Here's another interesting incident. A player threw across an OB road and the group thought that area was IB. The player threw in a 70 foot shot from there for a 2. The group proceeded to the next hole. They decided to check the course book and discovered that the road and across was OB on this hole. Lo and behold, they also discovered that was the case on the previous hole.

They sent the player back to play from where he was last IB. He got up and down in 2 more shots to card a 4, or so they thought but weren't sure. The correct score turns out to be 5 per rule 801.04(4). His 70-ft putt counts as a practice throw added to the score of tee shot, penalty, upshot and putt.

The interesting aspect of this is that had the group teed off on the next hole, the player would have ended up with a 4. He would have gotten his 2 and then a 2-shot penalty for playing the hole incorrectly. Had he missed the 70-ft putt from OB and dropped in for an incorrect 3, he would have gotten a 5 for the incorrect play of 3 plus 2. His going back and playing from the correct lie would have become irrelevant as a discarded provisional series of throws.

Wow.

Another case in support of having marshalls on all holes during tournaments.

Some day........ :D

without checking the rulebook i would think that once they had holed out (correctly or incorrectly) they would've not had the option to go back and correct the lie and the correct score would have been the 4. i wouldn't think whether or not they had teed on the subsequent hole would have anything to do with it.

the holeout arguement makes since, but I also believe that the missed mando ace philosophy could come into play here. If you miss a mando and ace, who cares, the hole was played incorrectly. By throwing it in from OB, the hole was played incorrectly.

I think the practice throw penalty was the better option of the two. I would hate for people to get in situations where they realized they could save a stroke by cheating.

It's like if you see your disc way in the shule and you see a disc in better shape than you the same color as you and you "accidently" play from the lie b/c you feel even with the two strokes you could get a better score - things like that I'm sure have happened.

without checking the rulebook i would think that once they had holed out (correctly or incorrectly) they would've not had the option to go back and correct the lie and the correct score would have been the 4. i wouldn't think whether or not they had teed on the subsequent hole would have anything to do with it.


The key here is that there was not a subsequent shot taken since the 70 footer went in. Once you take a subsequent shot, the "course misplay" rule kicks in and you keep your original shots and add a 2 stroke penalty.

thought the first practice throw was only a warning not a stroke :confused: sounds like there was allot for the TD to rule on at this AM Worlds

without checking the rulebook i would think that once they had holed out (correctly or incorrectly) they would've not had the option to go back and correct the lie and the correct score would have been the 4.



We thought so to. However, the key was the fact that the player had yet to make a subsequent throw after the infraction because he holed the shot. That's the tricky part of this ruling. Had he missed that shot from OB and putted in, he would have taken the subsequent shot such that completing the hole incorrectly would have been the ruling with the plus 2. As it was, no subsequent shot had been made so it was perfectly correct to go back to the correct lie and complete the hole properly and get the practice throw penalty per the rule for throwing from OB. I didn't even realize that throwing from OB was a written rule until this incident figuring it was perhaps a Q&A. But what you do is right there in 801.04(4).

thought the first practice throw was only a warning not a stroke :confused: sounds like there was allot for the TD to rule on at this AM Worlds



Only if it happens between two minutes and start. After start, every throw counts.

Another case in support of having marshalls on all holes during tournaments.

Some day........ :D



A similar situation happened at the last Pro Worlds.

A volunteer was randomly walking through the Jordan course and saw a golfer shooting from the steep bank below the tee on the tee side of the creek of hole#14. (the signature hole, it was a pro par four that crossed two creeks)

It was clearly communicated in the Player's Meeting and in the handout that you go to the drop zone if you didn't carry the first creek. How none of the players in that foursome knew the correct ruling, or didn't speak up to provide the correct ruling, boggles the imagination. And until we have Marshalls on every hole, or at least on every hole with OBs and/or special drop zones, this behavior will likely continue.

And here is yet another....


Here's another interesting incident. ......



I saw this happen at Worlds and heard from another player that it happened to them as well. A player threw on hole 12 (I am pretty sure that is the hole) at Haikey Creek. This particular hole is about 700 in length and had OB to the left all the way to the hole. The OB was a creek about 20 feet down with tall johnson grass at fairway level. There was a string clearly marking OB along the johnson grass at the fairway.

One player threw and the disc was inbounds most of the way and fell left into the Johnson grass at the end of the flight. The group told the player it was a lost disc and a heated argument occurred. The player then rethrew from the previous lie and went on. I tried to get to the group before the player threw, but then figured that he was just throwing a provisional throw and went back to the tee box to wait for them to clear the hole. The player did not throw from the place they went OB, about 300 feet further down the fairway than the last position. So the group enforced the lost disc rule on a disc that the group had seen go OB. This in and of itself is reason for the rule change for lost disc to be relooked at.

No matter what the rules are, weak-willed players who do not know the rules will get worked by other players who don't know the rules.

The group told the player it was a lost disc and a heated argument occurred. The player then rethrew from the previous lie and went on.



All the player would perhaps have needed to do is say that his retee was a provisional pending the disc being lost (not OB). This brings up an interesting point. Can a provisional be declared for a lost disc only but if the original disc ends up being physically found OB, can the provisional then be discarded and the player allowed to mark and play from the last point IB? Or, does the provisional automatically cover all three potential issues listed for this purpose (OB, lost, missed mando) with no exclusions allowed to be called?

This got me reading again. At first, I disagreed with Jerry in that I think the rules are pretty clear in this regard, and the player needed to raise hell to get the call right, or at least throw a provisional.

However, after rereading the language under "out of bounds," and not commenting on the whole issue of fairness and just commenting on how it is presently written, I do think the language needs some clarification. My concern is that the first sentence says


when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area.



Then later, in the same paragraph, we have


In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area.



I'm sure this has been brought up before, but the terms "clearly" and "resonable" conflict. Personally, I would go by "reasonable," but I can see some guys hanging their hat on the "clearly" wording. They would argue that since they cannot find the disc, it is not "clearly" OB, therefore the lost disc rule takes precedent.

This brings up an interesting point. Can a provisional be declared for a lost disc only but if the original disc ends up being physically found OB, can the provisional then be discarded and the player allowed to mark and play from the last point IB? Or, does the provisional automatically cover all three potential issues listed for this purpose (OB, lost, missed mando) with no exclusions allowed to be called?



I don't think a provisional can or should be declared for a specific purpose. As long as the three criteria outlined in the rules are met, the player is entitled to a provisional throw declaration.

I personally wouldn't have any problem with someone throwing a provisional, then upon determining that the original throw is OB, marking the lie from last inbounds and proceeding. The OB rule gives you three options: previous lie, up to one meter from last IB, or drop zone if provided. Since provisionals are thrown due to the presence of an unknown factor, it seems logical not to expect a decision on where to shoot from until you walk down the fairway and see what's what.

You could always decide not to throw the provisional, then find your disc OB, but decide that a re-tee would be better, then go back and throw from previous lie, but that would not save time. Since the failure to throw a provisional in that scenario does not preclude the player from walking back to the previous lie and throwing, throwing the provisional should not preclude you from deciding to proceed from the original throw.

The rules say that once you've thrown a provisional to save time for a disc which might be lost, o.b., or mandomissatory, you have to take the throw or the provisional. I think it is 803.01(C).

But don't feel badly. Most players don't have a problem with a little fudging on the rules.

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



If you throw a provisional from the tee (for Lost, OB, or missed mando) you will use either the provisional, or the original throw. No other option is allowed after a provisional has been taken.

If you throw a provisional from the tee (for Lost, OB, or missed mando) you will use either the provisional, or the original throw. No other option is allowed after a provisional has been taken.



so, are you saying the OB can't be played from the last point IB, since a provi was used? What if, in the case of a mando, the provi missed it also? Besides crappy luck or crappier skill, is the next step 1) another provi or b)back to the tee? So, from a provi-missed-mando, what to do?

Fortunately, we've managed to eliminate all the mandos 'round these parts, but that makes it tougher to play in other places that do have 'em.

If a mando can easily be missed twice (versus an occasional griplock), the mistake is the designer using the tee as the drop zone. If a provi misses the mando, it's back to the tee. However, it's likely that you'll already know to throw a second provi before proceeding from the tee to look.

This provisional dialog inspires me to find a place to design a hole where the missed mando line disappears into a woods lined creek such that certain shots yanked into the woods may or may not have missed the mando, be lost, in the OB creek or unplayable, including any combinations of these such that a provisional covers all contingencies before walking ahead to look. :D

This provisional dialog inspires me to find a place to design a hole where the missed mando line disappears into a woods lined creek such that certain shots yanked into the woods may or may not have missed the mando, be lost, in the OB creek or unplayable, including any combinations of these such that a provisional covers all contingencies before walking ahead to look. :D



But of course, the provisional could only be used for a disc that may have missed the mando, be lost, or be in the OB creek. It CANNOT be used for an unplayable lie. :D

It would be my course and yes it could :p. In fact, I'll force the issue with Bellinger at a future tournament to make the call if the RC doesn't do so before then. Just because ball golf has the foolishness of returning to the tee, doesn't mean we have to make the same mistake. They usually have golf carts and/or big money involved. One of our advantages is faster play. Let's not blow it by following the BG path in this case.

This provisional dialog inspires me to find a place to design a hole where the missed mando line disappears into a woods lined creek such that certain shots yanked into the woods may or may not have missed the mando, be lost, in the OB creek or unplayable, including any combinations of these such that a provisional covers all contingencies before walking ahead to look. :D


#14 at Swope (http://www.playdg.com/swope/?h=14) , except there's no longer a mando and the creek is the road. But, when the mando was in effect, it's the exact scenario. Mando was the big tree leaning to the right, maybe 40' max from the long pad.

In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area.



I'm sure this has been brought up before, but the terms "clearly" and "resonable" conflict. Personally, I would go by "reasonable," but I can see some guys hanging their hat on the "clearly" wording. They would argue that since they cannot find the disc, it is not "clearly" OB, therefore the lost disc rule takes precedent.



The thing that Bruce has brought up before about this rule is that evidence can not be reasonable. Evidence just is. It does not have the ability to be reasonable. Evidence will NEVER engage you in a reasonable discussion either. :D

The rules say that once you've thrown a provisional to save time for a disc which might be lost, o.b., or mandomissatory, you have to take the throw or the provisional. I think it is 803.01(C).

But don't feel badly. Most players don't have a problem with a little fudging on the rules.



Wrong Bruce. The rule says you have to take whichever lie that the group deems is the appropriate lie. This could be the original or the provisional.

It would be my course and yes it could :p. In fact, I'll force the issue with Bellinger at a future tournament to make the call if the RC doesn't do so before then. Just because ball golf has the foolishness of returning to the tee, doesn't mean we have to make the same mistake. They usually have golf carts and/or big money involved. One of our advantages is faster play. Let's not blow it by following the BG path in this case.



Yes, please push the issue with Bellinger and the Rules Committee as fast as possible. I want this abomination to be rectified as soon as we can.

And I doubt that carts have anything to do with it. I wonder what the statistics are on percent of ball golf rounds played with a cart. I know that when I was a ball golfer, I probably used a cart less than 10% of the time. From a competitive standpoint, I know they don't use carts for USGA amateur competitions nor for PGA professional events on any tour.

These rules were likely written decades before there were even carts. Here's one case where I hope we do follow the ball golf path. These rules were in place for centuries and they've already been down these roads and have learned from their mistakes. When you start taking liberties with the rules, you open enormous cans of worms. By allowing a provisional for one purpose to be used unrightly for another, we're basically deciding that the rules can be ignored whenever we see fit. Why stop there? We might as well start allowing a mulligan anytime someone has a bad shot. :(

The rules say that once you've thrown a provisional to save time for a disc which might be lost, o.b., or mandomissatory, you have to take the throw or the provisional. I think it is 803.01(C).

But don't feel badly. Most players don't have a problem with a little fudging on the rules.

Wrong Bruce. The rule says you have to take whichever lie that the group deems is the appropriate lie. This could be the original or the provisional.

I think we both just said the same thing. But don't feel badly. Everyone misreads a post from time to time.

I see that now. Whoooops!

:eek: :D

It would be my course and yes it could :p. In fact, I'll force the issue with Bellinger at a future tournament to make the call if the RC doesn't do so before then. Just because ball golf has the foolishness of returning to the tee, doesn't mean we have to make the same mistake. They usually have golf carts and/or big money involved. One of our advantages is faster play. Let's not blow it by following the BG path in this case.



Bellinger probably won't have such authority, and that's even if the BoD eventually decides to assign him to competition issues, which they have no obligation to do. They could assign Steve Dodge, Pat Brenner, or any other BOD member to those duties. There will be no longer be a Competition Director when the new constitution takes effect September 1. Most of the specific duties currently held by the Comp Dir (running the marshals program, reclassification, and rules exemptions) will most likely be placed in the hands of the Executive Director or the Tour Manager.

John Chapman
The LAST PDGA Competition Director

By the way, the player in question in Chuck's scenario above received a 4, not a 5. The provisional was rendered moot.

Check out rule 801.04D.

Chap

If Bellinger is Theo's lap dog, you're probably right.

Legally, Bellinger ran for Competition Director and got elected to that position. He also ran for a position that has a two-year term beginning September 1. I don't see how someone could run for competition director, get elected to the position, and not have that position.

Nothing in the psuedo-Bylaws states that they trump the the results of the last election held before they became effective, nor the election before that. To the contrary, they state that a Director serves until the end of the term to which he was elected.

All of the current Directors are what they were elected to be, unless they choose to abdicate their rights.

The candidates all ran for what they ran for, with the understanding that the position would vanish if the new constitution/by-laws passed, and they would become an unnamed director who terms starts September 1.

I agree, Cris should handle competition issues, and I will probably suggest that at my last teleconference, especially since that's what the membership probably thinks they voted for, but the BoD has no obligation to assign him there. The new bylaws do not provide for a Competition Director, nor do they assign him any special responsibilities.

Chap


If Bellinger is Theo's lap dog, you're probably right.

Legally, Bellinger ran for Competition Director and got elected to that position. He also ran for a position that has a two-year term beginning September 1. I don't see how someone could run for competition director, get elected to the position, and not have that position.

Nothing in the psuedo-Bylaws states that they trump the the results of the last election held before they became effective, nor the election before that. To the contrary, they state that a Director serves until the end of the term to which he was elected.

All of the current Directors are what they were elected to be, unless they choose to abdicate their rights.