Scenario:

Player tees and throws drive into heavy undergrowth. Group advances, searches for disc, time is started, 3 minutes later time is called. Group advises player that he needs to retee.

Player returns to tee but the next group now on the tee tells him he needs to play the disc from where it was last seen. He returns, tells his group what was said, then takes a spot where the group agrees the disc was last seen and throws.

On stepping back from his throw, he steps on the lost disc. He marks that lie, announces that he will complete the hole provisionally from this lie, enter both scores on his scorecard and let the TD sort it out. He throws from the second spot. He completes the hole with from both lies, recording the score for the first throw as the number of throws plus a stroke penalty for a lost disc. He records the number of throws for the second throw as the number of throws with no penalty (as if the disc had not been lost).

The scorecard is turned in with both scores recorded and with two totals. The TD spots the two scores and calls the player over for a conference.

NOTE: This was a tough one to unravel as the player kept using the term "OB" to describe his disc. In fact, his disc had landed in an area of the course where there was no OB. Fortunately, I had David Gentry sitting there and we were able to piece the story together slowly. We made a ruling, but I'm not sure we got it right.

Before I give you our ruling, I would like to hear some thoughts. I have written to the Rules Committee and will tap its collective wisdom as well.

Under the old rules, both lies should've been scored as "number of throws plus one penatly throw for lsot disc" because once the 3 minutes expire the disc is considered lost and you got the penalty even if the disc was found. The proper play under the old rules was to play from the found disc (provided it was found prior to a subsequent throw) with penalty.

Under the current rules it's a little trickier. I don't know if the "found the lost disc before the subsequent throw" thing has been codified in the rules or officially ruled upon under the new rules, but I think "in spirit" we can still use it.

"Course misplay" comes to mind since the player is attempting to play the course under the wrong set of rules, but "intent" is tough thing to rule on. Since the player has not thrown a another shot, you cannot give this penalty.

So here it is: the player takes the score from the original "found disc" lie plus a one throw penalty, using the ruling of the rules committee from the previous rules as a precendent. Since the disc was found prior to a subsequent throw and the point of the game is to throw it from where it lies, you play it from where it lies. Since the disc was declared lost, the one throw lost penalty is assessed and added to the score.

Until the RC rules specifically that once the disc is declared lost you must return to the previous lie, I think playing from the found disc with a penalty is the correct play.

I may be wrong, but I thought that if a disc is declared lost (after 3 min of searching), then the lost disc rule comes in effect. Since there was no OB, then the correct play would be to rethrow from the previous lie, which would be the tee. Is that not the correct way to play the hole? It seems as though both scores are incorrect and void and the "failure to hole out" rule would have to be used.

I have to disagree. Once three minutes has expired, the disc is declared lost regardless of where it is found after that time. (803.11A) Once it is declared lost, +1 on scorecard and throw from last lie (that's pretty explicit). Under the old rules it made sense to use it if found as it was place last seen, but since the new rules don't have that option, no can do. (803.11B)

Since the provisional was not from the correct lie, we can ignore that sequence.

Now here's where it gets fuzzy. Since he didn't play from another player's lie, it's hard to make 803.10 apply. Nor does 801.04B (course misplay) list this scenario either, but in the spirit of the rules I would want to rule it this way and add +2 to his recorded score.

Of course one could call it a really bad case of a stance violation or marker violatoin and just give him a warning (and a copy of the rule book).

If the disc made it into the basket at the end of a sequence of throws for the hole, then he holed out.

Under the old rules, you did not explicitly have the option to play from the found disc if it was found after the disc was declared lost and prior to the subsequent throw.

But the RC ruled on it that way.

I believe this is no different even though the rules are different. The bottom line is that a basic tenet of the game is to "play it where lies", and I believe that was an underlying theme is the RCs decision under the old rules. I don't see where that has changed. (Pat, leave the 2MR out of it! :) )

Diregarding the RC precedent, the only other wasy to rule it is as a course misplay and add three penalty throws to one of the two scores. How you would decide which one to use....I have no idea.

Three penalty throws? Yes. I penalty throw for lost disc, and two more for Course Misplay. The course misplay was a separate violation that occured after the lost disc penalty was assessed, therefore is it not a "double jeopardy" situation like missing a mando and landing OB.

Yep, the option to play from the lost disc found after 3 minutes is no longer available. After 3 minutes, it's a lost disc and you need to re-tee or throw from approximate previous lie as determined by the group.

This player should have re-teed with a penalty stroke. The group of players on that tee telling him to go back should all have been given courtesy warnings for giving him instructions contrary to the rules. The player's group had it correct to start with and these folks behind them goofed it up!

This one is pretty straightforward and should have never gotten to the TD, but these things do happen when the rules are not consulted.

Under the old rules, you did not explicitly have the option to play from the found disc if it was found after the disc was declared lost and prior to the subsequent throw.



But that was consistent in that you could play it under the old rules from where last seen, and it is obviously last seen where you can see it. Since last seen is no longer an option, then the previous lie is the only acceptable answer once three minutes has expired.



How you would decide which one to use....I have no idea.



I would use the first sequence (the non-provisional sequence) of throws.


Three penalty throws?



I had assumed the lost disc penalty was already recorded on the score card in my comments above. I would agree in that it should be scored as acutal throws +3.

The sequence from the position where the group last saw the disc should be counted as if the hole had been played properly with that throw being the player's third throw. Then 2 shots added to that score as a penalty for misplaying the hole.

For the moment, imagine instead that this simpler scenario happened where the player never found the disc. He makes the first throw, the disc was lost, he made his next throw from where the group thought it was last seen (under the assumption the old rule was still in effect), takes the lost disc penalty, and shoots a 5 on the hole. He turns in the card and asks what the score should have been. He finds out that he was wrong and ends up with a 2-shot penalty that results in a 7.

I think this more complicated scenario that actually happened ultimately ends up being evaluated the same way is this more simpler scenario once you play thru the various options.

Chuck, that cuts out a very important issue. That issue being "what happens when a lost disc is found prior to the subsequent throw?"

I think I see what you are saying and agree. Since the hole was never played properly and scores turned in, the misplay rule kicks in and the player gets two strokes. And since the score turned in included the lost disc penalty stroke, there is no call for adding another stroke.

Under the old rules, you did not explicitly have the option to play from the found disc if it was found after the disc was declared lost and prior to the subsequent throw.



But that was consistent in that you could play it under the old rules from where last seen, and it is obviously last seen where you can see it. Since last seen is no longer an option, then the previous lie is the only acceptable answer once three minutes has expired.


I disagree.

Under the old rules, the disc was declared lost at the three minute mark and a lie was established by the group at that point. Per the rules as written, that lie is the lie at that point and there is nothing in the rules about changing that post-3-minute lie after it is established.

The new rules are the same in this regard. Once the three minutes expire a new lie is established as being "the old lie".

To me, there is no difference in these scenarios. The RC has already ruled on one, so it should be applicable to the other. If the RC makes a new ruling, then so be it. But as of now, you should play from the found disc with a penalty.

The RC Q & A had already been updated.

Conclusion:

A disc is officially lost at the end of the three-minute search, and a penalty throw is assessed. It makes no difference where the disc is found after is has been determined to be lost; the thrower plays from their previous lie.

The sequence from the position where the group last saw the disc should be counted as if the hole had been played properly with that throw being the player's third throw.


Why is that his third throw, wasn't the lost/found disc his drive?

What about his "provisional" throws, can't those be viewed as practice throws? I mean, it is easily arguable that he has no right under the rules to be throwing those shots, and those are all practice throws.

At any rate, I wouldn't try to screw the guy over with rule interpretations, and it apears that there are multiple ways to do just that. I like Kupricka's call of adding 2 to the final score achieved from his first "lost disc" throw. That seems about right to me: one stroke for the lost disc, plus the assumption that his rethrow would have landed where his first throw did.

ps. I am assuming this is a newbie. If he was a pro, or a seasoned am, I'd figure out an argument to add another stroke or two, since they should know better.

This player was a pro ... his contention on the provisionals was that there was no official available and at that point the group couldn't reach a majority decision. He played out the original lie given him by the group (which as a majority here have indicated we deemed to be inappropriate) and he played provisionally from the found disc (in case that was the right answer).

My original inclination in this situation was to rule:

a) once the disc was considered lost he never completed the hole correctly invoking the misplay rule. I thought the score should have been actual strokes + one stroke for lost disc + two strokes for misplaying the hole.

b) I considered the provisional plays from his lost and "found" disc to appropriate only in the sense that he declared them such in an attempt to speed play and get a later ruling from me.

I was talked out of my interpretation by someone whom I believed knew the rules (and the RC) better than I did.

In the end, we ended up assessing a stroke for lost disc and a stroke for a practice throw (the original throw from the group spot). In hindsight, I like my original inclination better.

I would also like to say that everyone else in this guy's group were pros and was everyone on the tee who told him to go back "to the spot it was last seen."

What about his "provisional" throws, can't those be viewed as practice throws? I mean, it is easily arguable that he has no right under the rules to be throwing those shots, and those are all practice throws.



If there is a disagreement in the group as to proper play than a player may to choose to throw a provisional sequence of throws so that it may be sorted out later with only one sequence being counted. In this case, I assume the disagreement was to whether he should throw from where the group consensus had setup a new lie or from the found disc. Unfortunately, neither were correct.


ps. I am assuming this is a newbie. If he was a pro, or a seasoned am, I'd figure out an argument to add another stroke or two, since they should know better.



Despite the temptation that exists, rules need to be applied consistently.

Oh hell, then I would probably go with what I thought Rhett's previous interpretation was: one penalty stroke for the lost disc, and two strokes under 801.04(B)(1) even though that language is not exactly on point, but it is close. So 3 strokes added to the score he got from his first throw from the wrong lie, before he found his lost disc.

If there is a disagreement in the group as to proper play than a player may to choose to throw a provisional sequence of throws so that it may be sorted out later with only one sequence being counted. In this case, I assume the disagreement was to whether he should throw from where the group consensus had setup a new lie or from the found disc. Unfortunately, neither were correct.




Under a strict reading of the provisional throw rules, I do not see how any of those throws could be considered a provisional. I mean, they were not doing it to save time, and there was no official ruling to dispute, or no group ruling to dispute. They were simply not following any rules. So, one could argue that if those are not provisionals, they must be practice throws.

I understand the newbie thing, and the equal application argument, but I'd argue that the bottom line here is that no rule perfectly addresses this scenario . The eventual ruler (in this case disquegolfer) is going to have to use judgement, then concoct a plausible rules argument to support their judgement. That might violate some people's idea of how the system should be, but it is not uncommon, either in the court of law, or in the "court" of TD rulings. There will always be scenarios that demand discretion and judgement, rules cannot cover every scenario.

The group ruling that appears to have been in dispute was where he was supposed to throw from. If he was not following the previous lie rule, then he should be throwing from the "found" disc lie and that set of throws should be used.

In either case the penalty probably whould have been lost disc(1) + misplay(2) added to actual throws, no practice throws.

The RC Q & A had already been updated.

Conclusion:

A disc is officially lost at the end of the three-minute search, and a penalty throw is assessed. It makes no difference where the disc is found after is has been determined to be lost; the thrower plays from their previous lie.




Well then, I guess that part is settled. :)

Lost disc plus course misplay.

I agree with Chuck, Mike and your original inclination.

Stroke for lost disc and 2 for misplaying the hole. The provisionals from the found disc are inconsequencial (other than these guys need to get a rulebook in their bags).


This player was a pro ... his contention on the provisionals was that there was no official available and at that point the group couldn't reach a majority decision. He played out the original lie given him by the group (which as a majority here have indicated we deemed to be inappropriate) and he played provisionally from the found disc (in case that was the right answer).

My original inclination in this situation was to rule:

a) once the disc was considered lost he never completed the hole correctly invoking the misplay rule. I thought the score should have been actual strokes + one stroke for lost disc + two strokes for misplaying the hole.

b) I considered the provisional plays from his lost and "found" disc to appropriate only in the sense that he declared them such in an attempt to speed play and get a later ruling from me.

I was talked out of my interpretation by someone whom I believed knew the rules (and the RC) better than I did.

In the end, we ended up assessing a stroke for lost disc and a stroke for a practice throw (the original throw from the group spot). In hindsight, I like my original inclination better.

I would also like to say that everyone else in this guy's group were pros and was everyone on the tee who told him to go back "to the spot it was last seen."

To clarify, I would not argue for practice throws, but I still think those were practice throws according to the rules. I do not see any dispute that he was contesting, mainly because IF HE WAS disputing a ruling, I presume the dispute would be between throwing from the area of the lost disc and throwing from the previous lie. If that was the case, he would have thrown a throw from the area of the lost disc, and thrown a shot from the previous lie. Interestingly, I'm not sure which throw is actually the provisional, but those actions would have supported the idea that he was throwing a provisional. My basic point is that if one is not following the guidelines required for provisionals, I'm not sure how they can claim that they were provisionals.

Again, I would not argue that, but a true zeolot would. At any rate, I still don't think that any rule applies to this situation, or if one does, it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, but at the end of the day, it appears that those in charge acted with reason and good faith.

My main point of my argument is to point out to the true zeolots here that this is a case where the written word falls short, and judgement is required, as are many of the scenarios bandied about on the board. IMO, there really needs to be a written statement in the rules to the effect that "In cases where rulings are unclear, the TD has the final say, and should use judgement and the spirit of fairness in making their ruling."

I would also like to say that everyone else in this guy's group were pros and was everyone on the tee who told him to go back "to the spot it was last seen."




...and not a rulebook among them...

We should make it a requirement that a rulebook on a small chain be attached inside a pocket on newly sold golf bags.

I would also like to say that everyone else in this guy's group were pros and was everyone on the tee who told him to go back "to the spot it was last seen."




...and not a rulebook among them...

We should make it a requirement that a rulebook on a small chain be attached inside a pocket on newly sold golf bags.



Or maybe pass the Officals Test to play PRO........ :p
:eek:
:D

IF I am reading this correctly the original posting said that the PLAYER who went back to the tee to throw was MISQUOTING his shot as OB when the story was told to the TD . What if this was the case when he walked back to the tee pad to ' RETEE " his actual lost disc when if he was in fact CALLING IT OB from the get go .
Dont go blaming that last group who might have been told it was OB from the start . ( when in actuality it was lost )

NOW IMPO this brings up the problem with this lost disc rule , which I have not liked since the get go of the change .
I realize the arguement of " where it was last seen " can get debatable at best but to have someone walk all the way back to the last spot thrown just because it might be hiding under some fallen leaves ( remember with the new rule here in the NORTHEAST especially this could become a major issue in about a month or 2 ) IS JUST PLAIN WRONG

I really don't like the change either. What I would prefer is that the same penalty should apply to OB, missed mando, and lost disc: a) add one to the score, and b) the player's choice to throw from last point known to be inbounds, drop zone, or previous lie. I would also further simplify things by making the 2m rule (when used) to be an unplayable lie: a) add one to the score, and b) player's choice to mark the lie from below the disc upto 5m back on LOP or previous lie.

All of that would be very sensible. At every tournament this year I've heard of people thinking they had to re-tee for o.b. Having different penalties for all these is confusing.

At Streamwood we had that one hole where there was no o.b. on the tall grass because Brett ran out of paint and the rope got stolen. If it had been o.b. I would have had a circle 3. Since it was not, I had to walk back, and I got a five. Getting a 5 or a 3 should not hang on whether the tournament is played in the kind of neighborhood where the neighbors steal the o.b. rope! :D

What I cannot figure in this scenario is why the guy ever let himself get talked out of re-teeing. The idea of throwing a lost disc from the original lie has been drummed into our heads by TD's (Thanks Bruce) all year. Its happened to me. I knew to go back to the original lie, which was the tee. Certainly, a pro should know that. The only concern I would have would be over how militant the guys in the group behind him were. If they simply gave wrong advice, he should know better and I would agree with the 1+2 penalty. If they chased him off the tee he should have gotten a TD to come to the scene. If they complained about the waste of time he could tell them all would be much quicker, and correct under the rules, if he re-teed. If violence was possible, I would not have re-teed either. I suspect the guy should get some credit for avoiding a fight if violence was at hand.

What I cannot figure in this scenario is why the guy ever let himself get talked out of re-teeing. The idea of throwing a lost disc from the original lie has been drummed into our heads by TD's (Thanks Bruce) all year. Its happened to me. I knew to go back to the original lie, which was the tee. Certainly, a pro should know that.


That easy to answer: IMHO he thought he was getting over so he gladly advanced up the fairway to throw his next shot.

I tend to be more in the "He called it OB, not lost" camp.

The correct options for that would have been to throw from the last IB spot. Though the players on the tee should know that there was no OB on that hole. According to the description above.

That would be alright if the disc was in fact determined to be OB, it wasn't. It was declared lost, and like the new rule or not, it is there to be followed.

The reason lost disc and OB rules are different is because in one instance you "know" the location of the disc, in the other you "do not". There is a total and complete "break" with the continuity of play. In such cases the least we can do is provide an absolute and known lie directly related to the "real" continuity of play, in this case the last known lie.

I agree the walk is no fun, I remember Ernie Ells making the walk during a Masters tournament when he lost a ball, and he didn't look to thrilled walking 300 yds back to the tee by himself; but answer this, when is talking any penalty "fun". Isn't it more important to be "fair".

PDGA Tournament Play is slow, not as slow as PGA, but still slow. Most, if not all recent attempts to speed up our game have not resulted in faster play, the majority of time they result in displays of ignorance of our rules and an increase in the speed of discourteous play.

...You mark your lie, do your pre-putt routine, focus, breath, look up to fine the link you're going to hit... SCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAATTTTTTCCCCCCHHHHHHHH! Another player is 4 feet from the basket and says as their disc is in the air,"I'm going to putt out." (And that's a level of courtesy not even extended most of the time as they just walk up and putt out without comment.)

As a Rules Zealot it is my least favorite rule, yes, even more so than the lingering 2M farce.

The reason lost disc and OB rules are different is because in one instance you "know" the location of the disc, in the other you "do not". There is a total and complete "break" with the continuity of play. In such cases the least we can do is provide an absolute and known lie directly related to the "real" continuity of play, in this case the last known lie.



I dont get this one Nick , Either way there is a true BREAK in the play
Disc goes OB and IF it is gettable ( ie retreviable by hopping a fence or whatever ) you take the time to go get it and shoot or vice versa .
What if you are OB and cannot see your disc then there is a break again to figure out the last location of the disc IB and therefore shoot from there .
Either way there is a break in the action and the flow of the game .

When I am mentally counting strokes w/ OB or lost disc, I usually count the penalty by visualizing a toss back to the new appropriate lie. So as I see it, the penalty throw is the relocation from an unplayable location (OB, lost, etc) to a newly established playable lie. Therefore I don't think it is really a big deal if the disc was OB or lost in the shule in front of OB, the penalty throw essentially gets you to the new lie and you play from there.

The lost disc/OB difference also seems really messed up when you have ugly schule in front of the OB line. In this case a worse toss (going OB) is penalized less than the disc that landed before OB but couldn't be found.

I don't see the rule for misplaying the course that you guys are trying to apply. He did not throw from the wrong tee as the teeing areas are defined and where he threw his second shot from doesn't fit that description. He did not play to the wrong target, nor did he play a disc that was OB as in bounds, play out of sequence, or misplay a mandatory. Those are the only rules that I found for playing the stipulated course. Here is the way that I would rule...

He would get one stroke for the lost disc. He would get one stroke for a practice shot for taking a practice.The practice throw penalty can apply anywhere on the course. I would have then forced him to retee as per the rules at the end of the round with the following strokes counting... 1 stroke original throw, 1 stroke lost disc, 1 stroke practice throw, the golfer is now throwing his fourth shot. This replay of the hole under the correct rule is allowed through//"Only in a case where a replay is the most fair solution, at the discretion of the director, shall a hole or holes be replayed." I would not count the provisional as a practice throw as he declared provisional before throwing.

803.01.F

There is no rule that directly covers the situation, but the nearest definition (by group concensus) is a course misplay.

It appears the consensus is to use the rule of fairness to extend the misplay rule.

F. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.



I don't disagree completely with this call, but would be more inclined for the td to require the player to go back and replay from the appropriate lie following the OB throw under

803.01D(5) Where a group’s or official’s decision is overturned on appeal, the official or director may, in the interest of fairness, allow the thrower’s score to remain the same or adjust the thrower’s score to reflect the correct interpretation of the rules. Only in a case where a replay is the most fair solution, at the discretion of the director, shall a hole or holes be replayed.



In ball golf the player would be DQ'd, just like Michelle Wie earlier this year.

In ball golf the player would be DQ'd, just like Michelle Wie earlier this year.



We spend far too much time catering to people that can't or won't read the rules. I look forward to the day when DQ is the correct call for these types of situations.

In the Red Hawk Am Championships we had two different groups during the same round where one guy in each group was "forcing" players to take stroke and distance on shots that clearly went into OB water. (One of those guys runs a B-tier event)

I had to listen to upset players from both groups and then look them in the eye and let them know that it's their own responsibility to know the rules.

The reason lost disc and OB rules are different is because in one instance you "know" the location of the disc, in the other you "do not". There is a total and complete "break" with the continuity of play. In such cases the least we can do is provide an absolute and known lie directly related to the "real" continuity of play, in this case the last known lie.



I dont get this one Nick , Either way there is a true BREAK in the play
Disc goes OB and IF it is gettable ( ie retreviable by hopping a fence or whatever ) you take the time to go get it and shoot or vice versa .
What if you are OB and cannot see your disc then there is a break again to figure out the last location of the disc IB and therefore shoot from there .
Either way there is a break in the action and the flow of the game .



I'm not speaking of the "break in action" that happens between each shot as well, what I mean is that with OB and Unplayable, even 2mr at least you know where your disc is and where the lie should be accordingly, whereas with a lost disc you know neither the status (IB,OB, 2m, Unplayable, etc.) nor the location of your disc. That is a complete and total break in the main tenent of our game: "to play it where it lies..."

Based on this alone I think it deserves to be one of the more extreme penalties. I, as discussed, beleive that by it being a little more punitive, that it will result in better course design, maintanence, and player and spotter spotting. More than any of these reasons I like that it removes the possibility of favoritism or its alternative in deciding the next lie and makes it an absolute (the previous lie). For all these reasons I think it is a good rule and that these benefits will outweigh the perceived challenges in the longer run.

The reason lost disc and OB rules are different is because in one instance you "know" the location of the disc, in the other you "do not". There is a total and complete "break" with the continuity of play. In such cases the least we can do is provide an absolute and known lie directly related to the "real" continuity of play, in this case the last known lie.



I dont get this one Nick , Either way there is a true BREAK in the play
Disc goes OB and IF it is gettable ( ie retreviable by hopping a fence or whatever ) you take the time to go get it and shoot or vice versa .
What if you are OB and cannot see your disc then there is a break again to figure out the last location of the disc IB and therefore shoot from there . <font color="blue"> :Then you know both the location (within the OB area) and the status (OB) of your disc, whereas with a lost disc you know neither. </font>
Either way there is a break in the action and the flow of the game . <font color="blue"> Again, break in the action is not the question, break in the continuity of the game itself, in playing from your last lie as determined by the known location of your disc is. </font>

Based on this alone I think it deserves to be one of the more extreme penalties. I, as discussed, beleive that by it being a little more punitive, that it will result in better course design, maintanence, and player and spotter spotting.

At the AM worlds this year I posed a question about the PDGA NOT ALLOWING a certain place to have a sanctioned tourney based upon the following ,
Conflict of dates ( too many courses and not enough days in the year )
Lack of added cash
AND a lack of ability to have a clean and well designed course up to the standards of not having lost discs

At this time the PDGA said it would not , JUST say no , but in the future I can see it being a problem .

I am not in arguement about course design to be OK , nor with players spotting ( OF WHICH I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I AM BAD AT cause I am a TD and have just about 3 million other things on my mind then the spotting of other players discs ) but I have lost discs in wide open fairways or in woods just cause it kicked off a tree and ROLLED or what about in the fall when leafs are all over the ground or SNOW on the ground .

Are you trying to say that bad course design is location of courses anywhere where it might snow or leaves fall off trees
OR are you saying we should not hold PDGA tourneys at that time of the year considereing north has a short season to begin with
OR are you saying that we should have spotting spotters on every hole ( OH by the way this one will fix itself when we get galleries on every hole , which of course goes back to course design cause alot of wooded coursed have NO way to have a gallery that wont detract from players on every hole )


Another thing you state about flow of the game ( play it where it lies ) , if you are OB you cannot play it where it lies so therefore you should based upon your agruement of LOST disc have stroke and distance also on OB shots
AM I correct in this assumption ?

To summerize , I think the idea of better course design , clean courses , spotters ( both player and spectator ) are all good ideas BUT to punish a player who just happens to place a disc under a cover of leafs stroke and distance is wrong .

....
To summerize , I think the idea of better course design , clean courses , spotters ( both player and spectator ) are all good ideas BUT to punish a player who just happens to place a disc under a cover of leafs stroke and distance is wrong .



That is the problem with the new rule. Stroke and distance for a basically great shot that cannot be found for a reason beyond the control of the player, TD or course designer.

I hope you understand I was trying to make your point , Discette .
Beleive me , by in no means am I in agreement with the rule at this time , nor am I in agreement with making OB the same as Lost
I think it should go back to the old way of where it is last seen .

I definitely understood and agree with you. The problem is that Nick just doesn't seem to get it.

Based on this alone I think it deserves to be one of the more extreme penalties. I, as discussed, beleive that by it being a little more punitive, that it will result in better course design, maintanence, and player and spotter spotting.

At the AM worlds this year I posed a question about the PDGA NOT ALLOWING a certain place to have a sanctioned tourney based upon the following ,
Conflict of dates ( too many courses and not enough days in the year )
Lack of added cash
AND a lack of ability to have a clean and well designed course up to the standards of not having lost discs

At this time the PDGA said it would not , JUST say no , but in the future I can see it being a problem .

<font color="blue"> I'm not sure I get your point about this event as it relates to the topic under discussion, but will answer your questions. </font>

I am not in arguement about course design to be OK , nor with players spotting ( OF WHICH I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I AM BAD AT cause I am a TD and have just about 3 million other things on my mind then the spotting of other players discs ) but I have lost discs in wide open fairways or in woods just cause it kicked off a tree and ROLLED or what about in the fall when leafs are all over the ground or SNOW on the ground .

<font color="blue"> That is either bad spotting by the player, other players in his/her group, players in other groups, a spotter, or bad course maintenence prior to the event, or in some cases poor design of the course or a combination of all the above. Such rare cases (of a lost disc in the middle of a fairway) are tough luck, and yes I feel for the guy or gal who has that happen to them (though personally in 25 years I have seen this happen maybe 2 or 3 times); however this does not substantiate creating a new lie based on the "opinions" and judgement of players (who have already proven that they can't spot or search). </font>

Are you trying to say that bad course design is location of courses anywhere where it might snow or leaves fall off trees
OR are you saying we should not hold PDGA tourneys at that time of the year considereing north has a short season to begin with
OR are you saying that we should have spotting spotters on every hole ( OH by the way this one will fix itself when we get galleries on every hole , which of course goes back to course design cause alot of wooded coursed have NO way to have a gallery that wont detract from players on every hole )

<font color="blue"> Yes, it is not a bad point that holding an event when a course is knee deep in fallen leaves is a bad idea. </font>


Another thing you state about flow of the game ( play it where it lies ) , if you are OB you cannot play it where it lies so therefore you should based upon your agruement of LOST disc have stroke and distance also on OB shots
AM I correct in this assumption ?<font color="blue"> The lie for and OB shot is "known", that is the difference. </font>

To summerize , I think the idea of better course design , clean courses , spotters ( both player and spectator ) are all good ideas BUT to punish a player who just happens to place a disc under a cover of leafs stroke and distance is wrong .

The lie for and OB shot is "known", that is the difference.


The lie for an OB disc is not "known" anymore than the last place "seen" for a lost disc.

A guy on my card got screwed by the new lost disc rule yesterday at EI. His disc went in the top of a big palm tree lots of giant fronds. Couldn't tell if it went out the back or if it was (most likely) stuck up there where it couldn't be seen.

He had to go back and re-tee. Seemed pretty harsh since the last place we all saw it was above 2 meters in that tree. No 2MR at the monthly, though.

did he lay up on the subsequent shot, throw lower, or go for the same line? ;)

I would have demanded a jury trial on the reasonable evidence standard. :o

Can you quote that for me? I thought it only pertained to OB, as in you saw it go over the road and the road and beyond is OB, or you saw it splash in the mucky pond and the pond is OB.

All we saw was that it hit the palm trees and we didn't see it come down. It coudl've squirted out the back or ricocheted over a couple of more trees. Plus, where would the spot be? The last place seen? Nope, that was eliminated from this version of the rules.

The rules are complicated enough, if I argued the reasonable evidence rule, most likely everyone would assume it applied to 2-meter discs as well as o.b. discs. They would remember reading something in the rules about resolving those conflicts based on reasonable evidence and that would be good enough.

Moreover, if it was your disc and you argued the reasonable evidence rule, I'd say, "Yeah, I think we have reasonable evidence it is up in that tree. We saw it go in the tree. We never saw it come out. We don't see it on the ground anywhere."

The only thing reasonable men can do when the rules are unreasonable is to reasonably adhere to unreasonable interpretations! :D

I lost my scorecard, is there anyone else besides Nick that thinks the new lost disc rule is a good idea?

If a group decides based on their reasonable evidence that a disc went OB and the player throws from where (by group consensus) it was determined to go OB only to find their first disc further down right next to OB (but good), what's the call?

This seems like it is just one of many scenarios that would be non-issues if the lost disc and OB rules had the same consequences.

I lost my scorecard, is there anyone else besides Nick that thinks the new lost disc rule is a good idea?

If you have reasonable evidence that the scorecard is lost, I think you have to play it as lost. :D


If a group decides based on their reasonable evidence that a disc went OB and the player throws from where (by group consensus) it was determined to go OB only to find their first disc further down right next to OB (but good), what's the call?

This seems like it is just one of many scenarios that would be non-issues if the lost disc and OB rules had the same consequences.

This is one of the many examples where the creation of a new rule necessitates a geometric increase in the need for further new rules to deal with the new rules scenarios created by the new rule. We have a rule for a disc that has been declared lost and is then found. I don't think we have a rule for a disc that is declared reasonably evidently o.b., and is then found. Similarly, we have a rule for how long you can look for a lost disc, but do we have a rule for how long you can look for reasonable evidence that the disc is o.b.? Obviously, the longer you look for the disc in bounds unsuccessfully, the stronger the evidence becomes that it is at the bottom of the murky creek.

If you were to think to play your scenario both ways with a rules dispute provisional and then bring it up with your TD, I would apply the spirit of the lost disc found rule by analogy and tell you that since you acceded to the group ruling, you get the lost disc lie and score.

One of these scenarios actually came up in a competitive round last weekend. I was prepared to quickly call my disc o.b. and play from the water's edge to mitigate the penalty, the glass half full approach. Someone else in the group was not satisfied that the disc made it into the river because she thought it stuck in a bush. Maybe she was going for the lost disc and long walk back, or maybe she just thought we should look a little more. We looked a little while longer and found the disc in bounds. I don't think we looked more than three minutes.

It seems to me that after three minutes of looking you have to either take the lost disc penalty or make the reasonable evidence argument. If you make the reasonable evidence argument, nothing in the rules, including the 30 second rule, would prevent the group from looking a little while longer to firm up or refute the current state of the evidence, as far as I can see.

I don't know Bruce, I'm opting for the you get 3 minutes to look to see if it's OB, then three minutes to look because it's Lost, then 3 minutes to look because you're not sure if you threw or not, then 30 seconds to actually make your throw, providing of course that you've found the disc.

Bruce is right, this seems way to complex.

Who knows? This may have happened to me and probably on the same hole Bruce was describing if he was talking about Aurora. I pulled my tee shot hard into the woods on the left. The woods were only about 5-10 feet deep at that point at which the murkey creek came into play. The area where it went in was a bit thinner than the other woods. We looked for 3 (or perhaps 4) minutes at which point I asked the group what they thought. They all said they thought the disc was likely (but no positvely since the muck was too thick to see) in the river. I played from right where the disc was assumed to have gone o/b. We never found the disc and I still think its in Davey Jones' locker. However, we had to guess, conjecture surmise, figure out, where to place the disc. This was the reason the lost disc rule was put in place, to avoid this guessing game. Hmmm. Having reviewed this post I think I threw Jimmy Hoffa rather than a champion Beast..

I lost my scorecard, is there anyone else besides Nick that thinks the new lost disc rule is a good idea?



the intention to remove the subjective "where last seen" scenarios (in which a generous group might give a player lie X and a not-so-generous group might give a player lie Y) was a good one. the same lost disc with the same line might lead to lie Y in the middle of the woods according to one group and lie X on the edge of the fairway according to another. add in the the possibility that those two rulings can lead to a swing of two or more strokes and it makes sense to try and make the rule less subjective. (to as great an extent as possible the rules help ensure one's play determines where one places and not subjective group decision)

unfortunately the new rule created a few problems. i see two possible remedies:

1). go back to the old lost disc rule but change 'where last seen' to 'where last seen above the fairway.'

2.) make lost disc and OB the same deal

in the scenario Rhett brought up, i think it would be far less problematic if we had made 'disc suspended above playing surface' part of the OB rules instead of ever puting the 2 meter rule in a separate category than OB. then reasonable evidence would come into play and the up to 1 meter OB relief would help remedy the double jeopardy often involved in the old 2 meter rule (penalty plus obstructed lie)...

The lie for and OB shot is "known", that is the difference.


The lie for an OB disc is not "known" anymore than the last place "seen" for a lost disc.


You are talking about after the ruling, I'm talking about prior when you are finding your disc. A lost discs location is not known by definition; an OB discs location is known.

An OB disc in a murky creek or deep pond is not known. An OB disc that has left the park by going over a fence into deep woods is not known. In some cases you can see an OB disc and know exactly where it is. In many cases you can't.

And even when you can, it doesn't mean the current location of the disc has any bearing on where to spot the disc. LLoyd just had a disc go into the street and get carried about 400 down the road.

unfortunately the new rule created a few problems. i see two possible remedies:

1). go back to the old lost disc rule but change 'where last seen' to 'where last seen above the fairway.'

2.) make lost disc and OB the same deal



The problem with #1 is now people will now try to argue that their disc was lost rather than OB. The consequences for OB and lost disc need to be the same. That is why I would prefer both have the identical wording on the option as "where last seen inbounds". I agree the intention was good, but was the subjective location of a lie for lost disc really that vindictive? Was this such a problem that really needed to be solved with such a radical rule change? Most groups I played with felt sorry for the guy and gave a reasonable lie. It seems like this rule change has definitely made things worse. I can see a lot more vicious arguments about whether a disc is OB or lost than whether the lie should be dropped here or there.


in the scenario Rhett brought up, i think it would be far less problematic if we had made 'disc suspended above playing surface' part of the OB rules instead of ever puting the 2 meter rule in a separate category than OB. then reasonable evidence would come into play and the up to 1 meter OB relief would help remedy the double jeopardy often involved in the old 2 meter rule (penalty plus obstructed lie)...



I'd actually prefer the 2m rule to be simply defined as an unplayable lie. This also removes the double jepordy as you can go up to 5m back on LOP.

2.) make lost disc and OB the same deal




I'd actually prefer the 2m rule to be simply defined as an unplayable lie. This also removes the double jepordy as you can go up to 5m back on LOP.

Actually I've gotten burned on both rules under the old format. If you're far enough OB or go OB far enough away it becomes very subjective as to where you went out. Obviously, this is complicated in the case of a lost disc where you don't even have a lie to give you perspective. In either case, whatever call you make is a guess.

Even when players are trying not to hose you, that can be the end result. I had disc fly over OB water for 90% of its flight, fade in, skip off the edge of the pond and back into the drink. The call, it skipped off the pond and never touched dry ground. The disc skipped almost 4 feet into the air so an H2O bounce seemed unlikely, but who's to say. The guys on my card were good guys but there you have it. I commented and they felt I was wrong. Now, I could have insisted and under the rules been granted leeway but did not (too shy :D). The point is that no matter how you slice it, judgement calls are tough, whether its OB or Lost Disc.

unfortunately the new rule created a few problems. i see two possible remedies:

1). go back to the old lost disc rule but change 'where last seen' to 'where last seen above the fairway.'

2.) make lost disc and OB the same deal



The problem with #1 is now people will now try to argue that their disc was lost rather than OB. The consequences for OB and lost disc need to be the same. That is why I would prefer both have the identical wording on the option as "where last seen inbounds". I agree the intention was good, but was the subjective location of a lie for lost disc really that vindictive? Was this such a problem that really needed to be solved with such a radical rule change? Most groups I played with felt sorry for the guy and gave a reasonable lie. It seems like this rule change has definitely made things worse. I can see a lot more vicious arguments about whether a disc is OB or lost than whether the lie should be dropped here or there.

<font color="blue"> there are highly wooded courses where it could become quite contentious. say the lead group on the last day of Pro Worlds has a disc get lost on an over-the-top type shot on a par 5 hole. then the second card has the same scenario with almost the same line. card 1 has some contentious types who argue for and prevail that the lie is 100 feet off fairway in the middle of thick underbrush. card 2 has mellow good-guy types who make the call that it was last seen wherever it was last over the fairway. the guy on card 2 catches and passes the guy on card 1 by 2 strokes yielding a difference in several hundred dollars. ESPN films the event and the commentators are left explaining what happened (maybe this isn't probable but it is possible and the rules should seek to disincline this kind of subjective variance for the same basic scenarios) </font>


in the scenario Rhett brought up, i think it would be far less problematic if we had made 'disc suspended above playing surface' part of the OB rules instead of ever puting the 2 meter rule in a separate category than OB. then reasonable evidence would come into play and the up to 1 meter OB relief would help remedy the double jeopardy often involved in the old 2 meter rule (penalty plus obstructed lie)...



I'd actually prefer the 2m rule to be simply defined as an unplayable lie. This also removes the double jepordy as you can go up to 5m back on LOP.




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. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player�s score.



<font color="blue"> explain to me then how a player who throws a shot over a 250 foot lake that lands on the very edge of the shore after skipping 4 feet off the water marks their lie. do they have to re-tee? :confused:

also, as the player is the sole judge -- could a player opt to climb a tree and attempt to throw from their lie if they are suspended 3 meters up? (wouldn't that lead to likely damage to park trees?) </font>

Yeah, I like the new rule too.

If a disc is OB, but the location of the disc isn't known, it's LOST, not OB. Simple. So, you take a provisional, in case it really IS lost, and play the provisional if it really is. Right?

If it's OB, it's findable and the last point IB can be reasonably determined by a concensus of the group, or spotter, or whatever means. Play from that point.

What's the issue? It really seems like the arguments are made for the sake of arguing. The rule is pretty clear cut, in reality. Even I understand it.
:confused:

OB rule trumps lost disc so if the status of the disc is known (sunk into murky OB pond) but the exact whereabouts of it is not -- the disc is played from where last seen over IB or the best guess of the group. i have heard some people mistakenly try to argue that a disc sunk in an OB pond is a lost disc if it can't be retrieved or seen :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'd actually prefer the 2m rule to be simply defined as an unplayable lie. This also removes the double jepordy as you can go up to 5m back on LOP.




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. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player�s score.


explain to me then how a player who throws a shot over a 250 foot lake that lands on the very edge of the shore after skipping 4 feet off the water marks their lie. do they have to re-tee? :confused:



I know I editted out some of the quote here, but I wasn't sure what you were getting at (or asking).


also, as the player is the sole judge -- could a player opt to climb a tree and attempt to throw from their lie if they are suspended 3 meters up? (wouldn't that lead to likely damage to park trees?)



No, the TD would have to declare that discs suspeneded over 2m must be considered unplayable lies.

Rule change proposal:

Definition- Two meter rule: Where designated by the director, a penalty for discs that come to rest two meters or higher above the playing surface. The director may declare the two meter rule to be in effect for the entire course, or just for individual obstacles.

803.06 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.

803.06 B. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player�s score.

804.01 C. The two meter rule may be utilized in special conditions. A director may declare prior to the start of the round that discs that come to rest two meters or higher above the playing surface are an unplayable lie. In this case, the player would proceed in accordance with 803.06.B. If no penalty is announced prior to the tournament round, none will be assessed when a disc comes to rest two meters or higher above the playing surface. The director may declare the two meter rule to be in effect for the entire course, or just for individual obstacles.

One technical problem with this wording is that when the 2m rule is in effect, the player could not mark their lie directly below their suspended disc because it would mathematically be closer to the hole. The lie would need to be marked back a little bit or a lot depending on how high it's suspended, especially if it's suspended near the basket area.

This is what happens when you try to do something too fast and when there are three different places in the rules that specify the same rule. I'll make a new proposal later when I have the time.

Mike, why have the 2 meter rule at all. Just have a rule that allows TDs to create elevated OBs wherever and whenever they want. What is so sacred about 2 meters, why not allow them to make 1 meter or 3 meters OB? I still haven't gotten a clear answer from the PDGA RC on this, but I don't see anything in our rules that would prevent such a use of OB.

Options:
You declare all discs that come to rest more than 1 meter above the playing surface as being OB.
Better: You mark with string on the surface around key trees and stipulate that any disc within that area and not in contact with the playing surface is OB. (You could add an elevation stipulation to that as well if you wanted.)

The 2 meter rule just doesn't work as a universal (coverall) rule, even some 2 meter rules proponents realize this. By eliminating it completely, we basically force any such idea of an aerial hazard into the OB or casual area sections of our rules.

Both of which are better, fairer, more consistant and easily understood sections of our rules.

Trying not to take the 2m bait...
I cringe every time I hear that above 2m is OB for this same reason: If space above a certain height is OB, the determination of where the disc was last IB gets insanely harder and would result in rules becoming more complicated.

I'd actually prefer the 2m rule to be simply defined as an unplayable lie. This also removes the double jepordy as you can go up to 5m back on LOP.




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. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player�s score.


explain to me then how a player who throws a shot over a 250 foot lake that lands on the very edge of the shore after skipping 4 feet off the water marks their lie. do they have to re-tee? :confused:



I know I editted out some of the quote here, but I wasn't sure what you were getting at (or asking).



<font color="blue"> presently the OB rules allow up to 1 meter relief from OB -- even if it takes you closer to the pin -- because the rule is that all support points must be InBounds for a stance to be legal. If you propose unplayable lie remedies to all OB -- then a player could not mark the lie closer to the hole. Therefore a disc resting half on the shore and half OB on a hole where an OB pond was between the teepad and the green would have to be re-tee'ed since a legal stance would not be possible. </font>


also, as the player is the sole judge -- could a player opt to climb a tree and attempt to throw from their lie if they are suspended 3 meters up? (wouldn't that lead to likely damage to park trees?)



No, the TD would have to declare that discs suspeneded over 2m must be considered unplayable lies.

Rule change proposal:

Definition- Two meter rule: Where designated by the director, a penalty for discs that come to rest two meters or higher above the playing surface. The director may declare the two meter rule to be in effect for the entire course, or just for individual obstacles.

803.06 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.

803.06 B. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player�s score.

804.01 C. The two meter rule may be utilized in special conditions. A director may declare prior to the start of the round that discs that come to rest two meters or higher above the playing surface are an unplayable lie. In this case, the player would proceed in accordance with 803.06.B. If no penalty is announced prior to the tournament round, none will be assessed when a disc comes to rest two meters or higher above the playing surface. The director may declare the two meter rule to be in effect for the entire course, or just for individual obstacles.

[/QUOTE]

<font color="blue"> the problem here is that the arbitrary 2 meters should go if your goal is really to improve the rules by making them more concise and with fewer categories (disc suspended above playing surface, OB, Lost, Unplayable, etc.). why can't a TD call 1 meter or 3 meters the height since OB is up to the TD and must be announced in the Player's Meeting? This is a place where Nick's suggestion of making vertical OB an option available to TD's and leaving the 2 meter rule dead and resting in peace makes sense. it would also help mitigate the double jeopardy for which the 2 meter rule was often denounced since a player would get the 1 meter relief afforded by the OB rule and the TD could implement vertical OB conditions specific to the hole or course involved just like they can with other OB areas. marking the lie would simply continue to follow the present rule for discs suspended above playing surface.

imo, anyone criticizing the RC should attempt to come up with a solution that fixes the problem being criticized -- and proposing a new rule wording is a good start. not because the RC is infallible or above reproach, but because that way others here can point out potential problems with it and the proposal can be improved ;) as Chuck pointed out, all the rules are interconnected to a certain extent -- changing the rule in question would involve the rules regarding legal stance, marking the lie, disc suspended above playing surface, unplayable lie, OB, etc. so there are a lot of ducks to keep in a row :eek: i like the idea of improving the rules, but it seems like any proposed change makes it clear the devil is in the details... </font>

ok, now your scenario makes a little more sense. I was proposing using the unplayable lie penalty only for the 2m rule. I do not put 2m and OB in the same category and thus what seemed perfectly separated to me may have been confusing to someone else. I was not intending that the unplayable lie should be extended to cover normal OB.

but the player is the sole judge of whether the lie is unplayable (and could therefore try to climb the tree, roof, etc. and attempt to play it from where it lies). if you are suggesting that a player should get up to 5 meters relief away from the pin on the LOP when TD's implement the 2 meter penalty -- it sounds like an improvement to me. i had thought your proposal arose out of the lost disc scenarios and that you proposed unplayable lie as a way of merging the consequences for Lost Disc and OB rulings...

I took a tangent from the lost disc scenario based on Rhett's "can't find the disc in the tree" scenario. Whoops! inadvertent thread hijack.

If you look in my sample wording above, I split the unplayable lie above into an A and B so that B could be referenced independently of the "sole judge" clause.

The lost disc [803.11] and misplay - wrong tee [801.04B.(1)] rules apply to this situation. The correct penalty was 3 strokes. 801.04B.(1) defines �Wrong tee� as �Teeing off from the wrong teeing area�. That is exactly what the player did when he was required to re-tee by 803.11 and threw from his first lie.

I would argue that 801.04 requires that the throw be made from the wrong "teeing area" and a lie marked by only a mini in the fairway does not meet the requirements of a teeing area.

800 - Teeing Area: The area bounded by the edges of a tee pad (if provided); otherwise, the area extending three meters perpendicularly behind the designated tee line.

Therefore, only the misplay is applicable.

Trying not to take the 2m bait...
I cringe every time I hear that above 2m is OB for this same reason: If space above a certain height is OB, the determination of where the disc was last IB gets insanely harder and would result in rules becoming more complicated.



Not if Previous Lie or a Drop Zone were the only available options, then last place in bounds would be irrelevant.

I agree that a "lie marked by only a mini in the fairway does not meet the requirements of a teeing area".

803.11 requires the lost disc thrower to re-tee. A re-tee is a throw from the tee area. On a lost disc any 2nd throw location other than the tee area for the current hole is wrong. On a re-tee, throwing from a non-tee area is every bit as wrong as throwing from a tee area for another hole. Why should we conclude that a non-teeing area is not "the wrong teeing area" given that both are misplay and wrong? Do you agree that the phrase "not the right teeing area" is linguistically a whole lot like the phrase "the wrong teeing area"?

It should not be disputed that he threw from "the wrong area". So the only issue is whether use of the root word "tee" makes 801.04 inapplicable to this scenario. You say it was not a re-tee because it was not from a teeing area. I say because it was not from the correct teeing area it was from the wrong teeing area. 803.11 provides no options on a lost disc. "The player will re-tee for the next shot". The next shot is a re-tee. Nothing the player can do can change that. Ignorance of 803.11 does not change the application. The next throw is a re-tee because 803.11 says it is. A re-tee is a tee. Since it is a tee from the wrong area it is a tee from "the wrong teeing area".

I have to admit though I still wonder why 801.04 does not simply provide for playing from the wrong "throwing area". This scenario was clearly a throwing area misplay. The rule describes throwing area misplay and covers tee and OB throwing areas. To top it off there is a different rule (803.10) providing for the wrong throwing area of "another player's lie". It provides the exact same penalty (2 strokes and play on) when discovered after a subsequent throw as in this scenario. Did the drafters actually believe there were good reasons for treating this wrong throwing area differently from the others?

I think the drafters intended the wrong teeing area to apply to players playing from the incorrect tee when more than one teeing ara is provided for a hole and to apply to the initial tee, not subsequent re-tees.

The throwing from another player's lie has always perplexed me. It seems that it exists to prevent players on one hole from playing from and carrying away discs that belong to players on an adjacent hole. In 18 years, I have only seen the situation arise once.

I think the proper application of the existing rules is merely a misplay of the hole with a 2 stroke penalty. Maybe one more for failing to read and apply the rule book.

We had someone play from another player's lie in a tournament earlier this year... Two people threw identical white glow aviars on the same hole, both were parked, he didnt bother to check the name written on the bottom of the disc before holing out. Instead of a drop-in 2 he took a 4. Ouch.

In discussions with Carlton and Bellinger during the Summit, it was apparent that one way to resolve the "playing from another lie" issue is to just have the penalty be consistently 1-shot if you do not play from your proper lie. There's no reason why playing from another player's lie should be 2 throws versus playing from any other place that's not your lie being one throw (typically practice shot). The idea would be to change the rule such that if you make a throw from a location that is not your proper lie, it's a one shot penalty. Then, you don't have all of these arguments over 1-shot versus 2-shot penalties.

In that case, there should be an additional penalty for picking up someone elses disc during play to encourage players to always double check to verify the disc they are putting in their bag is in fact theirs.

To be more specific, there should be a higher penalty for playing another player's disc because it interferes with the other player's ability to play the hole properly.

Something like this:
You drive and are down the left side of the fairway pretty good. Two other players have similar shots, but one player turns his shot over into the woods on the right early. it doesn't look too deep so you proceed down the left side of the fairway. The other three players go to the right to look for the disc in the woods. They find it fairly quickly and the player throws out. You come up on your white firebird, it looks a little short from what you remember, but there it is. You play your up shot. The next player plays his shot. The last player looks a little confused, but finds a white firebird onthe edge of the fairway that looks like his. He just doesn't think he threw that far. He looks at the disc, and it's not his disc, it's your disc. He asks where you threw from so he can play his next shot. .......

I have seen this in the past ...................

There should be an additional penalty for picking up someone elses disc during play to encourage players to always double check to verify the disc they are putting in their bag is in fact theirs. :eek: " Hey , did you pick up my Disc ?"

To be more specific, there should be a higher penalty for playing another player's disc because it interferes with the other player's ability to play the hole properly.

I think it is a automatic 2 stroke penality now without warning.

I agree that for throwing the 2nd throw from the wrong area "the proper application of the existing rules is merely a misplay of the hole with a 2 stroke penalty". Throwing from the wrong area and not discovering it before the next throw should be penalized with 2 strokes because 801.04 and 803.10 mandate that penalty for other wrong area throws not discovered before the next throw. For similar reasons there is no replay or practice throw penalty.

Add 2nd throw misplay to the 1st throw lost disc penalty for 3 penalty strokes on the hole. The throw from the found disc was a declared provisional and did not count. Assuming the player parked his original 2nd throw and made his putt on the next, he has 3 throws and gets a 6 on the hole.

If the player had discovered his 2nd throw misplay before the putt resulting in the 3rd throw being from the tee, the penalty strokes would have been only 2 (1 lost disc + 1 wrong area throw / practice throw). The player would have had a good chance at achieving a 5 with 3 throws from the tee box. He would have been rewarded for the early discovery of the misplay even if it was only discovered early because the TD appeared and pronounced the correct rule.

A player who gets no penalty for failing to play provisionally in accordance with a group decision should be grateful.

I think I counted the hypothetical (discovery before the putt) wrong - forgot the 1st throw. He gets a 6 either way. There is no reward for early discovery on a lost disc re-tee misplayed from the wrong area.