Hole 33 at the Yetter Championship has a hole with OB lining the entire right side of the fairway (starting at the right corner of the Teebox.)

Player A throws a bomb from that right corner hoping to hyzer over the OB and land in bounds. The disc lands presumably OB, so the player throws a 2nd shot from the teepad (because his 1st disc presumably never was IB.)

As we walk down the fairway we notice that his first shot apparently had skipped in bounds (the fairway runs downhill slightly so the landing zone was blind.)

The player wants to take the 1st shot, saying the 2nd shot would be treated as a provisional. The first shot technically was not declared OB, just presumed OB. Furthermore, the player never claimed the 2nd shot was a provisional - just presumed that it was a 2nd shot from where his 1st was last in bounds (the teepad.)

Is the 2nd shot a practice throw since his first shot was in bounds, or can the 2nd shot be considered a no-penalty provisional even though the provisional was not declared?

He should have declared that he was playing a provisional. It should be ruled a practice throw.

803.01.C ...The unused throws shall not be added to the thrower�s score nor treated as practice throws if the player announces that such additional throws are made as provisional throws prior to taking them.

Not practice throw but his real throw after accepting the penalty if he did not declare the shot was a provisional. He should play his second throw and is now lying three from that lie.

Not practice throw but his real throw after accepting the penalty if he did not declare the shot was a provisional. He should play his second throw and is now lying three from that lie.


agreed

Ditto..

It only gets sticky in the rare instance where the 2m rule is in effect and player landed IB on his first throw but above 2m. In essence, the player gets a double penalty because by returning to the tee, he implied that he would not only take the 2m penalty but was dissatisfied with his lie under the tree and called an unplayable. That's why calling a provisional in these situations is so important.

If his first throw was indeed inbounds (unknowingly), and you're saying his second throw is his REAL throw, this implies that you can "call yourself OB" even if you're not really OB.
Is that correct?

It's essentially using the Unplayable rule by default which allows you to rethrow from the original lie with a penalty. However, you can't escape the possibility of the 2m penalty if it's in effect by doing this if your first shot is later found IB but in a tree above 2m.

I think this kinda takes away from the integrity of the sport. The person threw his disc legally in bounds. In the interest of speed of play, he threw another before running up to confirm his presumed OB lie. Because he did NOT run up (but did not call a provisional), he's now penalized with a practice throw penalty and takes his 2nd lie, although his first lie was in bounds.

Somehow this just doesn't seem right.

The integrity is not checking your throw location before making another throw. That's why the provisional rule is there. If anything, the player is getting properly penalized for not calling the provisional.

Let me get this straight. If I throw a shot off the tee and don't say anything about a provisional and throw another shot off the tee just because, the second shot becomes the real shot with an implied unplayable lie penalty ?

How does that logic work exactly ?

It's a version of the tin cup situation where a player keeps repeating the shot from the same lie until they cross the water. The key is whether the player says something that would negate the toss being their next throw such as calling a provisional. We had a situation at Mid-Nats two years ago where a player yanked a disc into no man's land. He decided to throw another shot without saying anything and the group didn't know what the call would be until they returned. The player completed the hole from the second shot and they weren't sure how to score it. The only way to call it was the unplayable penalty for the first throw.

I realize that if the player finds their first shot, it might make sense to allow a practice throw and no additional penalty. However, why should the result of the first throw have any bearing on the call when the player can remove any doubt by declaring a provisional?

I agree with that call, but it's a little different situation than how I read the original post.

Here is the situation I see. Player A throws a shot with unknown result. Player A proceeds to throw another shot from the tee or last place inbounds without declaring anything about the throw.

Now there are two ways to play out the hole, and they have different results.

If the original throw is found inbounds and played (second shot is picked up), the second shot should be counted as a practice throw. Throwing three from the original disc (drive,practice,current shot).

If the second shot is played (the first shot is abandoned), the player has taken an unplayable lie penalty. Throwing four from the second disc (drive,unplayable,drive,current shot).

Since the provisional rule requires that a provisional throw be declared prior to it being taken, there is no way to retroactively make the second throw a provisional.

I'm thinking that krupicka is correct in this instance and the thread should have been dead. I don't remember reading anywhere in the rules about defaulting to the unplayable lie rule. I would think that you would have to announce the shot unplayable as well. The guy screwed up and threw one too many shots. Sounds like a practice throw to me.

It would only be a practice throw if it was not played from a legit lie. Unfortunately, the player was standing at a point that could be his next lie without any other declaration. The player was making a shot as if it were his next shot and shouldn't have the choice to use it or not based on the status of the first disc UNLESS it was declared a provisional which is an explicit option provided in the rules. Is there any question in your mind that the player fully expected to find his disc was OB and was trying to finagle a lesser throw scenario here?

yes. what we have here is a failure to know the rules.

so (and, this veers off from the original question)
IF the 2nd throw IS declared as a provisional, there is no penalty for the extra throw.
IF the first throw is IB, the provisional is ignored. No penalty, provisional is not used.
IF the first throw is OB, the provisional is played, OB penalty is added to score etc.

BUT....
IF the second throw is not specifically declared a provisional, it's a practice throw no matter what. If the first throw is IB, practice throw penalty. If the first throw is OB, practice throw penalty PLUS OB penalty and throw from either last IB spot or from tee.

Izzat all right????

steve "too lazy to look in the rulebook right now, but think that's the way it is" hoog

There is no practice throw under any scenario here.

so (and, this veers off from the original question)
IF the 2nd throw IS declared as a provisional, there is no penalty for the extra throw.
IF the first throw is IB, the provisional is ignored. No penalty, provisional is not used.
IF the first throw is OB, the provisional is played, OB penalty is added to score etc.
<font color="red">Got that part right </font>
BUT....
IF the second throw is not specifically declared a provisional, it's a practice throw no matter what. If the first throw is IB, practice throw penalty. <font color="red">You got it right..up to here </font> If the first throw is OB, practice throw penalty PLUS OB penalty and throw from either last IB spot or from tee. <font color="red">Huh? In this case, it seems obvious to me that the player had conceeded that his disc WAS OB and re-tee'd as per the rules. Had he declared a provisional ALL would be forgotten BUT since he didnt AND chose to play as if his disc was OB, the 1st shot is GONE (no practice throw penalty) and he takes his OB penalty (as he thought it was regardless) and plays from his 2nd shot. AGAIN......had he just called a provisional, there would be NO issues </font>

Izzat all right????

steve "too lazy to look in the rulebook right now, but think that's the way it is" hoog

IF the second throw is not specifically declared a provisional, it's a practice throw no matter what. If the first throw is IB, practice throw penalty. You got it right..up to here



Nope. No practice throw. The second throw is live no matter what happened to the first throw.

It's somewaht similar to the situation where a player plays from another player's lie 803.10. Once you make a throw from a wrong lie, it's now the live throw even if the group discovers you threw from the wrong lie. Your don't go back and play from your original lie because it's not your lie any more.

Let's see, a possible interpretation of a rule for a different and very specific situation trumps a rule that specifically applies to the given situation.

Interesting.

The place you throw from "could" be a lie therefore.....

There is no lie until you mark the lie. The marking rules are fairly specific as to how that is accomplished.

Let's look at this example, a player throws a shot that looks like it's OB and throws another shot from the tee without calling a provisional. This second shot definitely goes OB. The group walks down to the OB area and discovers the first shot is IB. Player claims that the second tee shot was a practice throw and is lying just two from the first disc. I don't think so. That's why a shot from a player's possible next lie or even a wrong lie as defined in the rules should become the player's live throw by default in the absence of a provisional declaration.

As always, the logic and rules behind my interpretation.
The weak point is that the rules do not specifically require a player to inform the group of their election in the case of an OB shot. I have not seen a player make the election without informing the group as to what it was, but I guess it is possible. In all cases on my card, I would ask the player what they were doing before they threw.


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).



Throws made from the same spot are not "throws that are rethrown in accordance with the rules", they are new throws from the previous lie. The only place I see the same wording in the rules is where throws are rethrown in the case of stance violations.


803.09.B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:

(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or
(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-ofbounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or
(3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).



In the case that you are listing I would say that even if the second throw ended up inbounds, it would be a practice throw and could not be used without some declaration of intent prior to the throw.

by rethrowing from the tee box they are declaring an intent.

now if the player walked off the tee pad 5 ft forward, then it could be a practice throw.

Chuck, your 2m scenario above is one of the myriad of reasons that the 2m penalty should just be changed to have the same consequences as an unplayable lie.

In this case, one should play the second throw. I think it is a logical extension of this: "If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered outof- bounds,"

by rethrowing from the tee box they are declaring an intent.



The intent of throwing a provisional?
I'm sure that is what most players intentions would be if asked.

They have not declared anything other than an intent to throw again from the tee box. They didn't say that they believed the disc was out of bounds, they didn't even way that they were declaring the shot unplayable without examining the lie, they have merely thrown from what is no longer an active lie.

However, the tee can be their next lie with the default being that they are playing their next shot on purpose versus taking a provisional which requires the special action stating that you are doing so. There's also a precedent for throwing from another person's lie that immediately becomes the player's new lie. Calling it a practice throw would be a stetch versus more common interpretations.

or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie.



Maybe it is too much of a stretch to think throwing from the teeing area after having just thrown from there could be thought of as a practice throw.

But it seems to me that since the definition of a practice throw includes the specific text listed above that the default interpretation would be a practice throw and the player would need to do something to change that interpretation.

The first part of that practice throw sentence says: 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, or because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie.

Without calling the second tee shot a provisional, the player threw with the intent that that was their next competitive throw, thus changing their lie because throwing from the tee was a legitimate lie from where they could throw their next shot. In addition, it wasn't clear whether the player may have actually stated that they were rethrowing because they assumed their first shot went OB, further confirming that the second tee shot was a competitive throw.

If you follow that reasoning, the player can never throw a practice throw from a previous lie because the previous lie could always be a possible lie if the player takes an unplayable lie.

There would be no purpose to include the words "had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie" in the practice throw definition. Since I don't assume things are included with no purpose, I can not accept the "could possibly be a lie" argument without the player doing something to indicate that is the case.

Everything has to be looked at in the general context, and if one interpretation renders another rule meaningless, I don't use it as the first option.

I think the practice throw rule probably could use some clarification. I'd have to check and see how long ago it's been tweaked. What has changed is more rules where the option for the player to return to the tee/original lie is much more common due to the USDGC, island holes and now lost disc and unplayable. I agree it seems redundant to include the wording you mentioned if it was written today but not necessarily redundant if left over from earlier conventions.

If you think about where practice throws occur, it's rarely on a tee or lie (maybe a fluky drop or swinging your arm to shoo a bee and the disc falls out of your hand) but tossing a disc in anger or to someone else or just a mental error tossing a disc a little too far to their bag from not a lie location. A player standing on a tee and throwing during the round is making a competitive throw or a provisional. In fact, to make that second throw they have to get off the tee and go to their bag and get another disc and get back on the tee. That's clearly intent to throw from a live lie.

C.Provisional Throws. Provisional throws are extra throws that are not added to a player�s score if they are not ultimately used in completion of the hole. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play or when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling. The unused throws shall not be added to the thrower�s score nor treated as practice throws if the player announces that such additional throws are made as provisional throws prior to taking them. Provisional throws are appropriate in the following circumstances:
(1) To save time: A player may <u>declare</u> a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw <u>may be out of bounds</u>, lost, or have missed a mandatory. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules.



I would say that since the rule states that the player would need to declare a provisional, rather than allow the group to infer the provisional, I would rule that the player abandonded his first throw, took the option of playing from the tee rather than from where it went OB (which in this case is pretty close) and would be laying 3 from his second shot.

I do not think there is any other way to interpret the scenario, unless the group decided that the second was a practice throw, which would still result in the player laying 3 from the first spot.

Just my .02

Steve

Then you are saying that the has the ability to declare a disc to be OB without the disc actually being OB or announcing his decision to anyone in the group.

I do not believe that the player ever has this ability and that no throws can be ambiguous in this fashion.

If you throw a second shot from the tee or lie wihtout comment, the shot should be either a practice throw by deafault, of a live shot because the first shot has been abandoned without regard to it's ib/ob/2m status.

I don't really care which is the official default, as long as it is clearly established in the rules.

In the "ruling after the hole has been played category", if the first shot was used to finish the hole, the second shot would presumably have been a practice throw. If the second shot was used, then the first shot was abandoned (or OB).

BTW, in the case you listed, after the practice throw the player is laying 2 (playing 3) at the first spot.

Then you are saying that the has the ability to declare a disc to be OB without the disc actually being OB or announcing his decision to anyone in the group.




The player or group can declare a shot OB, unplayable or lost from the tee without actually seeing exactly where it went except when the 2m rule is in effect. The actual disc status is irrelevant and allows the player to retee playing their third shot. If 2m in effect, you have to go look in case the shot is above 2m in an IB tree.

I just re-read 803.09 and will give you that reasonable evidence can be used to declare a disc OB from the tee, but that entails some discussion amongst the group the the evidence was in fact reasonable and that a lost disc search need not be done. A disc whose outcome was not clear (as was the case with the shot in question) can not be assumed OB without some discussion as to what is reasonable evidence.

So, if a player throws clearly and unquestionably OB and immediately re-tees wihtout comment, then I could go along with the re-tee as live without comment. That is not what we were discussing.

The unplayable lie requires a declaration which cannot be done without comment.

As it is now, it is ambiguous how it should be handled. The only rule that does not imply some agreement among the group is a practice throw.

To be nitpicky: does the player have to "declare" the provisional in a certain way? I have been in groups where other players (not the thrower) said, "That disc might be gone. Better take a provisional so you don't have to run back here." Then the thrower says something like "Good idea", grabs a disc, and throws again. The thrower never stated to the group "I am taking a provisional throw" but everyone was certainly aware that's what he was doing.

Any issues with that kind of scenario?

Cheers,
Steve

I would say that would be acceptable, as there was a statement referring to a provisional, and an affirmation. IMO, it would be better to state that "I will take the provisional".

I am not sure in BG whether it must be declared in a particular fashion.

JMO,

Steve

In any group where I'm playing, anyone taking a provisional will either state EXACTLY why they are taking the provisional or tell me to shut up and let them throw because they don't care what I'm telling them. Or possibly they just went ahead and threw while I was still telling them they should make it clear.

This is the case more because I don't want anyone to get bitten in the butt by something going screwy than because I want to be a jerk about it. I believe in the long run it is to the advantage of all parties concerned (with the possible exception of the guy who might have won if the fellow taking the provisional had been reckless and wound up with more penalty strokes than he should have) if people are precise.

Similarly, the player in this scenario would have had to catch me napping to get that second throw off without my asking him if he was declaring a provisional.

To throw in my own two cents on the subject:

I agree with those who have said that the unplayable lie has to be declared in order to be ruled as such. I believe that the penalty for a practice throw is a logical extension from a closer existing rule than 803.10.

I also believe, to bend the subject a bit, that 803.10 is superfluous, anomalous, and should probably be removed in favor of allowing 803.01 and 803.07 to cover the situation.

While I'm on the subject, I believe 803.06 should explicitly state that the declaration has to be made before the lie is relocated. It is my opinion that this is implicit, because only the player can determine the lie to be unplayable and until he or she has done so it cannot be relocated in accordance with the rules, but it should still be more clearly stated.

I believe it would be more in keeping with the rules to declare the second tee shot a practice throw if the reason for throwing it was not explicitly stated, even had the first throw actually been out of bounds, than it would be to invoke the unplayable lie rule without the player having made that call. In fact, I would personally go so far as to say that the way the rules are currently written, the unplayable lie rule definitely cannot be invoked by anyone beside that player, because that would constitute someone besides that player judging whether the lie is unplayable.