc, but if they glance over the edge and see the disc then it is "found" and the provisional would cease to be in play.

I believe taking another shot from the tee upon calling an unplayable violates the spirit even more than using the discarded provisional for more than one reason.



Throwing a provisional for an unplayable lie is not an available option. If you are able to ascertain that your shot is unplayable, then there is no question about the status of the lie and a provisional is unwarranted.

So, I agree with you that doing so would violate the spirit of fair play. It could also be deemed a practice throw as well as an attempt to circumvent the rules.

flukey bonus for him like a tree branch knocking you down to the basket as your hot shot flies high over the basket.

ooops, cant let that one go. hitting trees and dropping close to the basket is not a fluke. it is a common result of hitting trees up high that are near the basket. so common in fact that the lack of any penalty for getting stuck in the tree encourages many players to take high routes rather than the more skillful corrider lanes. i know without a doubt that i am 2'ing a particular hole much more frequently ever since the 2MR became optional. why? because i crash the canaopy with no fear about the consequences of the drop.

i know without a doubt that i am 2'ing a particular hole much more frequently ever since the 2MR became optional. why? because i crash the canaopy with no fear about the consequences of the drop.



Who's to say that some holes don't have better scoring spread due to the change? Several rule changes or TD restrictions change the scoring pattern on hundreds of holes. Just making some areas OB or not or declaring that players must retee upon going OB will change scoring patterns no different from the optional 2m rule. It's now a hole design feature which TDs and designers can choose to use or not to improve holes.

except that it reduces the scoring distribution, not increases it. more "routes" to the 2 means a higher perecentage of 2's. there's no way that removing the 2MR can increase the scoring distribution, cuz you will eliminate some of the larger scores.

except that it reduces the scoring distribution, not increases it.



There's a difference between a scoring distribution generated fairly and one that's generated by luck...

if you think throwing a disc at the top of the canopy (larger target) is less lucky than skillfully threading a fairway, then you are correct, sir.

I can't believe this has finally wound back to the 2M rule. :) BTW - The solution is simple (and possibly recommended by Nick earlier; the rules should be changed to read: a player must declare the purpose of a provisional throw before it is taken. That throw can't be used for any other reason.

So in the case given, the declared reason is "potentially lost disc." As soon as the player finds his disc, the provisional throw is no longer relevant or useable. The use of the throw for an unplayable lie is therefore unacceptable and the player either plays his overthrown disc or declares it unplayable and hikes up the hill for a rethrow.

The reality is that in this case the player is abusing the concept of fair play. If he didn't like his initial throw he had the option of declaring it a practice throw and taking another. If left the way it is I'm thinking on every throw from now on I'm going to squint my eyes and say, "man, I think that disc is lost, better take a provisional just to be sure!"

L: If he didn't like his initial throw he had the option of declaring it a practice throw and taking another.

C: It's not a practice throw if it's thrown from your valid lie. You can call an unplayable and rethrow with penalty except on holes where the 2m rule is in effect. In that case, you can throw again but may have to add another throw penalty if original disc is found above 2m.


L: If left the way it is I'm thinking on every throw from now on I'm going to squint my eyes and say, "man, I think that disc is lost, better take a provisional just to be sure!"

C: Group has to agree to your provi throw unless there's disputed call which will prevent most potential provi throws.

C: It's not a practice throw if it's thrown from your valid lie. You can call an unplayable and rethrow with penalty except on holes where the 2m rule is in effect. In that case, you can throw again but may have to add another throw penalty if original disc is found above 2m.



There's no prohibition to using the unplayable lie rule on holes where the 2m rule is in effect. However, on such holes you cannot declare a disc at rest 2m above the playing surface as unplayable. If you are in the deep schule on a hole with the 2m rule in effect, and your disc is less than 2m above the playing surface, you can declare an unplayable lie and proceed. I suppose you could also declare an unplayable if, after marking your lie under the 2m rule, you decide that the lie is unplayable.

If he didn't like his initial throw he had the option of declaring it a practice throw and taking another.


This is just plain wrong and against the rules, and bears repeating.

A practice throw is a projection of a disc such that it doesn't change the lie, and can only occur when you throw a disc from "not the current lie". You cannot throw a shot from your current lie and then declare it a practice throw. No no no no no.

Also wrong because it would have to be seconded by another player or called by an official.

I don't have time to read through all of this, but if I throw a shot, get POed and throw another shot from the same lie, it is not considered a practice shot because it was from my lie??????

What on earth is it then?

And Pat, don't be bringing up disc golf's evolutionary step forward now that you're a big wig. ;)

james you know i cannot resist a 2MR discussion regardless of the size of (or need for) my wig. :D

I don't have time to read through all of this, but if I throw a shot, getted POed and throw another shot from the same lie, it is not considered a practice shot because it was from my lie??????

What on earth is it then?




It's your next throw. Essentially, you've decalred your first throw as unplayable and rethrown from the original lie with a one shot penalty. You second throw is your new lie and you're lying three. If you want to make another throw in anger, better step away from your orignal lie first.

Unless you carry another disc in your hand or a bag on your back when you throw, how would you have another disc in your hand at that moment to do this?

So, if I foot fault on my angry throw, it is only one stoke and I take my first shot?

Chuck, I was angry because I forgot to take my bag off before I threw. That always irks me. :p

So, if I foot fault on my angry throw, it is only one stoke and I take my first shot?




It's only a warning for a foot fault and my guess is the group will be completely silent, perhaps stunned with the angry outburst in the first place, so I wouldn't expect anyone to second the call :eek:

So, you would be throwing three from wherever that second shot went.

I don't have time to read through all of this, but if I throw a shot, get POed and throw another shot from the same lie, it is not considered a practice shot because it was from my lie??????

What on earth is it then?


Ignore Chuck for a little while so he stops trolling. :)

James, you have it backwards. What you are describing would be a practice throw for your second shot. When you throw from your current lie, the disc goes somewhere and establishes a new current lie somewhere else. If you throw another shot from the same spot, that spot is now "not your current lie" and would be a practice throw.

You cannot, however, decide to call the first throw a practice throw because it was from your current lie.

If you throw another shot from the same spot, that spot is now "not your current lie" and would be a practice throw.




Not trolling. That is the correct call. You've played your next shot and called your first one unplayable by default. It's happened in tournaments before where a player took a second throw from the tee without the player or anyone else saying anything about a provisional or practice throw, and that was the call. Actually, it cost the player a 2-shot penalty because the old unplayable lie rule was a 2-throw penalty for playing your shot from any other position no closer to the hole.

I see logic in both calls. However, the rules empower a player to declare a lie unplayable, but do not empower them to declare a throw a practice throw.

The wording of the rule seems to indicate some that type of verbal action is required for an unplayable lie declaration. Additionally, a provisional can only be thrown after a group decision or disagreement. Accordingly, the weight seems to be on the side of calling such a throw a practice throw rather than a default unplayable lie declaration.

Accordingly, the weight seems to be on the side of calling such a throw a practice throw rather than a default unplayable lie declaration.



A practice throw cannot be made from a valid lie for the player. The second throw makes that the lie by default. In fact, the player doesn't actually have a lie by making any tee shot until the disc is found, suspended above ground possibly above 2m, IB within 1m OB, OB, missed/made mando, behind a solid obstacle, chooses unplayable, lost and/or player decides to mark with a mini or not. For the moment, the only lie of record is where the player just threw from.

BTW, any rules sharpster who observed James make the additional throw from the tee could assess him with 2 penalty shots if another player still has to tee off. 803.10 Throwing from Another Player's Lie is a 2-shot penalty. So, if you're mad, at least throwing from your own lie is less of a penalty than it could be...

Accordingly, the weight seems to be on the side of calling such a throw a practice throw rather than a default unplayable lie declaration.



A practice throw cannot be made from a valid lie for the player. The second throw makes that the lie by default. In fact, the player doesn't actually have a lie by making any tee shot until the disc is found, suspended above ground possibly above 2m, IB within 1m OB, OB, missed/made mando, behind a solid obstacle, chooses unplayable, lost and/or player decides to mark with a mini or not. For the moment, the only lie of record is where the player just threw from.



And in this case the player has no valid lie to throw from. The previous lie is not a valid lie unless the player takes some action to re-instate the previous lie as the current lie (declare an unplayable lie, or request a provisional).

Any additional throw from the tee without taking an action to validate the tee as the proper lie should be considered a practice throw, and not negate the original throw.

There is no wording in the rules that allow for the default action to be considered a provisional throw, or an unplayable lie throw. In fact there is wording that pretty much makes it impossible since a provisional throw has to be approved by the card, and a lie must be declared unplayable.

If you don't say anything and just throw again from your previous lie, it should be a practice throw.

If you don't say anything and just throw again from your previous lie, it should be a practice throw.



How quickly would a player have to declare the throw as a rethrow? The shot arcs thru the air into the basket and the player claims he mumbled it was an unplayable rethrow but the group didn't hear it.

The only lie of record is where the player teed from. That's why any provisional is thrown from there because there is no new lie established yet. It should not be a practice throw when played from the tee after a tee shot.

How quickly would a player have to declare the throw as a rethrow?



Before they throw the second shot. My experience has been that rethrows, relocation of a lie for relief, and other similar actions, are usually announced to the group by the player before the lie is marked or the next shot taken. If someone in my group simply threw a second disc, from the tee or a lie in the fairway, I would consider that a practice throw.

Only exception I can think of right off hand would be something like the hole at USDGC where you have to throw into the circle and there's a spotter/certified official there telling you that you must throw again.

Accordingly, the weight seems to be on the side of calling such a throw a practice throw rather than a default unplayable lie declaration.



A practice throw cannot be made from a valid lie for the player. The second throw makes that the lie by default. In fact, the player doesn't actually have a lie by making any tee shot until the disc is found, suspended above ground possibly above 2m, IB within 1m OB, OB, missed/made mando, behind a solid obstacle, chooses unplayable, lost and/or player decides to mark with a mini or not. For the moment, the only lie of record is where the player just threw from.



And in this case the player has no valid lie to throw from. The previous lie is not a valid lie unless the player takes some action to re-instate the previous lie as the current lie (declare an unplayable lie, or request a provisional).

Any additional throw from the tee without taking an action to validate the tee as the proper lie should be considered a practice throw, and not negate the original throw.

There is no wording in the rules that allow for the default action to be considered a provisional throw, or an unplayable lie throw. In fact there is wording that pretty much makes it impossible since a provisional throw has to be approved by the card, and a lie must be declared unplayable.

If you don't say anything and just throw again from your previous lie, it should be a practice throw.



This is key. :cool:

BTW, any rules sharpster who observed James make the additional throw from the tee could assess him with 2 penalty shots if another player still has to tee off. 803.10 Throwing from Another Player's Lie is a 2-shot penalty. So, if you're mad, at least throwing from your own lie is less of a penalty than it could be...



For this to be true, you would have to hold that each player, upon arrival at the tee for each hole, already has a lie before throwing the first disc. Is the tee considered a lie under the rules?

If you don't say anything and just throw again from your previous lie, it should be a practice throw.



How quickly would a player have to declare the throw as a rethrow? The shot arcs thru the air into the basket and the player claims he mumbled it was an unplayable rethrow but the group didn't hear it.

The only lie of record is where the player teed from. That's why any provisional is thrown from there because there is no new lie established yet. It should not be a practice throw when played from the tee after a tee shot.


Holy cow, Chuck, you are really reaching now. Why do you insist on trying to confuse the rules that are clear?

It's very clear to me: a player may declare an unplayable lie, and it is the players choice only.

803.06 Unplayable Lie
A. A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable.


No one else gets to call the shot unplayable except the thrower. You don't get to call it an unplayable lie because the thrower took a practice throw afterwards. That is exceptionally clear in the rule.

Furthermore, if you are on my card and you throw a practice throw in that manner, and then after the throw (after the result of the throw is known, to tie into our earlier discussions) try to declare an unplayable lie, I won't let you. You will end up playing both discs to completion as provisionals and we will have to go burden the TD for a decision on this ridiculous situation.

No one else gets to call the shot unplayable except the thrower. You don't get to call it an unplayable lie because the thrower took a practice throw afterwards. That is exceptionally clear in the rule.

Furthermore, if you are on my card and you throw a practice throw in that manner, and then after the throw (after the result of the throw is known, to tie into our earlier discussions) try to declare an unplayable lie, I won't let you. You will end up playing both discs to completion as provisionals and we will have to go burden the TD for a decision on this ridiculous situation.



Another key tenet of understanding.

If some hothead wants to quickfire a second disc of the tee because they are taking an "unplayable lie", then I'd say by all means let them. They'd be laying three instead of two with a one stroke penalty for a practice throw. And throw in a courtesy violation warning for shooting out of turn. (assuming they weren't last on the tee) Hey, I'd throw in a courtesy violation warning even if they were last on the tee since they didn't even wait for the disc to hit the ground and didn't announce their intention to re-tee for an unplayable lie. (I think the announcing to the group thing should be included in our version of the rules as well as big bro's)

Technically, a TD could DQ that player for cheating because, even though the thrower gets the ultimate discretion on what is and what is not an "unplayable lie", that decision cannot be made while the disc is in flight and no "lie" exists. Not to mention simply for unsportsmanlike conduct.

p.s. There is no way that Chuck is serious about his last few comments. He just wants to get us all worked up and confused. (In my case it's not necessary, the alarm clock has that effect every morning, some are sicker than others.)

ok...here's one for the "previous lie--practice throw" people..

since the rules allow you to use your thrown disc as a mini i mostly do this ALL the time unless ob...

in my "angry" days in at least 3 different tournaments i fired my drive disc into the basket after missing my putt by reaching down and picking up the disc i just putted behind from...
each time i called myself for a practice throw....BUT according to chuck's logic, if i picked up that disc have i now "moved" my lie making it a practice throw???

i would like to know just in case i may ever be angry again :eek:...
as i pride myself on following the rules

let me know please
thanks in advance...
keith

each time i called myself for a practice throw....BUT according to chuck's logic, if i picked up that disc have i now "moved" my lie making it a practice throw???




I sent a few questions regarding "lie" definitions to the RC for them to noodle on and hopefully clarify. For the moment, your angry shots would likely be practice throws.

One of the issues around the basket and in general has to do with whether another player's disc on the ground constitutes a "lie" or not. I've seen people accidentally putt from behind a disc on the ground that wasn't theirs (including me). If that disc is a "lie" then it's a 2-shot penalty. But I believe a disc needs to be marked before it's officially a lie. Or, it instantly becomes a lie when the player takes a stance behind it (doesn't mark it with a mini) and throws. Until then, it's a potential lie and another player who accidentally makes a throw behind it should only get a 1-shot practice throw penalty. The 2-shot penalty should only apply when a player throws from behind another player's mini.

If you don't say anything and just throw again from your previous lie, it should be a practice throw.



How quickly would a player have to declare the throw as a rethrow? The shot arcs thru the air into the basket and the player claims he mumbled it was an unplayable rethrow but the group didn't hear it.

The only lie of record is where the player teed from. That's why any provisional is thrown from there because there is no new lie established yet. It should not be a practice throw when played from the tee after a tee shot.



For a throw to not be a practice throw, it has to either be a provisional, or a throw that is intended to move the lie in accordance with the rules.

The first shot from the Tee clearly is intended to move the lie. Any additional throw from the tee must be a provisional, a re-tee, or a practice throw.

To be a provisional, it must be discussed and approved by the other members on the card.

To immediately re-tee, the disc is either known to be OB and the player opts to re-tee, or the player has declared an unplayable lie and opts to re-tee. The fact that the rules require a declaration imply that the declaration is made to someone other than the thrower.

To be a practice throw, the disc merely needs to be thrown from anywhere that is not the (current) lie.

It can be argued that the tee is the last lie of record, but that is not the same thing as the (current) lie. The last lie of record only comes into play when a player is required by rule to throw from the previous lie.

It can be argued that the tee is the last lie of record, but that is not the same thing as the (current) lie. The last lie of record only comes into play when a player is required by rule to throw from the previous lie.



Which is why it is referred to as the previous lie. Undeclared second shots are pratice shots and most likely a courtesy warning.

But I believe a disc needs to be marked before it's officially a lie. Or, it instantly becomes a lie when the player takes a stance behind it (doesn't mark it with a mini) and throws. Until then, it's a potential lie and another player who accidentally makes a throw behind it should only get a 1-shot practice throw penalty. The 2-shot penalty should only apply when a player throws from behind another player's mini.



I think this creates too many other problems for it to be considered a valid philosophy intended by the rules. Under this line of thought, and in the scenario previously described, the first throw cannot be declared an unplayable lie from the tee box because it has not been marked or played from and is thus not yet a lie.

I understand your logic Chuck, but I don't believe this is the intent of the rule. Perhaps the rule should say "A player who has thrown from another player's lie or thrown disc shall receive two penalty strokes". To me, the intent of the rule is to restrict players to playing only from discs that they have thrown or placed on the ground (minis) themselves and to punish them with 2 strokes for not doing so.

Undeclared second shots are pratice shots and most likely a courtesy warning.



A warning is issued during the time between the 2 minute warning and the start signal. After that, it's a penalty stroke.

Getting back to the issue of using a provisional originally intended for a lost or OB disc, and repurposing it for a subsequent unplayable lie, I presented the situation to a buddy of mine at work. He's been playing ball golf most of his life, has a 2.8 handicap (http://mt5493.ghinconnect.com/gh/iihbp82.cgi?y=1100101111001110010011101&wherefrom=&whofrom=&backtourl=&backtourltarget=&L=1&T=1), and is an expert on The Rules of Golf. He was abhorred at the thought of using a provisional for another purpose and pointed to Rule 27-2c: (http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/books/rules/rule27.html#27-2)


c. When Provisional Ball to Be Abandoned
If the original ball is neither lost nor out of bounds, the player must abandon the provisional ball and continue playing the original ball.



Pretty much written in stone right there. The provisional is abandoned. If the player desires to take an unplayable lie at that point, he can go back and re-tee if he wants.

which brings us back to the concept of the provisional, used to speed play. A noble concept, but not the most important part of the game, is it? Since there's nothing that seems to allow a provisional for an unplayable lie, the re-tee must be taken.

maybe.

right?

I agree.

Technically, he should have re-teed and not used the provisional lie.

The situation described at the beginning of this thread does not mention that a marshall was called into the decision making process and agreed that the player could use the provisional shot after declaring his "not-lost" lie unplayable. I think this was just an honest misinterpretation of the rules.

Now that we've examined the issue, I believe a retee should have been required instead of allowing the use of the provisional lie--regardless of speed-of-play issues.

Maybe the rulebook needs to clarify along the lines of the ball-golf example quoted by Jeff_L above.

from the Q/A

Provisional throws would come into play more for questions of fact (Is this water casual or OB water?) rather than of judgment (Is the edge of the disc over safe ground?).



So, since an unplayable is a judgement, it's an invalid situation for a provisional to begin with, according to the RC's further interpretation.

The circular references in 803.1 are somewhat frustrating, though...

It is noted that although one of the options for an unplayable lie is to throw again from the previous lie, it is not listed as one of the criteria/situations for throwing a provisional. The provisional rule only lists possible OB, lost disc, or missed mando.

Perhaps this is intentionally written this way because when it comes to OB, lost, or missed mando, it either is or is not, whereas an unplayable is a judgement call made by one player.