2011 PDGA Rules Changes

 Discuss..

 

http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011

 

Highlights: Wedged putts do NOT count if 'witnessed' to have wedged in cage from the outside.

 

TD- Optional Drop-Zone for lost discs.

 

Player can't use first shot when throwing a provisional, the provisional shot is the correct lie (as I read it, a bit confusing).

 

Obstacle to stance- can move a stick in your stance if part of it extends in front of your lie now.

 

[Chuck Kennedy]

Not correct. Wedgies count if no one saw it because it MAY have gone in the basket properly and was trying to exit the basket.

[Nick]

hmm...interesting.

[Mark Janssen]

It's a tough task to create a thorough sets of rules and regulations that apply to all conditions. Before everyone gets all in an uproar, remember another document that is still in flux and getting perfected as things evolve...The US Constitution.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Let's say the original intent of the target was to do the best job possible to catch any disc that comes near it. That wasn't the intent but let's say it was. Targets would have been designed with larger openings between the top lip of the basket and bottom of the chain support, that is if chains were even used. The top of the deflector whether chains or or other device would have been as open as possible for drop thrus and there might have been a rim around the top piece so it could also catch discs (currently known as DROTs). There might have been nubs and all kinds of other hooks or projections on the outside of the basket and chain support to occasionally catch even a few more shots. There might not have been a limit on the diameter of the target until some Tech Committee set one.

The point is that our current target designs are not very great "catchers" in comparison to what designs would have been possible if "catching" were the goal of target design developments. But it wasn't. So any claims that holing out should involve a disc simply being supported anywhere on the target don't make sense since it's not the goal of our target in the sport. The goal is for a disc to properly enter a target area AND be captured in that target area. Our targets can be designed to do a better job at that, but it doesn't mean our rules should wait until those better targets get built and installed.

[Ben Calhoun]

I'm not concerned about wedgies in that I use hard putters and never have them, so if my competitor often does, it's to my advantage. But seeing it is tough to comprehend really. Obviously if it's blind benefit of the doubt, who gets to call it? A player on another hole that saw it? Only players on your card? Does it have to be majority of the group that saw it stick in from outside to call it a miss, or just 1 person?

[Chuck Kennedy]

It's just like other rules, two in the group or an official. I believe a spotter can be deputized by the TD to make the call.

[Donny Olow]

Nice !!!!

  " The point is that our current target designs are not very great "catchers" in comparison to what designs would have been possible if "catching" were the goal of target design developments.

 The goal is for a disc to Properly enter a target area AND be captured in that target area.

 

GOOD !!!!  No more cheating !!!  Rules should be more like Ball Golf anyways. Fair for everyone playing.

[Joe Olson]

Thanks Ben for the rules update.  I've passed it on through my "scene page"  Hopefully players will learn to read before they try to pull off some B.S. on tourney day.

[Jamie 'gr8rocshot' Ruane]

That could be but that's not how holing out in our sport originated. The sport started with hitting a target area on an object to hole out. The spirit of that concept is now better reflected with the rule update for
2011. The only reason for the basket invention in the beginning was to
confirm that shots have hit the target in the case the shot wasn't seen.
Of course, the flaw in that theory carrying forward as our sport
evolved is that shots that are seen by the group to hit or go thru the
chains should also count. That would be my argument that holing out
still hasn't been fixed, not that low wedgies that stick or get thru now
don't count.

 

 

First of all, I honestly doubt our sport would be as popular if an entrapment device would have never been developed. But it did...the game evolved. Why are we going backwards to any concept of the possibility of questionable holed out call??? If the entire entrapment device was ruled as "in play" ....there would be no controversy on a holed out call...it's either supported or not.

 

Anyone's concept of our current basket design as being lacking...what?...what?...you work for the govt??   it's not broken! So, don't try to fix it!!!  There are to many variables involved when a thrown object impacts another. The randomness of that part game is what gives the game it's edge.  Anyone, joking or not, who thinks a disc that comes to rest on top, hung on a nub or wedged in the side....is cheating. Well...that's a dumb assumption. I would be more concerned about what happened or where exactly the player was when it was thrown....than where it landed.

 

I personally think this rule change regarding how a disc is considered holed out...is a step backwards...not forward. A piss poor decision based on a select groups input. What's next??? ...all shots will have to enter the target cleanly...no ground skips, tree or branch deflections. Is that cheating too?

 

 

 

[The FORCE]

Don't put more ideas in their heads!

[Jamie 'gr8rocshot' Ruane]

Essentially, the Optional Rethrow means players may rethrow from their original lie if their disc lands in any of the disc golf penalty hazards – OB, Missed Mando, above 2m and Lost (which already is handled this
way) – and receive a 1-throw penalty. Of course just like the old
Unplayable Lie rule, a player may choose this Optional Rethrow penalty
without permission from the group no matter where their disc lands
whether inbounds or a hazard location.

 

According this.....it's still up to the throwing player to decide if his lie is unplayable...so, Unless I'm reading it wrong...there's nothing stopping lazy ass Jim from hitting a tree off the tee..deflecting right or left 30 feet...down an embankment 120 feet into the dense forest.....from deciding to take the optional re-throw option instead of actually playing the disc where it lies.

 

Chuck, you say I have no basis for my compliant...NONE!!!  ...as you put it. I say since your a paid employee and/or consultant to the PDGA...an organization that I am not an employee...but a paying member of. Well sir!!! I say I do.  So again, if I'm wrong... that the rule explanation as you state, only applies to OB's, missed mandos and hazardous areas....than someone needs to correct the wording, add to it, explain it in more gripping detail than the text I am reading on the PDGA site.

 

I have no problem with a re-throw option in the event of a disc landing in an area deemed OB or in this case,the clarification of another option in the event of a missed mando. I don't think any player should be double penalized for a rule of play infraction on any given shot....except for  in the event the course design or TD option for rethrows after a disc is OB...or stroke plus distance as stipulated by the course designer, TD or local club entity.  I'm actually surprised the rule change explanation actually states that could have been the case with a missed mando in the previous interpretation of the rules.  I was always under the impression that a player can't be hit with two different 1 stroke penalties on the same throw. As I stated before stroke plus distance for a lost disc is too extreme of a penalty for a shot that may not have been the result of a bad throw.....just dumb luck combined with a limited time to locate a lost disc. I glad the TD can now institute a drop zone for a lost disc. But it isn't enough relief granted to extremely harsh rule penalty. In day to day play...one still has a better option if they just threw the disc OB than the event they couldn't find it in the allotted time. I have no problem with the current allotted time, BTW.

 

[pdgamember]

A player has always had the option to take a one stroke penalty and re throw from their previous lie. So why is everyone complaining about it now?