I made a ruling in the Fahrenheit Fling this weekend that was the subject of discussion and conjecture by a few of the players and I would like to hear your opinions.
An Open player on the leader card went to his tee shot and marked it and put the disc down by his bag a few feet behind the mini. He then went to help look for another player's lost disc and upon returning to make his shot he absent mindedly threw from behind his disc by the bag..not the mini.
The others in the group caught it and decided to have him finish that play into the basket as a provisional and to have him finish the hole from behind the mini then come to me to see what score should be recorded and if any strokes should be assessed.
My ruling was, in accordance with rule 803.04 f / g, that this was a stance violation subject to a warning with no stroke and the score from behind the mini was the proper score to record.
Someone argued that this was a practice throw and should be stroked, but I'm saying that just as if it were a foot fault that is warned and replayed without a stroke this is the same violation and should be played the same way.
What do you think?

You ruled correctly.

The definition of "practice throw" is a throw that does not change a player's lie. In this case, the player's intent was to change his lie. He just threw from a position other than behind his actual lie. Thus, a stance violation.

the throw didnt change the lie. it couldnt have. it wasnt made from the lie. the throw meets the definition of a practice throw in spades. both sides seem to have airtight cases :)

the throw didnt change the lie. it couldnt have. it wasnt made from the lie. the throw meets the definition of a practice throw in spades. both sides seem to have airtight cases :)


I'm not giving you that one, Pat. One decision requires a penalty stroke and the other is just a warning with no stroke therefore both decisions are not air tight. Only one is right.

I think Pat is correct on this one. The question isn't "Did he hit the mark as intended ?", but "Did he throw from somewhere other than his lie ?". If he missed his mark, then it's a stance violation, if he was not at his lie, then it's a practice throw.

I would say that before a player can be called for stance violation, he must first be attempting to throw from the correct lie, and then fail to properly throw from the correct lie.

There are extenuating circumstances that kept the player away from the lie for a period of time between marking and throwing, the player correctly threw from what he seemed to think was his lie, and the impressions of the other players as to intent of the throw may allow for the more lenient ruling.

However, once the TD has made the ruling, the ruling stands.

Since a stance violation needs to be called within three seconds, it would seem that the calling player needed to know before the shot was made that the player was not at the correct lie. Is it poor sportmanship or good gamesmanship not to warn an opponent that they are about to commit a rules violation ?

i was on his card and no one even knew that he threw from the wrong spot but when he was walking to the basket he noticed his mini was about 5 ft in front of him. we told him to take a provisional from his mini just to see the ruling and he missed his putt anyway!!!! i dont think he should have been stroked for giving himself a disadvantage!!!!

skip, you know i can see both sides on this one, and this is strictly a curiosity question at this point. unfortunately, the rules are not perfectly clear. i do think Gary is right, and for exactly the right reasons.

I agree with Gary. It'd be a tough call to have to make, but if the player's intent was to throw from behind the disc, which was not his lie, then that'd be a practice throw.

The group definitely made the right call to have him play out the provisional.

The "extenuating circumstances" really shouldn't be considered in assessing the situation and making a ruling. If a player makes a mental mistake and violates a rule then they shouldn't be given a freebie any more than they'd get a reputt if a car honked it's horn while they were putting.


Is it poor sportmanship or good gamesmanship not to warn an opponent that they are about to commit a rules violation ?



That's an interesting question. As a player, I'd warn someone. My question to y'all is: as an official, is it ethical for me to warn a player that is about to break a rule? In a B-tier, with a new player, I'd absolutely choose to warn someone before they broke a rule. Last year, in the Players Cup, I saw mark his lie in from OB on the grass (over cartpaths is OB, but on the cartpath is safe, so an OB shot should be marked <u>on</u> the cartpath itself) and I alerted him to re-mark.

For PGA golf tournaments the guys get an official to witness and signoff on penalty drops in most/all cases.

I also had players asking me to use my golf cart to retrieve their discs that they had left behind. While I wanted to be hospitable, I realized that it would be impossible for me to complete all such requests as I had my primary responsibilities to attend to. It would, therefore, be unfair to those that I didn't retrieve discs for if I did for some. I decided that I had to deny all such requests.

actually, the definition of a practice throw specifically takes intent out of the equation. not sure if its in the online rules,. but it is clear from the rulebook.

I've had nearly the exact same thing happen to me. It happened at the New Mexico State Championships in Sipapu, and my cardmates included Dan Ginnely and Peter Sandoval. We all Teed on Hole #5 and after approaching our tee shots, I marked my Roc with my mini (I normally don't mark with my mini, I usually play from behind my disc), then dropped it near my bag which was several feet away. About that time Peter found his disc and declared he was probably the away player. I backed up several feet behind my bag and into the bushes lining the fairway. When it was my turn, I approached my Roc near my bag, went through my pre-shot routine, and launched a pretty decent shot up the hill towards the pin. As I reached down to retrieve my Roc, I saw my mini and immediately realized what I had done. I instantly called out to the rest of the group to Wait a minute. I explained what I did, and we couldn't determine what the infraction was. After several minutes of reading the rules and discussing, Dan suggested reading the definition of a "Practice Throw". That pretty much covers how to proceed in this instance. If you aren't throwing from your lie, it's a practice throw.

Each player must pay attention to the task at hand, or pay the penalty.

Didn't we go over this a few years ago? Doesn't a foot fault (stance violation) _mean_ that you weren't throwing from your "lie"? And said stance violation has no restriction as to the proximity of the violation to the lie? So one shouldn't state that any throw not from the lie is a practice throw, right?

Here's my 2 cents: If a throw, if unchallenged, would change the lie of the player, it is a stance violation. The instances here would be stance violations. Any other instances, such as throwing a disc while between holes, would normally be considered practice throws, because these throws do not change the lie of the thrower.

actually, the definition of a practice throw specifically takes intent out of the equation. not sure if its in the online rules,. but it is clear from the rulebook.


i used the word "intent" as a test as to whether or not the player was "at his lie".

we don't have a definition of taking a stance behind the disc. in ball golf if you've taken a stance, but haven't yet grounded the club and the ball moves, then it's not a penalty. if, however, you have grounded the club and the balls moves (not wobbles, but actually changes position) then it's a penalty.

the only way we can distinguish a practice throw from a stance violation in disc golf is based on the intent of the player, even if that word is not used in the definition. in most cases the intent is obvious, but in a few cases we'd have to rely on the honesty of the player to say what they intended.

it may seem like a trivial difference, but i'd argue that the case in question is a practice throw, but the case of a player marking his/her lie, intending to throw from that spot, then backing away and running up and throwing from behind the disc instead of the mini as a stance violation.

denny, yeah, the use of the word "intent" is tricky in this case cuz the penalty throw definition says "intentional or not" when referring to the throw.


bill, you said : "If a throw, if unchallenged, would change the lie of the player, it is a stance violation". since a throw must be from the lie for it to change the lie, then you would agree this is a practice throw since it didnt occur from the lie, right?

If one interpretation would result in a warning and the other interpretation would result in a throw penalty, it's pretty standard in disc golf to always to use the interpretation that results in the warning. That's just how it is. :p

I say it's a practice throw. It's exactly like teeing from the wrong tee where the player intends to change their lie but throws from "not their lie".

One other point, a stance violation must be called and seconded within three seconds of the shot. If it is not called then, it cannot be called later as a warning only bail-out from an accidental practice throw.

One other point, a stance violation must be called and seconded within three seconds of the shot. If it is not called then, it cannot be called later as a warning only bail-out from an accidental practice throw.


I agree with one slight exception: only the first call needs be made within 3 seconds. once the initial call is made, the clock stops.

I meant to make that distinction when I started that post, thanks for correcting it.

I say it's a practice throw. It's exactly like teeing from the wrong tee where the player intends to change their lie but throws from "not their lie".



A practice throw is when you *don't* change your lie.

Throwing from the wrong tee is "misplaying the course".

bill, you said : "If a throw, if unchallenged, would change the lie of the player, it is a stance violation". since a throw must be from the lie for it to change the lie, then you would agree this is a practice throw since it didnt occur from the lie, right?



So if you miss your mark, it's a "practice throw"?

I say it's a practice throw. It's exactly like teeing from the wrong tee where the player intends to change their lie but throws from "not their lie".



A practice throw is when you *don't* change your lie.

Throwing from the wrong tee is "misplaying the course".




And treated as a practice throw unless two throws have been made. Misplaying the course is different because the misplay shouldn't cost more than about two strokes. If they all were practice throws, then the penalties would easily be three or more on most holes.


801.04 Playing the Stipulated Course
B. Specific Types of Misplay and Penalty Procedures for Each:
(1) Wrong Tee: Teeing off from the wrong teeing area. If the misplay is discovered after the player�s throw from the incorrect teeing area, but before a subsequent throw, the player shall re-tee from the correct teeing area and treat the initial throw as a practice throw...

bill, you said : "If a throw, if unchallenged, would change the lie of the player, it is a stance violation". since a throw must be from the lie for it to change the lie, then you would agree this is a practice throw since it didnt occur from the lie, right?



Pat! How are things over in Tarrant county!

I will try to explain myself further. If a player is in what I call "active status", that is, the player is not inbetween holes, then a throw from almost anywhere could change that player's lie if no one calls a foot fault. I could be 50 ft in front of my actual lie, but if I throw from that forward spot, and two people do not call a foot fault (stance violation) within 3(?) seconds, then that throw has changed my lie. If I do get called on it, then it is a stance violation and not a practice throw. If I am not in "active status", but have begun the round and have not yet ended it, and I throw a disc, that would clearly be a practice shot, because the throw does not produce a lie.

I hope that helps.

Sorry, but the rules of play do not say anything like that. Reading your "active status" blurb, it sounds like you are saying that a practice throw is not possible unless you are waiting to tee off.

That is not the case, and the rules say nothing of the sort.

:)

thanks bill, it does. tarrant is nice this year. looks like summer is finally starting :) i see where youre coming from on that interpretation. it seems like you are saying "if no one saw it, its cool". in the end that is correct... but if the basic premise of rules is that the rules are followed (i dont know if it is or not, i just made that up), then that kind of thing should be very rare. it might not even be knowable if the player is that oblivious.

re the active status, are some rules are in effect the whole round and others not? i hadnt really thought of that before.

Sorry, but the rules of play do not say anything like that. Reading your "active status" blurb, it sounds like you are saying that a practice throw is not possible unless you are waiting to tee off.

That is not the case, and the rules say nothing of the sort.

:)



I'm sorry, but I don't see him saying that at all. He's very clearly saying that a practice throw is a throw made at any point in the round that is not intended to be a playable lie.

I'm very dissappointed to hear some of these opinions. They come off as vindictive and opportunistic. You're willing to win at any cost. Are you so insecure in your own abilities that you want to screw your fellow players unfairly.
Yes my ruling stands and I stand by my decision. I don't think the issue is addressed verbatum so I was swayed when I read rule 803.01 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.
My opinion is that rule 803.04 f/g is the closest in this instance. It was not a tee shot! A tee shot is a shot taken from a point provided by the TD.

I'm very dissappointed to hear some of these opinions. They come off as vindictive and opportunistic. You're willing to win at any cost. Are you so insecure in your own abilities that you want to screw your fellow players unfairly.


I disagree with that assessment.

Just because some of us would like the actual Rules of Play to be followed, it doesn't mean we are insecure or vindictive. If I accidently throw from "not my lie", I will take a penalty throw and be mad at myself for not paying attention. Anyone who doesn't is gaining an unfair competitive advantage on the non-level playing field that is PDGA disc golf.

Oops I just noticed that I asked a Question : Are you so insecure...etc. and finished it with a period instead of a question mark. This was bad grammer. It should've read : You are so insecure with your own abilities that you are willing to screw your fellow players unfairly.

To tell you the truth, I really cannot comprehend how this is even a topic for discussion. Seriously, this issue seems 100% cut-n-dried/black-and-white to me. Seriously.

If you throw from "not your lie", it's a practice throw. Just because you threw from "not your lie" within 10 feet of your actual lie doesn't matter!

If you are throwing from your lie and miss your mark, or step on your mini, or have a supporting point closer to the hole than your mark, or perform a falling putt, then it's a stance violation. If you are not at your lie it can't be a stance violation.

I'm trying to understand what isn't clear here, but I really don't see it. If you place your mini and move your thrown disc somewhere else, and then throw from your moved thrown disc (which is no longer positioned at your lie), then you have thrown from "not your lie" and it is a practice throw. Arguing that it can somehow be called a stance violation reeks of trying to "get over".

All my opinion, of course.

[quote I disagree with that assessment.

Just because some of us would like the actual Rules of Play to be followed, it doesn't mean we are insecure or vindictive. If I accidently throw from "not my lie", I will take a penalty throw and be mad at myself for not paying attention. Anyone who doesn't is gaining an unfair competitive advantage on the non-level playing field that is PDGA disc golf.

[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't expect any of you that want to stroke the other player to accept my assessment. We'll just agree to disagree.

. If you are not at your lie it can't be a stance violation.


.



If you ARE at your lie it is NOT a stance violation. It is a stance violation when it isn't at your lie!!!!

dude you can't say,
I'm very dissappointed to hear some of these opinions. They come off as vindictive and opportunistic. You're willing to win at any cost. Are you so insecure in your own abilities that you want to screw your fellow players unfairly.


and then say
We'll just agree to disagree.


i said it'd be a tough call to have to make and can understand why you ruled the way you did, but your comments are out of line.

dude you can't say,
I'm very dissappointed to hear some of these opinions. They come off as vindictive and opportunistic. You're willing to win at any cost. Are you so insecure in your own abilities that you want to screw your fellow players unfairly.


and then say
We'll just agree to disagree.


i said it'd be a tough call to have to make and can understand why you ruled the way you did, but your comments are out of line.


My comments are harsh in a way, but selfishness is not exclusive to golf and as a '60s activist I've learned not to coddle. Just write me off as a senile bleeding heart dinasour. I'm sorry.

If you ARE at your lie it is NOT a stance violation. It is a stance violation when it isn't at your lie!!!!


Your statement is patently untrue.


I can be at my lie with my toe on top of and touching my mini. That is a stance violation.

I can be at my lie with one foot on the LOP and within 30cm and my other foot on the playing surface closer to the target than the back edge of my marker. That is a stance violation.

I can be at my lie and holding onto a tree limb that is between my lie and the target. That is a stance violation.


If I am 150 feet from my lie and I throw a disc, that is NOT a stance violation.

If I am at the wrong tee-box for the hole I am playing and I throw a disc, that is NOT a stance violation.

If I am waiting to tee because the hole I am on next is backed up, and I move off the tee-box and practice putting into the basket I just got finished playing, that is NOT a stance violation.


If I throw a disc from "not my lie", it is not a stance violation.

If you ARE at your lie it is NOT a stance violation. It is a stance violation when it isn't at your lie!!!!


Your statement is patently untrue.


I can be at my lie with my toe on top of and touching my mini. That is a stance violation.

I can be at my lie with one foot on the LOP and within 30cm and my other foot on the playing surface closer to the target than the back edge of my marker. That is a stance violation.

I can be at my lie and holding onto a tree limb that is between my lie and the target. That is a stance violation.


If I am 150 feet from my lie and I throw a disc, that is NOT a stance violation.

If I am at the wrong tee-box for the hole I am playing and I throw a disc, that is NOT a stance violation.

If I am waiting to tee because the hole I am on next is backed up, and I move off the tee-box and practice putting into the basket I just got finished playing, that is NOT a stance violation.


If I throw a disc from "not my lie", it is not a stance violation.



If you are near your lie, but your toe is on the mini, then you are not exactly at your lie. This is why it's a violation. The player in question was not exactly at his lie either, but he was near it just like you were when you put your toe on your mini.
We could go on forever with semantics, but I'm tired of this and I wish I had never opened this door.

Is it not also a stance violation to be beyond the 30cm behind your disc or minimarker?

Practice throw penalty! :oTake your medicine! :p

I would like to apologize for getting carried away with my feelings on this.
I believe Bill's "active status" becomes clearer when you allow "inactive" to include between shots. This would create a grey area as the group proceeds up a hole as to who's turn it is at a given time.
There is too much grey area on this ruling already, though.
I was out of line to accuse players of wanting to win at any cost. I should never have written it here. I just invited a lot of hotheaded responses that are distorting the issue. It was my doing and my fault and I'm truly sorry for offending anyone that took it personally.

I would be hard put to determine this one as well, however......

Didn't the player ineffect either create a stance violation, which has been discussed or mis-mark his lie? In either case the penality is the same, the difference would be if he committed the error again, which rule would the player be penalized under? Could he have received two warnings, one for stance violation the other for mis-marking the lie? I understand that he marked his lie correctly, but he played it from a mis-marked lie. Several have argued that it was a practice throw and I can see your point of view, however, here are two rules that seem to handle this situation and both have the same penalties. the beauty of the mis-marked lie is there is no 3 second rule, which in my opinion should have allowed the player to continue without warning, since it did not appear to have been called within that time frame.

803.3 G. G. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a marking rule if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. One penalty throw shall be assessed for each subsequent violation of any marking rule during the round if observed by two or more players of the group or an official.

he marked his lie at his mini. the much is clear. you are suggesting that dropping his driver on the ground somewhere in the field, then goofing up and throwing from his driver turns his driver into a mark? come on now.

the throw meets every aspect of the rule book definition of a practice throw.

my god!! if I was a completely new player reading this my head would be spinning! heck.. it already is!
keep it simple?

&lt;--goes back to reading his rulebook one sentence at a time.

From what I'm reading, it is simple.

Practice Throw. One stroke penalty.

Alacrity, you're right. 803.03 G is another ruling that is close to addressing this case. I feel that in the spirit of fair play I made a correct ruling.
A practice throw is " a throw made in practicing or an extra shot." This player did neither. He made a shot with the intention of changing his lie. He just made the shot from the wrong spot.
Everyone that is so quick to assess a stroke is not playing with the same spirit that I've played frisbee/disc golf with since the mid 70s. Your goal should be to conquer the elements better than your competition, not to beat down your friends unfairly.
Over and out.

The only reason for declaring this a stance violation is to be able to cut the player some slack for screwing up. But this is professional sports; no slack cut. Sorry.

Practice throw and penalty stroke.

I can plainly see that this was not an intentional practice throw, but it was nonetheless a practice throw. The guy who used the wrong type of golf ball in Q-school did not use that ball intentionally, but he nonetheless was DQ'd from Q-school and thus, was not allowed to even finish his attempt at getting his tour card. Too punitive? Then change the rules, but don't do a discretionary rule relaxation or creative interpretation just because you feel sorry for a player that makes a stupid mistake. Stupid mistakes are rewarded with strokes.

Everyone that is so quick to assess a stroke is not playing with the same spirit that I've played frisbee/disc golf with since the mid 70s. Your goal should be to conquer the elements better than your competition, not to beat down your friends unfairly.
Over and out.



Yep, you're absolutely right. We are all cutthroats who are out to win at all costs, even if it means forcing a competitor to follow the rules.

Everyone that is so quick to assess a stroke is not playing with the same spirit that I've played frisbee/disc golf with since the mid 70s. Your goal should be to conquer the elements better than your competition, not to beat down your friends unfairly.
Over and out.



Yep, you're absolutely right. We are all cutthroats who are out to win at all costs, even if it means forcing a competitor to follow the rules.


Merely your interpretation of the rules....not neccessarily The rule.

Everyone that is so quick to assess a stroke is not playing with the same spirit that I've played frisbee/disc golf with since the mid 70s. Your goal should be to conquer the elements better than your competition, not to beat down your friends unfairly.
Over and out.


skip1, you just said you were sorry for being such a jerk about calling anyone who wants the actual rules followed a cutthroat, and here you are doing it again in the next post.

I think you, sir, are the one taking this too personally because I guess you are the one who made the call. While I've been reading the posts in this thread, it didn't seem to me like anyone was attacking you for making that call. But from your replies it seems like you think you are being attacked, and your answer to that seems to be to call anyone who disagrees with you a cutthroat that has no sense of "spirit" or fairness.

So....I think the throw in question was a practice throw.

I also think it's good to discuss the rules and the possible interpretation so that hopefully at some point in the future, we can have a reasonable expectation that two groups in the same situation at different times can be expected to make the same call.

But right now, the big difference as I see it is that whenever one interpretation calls for a penalty and one interpretation calls for a warning, most people try to twist the call such that the warning can be given.

To me, this one seems pretty clear. "Not your lie" equals "practice throw".

Yes I have been attacked for not being able to read and interperate the rule book properly. My credibility as a director is being questioned. I've worked with my club in one capacity or another for 17 years serving as TD on 7 different occassions, and it is frustrating to pour your heart into holding an event hoping it will be something the players ( friends ) will enjoy only to be subjected to critisism by a few individuals ( this wasn't the only time or subject ) who themselves are NOT willing to step forward and take the reigns.
I don't feel my comments after the apology were harsh...just my opinion.

I would like to request that someone with a lower pdga# that has actually run multiple events or someone on the rules committee to review the incident in question and the rules that are being called upon to give us his or her true feelings on the ruling. If I have made a bad decision, I'll step down and leave the job to one of you more capable people that's willing to take it on.

Skip,

I don't take offense at what Rhett says in regards to what I post. He is a fellow DGRZ, so I understand his zealousness.

All,

Let's go back to the definitions in section 800:

Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon
which the player takes his or her stance in
accordance with the rules.

and

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 rethrown
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).

I think that Rhett made a good point earlier, and I would like to further fine-tune my answer.

To start out, let us simplify the situation: a player has marked a drive, and shooting the second shot. I am going to make an assumption here, but I think that it is a pretty safe one: the lie for this shot is "the playing surface on
the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc". This is directly from 804.03A(1).

There are, IMO, 3 distinct stance situations to be considered here:

1) The player has a supporting point on the lie, as defined above, and there are no stance violations (you can look in the rules for a list). Easy call - no violation.

2) The player has a supporting point on the lie, as defined above, but violates a 803.04A-C rule. Another easy call. This is a stance violation, and from 803.04F-H,

"F. A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be valid. The call may
be made by any member of the group or an offi cial. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must subsequently be confi rmed by another member of the group. A player shall receive a warning for the fi rst violation
of a stance rule in the round. Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.
G. Any throw that involves a validly called and seconded stance violation may not be used by the thrower. Re-throws must be taken from the original lie, prior to subsequent play by others in the group.
H. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc prior to the re-throw, except in the case of a putt
from within 10 meters. Where a disc is retrieved in violation of this rule, a one throw penalty shall be imposed without a warning."

3) Here is where I think the disagreement is occuring: The player has NO supporting points on the lie. Since others have stated that intent is no longer in the rules, then I feel safe in stating that it doesn't matter how close your supporting point was to that 30cm line, you had NO supporting points on that line. So, my conclusion in this case is that this was a PRACTICE THROW, and should be dealt with accordingly.

And, yes, I DID change my answer. Before I said that if someone had thrown from 50ft in front of the lie, it was a stance violation, but now, according to how I interpret the rules after Rhett's revelation, it is now a practice throw.

So how about this oversimplified rule:


"If the player had a supporting point on the lie, then the throw is either valid or a stance violation, and if the player did not have a supporting point on the lie, then the throw is a practice throw."


This interpretation, even though I feel I have a stronger footing viz-a-viz the rules, puts me at unease. Looking back at 3) if it is obvious to the casual observer that the player was in close proximity to the lie and it appeared that the player was intending for the shot to change the lie, then it should be a stance violation; BUT, because no supporting point was on the lie, it cannot be a stance violation because the player must be in contact with the lie in order to consider the player's position to be a stance [803.04A(1)], so it MUST be considered a practice throw.

Again, all this is predicated on intent not being part of the rules anymore, if it ever was, and I do not think that this interpretation goes against 803.01F - Rule of Fairness.

Sorry for the length, but it is sometimes necessary. I look forward to reading logical, documented replies.

Peace.

One last thing, the player called himself for the violation. None of the others in the group caught it, and, most importantly, none of them wanted to see him stroked ( something I admire and respect in them as gentlemen ). They just wanted to address it properly so they brought it to me. It should have been a minor incident that everyone was happy with my decision on, but I made a mistake and brought it up for discussion and now I have this. :confused:

So in short, was this a stance violation or a practice throw? I'm leaning toward the later.

Bill,

I think you have a well thought out arguement, but the problem is, what if they are 2 inches to the side of a marked disc (line of play)? This is a very common mistake made by both starting players and experianced players, pushing the boundary. By your interpretation that is now a practice throw and I believe you have demonstrated the difficulty in calling this a practice throw. I am pretty sure that the majority of players calling this a practice throw would not agree with you on this. Further, assume it was on the line of play and several meters back, what is your ruling now?

Okay, Bill. You've gone to the dark side. :D:D
I'm going to accept you're explanation as well thought out, but you yourself saw a need to "simplify" the rule. Do you allow me the interpretations I made on the spot as being understandable? I don't feel the issue is addressed word for word in the book.

Jerry,

I agree that if the supporting point was close to the lie, but not on it, most players (including me until a few minutes ago), would call it a stance violation, and, if someone had a supporting point on the line of play but it was not in that 0-30cm range behind the marker, it would be a practice throw.

What I am hoping is that someone can use the Rules to make a more defensible position than I can regarding calling a throw made where a supporting point is in close proximity to the lie, but not touching the lie, a stance violation rather than a practice throw.

Skip,

I don't know about behind the scenes, but no one is faulting you on your decision, just debating. The facts are, by the rules of the PDGA, once the event was over you were correct unless you showed a flagrant disregard of the rules and not a single person here would say you did. I can see the reasoning you used and I am leaning toward your decision myself, however, if I feel the rules are adequately debated here I could change my mind and in a similar situation make the different call.

I see the merits to both sides. Just reviewing the first part of the rule:

(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.04 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

Clearly the player did not meet all of part (1) which is why I lean towards stance violation. On the other hand, it was not a valid throw which fits under the definition of a practice throw.

Bill,

I think you have a well thought out arguement, but the problem is, what if they are 2 inches to the side of a marked disc (line of play)? This is a very common mistake made by both starting players and experianced players, pushing the boundary. By your interpretation that is now a practice throw and I believe you have demonstrated the difficulty in calling this a practice throw. I am pretty sure that the majority of players calling this a practice throw would not agree with you on this. Further, assume it was on the line of play and several meters back, what is your ruling now?



Two inches to the side now a practice throw.!!??
Too many grey areas. Again, rule 803.01 F gave me the authority to decide what to do. Incidently the player did not cash and finished four strokes in front of the next player.

Skip,

I don't know about behind the scenes, but no one is faulting you on your decision, just debating. The facts are, by the rules of the PDGA, once the event was over you were correct unless you showed a flagrant disregard of the rules and not a single person here would say you did. I can see the reasoning you used and I am leaning toward your decision myself, however, if I feel the rules are adequately debated here I could change my mind and in a similar situation make the different call.

I see the merits to both sides. Just reviewing the first part of the rule:

(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.04 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

Clearly the player did not meet all of part (1) which is why I lean towards stance violation. On the other hand, it was not a valid throw which fits under the definition of a practice throw.


Jerry, your thoughts are much appreciated. I know I've been defensive and somewhat hurt and reacted as such. I'm sorry to all, truly I am. You just work so hard only to seemingly have it shot down. Most of the people at the event did have a good time and told me so. I don't know why I let this one thing bother me so.
My decision wasn't made casually nor quickly and I still feel it wasn't out of line.

Majority rule : Practice throw---hit him with it.

I made a ruling in the Fahrenheit Fling this weekend that was the subject of discussion and conjecture by a few of the players and I would like to hear your opinions.




Yes I have been attacked for not being able to read and interperate the rule book properly. My credibility as a director is being questioned.



Skip - You are not being attacked. You started this thread asking for people's opinions in your very first sentence. Just because people are giving you opinions that differ from yours does not mean they are attacking you.

Whether or not anyone agrees with your call, it was your call to make. You had a sound and logical argument for the decision you made. You followed the rules that you felt applied to the situation. Your decision should stand. However, the rest of us did not have the pressure of having to make the decision on the fly while scores are being added and wanting to get awards out on time and twelve other people wanting their payouts early or a different players package item or want to know your interpretation of three other rules. No one is faulting you for the decision you made, they are simply giving the opinions YOU asked for.

IMO it was indeed a practice throw because one of the definitions of a practice throw is: "...it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie,..." Again, I had two days to think about this and take my time looking up all applicable rules. I didn't have 90 players waiting for me to add scorecards and run an event.

Again, your call was a fine interpretation of the rules as you saw fit. You saw a benefit of a doubt and you gave it to the player. That is in the spirit of the game. Just know that everyone that does not agree with you is still being true to the spirit of the game. They can site a rule that does not have any doubt on how to handle the situation and applying rules fairly and properly is in the spirit.

Please do not continue to get upset with people for offering opinions when you are the one that asked for them. Please do not feel as though you are a failure and your efforts are not appreciated. Please do not refuse to do this again because you do not like the feedback you are receiving.

Thanks again for sacrificing your time and effort to put on the event. Everyone makes mistakes. Your mistake was not huge, it was a reasonable interpretation of the rules and your decision will stand.

Most of you know I have a thick skin and can be rather dense at times, but according to the below statement, Bill is correct in his assessment that it was a practice throw, not a stance violation. Along these lines of thought if you release your disc and you are NOT in the line of play, then you did not throw from your lie and this can be interpreted as a practice throw. That means if you place your foot anywhere off the line you did not release from your lie. 1/16" or 16 feet it makes no difference. So, anyone want to explain this one to me?

Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.

Taking this to its logical end, it is impossible to have a stance violation, except for maybe placing one foot on OB and the other at your lie. But no, that is not in accordance with the rules and therefore cannot be your lie. Quite the conundrum.... ;)



"...it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie,..."

...
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.
...
3) Here is where I think the disagreement is occuring: The player has NO supporting points on the lie. Since others have stated that intent is no longer in the rules, then I feel safe in stating that it doesn't matter how close your supporting point was to that 30cm line, you had NO supporting points on that line. So, my conclusion in this case is that this was a PRACTICE THROW, and should be dealt with accordingly.




I agree with this. Stating it another way, if you don't meet 803.04A(1) when you throw, then it's a practice throw because your throw did not occur "from the lie". If you don't meet 803.04A(1), then you are not at the lie.

As a new tourney player my question is what call is usually made at a tournament if a thrower misses his lie during a field run-up? According to this interpretation it should always be a practice throw if you miss by violating 803.04A(1), but a stance violation if you violate (2) or (3).

"As a new tourney player my question is what call is usually made at a tournament if a thrower misses his lie during a field run-up?"

usually, none :)

Okay, Bill. You've gone to the dark side. :D:D
I'm going to accept you're explanation as well thought out, but you yourself saw a need to "simplify" the rule. Do you allow me the interpretations I made on the spot as being understandable? I don't feel the issue is addressed word for word in the book.



Of course I do! I know you, and I know your integrity. You did the best that you could, and I probably would have made the same call!

The problems that occur when you don't obey all the rules because some are... less important. :) Pat, tongue in cheek makes a good point. No one calls this rule so why is it important in other situations, but not in the open field... I know the obvious answer and I call baloney on that.

Most of you know I have a thick skin and can be rather dense at times, but according to the below statement, Bill is correct in his assessment that it was a practice throw, not a stance violation. Along these lines of thought if you release your disc and you are NOT in the line of play, then you did not throw from your lie and this can be interpreted as a practice throw. That means if you place your foot anywhere off the line you did not release from your lie. 1/16" or 16 feet it makes no difference. So, anyone want to explain this one to me?

Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.

Taking this to its logical end, it is impossible to have a stance violation, except for maybe placing one foot on OB and the other at your lie. But no, that is not in accordance with the rules and therefore cannot be your lie. Quite the conundrum.... ;)



"...it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie,..."





I think the answer is intent. What was the player's intent.

"As a new tourney player my question is what call is usually made at a tournament if a thrower misses his lie during a field run-up?"

usually, none :)



You beat me to it! That _is_ the call that is _usually_ made on a field run-up :(

I think the answer is intent. What was the player's intent.



I think we all know what the player's intent was, I am just asking show me in the rules where we can use what the intent of the player was to say that it was a stance violation instead of a practice throw when the player did not have a supporting point on the lie?

Most of you know I have a thick skin and can be rather dense at times, but according to the below statement, Bill is correct in his assessment that it was a practice throw, not a stance violation. Along these lines of thought if you release your disc and you are NOT in the line of play, then you did not throw from your lie and this can be interpreted as a practice throw. That means if you place your foot anywhere off the line you did not release from your lie. 1/16" or 16 feet it makes no difference. So, anyone want to explain this one to me?

Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.

Taking this to its logical end, it is impossible to have a stance violation, except for maybe placing one foot on OB and the other at your lie. But no, that is not in accordance with the rules and therefore cannot be your lie. Quite the conundrum.... ;)



"...it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie,..."





Jerry,

For the situation I described earlier, I interpret the phrase in accordance with the rules to mean that a player is in compliance with 803.04A(1). If you require all 3 parts of 803.04A to be complied with before you can be considered in a stance, than you are right, you can not have a stance violation call on a throw initiated from greater than 10 meters, so that is why, in my interpretation, I use A(1) only.

I think the answer is intent. What was the player's intent.



I think we all know what the player's intent was, I am just asking show me in the rules where we can use what the intent of the player was to say that it was a stance violation instead of a practice throw when the player did not have a supporting point on the lie?



I think intent is usually clear in these situations. On the other hand, that someone would want, and try to take advantage is inevitable.

I think the answer is intent. What was the player's intent.



I think we all know what the player's intent was, I am just asking show me in the rules where we can use what the intent of the player was to say that it was a stance violation instead of a practice throw when the player did not have a supporting point on the lie?



I think intent is usually clear in these situations. On the other hand, that someone would want, and try to take advantage is inevitable.



Again, I agree with you that the intent was clear, but I ask again, how can I use intent within the constraints of the rules?

My comments are harsh in a way, but selfishness is not exclusive to golf and as a '60s activist I've learned not to coddle. Just write me off as a senile bleeding heart dinasour. I'm sorry.


Wel then, with that said, quit yer crying about how you aren't appreciated. :)

I would like to request that someone with a lower pdga# that has actually run multiple events or someone on the rules committee to review the incident in question and the rules that are being called upon to give us his or her true feelings on the ruling.


PDGA number is not a very good indicator of how many events someone has TD'd, and it's a particularly poor method of determining one's ability to read the PDGA rulebook. :p



If I have made a bad decision, I'll step down and leave the job to one of you more capable people that's willing to take it on.


Taking the role of martyr doesn't help. Believe me, I've tried it! If the rules were perfect, we wouldn't have to ever discuss them. No one needs to quit just because they made a decision when a decision needed to be made. Enough of the quitting talk already.

I don't like Bill's new take on this rule. Sorry Bill. :)

The reason I don't like is how it affects the improperly executed fairway runup, the most uncalled rules violation in disc golf today.

Missing your mark on the fairway runupo is, IMHO, a stance violation. But now where do we go? How much can you miss it by before it is no longer a stance violation? A foot? 2 feet? Yeah, that's reasonable. How about 10 feet? How about 50 feet? No, that's not really reasonable. Do we have to specify an exact distance in the rulebook? I don't think so. In the example that started this thread, *I* think it is very clear that the player was playing the wrong lie, and *to*me* it doesn't matter if that wrong lie was 5 feet away or 500 feet away.

There is a huge difference between playing your lie and missing your mark, and playing the wrong lie. To *ME*, trying to argue that playing the wrong lie is a stance violation just means that soemone is trying to get over, and that is very poor sportsmanship. The spirit of the game says to play it where it lies. If you didn't, then take your penalty. You're not a bad person or a cheater just because you made a mistake. But you also shouldn't get to "get over", either.

Okay, I might be done with this topic now. :)

I hate to agree with Rhett except when he is right.

I think that these rules require adoption of the context of the "address" in ball golf.

At least for me, when a player is attempting to throw from their lie, the stance rules apply. If the player is attempting to throw from anywhere else regardless of intent, the practice rules apply.

You are required to pay attention to the game at all times in order to play by the rules. If you make a mental error, then you should pay for the error. Kudos to you if you are the only one that catches the error and you still report it.

I am not vindictive, and generally don't care who wins, but I do care that the rules are followed as uniformly as possible. Which also means that I don't really care which side wins this discussion, as long as a clear precedent is set.

If I've made a bad decision I'll step down and let one of you more capable people take on the job.

I don't see that as a "quitters" remark. I'm inviting one of the many young players ( i.e. higher no. ) that were so quick to judge to step up to the plate and ride my see saw, take my place, it's for real. ;)
To make the claim that there's a " huge" difference between playing from the wrong lie and playing from a wrong lie is an argument of convienience.
Something tells me I'm wasting my time.

I can respect that, Gary. Once again, I would like to apologize for my defensive remarks that offended any of you good people. This doen't mean I regret the opinion, just how I expressed it. That's what made it sound harsh.
Yes this should have a clear ruling stated in the book.

Sometimes applying the rules gets harsh, but it needs to be done. My PDGA # is somewhat low, I started playing "Frisbee" in the 70's, and got into Disc Golf in the 80's, and I have no problem with doling out a penalty if one is deserved (even if I am penalizing myself :D). In these particular cases where the original thrown disc was marked with a mini then picked up and deposited in another place, it should be utterly clear that if their next throw does not happen at the "mini", but at the previously thrown disc, that throw is not at the "lie". As a sportsman, anyone who attempts to weasel out of penalty for that infraction is severely lacking personal fortitude. It's not about the others "sticking it to him", or trying to gain an advantage, it's about playing the game the way you know it's supposed to be played, and accepting whatever penalties are due for your infractions.

Sometimes applying the rules gets harsh, but it needs to be done. My PDGA # is somewhat low, I started playing "Frisbee" in the 70's, and got into Disc Golf in the 80's, and I have no problem with doling out a penalty if one is deserved (even if I am penalizing myself :D). In these particular cases where the original thrown disc was marked with a mini then picked up and deposited in another place, it should be utterly clear that if their next throw does not happen at the "mini", but at the previously thrown disc, that throw is not at the "lie". As a sportsman, anyone who attempts to weasel out of penalty for that infraction is severely lacking personal fortitude. It's not about the others "sticking it to him", or trying to gain an advantage, it's about playing the game the way you know it's supposed to be played, and accepting whatever penalties are due for your infractions.




WELL SAID! ;)

Indeed.

At least for me, when a player is attempting to throw from their lie, the stance rules apply. If the player is attempting to throw from anywhere else regardless of intent, the practice rules apply.



Right on.

Rhett, whether you are done with this topic or not, I am responding to your post :D


I don't like Bill's new take on this rule. Sorry Bill. :)



I don't "like" it either, because, in your fairway run-up example, using the "it is obvious to the casual observer" rule, the player was clearly attempting to throw from the lie, but missed contact with the lie. My _feeling_ is that it _should_ be called a stance violation, but I am having trouble using the Rules as written for coming up with a stronger argument for a stance violation than a practice throw.

I doubt that the RC will tackle this problem, even though virtually everyone uses a less defensible position of calling a stance violation instead of a practice throw because missing the lie on a fairway run-up just has the "feel" of a stance violation, since we are pretty darn sure of the intent of the thrower.

And, as we all know, how often are stance violations called that are for lies between the tee and farther than 10m from the target?

That is why I do not see a revision coming soon, but, yes, I agree that it would help greatly if there was a revision to some of the rules I have cited, to make it more clear that if a player had a supporting point within X cm from the lie at the point of release, or was using an erroneous lie (wrong marker disc), then the violation should be considered a stance violation.

Bottom line, we need to add verbage that outlines the actions a player would take when the intent is to make a competitive throw, so we don't have to add any "intent" subjectivity into the Rules.

Take out the whole "foot fault" rule and add language saying that any throw not thrown from the correct lie will be a practice throw and a penalty will apply. I think it's silly that the rules have a built-in "mulligan" for foot faults in the first place. And why not take it out? No one calls it anyway!!!

It is not called as often during run ups, but it is definitely called on putts and close approach shots.


Take out the whole "foot fault" rule and add language saying that any throw not thrown from the correct lie will be a practice throw and a penalty will apply. I think it's silly that the rules have a built-in "mulligan" for foot faults in the first place. And why not take it out? No one calls it anyway!!!

At least for me, when a player is attempting to throw from their lie, the stance rules apply. If the player is attempting to throw from anywhere else regardless of intent, the practice rules apply.



Fact: this player WAS attempting to play from his lie.

Right on.

803.01 B. Practice throws. A player who throws a practice throw or an extra throw with any disc anytime after the start of his or her round and prior to his or her finishing the last hole of the round ( except for...etc. ).
I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that the player was not trying to practice his putt, so all of you are saying he took an extra shot.
If you'll think about it I'm pretty sure when the rules committee was talking about an extra shot they were referring to a player that would miss a putt and in anger throw his mini at the basket. I don't believe they had any other implications on extra shot.
Get rid of the foot fault???? Start stroking everyone everytime we have a heated competition with people that don't get along????? Good grief!!! Unreal.

At least for me, when a player is attempting to throw from their lie, the stance rules apply. If the player is attempting to throw from anywhere else regardless of intent, the practice rules apply.



Fact: this player WAS attempting to play from his lie.

Right on.





No, he intended to throw from his lie,
he attempted to throw from behind his disc.

In summation and of course to stir up the ant bed just a bit more.....

A very strict interp of the stance violation rule would tend to indicate any and all "stance violations" are not stance violations, but extra throws, since they do not meet the qualifications of a lie.

A not quite so strict interp states that throwing from the right mark, but not on the line of play, is a stance violation and throwing from the wrong mark altogether was not a stance violation, but an extra throw. I believe that there is some question as to how far off the line it is still a stance violation, but since the rules do not clarify this I am guessing this is a grey area as long as the player was addressing their lie.

Another position taken was that a disc thrown from the wrong location was a stance violation.

One thing I know that we must be careful of, is to attempt first to make a rule calling based on the rules, without concern for intent. However, let me put this one up for discussion, a player was in the middle of some pretty nasty bushes and he correctly marked his lie, he took his stance and stretched way out to get an arm around the bushes, he kind of hopped and stretched at the same time to get a little more room. When he finally released his disc he was 3 feet from his lie. The ruling? Well while attempting only to follow the rules and not intent, he got a warning and rethrew. From this discussion I have taken several possible rulings, it was either a stance violation/foot fault, a practice throw, or ignored because nobody wanted to get into a heated discussion. My take on it? We MUST consider intent. I believe the player cheated, but I cannot say that because cheating is a ruling that is based strictly on intent of the player.

So looking at this scenerio and the one under discussion, I have one player whose intent was to do right and it appears the majority vote is he should be stroked for a practice throw. Yes he should have remembered he had already marked his disc, he also could have kept his mouth shut and picked up his mini and it appears no one would have noticed. And I have this other player, who stepped off the line and once again the majority has stated he should have gotten a warning. What is wrong with this picture?

Really I am asking, how can we ignore intent and still call cheating?

A very strict interp of the stance violation rule would tend to indicate any and all "stance violations" are not stance violations, but extra throws, since they do not meet the qualifications of a lie.
...
Really I am asking, how can we ignore intent and still call cheating?


"As the rules lie" your very strict interpretation is correct :) Most of the folks I play with would say that's not the way it should be played.

as johnrock said earlier, the game depends on sportsmanship. The only person who can truly say the intent of the thrower is the thrower.

Jon,

This does not answer my question, how can we have rules against cheating and not consider intent to determine if someone cheated? According to the rule book:

Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

You see willful implies intent. To say that we cannot consider intent when determining whether a rule is broken or not and how it is to be applied is to say that cheating can never be determined. The only exception I see is if a player refuses to take provisionals when a group majority is reached or an official makes a call and the player disagrees. There have been some discussion where taking a provisional can put a player at a disadvantage.

My point is, we must make calls of intent at times and that IS acceptable under the rules.



"As the rules lie" your very strict interpretation is correct :) Most of the folks I play with would say that's not the way it should be played.

as johnrock said earlier, the game depends on sportsmanship. The only person who can truly say the intent of the thrower is the thrower.

A very strict interp of the stance violation rule would tend to indicate any and all "stance violations" are not stance violations, but extra throws, since they do not meet the qualifications of a lie.



Jerry,

You are very close to what I was arguing, except that I stated that if a player did have a supporting point on the lie, but committed a violation, such as stepping on the mini, or having another supporting point closer to the target than the point on the tee, then it could be a stance violation.

And I agree about what you said about cheating, that if it is willful, then intent must be inferred. But, excuse me for getting too detailed here, but the reference to cheating is under 804-Tournament Procedures, and is up to the TD to decide, and not under 803-Rules of Play, which is the area in which I have been citing rules that apply to this situation, and is up, at least initially, for the players in the group to decide.

Finally, to all, let me say that there have been, IMO, 2 threads weaving here: What the interpretation of the rule is, and What the rule _should_ be. I hope that I have been clear that my interpretation of the existing rule as applied to this situatation is not what I think the rules _should_ lead one to interpret when a player is clearly attempting a put a disc into play.

My point is, we must make calls of intent at times and that IS acceptable under the rules.


I agree.

In the original scenario presented in theis thread, and in my opinion, the thrower's actual intent at the time the throw in question was executed was to throw from behind the disc that was not his marker. Throwing from "not your lie" is a practice throw.

We can play all sorts of games with semantics and possible meanings. Of course we can say that the player "intended" to play from his correct lie. (In this situation no one has said that the wrong lie presented any kind of advantage over the actual lie and we should assume that to be the case for this discussion to avoid getting sidetracked.) But when we get down to brass tacks and look at what actually happened, the player lined up behind the wrong disc and threw from that spot. His intent was to throw from the spot he threw from. It was a practice throw.

I believe it is poor sportsmanship and against the spirit of the rules and against the spirit of fair competition in general to argue that the player's "intent" was to throw from the correct lie when he lined up and threw from "not his lie". People are fully capable of making mistakes and that appears to be what happened here. It's not a big deal that a mistake was made, but trying to weasel out of the penalty is, IMHO, the big problem.

No one here has yet stated that they thought the player intended to throw from "not his lie". That's because intentionally throwing from "not your lie" is cheating, and no one has said they thought any cheating was going on. I don't think any cheating was going on. I think a mistake was made by the thrower and a mistake was made in the call. That is all. No tar and feathers required, no DQs called for, and no sanctions necessary.

I think we are getting wrapped around the axel of semantics in the definition of intent. I believe that vast, vast majority of disc golfers intend to play fairly and by the rules. I think the people who cheat are pretty rare, even though they are out there.

I think the thrower intended to make a legal throw, but made a mistake and didn't make a legal throw. I don't think that intent matters one lick for this situation, because the thrower lined up and executed an illegal shot, and at the moment the throw was executed the thrower was throwing from exactly where they intended to throw from at that point. In looking down there seems to have been a "Duh! I meant to throw from over there!" moment.

There is nothing wrong with that error, and the penalty should be assessed and everyone should've moved on from there with no problem.

All IMHO.

Wow, this thread has blown up since I've been away. I usually find myself on the same side of an argument as Rhett, but in this case, I'm polar opposite.


I think the thrower intended to make a legal throw, but made a mistake and didn't make a legal throw.



I could read that out of context and assume you were describing a Stance Violation.

A Practice Throw and a Stance Violation are basically the same thing. The one thing that differentiates a PT from a SV is whether or not the throw would "change the lie". That is, "Would this throw advance the lie towards the basket?" Since both a PT and a SV are, by definition, throws "not from the lie", we are left with the intent of the thrower to decide which rule has been infringed.

Since both a PT and a SV are, by definition, throws "not from the lie"...


You missed a post. The one where I went through a bunch of stance violation examples from the lie. :D

the guy threw from exactly where he intended to throw from. after he saw what he had done, he WISHED he had thrown from his lie. but make no mistake - he absolutely intended to throw from the wrong spot. announcing at the beginning of the round "i intend to throw from my lie every single time" would not absolve you of any mistakes you make.

intentions are nonsense. Kenny "intended" to get to his sunday round on time in that other case earlier this year. but he didnt make it. he should have been penalized according to the rules, but wasnt. that was a gross corruption of the rules with absolutely no grey area nearby.

at least this case has an understandable difference of opinion. but it is no wonder that people are so willing to appeal to a vague, unwritten "spirit of the rules" when top players expect the rules to be suspended for their benefit.

Rhett,

You have a very reasonable argument and I can understand both sides, however, I have now changed my mind. We do have a rule that adequately covers this and it calls this a practice throw already:

801.04 B. (1) Wrong Tee: Teeing off from the wrong teeing area. If the misplay is discovered after the player's throw from the incorrect teeing area, but before a subsequent throw, the player shall re-tee from the correct teeing area and treat the initial throw as a practice throw (one throw added to the player's score). If the misplay is discovered after a subsequent throw, the player shall proceed to complete the hole and receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay.

This is pretty much what happened with the term Tee and Lie being interchangable. It also handles the situation if the player had completing the hole.

As for my comments about intent, the point I was trying to make was that we must sometimes consider intent when making calls and I am seeing a big push to interprit the rules without intent being considered. As far as this thread, I agree that intent was not of concern, it just appeared to me that the player committed a stance violation, he was not on the line of play AND was greater than 30 cm from the basket, but I believe after reviewing 801.4 B.1) can be applied here.

It's really not that hard. It's pretty obvious if you are trying to throw from your lie and you have your supporting point (usually your foot) anywhere except within 30 cm in a direct line from basket to center of your lie (mini marker or disc)= stance violation. If you throw from behind another disc (yours or not) or another mini, or from anywhere else = practice throw.

Have we already decided that 803.10 "Throwing From Another Player�s Lie" is not the nearest extendable rule? I jumped in to this discussion a little late and it's a lot to read :)

Kind of. That rule is also trying to protect another player.


Have we already decided that 803.10 "Throwing From Another Player�s Lie" is not the nearest extendable rule? I jumped in to this discussion a little late and it's a lot to read :)

Since both a PT and a SV are, by definition, throws "not from the lie"...


You missed a post. The one where I went through a bunch of stance violation examples from the lie. :D



Fair enough. I'm too lazy to go back, but I can think of a few right off hand so I'm with you on that point.

But tell me, what is the difference between accidentally throwing perfectly from a false mark 5 feet from the true mark and lining up with a true mark but missing it by 5 feet? What if the two marks are only 6" apart?

the guy threw from exactly where he intended to throw from. after he saw what he had done, he WISHED he had thrown from his lie. but make no mistake - he absolutely intended to throw from the wrong spot. announcing at the beginning of the round "i intend to throw from my lie every single time" would not absolve you of any mistakes you make.




Nobody wants to absolve him from breaking the rules. We just can't agree on which one he broke.

when the guy realized what had happened he said "ooops, i threw from the wrong spot", not "oh crap i missed my mark".

when the guy realized what had happened he said "ooops, i threw from the wrong spot", not "oh crap i missed my mark".



Those two statements mean the same thing. The only difference is intent and, as we all know, intent doesn't mean squat.

Have we already decided that 803.10 "Throwing From Another Player�s Lie" is not the nearest extendable rule? I jumped in to this discussion a little late and it's a lot to read



Whose lie did he throw from? The thrower did not throw from anyone's lie, he threw from a non-active disc that was laid on the ground. I'm not sure why it is so hard to admit a mistake, accept whatever penalty is due, learn the lesson, then move on and finish the round.

My point is, we must make calls of intent at times and that IS acceptable under the rules.


I agree.

In the original scenario presented in theis thread, and in my opinion, the thrower's actual intent at the time the throw in question was executed was to throw from behind the disc that was not his marker.
We can play all sorts of games with semantics and possible meanings.
It's not a big deal that a mistake was made, but trying to weasel out of the penalty is, IMHO, the big problem.

I think a mistake was made by the thrower and a mistake was made in the call.
I think we are getting wrapped around the axel of semantics in the definition of intent.






The player's ACTUAL intent was to throw from behind his mark. I agree he failed in doing so, but I don't agree in the rule interpretation. Once again semantics.
This player did not try to weasel out of anything. He brought it up to the group and they collectively brought it to me.
So in reality you believe the only mistake was made by me in my call, but I'm wrong to take this personally. This is merely a discussion on interpretation. I'm wrong if I'm reading a bit of belittling into this because I'm not smart enough to read rules properly, right? You just wanted to point out that I wasn't thinking well, right?
I still feel I made the right call. I still feel my argument stands up despite being an extreme minority on this board. Until the rule is stated clearly, it is too vague to say one way or the other.
I understand very clearly the intentions of the player, the intentions of the other players that were there physically, and the intentions of the posters on this thread.

when the guy realized what had happened he said "ooops, i threw from the wrong spot", not "oh crap i missed my mark".


Those two statements mean the same thing. The only difference is intent and, as we all know, intent doesn't mean squat.


I disagree again. Those two statements mean vastly different things.

The former means "case closed, practice throw".

The latter requires more info. If you miss your mark by a foot, it's still pretty obvious that it's a stance violation. If you miss your mark by 50 feet, it's a "WTF?" moment if the thrower tries to claim they "missed their mark", as I can't see any reasonable way that a person could miss their mark by fifty feet. A 50 foot "I missed my mark" is pretty much case-closed cheating. So like I asked about 47 pages ago, how far away is "reasonable"? Does it really need to be defined? I don't think it does as usually, just like in the original example, it's usually pretty dang obvious if the player lined up behind the mark or somewhere else.

I just don't understand why there is such adament reluctance to issue a stroke penalty when it's so obviously called for. People act like one stroke would kill someone.

People act like one stroke would kill someone.



Sometimes it does,... other times it just leaves you :Dwith no feeling on one side of the body or no speach.

I've seen it happen.

So like I asked about 47 pages ago, how far away is "reasonable"? Does it really need to be defined? I don't think it does as usually, just like in the original example, it's usually pretty dang obvious if the player lined up behind the mark or somewhere else.

I just don't understand why there is such adament reluctance to issue a stroke penalty when it's so obviously called for. People act like one stroke would kill someone.



Actually, it looks like if we are going to have such a thing as a Stance Violation that is separate from a Practice Throw and is penalized differently, maybe we should have that distance defined. Maybe we should just do away with that portion of the stance rule and say that *any* throw not thrown from the true lie is a Practice Throw and they are all penalized the same way.

Now, don't ever accuse me of being reluctant to penalize someone.

Have we already decided that 803.10 "Throwing From Another Player�s Lie" is not the nearest extendable rule? I jumped in to this discussion a little late and it's a lot to read



Whose lie did he throw from? The thrower did not throw from anyone's lie, he threw from a non-active disc that was laid on the ground. I'm not sure why it is so hard to admit a mistake, accept whatever penalty is due, learn the lesson, then move on and finish the round.


I didn't say he threw from someone else's lie. I was merely asking if, perhaps, it could be the nearest extendable rule. The rules clearly state that if a situation is not covered in the rules, then you should try to find the nearest extendable rule.

803.01 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'm not trying to say there shouldn't be a penalty, just merely stating that perhaps there is another rule which one can extend to the situation at hand. You'll also note that the penalty for throwing from another player's lie is actually more severe than either of the two being discussed thus far.

803.01 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'm not trying to say there shouldn't be a penalty, just merely stating that perhaps there is another rule which one can extend to the situation at hand. You'll also note that the penalty for throwing from another player's lie is actually more severe than either of the two being discussed thus far.



As stated, the rule for throwing from the wrong Tee is a very apt extension and is treated like a practice throw.

there is no need to find a nearby extendable rule! this case is covered directly and specifically in the Rules already.

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

<font color="red"> 804.02 has to do with the two minute warning, and it not applicable in this case </font>

803.01B
B. Practice Throws. A player who throws a practice throw or an extra throw with any disc<font color="red"> check </font> any time after the start of his or her round<font color="red"> check </font> and prior to his or her finishing the last hole of the round <font color="red"> check </font>(except for throws that must be re-thrown in accordance with the rules, provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3), or throws during a suspension or postponement of play) <font color="red"> check </font>shall receive one penalty throw. <font color="red"> and there you have it </font>The practice throw or extra throw must be observed by any two players or an official.<font color="red"> check </font>

no need to invent or extend anything - one stroke penalty.

Pat,

I understand this seems obvious to you, but you don't seem to realize it also appears to fit other failed rules, such as stance violation. By your statement, the rule for wrong tee could also be removed since it would also seem to fit the exact guidelines. But answer me this, if the player did not figure out their mistake until after they had played out, how would you handle it then? Misplay of the course and the penality stroke for practice throw? Wrong tee adequately answers this question and handles the contingency of the completed hole. There is a certain elegance there that just saying it was a practice throw does not seem to finish everything up.

A stance violation needs to be called (w/in 3 seconds) AND then seconded. THEN comes the re-throw if there was no previous warning, right?

Adding a stroke/strokes as a TD who wasn't even there is their job IFF they see it fits the situation. The circumstances here clearly show to me that there was no intent to circumvent any rules as it sounds like the player called it on himself WELL after the fact...so, how to penalize is the question.

Sounds like a practice throw requiring a 1 stroke penalty.

Had someone called him on this at the time as a stance violation, then a competitive advantage could be argued because his re-throw would come with some 'gained' knowledge (for instance) as to how the wind may affect his next throw/re-throw...
.02 // YMMV

I'm going to start calling missed marks as practice throws.

Pat,

I understand this seems obvious to you, but you don't seem to realize it also appears to fit other failed rules, such as stance violation. By your statement, the rule for wrong tee could also be removed since it would also seem to fit the exact guidelines. But answer me this, if the player did not figure out their mistake until after they had played out, how would you handle it then? Misplay of the course and the penality stroke for practice throw? Wrong tee adequately answers this question and handles the contingency of the completed hole. There is a certain elegance there that just saying it was a practice throw does not seem to finish everything up.



and you dont seem to realize there is a very cut'n'dry rule that covers this case. no interpretation/stretching/extending required.

You still did not answer the question, what if he had finished the hole?

Jerry, In this type of problem, if a player went ahead and finished the hole after throwing from the wrong spot, there would be grounds for DQ. I say this because I knew instantly when I made the similar mistake that **something is wrong here**. An honorable player would instantly declare to the rest of the group his concern (if nothing else, just to cover his dignity in case someone else did happen to notice the infraction). To go ahead and finish the hole knowing he did **something wrong** would be cheating. If the player was so absorbed that he didn't realize he made a mistake (which I do not believe could happen because he would have to pick up his mini and the disc from the Tee shot), there may be other illegal substances involved that would bring up a whole different set of rules, and possibly immediate DQ.

You still did not answer the question, what if he had finished the hole?

i dunno. that has nothing to do with this thread. i dont feel like figuring it out at the moment, and dont wish to guess.

You still did not answer the question, what if he had finished the hole?

i dunno. that has nothing to do with this thread. i dont feel like figuring it out at the moment, and dont wish to guess.



:DThat's kinda what I was thinking, it was starting to make my brain hurt!

Pat, I agree with you that, now that we have hashed and rehased the rules almost ad nauseum about this, that it would be a practice throw, and any throw where the player is not in contact with the proper lie is considered a practice throw by the Rules. It's just that it is unsatisfying to call a practice throw on someone when, it was obvious to a casual observer, that the player was attempting a throw that was meant to be in play and to change the player's lie on that hole, and I am thankful that these kind of calls (stance violations once off the tee, but farther than 10m from the target) are rarely called.

You still did not answer the question, what if he had finished the hole?

i dunno. that has nothing to do with this thread. i dont feel like figuring it out at the moment, and dont wish to guess.



:DThat's kinda what I was thinking, it was starting to make my brain hurt!

Pat, I agree with you that, now that we have hashed and rehased the rules almost ad nauseum about this, that it would be a practice throw, and any throw where the player is not in contact with the proper lie is considered a practice throw by the Rules. It's just that it is unsatisfying to call a practice throw on someone when, it was obvious to a casual observer, that the player was attempting a throw that was meant to be in play and to change the player's lie on that hole, and I am thankful that these kind of calls (stance violations once off the tee, but farther than 10m from the target) are rarely called.


I'm glad I'm not the only tree hugger on this board.
I'm going to concede, after this lengthy deliberation, that the closest rule in this case is 801.04 B1 Wrong Tee substituting the word lie for tee this does become a penalty. I still don't see it in the framework as practicing and it only becomes an extra shot when 801.04 B1 is used to make it a penalty.
I didn't make a hasty decision to rule the way I did. I was trying to be a good rules keeper. I do love all the memories and friends I've made over the last 17 yrs with the ADGA and I'm sorry for any disappointment or offensive remarks that might have made anyone upset with me. :D

It's become obvious that we can't call a stance violation simply for missing the mark. By strict reading of the rules, any throw that does not happen while a supporting point is on the lie is automatically a practice throw and will incur a one stroke penalty.

It's become obvious that we can't call a stance violation simply for missing the mark. By strict reading of the rules, any throw that does not happen while a supporting point is on the lie is automatically a practice throw and will incur a one stroke penalty.


Not at my event.

It's become obvious that we can't call a stance violation simply for missing the mark. By strict reading of the rules, any throw that does not happen while a supporting point is on the lie is automatically a practice throw and will incur a one stroke penalty.


Not at my event.

I could have sworn you said "over and out" at some point back there. Your ruling stands albeit wrong. Call it an extra throw from a lie that was not the intended lie or something. I do believe it may be semantics but it is still the wrong call.

It's become obvious that we can't call a stance violation simply for missing the mark. By strict reading of the rules, any throw that does not happen while a supporting point is on the lie is automatically a practice throw and will incur a one stroke penalty.


Not at my event.

I could have sworn you said "over and out" at some point back there. Your ruling stands albeit wrong. Call it an extra throw from a lie that was not the intended lie or something. I do believe it may be semantics but it is still the wrong call.


I'm well aware of the majority opinion.

You got it, jr, I'll quit disturbing your world.

To: arlskipshot@yahoo.com
CC: conrad_damon@yahoo.com, hduvall@innovadiscgolf.com, jagarcia@ucla.edu, chappyfade@kc.rr.com, SylviaRick@aol.com, jgarnettster@gmail.com, tourmgr@pdga.com, crisnteresa@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [PDGA] Rules Committee: stance violation vs practice throw
From: "Carlton Howard" &lt;chh3@coastalfcu.org&gt; Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 09:00:56 -0400

Dear Skip,

Thanks for writing!

This is pretty clearly a stance violation....a foot fault, not a practice throw. IF called within the requisite time constraints.

Yours Sincerely;

Carlton Howard
PDGA Rules Committee Chairman

arlskipshot@yahoo.com
08/07/2007 07:30 AM Please respond to
arlskipshot@yahoo.com

To chh3@coastalfcu.org
cc
Subject [PDGA] Rules Committee: stance violation vs practice throw

Name: Skip Maxwell
Pdga number: 6922

Message:

I ran the Fahrenheit Fling July 21-22 and made a ruling that was later contested by a friend so I put it up for discussion on the board where I was chastized for being too soft and having made a bad decision.
To try and make it brief, a player threw from behind his disc by his bag instead of the mini and I ruled a stance violation no penalty. The majority of the posters, though, said he threw from the wrong lie therefore it was a practice throw and a penalty. I eventually conceded, but I don't like how this opens the door to eliminate foot faults. He did not throw from someone elses lie. He threw from the correct lie just from a wrong spot ie. stance.
If we rule that if it's not from a legal stance it's a practice throw we are going to have problems in the field between players.
I would really appreciate it if you could briefly look at the thread called Stance Violation under the Rules Topics and let me know what you think.
Thanks

No foot fault because it was not called within the requisite time constraints, so there is no warning, no misplay, no practice throw.

Now to follow up on the rest of the original question.

If the throw from disc instead of the mini was a foot fault (that was not called, therefore never happened), then the series of throws from behind the disc should be the set that counts, and the provisional set from behind the mini should be thrown out.

No foot fault because it was not called within the requisite time constraints, so there is no warning, no misplay, no practice throw.

Now to follow up on the rest of the original question.

If the throw from disc instead of the mini was a foot fault (that was not called, therefore never happened), then the series of throws from behind the disc should be the set that counts, and the provisional set from behind the mini should be thrown out.


I totally agree, Gary. When they as a group came to me originally and asked about the infraction, I assumed they had called him for the mistake. It wasn't till later that I found out that noone had caught it and he had called it to their attention himself.

He did not throw from someone elses lie. He threw from the correct lie just from a wrong spot ie. stance.



I disagree. The player threw from a random spot in the fairway. The "correct lie" was up at his marker. :p

Man, it baffles me that some players have a hard time grasping this point. If you mark your disc with your mini, then put that disc anywhere else on the course (except within 30 cm. in front of your mini), then play from behind THAT disc, you aren't throwing from your lie. Period. Even if you claim, "Whoops, I missed my mark.", you just played from a non-existant lie. There should be no question about the infraction, and the penalty is not about trying to "screw" anyone, it's about accepting responsibility for making a mistake, however minor you may believe it to be.

I'm completely dissapointed that the rules committee came to the conclusion that was posted earlier. I hope it was an oversight on their part, maybe they just didn't understand the whole incident, I hope that is the case. Maybe we should all just run to the teacher and say, "They're making fun of me. I didn't do anything wrong. I don't like their opinions. Tell them I'm right!" :p

Surely the Rules Committee wants people to play by the rules to ensure fair play, and not have some players say they don't like this rule or that one, so we're going to just let people slide if they cry enough.

NONSENSE!

He did not throw from someone elses lie. He threw from the correct lie just from a wrong spot ie. stance.



I disagree. The player threw from a random spot in the fairway. The "correct lie" was up at his marker. :p


I understand what you're saying, John, but he was not at another players lie. He was at his lie, just not in the right spot.
If we choose to say it was a random spot ie not his lie, then we are effectively saying that any spot other than the one at the legal lie is a random spot and a practice throw which would mean there could never be another foot fault called because it wasn't the legal lie making it a random spot.
I truly feel that this is not that hard to see and that Carlton, having been on the Rules Comm. for a long time, has no problem using the intent of the rules to come to his conclusion.

Man, it baffles me that some players have a hard time grasping this point. If you mark your disc with your mini, then put that disc anywhere else on the course (except within 30 cm. in front of your mini), then play from behind THAT disc, you aren't throwing from your lie. Period. Even if you claim, "Whoops, I missed my mark.", you just played from a non-existant lie. There should be no question about the infraction, and the penalty is not about trying to "screw" anyone, it's about accepting responsibility for making a mistake, however minor you may believe it to be.

I'm completely dissapointed that the rules committee came to the conclusion that was posted earlier. I hope it was an oversight on their part, maybe they just didn't understand the whole incident, I hope that is the case. Maybe we should all just run to the teacher and say, "They're making fun of me. I didn't do anything wrong. I don't like their opinions. Tell them I'm right!" :p

Surely the Rules Committee wants people to play by the rules to ensure fair play, and not have some players say they don't like this rule or that one, so we're going to just let people slide if they cry enough.

NONSENSE!


Yes I feel there is an oversight taking place here, but not by the Rules Comm.
At what point does a foot fault ( stance violation subject to a warning ) become "playing from a non-existant lie ( subject to a penalty )? Is it when the player plants two inches off line from the mini or when he plants two feet off line from the mini?
I haven't found that difference defined in the rule book.
Futhermore, if you think I have any pull with making the comm. say anything you are sadly mistaken and the one doing the whining. :p

ANY lie is defined either by a tee pad, tee line, marked drop zone, ANY mini or ANY disc. If a player makes a throw that is made properly from on or behind one of those places, but not the correct one, it should be playing from a wrong lie IF it's not the player's disc. In this case though, I submit that the player violated 803.03G Marking a Lie rule since he used his own disc as a marker but in the wrong location. He receives a warning according to the rule. Interestingly, it seems like loophole where you could "inadvertently" mark your disc favorably, maybe even real favorably, and just get a warning under this rule.

If a throw is not made properly from any of these type of marked locations, then it could be a foot fault if called or it would then be a practice throw if it meets the 2m+ or directional requirement. There's no time requirement to identify a practice throw but it does have to be identified as such by the group. So, I believe all throws can be identified in terms of status without confusion following the rules as written.

While we're at it, something I've wondered about a few times; Rule 803.03A says a player may choose to step up behind his thrown disc and, without moving it, use it for his marker. Do you still have 30 centimeters behind the disc to make your stance or is it less since that would allow you to take a stance a little futher back than if it were your mini? This could be seen as a slight advantage if you are sitting right behind a large tree or something.

Not that I really care. :cool:

I would say that the disc, if not marked and picked up, is the mark.

I most often use the previously thrown disc as marker. Yes, there is a bit of advantage to it. How much? Except for those times when the mini would be in a bush, or up against a tree, not much. In fact, it usually just adds a foot to the throw. But, it's easier for me, for some reason, to not mark with the mini. Maybe it's paranoia over being called for a practice throw or something.

"a player threw from behind his disc by his bag instead of the mini "

is it clear that even though the player marked his lie with a mini and "threw from behind his disc by his bag", that he was throwing from far away from his mark? i would like to understand better whyy the rules committee would throw out the literal definition of practice throw.

Maybe the literal definition of a throw from the wrong lie is what needs to be considered, along with the literal definition of a practice throw.

"Intent" SHOULD be part of the rule. It isn't, I realize, but that's the problem. Probably the rule of fairness should be more often applied.

If the intention is a shot toward the basket, as in playing the next shot, no practice throw, it's from the wrong lie. If the intent is to toss the disc to the bag, no practice throw (but get in the habit of placing the disc rather than tossing it).

90% of the time (I'd hope all PDGA members, at least, would be honest 100% of the time with things like this) the thrower will be upfront about intent.

But, until rules are so codified that we have to ask an official before scratching ourselves, I guess we'll have to just be careful. Or, use the rule of fairness.

The rule of fairness is only used when an action is not adequately described within the rules, not as an out to prevent giving a player a penalty.


803.02 General
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.



The problem is that both the stance violation and practice throw are well covered in the rules. Any throw that does not count as a competitive throw during the round (except for provisional throws) should be a practice throw.

But here's the real question.

If you are on a card where the same thing happens, and no foot fault is called, how do you advise the player to finish the hole ?

The rule of fairness always applies when there are competing interpretations at play, and no rule spells out which takes precedence.

It is my opinion that "playing from the wrong lie" is intended to address situations where it is LATER REALIZED that the player threw from the wrong lie and it is practically impoossible to rectify.

I agree with that entirely.

I can only find two "playing from the wrong lie" rules in the book. One is playing from another player's lie, and the other is the practice throw definition.

Which do you think applies ?

I am not sure what is being discussed here anymore, but in no way shape or form am I going to try to penalize anyone two strokes for mistakenly playing from the wrong lie, and then immediately noticing it. It can certainly be called a practice throw with a stroke or foot fault with a warning. I'm not going to feel a loss if a foot fault is called and they only get a warning.

So let's take my situation from a few years back at New Mexico States. If another player on a different card does the same thing and only takes a warning and a re-throw, then finishes one throw ahead of me at the end, doesn't that taste just as bad? Someone got screwed for applying the rules as written, while another found some bleeding hearts to say, "It's OK, we know you tried. You're a cool enough guy, we'll work around the penalty by saying you just played from an incorrect spot ("YOUR UN-LIE")."
I've had nearly the exact same thing happen to me. It happened at the New Mexico State Championships in Sipapu, and my cardmates included Dan Ginnely and Peter Sandoval. We all Teed on Hole #5 and after approaching our tee shots, I marked my Roc with my mini (I normally don't mark with my mini, I usually play from behind my disc), then dropped it near my bag which was several feet away. About that time Peter found his disc and declared he was probably the away player. I backed up several feet behind my bag and into the bushes lining the fairway. When it was my turn, I approached my Roc near my bag, went through my pre-shot routine, and launched a pretty decent shot up the hill towards the pin. As I reached down to retrieve my Roc, I saw my mini and immediately realized what I had done. I instantly called out to the rest of the group to Wait a minute. I explained what I did, and we couldn't determine what the infraction was. After several minutes of reading the rules and discussing, Dan suggested reading the definition of a "Practice Throw". That pretty much covers how to proceed in this instance. If you aren't throwing from your lie, it's a practice throw.

Each player must pay attention to the task at hand, or pay the penalty.





And Skip, it's not whining, it's taking responsibility for making a mistake during the round. I want other players to know that I can play by the rules that are written, and most of my repeat cardmates know I'm honorable enough to call my own infractions.

As far as I know it's still throwing from behind the disc after marking with a mini-marker and flipping the disc aside.

My point was that there is no "playing from the wrong lie" rule in the book unless you extend the "Wrong Tee" section of 801.04 which I believe is the most fair thing to do in this case. If you catch it after one throw, you correct it, if not you complete the hole and treat it as a misplay.

It seemed clear to me that the appropriate rule was a practice throw, but the RC says it's a stance violation and if no one calls a stance violation in time, the hole should be completed from the existing throw without penalty or warning.

This just seems to be like a scenario that is very easy to misplay on purpose to gain an advantage with very little way to prove that it was intentional. I think the rule should be set up to discourage this mental lapse, not excuse it with no penalty.

Actually, the RC is inclined to support either direction of this call.

I also sent a message to the RC to ask what was their rational behind this decision, and Carlton replied that they could support whichever way the TD decided.

Skip, you're not wrong.

Dan, Peter, and I did not come to an erroneous conclusion.

How do we procede from here?

Clearly the TD was trying to make the correct call and the Rules committee agreed with his call, but they agreed with his call because he was the official on site. In my opinion, I think the closest eqivalent is misplay of the tee and if I have to make this call, I am going to use that as the governing rule.


Actually, the RC is inclined to support either direction of this call.

I also sent a message to the RC to ask what was their rational behind this decision, and Carlton replied that they could support whichever way the TD decided.

Skip, you're not wrong.

Dan, Peter, and I did not come to an erroneous conclusion.

How do we procede from here?

803.03G. It's simply a mismarked lie in all of the examples given. Warning for first infraction. The player played from a mark that they placed (their own disc and it was even the one just thrown) but it was not the proper mark to throw from.

That seems like a very reasonable way to handle the situation, imo.

I think a stance violation occurs when you miss your mark or have a foot off the tee when you're attempting to play from the correct mark. There's no other potential mark nearby. In this case, the player played from what they thought was their mark but it was not the right position.

How do we procede from here?


burn the rulebook and start over?

during a PGA sanctioned event, Tiger marks his putt and steps away to talk with the caddy while his cardmate putts out. they're standing 15 feet from his mark so that they are out of his cardmates line of sight. when its his turn he bends over, places his ball on the green, lines it up and sends it towrds the hole. what penalty does he face?

Who cares about ball golf's arcane and anal rules? I hate to tell you, but ball golf isn't popular because of stupid rules.

Our rulebook is perfectly fine. The fact that one can find a legit interpretation that deals with minor mistakes in a sensible way is not a weakness, it is a strength.

I rarely see disc golf tournaments not won on the course, and I always think it was a level playing field. That defines excellent and wise rulemaking in my book.

its just a question...

803.03G. It's simply a mismarked lie in all of the examples given. Warning for first infraction. The player played from a mark that they placed (their own disc and it was even the one just thrown) but it was not the proper mark to throw from.



I disagree, the player successfully completed all of the things required by 803.03, then they played from somewhere else.

I have no problem bringing intent into the equation and treating it as an extension of 801.04.B.1 (Wrong Tee). That clearly has all of the same intentions and circumstances.

In both cases, the player throws what they intend to be a competitive shot from what they think is the correct lie(tee). In both cases, the only problem is that the lie(tee) in question is not the lie(tee) they should be playing from.

The question of how to proceed after the problem is discovered is answered clearly, and there is enough teeth in the penalty that it encourages players to avoid the penalty.

He did not comply with 803.03G which is why that ruling makes sense. If you think about it, this situation is one of the few reasons 803.03G would ever be invoked. He played from a mark that is his disc that he placed on the ground in the wrong position.

Just changing the subject line to represent the correct call. :D

803.03 Marking the Lie
G. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a marking rule if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. One penalty throw shall be assessed for each subsequent violation of any marking rule during the round if observed by two or more players of the group or an official.



803.03.G is the penalty part of the rule. How exactly do you fail to meet the requirements of this part of the rule ?

He placed a mini marker on the playing surface per 803.03.A and removed the thrown disc. At this point in time, the previously thrown disc becomes no more than litter on the course that needs to be cleaned up.

maybe this is why we call it "lie"

I think the point was that he played behind his disc that he set on the ground therefore incorrectly treating it as his marker.

I would agree if not for the change in the rules that made using your thrown disc a legitimate mark for your next throw. Prior to 2000, you could only throw from a mini and I would agree with another interpretation then.

Except the rules are very specific in how a previously thrown disc may be used as a marker.

He completed the requirements of 803.03 by marking the lie with a mini marker. He then removed the previously thrown disc. 803.03 is complete, you can't do any more marking once a mini marker has been placed.

Now the player throws from behind the previously thrown disc which has been tossed aside from the real lie and has no real relation to it.

The possible rules in play (IMHO) are 1) practice throw, 2)stance violation, 3) by extension, playing from the wrong tee.

If the definition of a stance violation is broadened to include this, there can never be a practice throw because you will never hit a target you are not aiming for and I contend that the stance violation does not apply to this situation.

That leaves practice throw or playing from the wrong tee (which uses a practice throw). The logical extension of playing from the wrong tee(spot) and the ability to consistently apply that logic to this type of mistake put it ahead of the other interpretations for me.

That and the fact that I have no problem giving or receiving penalty strokes for mistakes caused by lapses of concentration.

It seems pretty clear to me that if you take the time and effort to find your thrown disc, get your mini marker out of your bag and place it in front of your thrown disc and then remove that disc from where it was, you are effectively telling everyone else in your group (or anyone else who happens to be around watching) that your mini is your "LIE". Now if you take your previously thrown disc (that you just picked up and removed from the playing surface) and put it anywhere else on the course, that disc has no bearing on anything else until the next time it is your turn to throw and you choose to throw that disc. If you play from ANYWHERE else other than your "LIE" at your mini, that should be a practice throw according to the rules that are written and supplied to the players. If you approach your mini and attempt your next throw but grossly miscalculate the wind blowing you sideways and miss your mini by 3 feet, that's a stance violation, and should be called as such. If you are attempting a throw from anywhere else on the course (say, maybe from behind a disc that is laying on the ground beside your bag which happens to be 14.5 feet away from your mini), that is a terrible mental mistake that should not be allowed to go unpenalized (or just a warning). Many players use techniques to help groove their next shot mentally while they are waiting for their turn to throw, so the others in the group may not think to watch that player as he is getting himself "ready" and be prepared to call a stance violation in the required amount of time. If the player throws from his disc by his bag and nobody calls the stance violation in 3 seconds, that player just got a free pass on a obvious mental blunder and suffers no repercussions from his mistake.

I just can't make sense of calling this a stance violation.

Let me restate my goal in debating this and pretty much any call on this board.

I want to establish a simple and clear precedent for future situations that makes sense and is easy to follow.

Calling it a stance violation brings in the time limit for the call to be made when the error probably won't be noticed until well after the time limit expires plus it really stretches the definition to preclude a practice throw ever being called.

To call it a marking violation is similar in that the mark was clearly and properly established, just ignored.

The misplay more accurately describes what really happened, the correction method is clear and the rule makes sense in multiple situations.

Player has a disc that lands in a tree with no 2m penalty. Puts down the marker on the ground below the disc and shakes the tree to dislodge the disc and it falls a few feet from the mini. He proceeds to go help another player find his disc. Comes back and plays from the disc instead of the mini since that's how he normally plays (like example posted earlier upthread). This appears to be a violation of 803.03G where he plays from a position that was mismarked. It's only a warning. And this is not much different from the example that started the thread.

The thing about 803.03G is that it's only an infraction that merits a warning AFTER a shot is executed from a mismarked position. 803.03G does not produce an official warning if a player mismarks a lie and it's observed by other players as a mismark. The player would just correct the mark. So, 803.03G only occurs after a throw from an improper mark. If those throws would be ruled under another rule, then rule 803.03G would be unnecessary.

You just hit the nail on the head, Chuck. The player deviated from his normal procedure, thus causing him to make a mental mistake. That player should bear any responsibility for what he did, which was play from a spot that is not his "LIE". That player should almost instantly realize he goofed when he reaches down to pick up his mini that isn't where he just threw from. Admit the mistake, accept the penalty, move on to the next hole (or throw), and LEARN how not to do that again.

However, if Player A and B are playing the exact same disc from te tee pad, but then player A throws his second shot from player B's lie then it a penalty stroke.

Needless to say the rules are to varied in these cases. I would rather see that if a player plays from any lie other then the correct one, then a stroke penalty occurs.

Chuck,

I undertand, and at one time agreed with, what your are saying, but I realized that if the player had completed the hole, with the time limit on the call for stance violation, there was no logical call to make. By applying wrong tee, which can easily be substituted with the phrase "wrong lie" there is a clearly defined path to answer what happened if the mistake was made and discovered and if the mistake was made and the hole completed. The penality is not nearly as severe as playing from another player's lie, as I feel is correct, and answers finishing the hole.

Pretty much as I read the PDGA rule committee responses, any one of the choices are legitimate, but in my mind only wrong tee covers all possibilites adequately.

There is no time limit on making the call that the player mismarked their lie and gets a warning. The group or the player (hopefully) sees that they threw from their mismarked lie and makes the call at that point even if it's more than 3 seconds. I agree that the stance violation rule doesn't address it sufficiently because the infraction might not be obvious during the 3 second time period allowed.

There is no language in 803.03 that relates to making a throw.

The player did not mismark is lie.

He threw from somewhere other than his correctly marked lie.


But, here is the real problem with a marking violation that is called after a throw is made instead of when the violation occurs. What becomes of the throw ? If the rule was meant to be applied at the time the throw was made and not when the lie was marked, wouldn't there be some mention of the disposition of the throw as with a stance violation ?

Does the player continue with a warning as if nothing happened ?
Does the player ignore the throw and then throw from the correct lie ?

Let's take the easiest situation where a player flips over their disc like in rec play to mark their lie. If they do that and throw in PDGA competition, they could be called on 803.03G and get a warning. If they do it again, they get a penalty. There's no need to say anything in the rule about the throw itself and what happens since it's now a legal throw.

I realize it seems like this thread example should be handled like playing from another player's mark. But it's clearly a situation where the player is throwing from what they think is their mark (it's their disc), even though they or the group discover it was mismarked after their throw.

Seems like the possible throwing scenarios that seem to be covered without overlap by the rules would go like this:
1. Player throws from their mark or proper tee and meets the stance requirements upon release - No penalty
2. Player throws from near their mark, and not behind any other disc or marker, but does not have proper supporting point placement/position according to the rules - Warning if called and seconded by someone in the group within 3 seconds - otherwise considered legal throw.
3. Player throws with a proper stance upon release from behind what they think is their proper mark which is their own disc or mini. Group discovers after throw that mark was not made properly or is in wrong position - player gets warning.
4. Player makes a throw from some location that is not during their turn or from an unmarked location not near enough to anyone's disc or mini to be considered a competitive throw from a marked lie - player gets a practice throw penalty.
5. Player throws with a proper stance behind a disc or mini that turns out to not be their own - the throw counts as their competitive throw and they get a 2-throw penalty.

I think that covers it and follows existing rules. The interesting twist for item 5 would be that the player notices during their release that it's not their disc and creates or calls a foot fault which is seconded. Is the foot fault in reference to their correct lie such that they get a warning and no penalty for really missing their real lie? Or do they get the foot fault warning in reference to playing from the wrong lie and get the 2-shot penalty?

But it's clearly a situation where the player is throwing from what they think is their mark (it's their disc), even though they or the group discover it was mismarked after their throw.



I have seen 3 times in competition where a player plays from a disc that they think is there disc, but turns out to be the same make, model, color and stamp as another players. Thinking and knowing what lie is correct plays a much more important role in the rules. There should really be a new rule added or an amendment for playing from any wrong lie, whether marked incorrectly or not, that should follow the same rules as playing from another players lie.

Odd that you would equate proper mark and proper tee in step 1, yet not think they are the same in step 3.
:) ;)

So what is the final verdict? I witnessed the same thing at a tournament this year (player correctly marks lie with mini, places disk a few feet away, waits for another player, then proceeds to putt from his disk). My initial reaction was to call a practice throw since the player had thrown from the wrong spot (nothing was actually called since the player denied throwing from the wrong spot when I asked him about it after watching him throw from his disk then go pick up his mini).

After the tournament several of us discussed what the call would have been and we all agreed one stroke for a practice throw. We did not think it was a stance violation since there was no attempt to ever line up with his mini.

I am also one of those players that often does not use a mini. I once played from the wrong disk thinking it was mine since the other player was looking for his disk about 100 feet away (where we all thought it ended up). This was of course a 2 stroke penalty. Seems crazy to have a two stroke penalty when playing from another disk that you think is yours but no penalty when playing from your disk when it is not your lie. I vote one stroke practice throw. (Same as inadvertently teeing from wrong spot..which I have also done :confused: ).

I agree with that entirely.

I can only find two "playing from the wrong lie" rules in the book. One is playing from another player's lie, and the other is the practice throw definition.

Which do you think applies ?


I've been out of touch for a week and unable to respond here, but I would like to say that the answer to this question, IMO, is neither. Wrong lie implies another persons lie. His own lie was by far the closest and the one he intended to play. To accept a call of a foot fault is to accept responsibility for your mistake. It doesn't HAVE to be a penalty for a mistake. I know that a foot fault wasn't called so that point is moot.
I realize there is a huge "grey" area here and it should be addressed by the Rules Comm. I have no problem understanding all the people calling this a practice throw, either. I just wasn't happy conceding that the closest rule was the one for a wrong tee, because this would obliterate the foot fault rule. That's why I wanted to get Carlton's opinion.
I, myself, took the penalty in the VPO one year for throwing from a lie I marked that turned out to be a disc just like mine but not mine. This was throwing from a wrong lie. The player in this thread did not do this. He was "at" his lie.
I'm satisfied that I was vindicated to some degree for my call, but I do agree this needs to be settled one way or the other.

How do we procede from here?


burn the rulebook and start over?

during a PGA sanctioned event, Tiger marks his putt and steps away to talk with the caddy while his cardmate putts out. they're standing 15 feet from his mark so that they are out of his cardmates line of sight. when its his turn he bends over, places his ball on the green, lines it up and sends it towrds the hole. what penalty does he face?



Don't know if anyone responded so here is the answer:

20-7c/1 Ball Replaced at Wrong Place on Putting Green and Holed


Q. In stroke play, a competitor in replacing his ball on the putting green inadvertently put the ball in a wrong place nearby and holed out. The error was then discovered and the competitor put his ball in the right place and holed out. What is the ruling?

A. The score with the ball played from the wrong place counts and the competitor must add two penalty strokes to that score (Rule 16-1b or 20-3a and Rule 20-7c).
The competitor incurs no penalty for having putted from the right place after holing out from a wrong place.

Another aspect to this that is different than disc golf is what happens if the player didn't know he putted from the wrong place and signed his scorecard and turned it in before adding the two strokes. In that case he is DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard.

We should further examine the DQ for some offenses. I believe if our rules had more of a bite for dumb-a** mistakes, players would pay more attention, increasing respect for our game (and the rules of our game).

In ball golf it is also much easier to putt from the wrong place. Often a player will have his ball mark in the path of another player's putt. They will move it left or right the width of a putter head.

When your fellow competitors take a while to putt, it is easy to forget to move it back.

We should further examine the DQ for some offenses. I believe if our rules had more of a bite for dumb-a** mistakes, players would pay more attention, increasing respect for our game (and the rules of our game).



That it does!! I played a two day city championship and was behind for the first 34 of the 36 holes. Then I birdie the 17th to pull even and make a 45' on 18 to win out right for my first large tournament victory with quite a crowd standing around to watch.

After turning in my scorecard I was standing around talking about the round and the head pro walks up and asks if I checked my card. I said yes it had the right total. He said, "No, I asked if you checked your card. The total doesn't matter the committee totals that. Its the hole by hole score that the player is responsible for and the total doesn't match." I looked at the card and found where my marker had put me down for a 4 when I made a 5, a one stroke penalty that I had called on myself but he forgot to add it in. Instant DQ.

Needless to say I no longer care about totals but pay really close attention to the hole by hole.

I'm sorry about the thread drift from stance violation to scorecards but this brings up a question.

Does the hole by hole or total take precedence in Disc Golf? Or does the whole thing need to be correct? For example, if the total is right but there was an error for any given hole would the player incur a two stroke penalty? Or vice versa if the hole by holes are correct but the total is wrong would the player get a two stroke penalty added to the corrected total?

Personally I think there should be 2 score cards per group and any discrepencies should lead to a DQ also. PDGA has people keeping track of individual scores and then the player must repeat all scores back from memory. Personally I agree that our rules are not tight nor strict enough to be taken as serious as many other sports. And the lack of people who call others on rule infringments is horrible.

The player is responsible for the hole by hole and total scores.