This one took place this past weekend. There are three tee pads on each hole. The correct tee pad is on the score card and the tees are well marked. A group plays from the wrong tee and they all finish the hole. They all get a 3. As the guy who is scoring writes down their scores, they realize that they have played the wrong tee. They go back and play the correct tee. Again they all score threes from the correct tee. They bring this situation to me when their group walks past me several holes later and ask me to make a ruling if any penalty throws need to be assessed because none of them know the rules and they don't have a rule book. I know the answer but tell them I want to check the rules and that I'll make a ruling after the round. I check the rules to make sure and I change their scores to 8 each once their card comes in. They each got 3 for the throws that they took playing the wrong tee, 2 throw penalty for playing the wrong tee and then they each got 3 throws for the practice throws that they took playing the hole from the correct tee. I did not assess any penalty for turning in an incorrect score because they asked me to make a ruling on the penalty from the misplayed hole. Any TDs or Officials out there would have scored this differently?

The lessons from this story are:
1) Always know what tee to play from. Pay attention to the scrore card, map provided to each player and to the instructions at the player's meeting.
2) Know the rules and carry them with you. If the players knew the wrong teepad rule or had looked it up, they would have known to just got to the next hole and give themselves each a 5 for the wrongly played hole (score plus two penalty throws).
3) When in doubt declare that you are playing a provisional and then get the TD to make the call. If they had come to me and said that they didn't have a rule book and didn't know the rule so they re-played the hole provisionally, then I would not have given them throws for the practice throws.

[edited to remove the references to "stroke" from the post because Chuck is right]

Seems correct to the letter of the law, but kind of harsh. You do not mention in your synopsis the reason that they went back and threw from the correct tee. Are you sure that their intent was not a provisional? How so? It would be REALLY dumb (or was this their 1st tournament?) to do what they did without doing it as a provisional.

I applaud you for upholding the rules. I'm sure that the 3 of them (and their friends) learned an important lesson that they will not forget!

seems to me they DID replay the hole provisionally, they just didnt call it as such when they asked for your clarification. Players who dont know the rules or carry a rulebook to clarify a situation like that aren't going to use the proper terminology when they present you with their situation. I think 5's for the 2nd play-through 3's plus 2 strokes each for playing the wrong tee in the first place would have been fair if your third point is true.

But like you said, the main moral of the story is to make sure you play the proper hole to begin with

Sounds like these guys learned a lesson.

It is the player's responsibility to know the rules and I bet they all read through a rule book for next time.

Sucks to have to be the heavy, but good job Jon!

I think I would have treated the replaying of the hole as a provisional and not assessed practice strokes. They already said they were unaware of the rules, which means they were technically playing it provisionally regardless of how they stated their question to you, the Certified Official they consulted.

I would have then given them each a 5, orginal score plus 2 strokes for playing from the incorrect tee.

The provisional throw rule does not apply in this case regardless of the players intentions.

The rule that does apply is very specific. I agree it is harsh to penalize them 3 practice strokes, but that is what the rules require. If they were in contention, it is only fair to the players that knew and followed the rules. If they were out of contention, then it was a lesson not soon forgotten.

If they never come back to play in a sanctioned tournament again, it will be very unfortunate.

I like the suggestion of only counting 5 strokes. Since our rulebook (like most rules) can be creatively used to support different interpretations, we should always choose the option that best fits the violation. This was not willful, no advantage is gained (with the 2 stroke penalty) and noone attemted to cover anything up. Any rationalization used to support the "provisional" call should be embraced.

The provisional throw rule does not apply in this case regardless of the players intentions.

The rule that does apply is very specific. I agree it is harsh to penalize them 3 practice strokes, but that is what the rules require.



I disagree with you because of this - From the Rules Glossary:
"Provisional Throws: Additional throws used to complete a hole when a group is having difficulty reaching a decision on a ruling. The hole is completed under both possible rulings, both scores are recorded and the proper ruling and score are then determined by the director at the end of the round."

And, the rules make a situation like the one in question here ambiguous since it does not talk about the whole group being confused or when there is not a majority decision.
From 803.00 C 3(b):
"...if the thrower does not wish to continue play under the group's majority decision, the thrower may declare a provisional. When proceeding under a provisional , the thrower shall complete the hole under both possible rulings. The scores from both sets of throws shall be recorded. The proper ruling and score are then determined by the director at the end of the round. The eventual final ruling, made by an official or the director, shall count only those throws made under the proper rules interpretation. The unused throws shall not be added to the thrower's score nor treated as practice throws. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where the thrower questions the group's or officials ruling."

So, I think you need to revert to:
803.00E. "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."

Probably 5 strokes would have been fair/right, but 8 is technically the correct penalty (if you don't make an allowance for the ambiguity in the rules).

Note that the word 'stroke' is not used anywhere in our rule book. It's 'throws.'

Proper terminology is part of DGRZdom.

Even editors of our national publications are guilty of this misuse of ball golf terminology.

From the Rules Q&A.

In general, misplays of the course result in either a one-throw or a two-throw penalty. If more than one throw was made on the incorrect hole, that hole is completed and a two-throw penalty is assessed. If just one throw was made, that throw is counted as a practice throw, which incurs a one-throw penalty.

Though it is clearly the player's responsibility to know the course and to play it correctly, many times the TD or the course layout contribute greatly to the problem. At many events the course is changed from its normal layout. Tees are extended. Alternate tees or baskets are used. Holes are added. Holes are changed. Out-of-bounds areas are added or removed. Many times the changes ARE NOT very obvious and in some cases the changes cause the hole numbers or tee signs to be incorrect. For this reason the committee would recommend that the TD take great pains to prepare the course properly for the event at hand. Make certain that ALL tees are properly marked, especially if a tee is not going to be used in the event. Place a sign on top of the actual pad indicating that this pad IS NOT to be used. Cover all non-used baskets with bags so that players will not inadvertently be tempted to play to them. Mark all OB areas and mandatories clearly. Still... It is the responsibility of the player to play the course correctly!

--------------------------------------------------

This happened at a recent event, no one replayed the hole though. But two strokes added to the entire card. I think 8 is a bit much.

Cmon Chuck - I've seen you stroke your discs :)

Provisional Throws: Additional throws used to complete a hole when a group is having difficulty reaching a decision on a ruling. The hole is completed under both possible rulings, both scores are recorded and the proper ruling and score are then determined by the director at the end of the round."



This could also be considered under provisional ruling since the group was indeed having difficulty reaching a decision on the ruling. Whether or not the players know the rules is a moot point - they were trying to follow the rules, were unsure of what to do, replayed the hole and asked the TD for clarification later.

If that's not "provisional" I don't know what is.

of course, if i want to play devil's advocate with myself I can call up 801.04...



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




and



D. In instances where a misplay is discovered after the pertinent hole or holes have been completed (holed out), the misplay shall not be replayed and the player shall receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay.




the misplay SHALL NOT be played... meaning that under strict accordance to the rules, the second time through the hole would otherwise count as practice throws.

The only problem with that side of the argument is, again, I believe the group replayed the hole provisionally so that they could ask the TD for the clarification at the end of the round. IMHO, the TD should have told them that their first time playing the hole, plus 2 strokes each for playing the wrong hole designation, was the penalty. 5's for all.

Probably 5 strokes would have been fair/right, but 8 is technically the correct penalty.



I tend to agree with this. I'm not a TD, nor do I play one on TV, but I was there yesterday and also interpreted the rules as 'requiring' 8 strokes (although I had nothing to with the decision).

Which really doesn't make sense as they were trying to do the 'right thing', whereas by doing the 'wrong thing', i.e. playing the wrong hole but at least reporting it, they'd get 5 strokes, or by doing the 'completely dishonest thing', i.e. not reporting it at all, they'd get 3.

sticky situation - one reason I'm glad I'm *not* a TD...

I've seen you stroke your discs



But that stroke isn't against or in the rules... :eek:

In this case, however, the tees were well marked. The alternate tees used this weekend are permanently installed, and all of the alternate tees were clearly marked with spray paint and marker flags at the tee line.

8 does seem harsh, since as Damon pointed out they were 'trying to do the right thing', but they also should have been paying better attention to the course as stipulated on the scorecard, map, and hole descriptions (on the flipside of the map).

I tried interpreting their actions as a provisional, however, as reported to me it did not seem to be the case. I did not think that they were taking an unfair advantage, but then that is not what the rule about practice throws says. The reasons that I did not think I could rule it as a provisional are because the player that reported this told me that they replayed it in order to correct their mistake and because the group did not have difficulty reaching a decision or making a ruling. While they reached the wrong conclusion, they did not have any difficulty doing so. They all agreed to replay the hole.

801.04 PLAYING THE STIPULATED COURSE B(1)
"�If the misplay is discovered after a subsequent throw, the player shall proceed to complete the hole and receive a two-throw penalty for the misplay."

That would count for the 5 (three throws plus two penalty). As the score was being written down the error was discovered.

Unclear as to how to proceed (fix the mistake or move on to the next hole), the card made provisional throws from the other tee to the basket.

Sounds like what happened is when they went back and played the hole from the correct tee, provisionally, those were counted as practice throws.

And that's my 2�.

If I understand this, Jake L is suggesting: The 'misplayed' throws count, and that hole is completed, then stroked two penalty throws for a total of 5. And then, ironically, playing the hole correctly would be concidered the [noncounting] provincial throws[?]. Right?

That seems not only apt, but the proper 'interpretation'.

...although it's quite possible 8 is the only correct way to score that one, and it looks like that's going to be debated, this score seems a tad punative. Two strokes, er, THROWS for a big blunder, and go on. Obviously, they were TRYING to follow the rules; to do otherwise goes beyond the 2-throw realm.

That's just my $.02. Still, those players really have no one to complain to, by knowing neither the rules, nor the stipulated course. Newbies? Live and learn. Vets? No excuse!

...nobody wants to touch this [?]:

...what if the first time, everybody got a '4' on that hole. In the 'practice throw' paradigm, would they card '9's'?!? :confused:

One change from the old rules to our current version was eliminating places where you could make more throws and have them count. Unless I'm mistaken, the only time you can make extra throws is specifically when the rules allow for provisional throws to be made. In the prior rules version, I believe you were supposed to replay a hole if you teed from the wrong tee and then counted every throw from both the wrong play and the correct play, but no penalty was assessed. In theory, and in most cases, the current rule reduces the penalty and speeds up the game vs the old rule. Ironically, these players would have had lower scores under the old rules (6 vs 8).

I guess the point is that under the new rules, never throw an extra shot unless you are absolutley looking at the rule in the book that allows you to take a provisional. Otherwise, you're better off not correcting your mistake and getting whatever penalty the rulebook applies to that mistake after the round.

As harsh as it seems, 8 strokes is appropriate here. Ignorance is no excuse. They knew to T off from the T box, they knew to hole out, they knew to play in turn and they knew to start on time. This is simply another rule. We are all given a rule book and are constantly told to carry it with us when we play in tournaments. We get constant reminders from the DGRZ about knowing the rules and playing them. I would consider it a valuable lesson and get a book.

If you get a $300 ticket for speeding, you might argue that you didn't know you were speeding and the judge will smile as he says, "pay the fine." :D

It's penalties like this that we'd love to figure out how to discover and handle for ratings. It's possible these round scores will still make it within each player's range of acceptable rounds and just pull some of them into a bracket lower than their real skill level.

Still, those players really have no one to complain to, by knowing neither the rules, nor the stipulated course. Newbies? Live and learn. Vets? No excuse!



None of them were newbies. All three were playing Bronze. One of them is a league regular. He might forgive me in a year or two. ;)

I thought the three practice throw penalty was harsh, but I couldn't in good faith call those throws playing it provisionally. It was not their intent that those throws were provisional. They thought they were making up the hole by replaying it. They thought wrong.

As harsh as it seems, 8 strokes is appropriate here. Ignorance is no excuse. They knew to T off from the T box, they knew to hole out, they knew to play in turn and they knew to start on time. This is simply another rule. We are all given a rule book and are constantly told to carry it with us when we play in tournaments. We get constant reminders from the DGRZ about knowing the rules and playing them. I would consider it a valuable lesson and get a book.




IMO, this is crazy talk. A rule is justified by its very existence. Wow, I guess everything is OK. We certainly don't even need to think about the proper measure when assessing penalties.

I guess if the speeding ticket was $10,000 that would be hunky-dory also. The judge could just laugh and say "you knew the penalty."

Who needs wisdom or discretion when we have the written word?

It's penalties like this that we'd love to figure out how to discover and handle for ratings. It's possible these round scores will still make it within each player's range of acceptable rounds and just pull some of them into a bracket lower than their real skill level.



Chuck, Brett is the TD of record for this event and he is doing the TD report. If he reports this on the TD report, will that get to the ratings entry people?

A similar case (sort of) was reported to me at a recent event. There were multiple layouts, with multiple tees playing to the same baskets. They tee off from the right tee, but played to the wrong basket. Then they went to tee off from the next tee, and realized they were playing the wrong layout. They then picked up their drives, and proceeded to complete the course correctly. Note that they never went back and played the right basket for the hole that they misplayed.

What is the correct ruling here? Are they given a 7 (par + 4) for the missed hole, plus count their three throws on the incorrect hole and their extra drive? And should you throw in an extra 2 throw penalty for playing the holes out of order?

In this case, the TD did what I'm sure is the wrong thing, and just assessed them a two throw penalty. The TD let the misplayed hole score stand, and didn't even add in the extra drive as a practice throw. Of course, the TD might have been taking it easy on the group, as it was raining, and the course wasn't marked well (it's well-known for being confusing - any NW disc golfer probably knows the course in question).

What is the correct ruling on this case?

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

It's penalties like this that we'd love to figure out how to discover and handle for ratings. It's possible these round scores will still make it within each player's range of acceptable rounds and just pull some of them into a bracket lower than their real skill level.




Would this practice apply for other penalities as well, e.g. an incorrect score card?

Chuck, Brett is the TD of record for this event and he is doing the TD report. If he reports this on the TD report, will that get to the ratings entry people?




We're not dealing with these penalty situations with any consistency so marking it wouldn't change the processing. That round will hopefully drop off of at least some of those players. I'm not sure where we would draw the line if we had 'perfect' reporting anyway. If we could eliminate non-play related penalties, it might be better such as this one and misadding scorecards. Late start penalties are the worst such as Matt Orum getting several 7s at the start of a BG Supertour round.

I thought the three practice throw penalty was harsh, but I couldn't in good faith call those throws playing it provisionally. It was not their intent that those throws were provisional. They thought they were making up the hole by replaying it. They thought wrong.

OK, I can see that...once they found out the miskake, 'provincial' would not apply.

...wouldn't it have been better for them just not to play the hole after the mistake? That sounds like a mistake in itself.

It's penalties like this that we'd love to figure out how to discover and handle for ratings. It's possible these round scores will still make it within each player's range of acceptable rounds and just pull some of them into a bracket lower than their real skill level.



Why? Don't ratings measure a player's DG ability? "DG ability" includes the mental game which is why some players do better in tournament play and others tend to choke.

Knowing the rules and having a presence of mind to think about whether or not you are on the correct tee pad (for instance), is part of the mental game in my opinion. As is the math necessary to add a scorecard correctly. I know, I have paid for that sin before!

I don't disagree there's a mental aspect that comes into play, and for the moment, those really bad lapses drop most of those rated rounds out and we haven't aggressively tried to weed out the bad ones in advance. However, in some cases, our rules penalize other players when one player is more at fault. I took off with the scorecard at lunch 2 years ago and each one in my group got penalized when I turned in the card late. Matt Orum wasn't driving and was late due to his driver, and presumably more responsible player, being late. These players DNFd but he decided to play with the penalties.

I took off with the scorecard at lunch 2 years ago and each one in my group got penalized when I turned in the card late.


804.03 SCORING
.
.
.
E. All players are responsible for returning their scorecards within 25 minutes after the completion of a round. Failure to do so shall result in the assessment of two penalty throws, without a warning, to each player listed on the late scorecard.

It wasn't your fault that those other guys failed to take responsobility for ensuring that the card was turned in. It says "All players are responsible", and that's good because we are all human and it's easy for one person to screw up like Chuck did two years ago.

You should always take the score card to tourney central yourself or follow it there. Always. :)

Most players are going to be OK with letting an assistant TD take the card and turn it in. So, trust no one.

Trust no one is right. :)

At one of my first tourneys, a guy from Morley in a pro division goes to lunch his card. Everybody gets 2 strokes. I'm thinking, man, if that guy who plays tourneys all the time can forget to turn it in then anybody can forget. So I started following the cards in after every round every time.

A similar case (sort of) was reported to me at a recent event. There were multiple layouts, with multiple tees playing to the same baskets. They tee off from the right tee, but played to the wrong basket. Then they went to tee off from the next tee, and realized they were playing the wrong layout. They then picked up their drives, and proceeded to complete the course correctly. Note that they never went back and played the right basket for the hole that they misplayed.

I'm not sure I understand Theo's question correctly. If they holed out to the wrong basket, I think a TD could call it an inadvertant failure to hole out and assess them a two-stroke penalty under 803.12(A)(2) or 801.04(B)(3). If they holed out to the wrong basket, threw a drive on the next hole, then went back and played from the wrong basket to the correct basket, those drives should probably be counted as practice throws and also count all throws on the two-basket hole, but no penalties.

As harsh as it seems, 8 strokes is appropriate here. Ignorance is no excuse. They knew to T off from the T box, they knew to hole out, they knew to play in turn and they knew to start on time. This is simply another rule. We are all given a rule book and are constantly told to carry it with us when we play in tournaments. We get constant reminders from the DGRZ about knowing the rules and playing them. I would consider it a valuable lesson and get a book.




IMO, this is crazy talk. A rule is justified by its very existence. Wow, I guess everything is OK. We certainly don't even need to think about the proper measure when assessing penalties.

I guess if the speeding ticket was $10,000 that would be hunky-dory also. The judge could just laugh and say "you knew the penalty."

Who needs wisdom or discretion when we have the written word?



Quite the opposite James. Crazy talk is ignoring rules as a matter of course because you don't agree with them or saying things like, well, their intent was good, lets just let them go... no matter what they've done. I don't think I said anything like that, let me check... Nope, not that I can see.

Even more so, I don't recall writing anything that says a rule is justified by its existence. In fact, I have argued in the past that a number of rules should be changed or thrown out. What I felt but didn't write was that the rule is in existence, it is clearly defined, it isn't an onerous rule and it isn't hard to obey. I did say, ignorance of it is not an excuse.

If the fine for speeding was 10,000, you can bet your buttons that there would be a lot less speeding. On the other hand, such a rule would be stupid and onerous. Just as if the rule were that if you misplay from the wrong T the penalty was permant disbarment from belonging to the PDGA and all PDGA sanctioned events. I assume you may have thought I think the punishment was overboard; in fact, I do not. The "as harsh as it seems" I wrote was in reply to those who felt the punishment was harsh. If this is the worse thing that happens to these players in their life, or for that matter, in a tourney, they've done pretty well. Five strokes for not knowing the rules, not carrying your rules book, not having the chutzpah to ask, say the guys on the card in front of you or behind you is pretty minimal. Same as the $300 ticket for speeding.

Unlike some, I believe that the rules committee used discretion when they wrote the rules. I believe this because when I read the rules I find them, for the most part, to be fair and rational. Yes, there are some things that could be better (in my skewed perspective of the world) but if it was really that bad, I'd be bowling instead of playing disc golf. I am sorry you don't think the rules committee used discretion or wisdom when they laid down some of the rules (I assume your not across the board on this feeling), perhaps you should write them a note?

The weaknesses of rules is generally threefold. First, the most well-crafted rule may be applied to situations unanticipated by the rule writer. Second, without becoming a tome, rules can never anticipate all of the extenuating circumstances. Third, too many people become beholden to them at the expense of their better judgement. (You know, situations where most people feel that the punishment doesn�t fit the crime, yet still feel compelled to enforce the rule. ;))

In situations where most people feel the punishment exceeds the crime, I often see some common approaches. Either people say �Those are the rules. Those are the rules. Those are the rules.� To be fair to this approach, it can often be employed by some who have thought through the inequity of the rule application, but have honestly concluded it is still the best course of action. However, my impression is that this approach is usually the tact for those that don�t have a sense of fairness or are too lazy or weak to make a tough moral decision.

The other common approach is to try to find any other interpretation that will mitigate the perceived inequity. The advantage of this approach is that you still stay within the framework of the rules. You can still say that you �were following the rules� even though you were really following your better judgement.

The third approach is to ignore the rules. This approach is often employed by those who realize a rule serves no legitimate purpose for the circumstances of its application. Most people do this, not just me. Two examples: the fairway foot fault where the thrower tried to comply, but failed and gained no advantage. The second example is a rule such as 804.03 B. I understand why it there and do not advocate its removal. However, I use my judgement and ignore the fact that many people don�t follow this rule. I don�t feel that I�m allowing cheating either.

At any rate, I spent the time to write this and get ****** at you because I obviously fall into the category that rules are secondary to a sense of fair play. You seem otherwise: �Five strokes. Hah, that�s minimal. They could be starving in Africa. Let them count their blessings. They should have followed the RULES�

ps. At the heart of it, is not one of the main functions of rules to ensure a level playing field? Anytime I see an athletic event settled by rules, rather than by performance, I feel something should be fixed.

However, my impression is that this approach is usually the tact for those that don�t have a sense of fairness or are too lazy or weak to make a tough moral decision.




Can you provide any examples of this?


The third approach is to ignore the rules. This approach is often employed by those who realize a rule serves no legitimate purpose for the circumstances of its application. Most people do this, not just me. Two examples: the fairway foot fault where the thrower tried to comply, but failed and gained no advantage.



How so?

You are saying they gained no advantage over someone who has spent considerable time and effort, not to mention "at the moment attention" to being able to hit their lie on fairway tees?

"Footfault."

"Hey man! I was at least trying..."

To be fair, I do always watch for footfaults and will call them, but if the person is not stepping on or infront of their mini, and it is not 100% clear that they were off to the sides behind, or they are perhaps a little behind the 30 cm, I will not make the call either. I may let them know that they need to watch their stance as we walk down the fairway though.

James, I understand you perspective, but if our rules are not reasonable or fair, then they need to be changed to something that are more reasonable and fair, NOT IGNORED or rationed away.

Do you have any possible solutions? Say to the stance example you raised? (Other than ignoring our rules that is...)

Hey James,

Excellent reply and I agree with a lot of what you say. On the other hand let me point out a couple of things.

The rules structure does allow, to some degree, interpretation. That is why we have TDs, to interpret the rules. The problem is, who do you want interpreting the rules? The players? My guess, for obvious reasons, is that would not work. You need a third party who is uninvolved. In this case, it was Mr. Brakel. He took a literal translation of the rules. That is, he followed them to the letter. I think you have made a compelling argument that a less punitive punishment might have been appropriate (possibly I still disagree).

However, Mr. Brakel acted in the situation and what is done is done. I am of the opinion that one should not judge a sporting event after the fact. The judgment is made then and if it is flawed you are stuck with that judgment. Not the best, but the best given the alternatives.

As for the rule itself, my assumption is that the rule is laid out to accomplish two goals. The first is to ensure that if a player misplays he/she is punished at some level (one stroke for each throw or two extra for penalty seems to be the question). There has to be some price for not paying attention to the maps provided and the opening meeting where instructions were given. Second to ensure a good pace of play. Provisionals, while fair, are time consuming. I have assumed that in this case provisionals were eliminated to keep the pace of play (there have been many complaints about this issue indicating there was a problem). I may be wrong on these points and may even have misjudged what was written here, if so please correct me. If I am correct in my interpretation, the three strokes for miss-throws punishes for the throws, the two stroke penalty essentially punishes them for wasting time, i.e. slowing down the speed of play.

If these are the goals, and given that the three young men ignored the information and directions presented, the punishment is not extreme. It accomplishes what it was meant to.

Your point that if the players were misinformed is a good one - the posts here (see Jon's) indicate that not only were the rules laid out, but the T boxes were well marked and maps were provided. The players were experienced players who knew the course. If they had been misinformed, I presume Jon would have stroked them differently but I don't know since that didn't happen. If they had been rookies, then I might buy the argument that they should be punished less, but even there I have some issue with their misplay. Making the tough call then becomes an issue. My approach would be to apologize for doing what I disagreed with, make the call, and then write a long letter to the rules committee explaining the situation. On the other hand, even rookies should have known better. In my first tourney, I read the rules, listened carefully to every detail, constantly annoyed the guys on my card to make sure I was doing it right so as not to make a mistake. I understand a more casual approach and if that is your style great, but you may pay for it.

Finally, the extreme case, the dreaded 30 cm rule, as Cong (what ever happened to Sir Schmack a lot?) stated, "the most broken, yet uncalled rules violation." I am in strong agreement that this is a bad rule. I spent a month last year arguing here that it needed to be modified for the integrity of the game and for ease of play. I understand that many (probably even some of those who posted for the rule) ignore it, intentionally or unintentionally. I ignore it myself (or more accurately, I don't look for it because I don't want to be in the position of knowing). I have also had guys call it on me and taken the punishment without complaint (guys who I later saw foot fault in the same manner). If the issue comes up again, I will argue that I still think it is a bad rule. On the other hand, this rule is not. It has two specific purposes; it accomplishes those purposes very directly. In my opinion it does not cause an uneven playing field, simply, it makes sure that people play the course correctly, punishes them if they do not, and ensures pace of play.

Now for the disclaimer, we are getting detailed enough here that I may be misinterpreting the situation and your intent if so please let me know.

As an add on I just read Nick's post, his following of the foot fault is similar to my own.

One of the challenges of the Rules Committee has been defining rules in a fair way that don't involve a DQ like ball golf. I believe most if not all course misplays we're discussing would result in a DQ in BG and not a several shot penalty.

One of the challenges of the Rules Committee has been defining rules in a fair way that don't involve a DQ like ball golf. I believe most if not all course misplays we're discussing would result in a DQ in BG and not a several shot penalty.



Man I was just getting used to the idea that we were cruel and harsh. :D

The third approach is to ignore the rules. This approach is often employed by those who realize a rule serves no legitimate purpose for the circumstances of its application. Most people do this, not just me. Two examples: the fairway foot fault where the thrower tried to comply, but failed and gained no advantage..
.
.
.



Go to a field. Put down a mini and pretend you are doing a fariway runup. For the first five throws, just ignore the PDGA rules of play and pretend you are on a teepad and pay no attention to your feet. For the next five throws, make sure you land your foot on the LOP within 30cm of the mini.

Now try and tell me that ignoring your footing is no advantage.

It's not a tee shot. You shouldn't expect the same results from the fairway that you get from the tee.

Well stated Rhett!

I also agree with Rhett in this. There is a reason people ignore the rule. I do my best to obey but am not willing to stroke others for not. Yes, I know that gives them an advantage, but I'm not playing for money or to win, I play to challenge myself and that difference doesn't matter to me. On the other hand, that isn't a good argument. I think Rhett is correct, if everyone obeyed the rule the sport would be fairer.

BTW - Take a look at some of the pics that came out of Worlds. There is a nice one of Rhett "appearing" to foot fault on a tee off.

http://public.fotki.com/JaySvitko/disc_golf_pix/proamjr_worlds_-/wednesday__dmacc/1537_rhett_stroh.html

I say appearing because honestly, its a tough call. Just jerking your chain Rhett. :D

Just a couple of things

My post was about the attitude we use in applying the rules. I'm not trying to be critical of Jon's decision because it appears he did apply common sense fairness as a guide, but concluded this was the proper course of action. I commend him for considering all those factors.

Nick, I (and I'm sure everyone on the BOD and rules committee) is for fine tuning the rules. My thesis is that a group of ten geniuses cannot write a foolproof set of rules. There will always be misapplication and unintended consequences. As with all rules, the solution to these problems is creative lawyering guiding by a sense of fairness and turning a blind eye (also guided by a sense of fairness). These actions are the oil without which the machine would come to a grinding halt.

Fairway foot faults. I believe I said something about when people try to comply with the rules. I know I always do. If I think I am gaining an advantage (my interpretation), I make sure my stance is totally legal. I understand Rhett's argument that everytime I miss the line, I have gained an advantage. It's logically persuasive, but falls flat when I'm 500 feet from the pin. Any ways, I'm pretty sure that most players agree since noone looks for the violation.

Anyways, the foot fault violation is a great example of what I'm talking about. It's a good rule that looses its force in certain situations. The fact that people ignore it in those situations is the oil that makes it a non-issue.

ps. I noticed that noone ever takes the scoring rule bait. :p

I understand Rhett's argument that every time I miss the line, I have gained an advantage. It's logically persuasive, but falls flat when I'm 500 feet from the pin. Any ways, I'm pretty sure that most players agree since no one looks for the violation.



Actually James, it does not fall flat, it is even more appropriate than in putting out. The ability to hit your lie on a run up is far harder on a full run up and crank than it is on any other shot. For those who "make the effort", "put in the practice", "consider what needs to happen to remain in compliance" and then "execute" a perfect run up and hitting of their lie on these long approach shots there is little else in disc golf more difficult (other than the occasional 10 foot putt ;) ).

To say that it is a "fair" competition, when some have invested time, effort and mental conditioning to following the rules of play while others just figure "why bother no one will call me on it, and if they do they are a total d ick", is clearly false and ignorant of the reality of the situation.

Do some rules need to be updated, changed or flat out removed? Sure! (Though I still am awaiting your idea on how to do it for this specific one.) But the truth is that we will NEVER know which ones they are unless we all, or a large majority of us, KNOW, FOLLOW AND CALL the rules we have. Only then will their inappropriateness be clear, not to mention what the appropriate solution should be.

I do not believe that cheating is a major problem in disc golf, I believe that ignorance, rationalization and fear are a major problem in disc golf and that a concerted effort to replace that with knowledge, adherence and sportsmanship needs to be made.

Oh yeah, nice knee brace Rhett. I got one juz like it.

Fairway foot faults. I believe I said something about when people try to comply with the rules. I know I always do. If I think I am gaining an advantage (my interpretation), I make sure my stance is totally legal. I understand Rhett's argument that everytime I miss the line, I have gained an advantage. It's logically persuasive, but falls flat when I'm 500 feet from the pin. Any ways, I'm pretty sure that most players agree since noone looks for the violation.



It's not that they gain an advantage when they miss the mark, they gain an advantage by not thinking about hitting their mark. It's the fact that those players do not have to concentrate on footing, only on the throw that gives them an advantage.

It is not hard to hit your mark, but it does take a little practice to be able to do it and still put most of your concentration on your shot and not your feet.

I spent a few months working on the fairway shot. I found that I had trouble stepping past my mini. So I started placing my BAG (during practice) on top on my lie (disc). I found it easier to tell if I was foot faulting or not because a legal throw, I didn't touch/feel my foot hitting the bag. Plus I can see the bag easier than a mini, or a disc.

it also "reminds" you a lot faster than a mini since your bag can put you face-down in the grass if you try and overstep your lie :)

Hey, I'm partly agreeing with you and Nick on this. I do try to hit the Mark (everytime I see Atwood in the fairway :)). My suspicion is that most other players do also. However, when I try to hit my mark and miss (usually hard for me to tell), it's hardly an advantage. More than likely, it's a result of poor footwork and the end result is a poorer shot. No advantage.

Nick, I'm not sure which rule you are asking me to fix. IMO, the foot fault rule does not need fixing. As long as people call it only when it is necessary, it's a great rule. :D

As for the original topic, I have not thought about it much. Maybe one could clarify the practice throw rule. I know many will cringe and some may laugh, but I'd be in favor of some "meta-rule" embedded within the rules that allows TDs to use their best judgement in situations where rules conflict or "overlap" each other. Of course, the TDs must guided by a sense of fairplay, not just slaves to the written word. I'm aware of the drawbacks of such "power," but the benefits outweigh the negatives IMO.

By the way, noone has spoken about it, but the rule about 2 "throws" for teeing from the wrong box has some inherent weaknesses (just like the rule about throwing from someone elses disc). I see the weaknesses as twofold: it never requires the players to complete the same course as their competitors and in some cases, the wrong teebox could arguably be considered two strokes easier.

By the way, noone has spoken about it, but the rule about 2 "throws" for teeing from the wrong box has some inherent weaknesses (just like the rule about throwing from someone elses disc). I see the weaknesses as twofold: it never requires the players to complete the same course as their competitors and in some cases, the wrong teebox could arguably be considered two strokes easier.



801.04.F A player who deliberately misplays the course to gain competitive advantage has violated 804.05 A (3) and shall be penalized in conformity with this section.

804.05.A-3 Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

Hey, I'm partly agreeing with you and Nick on this. I do try to hit the Mark (everytime I see Atwood in the fairway ). My suspicion is that most other players do also. However, when I try to hit my mark and miss (usually hard for me to tell), it's hardly an advantage. More than likely, it's a result of poor footwork and the end result is a poorer shot. No advantage.



And if you missed your mark and someone called you on it, how would you react?

Would you rationalize that you didn't gain any advantage and basically accuse the guy calling you of being an arze?

Or

Would you thank him for the favor of letting you know that you had missed the mark(because it is something you have been working on), see if anyone else seconded it and accept the warning or stroke with good sportsmanship?

...I believe that ignorance, rationalization and fear are a major problem in disc golf and that a concerted effort to replace that with knowledge, adherence and sportsmanship needs to be made...



I agree with Nick about ignorance of the rules being a problem. Hopefully my ruling on Sunday will result in a few more disc golfers carrying their rule books with them and referring to them when needed. At our Sunday league I sometimes talk about rules during rounds. Sometimes when directly applicable and sometimes just to relate an amusing or interesting rules story. It amazes me sometimes how many people don't know some of the basic rules. We go over some basic rules at all of our player's meetings. This past weekend we went over how to mark OB because the course had a fair amount of OB. It's difficult to teach everyone every pertinent rule that they will need for the day. At some point players need to break open the rule book and learn the rules...or face the consequences of being ignorant.

Gary, let's just assume that they don't play the wrong tee deliberately, but nonetheless, this tee makes the hole way easier. The 2 throw penalty in this case may effectively be more like one or close to a wash when compared to the hole that should have been played.

I assume that the only reason that they do not have to "replay" the hole correctly is speed of play. Since this situation hopefully does not happend often, the rule writers may want to require them to play the hole correctly at the end of the round, use that score and give them strokes for playing the wrong box.

Nick, I might be a little peeved if I thought I was being singled out, but I would quickly forget and move on. I understand that the rule exists and I agree to take my medicine if I violate it. Ultimately, I am thankful that the sport now has two and three shot holes and it's still about your ability to throw good shots, rather than hit a mark.

Ultimately, I am thankful that the sport now has two and three shot holes and it's still about your ability to throw good shots, rather than hit a mark.



Actually James, it is about both, and THAT is where we are not communicating here...

24 new messages today on a topic I considered interesting! :D
...all of them were on some drift. :( :confused: :(

I was in a 4some this weekend. I went over to the right tee pad and waited, the other 3 were on the wrong tee getting ready to throw. I just sat there waiting for them to see me and figure out they were all on the wrong pad but they never did figure it out. I said to myself, "I'll just let them throw and stroke 'em, ha ha," but it wasn't going to work anyway except for the first guy cause I was the second guy supposed to throw.

Would have been funny if I just let the first guy throw and then threw from the right pad without saying anything. He he. But I had to open my mouth and say "Hey dude, over here."