�Instant replay�

Don�t laugh. This really could happen.

At a future PDGA World Championship, Clint and Mitch are head to head in sudden death playoff for $50,000 first prize. An official is watching the play. Rick Rothstein is taking notes for his Disc Golfer cover story. The TD is present but is distracted by hosting ESPN reps who may want to carry next year�s tournament, and Budweiser and Nike reps who are considering big-time sponsorship. A thousand spectators line the fairway and hundreds more are near the green, some of them videoing the action.

Clint is away, 100� from the basket. He chips up next to the basket for a �gimme� 3.

Mitch has a 40� shot for deuce. He jump-putts. It goes in! The crowd goes wild. Mitch runs to the basket and removes his putter. He and Clint shake hands.

As the crowd�s applause dies down, the TD launches into his speech, thanking the staff and sponsors before he gives the buckage and plaquage to Mitch. As the TD is listing the sponsors, a spectator grabs the official and whispers, �Hey, lookee here!� and he shows the official a video freeze-frame of Mitch releasing his jump-putt. Mitch is airborne, both feet off the ground. There is zero doubt: it�s a stance foul.

The official interrupts the TD: �Um . . . you�re going to want to take a look at this.�

The TD and the official and Clint hover around the video camera. Mitch, sensing what may be happening, stands aside and declines to watch the video. Meanwhile, others in the crowd are checking their own videos and seeing Mitch�s bogus stance. The crowd starts murmuring.

The TD announces, �We have indisputable video evidence that Mitch wasn�t touching his lie when he released his disc on the jump-putt.�

Mitch says, �That wouldn�t make any difference now, even if it were true . . . because nobody called a stance foul within three seconds. Look, here�s the rule.� Mitch pulls out his rulebook and points to Rule 803.04F. �The only way it can be a stance foul is if it�s called within three seconds. There was no call, so, by rule, there�s no foul and the putt has to count, no matter what a video may show after the fact.�

Clint says, �Well, I agree that the stance foul wasn�t validly called, so we can�t use Rule 803.04F to treat that shot as a stance foul. But how about practice throw?�

Clint points to Rule 803.04A(1) and the definition of practice throw, and says, �Mitch projected his disc toward the target while not touching his lie, so his throw didn�t change his lie. So the throw meets the definition of practice throw. Now look at Rule 803.01B. The official observed the practice throw, in real time and also on video replay, so Mitch gets a one-stroke penalty with no warning. And since a practice throw can�t count to hole out, Mitch has to rethrow, which brings Rule 803.04H into play: Mitch retrieved his putter from beyond 10M before the rethrow, so he gets another no-warning one-stroke penalty for delay. His score on the hole, so far, is one tee shot plus two penalty strokes � he�s lying 3 and he still hasn�t putted out. And I�ve got a gimme for 3.�

Clint walks over to his chip shot disc-at-rest, which is lying unmoved beside the basket. He takes a legal stance at that disc, tosses his putt in, removes the putter from the basket, and says, �I win.�

Mitch says, �Wait. Even if my throw was a practice throw � which I don�t concede � then Clint is wrong about the second penalty stroke. Look at Rule 803.04G: a validly-called stance foul must be rethrown, but Clint already admitted it wasn�t validly called, so a rethrow can�t now be required under Rule 803.04G. And no other rule � including 803.01B � says a practice throw has to be rethrown. In fact, if it was a practice throw, then no shot has yet been taken from the lie so there can�t possibly be a rethrow yet. That means I get no penalty for retrieving my putter. At worst, I�m lying 2, throwing 3. So right now I�m going to take a provisional.�

Mitch walks to his marker, which is lying unmoved 40� from the basket. He takes a traditional, absolutely-legal stance, and he drains the putt again. Then he removes his putter from the basket.

Clint says, �What about the Rule of Fairness?�

Mitch turns to Rule 803.01F and says, �The Rule of Fairness only applies to points in dispute that aren�t covered by the rules. All of our points in dispute here are covered by the rules that we cited. So the Rule of Fairness doesn�t apply here.�

The Nike, Budweiser and ESPN reps turn to the TD and say, in essence, �WTF are they talking about?!�

You are the TD. Clint and Mitch each have courteously cited rules to make their points. The PDGA requires that you make your rulings based on the written rules, not on anyone�s personal feelings or guesses about what the rules mean. The future credibility of the sport may ride on your decision.

What is your call? Does Mitch win? Does Clint win? Do they tie on this hole and continue the sudden-death playoff? What rule(s) do you cite for your ruling?

�Instant replay�

Don�t laugh. This really could happen.

What is your call? Does Mitch win? Does Clint win? Do they tie on this hole and continue the sudden-death playoff? What rule(s) do you cite for your ruling?

The current rules don't for instant replay as a foot fault must be called with a like 2 seconds. IMO they shouldn't either. Can't redo a courtesy violation.

That said I was playing in a tourney last year and we had a videographer with us. He was taking pics and videos of our group. One player threw on a definate birdie 2 hole and hit a tree like 5 feet off the box. Another guy in the group called him on a foot fault (first offense). Nobody seconded it. Then the video guy chimes in like a minute later as we where discussing what to do since nobody seconded the call. He had a pic of the throw and it clearly showed the foot falut. The group allowed a rethrow with a courtesy warning and the guy 2'd the whole. I was personally against the call since there is no rule allowing for a video replay on foot faluts but was overruled by the group. He tied me :mad: for the overall tourney score and last cash.

This bring up a different and more important point. The courtesy warning for a foot fault is a dumbest rule in all of sports. You get a warning and a rethrow? It should just be a penalty stroke.

While I agree that the stance violation warning is a bad rule & open to abuse, I believe the rules were followed in your scenario.

803.04F:
A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be valid. The call may be made by any member of the group or an official. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must subsequently be confirmed by another member of the group. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a stance rule in the round. Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.

Since you didn't specify time, I will assume that the original stance violation call was within the 3 second time limit, as required by the rule. The rule doesn't define a time within which the "second" call must be made, nor does it specify what evidence may (or may not) be used by the members of the group in deciding whether to second or not. Absent the explicit prohibition of the use of video evidence, I would consider the "second" call after one minute of reviewing conveniently-available video evidence valid and a penalty-free rethrow (and stance violation warning noted on the card) in order.

I was always under the impression the call had to also be seconded within 3 seconds. Good to know.

Am I miss reading this, if Mitch is 40' out, how is a jump putt a stance violation?

If he is in the air before releasing the disc, then it is a stance violation.

:D HOSER!!!:D

How ARE you, old friend ???

Bill,

Finer than frog hair, Exczar. Been enjoying watching your brain melt on this discussion board. Hey, will the McC bros dig this thread? Don�t recall if they ever learned to read . . .


All,

I appreciate everybody�s enthusiasm. Now focus: what call would you make on Clint and Mitch?

They have to wrestle Johnny Mc. for the win.:D

Nice scenario. However, you left out the courtesy violation on Clint for playing out of order. If Mitch hasn't holed out, he's still away. If Clint had had a previous courtesy violation during the round, that would have added a stroke.

John,

Yeah, Johnny Mack would definitely give both of his bros a world-class noogie for this situation.

Mark,

Yes, good catch. Okay, in this thread let's assume that:
(1) Neither player has had a courtesy warning.
(2) Each player is now making his point in a courteous way.
(3) If Clint gets a warning for putting out of turn, he'll graciously accept the warning and then, when his proper turn comes, he'll successfully make his gimme putt.

I want some of what was being smoked when this was thought of.

This thread asks the basic question: FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPORT OF DISC GOLF, HOW SHOULD WE DEAL WITH FOOT FAULTS?

The �Instant replay� scenario � a world championship sudden death � puts a $50,000 price tag on a foot fault. National media and national sponsors are watching to see whether the TD�s ruling will inspire them to take disc golf seriously.

�Wrong stance� is disc golf�s most common foul. If we can�t figure out how to deal with wrong stances, what chance do we have to become a major sport?

Jump putts sharpen the stance debate: at the instant of release, are you touching your lie? [Rule 803.04A(1).] It�s hard to witness feet and disc at the same time � yet, now, widely-available video gives us a way to do it. (Football has exactly the same problem. And they�re using video to solve it.)

The question in �Instant replay� is about truth and fairness more than about technology. So it�s critical for our sport to answer it. The �Clint v. Mitch� scenario is likely to actually happen at a �tipping point� in our sport�s growth. With national media and sponsors watching, the TD�s handling of the situation may tip disc golf toward, or away from, major sport status.

So I�m asking the disc golf community to look closely at the �Clint v. Mitch� scenario � it�s a drama that could happen to YOU � and imagine how the TD must apply PDGA rules to decide whether Mitch wins, Clint wins, or they continue the playoff.

To deal with this extremely common rule violation, disc golfers all over the world should be able to open the rulebook and agree on the correct ruling. If the rulebook can�t lead us to agree on the ruling, then the good folks who serve on the PDGA Rules Committee and Board of Directors face hairy challenges about disc golf�s future.

Ready, class? Pick up your pencils. Does Mitch win? Does Clint win? Do they play on? Or what?

Ready, class? Pick up your pencils. Does Mitch win? Does Clint win? Do they play on? Or what?

FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPORT OF DISC GOLF, THEY SHOULD HAVE A 1-ON-1 SUPERCLASS BOAT RACE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_race_(game)) (OF COURSE USING BUDWEISER, WHO ARE CONSIDERING BIG-TIME SPONSORSHIP) FOR THE TROPHY & CASH!

This is a more likely scenario.

At a future PDGA C-tier, Clint and Mitch are head to head in sudden death playoff for $500 first prize. A local hack is watching the play. The TD is at tournament HQ smokin’ a bowl, drinkin’ a Budweiser and Nike reps are at Nike head quarters wondering what to do with what is left of the Tiger Woods situation. Twenty or so spectators stand within a hundred feet chattering away. Oblivious to the pressure these guys are feeling to make the dough to pay this month’s electric bill.

Clint is away, 100’ from the basket. He chips up next to the basket for a “gimme” 3.

Mitch has a 40’ shot for deuce. He jump-putts. It goes in! The crowd goes wild. Mitch runs to the basket and removes his putter. Clint throws his disc to the ground and kicks his bag. Mitch runs around the green screaming “IN YOUR FACE D_BAG!!!”

As the crowd giggles, the TD walks up asking “so who won?” A spectator grabs the TD and says “Man Clint got jobbed… everyone here knows there was a foot fault and no one including me was man enough to make the call.”

The TD says: “Tough.”

For the next two weeks at local minis everyone gets to here Mitch retell this story “I knelt behind mys lie inside the bushes and canned a putt from at least 75.’

Hoser,

With the rules the way they are now, Mitch wins. The foot fault was not called within 3 sec, and it wouldn't be a practice throw because Mitch had not yet thrown competitively from that lie.

We have had the "foot fault vs practice throw" argument already in another thread, and IIRC, you would be hard pressed to call any throw that was taken near the player's lie a practice throw.

Sorry to be so concise. I know quite well how these two definitions seem to intertwine, and hopefully, the next Rules revision will help untangle them.

Put the video camera away, revise the rules to eliminate the ridiculous flying jump putt as well as the free do-over for the first foot fault, and this scenario will not arise to embarass the sport. The jump putt, like Python's Camelot, is a very silly place, and accordingly, promotes silliness, not professionalism. The do-over for foot faults is long overdue for removal from the rules.

what is wrong with the jump putt? So when you throw from the fairway you can't follow through past your lie?

getting rid of the jump putt,which i use on a regular basis, would end the "was his foot on the ground when he released?" question. and sometimes, only the video in slo-mo is how you can answer.

i actually filmed myself a while back jump putting over and over again, so i can practice the timing of my release. call a foot fault on me now!!! ha ha

Good try, Mr. Burns . . . but it�s irrelevant whether Mitch had thrown competitively from that lie. Please note EITHER / OR in the practice throw definition:

Practice throw: During a round, the projection of a disc of a distance greater than two meters, or of any distance toward a target, intentional or not, which does not change the player�s lie, EITHER because it did not occur from the teeing area or the lie, OR because the player had already thrown competitively from the teeing area or the lie.

Mitch�s jump putt becomes a practice throw by satisfying the first requirement.

Those prior threads � yeah, they did the Watusi, the Herky Jerky, and they noodle-danced down Bourbon Street in the Zulu Parade topless in 80 pounds of Mardi Gras beads, but they never negated the facts that (1) Mitch�s jump putt clearly wasn�t taken from the lie, it was taken from mid-air, and (2) the practice throw definition clearly says �did not occur from . . . the lie.� Disc golf has no rule that draws a line between �stances that miss the lie by X distance� and �stances that miss the lie by more than X.� The only guideline in our rulebook is �from the lie� v. �not from the lie.� Mitch�s jump putt didn�t change his lie, �because it did not occur from . . . the lie,� so it clearly is a practice throw.

Bill, you�re a great intellect. I hate to see you slipping. Now excuse me, I gotta go change my pants after reading CrazyEye�s beautifully creative (and woefully realistic) post #15. Oh, man, that MADE MY DAY!
:D:D:D

If one wanted to use a stand and deliver approach to eliminating the jump putt (and the problem posed by the OP), it could be written such that following through for long fairway shots could still be allowed. e.g. "Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 cm directly behind the maker disc. [add:] This supporting point must remain in contact with the playing surface until balance is demonstrated."

Written this way, a foot drag that leaves the line of play but is still in contact with the playing surface would be valid. In this way there is still room for follow through, but admittedly there would be a learning curve to execute properly.

If one wanted to use a stand and deliver approach to eliminating the jump putt (and the problem posed by the OP), it could be written such that following through for long fairway shots could still be allowed. e.g. "Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 cm directly behind the maker disc. [add:] This supporting point must remain in contact with the playing surface until balance is demonstrated."

Written this way, a foot drag that leaves the line of play but is still in contact with the playing surface would be valid. In this way there is still room for follow through, but admittedly there would be a learning curve to execute properly.

I think this is a bad idea. Let's just eliminate the courtesy warning. Jump putts are fine, they cause most people to miss as much as make IMO.

Now excuse me, I gotta go change my pants after reading CrazyEye�s beautifully creative (and woefully realistic) post #15. Oh, man, that MADE MY DAY!
:D:D:D Glad you liked it. I tend to unintentionally offend people with what I think is funny.

I tend to intentionally offend people with what I think is funny. I find that funny.

Ray,

I could hear and see in my mind Mitch's face, with his grin and his eyes wide open, yelling what you so kindly abbreviated. Very good, it made me smile as well.

Hoser,

<O:p</O:pYou are correct, Mitch's throw did match the definition of a practice throw, and I never said it didn't. What I failed to mention, however, is that it also did not conform with the stipulations of 803.04A, and I believe, with virtual certainty, that the PDGA-qualified TD, getting to choose whether Mitch�s throw was a practice throw or a stance violation, he would choose the latter.

<O:p</O:pIIRC, the peanut gallery and I could not come up with a situation where a throw that satisfied the definition of a practice throw could not also be considered a stance violation as well, between the time the round and started and finished. That is why the circumstances of the throw must be a consideration in the ruling.
<O:p</O:p

Your point is valid, but I think we got bigger rules fish to try, and there are plenty of them in the barrel for you to shoot.<O:p</O:p

The last time I didn't abbreviate that I got put on probation.

I was the third person in the group and I think they are both clowns. Why chip up from 100ft and why jump putt from 40ft? Flat foot putt both of them. Clint deserved to lose for laying up. Mitch got lucky with his wild, obviously out of control putt that made him leave the ground. Clowns I say, pure clowns.

Bill,

Yes, every practice throw is a stance violation.

AND: when a throw qualifies both as a practice throw and a stance violation, then two rules apply. (Bad rulewriting, yes, but since the situation exists now on our field of play, we�d better deal with it.) If, for some reason, you can�t apply one of those two rules, the other rule is still alive and kicking.

In �Clint v. Mitch,� when no one called the stance violation within three seconds, the bad-stance warning became one of 117 PDGA rules that didn�t apply to Mitch�s jump putt. But there�s still one rule � the practice throw rule � that DID apply. Life-changing money and the credibility of the sport hung on the TD�s ruling. And Bill, I have searched the rulebook from beak to tail and can�t find �the circumstances of the throw must be a consideration in the ruling.�

In �Clint v. Mitch,� if I were Clint and the TD didn�t stroke Mitch for a practice throw, the honchos at the PDGA wouldn�t need a telephone to hear me howl for an appeal. How can a PDGA qualified TD, or the folks who handle PDGA appeals, ignore a rule that the RC and the PDGA board of directors put right there on the page in black and white?


* * *

(BTW, Bill, maybe you can explain to me a phrase in the practice throw definition. How can a player possibly throw from a lie after he�s already thrown competitively from that lie? I mean, after you�ve made a legit throw from a lie, does the lie lurk behind the marker for a while? If so, until when? Until you pick up the marker? Until the disc lands? Until the spotter waves the red or green flag? When exactly does your lie cease to be in one place and begin to be in another place?)

Bill,

Yes, every practice throw is a stance violation.



Good, I knew we could find some common ground.



AND: when a throw qualifies both as a practice throw and a stance violation, then two rules apply.

Yes, a situation could fall under two rules, but only one is to be applied. We don't say that a disc that is lost in OB is OB and lost and deserving of two penalties, we only give one penalty. It has been a longstanding tenet of disc golf that we do not assess double penalties. We only apply one. So, there must be some way to decide whether or not to apply the practice throw rule or the stance violation rule.

(Bad rulewriting, yes,

agreed

but since the situation exists now on our field of play, we’d better deal with it.) If, for some reason, you can’t apply one of those two rules, the other rule is still alive and kicking.

OK, let me take a stab at that last sentence. Why can't you apply one of those two rules. Just because a foot fault wasn't seconded does not mean that it could not have been applied in that situation.

In “Clint v. Mitch,” when no one called the stance violation within three seconds, the bad-stance warning became one of 117 PDGA rules that didn’t apply to Mitch’s jump putt.

It still applied, it just was not exercised.

But there’s still one rule – the practice throw rule – that DID apply. Life-changing money and the credibility of the sport hung on the TD’s ruling. And Bill, I have searched the rulebook from beak to tail and can’t find “the circumstances of the throw must be a consideration in the ruling.”

No, that exact phrase is not in there, but what IS in there is the good ol' 803.01F:

"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."

This rule allows you take circumstances into consideration.


In “Clint v. Mitch,” if I were Clint and the TD didn’t stroke Mitch for a practice throw, the honchos at the PDGA wouldn’t need a telephone to hear me howl for an appeal. How can a PDGA qualified TD, or the folks who handle PDGA appeals, ignore a rule that the RC and the PDGA board of directors put right there on the page in black and white?

Of course, the TD's ruling could be appealed to the PDGA, and would undoubtedly been denied. The TD and the Comp Director were not ignoring a rule, they would say that there are two rules that apply here, and the circumstances were such that is would have been obvious to a casual observer that Mitch was making a competitive throw, which would call for a stance ruling, and not a practice throw ruling.

Hoser, I am a Disc Golf Rules Zealot, but even I know when to move off an argument. In a very technical sense I acknowledge the correctness of your viewpoint, but in the real world, we both know how the situation would be handled.

Of course, the gentlemanly thing to do would have been for Mitch to acknowledge the stance violation and call himself on it, but no one would do that with, say, a world title on the line, would they?;)


* * *

(BTW, Bill, maybe you can explain to me a phrase in the practice throw definition. How can a player possibly throw from a lie after he’s already thrown competitively from that lie? I mean, after you’ve made a legit throw from a lie, does the lie lurk behind the marker for a while? If so, until when? Until you pick up the marker? Until the disc lands? Until the spotter waves the red or green flag? When exactly does your lie cease to be in one place and begin to be in another place?)

How about this: Mitch throws from his fairway lie, with a valid stance. Before the disc comes to rest, Mitch throws again from the exact same spot, which remains to be his lie until his originally thrown shot comes to rest. So, yes, the lie does lurk behind the marker disc for awhile, for as long as it takes for the thrown disc to establish a new lie, which in an IB situation, would be when it comes to rest.

*******

But I got another situation for you which is far worthier of your consideration:

I am in a group with Mitch, Clint, and Johnny Mac, PhD. Johnny throws from an elevated tee, and steps over the front of the tee, his foot going one foot below the level of the tee, and he releases the disc. I call a foot fault straight away, and I get no second! I am flabbergasted. I asked Mitch and Clint why they did not second my call, and they both admit that they were not paying attention.

Is it in accordance with the Rules that I give them both a courtesy violation, because Rule 801.01C states that a "Refusal to perform an action expected by the rules...is a courtesy violation." ?

Compadre Exczar,

You and I have mucho common ground. We both love the game and want to see everyone get maximum enjoyment out of it. When we hammer-and-chisel the rulebook, we�re not trying to tear stuff down; we�re sculpting to remove flawed rock to find the perfect statue underneath.

A lot of folks think perfect rules aren�t possible. Former RC chair Carlton Howard said (in the original Disc Golfer Magazine, January 1991, page 15), �It is impossible to write the rules in a manner that will prevent them from being misapplied or misinterpreted.� It�s discouraging to see the head rulewriter give up like that. But a lot of folks agree that we�re doomed to always have a rulebook that players (and often officials, too) can�t actually use without interpretation from the RC.

Horse puckey! Disc golfers deserve, and the sport requires, simple and clear rules that make easy sense. Let�s not give up until we achieve that.

Bill, you posted your reply at 4:30 a.m., so either you were up late thinking about this, or you woke early to mull it over. I�ve got the same zeal. You and I are brothers in this quest. So now, though you want to end this thread, I respectfully ask you to dig down one more layer with me.

You�re correct, in OB/mando/lost combinations, that the rulebook tells us which rule takes precedence. But the rulebook give no such guidance for stance/practice, nor does the rulebook tell us to extrapolate from OB/mando/lost to handle other rule-overlap situations.

Must we throw up our hands and dump stance/practice into the lap of the Rule of Fairness? The Rule of Fairness governs situations not covered by the rules. But stance/practice IS COVERED BY TWO RULES of equal power. And where�s the fairness in saying that either the stance rule or the practice rule is �closest� or �better embodies the principles� of the game?

So, bro, please answer one more question, and then I�ll back off this thread:

Suppose, in �Instant replay,� when the TD said �We have video evidence,� the official immediately said � before Mitch could speak � �I�m ruling that Mitch threw a practice throw, since he wasn�t touching his lie when he released, and therefore his lie didn�t change. In the practice throw definition, �intentional or not� means that it�s irrelevant what Mitch intended when he released his disc � so the only thing we can consider is the act itself. Therefore I rule that Mitch gets a one-stroke penalty and his lie is still at his marker, 40� from the pin.�

Exczar: If the official made that ruling, do you think Mitch should appeal to the TD? And if Mitch appeals, should the TD overrule the official and give Mitch the $50,000?

Finally, Bill, you suggest that world championship players won�t call fouls on themselves. Well, at the 1991 Worlds I called a foul on myself in sudden death playoff that cost me the Pro Grandmaster Championship. Bill, I have fried this fish. It�s a pukin� big fish.


* * *

PS: On your �Johnny Mc� question, about nobody seconding your foot fault call � that�s disc golf�s 800-pound gorilla. Must we monitor our groupmates� play? Do we each have a right (or obligation) to call a courtesy foul on our groupmates if they fail to monitor play?

The rulebook gives muddy guidance.

801.01A/C. We�re discourteous if we don�t watch our groupmates throw . . . maybe. (Rule C suffers the fate of all �list� rules: the phrase �such as� begs the question, �What about such-and-such, that isn�t on the list � specifically, what about monitoring play?�)

803.09D. When a disc�s OB/IB status is uncertain (in whose opinion?), the majority of the group or an official must rule it in or out. Yet I can�t recall, in many years of tournament play, a single case where a group went out of their way to monitor OB/IB without the thrower asking them to. Instead we holler, �Hey, Bill, did you go OB?� �No.� �Okay.�

Furthermore, every rule that includes �if observed by two or more players� implies that monitoring in disc golf is iffy, at best.

Suppose you told your groupmates, �I�m giving each of you a warning for discourtesy, since you didn�t pay enough attention to second my call on Johnny Mc.� Do you think your warning would make everybody monitor everybody else for the rest of the round? And if you later called a second �fail to watch� violation (= 1 stroke penalty), how do you think your groupmates would react? (Note: Rule 801.01G gives you SOLO POWER to make courtesy calls!)

The RC could solve this whole �monitor� question by making all rules rest on the fact of whether acts do, or don�t, happen. I.e., if NO ONE DISAGREES that an act happened, then apply the rule to the act; if ANYONE DISAGREES whether the act happened, call an official or the TD to rule. This makes it in YOUR best interest for you to monitor your groupmates � and if you choose not to, well, it�s like if you don�t vote in an election: you lose your right to complain about who got elected.

While we�re advising the RC, how about this: the RC can solve all questions about stance, practice, and misplaying the course, simply by ruling that EVERY THROW FROM ANY WRONG STANCE COUNTS 1 ON YOUR SCORE AND YOUR LIE DOESN�T CHANGE. Period.

Good morning, old friend. Pass the coffee. :)

Hoser,

Your timer is off. It was only 11:30PM when I finished editing my diatribe. Sorry to disappoint you.

I also agree that rules should be elegant, but please don't misinterpret Carlton's remarks. Of course, it is impossible to make a rule that cannot be interpreted incorrectly in some way, and I did not infer from his comment that he was not trying to make the Rules as bulletproof and foolproof as possible.

You are making my brain hurt, old friend! and making me work way harder than I wanted to, but the Rules are deserving of that much work and more!

I noticed you worded your scenario very carefully. I was hoping to say that the tournament is over, but Rule 804.03G(1) allows for penalty throws to be assessed even after the cards have been turned in, if the TD has not declared the event officially over and all awards have been distributed.

So, I have one last argument. The definition of a practice throw states that the throw does not change the player's lie. Well, Mitch's throw clearly changed his lie - it completed the hole. No player or official watching at the time questioned that fact. I would argue that, by the actions of everyone, Mitch's throw, de facto, changed his lie, and so could not be considered a practice throw. And, I'm sorry, but the fact that Mitch's last contact with the playing surface was a legal stance should be used to judge the situation.

Let's say all Mitch had to do was make a tap in in order to win. He was walking up to his lie with 2 putters, and decided he didn't need one of them, and pitched it back to his bag, and the discs traveled more than 2 meters. Is that a stance violation or a practice throw? You would say both, right?

re: Mitch not calling it on himself, and referencing the importance of the circumstances, of course I was referring to your actions in 1991. That is why I added the emoticon after the sentence.

And of course, Mitch could appeal as far as he wants.

*****

Thank you for your comments on my scenario. They were well thought out. I would expect nothing less than that from you.

I am not too concerned over giving warnings and penalty throws over conduct, since they do not affect the play of the hole, and can easily be overruled by the TD.

I am intrigued by your "No one disagrees/any one disagrees" idea. In my scenario, Clint and Mitch could not disagree with my call. The only hitch would be that the thrower could disagree. Say Clint and Mitch were walking up the left side of the fairway to their throws, and JohnnyMac and I were walking up the right side. I was away and I threw. JohnnyMac calls a foot fault. I look down and see my foot 3 inches behind my marker disc, clearly on the line of play, so I disagree. We would have to stop play and get an official or the TD involved. Clint and Mitch did indeed give up their right to disagree, but I DID NOT.

And how will the official rule?

Johnny Mac:"Bill foot faulted";
Bill:"I did not!"

It is a neat idea, but I can't see it being used.

But I do indeed agree with your penultimate paragraph. If the penalties for a stance violation and a practice throw were the same, and enforced in the same way, with the temporal restrictions, we would not care what you called it, whether or not we went with the penalty you proposed or another penalty.

I think that the lack of chatter we are receiving from the peanut gallery is showing how others view the importance of what we are debating, at least in the narrow view of the scenaria we have set, so I am hesitant to go much further on it, but please feel free to continue if you wish.

Despite the record snowfall on the ground here in Dallas, I am still sticking to my cold caffeine routine, and am hoisting a cold can of Coca-Cola to your health, my dear old friend!

Mr. Burns, I bow to your wisdom.

I�ve scoured the rulebook for references to what constitutes completing a hole, and unless you can point out additional references, here is what there is:

Rule 803.13B. In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections . . . [and] the disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.

Holed-out definition: A player has �holed-out� after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device . . .

Exczar, I can�t find any rule that says �a disc has to be thrown from a legal stance in order to complete a hole.� Rule 803.13B says, �the thrower must release the disc� but doesn�t limit his stance when he releases it. Rule 803.04, the stance rule, describes correct stance but provides only one avenue to enforce it, i.e., call the foul within three seconds . . . leading to the conclusion that if a stance foul isn�t called within three seconds, then a wrong-stance throw has exactly the same result as a correct-stance throw: it creates a new lie, and it can complete a hole.

So, indeed, unless someone called Mitch�s jump foul within three seconds, his putt did, by rule, complete the hole. Apparently, without a timely foul call, Mitch could have ignored his lie, walked up to the pin, yanked his putter out of the crack of his . . . er, the crack of dawn, and flicked it into the basket for deuce. Hole completed. Game over.

(By the same reasoning, any practice throw into a basket, that�s not called as a stance foul within three seconds, also may hole out. In fact, it looks like EVERY PRACTICE THROW WOULD COUNT to advance your lie if not called as a foul in three seconds . . . although you may then be in the pickle of having two lies. Oh, my brain hurts.)

Bill, PLEASE cite from the rulebook to show how I�ve got this wrong. Because it looks like Mitch gets rewarded with $50,000 for breaking the stance rule.

Thank you, amigo, for your generous time and energy on this thread. Apparently the rules are not the way I would have written them . . . but at least you�ve opened up a strategy to improve my score!

Also thanks for your demeanor throughout our discussion. We�ve demonstrated how to courteously debate all points of view. You are a gentleman and a scallop.


* * *

�He said / he said� is the weak point in my �the rules should govern acts only� concept. But the concept does encourage players to monitor each other. And often we can discern the facts by evidence: shoe prints, body position, even a cell-phone photo. In your case of JohnnyMac calling you for a foot fault while Clint and Mitch are too far away to monitor, you might back Johnny down � he�ll likely see that he doesn�t have enough evidence to call an official and convince him � but your whole group will be on alert on your next stances.

Now, combine that situation with the other idea, that ALL WRONG STANCES count 1 on your score and don�t change your lie. (BTW, as you�ll see below, it�s important to have no time restriction to call that foul.) Suddenly a lot more is riding on �he said / he said.� You are going to be darned careful of your stance, because instead of a warning and rethrow, if you get into a situation where you can�t disagree that you threw from a wrong stance, it�ll cost you 1 and you�ll still have the same lie. Furthermore, you are going to be responsible to pay really close attention to playing the course right in every respect, because if you make a throw from a wrong stance, you�ll have to go back RIGHT AWAY and fix the problem or else every next throw you make will also be from a wrong stance, and your lie will fester in its original position while you accumulate a bigger score than the charge account my wife runs up at the shoe store.

Those two rule concepts, together, create a game where players are far more likely to play from correct stances than they are under the current rules. And they also create another consequence that�s wonderful. This is going to shock you at first, but follow the reasoning:

Under these two rule ideas, whenever you call a stance foul, or alert someone that they are about to foul (�Hey, watch that cheatin� foot�), their reaction has to be �Thank you!� Because you are saving them all the strokes they would accumulate if they kept playing on from wrong stances. CALLING A STANCE FOUL, OR ALERTING SOMEONE WHO IS ABOUT TO FOUL, BECOMES A COURTEOUS ACT. In fact, if you realize someone has fouled or is about to foul, and you DON�T CALL IT, YOU ARE BEING RUDE.

This completely reverses disc golfers� current ethos about calling fouls. Folks on the discussion threads who have been moaning about �nobody enforces rules� can now shut up and throw. Just like that.

Maybe the peanut gallery has been keeping mum these last couple of days waiting to see which of us would wear the other down, Bill. Let�s step aside and give them a chance to come up for air.

Hoser :)

Bill,

Yes, every practice throw is a stance violation.




1.5 Practice Rounds and Tee Times

A. A player is responsible for scheduling their practice rounds prior to the event. Availability of the course and its tournament set-up for practice rounds may vary (see Tour Standards for details). The course or courses are closed to practice during the tournament and all other times designated by the Tournament Director.
B. Two types of starts will be used to begin competitive play:
(1) Shotgun Starts (rounds where several groups start simultaneously): At a scheduled time, scorecard(s) shall be distributed to the player listed first on each hole. After the cards have been distributed, groups shall be given adequate time to reach their assigned teeing areas. A loud noisemaker, such as an air horn, shall be used to indicate that there are two minutes remaining until tee off. This signal shall be a series of short blasts. At this time, players are to end practice and all practice shots and move promptly to their teeing areas. A throw by a player between the two minute signal and the start of the round shall receive a warning if observed by two or more players or an official. After being warned, subsequent throws by the player during this period, if observed by two or more players or an official, shall result in one penalty throw added to the player's score, regardless of the number of throws. An extended blast of the noisemaker begins the round and signals the scorekeepers to call the throwing orders. If a player is not present to throw when it is his or her turn, the scorekeeper shall allow 30 seconds. If the player has not thrown after the 30 seconds has elapsed, a score of par plus four is to be entered for that hole. This procedure continues on any subsequent holes for which a player is absent. No holes shall be replayed. If a complete round is missed, or if a player does not finish a round, the player may, at the discretion of the director, be disqualified.

Jerry,

Your clause in Rule 1.5B(1) governs only the two minute period before the round starts.

�Practice throws,� as defined in Section 800 (Definitions), exist only after the start:

�Practice throw: During a round, the projection of a disc . . . .�

So, yes, every practice throw, as defined in Section 800, is a stance violation.

1.5 Practice Rounds and Tee Times

A. A player is responsible for scheduling their practice rounds prior to the event. Availability of the course and its tournament set-up for practice rounds may vary (see Tour Standards for details). The course or courses are closed to practice during the tournament and all other times designated by the Tournament Director.
B. Two types of starts will be used to begin competitive play:
(1) Shotgun Starts (rounds where several groups start simultaneously): At a scheduled time, scorecard(s) shall be distributed to the player listed first on each hole. After the cards have been distributed, groups shall be given adequate time to reach their assigned teeing areas. A loud noisemaker, such as an air horn, shall be used to indicate that there are two minutes remaining until tee off. This signal shall be a series of short blasts. At this time, players are to end practice and all practice shots and move promptly to their teeing areas. A throw by a player between the two minute signal and the start of the round shall receive a warning if observed by two or more players or an official. After being warned, subsequent throws by the player during this period, if observed by two or more players or an official, shall result in one penalty throw added to the player's score, regardless of the number of throws. An extended blast of the noisemaker begins the round and signals the scorekeepers to call the throwing orders. If a player is not present to throw when it is his or her turn, the scorekeeper shall allow 30 seconds. If the player has not thrown after the 30 seconds has elapsed, a score of par plus four is to be entered for that hole. This procedure continues on any subsequent holes for which a player is absent. No holes shall be replayed. If a complete round is missed, or if a player does not finish a round, the player may, at the discretion of the director, be disqualified.

Actually, to avoid any confusion, your post isn't actually what section 1.5 of the competition manual says. More precisely, your post is a combination of some, but not all, of section 1.5 from the competition manual and 804.02 A from the rule book.

While this doesn't change the point you were making, it isn't section 1.5 as you claim, and while it is a penalty if properly dealt with, it doesn't meet the definition of a practice throw.

I'm just saying....

Jerry,

Your clause in Rule 1.5B(1) governs only the two minute period before the round starts.

�Practice throws,� as defined in Section 800 (Definitions), exist only after the start:
�Practice throw: During a round, the projection of a disc . . . .�

So, yes, every practice throw, as defined in Section 800, is a stance violation.

Hoser,

Maybe you should review what I posted above once again. My post was a direct response to your statement "every practice throw is a stance violation". One can incur penalty strokes for practice throws prior to the beginning of the round. That was my point. During the two minute period prior to the start of a round, a player can be penalized for practice throws which do not involve a "stance violation".

Semantics, my friend....and a little thing called the PDGA Competition Manual. :)

Jerry,

I believe Hoser is going back to the true source of what a practice throw is, which is the definition, per section 800, which clearly states that a practice throw only occurs during a round, and section 804.02A, when referring to a player's actions between the two minute warning and the start of the round, calls the violating action a "throw", not a "practice throw". This section does state that "players are to end practice and practice shots" but never uses the phrase "practice throw", so this rule does not conflict with the definition of a practice throw.

So, one can incur a penalty for throws between the 2 min warning and the start, but the penalty is not for a practice throw, since practice throws cannot occur until the round has started.

So, one can incur a penalty for throws between the 2 min warning and the start, but the penalty is not for a practice throw, since practice throws cannot occur until the round has started.

Bill,

Our Competition Manual states that players must suspend practice following the two minute signal. I've pasted the rule below, this time highlighting applicable words in red:



1.5 Practice Rounds and Tee Times

A. A player is responsible for scheduling their practice rounds prior to the event. Availability of the course and its tournament set-up for practice rounds may vary (see Tour Standards for details). The course or courses are closed to practice during the tournament and all other times designated by the Tournament Director.
B. Two types of starts will be used to begin competitive play:
(1) Shotgun Starts (rounds where several groups start simultaneously): At a scheduled time, scorecard(s) shall be distributed to the player listed first on each hole. After the cards have been distributed, groups shall be given adequate time to reach their assigned teeing areas. A loud noisemaker, such as an air horn, shall be used to indicate that there are two minutes remaining until tee off. This signal shall be a series of short blasts. At this time, players are to end practice and all practice shots and move promptly to their teeing areas. A throw by a player between the two minute signal and the start of the round shall receive a warning if observed by two or more players or an official. After being warned, subsequent throws by the player during this period, if observed by two or more players or an official, shall result in one penalty throw added to the player's score, regardless of the number of throws. An extended blast of the noisemaker begins the round and signals the scorekeepers to call the throwing orders. If a player is not present to throw when it is his or her turn, the scorekeeper shall allow 30 seconds. If the player has not thrown after the 30 seconds has elapsed, a score of par plus four is to be entered for that hole. This procedure continues on any subsequent holes for which a player is absent. No holes shall be replayed. If a complete round is missed, or if a player does not finish a round, the player may, at the discretion of the director, be disqualified.



The wording in our Competition Manual seems to be quite clear and concise.

Jerry,

You�re right. And Bill is right. And we�re having a fun jousting to differentiate �practice throw� as defined in Section 800 and �practice throw� as we commonly describe what we do between rounds.

The throws we practice with in the two minute warning period are governed by Rule 804.02A. The throws we make from anywhere off the lie during a round are governed by Rule 803.01B. And the throws we do any other time � whether we�re practicing or just goofing off � are governed by no rule at all.

One thing we ought to agree on: none of these throws can advance your lie . . .

. . . unless you buy the absurd notion that a practice throw during a round can advance your lie whenever the stance foul isn�t called within three seconds. This notion pretty much destroys the challenge of �play where it lies.� Yet a strict reading of Rule 803.01B and some of the rules governing �playing the stipulated course� allows exactly that.

And so Mitch wins $50,000 by putting from a wrong stance. The Nike and Budweiser and ESPN guys give each other a wry look that goes all the way to the bank. The TD goes home with egg on his face. Clint goes home with vengeance in his heart. Mitch goes home to try to remember where he threw his laundry. And a kid in the gallery, who could have been the next Ken Climo or David Wiggins, sadly turns away and decides to abandon disc golf and focus on sports that make sense.

Sorry, guys, I spoke wrong in post #39. Here�s the correction.

The second-to-last paragraph should begin:


. . . unless you buy the absurd notion that a THROW FROM A WRONG STANCE during a round can advance your lie whenever the stance foul isn�t called within three seconds.

I mean ALL throws from wrong stance, including not only throws from anywhere that�s not your lie (see Section 800 �practice throw� and Rule 803.01B) but also throws where you stand correctly behind the marker but you touch wrong somewhere else (Rule 803.04A), or your stance displaces stuff more than �least� (Rule 803.04D), or you make a falling putt (Rule 803.04C).

Jerry,

You’re right. And Bill is right. And we’re having a fun jousting to differentiate “practice throw” as defined in Section 800 and “practice throw” as we commonly describe what we do between rounds.



Thanks, Hose......but I'm going to disagree and say that Bill is not right in reference to his statement below:

Jerry,

I believe Hoser is going back to the true source of what a practice throw is, which is the definition, per section 800, which clearly states that a practice throw only occurs during a round, and section 804.02A, when referring to a player's actions between the two minute warning and the start of the round, calls the violating action a "throw", not a "practice throw". This section does state that "players are to end practice and practice shots" but never uses the phrase "practice throw", so this rule does not conflict with the definition of a practice throw.

So, one can incur a penalty for throws between the 2 min warning and the start, but the penalty is not for a practice throw, since practice throws cannot occur until the round has started.

I am surprised that anyone cannot discern the fact that a practice throw is a practice throw, regardless of when it occurs (i.e. before, during or after a round). If it was true what Bill is saying, "a practice throw only occurs during a round", then why does the Competition Manual clearly state that all players "are to end practicing and all practice shots and move promptly to their teeing areas"?

Better yet, let's bring Mitch and Clint back into the fold to help us better understand this particular topic of discussion. Mitch and Clint are on the practice green, working on their putting before the round starts. Clintard has 'em dialed in so he stops practicing and heads over the hole 1's teeing area calling out to his brother, "you better get as much practice as possible, bro....you need it!". Mitch follows with a smart-*** remark and continues to work with that old Kitty Hawk.

The two minute signal is heard and the players suspend practicing and all practice shots and begin moving promptly to their teeing areas. Except for Mitch. He continues to practice his putting. Clint and the two other players in his group yell out to Mitch, advising him that the two minute signal has sounded and that he has been warned to stop practicing. Mitch throws another two putts. Clint announces that Mitch will receive two penalty strokes for the two practice putts he executed during the two minute period and the two other players in the group agree with the call. Clint marks the penalty strokes on the card......and Mitch continues to practice his putting. His brother states that he will continue to receive a penalty stroke for every subsequent throw to which Mitch replies "I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I did read Bill Burn's post on the PDGA Discussion Board and according to his interpretation, my practice putts do not meet the definition of a practice throw because practice throws cannot occur until after the round has started. And that's exactly what I'm doing.....practicing my putting. By the way, you told me I needed the practice."



:D


From the PDGA Competition Manual:

<!-- content-left --> <!-- content-main --> <!-- main --> *** Competition Manual ***

The following sections pertain to the PDGA Competition Manual. As of the January 1st, 2010 the Competition Manual and PDGA Rules of Play are printed together although they are seperate entities.
Certain sections of the Rules of Play (804.02, 804,04, 804.05, 804.06, 804.07, 804.08, and 804.09) were relocated the the Competition Manual as they dealt with Tournament Procedures at a disc golf event and not the rules of play directly.



Also from the PDGA Competition Manual:


<!-- content-left --> <!-- content-main --> <!-- main --> Introduction

The PDGA Competition Manual outlines procedures and guidelines for PDGA events, and is to be used in conjunction with the Official Rules of Play and Tour Standards document. These procedures and guidelines are required for all PDGA sanctioned events unless specified otherwise. If a Tournament Director finds any provision in the document unacceptable a waiver may be requested by contacting the Tour Manager at [email protected] or 706.261.6342.




;)


Regards,

Jerry

p.s. I haven't had this much fun since kneeling on a towel. :cool:
<!--Session data-->

Jerry,

You�re right, of course. In your scenario, Mitch is practicing (and he�s proving that there�s never been a better putter than the Kitty Hawk) during the two minute period. (But if you�ll reread Rule 804.02A, you�ll see that Mitch gets only one stroke of penalty no matter how many times he putts during the two minute period.)

Jerry, I gotta admire the way you sink your teeth in and hang on till all the blood runs out.

But let�s not be harsh on ol� Bill. He�s doing the best he can, lugging around Section 800�s definition of �practice throw� . . . which includes stuff that you and I would never, in the vernacular, call practice.

The RC sometimes has trouble figuring out what to call stuff in Section 800. Here are a couple of intriguing examples.

The 1984 rulebook defined �playable lie� � look it up, it�s a fascinating concept for relieving OB, lost disc, 2M, near an OB line, and wrongly-played lie � and then the 1986 rulebook slightly altered this definition and, for reasons known only to the RC�s hookah, changed its name to �favorable lie.� But to keep us on our toes, the 1986 rulebook also kept using the term �playable lie,� redefined as something completely different. Then the 1988 rulebook defined �favorable lie� yet another way, using a diagram that looked like an upside down pyramid riding a unicycle, with arrows pointing in four directions.

There�s also the saga of our current Section 800�s �unplayable lie�:


1984 UNPLAYABLE LIE: �A lie may be declared unplayable by the player.�

1986 UNPLAYABLE LIE: �A lie from where a player decides obstacles to stance or throwing motion make it impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw.�

1986 � 2002 UNSAFE LIE: (same definition . . . and UNPLAYABLE LIE is removed from the rulebook).

2006 UNPLAYABLE LIE: (same definition . . . and UNSAFE LIE is removed from the rulebook.)

Those �unplayable� and �unsafe� definitions don't mean the lie is unplayable or unsafe. It's just the RC's way of describing any lie where you decide, �I�d rather take a one-stroke penalty than play this sh**ty lie.�

Jerry, Section 800�s current definition of �practice throw� covers a multitude of sins, and many of them are not what disc golfers would conversationally call practice. Meanwhile Rule 804.02A speaks of �practice� and �throws� and �practice shots� while talking about stuff that clearly IS PRACTICE but it happens before the round.

Do dah, do dah.

As the chain gang boss told Cool Hand Luke, �What we have here is a failure to communicate.�

Both Clint and I stand corrected. :) (I could have easily posted that that was a test, but I will gladly admit my misunderstanding and incorrect interpretation of the rule governing practice throws following the two minute signal). Thanks for pointing out my mistake and improving my knowledge of the rules.

Mitch should be assessed only one penalty stroke for all the practice throws (i.e. practice shots, practice putts, practice tosses, etc.) he executed during the two-minute period prior to the start of the round and after being warned by the players in his group.

While my teeth are sunk into this topic, let us review our rule book definition which reads as follows:

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

This rule book definition of a practice throw simply defines what a practice throw is "during a round". The definition does not state that "practice throws cannot occur until the round has started" as Bill has stated up thread. Based upon the wording in our Competition Manual which specifically references players practicing prior to contesting a round, it seems to me that one should be able to infer that a practice throw can occur before a round. Especially considering the fact that one can incur a penalty stroke for practicing shots, drives, putts, thumbers, pancakes, tomatoes, tomahawks, rollers, scoobies, etc. (i.e. "throws") following the two minute signal.

Jerry,

What�s a tomato?


All,

At the risk of twisting Bill�s whiskers � he�s been wanting this thread to unravel since Post #25 � can anybody in the peanut gallery, especially TDs, confirm Bill�s hint (see Posts #16 and #25) that if players commit stance fouls close enough to the lie (Bill doesn�t say how close), TDs are �virtually certain� to enforce only the stance foul rule and not the practice throw rule � even if the stance foul wasn�t called in time and so Mitch wins $50,000?

Is this how we want disc golf to be played?

Jerry,

The definition of "Practice Throw" does refer to section 804.02, which deals with "a throw by a player between the two minute warning and the start of the round", which is definitely before the round, so I can see where you are coming from, and am beginning to come around to your point of view, after reviewing all the sections that flow from this definition.

One question for you. I think you are saying that this definition is only good for these type of throws that are taken during the round, which are throws that go more than two meters, or any distance toward a target. When I searched the Rules PDF file for all instances of "target", they all seemed to reference it in the context of playing a hole.

All that to say, between the two minute warning and the start of the round, are any throws that are less than two meters that are thrown, say, toward a disc entrapment device, to be considered in violation of Rule 804.02A?

I don't think so, because, at that time, the disc entrapment device has not yet become a target, because the round has not yet started. So I believe that the player could take 1.9m putts during that time.

Oh, man, Hoser, help me out here. I just looked up the definition of "Throw" and it said, "The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie", and as we all know, there are only teeing areas and lies during the round, not before the round, but here we are, having the rules refer to a "throw" taken before the round! If the definition of "throw" places it only during a round, then the rules should not use this word in relation to actions taking place outside the round, as it is in section 804.02!

Yeah, the rules definitely need a rewrite, and if I was on the RC, not only would I hopefully have an impact on the new revision, I would not be out here poking holes in it, especially holes that I did not go looking for, but happened to stumble over while trying to figure out another rule!

My brain is hurting again...

You�re doing fine, Bill, doing fine. Can I bring you an aspirin?

It�s Valentine�s Day, and I just love both of you guys, but your sub-thread of �when is a practice throw a practice throw?� is a red herring swimming upstream into a pack of hungry grizzlies. It�ll never spawn. How about turning your fine minds and boundless energies back to the question that burns a big ragged hole in the heart of the sport:

How is it right and fair and reasonable for Mitch to win $50,000 by throwing from a wrong stance?

Tank you veddy much.
:cool:

Hoser,

Got any St. Josephs baby aspirin on ya? I love the chewables.

You already got my take on the $50K question. Let's see if other care to chime in.

Chuck?

Oh Chu-u-u-u-u-ck, where are you?

Chuck Kennedy, do you think ANY shot that�s taken from a wrong place, or that�s taken from the right place but a wrong stance, SHOULD EVER ADVANCE A LIE, OR HOLE OUT, OR WIN A PRIZE?

According to Rules 803.02B (stance on a tee) and 803.04F-G (stance after tee-off), if a stance foul isn�t called within three seconds, or if it is validly called but not seconded, then no warning or penalty can be given for the foul. And according to all the rules in the rulebook, nothing stops a stance-foul throw, that�s not warned or penalized for stance foul, from advancing the lie, or holing out, or winning a prize.

According to Rule 803.10A (throwing from another player�s lie), if you throw from somebody else�s lie, you �SHALL complete the hole� from that throw, even though your throw from a wrong lie clearly meets the definition of �practice throw� and so, by definition, does not change your lie.

According to Rule 801.04B(1) (wrong tee), if you tee off from a wrong tee AND play a subsequent shot before the misplay is discovered, you �SHALL proceed to complete the hole,� even though your throw from a wrong tee clearly meets the definition of �practice throw� and so, by definition, does not change your lie (i.e., does not create a lie for you in the fairway).

According to Rule 801.04B(2) (misplayed mandatory), if you misplay a mandatory AND play a subsequent shot before the misplay is discovered, you �SHALL proceed to finish the hole,� even though the throw that you made after missing the mando clearly meets the definition of �practice throw� and so, by definition, does not change your lie.

According to Rule 801.04B(3) (wrong target), if you tee off on Hole #2 after holing out on the wrong target for Hole #1, then you have completed Hole #1 and your tee shot on Hole #2 is valid and so are the rest of your shots on Hole #2, even though the wrong-target shot on Hole #1 gave you a lie beneath that wrong target and so your shot from Tee #2 clearly meets the definition of �practice throw� and so, by definition, does not change your lie.

According to Rule 801.04B(4) (out of bounds play), if you play an out of bounds disc as if it were inbounds AND if you make a subsequent throw before the misplay is discovered, then you �SHALL proceed to complete the hole,� even though your throw from out of bounds � i.e., from a wrong stance and surely not from your lie � clearly meets the definition of �practice throw� and so, by definition, does not change your lie.

According to Rule 801.04B(5) (non-sequential play), if you skip a hole or play holes in the wrong order AND you make two wrong throws before the misplay is discovered, then the hole being played �SHALL be completed� and the scores from holes that you wrongly complete �SHALL stand,� even though every throw on a wrong hole is taken not from your lie and so it clearly meets the definition of �practice throw� and so, by definition, does not change your lie.

(Yes, the last 6 fouls each carry a two-throw penalty. Even so, situations exist where you may gain advantage by unwillfully misplaying.)

According to Rule 803.13B (holing out) and Section 800 definition of �holed-out�, the requirements for holing out do not include throwing from a correct stance, and so throws that clearly meet the definition of �practice throw,� and throws from wrong stance that are not validly called and seconded, may hole out.


Chuck! Can you see Mitch grinning?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Not paying much attention to this thread, not that the topic isn't important regarding rules interpretation. This dialog would be more useful if it was directly with someone on the Rules Committee who can actually make any changes needed in the next update they are working on. I'm just part of the peanut gallery.

At Chuck Kennedy's suggestion, I have asked Rules Committee chair Conrad Damon for an RC ruling on this question. I'll post the RC's answer as soon as they respond.

As I hold the sealed envelope to my head, I feel the vibes of, "However the TD rules is how the situation should be played."

Why have real rules when it so much more fun to make it up as you go along?

Ray,

No matter what decision the TD makes, the player always has a right to appeal the decision the TD makes. A player can bring up Rule 804.01D if applicable, but the TD has the say at the event.

Ray,

No matter what decision the TD makes, the player always has a right to appeal the decision the TD makes. A player can bring up Rule 804.01D if applicable, but the TD has the say at the event.

Considering the number of appeals that are actually successful, Ray's statement is spot on.

Many view the RC opinions as if they were issued by the Supreme Court. I see them as just another non-binding legal opinion.

Hoser,

I sent you a PM (private message). Look near the upper right corner to view.

Thanks,

Bill