krupicka
Double Eagle Member
The clarification from the RC that is if you foot fault when going OB: one throw penalty, take lie according to the OB rules.
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
The clarification from the RC that is if you foot fault when going OB: one throw penalty, take lie according to the OB rules.
One centimeter is .3937 inches.
I'm confused about the scenario:
Is it -
Player A throws from the tee and footfaults, he is called and it is seconded.
Player A's rethrow from the tee due to footfault and goes OB.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.
or -
Player A throws from the tee, footfaults and goes OB, he is called and it is seconded.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.
Splitting the scenario into separate lines made me interpret as the 1st case. In which case it would be 5 (tee + fault) + (retee+OB) + putt
Agreed, but according to the PDGA 1 centimeter is .5 inches
Agreed, but according to the PDGA 1 centimeter is .5 inches
It says horizontally hanging.. What if its on the outside of the basket, on the nubs, hanging vertically.. Like AJ Risley's putt on hole 6 at USDGC.
The way I read it, a normal "nubby-hanger" is still not good (aka, not holed out). The disc has to enter the target correctly AND be supported by the target. If it doesn't enter, just hangs on the nubs, it hasn't met both conditions.
AJ's was something I hadn't seen before. His putt actually hit the chains, then bounced out and hung on the nubs, so it would be good.
I think it would still count based on the way the rules are written. That might not have been their intention, but it appears to be the way it is written.
Based on my interpretation, as long as your disc enters the basket correctly and ends up supported by the basket in any way, you have completed the hole.
I know they wanted to simplify the rules, but they are still ambiguous. For one thing, it doesn't say the disc has to come to rest supported entirely by the target. You could argue that a disc that is leaning against the pole is supported by the target.
The rules also don't cover what happens if the disc leaves the basket above the top of the tray and below the bottom of the chain support. I assume this is to cover the nubs situation, but based on the way the rules are written, I think you could argue that you could complete a hole with a putt that blows through the chains and either ends up leaning against the pole or sitting on top of the basket.
I think ending up on top of the basket is something you'd only see when playing in gale force winds, but I could see a lot of splash outs leaning against the pole after a funky roll, and I'd be inclined to count them given this wording of this rule.
So 3 is the score in the scenario above.
Steve West- you have to be reading this stuff and you are on the committee. what's the rationale for no re-throw on a foot faulted shot?
Wait, Steve's on the rule committee? Doesn't that make him evil, by definition?So 3 is the score in the scenario above.
Steve West- you have to be reading this stuff and you are on the committee. what's the rationale for no re-throw on a foot faulted shot?
Wait, Steve's on the rules committee? Doesn't that make him evil, by definition?
Culturally, we've changed over the past thirty years. Cheating was considered bad and to be avoided thirty years ago. Now, it's just another way to get ahead. Our politics and business is rife with it. People don't look at such things and say, "whoop, if you cheat you're done.". Now, well people cheat, you need something that says you can't do that thing... Saying don't cheat isn't good enough.
Best rule ever is 811-F-9
"Wrong Starting Hole or Group. The player has begun play on a hole or in a group other than the one to which they were assigned. The player continues play, and two throws are added to the player's score for the first hole played."
You can play with whatever group you want for a 2 stroke penalty
opcorn:PDGA top pro said:If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.
To play devi'ls advocate, there is a difference between cheating and breaking a rule. Cheating requires intent.
I think it's a good point. I'd argue that we now treat cheating as if you've broken a rule. And if you broke a rule accidentally, that's okay, no intent, no foul, you shouldn't be punished.
agreed. I just think that it was a good time to point that there is a difference between the two.