If someone is standing at thier lie, placing their putter up on their hand intending to do a turbo putt, and they drop the putter (clearly before trying to putt) is that considered a throw?

I do believe that if you have addressed your lie and you have its a throw i may be wrong but the key is you addressed your lie

<font color="blue"> Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. Throws that are re-thrown in accordance with the rules are not practice throws. Provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3) are not practice throws. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2). </font>

I'd rule it as not a throw. If it's clearly dropped accidentally, it's not being projected toward a target.

I'd rule it as not a throw. If it's clearly dropped accidentally, it's not being projected toward a target.


Agree. If, however, the player attempted a turbo and flubbed it to have it drop to the ground, then integrity would require that they count that as a stroke.

In the definition of throw, "the propulsion of a disc..." Dropping a disc is not propulsion of a disc. I would not consider it a throw.

Hmmm... Practice throw uses "the projection of a disc..." Projection is not the right word here. If I catch any of you visualizing your shot, I'm going to call you for a practice throw. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I would rule no throw, simply a drop.

hmmm...i was given a stroke at a tournament once when: on my drive, I parked under the basket. when i was picking up to hole out, the disc slipped from my hand (actually I hit the bottom of the basket when I was picking up my driver). so instead of a 2 on the hole i was given a 3.

In the definition of throw, "the propulsion of a disc..." Dropping a disc is not propulsion of a disc. I would not consider it a throw.

Hmmm... Practice throw uses "the projection of a disc..." Projection is not the right word here. If I catch any of you visualizing your shot, I'm going to call you for a practice throw. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

So how would you score it if a player misses a drop in putt that does not go two meters on his miss? I've seen this happen at least twice. We've always counted that as a throw.

its a throw. it was towards a target, and the player had not yet thrown competitively. its a real throw not a practice throw, cuz it was towards the basket. mark it and try again.

Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.

I guess I'd have to see it to rule on it. If gravity is the only thing acting on the disc (dropped), I'd say not a throw. Otherwise, if he was in the act of throwing competitively and it actually travels laterally, it was a throw.

Here's an interesting tangent to the original scenario:
What if the player brings it up to throw, but the disc slips out of his hand, he bobbles it a couple times, but he catches it before it hits the ground?

Neither of these instances would be counted as a throw if you were on my card! In the spirit of the game, accidents happen. I am not talking about a disc slipping out of your hand on your drive, or the disc catching on your finger on a putt, or losing your footing and throwing way to the right or left. Those would be throws. If the disc is dropped on accident, it is not a throw. I have marked my lie from 1 meter away, taken my putter and missed. This is a throw. Not talking about that. If they mark the disc under the basket and accidentally drop it, it is not a throw. If they drop their putter, it is not a throw!

Neither of these instances would be counted as a throw if you were on my card!


Based on the rules as they exist, I agree with your statement.

The statement does, however, present a problem. That being there are many gaps in our rules that will need to be filled in over time. Although, I think most of us would not charge the player with a stroke in this situation, some reasonable people would.

To write a rule governing this situation we could go one of two ways: with either intent or physical movement of the disc governing. I'd like to see a "throw" be defined as an attempt to propel the disc towards a target. Some may not like this definition as it leaves room for the player alone to demonstrate integrity by stating, "I flubbed that turbo, it counts as a stroke". I believe in keeping with the spirit of the game of golf as an honorable activity, the best example being the time Arnold Palmer stabbed his putter into the ground behind the ball on a 6 inch putt and called it as a stroke. To those around him it appeared just to be a pre-shot waggle.

The other test would be simply:
Did the disc leave the player's hand?
Did the disc strike the ground and/or another object?
(That allows for the case of catching a bobble before it hits the ground as not being a throw.)

In golf, if you waggle and knock the ball of the tee on the tee box it doesn't count as a stroke, but if you waggle and your ball moves from it's position in the rough it does. Either of these situations could be interpreted differently if they were not specifically spelled out in the rules, but thankfully they are.

the funny thing is, the existing rule is clear: if you propel it towards a basket while standing at your lie, its a live throw. your example of Arnie's self-call would not be possible if you word it to include "intent". if you go by the letter of the current law it's gotta be a stroke.

When the disc was being picked up under the basket and then dropped, it was moving away from, not toward the target. No practice throw penalty.

if it was moving away, then no penalty. if it was moving towards, then yes penalty.

your example of Arnie's self-call would not be possible if you word it to include "intent".


?not following you on that one

It would be hard for a DRUB (disc resting under basket) to move toward the target if being picked up then dropped from under it. A disc projected toward the pipe under the basket should not be considered moving toward the target, just for clarification.

If a player is pulling a DROT off the basket and it slips out of their hand, falling into the basket, it wouldn't count as being in based on the practice throw rule. It would count as a practice throw (since the disc was moving toward the target) plus the next throw to hole out. So down in two instead of one after a DROT.

If a player is pulling a DROT off the basket and it slips out of their hand, falling into the basket, it wouldn't count as being in based on the practice throw rule. It would count as a practice throw (since the disc was moving toward the target) plus the next throw to hole out. So down in two instead of one after a DROT.



Not sure I agree with this. If the player were pulling the disc away from the basket and it slipped out of their hand, fell straight down and dropped into the basket, how can you say it was propelled toward a target? I agree with Sandalman, if the disc is moving away from the target and is dropped, no stroke. If it is moving toward the basket and is dropped, stroke.

......Larry

I believe strict reading of the Practice Throw definition in the Glossary would indicate that accidentally dropping the disc you were sliding off the top of the target would meet the definition of practice throw. The motion of the disc would be little different from when a player makes a drop in putt. I'm not saying it's fair to call it a practice throw, just reading the words as written. Now, since the basket is less than 2m high, if the disc drops all the way to the ground, the last half of the motion (and more of the total motion) is away from the basket. Perhaps only if it goes in the basket it's a practice throw?

I believe strict reading of the Practice Throw definition in the Glossary would indicate that accidentally dropping the disc you were sliding off the top of the target would meet the definition of practice throw. The motion of the disc would be little different from when a player makes a drop in putt. I'm not saying it's fair to call it a practice throw, just reading the words as written. Now, since the basket is less than 2m high, if the disc drops all the way to the ground, the last half of the motion (and more of the total motion) is away from the basket. Perhaps only if it goes in the basket it's a practice throw?



It would be overly punitive to count such as a practice throw. Perhaps a strict reading of the definition supports such, but some calls require looking at more than one rule. Rule of fairness would need to be considered in conjunction with the practice throw definition.

If this organization is going to penalize players for accidentally dropping a disc, then we should be just as diligent in disqualifying those who throw temper tantrums on the course.

Rules should be enforced equitably, not selectively.

It would be overly punitive to count such as a practice throw. Perhaps a strict reading of the definition supports such, but some calls require looking at more than one rule. Rule of fairness would need to be considered in conjunction with the practice throw definition.


ROF is for when a specific situation isn't adequately addressed in the rules. In this case it is clearly written.

It may be overly-punitive and the rule could use re-writing, but if it's clearl in the B&amp;W then it's the rule.

Accidentally dropping a disc while marking your lie is not specifically addressed in the rule book. I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

As Chuck mentioned above, the top of a target is less than 2 meters from the ground upon which it is situated (if it isn't, there's something wrong with your target installation) so it doesn't meet that requirement. Also, I don't feel that a disc that slips out of your hand by accident meets the definition of projecting a disc.

There are plenty of items in the rule book that could use a re-write and this may just be another one.

I would score that as a shot, because it was an obvious attempt to propel the disc towards the target.


So how would you score it if a player misses a drop in putt that does not go two meters on his miss? I've seen this happen at least twice. We've always counted that as a throw.

Recently I saw this in a tournament. How should this be scored?

A player drives and it is assumed he goes OB. He sees a disc on the other side of the ditch he thinks is his because of similar color. So, he marks in bounds and takes his next shot. Upon retrieving his disc after that throw it is discovered that it wasn't his disc at all. His disc was not found; lost disc. He re-tees and finishes the hole in 3 shots from the re-tee. Bizarre.

His second throw would count as a practice throw so he ends up with a 6. If he called his second shot a provisional throw before retrieving that disc on the possibility it wasn't his, then he would not get the practice throw penalty.

Recently I saw this in a tournament. How should this be scored?

A player drives and it is assumed he goes OB. He sees a disc on the other side of the ditch he thinks is his because of similar color. So, he marks in bounds and takes his next shot. Upon retrieving his disc after that throw it is discovered that it wasn't his disc at all. His disc was not found; lost disc. He re-tees and finishes the hole in 3 shots from the re-tee. Bizarre.



He should have played the hole under 803.10 in which case he would complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his own and add two penalty strokes.

Since he did not finish the hole using the correct rule, I would rule the shot from the wrong lie as a practice throw. Score would be 1 for original throw, 1 for practice throw, 1 for penalty of lost disc plus 3 shots from re-tee for a 6.

The rules state clearly what to do when you play from another player's lie. If someone in the group had a copy of the rules of play, he wouldn't have had to go back to the tee and it would be very easy to determine the correct score.

He didn't play from another player's lie. He marked a lie as if it were his own disc across the OB.

He didn't play from another player's lie. He marked a lie as if it were his own disc across the OB.



How is that not playing from another player's lie?

If a player is pulling a DROT off the basket and it slips out of their hand, falling into the basket, it wouldn't count as being in based on the practice throw rule. It would count as a practice throw (since the disc was moving toward the target) plus the next throw to hole out. So down in two instead of one after a DROT.



If the player had marked the lie, pulled the DROT off the basket, dropped it in and pulled it out, that's a made putt.

Are you saying the place where an OB disc is marked is not the lie? This player thought that was his disc that was OB and marked his lie appropriately. It turns out it was another player's disc and therefore he played from another player's lie. He should complete the hole as if it was his own lie, and take a two stroke penalty.

What if he had found his disc after taking the throw from the other player's lie and it was not OB, how would you rule then?

Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. Throws that are re-thrown in accordance with the rules are not practice throws. Provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3) are not practice throws. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

The DROT retrieval scenario does change the lie because it is a propulsion of the disc *from* the lie (assuming the player's foot was on the lie). If the player's foot was not on the lie, it becomes a stance issue, not a practice throw issue.

Special K

Chuck and I are discussing the scenario presented upthread by theotherneal. Your last two posts do not really seem to be addressing this issue.

I can see the logical argument for assessing a practice stroke in the situation we are discussing. Apparently there are two logical ways to rule in this situation.

In my second example, the player found his disc and it was not OB. It would be far less punitive to call it a practice stroke and let him play the hole from his correct lie. If it was ruled as another player's lie, he would have to take the OB stroke plus a two stroke penalty. I would not want to over-penalize a player. In the original example, it may have been less punitive to call it another player's lie. Again, I would prefer to use the rule that caused the least amount of penalty to the player. What if the TD does not agree with this line of thinking?

Perhaps the rules committee can add a Q &amp; A for this situation as well? It is a gray area that could use a little further clarification.

My thread structure is set to "flat". I didn't realize I was in the wrong subthread. Sorry for the confusion.

Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. Throws that are re-thrown in accordance with the rules are not practice throws. Provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3) are not practice throws. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

The DROT retrieval scenario does change the lie because it is a propulsion of the disc *from* the lie (assuming the player's foot was on the lie). If the player's foot was not on the lie, it becomes a stance issue, not a practice throw issue.



Propulsion involves some type of force exerted upon the disc by the player to cause it to move toward the basket. If the disc drops from your hand by accident, that's not propulsion.

I can't believe that the rules were written so that players are penalized for this scenario. What's next? If you trip while walking to the next hole and all your discs fall out of your bag and some of them roll more than two meters forward, you get practice throw penalties?

The pseudo-philosophy and literal interpretations that take place here at times are approaching the absurd.

He didn't play from another player's lie. He marked a lie as if it were his own disc across the OB.



For me, if you mark your lie based on an OB disc that you think is yours, then that's essentially playing from another player's lie. 803.10 does not specifically address the possibility of this happening in an OB situation. So, when the rule says "another player's lie", it includes inbound lies as well as OB lies that must be marked inbounds before proceeding to complete the hole. Otherwise, 803.10 only applies to inbound discs, which couldn't possibly be the intent, nor is it fair or logical.

If a player takes a stance behind a disc that's been lost by someone else, maybe even a week ago, that's not another player's lie. The disc has to be actively in play to be another lie. Otherwise, it's just a practice throw. The disc on the other side of OB might have been in play on a fairway going the other direction. In which case, the player would also get a 2-shot penalty for picking up another player's disc in play (803.07C) in addition to the practice throw.

Where in the rules does it say that the disc must be actively in play?

The disc that the player thought was his was actually an old broken, crusty disc that surely no one was using in the tournament.

We had a rule book and I knew very well how to rule it, but as there was some confusion we discussed it with the TD after the round.

The disc that the player thought was his was actually an old broken, crusty disc that surely no one was using in the tournament.



I see. I was assuming that it had been determined afterwards to be another player's lie. That is indeed different and a practice throw penalty seems to be the right choice.

Where in the rules does it say that the disc must be actively in play?



It doesn't. But logic would dictate that a disc that is not being used by someone else in the tournament cannot be considered another player's lie. It would be the same as some Bud Light cans that someone left behind the week before.

If a player takes a stance behind a disc that's been lost by someone else, maybe even a week ago, that's not another player's lie. The disc has to be actively in play to be another lie. Otherwise, it's just a practice throw. The disc on the other side of OB might have been in play on a fairway going the other direction. In which case, the player would also get a 2-shot penalty for picking up another player's disc in play (803.07C) in addition to the practice throw.



Agreed, but you have to take the time to make the determination of whether it is a disc in play or something someone lost. Upon discovering that it is not your disc, that would be the first question to answer before proceeding to determine the appropriate rule and penalty. I made the mistake myself above of assuming the OB disc was another player's lie in the example scenario.

Nice thread drift, this is a good question and should be in its own topic.


Recently I saw this in a tournament. How should this be scored?

A player drives and it is assumed he goes OB. He sees a disc on the other side of the ditch he thinks is his because of similar color. So, he marks in bounds and takes his next shot. Upon retrieving his disc after that throw it is discovered that it wasn't his disc at all. His disc was not found; lost disc. He re-tees and finishes the hole in 3 shots from the re-tee. Bizarre.

Where in the rules does it say that the disc must be actively in play?



You can't play from another player's lie unless the disc is actively in play. Otherwise, it's just a disc in a field, not a lie. Rule 803.10 states specifically what to do when playing from another player's lie. Rule 803.07C says what to do if you touch another player's disc that's in play.

Here are my musings:

1. If the player had stated that they were taking a provisional due to time for retrieval, then it would be no issue, they just play as if it was a lost disc and the player picks up their provisional throw.
2. If the player had not stated that they were taking a provisional then there are serious grounds for considering the incorrect throw a practice throw.
3. If the player holed out before retrieval then the closest equivalent was a misplay and the player gets the score they shot, including the penality for OB plus 2 for misplay.
4. If it was clear the disc went OB to a majority of the group and the group agreed where it went out, regardless of whether they used the disc assumed his as a site on location, then the player can still say that they went OB and play on regardless of the disc being lost in OB.

Just remember guys and gals, calling for a provisional is allowed in the rules and can save you from quite a bit.


Recently I saw this in a tournament. How should this be scored?

A player drives and it is assumed he goes OB. He sees a disc on the other side of the ditch he thinks is his because of similar color. So, he marks in bounds and takes his next shot. Upon retrieving his disc after that throw it is discovered that it wasn't his disc at all. His disc was not found; lost disc. He re-tees and finishes the hole in 3 shots from the re-tee. Bizarre.

Question in 803.01 C on Provisional Throws. If a player calls a Provisional Throw from not finding a disc in a timely manner and to speed up play. Does that Provisonal throw counts as a Penalty ???

is Anyone Gonna Answer My question?????????????????

Maybe because the answer is right in the Glossary under Provisional Throw.

Provisional Throw: An extra throw, agreed upon by a player�s group, that is not added to a player�s score if not used in the completion of the hole. Additionally, a set of provisional throws that will be allowed to complete a hole as an alternative to the original play of the hole, when there is a disputed ruling. Only one set of throws will be counted as the player�s score when a final ruling is made.



If you don't have a rulebook, get one or three. It's good to have one in the bag, to kill a few minutes with in the wc, or in lieu of counting sheep at night. ;)

I got the Book. It is just the way it's worded I'm alittle confuse.

So want your saying then is It doesn't count as a penalty stroke. Ok now what if you call it and the group don't give it to you and say take a stroke penalty then what. ???

Either your provisional gets used as your official next throw because you DID take a penalty since your disc was called OB or lost. Or, your disc is found and the provisional throw doesn't count because you continue playing from your original throw.

Thanks Chuck thats all I was looking for. Now it makes much since now.

This came up this weekend at a small tourney.


A player throws his disc over a small thick area of trees. The disc clearly hits a tree and falls down. When the group came to the "spot" they cannot find the disc. The do find a water hole.

My group came to the tee. They asked me what the rule was. I didn't know for sure. I gave them a rule book and went and looked for the disc. I took a stick and probed the water hole. It was about 2 feet deep and much bigger then I thought.


Should the person retee, we never found the disc.

Should the person play from a lie close to where the disc "may" have went O.B.??

There's no reasonable evidence the disc went in the water, especially since it was out of sight. If your group just discovered the water hole and it wasn't identified as OB by the TD, then it's casual not OB by default. Player retees with a lost disc penalty.

foot fault. Is that just a warning and no rethrow or a warning and a rethrow. I'm looking in the book and it is not define. ???

just a simple question looking for a simple answer.

foot fault. Is that just a warning and no rethrow or a warning and a rethrow. I'm looking in the book and it is not define. ???

just a simple question looking for a simple answer.



803.04.G

Thank you. Miss that part.

Is a person able to play intermediate and then advanced in the same weekend for the same tournament? So If the person played intermediate on saturday, and then wanted to play advanced on sunday and it is for the same tournament is this legal?

Yes, assuming their rating was under 915 going into the weekend. That's the reason many events are on split days so players can play in two different divisions.

If my ranking goes above 915 do i have to move up and play advanced?

Yes, unless you get an exemption from the PDGA Tour Director or you are playing in a series that has rules allowing you to remain in a lower division for the duration of the series.

I doubt your rating will go above 915 with the June ratings update.

A player throws his drive into some murky water OB left of the basket. A disc is seen in the water there. Everyone in the group thinks this is the thrower's disc- it was the same color, the trajectory looked right, etc.) In the interest of speed of play, etc. player marks his lie at the OB point and completes the hole with the penalty stroke, making the putt for a three, counting the penalty.

Before going to the next tee, the disc is retrieved, and the player discovers that it's not his disc. The group looks for another couple of minutes and it's declared lost. Player goes back and retees. Completes the hole in 3 more throws for a five.

The group scores the five and plays on.

Is five the correct score?

Bruce,

Interesting question.... I could see it one of three different ways.

1) As the group was in agreement on the "lie" at that point of time, the player played as if it were his disc. Once it was discovered that he was playing from the improper disc, I believe the 2 stroke playing from the improper disk would apply, thereby adding up to 5.

2) The group agreed based upon the evidence they see at that point in time, and once the further evidence is uncovered, their opinion changes. The player continues to play as the second scenario, and he gets a 5. Using the rule of fairness, the other shots should not be construed as practice shots, as he had a group concensus on the situation in question.

3) One could make the additional argument, that the group agreed the disc went out-of-bounds (based on the statement, <font color="red"> "Everyone in the group thinks this is the thrower's disc- it was the same color, the trajectory looked right, etc."</font> ) As such, the lie should be at the agreed upon point where the disc went Out of Bounds (which apparently was established) with a 1 stoke penalty. Count as a 3.

My judgment of this would be 3 would be the correct score, as argument #3 would likely lead me conclude there was a decision made. In addition, since it obviously was not a tremendous hardship to retieve said disc (since they did so prior to the next tee) to validate and any of the other players could have requested the retrieval of the disc prior to the shot, the other players in the group made a decision to ignore the possibility that it could have been another players disc.

From a personal perspective, I may have been accepting of the 5 based off of the first (more likely) or second scenario, only if it was a matter of me being too lazy to retrieve the disc prior to the throw. In either case, I would have played the second one as a provisional, and discussed the series of events with the group, so as there is no confusion as to how it went down. Then I present to the TD for a decision.

SEnk

I thought that if a disc is seen going into OB water, it is not declared lost, but declared OB.

I thought that if a disc is seen going into OB water, it is not declared lost, but declared OB.



If the disc was seen going into the water, then it doesn't matter if it can be retrieved from the water or not.

Oops, you guys are absolutely correct! If it is seen going into the OB, lost disc would never apply. The only issue that may be in question would be the setting of the lie for the next shot. However, even this is not really in question as the group had agreed on the approximate lie (even if it is based off of bad info). The 3 would be the correct score.

Thank you,

SEnk

Well, I'd agree that the answer is not obvious, because it is not obvious to me, but assume that nothing was ever said about any of the throws being provisionals.

It seems to me that there can be no 2-throw penalty for playing from the wrong disc because that is not the rule. The penalty is for playing from another player's lie, and we have no reason to believe that the disc in the water entered the water in such a way as to give rise to a lie, or where that lie might be. The person may have dropped that disc out of their bag or discarded it in the creek because it was useless. Who knows. It does not seem to be a disc in play.

It seems to me that innocently playing from an incorrect lie that is not another player's lie is merely a marking error, and if anyone had called the marking error, it would be a warning. There was a group consensus on the o.b. so he completed the hole with a three. And then all those extra throws would be practice throws because the group never allowed them as a provisional. 6?

I'm not sure. I've been thinking about it, and that's my best guess.

I guess what this question is asking is, what if the group makes an o.b. call based on reasonable evidence, and then the guy completes the hole, and then the evidence changes? Does the call change? Is the call irrevocable once it is made, accepted and the player plays on?

Or maybe this rules scenario is asking something else. :confused:

The whole thing was a non-issue when the lost disc penalty and the o.b. disc penalty were basically the same penalty for this situation.

I'd say it's a 5.

Reasonable evidence the disc went OB, even though it was not found. Group should have gone the "extra mile" and made sure the disc they found was the right disc before the player threw again. They did not. One stroke for OB. Another penalty stroke for the "practice" throw that went in the basket. After that, they did right by having the player go to previous lie (tee box) and hole out from that point, which was 3 more strokes, for a total of 5.

I'd say it's a 5.

Reasonable evidence the disc went OB, even though it was not found. Group should have gone the "extra mile" and made sure the disc they found was the right disc before the player threw again. They did not.



It doesn't matter if the disc is found or not. They all saw it go OB, so it is declared OB and taken inbounds from where it went out. It doesn't matter if you find your disc, find another disc, or find a disc that you thought was yours but wasn't. Nothing matters after you go OB, you just take it inbounds where the group thinks it went OB.

I'd say it's a 5.

Reasonable evidence the disc went OB, even though it was not found. Group should have gone the "extra mile" and made sure the disc they found was the right disc before the player threw again. They did not. One stroke for OB. Another penalty stroke for the "practice" throw that went in the basket. After that, they did right by having the player go to previous lie (tee box) and hole out from that point, which was 3 more strokes, for a total of 5.


huh? I don't follow your logic. If you stroke him for OB, and the group agrees on his lie, and he putts, the hole is over with a circle 3.

Another penalty stroke for the "practice" throw that went in the basket.



And am I wrong? I thought that a first practice throw must be called and seconded, then the player is warned. A second throw that is called and seconded is a stroke. Is this correct?

I thought that a first practice throw must be called and seconded, then the player is warned. A second throw that is called and seconded is a stroke. Is this correct?




A throw during a round is a throw that counts as your actual next throw from your lie or as a practice throw unless it's specified as a provisional.

The warning is only for throws between the 2 minute warning and start of play. After that, practice throws are immediate penalties.

The warning is only for throws between the 2 minute warning and start of play. After that, practice throws are immediate penalties.



Ah yes that is what I was looking for. Thank you for the correction.

O.k., I've got another thought. Under the rules if the time to search runs out and the disc is declared lost, the player takes the lost disc penalty even if he thereafter finds it in the creek, o.b. So maybe the rule should be, if the group agrees that a disc is o.b. based on it looked like it went in the water and there it is, and the player accepts the ruling and plays on, the ruling stands even if they later learn the disc in the water is not the disc he threw.

Drive + o.b. penalty + putt = 3, and three more pointless throws makes 6.

Bruce,

I can buy the 6 (I forgot about the three "practice throws" after the completion of the hole in my initial thought).

My followup on this would be outside of requesting the card be marked both ways and assuming that no provisional was called, would you see this as simply the cost to the player of not knowing the rules or how to interpret them (3 additional strokes)?

Also, are you looking at this thread as a way to point out the amount of confusion that can occur in these scenarios and where a rulings book may come in handy? :p

SEnk

I'm just pursuing my curiosity. I never know where that will lead. The scenario arose at an Illinois tournament last weekend.

As a TD, if they called it a five and someone later wanted a ruling, I'd probably let the 5 stand, because that is a reasonable interpretation of the rules. But the more I think about it, once the group has called a disc lost, o.b., missed the mando, in a casual relief area, or whatever, and the player accepts the ruling and plays on, that should be the end of it.

Belatedly finding the disc o.b. does not undo a lost disc call after the lost disc call has been made. So nothing should undo the o.b. call in this circumstance.

But since the player did accept the group consensus on both calls, and played on both times, maybe he should get the benefit of that and get the 5. Except that ignores the throw that became a practice putt, so he really gets a six either way.

hmmm. ???

I got a 6.

From the description, the hole was played to completion correctly the first time. The additional throws related to the re-tee were practice throws. Provisional throws need to be identified prior to playing either ruling. In this case, the ruling was OB, and the player had to choose last spot IB, or previous lie. There was no rulings dispute. If the choice was lost of OB, the decision was made that it was OB. It really doesn't matter if the evidence used was false, it is what was available at the time the call was made.

The rules do not allow for the replay of a completed hole, not even a provisional replay. If there is a major error in the way the hole was played, then the nearest ruling should be a misplay and two strokes would be added to the existing score.

I agree with Gary, for what it's worth. (And note, this is my call, not necessarily the opinion of the RC).

There was no reason to go back to the tee and rethrow. The fact that the disc fished out of the OB was not the player's in question is immaterial to this dicussion. From Bruce's description, I'm assuming the group was reasonably sure the disc was in the OB murky water, therefore it is treated as being OB and not lost.

I also have no problem with a player going back and re-teeing PROVISIONALLY if the group couldn't decide what to do, but the player would have had to declare he was playing provisional throws BEFORE throwing any such shotsm and in this case, that would include not only the re-tee and subsequent throws, but also the putt completed from where the original tee shot was last in-bounds. That's what the provisional rule is for. Since the player did not declare those throws to be provisional (oops), he gets practice throws for the 3 extra throws. Nice 6....live and learn.

Chap

I agree with Chap and Duke as well, but as a sometime TD I would assume that the group made the player go back and play the hole as a lost disc as a provisional I would call it a circle 3. If the players in his group disagreed then I would be forced to ask them if they had watched his disc go out and as a group had selected the point it went out, then why was it even a question that it was lost. Of course they may answer that they did not see it go out, but made the assumption it went out when they saw the disc in the water.

Just another example of why a disc should be retrieved and verified prior to throwing.

Interesting that we all read the same set of rules and come up with no less than three interpretations on this case. Whether they are written well or not is beside the point. If this is the result, there's a problem.

My "5" was based on the fact that the disc used to determine the last inbounds point was not the correct disc, and thus the next shot was not made from the correct place. Perfectly logical to me, and it appears I'm not alone. Yet it is considered wrong further up the "chain of command" because there appears to be no penalty for using a disc you did not throw to determine your last inbounds point.

The fact that there is a penalty for throwing from someone else's lie, but apparently not for marking your lie based on someone else's disc, seems illogical to me.

The rule for throwing from someone else's lie is to prevent you from picking up the lie after you throw and preventing the other player from having a lie to throw from.

In this case, the group has to determine the last spot in bounds from which the disc is to be played. The fact that they chose a spot based on a visible disc that was not the correct one really has no bearing on the validity of the lie they chose. They were not supposed to pick the lie closest to the OB disc, but the lie where the thrown disc was last in bounds. If they allowed a similar disc visible in the OB to influence their decision, it does not make the lie incorrect.

If the seen disc was far enough from the last in bounds spot to cause concern, then someone in the group should ask for proof that the disc in the OB was the correct disc.

The point is that the rules do not allow the player to go back and replay the hole once he has holed out. The nearest rule is 801.04.D. If it was truly a misplay, then there would be an additional 2 strokes added to the completed hole score.

The rule for throwing from someone else's lie is to prevent you from picking up the lie after you throw and preventing the other player from having a lie to throw from.[QUOTE]


I understand that. A logical extension of this is that using a disc which is not the one you threw for the determination of your lie is not allowed.

[QUOTE]
In this case, the group has to determine the last spot in bounds from which the disc is to be played. The fact that they chose a spot based on a visible disc that was not the correct one really has no bearing on the validity of the lie they chose.[QUOTE]


That just defies logic and I respectfully disagree.

[QUOTE]
They were not supposed to pick the lie closest to the OB disc, but the lie where the thrown disc was last in bounds.[QUOTE]


I understand that as well.

[QUOTE]
If they allowed a similar disc visible in the OB to influence their decision, it does not make the lie incorrect.[QUOTE]


Again, this defies logic IMO.

[QUOTE]
If the seen disc was far enough from the last in bounds spot to cause concern, then someone in the group should ask for proof that the disc in the OB was the correct disc.[QUOTE]


I agree completely. There should be a penalty for not doing so.

[QUOTE]
The point is that the rules do not allow the player to go back and replay the hole once he has holed out. The nearest rule is 801.04.D. If it was truly a misplay, then there would be an additional 2 strokes added to the completed hole score.

cool graphics mike :)

cool graphics mike :)



However unintended! I didn't think it would keep pushing text over to the right :D

It's just that the group has the job of determining the last inbounds spot. That's what they did.

After they have agreed on a spot, and the player has played the agreed upon lie, it is too late for the group to change their mind.

What is the logic that would allow a group to change their collective mind after a lie has been played. The group may have made a mistake, but the player should not be penalized for it.

I don't know that they changed their collective mind as much as they found out that they had collectively screwed up by using erroneous information to determine the lie. The player was part of that error. Make an error, get a penalty.

But there is no penalty defined for determining an incorrect approximate lie. It's kind of part of the definition that the lie won't be exactly correct.

To put it another way:

The group sees the disc fly toward the OB area, the area is well mowed short of the OB, so there is no doubt that the disc is OB.

The group decides the disc went about even with a large tree and gives the player spot in the fairway level with the tree even though the disc can't be found in the tall grass around the base of the tree.

The player lays the next shot under the basket for a drop in 4 (3 throws + penalty). After the shot has been played,

1) the disc is found in the OB area 50' ahead of the tree.

2) the disc is found barely IB 50' ahead of the tree.

3) the disc is found OB 50' short of the tree.

How should the three situations be played ?

To put it another way:

The group sees the disc fly toward the OB area, the area is well mowed short of the OB, so there is no doubt that the disc is OB.

The group decides the disc went about even with a large tree and gives the player spot in the fairway level with the tree even though the disc can't be found in the tall grass around the base of the tree.

The player lays the next shot under the basket for a drop in 4 (3 throws + penalty). After the shot has been played,

1) the disc is found in the OB area 50' ahead of the tree.

2) the disc is found barely IB 50' ahead of the tree.

3) the disc is found OB 50' short of the tree.

How should the three situations be played ?




Answer for 1,2,&amp;3:

Play from where the disc was found, record both scores, ask the TD or another official for their ruling, and don't discuss it on this forum because someone will disagree with you and/or the TD/official.

That is indeed another way of putting it because none of those examples involve using someone else's disc to approximate last inbounds.

Then say there was a disc of the same color stuck in the OB tree. Does that change anything ?




The group is supposed to mark the spot where the disc was last inbounds.

In all of the cases above, the disc was seen to go OB level with the tree and was marked as such. In all cases, the disc may have deflected off the tree and ended up where it was later found. In the cases where the disc remained OB, finding the disc somewhere else does not change the validity of the original spot.

I don't think that would change anything because they did not use it to determine last inbounds. They did their best based on what they saw from the tee since they could not initially find the thrown disc. Finding the thrown disc later doesn't change anything in this case. Again, the key point in the earlier example was that the group used someone else's disc to determine last inbounds.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

Mike,

I can see your concern, but it was a group call that they messed up. It should have been based on where they saw it go OB. However, once the call is made, and the hole completed I don't see how the player could possibly go back and rethrow. As I stated earlier, it is the groups responsibility to watch the disc for this type of call. If the disc was seen to go out at a significantly different place than the disc in the murky water implies, then someone should have stepped up. If the group decided it went OB and the group decided it went out at a particular place, what rule allows the player to go back and replay the hole?


I don't think that would change anything because they did not use it to determine last inbounds. They did their best based on what they saw from the tee since they could not initially find the thrown disc. Finding the thrown disc later doesn't change anything in this case. Again, the key point in the earlier example was that the group used someone else's disc to determine last inbounds.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

I'd say it's a 5.

Reasonable evidence the disc went OB, even though it was not found. Group should have gone the "extra mile" and made sure the disc they found was the right disc before the player threw again. They did not. One stroke for OB. Another penalty stroke for the "practice" throw that went in the basket. After that, they did right by having the player go to previous lie (tee box) and hole out from that point, which was 3 more strokes, for a total of 5.



Here's my orginal calculation. In review, I find it wrong because I didn't check up on something I "thought" I knew. My stupid mistake, without a doubt. Penalty beating for me. :eek:

Alacrity, I see your point about there being no provision for them to re-play after the misplay was discovered. Per 801.04(5)D, if there's a misplay, you just add 2 strokes if you have already holed out. Still a 5.

And I still feel that it is a misplay because they used someone else's disc for dertermination of last inbounds. I see that as an extension of 803.10 per 803.01F.

I'd say it's a 5.

Reasonable evidence the disc went OB, even though it was not found. Group should have gone the "extra mile" and made sure the disc they found was the right disc before the player threw again. They did not. One stroke for OB. Another penalty stroke for the "practice" throw that went in the basket. After that, they did right by having the player go to previous lie (tee box) and hole out from that point, which was 3 more strokes, for a total of 5.



Here's my orginal calculation. In review, I find it wrong because I didn't check up on something I "thought" I knew. My stupid mistake, without a doubt. Penalty beating for me. :eek:

Alacrity, I see your point about there being no provision for them to re-play after the misplay was discovered. Per 801.04(5)D, if there's a misplay, you just add 2 strokes if you have already holed out. Still a 5.

And I still feel that it is a misplay because they used someone else's disc for dertermination of last inbounds. I see that as an extension of 803.10 per 803.01F.



I disagree, and I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned, but it doesn't matter whose disc it is in the water. You mark the spot where the disc entered, not where it lay. So, it's either a 2 stroke penalty for mismarking the OB lie, or none at all for correctly marking where the disc entered. Possession of the disc in the water doesn't matter at all. The mistake is using the disc to mark the lie, regardless of whose it is.

Dover,

That point has been made and it was stated the group used the lie of the disc in the murky water, not the last place they saw it go OB, to determine placement. After the throw it was determined the disc was the wrong disc and the group decided their placement was in error. I am argueing that it was a group mistake, the group should have called the lie based on where they saw the disc go OB. There is precidence for accepting the group call as if an official made the call and at that point the decision is complete.

You just said the exact same thing I said. I agree with you completely. I was taking issue with Mike's statement.


And I still feel that it is a misplay because they used someone else's disc for dertermination of last inbounds.



He quotes 803.10 in error, because the disc in the water is not another player's lie. It's just a disc in the water. By definition, it can't be a lie.

You just said the exact same thing I said. I agree with you completely. I was taking issue with Mike's statement.


And I still feel that it is a misplay because they used someone else's disc for dertermination of last inbounds.



He quotes 803.10 in error, because the disc in the water is not another player's lie. It's just a disc in the water. By definition, it can't be a lie.



Not exactly accurate. I quoted 803.10 per 803.01F. I feel that it is a logical extension of the "throwing from someone else's lie" rule. You're not allowed to throw from someone else's lie, and according, logic would dictate that you are not allowed to use someone else's disc to determine last inbounds.

And while the disc in the water used to determine last inbounds may not have been someone else's lie (it could have been sitting there for weeks for all we know), it was undeniably someone else's disc.

Mike,

The part where others are disagreeing with your logic is that you can not penalize the player for throwing from someone else's lie, when it was the group that chooses where the player must play from. Did the group make a bad decision due to the disc that was in the water? Maybe so, but thats not the player's fault

I agree with Dover and others: by definition, it can't be a lie.

Using your logic, he would be penalized the same as if he had walked up to somebody else's lie and played as if it were his. However, in this case he did not, his group made a decision on where went out and thats where played from (regardless if it was a good decision or not)

For argument sake, how do you know his disc wasn't under the murky water within a few feet of the visible disc, in which case the group made a good decision

The subtle difference is in who is choosing. With regards to playing from another player's lie, the offending player makes an incorrect choice of lie and is penalized +2. In the case of OB, the majority of the card determined the lie based on that it was the last place in bounds. The player should not be penalized based off a group that flip-flops on their decision.

To put it another way:

The group sees the disc fly toward the OB area, the area is well mowed short of the OB, so there is no doubt that the disc is OB.

The group decides the disc went about even with a large tree and gives the player spot in the fairway level with the tree even though the disc can't be found in the tall grass around the base of the tree.

The player lays the next shot under the basket for a drop in 4 (3 throws + penalty). After the shot has been played,

1) the disc is found in the OB area 50' ahead of the tree.

2) the disc is found barely IB 50' ahead of the tree.

3) the disc is found OB 50' short of the tree.

How should the three situations be played ?



I think this is a good question and I'm kind of disappointed that more people have not responded.

The statement "there is no doubt that the disc is OB" answers the question on reasonable evidence (even if they were wrong as in #2)

So if the group decides the disc did in fact go OB based on this reasonable evidence and this reasonable evidence was used to determine the player's lie (and the player agrees; otherwise he'd throw a provisional and ask the TD later), then I would say the player (and group) played all 3 of this situations correctly

Not exactly accurate. I quoted 803.10 per 803.01F. I feel that it is a logical extension of the "throwing from someone else's lie" rule. You're not allowed to throw from someone else's lie, and according, logic would dictate that you are not allowed to use someone else's disc to determine last inbounds.

And while the disc in the water used to determine last inbounds may not have been someone else's lie (it could have been sitting there for weeks for all we know), it was undeniably someone else's disc.



But that does not necessarily mean that it is an incorrect lie. It is possible that the players disc did in fact cross into OB at that point, but is lying further out into the OB and is not visible.

The rule states that when a disc is OB, and the player is electing to play as per 803.09.B.2, then he shall play his next shot from "A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official."

There is no mention of what evidence is to be used, what is acceptable, or what is unacceptable. A vague "I dunno, about there?" "Yea, whatever" is allowed under the rules, as long as the majority of the group agrees.

The 'evidence' of people's eyewitness accounts is routinely be shown to be highly suspect. How can you allow one form of unreliable evidence but not another? Even if they're both subsequently proved to be wrong?

To put it another way:

The group sees the disc fly toward the OB area, the area is well mowed short of the OB, so there is no doubt that the disc is OB.

The group decides the disc went about even with a large tree and gives the player spot in the fairway level with the tree even though the disc can't be found in the tall grass around the base of the tree.

The player lays the next shot under the basket for a drop in 4 (3 throws + penalty). After the shot has been played,

1) the disc is found in the OB area 50' ahead of the tree.

2) the disc is found barely IB 50' ahead of the tree.

3) the disc is found OB 50' short of the tree.

How should the three situations be played ?



I think this is a good question and I'm kind of disappointed that more people have not responded.

The statement "there is no doubt that the disc is OB" answers the question on reasonable evidence (even if they were wrong as in #2)

So if the group decides the disc did in fact go OB based on this reasonable evidence and this reasonable evidence was used to determine the player's lie (and the player agrees; otherwise he'd throw a provisional and ask the TD later), then I would say the player (and group) played all 3 of this situations correctly



Definitely. Once the group has decided that there is reasonable evidence that the disc is OB, and picked the lie based on that evidence (whatever it is), that is the players lie. The fact that the evidence is subsequently found to be incorrect is irrelevant.

Mike,

The part where others are disagreeing with your logic is that you can not penalize the player for throwing from someone else's lie, when it was the group that chooses where the player must play from. Did the group make a bad decision due to the disc that was in the water? Maybe so, but thats not the player's fault

I agree with Dover and others: by definition, it can't be a lie.

Using your logic, he would be penalized the same as if he had walked up to somebody else's lie and played as if it were his. However, in this case he did not, his group made a decision on where went out and thats where played from (regardless if it was a good decision or not)

For argument sake, how do you know his disc wasn't under the murky water within a few feet of the visible disc, in which case the group made a good decision



I'm well aware of where the disagreement lies. I believe that using someone else's disc to determine last inbounds is not allowed pursuant to a logical extension of 803.10 as provided for by 803.01F. There are other arguments being made that it is allowed.

The player was part of the group. It was a group decision. Therefore, the player, by definition as part of the group, was part of the decision. If the player had insisted on positive identification of the disc used to determine last inbounds, such as saying "hey that's not my disc and you should not use it to determine last inbounds", then that would be different. The player did not request such an identification. That being the case, I don't see how you can say that the player had no control over the decision, or that it wasn't their fault.

I have already agreed that the disc was not necessarily someone else's lie. I also stated very clearly in my last post the logic and rules I used in concluding that a player is not allowed to use someone else's disc to dertermine last inbounds.

If the thrown disc was in fact only a few feet away in the murky water, it would indeed have been a good group decision, except for the fact that they used a disc that was not the thrown disc in order to determine last inbounds. They should have checked the disc and upon discovering that it was not the thrown disc, they should have done their best reckoning as to where he disc was last inbounds. They did not do so. My whole argument is based on this very distinct and important point.

Reasonable evidence of the disc going OB has never been in dispute.

I disagree that it is irrelevant as to what evidence is used to make a last inbounds determination. You can't just walk down to the vicinity and use any 'ole object you find to make that determination. Usually, recollection from the tee box is what is used. Or some landmark that the disc was seen hitting on the way OB. If you find the thrown disc, that is the best evidence. But I feel that it is imperative that the disc be positively ID'd as the thrown disc. That's what's required in 803.10. I feel that a logical extension of 803.10 requires the same degree of care in this case as well.

I agree that the rules don't say what is acceptable evidence and what is not. I think this is a case where common sense has to come into play in deciding that. Using a tree or large rock that the thrown disc was seen to hit from the tee would be good. Walking down to the vicinity and saying "hey, here's a dead frog on the ground; let's use that to determine last inbounds" would not be good, IMO. To me, using a dead frog is just as arbitrary (and wrong) as using a disc that was lost on the course weeks ago.

Reasonable evidence of the disc going OB has never been in dispute.

I disagree that it is irrelevant as to what evidence is used to make a last inbounds determination. You can't just walk down to the vicinity and use any 'ole object you find to make that determination. Usually, recollection from the tee box is what is used. Or some landmark that the disc was seen hitting on the way OB. If you find the thrown disc, that is the best evidence. But I feel that it is imperative that the disc be positively ID'd as the thrown disc. That's what's required in 803.10. I feel that a logical extension of 803.10 requires the same degree of care in this case as well.



I guess I just don't see why you should be punished differently for different kinds of incorrectly interpreted evidence. The examples posted above are all kinds of incorrect evidence no different to mistakenly identifying a disc. There is no defined penalty for incorrectly marking a lie from OB when it's a group decision. Regardless of what was used to make that decision.

The point is that it is a group responsibility to determine the approximate lie based on that last point inbounds.
Once that spot is determined by the group or official, then that's the Official spot.

The group must make the best decision based on the information at hand when the approximate lie is determined, once the lie is marked and the shot made, it's done.

I have no dispute with what you are saying. I just feel that the group should be held accountable to use evidence related to the throw. A disc lost weeks ago by someone else is not evidence (or "information at hand" as you say) of where the thrown disc was last inbounds.

Mike,

I think we all agree that the wrong disc should not have been the determining factor in the decision of the lie. The rule states nothing about the group using a disc to determine the spot, it states the last place seen in bounds. So you are correct the group made a poor call, but sometimes that is the way it goes, as you well know. Once the call was made and the player threw, it should have been all over.


I have no dispute with what you are saying. I just feel that the group should be held accountable to use evidence related to the throw. A disc lost weeks ago by someone else is not evidence (or "information at hand" as you say) of where the thrown disc was last inbounds.

Fair enough; I see your point clearly and completely. But I think this is one of those little things that can add up and work against us in establishing respect and credibility for the sport of disc golf.

It is a point that needs to be handled by the TD, or at least the group. There should be a spotter on holes where throws may often go OB and the group has a poor view from the tee box.

If no spotters are available, the TD should advise the groups to send out spotter from the group. If there is a back-up, then players from the group behind should act as spotters to help speed things up.

It is a point that needs to be handled by the TD, or at least the group. There should be a spotter on holes where throws may often go OB and the group has a poor view from the tee box.

If no spotters are available, the TD should advise the groups to send out spotter from the group. If there is a back-up, then players from the group behind should act as spotters to help speed things up.



Yes, I agree. Having a spotter there empowered by the TD to make determinations of last inbounds would take the idiot factor out of the equation.

If you read 804.09.C carefully,

...The director may empower non-certified officials to act as spotters for a specific purpose. The ruling of such a spotter supersedes the ruling of the group.



The empowerment comes with being made a spotter by the TD. If the TD says you are a spotter, you have the final word on where the disc went OB.

Yes. That's what I just said, albeit in different words. A bright, intelligent spotter empowered by the TD can overrule a group of knuckleheads using a lost disc from three weeks ago to determine last inbounds. :D

This may have been asked before but it came up in a tourney a week or so back...You come up to your throw disc, mark it, and then pick up your disc and toss it to your bag 3 feet from you. Is there a rule on that. The tossing the disc to your bag. One said there was, I thought there was a certain distance you could toss it back and the other said there was no rule. What's the deal?

This is one of those cases where the rule is found in the definitions. :(


Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. Throws that are re-thrown in accordance with the rules are not practice throws. Provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3) are not practice throws. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

The only question left is whether the bag qualifies as a target.
I think it does.

No, the only questions are was it further than 2 meters <u>OR</u> was it toward the TARGET (i.e, <u>BASKET</u> )

If your bag is ahead of your lie, than yes, it is a practice throw. If your bag is behind your lie make sure it is no more than 2 meters behind you before you chuck it towards it.

I would disagree on that one (that a bag is a target). Every other use of the word target in the rules clearly refers to the disc entrapment device or object used to complete a hole.

So if I put my bag in front of the tee and drop it in do I record it as an ACE? :D

Then it is OK to throw at trees less than 2m away ?
Or do you just have to be lucky and there not be a basket anywhere along the line that you were throwing ?
Or does it have to be the basket on the hole you are playing ?

Because is says "a target" instead of "the target", I don't think it is refering to a basket.

Its ok to invent rules as you go along, makes the game play faster. Just ask Chuck he does it all the time in the discussion group. Probably hoping no one will actually look the rule up. Right Chuck? :D

I harken back to the phrase on the first Frisbee regarding "Invent Games" I'm just a traditionalist in some ways. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'm not exactly sure of the history of this rule, but the wording has gone thru some changes. Distance, direction, AND the lack of intent are now part of this rule/definition.

As in most every need for a rule, it is designed to eliminate an unfair advantage gained by unfair play. Part of the rule exists to keep a player from tryin out an upcoming throw, but it also exist to keep a player from cheating in the shule.

And don't forget that this rule/definition also describes a toss that counts as a throw and NOT as a practice throw.

Possible scenario 1: Shulehead Sam wanks his drive into the rough. Sets his bag down at the edge of the tree line. Marches into the foliage to mark and throw. Card players don't have a clean look at his foliage covered upcoming throw. Disc dribbles out and lands near his bag (which was sort-of in the direction of the basket/target (sorry Gary. UB off). "I'm just thowing back to my bag", declares Sam.

Are you ready for this?
If you were in my group I would rule -- One stroke, new lie. Easily inferred from the "previously thrown" language.

Possible scenario 2. Same as above, but Sam has already thrown from his foliage covered lie, and THEN he dribbles a disc out by his bag. Result -- one penalty stroke for a practice throw, Lie already established by previous throw. It's really quite simple, the players on Sam's card don't know if he is trying out another disc for the same shot, don't know if he just got mad and threw a mulligan, or if he was tossing his driver back to his bag. And they don't have to know Sam's purpose or intent. Penalty throw.

Bottom line. If the disc toss in question is "sorta-kinda" towards the basket OR over 2 meters (6'6") AND it is from a lie that is marked and not yet thrown from, then it counts as a throw and marks the next lie. Intent don't matter.
I see the rule as a deterrent. Goofed up shots and "practice throws" look similar way too often.

And if you have already thrown. Dang it. Don't throw again. It counts. Don't make me as your card partner have to decide if your everloving "bag throw" was in the direction of the basket. Tell them Alabama boys to quit pitching thier discs back to their bag. It is all too often a genuine penalty.

Ron Pittman

I agree with all of that except the need for the throw to be toward "the target" currently in play. The wording of "a target" instead of "the target" (as used elsewhere in the rules) to me means simply a directed throw, not a throw directed toward the basket of the hole in play. A throw toward a specific tree is a throw toward "a target". Otherwise, you have to take into account the luck of the situation that a player tosses in a direction that contains no basket from any hole versus a player that tosses toward a basket five holes away.

The following rules use the word target in specific terms and deal with the playing a hole.
800: Hole - "the target"
800: Holed out - "the designated object target"
800: Line of Play - "from the center of the target"
801.04 Playing the Stipulated Course 3) Wrong Target - "the wrong target"
801.04 Playing the Stipulated Course 3) Wrong Target - "that target"
801.04 Playing the Stipulated Course 3) Wrong Target - "the wrong target"
803.07 Interference B) - "the target"
803.12 Mandatories A) - "the target"
803.13 Holing Out C) Object Targets - "the marked target"

The following rules use the word target in general terms and seem to speak in generalities.
Introduction "The player is provided with a teeing area from which to begin each hole and a target to complete the hole."
800: Disc Entrapment Device - "A target used to complete the hole"
800: Practice Throw - "toward a target"


I point that out because the rules normally use the term "the target" to refer to the target in play and use "a target" only twice outside of the practice throw definition. I believe that they used the general term on purpose, and in fairness, it can't be restricted to just the 18 random directions that represent "a target" on the course.

Gary,

I get what you are trying to say, but I think that Ron's point of "lack of intent" may change your point. When someone throws, it is assumed that the _target in play_ is the assumed goal of the throw, and not a specific item on the course.

Also, the "target" does change on holes that have mandatories, so maybe that explains the use of the generic word "target".

I think, for the Rules of Play, that a "target" can only refer to 2 things: a mandatory, and the "disc entrapment device"

Not to be contrary, but I think "a target" means the targets being used on the course where the rules call needs to be made, not just anything that can be used or considered a target, and not just the target for the hole you are playing. It's also probably an economization of words. "A target" is much shorter than "an object being used as a target on the course", but I think that's the intent of the rule. Nonetheless, it does say "a target" and people have taken that to mean anything that can be used as or considered a target.

Safest thing to do is to never throw a disc during a sanctioned round unless it's your turn and you mean to do so.

There are two possibilities to consider here. First of all the intent of the rule was to allow you to mark your disc and turn around and toss it to your bag or simply out of the way. It was assumed that this throw was not a practice throw and that the player intended to simply remove the disc from the immediate area.

The second thing to consider is that a player could get an advantage by tossing his or her disc at a tree that is just short of 2 meters away. Here the player is intending to practice their putting and practice throws are of course penalized. So, the rule book leaves this one up to interpretation. There are times when I want to get a disc out of the way. As an example, I am 6 feet into a cedar that I had to climb hands and knees into to get to my disc. I cannot carry the disc out easily and I want my hands free. The rule allows me to toss it out, as long as it is not at a target and not over 2 meters. The problem is, if I am tossing the disc out the way I came in, I will be throwing at a target, the space not occupied by the cedar. I have no intent to gain practice, I just want to get out of this itchy tree. If I pick up a disc and toss it behind me, could we not argue my target is the ground?

Really I think that intent has to be considered and if I saw a player abusing the rule I would tell them that it appeared they were trying to practice and alert them to the fact that their actions could result in a penalty.

Really I think that intent has to be considered and if I saw a player abusing the rule I would tell them that it appeared they were trying to practice and alert them to the fact that their actions could result in a penalty.



Jerry, if you saw a player abusing a rule, why would you not invoke the rule then and there? I'm not picking on you, really, but I think that (almost) all of those reading this should agree that the rules should be applied consistently, instead of "threatening" to invoke a rule if it happens again. Especially if this is a tournament round, and you are playing with those in the same division as you, and said players _are ASSUMED BY DEFAULT_ to have a knowledge of the rules. There can be no appearance of bias if the rules are applied consistently, and I don't believe that ignorance of a rule is a valid reason to excuse the infraction, not even the first time.

Any comments from the peanut gallery? I've said this before. The Rules are defenseless, and it is up to us to defend the Rules, and this defense should be unbiased and consistant.

The other point is whether the toss was performed prior to the "real" throw. If the toss was done first while the player was standing at the lie, it could be argued that the toss is the real throw based on the definition of "throw".


Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.



Note that there is no limitation on direction or distance when standing on your lie.

Best practice: move the disc aside if it is not being used as the marker and place it in your bag when done.

The practice throw definition is not clear enough to say for sure that any purposeful toss is not against the rule.

Bill,

I agree with you, but in this circumstance it is questionable as to intent. If the player's actions could be argued to be within the guidelines of not towards a target and not further than 2 meters, but as being in question then I would tend to give the player the benefit of the doubt. I am not talking about obvious practice. If I see a player lining up like they are putting and throwing at a tree just short of 2 meters away I would confer with other players and there would not be a warning, but in that case intent was not in question.



Jerry, if you saw a player abusing a rule, why would you not invoke the rule then and there? I'm not picking on you, really, but I think that (almost) all of those reading this should agree that the rules should be applied consistently, instead of "threatening" to invoke a rule if it happens again. Especially if this is a tournament round, and you are playing with those in the same division as you, and said players _are ASSUMED BY DEFAULT_ to have a knowledge of the rules. There can be no appearance of bias if the rules are applied consistently, and I don't believe that ignorance of a rule is a valid reason to excuse the infraction, not even the first time.

Intent has a place. However, since none of us are mind readers, you cannot know what that person's intent is. Now if the player says, "I am tossing this disc back to my bag for convenience.", you know what their intent is and can make an appropriate corrective response.

I try not to be a rules nazi, however, my question is "How can you really play the game unless you know the rules?" It is a fundamental part of playing any game or sport.

If you do not know, in baseball, that you can not interfere with a baserunner, and yet you do, it does not eliminate the penalty, regardless of your intent.

Steve

"How can you really play the game unless you know the rules?" It is a fundamental part of playing any game or sport.

Steve



Well said! Please remember, you are not a "rules nazi" if you apply the rules consistently and without bias, no matter how _apparently_ "minor" the rule seems to you to be. We need to have the mindset not to brand the rule-invoker as the "bad guy". Even the alleged rule breaker is not a "bad guy" per se.

Steve,

I pretty much agree with you, but almost every rule we have is open to some interpretation.

Now what do you do if they don't call out that is what they are doing? Or better yet what if they state they are not throwing at a target? If I am throwing a disc to my bag I do state the purpose before doing so. The problem here, as opposed to the rule in baseball is the ambiguity of the definition:

Practice Throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. Throws that are re-thrown in accordance with the rules are not practice throws. Provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3) are not practice throws. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

We are going to have to split hairs here, but how do I determine a throw that is less than two meters but appears to be at a target is or is not a practice throw? According to a strict interp of the rule, a player could claim they are not throwing at a target and yet toss every putter they own at a tree. I am not using the tree as a target, only as a back stop, they state. Is it still a practice throw? They clearly stated they were not throwing at a target and they threw less than 2 meters. My opinion is they are practicing and I would tell the player that while they appeared to be within the guidelines of the rule, I believe they are practicing and will call them for practice shots. They can then go to the TD and discuss the call. I don't think anyone would argue that if they tossed towards a basket, regardless of it being 2 meters or less, they have just thrown a practice thrown, but what about other "targets"? If you read the thread you see that some claim anything is a target. Then by stating you are tossing to your bag, you are defining a target. If it is only a basket, then can someone toss at a tree as I have outlined above? The only way I can think to do this is to determine intent. I realize the definition says regardless of intent, in my mind, this is towards THE target. So to add a little discussion, which of these is a practice throw? (all are less than 2 meters away)

- A player states they are throwing to their bag and does so
- A player states they are throwing to their bag and proceeds to throw 3 putters at their bag
- A player states they are not throwing at a target just using the tree as a backstop
- A player says nothing and throws to their bag
- A player says nothing and tosses towards their bag hitting a tree right beside their bag
- Any throw towards the basket
- Any throw to another player



Intent has a place. However, since none of us are mind readers, you cannot know what that person's intent is. Now if the player says, "I am tossing this disc back to my bag for convenience.", you know what their intent is and can make an appropriate corrective response.

Alacrity,

I certainly am willing make a call in those circumstances, and usually are pretty generous within my division (I am a low rec player), as many do not know the rules. I will let them know, gently, that they broke a rule, but I am not going to stroke them this time. The next time, I will stroke them.

I can generally deal with the grief around the rules, although when it is 3 on 1, it does make for an uncomfortable situation. It does help to have a rulebook with you, as I needed to use it to prove that throwing a mini (regardless of intent), is a courtesy violation.

Steve

I'll have to say that I lean toward the liberal interpretation of "target" and would warn all "aimed" throws. If the player chooses to push the issue by repeating the same action, then I would call it and find out which interpretation the TD goes with.

I would also strongly caution anyone about projecting any disc any distance in any direction from their lie until after they have made their official throw, lest the toss 5' behind them be considered a throw in accordance with the definition of a throw.

so, what does "target" refer to in the rule? A pole hole, tone pole, or object intended as the hole out point of a hole?Or, can a target be a bug on the ground, a blade of grass, a bag, a competitor, a competitor's girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/dog...