DShelton, thank you for your Post #249.


We�ll make our �further comment: Open Letter thread� as unobtrusive as possible. Like you, we wouldn�t want anything annoying to appear on this discussion board.


[Patching loopholes and writing rules without loopholes] is exactly what the PDGA has tried to do over the years. Yet you put them down for it. If you published each re-write of your rules, it would have the same effect. Someone can go to them and show how they've expanded with each rewrite.

We agree with you, that the RC has tried. We applaud them for their dedicated effort and for their sincere love of the game. We absolutely do not criticize their good hearts and their generous volunteer service to the membership and to the board of directors.

Yet there�s a problem. The PDGA rules of play, which in 1980 took 1500 words to express, now are six times that long and yet players still have trouble figuring out what those rules mean, how to use them, and whether to enforce them.

You keep saying that if we revised Rules of SnapChing a whole lot, our rules would bloat in the same way that PDGA rules have done. But here�s a surprise. We did more than 200 revisions of our rules before we rolled Rules of SnapChing out for public view. Our first draft was double the size of the original PDGA rules. Each time we revised to make rules clearer, or to solve scenarios, the rewrite became shorter, not longer. We continually asked friends to find loopholes in our rules and to propose scenarios to test them. Every time we closed a loophole or solved a new scenario, the revision was shorter than before.

It seems counter-intuitive to think that if you say stuff more precisely, you can say it shorter instead of longer. But you can, if you�re determined not to stop until it�s done. We have retained all of those 200+ revisions on computer file. They show steady progress: each time our rules improved, the improvement was shorter. That�s how we achieved a 400-word version of Rules of SnapChing that governs the game way, way better than the 3000-word first draft did.

And we�re still asking you, and everyone else on this discussion forum, to probe for loopholes in our rules, and to propose scenarios that are tough to solve. Put our rules to your toughest test. Make us revise further.


Mike & Matt :) :)

And we�re still asking you, and everyone else on this discussion forum, to probe for loopholes in our rules, and to propose scenarios that are tough to solve. Put our rules to your toughest test. Make us revise further.

Here I'm going to treat you like Mattel would if you were to present them with a new game.

It's not up to us to prove your game works, it is up to you to go out and show us that it works by having people play the game and make your revisions based on the scenarios that you encounter. No game is worth playing if it's creators don't feel that it is worth their effort to playtest it under many different circumstances.

I know that's what they would say because I have a friend that wrote for a roleplaying game and that's what they told him with his first draft. (Ok, so I'm a geek. lol)

Now with that being said, I did see two problems with your rules. One is that you say that when you correctly hit your target you've holed out, but you do not specify how to correctly hit the target. I can thus make a correct plea that if I hit the chains and it passes through, I've still hit my target, the disc just didn't stop.

Second, here's a scenario I just thought of. I've lost my disc so I throw accordingly by rule #9. On the way to the hole I see my lost disc a lot closer than any of us thought it was. By my interpretation I feel I can ignore my last throw and instead use the newly found disc. Yet rule #11 says I have to count that lost disc throw. So there is a contradiction between rules #4 and #11.

DShelton, thank you for your Post #252.


Mattel. That�s a good analogy. It would be interesting to see how Mattel would react if they received the PDGA rules of play as a proposed new game.

You�re right: it�s not up to you to prove that SnapChing works. Yet you, like many other readers on this thread, are curious: after years of frequent confusion about PDGA rules, the advent of a new rule system for disc golf is a mind-tickler. Can it work? Can it improve on what the PDGA has been trying to do since 1980? If so . . . what�s the RC going to do, to match that improvement?

So we thank you for your input:


* * *


You say that when you correctly hit your target you've holed out, but you do not specify how to correctly hit the target. I can thus make a correct plea that if I hit the chains and it passes through, I've still hit my target, the disc just didn't stop.

The bigger question, behind your concern, is: Should a player expect to find �how to correctly hit a target� info in the rules of play or in the Competition Manual?

That�s a close call. As we wrote Rules of SnapChing, we decided that the rules of play are about what to do on the field of play, and the competition manual is stuff to know before you step onto Tee #1. And we chose to put hole-out specs in the CM along with such stuff as tech standards for targets and discs and tees, dress code, competition divisions, qualifications of TDs/officials, grouping and sectioning, etc.. (We kept DQ in the rules of play, instead of moving that info to the CM as the PDGA has done in the 2011 rulebook.)

We haven�t yet written a new competition manual for SnapChing. Currently we use the PDGA competition manual. So SnapChingers hole out on Pole Hole targets the same way PDGA players do. And SnapChing Rule 7 locates your lie whenever you hole out that way.

So your chain-out plea won�t work.

But here�s a secret. Don�t tell anyone: it would open a big ol� can of worms. If we do write a new competition manual, SnapChing hole-out specs will say this:


Technical standards for targets, and how your disc must hit them:


A �pole basket� target is a Disc Pole Hole or other such target that�s built around a vertical pole and designed to catch and hold flying discs in either a set of flexible strands or a basket below. To correctly hit this target, your whole thrown disc must rest touching nothing but the target (excluding its balancing base).

* * *


Scenario: I've lost my disc so I throw accordingly by rule #9. On the way to the hole I see my lost disc a lot closer than any of us thought it was. By my interpretation I feel I can ignore my last throw and instead use the newly found disc. Yet rule #11 says I have to count that lost disc throw. So there is a contradiction between rules #4 and #11.

Rule 9 applies to your scenario because your LIE is lost. So your groupmates deem where your disc first rests, and then Rule 7 locates your lie according to that deem-to-first-rest spot.

At that point in your scenario, Rule 7 has given you a lie that you must play, and it�s irrelevant where your disc may be or whether you ever find it.

Yet apparently you�ve read the rules to say something else. (And of course it�s our job to write the rules in a way that fixes that problem.) So please help us by telling us two things:


How did you use the rules to conclude that you can ignore your throw from the �deem� spot and instead play from your found disc?

What conflict do you see between Rules 11 and 4?



Thank you for your help.


Mike & Matt :) :)

The bigger question, behind your concern, is: Should a player expect to find �how to correctly hit a target� info in the rules of play or in the Competition Manual?

That�s a close call. As we wrote Rules of SnapChing, we decided that the rules of play are about what to do on the field of play, and the competition manual is stuff to know before you step onto Tee #1. And we chose to put hole-out specs in the CM along with such stuff as tech standards for targets and discs and tees, dress code, competition divisions, qualifications of TDs/officials, grouping and sectioning, etc.. (We kept DQ in the rules of play, instead of moving that info to the CM as the PDGA has done in the 2011 rulebook.)


Scenario: I've lost my disc so I throw accordingly by rule #9. On the way to the hole I see my lost disc a lot closer than any of us thought it was. By my interpretation I feel I can ignore my last throw and instead use the newly found disc. Yet rule #11 says I have to count that lost disc throw. So there is a contradiction between rules #4 and #11.

Holing out is a rule of the game. It has to be explained fully in order to play the game.

Rule books are for the rules on how the game is played. A competition manual should use be for rules on competing in tournaments, not what individuals should know to play. Specification manuals should be used for specifications of the equipment used to play.

Remember you said the only rules we would need are on the back of that putter. I'm holding you to that. ;)


How did you use the rules to conclude that you can ignore your throw from the �deem� spot and instead play from your found disc?

What conflict do you see between Rules 11 and 4?



Thank you for your help.


Mike & Matt :) :)

I'm using these rules:

4. At the �start� or �restart� signal, throw from your lie (at
�start,� it�s your first tee). Then find your new lie and
throw from it, etc., correctly hitting each target in series
until you end your play by hitting your final target.

6. Your throw cancels your lie, and creates your new lie on the ground and atop any object or pile that�s directly above and touching that spot of ground.

I've found my disc which is the correct lie according to the above, not the one the group has established. You didn't specify when I had to find my disc.

Now I am given a penalty that I don't deserve (rule #11) even though my lie was found (rule #4). To add to that, I could ignore the now found disc, but I can then be DQed because I have circumvented rules #6 and #4.

DShelton, thank you for your Post #254.


Scenario: I've lost my disc so I throw accordingly by rule #9. On the way to the hole I see my lost disc a lot closer than any of us thought it was. By my interpretation I feel I can ignore my last throw and instead use the newly found disc. Yet rule #11 says I have to count that lost disc throw. So there is a contradiction between rules #4 and #11.

Let�s play the scenario from the start, and see how the rules guide you. To simplify the scenario, let�s assume that (1) you tee off from correct stance and (2) your tee shot is the disc that gets lost and (3) the area where it�s lost is surely IB and there�s not a no-fly line on the hole.

You tee off. You know, by Rule 6, that your tee throw cancels your lie on the tee and creates your new lie somewhere on the ground.

You know, by Rule 4, that the next thing you�re supposed to do, after teeing off, is to go find your new lie and throw from it.

You know that Rule 7 will locate your new lie, once you find where the tee-off disc first rested.

Now you go to find the disc . . . and you can�t find it. That means you don�t know where the disc first rested. That means you can�t use Rule 7 to locate your lie.

Your lie is lost. You are stymied: you don�t know where to stand, for your next throw. So you can�t continue play.

But � aha! � Rule 9 gives you a way to continue play. Your groupmates deem where your disc first rests. And now Rule 7 can locate your lie.

Are you confused about why the �deem,� and not the missing disc, creates the first-rest spot that Rule 7 uses to locate your lie? Let�s look closer at the �deem� concept in SnapChing:


In three other SnapChing situations � they�re all in Rule 10 � a disc is deemed to rest. As you look at those three deems, notice two things: (1) Rule 10 deems the disc to rest at an instant in time, not at a place; and (2) Rule 10 deems the disc to �rest,� rather than to �first rest.�


� Your thrown disc is deemed to rest at the instant its thrown energy ends in water. If that�s the disc�s first rest, then Rule 7 will locate the lie according to where the disc was at that instant.

� Your thrown disc is deemed to rest at the instant its flight is altered by a live vertebrate. If that�s the disc�s first rest, then Rule 7 will locate the lie according to where the disc was at that instant.

� Your thrown disc is deemed to rest at the instant it breaks. If that�s the disc�s first rest, then Rule 7 will locate the lie according to where the disc was at that instant.


The words �first rests� in Rule 7 clarify where to locate your lie in any situation where your disc rests more than once in a single flight. (Multi-rests happen whenever there�s a �deem.� They also happen if a disc rests in a tree, then falls to the ground. Or if a disc rests on the ground, then wind blows it away or a dog or spectator picks up the disc and moves it away.)

Rule 9�s �deem� is different from Rule 10: your groupmates deem where your disc first rests. Let�s say they make their �deem� decision at 2:05 p.m. You know that your disc actually rested at an unknown spot at about 2:00. Common sense tells you that 2:00 happened before 2:05, so you may think that your disc�s first rest must be at that unknown spot.

And yet, Rule 9 deems your disc to first rest where your groupmates say. Is this a conflict?

Let�s think about that. Your groupmates aren�t deeming that 2:05 is when your disc first stayed still 2 seconds. They are uttering their words at 2:05 but everyone knows the disc stopped moving earlier. And obviously the disc didn�t actually stop moving at the groupmates� spot � because it�s physically not there. So what the heck is this �deem� stuff?

Rule 9�s �deem� is a way to cure an unplayable situation. Because you�re facing this reality: until you know where your disc first rested, you can�t establish where your lie is and you can�t know where to stand to throw your next shot. You can�t continue play until you know where your disc first rested.

So Rule 9 provides a way to get you moving again. Rule 9 establishes the disc�s first-rest spot �by rule� instead of �by fact.� Why does rule trump fact? Because it�s your one and only way to keep playing. If rule didn�t trump fact in this situation, you�d stand forever on the course twiddling your thumbs with no way to continue play.

So, in order to keep playing, your groupmates� �deem� spot becomes your first-rest spot, and now you have a way to use Rule 7 to locate your lie. And your next step, by Rule 4, is to play that lie.


DShelton, is this making clear sense to you?

In SnapChing, your groupmates� �deem� spot is usually going to be near the disc�s actual landing place. On average, you'll score the same from the deem spot as if you hadn�t lost your lie. That�s why SnapChing gives no penalty for losing a lie: because Rule 9 creates a way to play lost lies without anyone gaining advantage.

Once in a while � as in your particular scenario � you�ll realize that your disc landed in a place where you might have scored lower on the hole. But it�s also true that sometimes your disc landed in a place where you might have scored higher. It averages out, over time.

If you�re still trying to justify playing Shot #2 from your discovered disc instead of scoring the throw from the �deem� lie, take another look at Rule 6. Your throw from the �deem� lie canceled your lie and created a new lie. So any possible lie of your discovered disc is toast now anyway.

DShelton, let us know if you still have doubts about how to play a lost lie. And if you still feel your interpretation is right, please tell us how you reasoned it out via SnapChing rules.


Mike & Matt :) :)

SnapChig is great for recreational golf! Think anyone who wants to play that way should... however... with that being said.. for Professional Sanctioned Events... there is no place for this type of relaxed approach to the rules of Disc Golf.

In order for our sport to be taken serious, we need structure. That is what I feel the PDGA and our rules have to offer. Without this... we are back to square one... just a bunch of hippies throwing frisbees....

Just my 2 cents....

Rhyno, thank you for your Post #256.


just a bunch of hippies throwing frisbees....

Huh? Huh? We resemble that remark ! . . .


SnapChing is great for recreational golf! Think anyone who wants to play that way should... however... with that being said.. for Professional Sanctioned Events... there is no place for this type of relaxed approach to the rules of Disc Golf. In order for our sport to be taken serious, we need structure.

We agree with you that serious sport needs serious structure.

And several folks on this thread agree with you about this:


� SnapChing is a recreational game, good for casual play. But those rules can�t govern serious competition.

� In serious competition, more than in casual play, the players will be testing the limits of each rule, looking for loopholes that they can gain advantage by, and Rules of SnapChing can�t stand up to that scrutiny and pressure when big money is on the line.

� Rules of SnapChing is just another variety of �rec rules� like you can find on the web or on old DGA placards at the first tee. There are only 11 rules � you can�t possibly govern disc golf seriously with so few rules.


Tell us, please: exactly what is it about SnapChing�s rules that fails your test of serious governance of disc golf? Please be specific: which rules are weak or vague, and what are the flaws? What is missing in our rules, that a serious game�s rules should have? What is it about our rules that�s too relaxed for a big-money event? What scenarios can you offer, that demonstrate that our rules can�t clearly and precisely handle serious competition?

Rhyno, we�re putting our necks on the line. Start chopping.


Mike & Matt :) :)


PS: Before you reply, you might want to seriously read Rules of SnapChing, and imagine some tough field-of-play scenarios and see if you can use our rules to solve them. You may be surprised.

Tell us, please: exactly what is it about SnapChing�s rules that fails your test of serious governance of disc golf? Please be specific: which rules are weak or vague, and what are the flaws? What is missing in our rules, that a serious game�s rules should have? What is it about our rules that�s too relaxed for a big-money event? What scenarios can you offer, that demonstrate that our rules can�t clearly and precisely handle serious competition?



Vagueness & TD's discretion. MANY of the previous posts in this thread reveal that---

(1) TD has great discretion in altering rules and creating local rules, so that competitors would be uncertain what rules they might encounter from event to event.

(2) Many of your answers to situations in previous post involve calling the TD to come make a decision. Serious competitors might want a firmer knowledge, in advance, of rules than calling a TD and asking him.

Logistics and practicality. Again, from many of the previous posts---

(1) Reliance on reaching TDs on cellphones, or their staff, is inpractical. Oddly, the largest events might have staff to resolve these issues; 90% of events are smaller, with a single TD, often playing in his own tournament.

(2) Time. The amount of time potentially consumed by players taking several minutes to throw, taking many minutes to search for a lost disc, finding throws OB and retreating 350' to re-throw, phoning TDs and awaiting their arrival and decision, replaying holes---potentially replaying most of the course---would make the already-tedious pace of tournament play excrutiating.

*

"What rules are vague?" At a start, all rules in which you've replied to "call the TD". How about Rule 7, relocation due to injury to the nearest circle where I can throw without injury. If I make a liberal claim of potential injury (bees, briars, slippery ground) I might wheedle a big move closer to the basket. Others might define the threat of injury, or "nearest", quite differently. I guess we could call the TD to decide.

*

I agree that it's fine for casual play and, in fact, is pretty much what I see a lot of casual players doing, other than re-throwing from O.B. since they often don't consider anything O.B.

David, thank you for your Post #258.


We were hoping Rhyno would reply first, so we could see how our rules look through his eyes. Tell ya what, David: we�ll give Rhyno and others a day or so to do their own chopping, and then we�ll come back and address each of your points.


Mike & Matt :) :)

"What rules are vague?" At a start, all rules in which you've replied to "call the TD". How about Rule 7, relocation due to injury to the nearest circle where I can throw without injury. If I make a liberal claim of potential injury (bees, briars, slippery ground) I might wheedle a big move closer to the basket. Others might define the threat of injury, or "nearest", quite differently. I guess we could call the TD to decide.


You forgot the hole out rules. All the rules say is that you go to the next tee area after your disc properly hits the target. So I can say that I've properly holed out if my disc hits the chains and then falls out since it did indeed hit the target.

DShelton, thank you for your Post #260.


You forgot the hole out rules. All the rules say is that you go to the next tee area after your disc properly hits the target. So I can say that I've properly holed out if my disc hits the chains and then falls out since it did indeed hit the target.

See our Post #253. The hole-out requirements are the same in SnapChing disc golf as in PDGA disc golf.

You may notice, from differences between the 2006 and 2011 PDGA rules of play and competition manuals, that the PDGA is currently working on dividing disc golf regs into a CM that tells you what you need to know before you step onto Tee #1 and a RoP that guides you on the field of play.

We wrote Rules of SnapChing to give you a single page of info that guides you on the field of play. And SnapChing currently uses, in its competition manual, the same specs as the PDGA on stuff you need to know before you begin play.

For example: disc specs. WSL disc specs can be found in SnapChing�s competition manual. Disc manufacturers know those specs, and you�ll look for the �WSL approved� stamp on each disc you buy. (Currently, WSL disc specs are the same as PDGA disc specs.)

Once you step onto Tee #1, as long as you know that each disc in your bag is legal, you don�t need to carry a list of disc specs. You just need to be able to look at your one-page rules of play and see that Rule 3 says each throw must be a WSL-approved disc; and Rule 8 says if you release a disc into air by hand in a way that�s not a throw, your lie doesn�t change; and Rule 11 says you score 1 each time you release ANY disc into air by hand during your play.

Likewise you�ll step onto Tee #1 already knowing, from the CM, how to figure out where a tee�s boundaries are if there�s no pad; and how to hole out on various kinds of targets.

Mostly, you�ll play courses that use a chain/basket type of target. But courses exist that use tone poles and other kinds of targets. And technology may provide future targets that hole out in new ways. For example, someday you may step onto a course where no targets appear to exist at all, but at the flick of a switch, a holographic glowing cylinder the size of a tennis-ball can appears in mid-air 1M above a projector implanted at ground level, and your hole-out requirement is to make your disc �touch� the cylinder, at which moment a chain-hit sound (or a dog bark, or a whoopee-cushion sound, or Roseanne Barr singing the national anthem) comes out of the projector.

Our point is that you need to know hole-out specs before you start playing. On the field of play, if you get into a situation where you didn�t read the CM well enough to know whether your nub-hanging disc has correctly hit the target, call the TD to rule before you proceed.


Mike & Matt :) :)

See our Post #253. The hole-out requirements are the same in SnapChing disc golf as in PDGA disc golf.

Where is that written? Not in your rules and the Competition Manual doesn't mention holing out. All your rules say is that you must hit the target.

Remember our Mattel analogy. They will tell you that holing out is an integral part of the game, thus it must be outlined in the rules. Not a competition manual, which is to be used in a competition, thus the name. Also not in a specifications manual, which only tells you what equipment is legal. It must be in the rulebook.

DShelton, thank you for your Post #262.


Where is that written? Not in your rules and the Competition Manual doesn't mention holing out. All your rules say is that you must hit the target.

Remember our Mattel analogy. They will tell you that holing out is an integral part of the game, thus it must be outlined in the rules. Not a competition manual, which is to be used in a competition, thus the name. Also not in a specifications manual, which only tells you what equipment is legal. It must be in the rulebook.

Our apologies to you, DShelton, and to everyone. As we�ve focused on Rules of SnapChing, we have failed to clearly explain the companion document that we�ve loosely referred to as SnapChing�s �Competition Manual.�

Let us try to correct our mistake:

Imagine that there are two documents that give SnapChingers all the info they need, to take part in SnapChing competition events. One is Rules of SnapChing, which guides you on the field of play. The other � let�s call it Other Document, because �Competition Manual� gives the wrong impression � tells you everything you need to know, or everything you need to do, before you step onto Tee #1.

We have written Rules of SnapChing.

We haven�t yet written the Other Document.

Below, we�ll specify what info belongs in the Other Document. Let�s summarize it first by saying that the Other Document contains info that�s parallel to PDGA info about taking part in competitions, and that�s revised per Rules of SnapChing.

SPECIFICALLY, the Other Document would contain WSL equivalents of the following material from the PDGA competition manual and rules of play:


� CM Section 1, with these revisions:

o 1.5 Practice Rounds and Beginning Play. 1.5B wouldn�t govern the two minutes before the start horn. And 1.5B wouldn�t score an absent player �par + 4.� Instead, SnapChing Rule 2 governs delay on a tee or anywhere else during play.


� CM Section 2. No changes.

� CM Section 3, with these revisions:

o 3.2 Pace of Play, and 3.3 Player misconduct. SnapChing Rule 2 governs courtesy, safe play, fair play, course damage, and delay.

o 3.5 Carts and Caddies. Delete the first sentence of Rule C.

o 3.8 Tournament Director. The World SnapChing League would certify and sanction TDs on the basis of taking, and obeying, WSL training in how to sensibly use a TD�s local-rule power.


� 802 Equipment, with this revision:

o No penalty strokes for carrying or using cracked or altered discs. Alterations (including perforations and cracks) other than �normal wear and tear and moderate sanding,� would nullify a disc�s WSL approval (this would be expressed in a subrule showing all the tech specs of legal discs).


� 803.13 Holing Out, except delete Rule A.


Please understand that SnapChing�s Other Document is �borrowing� these PDGA regs as a stop-gap resource until we can get around to revising them to better suit the SnapChing version of disc golf.

We hope this clears up what we expressed so poorly, earlier in this thread, about SnapChing�s companion document to Rules of SnapChing.

There�s one more thing to say about the relationship of the two SnapChing documents. DShelton and others have been making a distinction between rules that govern casual play and rules that govern tournament competition. That�s not the way we�ve designed Rules of SnapChing and the Other Document.

The Other Document covers all the stuff a SnapChinger may need to know before stepping onto Tee #1 in a WSL event. And Rules of SnapChing guides SnapChingers on the field of play in WSL tournaments. If you play casual SnapChing, you use the same two documents except your group assumes the powers of TD (which means the group can amend either document). If you�re playing alone, you use the same two documents except you yourself assume the powers of TD. In league or club play, the field of players negotiates amendments of either document before play begins.

Once again, we apologize for not communicating to you well, in our earlier descriptions of SnapChing�s two governing documents.


Mike & Matt :o :o

Our apologies to you, DShelton, and to everyone. As we�ve focused on Rules of SnapChing, we have failed to clearly explain the companion document that we�ve loosely referred to as SnapChing�s �Competition Manual.�

Let us try to correct our mistake:

Imagine that there are two documents that give SnapChingers all the info they need, to take part in SnapChing competition events. One is Rules of SnapChing, which guides you on the field of play. The other � let�s call it Other Document, because �Competition Manual� gives the wrong impression � tells you everything you need to know, or everything you need to do, before you step onto Tee #1.

Not good enough. I'll remind you of a few things.

So we�ve written a whole NEW DISC GOLF RULEBOOK that�s simple enough to print on a putter.
What if . . . you could easily solve every field-of-play question?

What if . . . the rules were short enough to print on a putter?

See (and print out) the single-page ''Rules Of SnapChing''

You and I have played disc golf, so we know what to expect. But Bubba A and his friends Bubba B, C,and D haven't. They have just picked up a couple of discs each and decide to get some rules. They feel that the PDGA rules make their head hurt, but they love the 11 rules for Snapching. Do they or do they not have a reasonable expectation that all the rules they need are encapsulated in those 11 rules? They are for the PDGA rules.

Now remember, by your own words all field-of-play questions can be handled by those 11 rules. So, Bubba A's disc hits the chains and falls out. Bubba A thinks that that should count as holing out and Bubba B doesn't think that it should count. Which of those 11 rules should they use?

Everybody,


WE�RE OFF FOR 7 DAYS. GOTTA GO, GOTTA THROW.

Meanwhile, here are a few more SnapChing scenarios for everybody to play with. Have fun!

(PS to David Sauls and DShelton � we haven�t forgotten your questions. We�ll respond, late next week.)


* * *


SNAPCHING SCENARIO #4


On Hole #5, Bubba throws his tee shot under the basket. He marks the lie, takes a correct stance, and carefully lays his disc into the basket. Then he tees off from Tee #6 and his disc lands in Basket #6. Where is Bubba�s lie?



SNAPCHING SCENARIO #5


On the final hole of the round, Bubba putts first in his group. He sinks his putt to score 50 on the round. Immediately, before his groupmates can address their putts, Bubba grabs his driver and gleefully flips it into the air in a way that endangers no one and distracts no one�s play. Then Bubba turns his scorecard in to the TD without adding his scores. What is Bubba�s score for the round?



SNAPCHING SCENARIO #6


The whole group watches Bubba�s tee shot prang off an OB spectator and into the mouth of an IB dog that runs 30M and drops the disc into an IB ditch. There�s water rushing down the ditch, and it washes the disc away so no one can find it. Where is Bubba�s lie?



SNAPCHING SCENARIO #7


Bubba�s tee shot crosses a no-fly line and then disappears behind trees where an OB marsh lurks. The group can�t find the disc. Where is Bubba�s lie?



SNAPCHING SCENARIO #8


After Round 1, Bubba reports a score of 50 to the TD. Then the TD discovers that the putter Bubba used throughout the round is 1 gram overweight. Where is Bubba�s lie and what is his current score?



Mike & Matt :) :)

DShelton, thank you for your Post #254.


Scenario: I've lost my disc so I throw accordingly by rule #9. On the way to the hole I see my lost disc a lot closer than any of us thought it was. By my interpretation I feel I can ignore my last throw and instead use the newly found disc. Yet rule #11 says I have to count that lost disc throw. So there is a contradiction between rules #4 and #11. ...

If you�re still trying to justify playing Shot #2 from your discovered disc instead of scoring the throw from the �deem� lie, take another look at Rule 6. Your throw from the �deem� lie canceled your lie and created a new lie. So any possible lie of your discovered disc is toast now anyway....
Mike & Matt :) :)

What's wrong with the scenario and/or why is this more complicated than the above:
Tee throw appears lost, throw a provisional. Can't find throw #1, count it, use provisional throw as #2 or if no provisional go back to tee and throw #2.

The PDGA rules would have you add a penalty stroke, also. That's because the PGA rules do. Why? To prevent someone from purposely losing (AKA not finding) a ball because the flight of shot #1 has taught them a better place to aim for on shot #2.

My points:
A) PGA rules work backwards from the most serious competition. Most ball golfers ignore most PGA rules. This does not make their ball golf round less fun. Or their play less frequent. In fact it does the opposite. There are a lot more casual ball golfers than professional ball golfers. That ratio is much lower in Disc Golf. Ball golf is about paid rounds played per course.
B) Provisional throws speed up play.
C) Penalties are to discourage and punish cheating. Some people are more honest than others.
D) Deeming can be subjective, and has no place in rules. Rules are objective. You threw a disc and it is lost: count the bad throw and go throw another one. In this case deeming depends upon the other players' attention span and focus. Other deems in SnapChing are not so subjective. You may want to use a different word for the different scenarios.

Meanwhile, here are a few more SnapChing scenarios for everybody to play with. Have fun!


Yay!


SNAPCHING SCENARIO #4


On Hole #5, Bubba throws his tee shot under the basket. He marks the lie, takes a correct stance, and carefully lays his disc into the basket. Then he tees off from Tee #6 and his disc lands in Basket #6. Where is Bubba’s lie?

SnapChing: Under Basket #5, putting for 3.
PDGA: To the extent that PDGA considers you to have a lie when you are teeing off, Teeing Area #7.


SNAPCHING SCENARIO #5


On the final hole of the round, Bubba putts first in his group. He sinks his putt to score 50 on the round. Immediately, before his groupmates can address their putts, Bubba grabs his driver and gleefully flips it into the air in a way that endangers no one and distracts no one’s play. Then Bubba turns his scorecard in to the TD without adding his scores. What is Bubba’s score for the round?

Hazard's note: No mention is made of the group objecting. For purposes of this exercise I am assuming that no objection was made on grounds relating to courtesy and that any applicable non-courtesy-related ruling
SnapChing: 50.
PDGA: 52 or 53 depending on how far the disc traveled when he flipped it....I think. Additional note: If I remember correctly, since 2006, if Bubba is the last person to hole out instead of the first, the 53 is not a possibility.


SNAPCHING SCENARIO #6


The whole group watches Bubba’s tee shot prang off an OB spectator and into the mouth of an IB dog that runs 30M and drops the disc into an IB ditch. There’s water rushing down the ditch, and it washes the disc away so no one can find it. Where is Bubba’s lie?

SnapChing: On the tee, throwing 2, because where it hit the spectator (who is assumed to be a live vertebrate), it was OB.
PDGA: Where the dog caught it or on the tee, player's choice, throwing 2.


SNAPCHING SCENARIO #7


Bubba’s tee shot crosses a no-fly line and then disappears behind trees where an OB marsh lurks. The group can’t find the disc. Where is Bubba’s lie?

SnapChing: On the tee, throwing 2.
PDGA: At the mandatory drop zone, throwing 3.


SNAPCHING SCENARIO #8


After Round 1, Bubba reports a score of 50 to the TD. Then the TD discovers that the putter Bubba used throughout the round is 1 gram overweight. Where is Bubba’s lie and what is his current score?

SnapChing: The same place it was when he first used the illegal putter, and 50.
PDGA: Bubba does not have a lie now that he has finished the round, and 52.

Saucer Tosser, thank you for your Post #266.


What's wrong with this scenario: Tee throw appears lost, throw a provisional. Can't find throw #1, count it, use provisional throw as #2 or if no provisional go back to tee and throw #2.

If we�re understanding you right, you�re suggesting the same rethrow (with no penalty) in SnapChing for lost lies as for landing OB or for crossing a no-fly line.

That�s fairer than PDGA �stroke and distance� (= two strokes). But rethrow is still a one-stroke penalty, and that�s one stroke too many. Here�s why. When you risk throwing OB or crossing a no-fly line, you can choose a shot that surely won�t foul, or you can risk to either reap a reward or lose a stroke. You always have that strategy choice. Losing a lie is a different thing: there�s no skill you can develop, and no strategy you can use, to avoid losing a lie. So any penalty is pointless (as long as there�s a way for you to get a relief lie that scores you the same as if you�d found your lie). In SnapChing, losing a lie is a no-foul. Since there�s no foul, it deserves no penalty.


The PDGA rules would have you add a penalty stroke, also. That's because the PGA rules do. Why? To prevent someone from purposely losing (AKA not finding) a ball because the flight of shot #1 has taught them a better place to aim for on shot #2.

For lost lies in SnapChing, the only time you�d rethrow is if your groupmates gave you a �deem� spot that is OB or is in a place where your disc surely crossed a no-fly line. In that case, there�s no added penalty stroke but there�s still no advantage to be gained by rethrowing v. finding your lie.


My points:

A) PGA rules work backwards from the most serious competition. Most ball golfers ignore most PGA rules. This does not make their ball golf round less fun. Or their play less frequent. In fact it does the opposite. There are a lot more casual ball golfers than professional ball golfers. That ratio is much lower in Disc Golf. Ball golf is about paid rounds played per course.

That�s an interesting concept: rules should fully apply only to the most rigorous competition, and apply less to casual play.

When we invented SnapChing, our aim was to write rules that create a game that becomes more fun and more interesting as you develop your skill and hone your strategy. Casual players, who lack skill or who don�t want strategy risks, might rather bend the rules. But as you become a better thrower and thinker, you find that the most fun way to fly discs with power and accuracy is to play SnapChing by the rules.


B) Provisional throws speed up play.

Maybe so. But we prefer, for the skill-and-strategy challenge of SnapChing, to accept the slight delay and allow no free-information flights. And, as we�ve said before, SnapChingers probably won�t require many rulings, because if you pay attention in the players� meeting, you�ll likely get into few situations, on the field of tournament play, where the rules don�t clearly score plays or locate lies.


C) Penalties are to discourage and punish cheating. Some people are more honest than others.

Not sure what your point is here.


D) Deeming can be subjective, and has no place in rules. Rules are objective. You threw a disc and it is lost: count the bad throw and go throw another one. In this case deeming depends upon the other players' attention span and focus. Other deems in SnapChing are not so subjective. You may want to use a different word for the different scenarios.

Yes, deeming in Rule 9 is less objective than in Rule 10. But what�s the worst that can happen? Suppose two of your three groupmates were in the bushes firing up a, uh, cigarette when you threw. They have no idea where your disc went. The third guy mumbles, �Well, I think I saw it go somewhere over there.� The other two have no choice but to go along with him and accept his "deem" spot. If you strongly feel that the third guy is way wrong, give him some input and maybe he�ll agree; or you can call the TD and say, �My lie is lost, and I�m getting a bogus spot from two blind guys and a moron.� Maybe the TD will give you some kind of break. Maybe not. Regardless, you�ll end up with a lie that you can play, and on average it won�t cost or gain you (or anyone else) any strokes.

For now, we�ll stick with the �deem� terminology in Rule 9. But we do like the creative way you�re thinking, Saucer Tosser. Please let us know any other suggestions you have.


Mike & Matt :) :)

C) Penalties are to discourage and punish cheating. Some people are more honest than others.

Not sure what your point is here.
ENDQUOTE

My point is that some people purposely try to think up ways to take advantage of the rules. Getting free information throws is one way. Ball golf has loads of penalties to ensure the rules are not taken advantage of. Have you tested SnapChing from this perspective?

Here's another perspective: Most video simulation games do not simulate physics very well. So in a car racing video game you can do things that would not be physically possible. Most people don't think of or notice this, so you can win by being unusual. Can the rules of SnapChing be interpreted unusually, bending the purpose of the rules?

Saucer Tosser, thank you for your Post #269.


Some people purposely try to think up ways to take advantage of the rules. Getting free information throws is one way. Ball golf has loads of penalties to ensure the rules are not taken advantage of. Have you tested SnapChing from this perspective?

Here's another perspective: Most video simulation games do not simulate physics very well. So in a car racing video game you can do things that would not be physically possible. Most people don't think of or notice this, so you can win by being unusual. Can the rules of SnapChing be interpreted unusually, bending the purpose of the rules?

That�s an excellent point. You�re right: it is human nature to seek loopholes in rules and laws. So it is the obligation of rulewriters and lawmakers to write so precisely that no loopholes are there to find. Not an easy task.

We�ve aimed to do that throughout our writing of SnapChing�s rules. We�ve tried to make the rules so precise and so comprehensive that, no matter what you do, the rules govern your act in a single clear way.

If we�ve succeeded, then you can be as unusual as you want to be on SnapChing�s field of play, but you�ll still need to act within clear boundaries that the rules set, in order to score low. (We choose not to use penalties [except DQ] as a threat to achieve proper play. Instead we use the concept of �wrong stance = no advance�: to score low, you need to advance skillfully on every shot.)

We are inviting everyone to test the workability and clarity of our rules. For example, you seem to have a pretty good grasp of SnapChing�s 11 rules. Can you think of ways to �loophole� advantages within those rules? If so, please let us know, and we�ll try to fix the problem.

Human nature is okay with us. We accept that some people are devious or prone to cheat, and if there is a weakness in our rules, people WILL exploit it to their advantage. It�s not our job to tell people to be �right.� It�s our job to write rules that give them no winning option except to do right on the field of play.

We look forward to hearing from you again, Saucer Tosser.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Bob, thank you for your Post #267.


Scenario #4. Right.

Scenario #5. Right.

Scenario #6. Right.

Scenario #7. Right.

Scenario #8. Right for SnapChing. For PDGA disc golf, Bubba may get DQd: see 802.01E and CM 3.3.



Dang, Bob, you�re no fun. This is too easy for you.

One (or both) of two things is going on here: (1) you are smarter than the average bear; or (2) SnapChing rules really ARE easy to understand and use.

To make this exchange more interesting, why don�t you see if you can make up some scenarios that you CAN�T clearly solve by Rules of SnapChing.

Meanwhile, we�ll mess around and invent a few more for you to play with.


Mike & Matt :) :)

You are right, of course, about the PDGA side of #8. I neglected to mention the possibility of a DQ because unless I felt I had strong reason to believe the player knew in advance that the disc was overweight, I would not personally find grounds for disqualification.

To respond to your two points: I am, unfortunately, not in a position to judge with complete accuracy or objectivity. I am smarter than the average bear, as it were. Sources ranging from my enormous ego to various reputedly empirical measurements corroborate this claim. I am also an INTP personality type according to the Keirsey/Myers-Briggs system. Like most NT personalities (INTs especially) I am particularly comfortable working within organized systems...and like many ITs, I am not particularly good at judging how easily people of different intellectual inclinations will be able to understand a system that I understand quite well.

Which all ends up meaning that it is probably easier for me to grasp both sets of rules than it is for the average player, that I am unlikely to be able to predict with confidence how easily the average player would reach the same conclusion I do, that I am moderately likely to recognize a loophole in the rules if presented with a situation where one can be found...and that I am unlikely to be able to think up that situation on my own. But I do intend to keep trying, and to let you know if I come up with one. Part of the reason I haven't is because I haven't actually gotten out and played but maybe once, I think, since I read about SnapChing. Maybe I'll get in off the waitlist for the Buckhorn Open tomorrow and be able to try to compare any situations that arise during the tournament as an intellectual exercise.


Bob, thank you for your Post #267.


Scenario #4. Right.

Scenario #5. Right.

Scenario #6. Right.

Scenario #7. Right.

Scenario #8. Right for SnapChing. For PDGA disc golf, Bubba may get DQd: see 802.01E and CM 3.3.



Dang, Bob, you�re no fun. This is too easy for you.

One (or both) of two things is going on here: (1) you are smarter than the average bear; or (2) SnapChing rules really ARE easy to understand and use.

To make this exchange more interesting, why don�t you see if you can make up some scenarios that you CAN�T clearly solve by Rules of SnapChing.

Meanwhile, we�ll mess around and invent a few more for you to play with.


Mike & Matt :) :)

Bob, thank you for your Post #272.


You raise a critically important point: different people learn in different ways. The particular wiring in an individual�s brain determines how the person communicates with others and understands rules. So a rulewriter�s job is really tough: not only to make the rules clear to a INTP person, but also to every other kind of brain-wiring and personality.

The writers of Rules of SnapChing are two guys with our own particular wiring. We�re not experts in psychology, although one of us (Matt says not to tell which one) is married to a psychologist � who, by the way, says INTP is �weird� (but she says the same about her husband).

Bob, we do appreciate your analysis. Your solutions to our scenarios encourage us that some players, at least, will find SnapChing�s rules easy to use, and when they apply those rules they�ll get the results we designed.

We�ve been hoping that lots of players would post their own solutions to the first eight SnapChing scenarios. So far, you�re the only one. Maybe others see your answers and say, �Yep, that�s what I�d have said.� Or maybe they say, �How the heck did he come up with that answer?� We dunno, because we�re not hearing their voices.

As David Sauls and DShelton have rightly suggested, the true test of �are these rules usable?� will come out of SnapChing disc golf tournaments. We have our own practical, personal reasons for not yet conducting those events. But when we do, it will be interesting to see the results. You�ll definitely get an invite!

In the meantime, there�s a question that�s still worth asking: do players find SnapChing disc golf rules easier to use than PDGA disc golf rules?

The jury is still out about SnapChing rules. But there�s ample evidence that average and even smart players have trouble figuring out PDGA rules. One of the most vivid proofs in the remarkable �Stance violation� thread by Arlskipshot1, which sparked a tangled web of rulings in summer 2007. (To review this thread, open �All Threads� on this discussion board and rewind to Page 14.)

The �Stance violation� thread involved a misplay � �throw from not-your-lie� � that tens of thousands of disc golfers have committed. Yet smart disc golfers, posting on that thread, used a dozen PDGA rules to reach varying and conflicting rulings, including the tournament TD changing his mind three times and former RC Chair Carlton Howard changing the RC�s ruling, too. This amazing thread convinces us that disc golfers deserve better rules, and that better rules must be possible to write.

By the way, in the �stance violation� scenario, Rules of SnapChing generates a single, consistent ruling that�s lets you quickly locate the lie, score the play, and move on.


* * *


Bob, we hope you�ll be able to send us interesting info from your play at the Buckhorn Open.


Mike & Matt :) :)

EVERYBODY,


We�ve been seeking scenarios, to test Rules of SnapChing. Okay: let�s use the scenarios that are posted on this discussion board by folks who experienced those situations on the field of play.

We�re trying to see whether disc golfers can easily use SnapChing rules. We�re going to let you make the call: tell us how you�d rule, under Rules of SnapChing (click HERE (http://www.snapchingthegame.com/RULESOFSNAPCHING.pdf) to print our �rulepage�), on your own scenarios that we�ve selected from the past. These are scenarios that PDGA members posted since November 15, 2006, when the 2007 PDGA rulebook was published.

You can review these threads by selecting �Beginning� to show all threads. Threads since November 15, 2006, begin on Page 20.

Here we go. This will be a stiff test of Rules of SnapChing � and a fun trip down memory lane. We look forward to your SnapChing rulings on these scenarios.

Let�s start with a thread titled Root Problem. That�s an apt name, as we address the �root problem� of seeing whether YOU can use Rules of SnapChing easier than PDGA Rules of Play.


Mike & Matt :) :)


* * *


WHAT ARE YOUR SNAPCHING RULINGS, IN THESE SCENARIOS?

(These 10 scenarios were selected from Pages 18, 19 and 20 of the forum.)



Root problem
Posted 11/17/06 by johnrock. Last post: 11/28.


The question is: May a player stand on the roots of a tree as a supporting point, even if the roots are suspended above a dry creek bed? In other words, several places have trees lining the bank of creeks. Some of those trees have roots that protrude out from the bank and resemble a twisted web. If a disc lands touching the bank, yet supported by the roots, may the player stand on the roots for his next shot? The roots are technically above playing surface (as in the dry creek bed example) by several feet. Or would the player have to stand down in the creek bed and place a hand (or foot possibly) on the bank to make his throw?



Moving structure in front of lie
Posted 11/28/06 by cgflesner. Last post: 11/29.


What is the penalty for moving a tree branch in front of ones lie? I recently ran into this at the VPO and did not know what the call should be.



Supporting points behind the mini
Posted 1/2/07 by morgan. Last post: 2/4.


This rule comes up all the time but people have lots of non-rule rules about it.

Is there a limit to what you can use as a supporting point behind the mini? We all know you can't touch anything in front of the mini, but people have different non-rules about what you can touch behind the mini.

You can touch the ground. You can put your foot up on a rock. You can't step on a dog. You can lean back against the trunk of a tree but you can't hold onto a tree. You can kneel on a log but you can't hold the hand of your caddy.

What can and can't you use as supporting points? Specifically, since people say you can lean against a tree root or stump, or even a large tree trunk, but can't hold onto a small tree or branch, then how can you distinguish?



Saving putts from water
Posted 12/6/06 by bazkitcase5. Last post: 1/9/07.


Player A asks Player B to stand in front of the water, behind the basket, to stop his putter from going into the water if he were to miss the putt. If he misses the putt and Player B catches the disc, then they will rule the shot as going OB.

The question is, is this allowed? One side argues, if the shot is caught and declared as OB, then there should be nothing wrong it. However, the other side argues that catching a disc in mid flight is interference and never should be allowed to begin with. Who is right?



Wrong lie?
Posted 1/31/07 by westcoastsooner. Last post: 2/3.


Last Weekend at a PDGA event, a player on my card threw an upshot that landed inside the circle. Before he had thrown his upshot, all other players had thrown theirs. The player walked up and marked the wrong disc, then putted out. The group told him to leave the marker. Then the �right� player putted out from the marker. Everybody else holed out. The group gave the �wrong� player a 2 stroke penalty. Was this the right decision?



Mandatory rule question
Posted 3/5/07 by NewCreature. Last post: 3/15.


[NOTE by Mike & Matt: Mandos don�t exist in SnapChing. Instead, SnapChing uses no-fly lines. In the scenario below, the �double mando� design is created this way in SnapChing: the TD draws a no-fly line that starts at the telephone pole and runs �to the right� (infinite distance); and the TD draws a second no-fly line that starts at the other object (say, a tree that�s 12� left of the telephone pole) and runs �to the left� (infinite distance). To play correctly, your disc must cross neither line . . . in other words, you must pass between the telephone pole and the tree.]


We had a heated discussion at our club about a double-mandatory on our course that I thought I would get the board's opinion on. Consider the following.

First off, the hole is about 550' long with a fence line along the right side. The tee box is right against the fence. In an effort to keep players from throwing a big hyser over the road on the other side of the fence and to make the hole pretty tough, there is a double-mando about 150' straight that is about 12' wide. The right side of the mando is a telephone pole within about a foot of the fence/out of bounds line. Now that you have a hopefully reasonable picture in your mind of the hole, we can move on to the rule queston.

A player throws their disc from the tee pad and it crosses over the fence line 25' short of the double-mando, passes to the right of the double-mando and then hysers back across the fence line/out of bounds line and lands in bounds about 150' past the mando.

The question is, where does the player throw from?
1. The designated drop zone for the mando
2. The point at which the disc went out of bounds

I think it should be at the designated drop zone because a disc is not technically out of bounds until it comes to rest per 803.09A. Because the disc made it back in bounds, it should be treated as simply missing the mando.

Both our course pros say that the disc never missed the mando because it went out of bounds before it past the mando and as such was dead at that point.

I contend that this would only be the case if the disc did not return into play, if even then. A case could be made that the mando line extends on either end indefinitely and as long as the mando line is crossed and missed, the only rule that is enforced is the missing of the mando per 803.12E

So who is right, our course Pros or me with my embarassing PDGA #32183?



OB relief question
Posted 3/16 by BJones. Last post: 3/16.


On one particular hole here, we have an OB fence on the left side and road on the right. Quite often, our lies are within 1 meter of the fence or the road, but in bounds. Are we allowed to take up to a meter relief away from the OB line no closer and perpendicular to the basket even though our disc did not go OB?

A few of us have debated this. Close to OB, you can still take a stance where you are not out of bounds. It may put you standing still, but you are still in bounds. Some say you are not allowed a meter relief because of this.

Who is right?



What is the ruling on this?
Posted 2/26 by virtualwolf. Last post: 3/16.


I throw my disc and it lands under a pine tree, towards the center, that is probably 20 feet in diameter. The basket is on the opposite side of where the disc went in to the tree. How far do I have to maneuver my way in there to throw? Can I stand on the outer edge of the tree, behind the disc, and throw a tomahawk over the top of the tree to the basket? Thanks to all who reply...



Out of bounds
Posted 3/20 by jshattuck. Last post: 3/20.


Situation. You are throwing across a body of water. The body of water is OB. There are trees on the side of the water, these trees are IB. Some of the tree branches hang out over the water. Your disc hits some branches of a tree on the other side and clearly goes in the water, and as a result the disc is OB.

Questions:

1. If the base of the tree is IB, does that make the branches of the tree IB or is there a vertical line above the boundary of the OB which determines what part of the branch is OB and what part of the branch is IB on the other side?

2. Based on whether the disc ever touched any part of IB on the other side of the water determines if you mark your lie on the other side of the water, or if you mark it from where it went OB over the initial part of the water?



Casual relief for pile of logs?
Posted 3/20 by 29444. Last post: 3/20.


Casual relief can be taken for large braches no longer attached to a tree. Does this apply to piles of cut branches or logs that have been stacked up into piles on the sides of fairways found on some wooded courses?

I've always climbed on top of the log pile, with sometimes scary footing and played from there if that was my lie.

I am now wondering if casual relief applies, and one could mark an appropriate lie behind the woodpile under casual relief (within 5m on the LOP)?

Would this need to specified by the TD?

Is this acceptable, or would the unplayable lie rule take precedence?