www.DiscGolfersR.Us

The Community of Disc Golfers and About All Things Disc Golf

 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.

 

Views: 102

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

Agreed!  Get "em Ben before my 2011 rules book get's here!
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.

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?

 

 


 



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.

 

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?
And...another thing, I have no problem with free relief on the line of play if a natural object, casual water, man made object (if that were the case) or dangerous animal/insect prevents the player from taking a legal stance within the current allotted distance behind the lie (30 cm)...as long as it's on the line and at the first possible spot in which a stance could be taken. Restricting that up to 5 meters than imposing a penalty beyond that is inconsistency.  Either give free relief in those before mentioned instances or don't.

No, I don't believe so...the rules have morphed around quite a bit over my 18 years of playing. Originally when I started and first read a rule book, I believe it was worded as an unsafe lie and/or hazardous condition...and was expanding to unplayable lie...plus giving and/or clarifying that the effected player has the ultimate call.  In spirit, it's designed to keep the game safe for all physical abilities...but unfortunately it does open the door for gaming or self benefiting manipulation of the wrong interpretation of this rule.  The problem is they just had a chance to fix it and they wasted it....so another year will  go down with a controversial  rule in place.

 

Complaining about it is nothing new either.....I personally posted at least a half dozen discontented responses to this subject on this site in many rules related threads. Nothing new here.

 

 

Here's the scoop since the original rulebook. The rule name has changed but one thing was constant. The player always had the right to make the call on any throw.

14.0 UNPLAYABLE LIE (Revised and effective April 1983)

1. A lie may be declared unplayable by a player.

 

3.7 UNPLAYABLE LIE (1986)

1. A lie may be declared unplayable by a player if the player judges it to be impractical or unsafe to attempt to play from the lie.

 

803.05 Unsafe Lie:  (1990)

A. A player may declare a lie to be unsafe and ask that it be relocated to a new playable lie within five meters of the unsafe lie, with a one-throw penalty.

 

803.05 Unsafe Lie:  (1997 & 2002)

A. A player may, by adding one penalty throw, declare his or her lie to be an unsafe lie and relocate to a new lie that is no closer to the hole and within five meters of the unsafe lie.

 

803.06 Unplayable Lie: (2006)

A. A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie.

803.06 Optional Rethrow (2011)

At any time, a player may elect to rethrow from the previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official.

 

I have to agree with a lot of what Jamie is saying. This holing out stuff is bizarre at best with the "having to witness" clause. I say that you either make them all not count (hangers, wedgies, balancers, and top landers) or they all do count. I believe that the current rule is quite sufficient as it stands. What if someone in a group says that they didn't witness something because they are pulling for one of the other players? Whether a basket is made or not should only depend on its position.I would probably just make them all not count whereas Jamie would have them all count. Either way there is no dispute. Having to witness - lame. If you worded it so that all disc in order to count have to be in the volume bordered by the top horizontal plane, the bottom horizontal plane and the inside wall extending up then none of those discs would count except for the ones that are truly in.

 

As for relief I believe that you should be able to go straight backwards as far as necessary. Five meters is arbitrary as well.

I was not sure...as I said... but it has been there all along..one way or the other. I do see that...thanks Chuck. I don't have any old rules books..older than the current one...to compare definitions and the rest of those sections fore and aft. (Are they available in PDF?)  It's tough to say for sure if it was always open for abuse...but for whatever reason, it wasn't to 06 when I noticed it being an open door for manipulating the interpretation.

 

I know this...at one time, no way would I say it was ok for a physically able player to not take his shot because he didn't like it or thought his better option would be to just re-throw with a penalty...even if there wasn't anything  dangerous about the lie...just the impending result of the higher score. 

 

My question to you Chuck....based on your knowledge of the rules. if it's clear a player is just re-throwing to keep from taking a lie he could play and is clearly manipulating the spirit of the rule for the better shot. 

 

Example; Say, Dave Deuce threw from a tee just off the waters edge...the water is OB..it takes about 290 to carry from the pad...and it's an open shot..nothing in the way. The best Dave's got in him is 300 feet.  He grip locks one sideways away from the hole...it travels to a in-bounds area but deep back in some trees. 120 feet through a tight little corridor of trees and bushes to reach the waters edge...and now 340 to carry the water from there. After looking at his option from where his disc landed...Dave decides to take the optional re-throw and re tee. There was nothing unplayable, unsafe or hazardous about his real lie. My self and the rest of the group all know Dave could have played his shot where it landed....as a matter of fact(In this scenario of course...for the purpose of this Scenrio...yada, yada) this is a sanctioned tournament with money on the line and what happened just effected the outcome of the game. Myself and every other member of the group feel Dave just cheated...and should be DQ'd.

 

What's the call, Chuck?

 

 

Feel free to list the correct call from 83 on.

Like I said before, a player has every right to accept the equivalent of a 2-shot penalty (throw and distance), anytime, any place. No problem. It's  been a core rule in the game of golf and for the full length of time organized disc golf has existed. I've taken it one time in 21 years of play. I've seen it maybe three times in my playing group.

Most players hop thru hoops to not take a one shot penalty arguing the blade of grass laying on the OB sidewalk means their disc is inbounds. Using the Optional Rethrow is a strategic judgment in the game that might be used only in relatively rare extreme situations, just like you have strategic options shooting from different locations and angles from the tee than you do from your marker.

The argument that we should "play it where it lies" just doesn't exist in golf or disc golf all the time. We don't actually project the disc from the ground like a golf ball. Our release point is sort of within a big sphere around the lie on the ground. We get to relocate lies if we decide to use the thrown disc instead of a mini, we get to move the disc up to 1m from OB even when inbounds, we don't have to play the disc from above ground when it lands above ground (and now below ground), we have a variety of locations for our new lie depending whether we're in a casual hazard, OB, missing a mando and now above 2m. Players pay an appropriate penalty price to relocate their lie in several situations and the Optional Rethrow penalty is the highest price of all for a lie relocation - even if it's rarely closer to the hole.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Blog Posts

State of Disc Golf: Disc Golf Growth

Posted by Alan Barker on January 29, 2014 at 2:26pm

What are your favorite Disc Plastics?

Posted by Alan Barker on November 4, 2013 at 1:38pm

2 Tips For Guys To Entice A Girls

Posted by Frederick Cranford on September 11, 2013 at 5:42am

Disc Golf Answerman Episode 6

Posted by CoolDaddySlickBreeze on August 13, 2013 at 4:40pm

Prodigy Fairway Drivers

Posted by Alan Barker on July 8, 2013 at 5:30pm

Badge

Loading…
 

© 2014   Created by Terry "the Pirate" Calhoun.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

SF00401968