player plays from anothers lie..
no one has a rule book...
group tells player to play from original lie...
player finishes from his original lie...

6 throws to finish in basket


8 or 10 strokes?

why 8 or 10?

what do you think official ruling is and why did they make that call?

discuss amongst yourselves and tomorrow night i'll check after the flymart and see what everyone thought

The rule is very clear on playing from another lie and the penalty is 2 strokes. The problem is that the player went back to his lie and played from there to finish the hole and that is not what the rule states. It says the hole must be finished from the throw from another's lie. So is there any additional penalty? I would say that since 2 strokes is about the most punitive penality in the books, that the call was made to stroke the player 2 strokes.

I believe it could be argued that after finishing the hole from his lie, which was an incorrect lie, he could have also been stroked 2 more for incorrect play of the hole, but I am betting 2 strokes only.

All of the course misplay rules refer to things like wrong tee, target, playing from OB, etc. Basically course routing issues. I would not apply it in this case.

I'm assuming the 6 includes throwing from both the other players lie and what should have been his lie? If so, there is an extra "practice" throw already included. The +2 for playing from another player's lie should be sufficient.

First of all, I love the title of this thread :D

Re: ruling:

Jerry is correct, 803.10 A is applicable here. The player threw from another player's lie "shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning". So there is 2 right there.

But, as Jerry also stated, the rule also states "The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed". And, as was stated, the player did not play on, but returned to his actual lie. So, this action of the player created a de facto practice throw out of the throw taken from the other player's lie, and this would receive one penalty throw (803.01 B).

So, take the 6 throws from the player's actual lie to finish the hole, add 2 penalty throws for throwing from the wrong lie, and one penalty throw for a practice throw, and add the throw for the practice throw itself, and you have a total of 10 throws.

Jerry is correct that the most punitive {throw} penalty is 2 throws, but in this case there were 2 infractions, the throw from another player�s lie, and that throw becoming a practice throw by the player resuming play from that player�s proper lie.

***NOTE***

In researching this ruling, I notice under "Practice Throw" in "800. Definitions", at the very end of the definition, it states "A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

But, there is no subsection A (2) under section 804.02 - Beginning Play. Anybody got any idea what other subsection could be used as a reference to a practic throw? Is this a typo that has been already addressed?

and one penalty throw for a practice throw, and add the throw for the practice throw itself,




Hmmm. How do you get essentially a two throw penalty for a practice throw? A practice throw is a throw that is not used to change a player's lie (which means it otherwise would not be counted.) The penalty for a practice throw is to count that throw, not to count that throw and add another one.

"A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

But, there is no subsection A (2) under section 804.02 - Beginning Play. Anybody got any idea what other subsection could be used as a reference to a practice throw? Is this a typo that has been already addressed?



Just drop the (2). 804.02 A is the correct section to be referenced.

Player never announced he was taking provisional? I had a similar situation at Mid Nationals last year. Actually it was on Hole 2 of Blueberry Hill at Highbridge Hills.
http://www.playdg.com/courses/?s=WI&c=blueberryhill&h=2
As you can see as you get closer to the pin the foliage juts out. I threw around that foliage and we spent a bit of time searching in the woods for my disc. My blue teerex with red stamp was found, and I threw from it, played out to within 25 feet of the basket on the luckiest out of my day.

A minute later another guy on the card heads for his disc, a bit further up the fairway and sees an IDENTICAL disc. It was mine, my name underneath. I had never checked bottom for distinctive markings, being that it was under brambles and I felt I had a better shot without putting down a mini.

And so I played two lines of play: finished out from the other lie, and then played out a provisional line of play from my own disc. Ruling at the end by the TD and Marshall was that I take the 3 from the wrong disc, plus 2.

Always call a provisional! I could have taken much worse!

- All players should know the entire rulebook.

- All PDGA players should carry the rulebook with them during sanctioned events.

But most importantly, whenever there's a ruling dispute or question that cannot be answered immediately (and no Officials are accessable), ALL players must know to play provisionals (record both scores) and get the issue resolved at the end of the round. Playing provisionals will always avoid "after the fact" rulings that occur.

Self-proclaimed Rules Zealot of the Day,

F Doot

Beat you to it zealot ;)

(this is just a provisional post, we'll determine if it counts toward my post count later!)

Bill,

That is pretty much the line I was taking. I am willing to bet the ruling was only two strokes, but the more I look at it the better I like your interp. I think the problem comes in where the group made the decision for him to go back and play from his own disc. In terms of heritical order it would be TD-Official-Spotter (only where appropriate)-Group Majority-Any two members of a group(foot fault)-player.

Since the group instructed him to go back and play from his disc, I am willing to bet they did not penalize the player beyond the 2 strokes (assuming they did penalize him for that)

Seems as though there is a penalty for not carrying a rule book, even though it is not a rule. Having a rule book handy would have avoided the extra throw penalties. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Did this happen at PRO Worlds? Where were the professional disc golfers in this group?

I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the score recorded for that hole for that player was a "6", because no one in disc golf ever seems willing to award perfectly legally earned penalty throws, period. After all, are you guys so lousy at this game that you must resort to terror tactics and rules abuse to win? Why don't you just out and practice instead?

Sorry for that sarcasm. It's for the Dallas TD from that other thread. :)

There is no question on the 2-throw penalty for playing from another's lie. That is automatic, so we are up to a snowman-8 for correct score. But how to rule playing the wrong disc again? It sure seems logicical to dole out another 2 throw penalty and pllay from there, but the rules don't allow that as it wasn't "another player's lie". It was the thrower's non-lie at this point in time.

I think it can be covered under Playing the Stipulated Course.

803.01 General
A. Description of the Game. The game of disc golf consists of throwing a flying disc from the teeing area to a target by a throw or successive throws. Players shall play the course as they find it and play the disc where it lies unless allowed otherwise by the Rules. The competitor who plays the stipulated round or rounds in the fewest throws plus penalty throws is the winner.

801.04 Playing the Stipulated Course
A. It is the responsibility of the player to play the course correctly. Before play begins, players shall attend the players� meeting and ask about any special conditions that may exist on the course, including extra holes, alternate teeing areas, alternate hole placements, out-of-bounds areas, and mandatories.
.
.
.
(4) Out-Of-Bounds Play: Playing an out-of-bounds disc as if it were in-bounds. If the misplay is discovered after the throw from out-of-bounds, but before a subsequent throw has been made, the player shall throw from the correct lie and treat the throw from out-of-bounds 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.

Perhpas the rule book could use a section entitled "Playing from the right spot". In any event, I propose that 803.01 requires the player to play the stipulated course correctly. I quoted the "playing an OB disc" rule because I think it comes sort of close in that you are playing from a disc location that you aren't supposed to play from. Seeing as how the rules do not specifically cover playing from a wrong lie that is not another player's lie nor O.B. and completing the hole using that illegal throw, I think this comes closest and, IMHO, "makes sense" within the framework of the rules.

Sure you can argue it, but that's because this situation isn't explicitly covered in the rules.

I say it's 6 throws plus 2 penalty throws for throwing from another player's lie plus 2 more penalty throws for course misplay for playing from the wrong lie, for a total of 10.

Just because a player got 1 OB stroke doesn't mean s/he shouldn't be penalized again for more OBs throw, and in similar fashion just because a plyer got a 2-throw penalty for playing from another's lie doesn't mean they shouldn't be penalized for breaking other rules on subsequent throws.

Sorry for that sarcasm. It's for the Dallas TD from that other thread. :)



Hey now, don't pick on Bryan, he's one of the best TDs in the Dallas-Ft. Worthless area, and he's a friend of mine (hah-like that would matter to anyone, eh?) :p

Anyway, he's in Carrollton, not big D (like me) :D


Seeing as how the rules do not specifically cover playing from a wrong lie that is not another player's lie nor O.B. and completing the hole using that illegal throw,



Didn't we kind of cover this in the thread that Skip started about a similar situation in the Fahrenheit Fling?


I say it's 6 throws plus 2 penalty throws for throwing from another player's lie plus 2 more penalty throws for course misplay for playing from the wrong lie, for a total of 10.




Oh, fellow DGRZ, it warms my heart that you arrived at the same conclusion that I have, although I prefer the "Practice Throw" justification for adding 2 throws to the score, rather than the "Misplaying the Course" justification.


Just because a player got 1 OB stroke doesn't mean s/he shouldn't be penalized again for more OBs throw, and in similar fashion just because a plyer got a 2-throw penalty for playing from another's lie doesn't mean they shouldn't be penalized for breaking other rules on subsequent throws.



Word

Didn't we kind of cover this in the thread that Skip started about a similar situation in the Fahrenheit Fling?


I was talking about Skip, not Bryan. :eek:




...although I prefer the "Practice Throw" justification for adding 2 throws to the score, rather than the "Misplaying the Course" justification.


I have to call shenanigans on you for that one, oh-oh-one. A practice throw is a one-throw penalty with no warning, not a two-throw penalty. A practice throw is not a "real throw", so the throw itself doesn't count, just the penalty throw.

I have to call shenanigans on you for that one, oh-oh-one. A practice throw is a one-throw penalty with no warning, not a two-throw penalty. A practice throw is not a "real throw", so the throw itself doesn't count, just the penalty throw.



OK, that's a valid objection to my conclusion, but you better watch it there, bud, saying what I was trying to do was "shenanigans" is starting down that slippery slope to a personal attack! :D

Anyway, my general response, though I admit it is not the strongest one I have used, is "where in the Rules does it state that a practice throw does not count as a throw?"

Before the round starts, section 804.02 Beginning Play states that if such throws that occur between the 2 minute warning and tee off, the first offense is a warning, and every offense after that incurs a one throw penalty. I can understand why the throws themselves were not counted, since the round has not yet begun.

But, since we have already started the round, section 803.01 is the applicable section, and it states that the player will receive one penalty throw.

I can't find anywhere in the Rules that states that, once a round has begun, a practice throw does not count as a throw. After all, it was a throw made during the round. Why should it not count as a throw?

Rhett, you opened this can of worms. Please try and close it using the rules and not with words that you have to put in "quotes", like "real throw" :D

The rules don't say that the practice throw itself counts towards your score, therefore it doesn't count towards your score. Only the penalty throw counts towards your score.

:D

Well, why doesn't the throw that was ruled a practice throw not count as a throw? There are other throws made during play that are not usable, such as a OB shot. Why is a practice throw excluded from the round's throw count?

Rhett, I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I just want a good debate.

I think you would agree that, in general, a throw counts as a throw on the score card. Why is this type of throw excluded?

Well, why doesn't the throw that was ruled a practice throw not count as a throw? There are other throws made during play that are not usable, such as a OB shot. Why is a practice throw excluded from the round's throw count?

Rhett, I'm not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I just want a good debate.

I think you would agree that, in general, a throw counts as a throw on the score card. Why is this type of throw excluded?



BOLDED is my emphasis.

Definition of throw (Rule 800): The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie.

Definition of practice throw (Rule 800): During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie , either because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie. Throws that are re-thrown in accordance with the rules are not practice throws. Provisional throws made pursuant to 803.01 C and 803.01 D (3) are not practice throws. A player shall receive a penalty for a practice throw in accordance with sections 803.01 B or 804.02 A (2).

Since the "practice throw" does not meet the definition of a "throw", since the lie does not change in a practice throw, then a "practice throw" does not constitute a "throw", and therefore shall not be recorded as a throw as described in 804.03C.

Chap

Chap

I like it, Chappy. Without the penalty descibed in the rules, practice throws would be "free" since the practice throw itself does not count.

The more I look at this the more I am confused by it. I agree and understand several of the lines here, but the problem, as I understand it, is that the majority of the group told him to play it from his own lie. This made the throw from the other player's lie invalid. Regardless of whether the group had a rule book or not, the player followed the group decision, wrong or right. As I stated before the group majority outrules the individual every time, unless the individual had declared a provision throw OR had waited for an official's call. Here is where I think the player made a mistake. Not knowing the rules is not a good enough excuse, but following the majority rule is an acceptable means to follow.

803.01 C. Provisional Throws

(2) To appeal the group's or an official's ruling: A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole pursuant to 803.01 D

If the player did not take one then he simply abided by the group's decision. I believe that by doing so, the only penalty that can be applied is the 2 strokes from playing from the other player's lie. However, there was still another throw made and by every definition available it appears to be a practice throw........ Not knowing the rules is not an excuse..... the group majority overrules the individual..... the individual may elect to not take a provisional on a group decision.... there was still another throw made and by every definition available it appears to be a practice throw........

**** I am looping again.

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.

So you say the score should be a 9?

This scenario doesn't appear to be explicitly covered by the rules, so I would ask all certified officials to come up with a ruling and post it. This is a scenario that could definitely come up again.

And there are no wrong answers, except exczars. :)

Chappy/Rhett:

I'll buy that explanantion (for a dollar :D).

The practice throw still counts as a throw on the scorecard, but, instead of it being recorded as a throw that does not change the lie, it is counted as a penalty throw. Same result, but with different logic.

I guess it is implicit in the rules that a throw that does not changes one's lie does not count as a throw on the scorecard.

So, going back to what the throw total should be, we got the 6 throws, plus the one stroke penalty for practice throw, plus the 2 throw penalty for, uh, whatever I said it was before :ofor a total of 9 throws, which was neither of the options Keith gave us.

I thought he said he was going to post to let us know what the actual ruiling was. Did I miss it?

Jerry,

I read your post twice and it made my brain hurt

I agree and understand several of the lines here, but the problem, as I understand it, is that the majority of the group told him to play it from his own lie.


All I know is that if I am at the wrong tee-pad for a hole, and the group tells me it is the right teepad for that hole, if I throw from that wrong tee-pad I'm going to get a penalty. :)

what was the offical ruling anybody ?

So you say the score should be a 9?

This scenario doesn't appear to be explicitly covered by the rules, so I would ask all certified officials to come up with a ruling and post it. This is a scenario that could definitely come up again.

And there are no wrong answers, except exczars. :)



If you assume that the idiocy of the group for not knowing the rules gives you no relief, then the rules do directly cover this situation.

Throw from the wrong lie --> 2 strokes, play out the hole based on that throw. Wherever that disc lands is now his correct lie.

Throws from his old lie = Throw from the wrong lie --> 2 strokes, play out the hole based on that throw.

I count 4 penalty strokes, 2 for each infraction.

Throws from his old lie = Throw from the wrong lie --> 2 strokes, play out the hole based on that throw.


Can you quote the rule that you say explicitly covers this? That right there is the crux of this whole discussion, that this scenario is not explicitly covered.

You are correct. The rules do not directly address this.

The rules should be amended to be "playing from an incorrect lie" rather than "another player's lie"

If I the guy in the group in front of me forgets to pick up his disc and I accidentally play from it, I'm not playing from his lie either... he's already thrown and moved on. Unless someone walks up to you and says "Hey, that's my disc!" how do you really know that it is another player's lie?

At the same time, the "stance violation" should include some wording of "while playing from (or attempting to play from) the correct lie" to avoid the loophole of "It was only a stance violation, I missed where my foot should have been by only 60 feet!"

RBP,

You make some good points as to what the rules should state in order to better clarify and improve the result of the infraction, but, as the Rules are now, what say you?

So what was the ruling, and if you've been following the thread, vote on what you think it should have been.

RBP,

You make some good points as to what the rules should state in order to better clarify and improve the result of the infraction, but, as the Rules are now, what say you?



Not knowing what the actual ruling was, and having thought about it some more:

Playing from the other player's lie +2 stroke penalty.

The group told him to play from his original lie.

803.01 D (5) Where a group�s or official�s decision is overturned on appeal, the official or director may, in the interest of fairness, allow the thrower�s score to remain the same or adjust the thrower�s score to reflect the correct interpretation of the rules.

If the group had not ruled that the player should go back and play from his own lie and had ruled correctly, the player would have taken 2 strokes.

So invoking the fairness rule, I think he should be given just 2 strokes.

803.01D (3) says The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling.

Encouraged, not required.

The rules should be amended to be "playing from an incorrect lie" rather than "another player's lie"


I agree that this would be an excellent change to the current rules. It's simple, it covers the original rule of playing from another player's lie, and it closes a hole in the rules. I also think it's fair in that playing from the wrong lie is pretty analogous to not playing the stipulated course, so they should have the same 2-throw penalty.

I like it. :)

It's an eight. In my opinion that is.

The lone clear directive from the PDGA Rules Committee is that the group is the final arbiter of any calls when the player does not request an official's ruling or elect to play provisionals. Compounding the situation is no defined penalty for not finishing the hole properly once the wrong-lie penalty was called.

So, I base that 8 on the following:

The group told him to play from his original lie, and the player took 6 throws to complete the hole.

Since it is known that the player played from another's lie, he should get the 2 stroke penalty. I thought maybe that the throw(s) from the wrong lie should be called practice throws and added one stroke per practice throw, but that would be excessively punitive, and incorrect in light of the group's incorrect but acceptable to the Rules Committee's ruling.

Unfortunate that my proposal to have players competing in PDGA majors tested on the rules has been largely ignored. Another glaring hole in the rulebook has exposed the Rules Committee's continued lack of attention to anything other than Innova's latest commandments.

I agree that the Rules would benefit from a revision in this area, but I don't see a connection with using rule 801.04 Playing the Stipulated Course. Under subsection B, the subheading are:
- Wrong Tee
- Misplaced Mandatory
- Wrong Target
- Out of Bounds Play
- Non-sequential Play

The player teed off on the correct tee in the correct sequential order and finished on the correct target, and there were no OB or Mando issues involved. Granted, this section does use the word "misplay" a lot, and the player in this instance misplayed his lie, in a sense, but did not misplay the hole, which is what I think this section refers to.

I did appreciate, however, RBP's reference to 801.03, since subsections C and D were tailor-made for these type of situations, where the call is not clear. Unfortunately, the player did not appeal the group's call and take provisional throws. So, we are stuck at deciding how to interpret the rules as they are in deciding how many penalty throws to assess, and I have stated before that I thought there should be three - 2 for playing another player's lie, and one for a practice throw.

But here's some more fuel for the fire. IMO, the penalty for Throwing from Another Player's Lie (803.10) is so punitive (2 throws, no warning) in order to discourage someone from picking up someone else's lie, leaving that person with a lost disc penalty as well as them actually losing a disc that was in their bag and was used. I think that this rule should be changed to reflect that if the error was discovered before the player moved the marker disc, then the penalty should be the same as a practice throw. I say this because the other player's lie is easily reproducable, and the offending player caused no actual harm to the other player, since the other player's disc is still there, and the disc's lie can be pretty much exactly reset.

Does that make sense to anyone? Call me crazy, but I think that rules should make sense.

The rules should be amended to be "playing from an incorrect lie" rather than "another player's lie"


I agree that this would be an excellent change to the current rules. It's simple, it covers the original rule of playing from another player's lie, and it closes a hole in the rules. I also think it's fair in that playing from the wrong lie is pretty analogous to not playing the stipulated course, so they should have the same 2-throw penalty.

I like it. :)



The only thing is that the current rules only give a 1 throw penalty if you throw from the wrong tee or throw from OB and realize it before taking a second shot...(treating the throw from the wrong spot a practice throw) The other player's lie penalty is more severe.

Is there a reason for this inconsistency?

Is it much worse to throw from behind the wrong KC Teebird than it is to throw from the wrong side of an OB line?

I thought maybe that the throw(s) from the wrong lie should be called practice throws and added one stroke per practice throw, but that would be excessively punitive, and incorrect in light of the group's incorrect but acceptable to the Rules Committee's ruling.



Hey Mikey, welcome back to the message board. Now you need to behave yourself, because I know you can add value to discussions if you properly word your expressions.

Now back to the ruling at hand. I appreciate what you said about not wanting to be excessively punitive, but the practice throw was a separate event from the next throw, so I don't think that a total of 3 penalty throws total for 2 separate events is excessively punitive.

You did post something that piqued my interest. I inferred from your post that the RC has addressed this particular situation and decided that 2 penalty strokes was appropriate.

Finally, no matter who on the RC is sponsored by a manufacturer, it is definitely not appropriate to cast aspersions regarding the RC's writing, rulings, or opinions on any part of the Rules outside of 802, since only 802 has anything that could even remotely be considered manufacturer specific, IMNSHO.

The only thing is that the current rules only give a 1 throw penalty if you throw from the wrong tee or throw from OB and realize it before taking a second shot...


I like this. It makes good sense. However, our rules are hardly ever called, so I'm always in favor of easier to interpret rules than complicated ones, in the hopes that one day in our sport you'll be able to call a rules infraction without being subjected to a lynch mob.

The "other player's lie" is a bigger penalty because the other disc's owner runs the real risk of suffering an �ber-severe lost disc penalty. It's kind of a combo "played the wrong disc plus interference" penalty.

If we simplified the "wrong lie" rule then we would have to add more provisions for adding the interference penalty if the player moved another player's disc. Which brings us back to the "how to determine if this found disc is a disc in play."

Maybe a whole new rule called "playing the wrong lie" should be constructed with the 1 throw practice throw 2-throw and keep it if you've made a subsequent throw thing, with a provision to use the more punitive "other player's lie" rule if in fact you threw from another player's lie. That might be the way to go. And maybe re-do the "other player's lie" rule to be the "playing a disc that is not your own" rule. Hmmmm....those two changes could clear up a lot of stuff, since sometimes when a player play a disc that is not their own, it's tough to tell whether that disc is in play or has been in that spot lost for weeks.

The way the call went down was to count all physical throws the player made which was 5 plus the 2m penalty plus 2 penalty shots for completely misplaying the hole to card an 8. It's kind of like the situation where you miss a mando and land 2m up in a tree in an OB area. You only get one penalty shot for missing the mando since the penalties aren't added. Something along these lines should be written up by the RC so it's available for future TDs to refer to as a way to handle these multiple situations. He still ended up getting the equivalent of a 3-shot penalty with the misplay plus the extra throw.

Kinda like how when someone throws OB three times on one hole, they are only penalized one-throw for going OB on that hole.

Right? :)

You did post something that piqued my interest. I inferred from your post that the RC has addressed this particular situation and decided that 2 penalty strokes was appropriate.

Finally, no matter who on the RC is sponsored by a manufacturer, it is definitely not appropriate to cast aspersions regarding the RC's writing, rulings, or opinions on any part of the Rules outside of 802, since only 802 has anything that could even remotely be considered manufacturer specific, IMNSHO.



The Rules Committee has made no specific Q & A on this topic. I did not mean to infer that they had done anything remotely useful in the recent past, as they have not. If you read the most recent scribbling jibberish of the Rules Committee, you'll see that their theme is that rules are pretty much what the TD of the event decides, whether or not the TD is even capable. When the TD is unavailable, the Rules Committee thinks it's okay for the group to decide, as in, the group decides if there is "reasonable evidence" that a disc is lost in a water hazard. So, when I said it is current practice in PDGA tournaments for groups to make calls, that is where I am coming from. It's not right at all, it's what the RC tells us is right though, and as long as the current brain-dead RC is allowed to write the rules, you'll have incorrect rulings made at tournaments by groups who don't carry rule books because none are required, even though the RC says groups must be the ones to make many many judgment calls. But what the heck do I know, I'm just some stupid TD trying to enforce PDGA rules.

I am well aware that there are few areas of the Rules of Play that concern anything in regards to certain disc manufacturers. The concern is that Innova pretty much shoves whatever they want straight down the PDGA's throat because the PDGA is fearful of offending Innova, disc golf's largest corporate sponsor. It's one thing for our US government to appear corrupt, it's another for the PDGA which is a vastly more important entity. :D

Go ask Discraft, Gateway, or Quest AT if they think it's proper and ethical for Innova to have so many sponsored players on the PDGA Rules Committee. If they'll talk that is...Innova likes to sue people into silence after all. Great examples of impartiality, those representatives of Innova.

Money talks.

Kinda like how when someone throws OB three times on one hole, they are only penalized one-throw for going OB on that hole.



I initially indicated I thought it should be a 10. The marshals felt that it was similar to the situation where you don't get penalized twice for having a later ruling change your score such that you not only get the penalty but also get penalized for turning in a wrong scorecard.

Innova likes to sue people into silence after all. Great examples of impartiality, those representatives of Innova.



Not everybody *cough*stevehowle*cough*cough*

I have no problem with someone trying to enforce their patent rights. That's what the courts are for, let'em battle it out there.

And if you think that Dave Dunipace is gonna be PO'd at Carlton for, for example, changing the 2m rule to be optional, and that would sway Carlton's decision, let me just say, as one of my fav WB toons, Tweety,

"You don't know dem vewy well"


Note to Peanut gallery:

Why do I get the eerie feeling that Mike is chanelling, dare I type it, R*bert R**sien? /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Chuck,

Congrats on making it through, now relax.

Just curious, did ya get a lot of PSTATS last week?

Just curious, did ya get a lot of PSTATS last week?



Never brought it up since the IDGC thing. Theo would like to make it a web based service so we're waiting until we can deploy resources on that project.

[QUOTE]

I am well aware that there are few areas of the Rules of Play that concern anything in regards to certain disc manufacturers. The concern is that Innova pretty much shoves whatever they want straight down the PDGA's throat because the PDGA is fearful of offending Innova, disc golf's largest corporate sponsor. It's one thing for our US government to appear corrupt, it's another for the PDGA which is a vastly more important entity. :D

Go ask Discraft, Gateway, or Quest AT if they think it's proper and ethical for Innova to have so many sponsored players on the PDGA Rules Committee. If they'll talk that is...Innova likes to sue people into silence after all. Great examples of impartiality, those representatives of Innova.

Money talks.



What? :confused:
Please, enlighten us.

When I was on the board I never once felt like Innova was trying to shove anything down or up any of our respective orifices. Innova could do that if the people in charge were like that. They really aren't. Harold, Dave and the guy whose name I always forget are all really decent people.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a Discraft guy. I don't go out of my way to suck up to Innova. But for the benefit of people who might not know what to believe, there is nothing behind the allegation that Innova jerks the PDGA around.

Probably the best example I can give would be the SL controversy earlier this summer. If Innova was the puppetmaster behind the PDGA, there would not have been a controversy. The PDGA would have just said, "Oh, that disc does not need approval." Instead, when the thing came to light, Innova promptly submitted the disc for approval.

So if you are reading Mikey's stuff and you don't know what to think, I think there's no basis to anything he says. He takes shots in the dark and one in ten times he hits something. This time he's missing.

Tim Selinske

All these people talking about not having or knowing the rules are being too harsh, imo. All of these rules are open to much interpretation. I for one would have only given him a one stroke pratice throw penalty, netting him a seven. Basically, if the guy is acting in good faith, and tries to rectify his mistake, then use whatever enterpretation penalizes him the least. Why some people always look towards screwing someone over as much as possible is beyond me.

That's funny, cuz I was the lone vote for a '7'...with the same reasoning. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I rarely vote, I'll add another one to the seven group. :D

This happened in an Austin tournament to a player mistakenly throwing from a wrong disc stuck in a tree. He played the shot from underneath the disc which he thought was his. After he threw, we knocked the disc out and realized it wasn't his. We found his disc, and he threw from there. In this case, the disc in the tree could not be ascertained as anyone's lie (it was not a lie from anyone in our group), therefore the practice throw logic was easier to defend. I think the same logic can apply here, all it takes is some reasonableness from the group or the TD.

[QUOTE]
. After all, are you guys so lousy at this game that you must resort to terror tactics and rules abuse to win? Why don't you just out and practice instead?

Sorry for that sarcasm. It's for the Dallas TD from that other thread. :)

There is no question on the 2-throw penalty for playing from another's lie. That is automatic, so we are up to a snowman-8 for correct score. But how to rule playing the wrong disc again? It sure seems logicical to dole out another 2 throw penalty and pllay from there, but the rules don't allow that as it wasn't "another player's lie". It was the thrower's non-lie at this point in time. WHAT???????
This is that Dallas ( Arlington ) TD that's so stupid he can't grasp your simple explanations of complex situations.
I understand now that there is an elitist group posting here and you have lots of people who support your expounding diatribes, but I'm just not capable of giving you the respect you command. Going through life as pompous and self righteous would not be a goal of mine.
Signed,
the Iconoclast :D

When I was on the board I never once felt like Innova was trying to shove anything down or up any of our respective orifices. Innova could do that if the people in charge were like that. They really aren't. Harold, Dave and the guy whose name I always forget are all really decent people.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a Discraft guy. I don't go out of my way to suck up to Innova. But for the benefit of people who might not know what to believe, there is nothing behind the allegation that Innova jerks the PDGA around.

Probably the best example I can give would be the SL controversy earlier this summer. If Innova was the puppetmaster behind the PDGA, there would not have been a controversy. The PDGA would have just said, "Oh, that disc does not need approval." Instead, when the thing came to light, Innova promptly submitted the disc for approval.

So if you are reading Mikey's stuff and you don't know what to think, I think there's no basis to anything he says. He takes shots in the dark and one in ten times he hits something. This time he's missing.



Is this the same Bruce Brakel who said the Rules Committee did an "end-around" the Board of Directors when Bruce was on the Board?

You all are right...I am doing the Rules Committee a favor by alleging that Innova unduly influences them. I should focus more on the holes in their rulebook. I don't have the time to point out all the holes...but know that they exist. Researchers at MIT have proven it, but I can't find the link.

I think James McCaine's post has perfectly demonstrated that the PDGA tour has a problem with SELECTIVE enforcement of the Rules of Play. "I just don't think it's right to penalize someone two strokes if they didn't mean to break the rules...I also don't think a drunk driver should be jailed if he didn't mean to run over anyone"

McCaine, I expect better from you. You need to wake up to the wonders of rule enforcement. RULES DO NOT CARE IF YOU MEANT TO BREAK THEM.

I hope I get to play in your group sometime McCaine...I can say, I didn't mean to throw OB, so it's not a penalty! And then I'll move up a stroke on the scoreboard and laugh at your weakness.

Readers, don't ever let people like me take advantage of you...unless your name is

http://www.jessica-biel-pictures.net/stills/qdig-files/converted-images/jessica-biel-vanity-fair-outtakes/med_jessica-biel-vanity-fair-outtakes1.jpg

Jessica Biel...all others, learn the Rules Of Play and don't let rulebreakers get away with it.

I rarely vote, I'll add another one to the seven group. :D

This happened in an Austin tournament to a player mistakenly throwing from a wrong disc stuck in a tree. He played the shot from underneath the disc which he thought was his. After he threw, we knocked the disc out and realized it wasn't his. We found his disc, and he threw from there. In this case, the disc in the tree could not be ascertained as anyone's lie (it was not a lie from anyone in our group), therefore the practice throw logic was easier to defend. I think the same logic can apply here, all it takes is some reasonableness from the group or the TD.


James as a fellow Texas gentleman, I, too, think being reasonable and fair is a natural way to deal with my competition. You won't, however, get the same sentiments from the young nazis that try so desparately to get attention here.

I can say, I didn't mean to throw OB, so it's not a penalty! And then I'll move up a stroke on the scoreboard and laugh at your weakness.




and


I just don't think it's right to penalize someone two strokes if they didn't mean to break the rules...I also don't think a drunk driver should be jailed if he didn't mean to run over anyone



Equating throwing OB with mistakenly playing from the wrong lie and comparing drunk driving to mistaking someone else's disc for your own shows a lack of discretion. Intentionally discarding discretion is nothing to be proud of.

This is one of Mikey's legit points.

Nice to see that some people believe that intent should never factor into the rules are equated to Hitler.

I rarely vote, I'll add another one to the seven group. :D

This happened in an Austin tournament to a player mistakenly throwing from a wrong disc stuck in a tree. He played the shot from underneath the disc which he thought was his. After he threw, we knocked the disc out and realized it wasn't his. We found his disc, and he threw from there. In this case, the disc in the tree could not be ascertained as anyone's lie (it was not a lie from anyone in our group), therefore the practice throw logic was easier to defend. I think the same logic can apply here, all it takes is some reasonableness from the group or the TD.


James as a fellow Texas gentleman, I, too, think being reasonable and fair is a natural way to deal with my competition. You won't, however, get the same sentiments from the young nazis that try so desparately to get attention here.



Nazis? Sorry, but that comment removes you from the list of Gentlemen, Texas or otherwise. Certainly there is more pallatible and appropriate nomenclature for those with whom you disagree.

Equating throwing OB with mistakenly playing from the wrong lie and comparing drunk driving to mistaking someone else's disc for your own shows a lack of discretion. Intentionally discarding discretion is nothing to be proud of.



Consider the context here McCaine. This is a poop-filled Discussion board for Christ's sake. This isn't the meeting of the Rules Committee---so lighten up when people go out of their way to make outrageous analogies trying to entertain the masses.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Valor is a synonym for courage. Have some courage to call the rules as they are written in the rulebook before you start pointing fingers at people for their lack of discretion. I promise you I will stroke you immediately two big ones if you play from the wrong lie, YOU CHEATER!!!

Knowing the intent of both the player and the rulewriter is essential. The intent of the "playing the wrong lie" rule is "how to deal with someone who COMPLETES the hole from the wrong lie." It is a misuse of the rule to apply it to someone who plays from the wrong lie and then immediately notices it. It also baffles me as to why people are so comfortable with finding some rule that looks like it applies, blindly discarding discretion, needlessly punishing someone, gaining what I would call an unfair advantage over them, and moving on like they have done their best.

We have juries in the legal system because our founding fathers realized that written laws, while absolutely necessary, will NEVER account for the full range of subleties that surround the lawwriter and lawbreaker. Juries were needed to provide discretion and common sense to the written word. Stepping back in disc golf and trying to see the big picture is akin to serving on a jury and weighing the counsel's arguments. It is not a weakness.

Well, assume it is not the discussion board, but the golf course. If it makes you proud to blindly follow "rules as you see them" and ignore other interpretations, then so be it. btw, nice twist on the meaning of courage. Blinding abondoning discretion is courageous? Give me a break.

One question about intention.

If a player breaks a rule intentionally, isn't that cheating ?

All rule violations should be unintentional errors of execution or slips of concentration.

[quote
Have some courage to call the rules as they are written in the rulebook before you start pointing fingers at people for their lack of discretion.

[/QUOTE]


There is no argument about the need to enforce rules. The problem is the differences in defining what they say. For example, Wrong lie: does that mean from another persons lie or from a spot other than the legal lie? If you believe it is the second definition then there would be no such thing as a foot fault.. only practice throws.
We've opened the door to use provisional shots to keep from slowing down play waiting for official rulings so no provisionals should become penalties.
Interpretation of the rules is the question, not the desire to enforce them.

Hey nazi-boy, I was going to apologize for taking that cheap-shot at you, but forget it now.

You seem to have no regard for the spirit of fair play based on a level playing field, as evidenced by your desire to weasel-word the rule-book in order to try not to ever hand out any penalties, so we should just agree to disageee on what "spirit of the game" even means. :p

And I agree with gnDuke that intentional violation of the rules equals cheating, so we should assume all rules violations discussions are about unintentional errors on the course.

One question about intention.

If a player breaks a rule intentionally, isn't that cheating ?

All rule violations should be unintentional errors of execution or slips of concentration.



Thank you, Gary, I was waiting for someone (else) to bring that one up.

The situation we have been discussing is an unintentional breach of the rules, which is what the great majority of the breaches are. But, as I have said before, intent, IMO, should not be a factor in assessing penalty strokes. It should be considered only by the TD or other designated official in deciding to DQ a player.

For example, Player A tees off and parks a 500ft hole. I proceed to shank my shot immediately OB. I make some excuse to allow the other players to play on, even though I am out (I want to get a disc out of my car that is right by the hole). I walk up to Player A's lie and putt. Oops, that wasn't my lie. By gosh, you are right, give me a 4 (two actual throws, plus 2 penalty throws).

What would I do as Player A? Would I insist that (I) go back and play the shot from where it went OB (or retee, I forget what the rules are now :p )

No, I would give that player a 4, have a note made on the card, then after the round, talk to the TD, hopefully with others in the group, and get (me) DQed.

I want the "Rules of the Game" to be clean, easily understood and interpreted, and elegant. Introducing intent into the "Rules of the Game" is not something I wish to do. I prefer to leave it where it is, under section 804, "Tournament Conditions".

I also want to repeat that I have no problem with Skip making the call as he did. All we can ask of any TD is that s/he do the job to the best of his/her ability, and I believe that Skip did just that with what we are discussing on this thread. Did he err in using the intent of the player in making his decision? Perhaps. Did he show bias in making his decision. I don't think so.


Respectfully submitted,

What is the deal between Skip and Rhett?

I didn't even understand Gary's question.

I don't know what makes y'all intent-averse. It's pretty obvious that the wrong lie rule is there for dealing with the situation where someone played the wrong lie and completed the hole. The RC was faced with "What to do? What to do? Well, two strokes sounds fair." It's a process guided by common sense and fairness. The punishment fits the crime, etc.

However, in this case, I am assuming that the player realized his error before completing the hole. We are faced with at least two plausible rulings: playing the wrong lie and a practice throw. I suspect there are others. In short, there is no black and white answer. Given that there is no black and white answer, how on earth could one not look at intent and fairness when assessing the penalty?

Bill, while I totally agree with your position on DQing the guy in your scenario (because I am comfortable looking at intent), I think you are being somewhat erratic in your position. If we cannot look at intent, then how can you assume he was intentionally cheating? If we can look at intent in order to assess a very harsh penalty of DQing, then how come we cannot look at intent to assess a more lenient penalty?

edit, I see Bill makes the DQ/Non-DQ distinction when applying intent. I still view it as erratic, since discerning intent is necessary to transfer the violation from one realm where intent is irrelevant to a realm where it is predominant.

The rule is very clear on playing from another lie and the penalty is 2 strokes. The problem is that the player went back to his lie and played from there to finish the hole and that is not what the rule states. It says the hole must be finished from the throw from another's lie. So is there any additional penalty? I would say that since 2 strokes is about the most punitive penality in the books, that the call was made to stroke the player 2 strokes.

I believe it could be argued that after finishing the hole from his lie, which was an incorrect lie, he could have also been stroked 2 more for incorrect play of the hole, but I am betting 2 strokes only.



That is why i will throw from another guy's lie if I am 200ft in the woods and he is parked for the 2. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I contend that the player on this thread played from a "wrong lie" by shooting from another players mark. This is the case addressed by the rules committee when they said wrong lie. The player on the thread I started did not throw from another players lie. He was at his lie and threw from the wrong spot.
If we call this a "wrong lie" then there are no more foot faults...only practice throws. To me this is clear. I'm not trying to tweek anything.
The player on this thread threw from a wrong lie...2 strokes.
The player on my thread did not....stance violation.

James, Gary's question is quite simple and it's a fundamental assumption in assessing any violation.

If the player intentionally breaks a rule (like what Matt just said he'd do :) ) it is cheating and punishable by DQ.

So, in 99% of cases (rough guess), the player's intent was to not break any rule. But, for whatever reason they did break a rule.


And I agree with Bill, the rules should be intent-free and clean, and easy to interpret. Otherwise we all should start carrying lawyers in our bags to argue our cases so everyone can fairly weasel their way out of penalty strokes.

Also, to those who were offended by my Nazi remark I would like to make the comparison of Rules Nazis to Seinfelds Soup Nazi. It was just a way of saying that some of you come off as extremely hard core. Lighten up por favor as asked earlier. Rhett, Bill respects you so I should too. I'll stop.

And I agree with Bill, the rules should be intent-free and clean, and easy to interpret. Otherwise we all should start carrying lawyers in our bags to argue our cases so everyone can fairly weasel their way out of penalty strokes.


"Intent free and clean" is an impossibility. Like I said to Bill, if you are being "intent free," you could never DQ Matt under that scenario. Secondly, you and others continue to assume that every violation is black and white, namely that there is one, and only one violation that specifically applies to the question at hand. I know you peruse rules threads. Almost every one of them ends up with at least two or three plausible interpretations, given one's point of view.

So, violations (at least the ones that make threads) rarely are black and white, or "clean" using your term. To assume otherwise is equivalent to denying reality. Therefore, we are always faced with competing interpretations, some more plausible than others. What do we do? IMO, most of us already have common sense inside our head to guide us. Why some are afraid to use it baffles me.

At the end of the day, if my competitor accidently (the only way he would do it) plays from the wrong disc and immediately notices it, I have no desire to punish him even one stroke, but if I am forced by competing rules interpretations to either punish him one or two strokes (or more for the uber anal), I am certainly not going to choose two and rationalize it by saying "well, that rule semed like it applied more. I am sorry I screwed you over, but rules are rules. It's out of my hands." BS, it's not out of my hands, or the TD's hands more appropriately, and I hope TDs are more willing to rely on a sense of fair play than some around here.

You make a great point. Unfortunately I think it's not the point you wanted.


The fact that there can be multiple penalties assessed for a violation is a lapse in the rules, which is where I agree with Mikey.

Well, I've written a lot of rules in my life, and imo, having multiple interpretations, or gray areas is completely natural and expected. I suspect that the RC will correct/clarify gray areas when they see them, and I will also bet a large sum that their correction will lead to new gray areas that no one ever imagined. Soon, the rule book becomes massive, and yet, there are still gray areas. No one can begin to put their mind around all the unanticipated possibilities. You call this a weakness, I call it reality.

So, if you accept my assertion that no set of rules will cover every scenario, what do you do when you hit a gray area? IMO, the only sensible approach is to use your best judgement, guided by fairness. It is the glue that holds every set of rules together.

I don't know what makes y'all intent-averse. It's pretty obvious that the wrong lie rule is there for dealing with the situation where someone played the wrong lie and completed the hole. The RC was faced with "What to do? What to do? Well, two strokes sounds fair." It's a process guided by common sense and fairness. The punishment fits the crime, etc.

However, in this case, I am assuming that the player realized his error before completing the hole. We are faced with at least two plausible rulings: playing the wrong lie and a practice throw. I suspect there are others. In short, there is no black and white answer. Given that there is no black and white answer, how on earth could one not look at intent and fairness when assessing the penalty?




The problem with this interpretation is that there are other rules that use the "practice throw" designation explicitly.

The rules committee already has written:

Accidentally throw from OB and realize it before your next throw? Go to the right spot and throw again. Count the bad throw as a practice throw. If you've thrown twice, its 2 stokes finish the hole without going back.

Accidentally throw from the wrong tee and realize it before your next throw? Go to the right tee and throw again. Count the bad throw as a practice throw. If you've thrown twice, its 2 stokes finish the hole without going back.

But they chose to write the rule:

Accidentally throw from another player's lie? Its 2 stokes, finish the hole without going back.

The rules committee could have almost cut and pasted the text from one of the other two rules. They chose not to. For some reason. And you want to substitute your judgment for that of the rule committee? (personally, I like the 1 practice throw, but that isn't how the rule is written)


As for "wrong lie" and eliminating stance violations:

1: you could still have one foot behind the mini and the second foot closer to the hole.
2: You could change the wording to "when attempting to play from the correct lie" (note that this puts a little intent into the rule, but I'm fine with that.)

Skip, I just want to go on record as saying that I didn't think you made a bad ruling on the other thread. (And I don't believe I posted such, either.) If my posts on the other thread came across that way, it certainly wasn't my intention.

On that other thread, I do believe you've brought up a bona fide hole in the rules: what do you do when a player plays from "not their lie" and it's not another player's lie and they didn't "miss their mark". I don't think it's covered.

Thanks, Rhett. It's truly appreciated. I know I was being difficult and I didn't mean to be. Intent aside, it's still a penalty stroke on me. Sorry. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I see Bill makes the DQ/Non-DQ distinction when applying intent. I still view it as erratic, since discerning intent is necessary to transfer the violation from one realm where intent is irrelevant to a realm where it is predominant.



James, I'm not sure what you mean by what you said above, except that maybe you meant that the "rules of play" realm is where intent is irrelevent, and the "tournament procedures" realm, intent is relevent, at least IMO. Is that right?

I am not saying that a player cannot perceive from another player's action what the intent of that player was - that would be absurd. I am just saying that during the course of play, the establishment of intent is not up to the players. If a player insisted he putted out, even though a couple of people saw him pick up his disc and move to the next tee box, then is not the time to argue about it. Ask the player what his score was and move on. Immediately after the round is over, bring the matter up with the TD, who can make the decision of what to do. It is the same with my previous scenario:

"You really wanna say you got a 4? Two strokes with a two-stroke penalty? Mmmm OK, a 4 it is. Who's got the box?"

Then after the round, bring it up to the TD.

Put the onus of the TD for these types of rulings, that involve judgment calls on the parts of the players. It is hard enough to call clear, technical rule violations as it is, without going into the grey area of intent while you are still in the middle of the round!

Also, to those who were offended by my Nazi remark I would like to make the comparison of Rules Nazis to Seinfelds Soup Nazi. It was just a way of saying that some of you come off as extremely hard core. Lighten up por favor as asked earlier. Rhett, Bill respects you so I should too. I'll stop.



Skip1, thank you for providing yet another example of how the PDGA Discussion Board Moderators have one set of rules for the general populace and another for yours truly.

I was banned for comparing the destruction of the old PDGA constitution with the Nazi takeover of Germany. Of course, I do not believe and have never said that the PDGA wants to kill 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, and millions of others like the Nazis did, but nonetheless, I was banned.

The PDGA is a joke in regards to rule enforcement.

I'm not using over-the-top comedic comparisons when I say that---it's blatantly obvious that McCaine's "subjective interpretation" argument is 100% flawed...witness the "subjective" interpretation of our PDGA moderators and tell me that "subjective" equals fair. It doesn't---and anyone who says it does should be placed in a concentration camp immediately and tortured by the Soup Nazi :D

I'm not using over-the-top comedic comparisons when I say that---it's blatantly obvious that McCaine's "subjective interpretation" argument is 100% flawed...witness the "subjective" interpretation of our PDGA moderators and tell me that "subjective" equals fair. It doesn't---and anyone who says it does should be placed in a concentration camp immediately and tortured by the Soup Nazi :D


Unfortunately, I have to agree with Mikey on this point. :p

http://www.jessica-biel-pictures.net/stills/qdig-files/converted-images/jessica-biel-vanity-fair-outtakes/med_jessica-biel-vanity-fair-outtakes1.jpg

Man Mikey, you're a whole lot better lookin' than I thought you'd be! I can't wait to see you throw a disc.

So the other day I was driving out to Oak Meadow for a round and I was listening to this great song jammin' out when I look in my rear-view mirror and there's this state cop car, lights on and siren blastin'. I look down and I'm notched at 60 in a 45! "Darn" I think and pull it over. He walks up to my window and asks for id etc. and I look him in the eye and say, "but I didn't mean to speed!"

He looks me back in the eye and he says, "Oh, not meaning to speed means you get 50 cents off on your next cup of coffee at Starbucks. By the way, did I mention that Starbucks is having a coffee sale?"

Whether driving or playing disc golf, it is your job to know the rules. If you're too lazy to knock that disc out of the tree, or even worse, pick it up and see if it has your name on it, frankly, you deserve a stroke. It doesn't take a lot of effort to make sure you're doing it right.

Same Bruce. Had nothing to do with Innova. The [[censored]] who was responsible for that wasn't doing Innova's bidding. You're confusing the horse with the horse [[censored]].

Also, to those who were offended by my Nazi remark I would like to make the comparison of Rules Nazis to Seinfelds Soup Nazi. It was just a way of saying that some of you come off as extremely hard core. Lighten up por favor as asked earlier. Rhett, Bill respects you so I should too. I'll stop.



Skip1, thank you for providing yet another example of how the PDGA Discussion Board Moderators have one set of rules for the general populace and another for yours truly.

I was banned for comparing the destruction of the old PDGA constitution with the Nazi takeover of Germany. Of course, I do not believe and have never said that the PDGA wants to kill 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, and millions of others like the Nazis did, but nonetheless, I was banned.

The PDGA is a joke in regards to rule enforcement.




Nice try Mikey..you referred to members of the PDGA as n*zis, hence your suspension. It was a personal attack.

It's over, please get over it.

And get your arse to MSDGC..

Lame analogies are not persuasive. Some of y'all really believe in an ideal world. You continually skirt around the fact that multiple rules seem to apply and the situation is hardly black and white, you continually ignore the fact that the written word, when read by separate people is hardly objective. This is no different than philosphy 101 questions: are all lies the same? are laws absolute, or are they relative? Is all jaywalking the same? Is a cop something less than he could be if he overlooks or uses discretion when dealing with some "crimes"? Prosecutors? Juries? Beyond all these silly analogies, let's get to the heart of the matter, don't sporting concerns enter into your thinking at any point?

James,

Sure, a cop uses discretion when dealing with some "crimes", but what that means to me is that the cop decides to penalize or not penalize an infraction, not to call an infraction something else.

For instance, a cop sees you run a red light. He will either give you a warning for running the red light or a ticket for running a red light. He won't say,

"We both know that you ran a red light, but it had just turned red, and there were no other cars near the intersection, so I'm going to give you a ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. It's kind of close to the same thing, and the penalty is not as severe as the one for running a red light, you know."

The cop knows he has 2 choices: Write a ticket (with concurrent penalty-a fine) for running the light, or not write such a ticket.

vs. DG, where you saw someone throw from close to their lie, but without actually touching the lie. Do you say,

"We both know that you didn't touch your mark when you threw, which is technically a practice throw, but we both also know that you were pretty close to your mark, and I think you were actually trying to make a throw that would change your lie, so I am just going to invoke a stance violation against you, because the penalty is not as severe as a practice throw, you know."

I would prefer the player KFC and make the right call, rather than use the following decision tree:

Great throw, player is competitive: Practice Throw
Not so great throw, player is competitive: Stance Violation
Not so great throw, player not competitive: No call

Whenever possible, make the rules black and white for the players. Come across a disagreement within the group? Fine, use the provisional throw "escape clause", then let the TD sort it out afterwards, using his/her subjectivity as part of the decision making process.

Let us please stay away from selective enforcement.

Bill, I have probably been unclear in this regard. I do think this is something that should go to the TD for a decision. I am mainly arguing for the TD to rule the action (assuming it was immediately realized and there was only one throw) as a practice throw. My logic is that the action appears to both fit the rule about playing from another lie and the definition of a practice throw. Therefore, I feel the TD has a choice. I hope all TDs use a sense of equity when they have a choice. Further comlicating my argument is that I assume that the language for "playing from another lie" was, more like had to be, written the way it was because they were contemplating scenarios where the offending player had already completed the hole.

btw, I am not advocating my argument based on who the player was (I have no idea), how good or bad the shot was (I have no idea), or their competitive position within the tournament (once again, I have no idea).

No, it is I who have been unclear. I have been mixing my threads. We are talking about a player who throws from another player's lie, right?

Going forward from there, let me write this as a paper for submission - I will give my conclusion first, then substantiate it afterwards.

Conclusion: The rule to cite as being violated depends upon whether or not the player moved the marker disc used.

-If the player threw from the disc as laid, but did not move it, or if the player marked the disc, threw from the mark, but did not move the marker disc, I could see an argument for calling this a practice throw.

-If the player moved the disc being used to determine the lie, either the disc as laid or the marker disc, then the rule violated would be 803.10-Throwing from another player's lie"

I have two rules to cite in making the conclusion above:

803.10 B:

"B. The player whose lie was played by the offending player shall be given an approximate lie as close to the original
lie as possible, as determined by the offending player, a majority of his or her group, or an offi cial. See section 803.11 C if the disc has been declared lost."

And from section 800: Definitions:

Approximate Lie: A lie established by the player�s group in order to resume play: ... following an instance where the thrower�s disc has been thrown and removed by another player (803.10 B), ...

I think that the key here is that, it seems to me, since 803.10 mentioned that an approximate lie is needed to be determined, and the definition of approximate lie, in our instance, refers to when a player's disc has been thrown or removed by another player, then, if the player's disc was not disturbed by the player using it as a marker, or if the player, by virtue of having not disturbed the marker disc, replaces the disc in the exact spot from which it was moved, then the violation could be considered a practice throw, and not a 803.10 violation, since 803.10 seems to imply that, at the very least, that the disc in play is not in its original position, and more likely, is not even there anymore because the player threw it or picked it up!

Whew! You guys are making me work too hard. I'm starting to feel like a constitutional attorney.

Holy crap, Bill, you need to turn in your zealot's badge. You are taking one of the clearest, least ambiguous, and most definitive rules in the rule book and you are ignoring it. Here's the rule:


803.10 Throwing From Another Player�s Lie
A. A player who has thrown from another player�s lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player�s lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed.



There is absolutely no grey area in this rule. It's an excellently written rule! It clearly defines the illegal action in no uncertain terms, it clearly defines the penalty, and it clearly states that there are no warnings. It further clarifies exactly how play is to continue.

There is nothing to argue here except the entry criteria: is the lie that you just threw from someone else's lie? if it is, BANG!, 2 penalty throws with no warning, use the result of your shot, no replays. Simple. Decisive. All rules should like this one. (Too bad they can't.)

If you throw from a disc that you're not sure is in play by another player, then that's the only discussion to be had about this rule.

I really like it! It's a great rule that is very clear.

It's interesting to me that if you drive past a tree with a disc that is the same type/color disc as someone else in your group and yours went OB and no one sees it, and you mistakenly walk up and bang the park job of your buddy's disc you could end up with a 4p, 2 putt, when you may have made a 5p the hard way...

I would rather see the rule for throwing from another player's lie removed.

Use the extension of a misplay that counts it as a practice stroke when discovered after one stroke and corrected, or play completed when discovered after two throws with a two stroke penalty.

Then add the two stroke penalty for interference if the original disc (lie) is removed (obscured) by the offending player.

Wow, I never did take a Philosophy class in college. Thanks for the pop quiz. Tell me how I do.


are all lies the same?

No. When I lie, it's not nearly as bad as when the leader of the free world says, "Saddam is actively seeking uranium yellowcake". <font color="blue"> offensive material removed </font>


are laws absolute, or are they relative?

In Alabama, it's absolutely not against the law to marry a relative.


Is all jaywalking the same?


Some people do it with more style than others.


Is a cop something less than he could be if he overlooks or uses discretion when dealing with some "crimes"?



Depends. If it's my crime he's overlooking, he's definitely not less than he could be. If it's someone else's, different story altogether.


Prosecutors? Juries? Beyond all these silly analogies, let's get to the heart of the matter, don't sporting concerns enter into your thinking at any point?



Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the collective often misinterprets the variable motivations of the subset of familiar archetypes.

Holy crap, Bill, you need to turn in your zealot's badge. You are taking one of the clearest, least ambiguous, and most definitive rules in the rule book and you are ignoring it. Here's the rule:


803.10 Throwing From Another Player�s Lie
A. A player who has thrown from another player�s lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player�s lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed.



There is absolutely no grey area in this rule. It's an excellently written rule! It clearly defines the illegal action in no uncertain terms, it clearly defines the penalty, and it clearly states that there are no warnings. It further clarifies exactly how play is to continue.

There is nothing to argue here except the entry criteria: is the lie that you just threw from someone else's lie? if it is, BANG!, 2 penalty throws with no warning, use the result of your shot, no replays. Simple. Decisive. All rules should like this one. (Too bad they can't.)

If you throw from a disc that you're not sure is in play by another player, then that's the only discussion to be had about this rule.



I think if a player throws from another player's lie they should just be thrown down the nearest hill available (or is that available hill/cliff/etc.)Throwing From Another Player�s Lie must be the most bone headed thing in this "sport/hobby" one could be accused of. I personaly mark the lie of a disc I may think is mine with a mini marker disc before I pick it up then look for the unique mark I expect to see before placing mine in my bag or someone else's back on the ground.

The rule is clear but not near as punitive as it should be.

P.S. Please ignore my grammar and spelling as I am on the second coast and have had a beer or three.

P.P.S.

Ignore my punctuation as well please.

Lance

Rhett

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.

I'll use your terminology

There is absolutely no grey area in this rule. It's an excellently written rule! It clearly defines the illegal action in no uncertain terms, it clearly defines the penalty, and it clearly states that there are no warnings. It further clarifies exactly how play is to continue.

I'm just not sure how y'all conclude one rule is more fitting than another.




Lance, I've seen plenty of times where two people used the similar looking putters, landed right next to one another. If one player putts from the wrong lie, two strokes seem awfully punitive enough to me. I'm just not comfortable saying that a boneheaded move should cost someone so much. Let's win and lose tournies on the course.

I would rather see the rule for throwing from another player's lie removed.

Use the extension of a misplay that counts it as a practice stroke when discovered after one stroke and corrected, or play completed when discovered after two throws with a two stroke penalty.

Then add the two stroke penalty for interference if the original disc (lie) is removed (obscured) by the offending player.



I agree. In almost every case this is an accident. I suspect the rule was written because someone pulled a fast one and they wanted to make the punishment prohibitive enough that people would think twice before cheating.

I personaly mark the lie of a disc I may think is mine with a mini marker disc before I pick it up then look for the unique mark I expect to see before placing mine in my bag or someone else's back on the ground.


By requiring players to mark their discs on BOTH sides would certainly help alleviate this predicament. There are strategic times when one chooses to not mark 'their' lie and throw from behind 'their' disc...and if I understand this correctly...one cannot mark their lie then later decide they would rather throw from behind their disc and replace it behind their mini. So, by examining the disc to ensure your ownership one then seemingly gives up this strategic option unless they can ID the said disc w/o turning it over (assuming it's flightplate-side up).
Capiche? /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Similar to what others have said and something several people seem to be getting closer to...

I would change the rule to say throwing from another person's lie is a practice throw and they would then be required to go find their lie and throw from it (if they made multiple throws from the wrong lie(s), then multiple practice throws)

this prevents the "fast one" as somebody said, because even the player would still have to go finish out his lie, regardless if they holed out from the wrong lie or not

and as somebody else mentioned, there could be an interference penalty for disturbing the other person's lie, but not from throwing from it

Rhett,

I was just throwing my "paper" out there for discussion, I was not trying to produce a definitive treatise on the matter, you ignacius of brobdinagian pedestrian!

What I was hoping for from you, and others, was a rebuttal of my conclusion, such as disecting the rule.

Take the phrase, "has thrown". What could that mean? If a player has projected a disc, but has not altered the mark just used or in any other way proceeded as if the disc just projected was an active, in play projection, can we say that the player "has thrown"? Remember, that the definition of a throw states that it has to be from the teeing area or the lie, and in this case it was from neither, so how can it be considered a "throw"? Also, if the word "thrown" was not meant to refer to the defined word "throw", wouldn't it been better to use the phrase "has propelled", since the definition of "throw" uses the synonym "propulsion"?

I also would like some discussion on the use of "approximate lie" in the rule. For instance, if there is no need to estimate an approximate lie, because the other player's disc is still in the same position it was when it came to rest, then has the rule been violated? In other words, does rule 803.10 implicitly mandate that, in order to violate the rule, that the disc must no longer be in its original position, hence the need for an approximate lie?

I am not trying to be anal about this. I know what common sense is. Back in 2002, I revealed a loophole in the rule book that I, or certain others, could have exploited, and I was assailed for mentioning it.

I believe that if we break the Rules down as far as we can, then build them back up again, eliminating the possible interpretations we do not wish to be created, the Rules will end up stronger and better! I am not trying to stir up any trouble here!

you make excellent points - especially with that last statement

Good points, and I go along with the reason for the excessive penalty is to prevent removing the other player's lie.
If the misplay is discovered before the other player's lie is lost, it is not as serious an offfense.

I agree. In almost every case this is an accident. I suspect the rule was written because someone pulled a fast one and they wanted to make the punishment prohibitive enough that people would think twice before cheating.


I disagree with your assessment of why the rule was written. I think it was written because someone took a lost disc penalty once, and then when they got back to tourney central after the round it was discovered that someone else had thrown a similar disc and played and "taken with" the disc that did not belong to them. I assume a discussion amongst the Rules Committee, in a smoky back room somewhere with waitresses dressed in lingerie, that went along the lines of "wow, playing from the somebody else's disc can really screw that somebody else over. We should do whatever we can to discourage that from ever happening again. Let's invoke one of the most severe penalties we ever use, 2 throws, so that people will be sure to make sure it really is their disc before they play from it."

Then somebody else piped us, "But that will only work if players read the rule book."

And them much laughter burst forth and another round of cognac was ordered for all.

Then somebody else piped us, "But that will only work if players read the rule book."





And then someone else piped up with, "At the very least we should make players at PDGA Majors carry the Rulebook with them, or be assessed a penalty of two strokes."

And then much laughter burst forth and another round of cognac was ordered for all. Then Harold read a few passages from Luke and Mark.

I suppose you think the Innova rules conspirators like Harold snuck the bible in the rules with terms like "Mark your lie?" :eek:

I suppose you think the Innova rules conspirators like Harold snuck the bible in the rules with terms like "Mark your lie?" :eek:



groan... :p

I suppose you think the Innova rules conspirators like Harold snuck the bible in the rules with terms like "Mark your lie?" :eek:



Let's not forget "805 ...Cross Reference...