Recent content by kerplunk

That sounds dangerous. You better learn to self-Heimlich.

Eagle McMahon- Chipotle and whoever makes skinny shorts Paul McBeth- Liberator Medical Urinary Catheters

Ricky Wysocki- Toastmasters John E. McCray- The 700 Club

If this happened with Salient discs, there would already be fake lawyers involved! :D

Regarding the plus rim, try to hang it on a nail sticking out of a wall. A plus rim will slide off and fall. I learned this the hard way, stupid G-star Banshee.

El Camino? The rim is like a driver, but the height is like a putter. So it's fast, but you can throw a bunch of junk in it if you need to.

I don't think it's completely unambiguous how long is reasonable, just the word reasonable itself invites a lot of ambiguity, but similar to a distraction I think it's clear what is an unreasonable amount of time. Other than that I agree with your entire post.

You're right about addressing, sorry for being lazy and incorrect. How would you propose changing the rule? In specific wording. And can you clarify your interpretation? I understand you don't think disc and line selection are part of the 30 seconds, but I don't quite get your overall...

I mostly agree with you, except the arriving at your lie part (doesn't it say addressing in the rules?). IMO this is the most ambiguous part of the rule, and has been for awhile. Can I stand five feet behind my lie for as long as I want, and 30 seconds only starts when I get in legal throwing...

TLDR: if losing a disc on a blind shot was an issue then one spotter should be sent for the entire card. If the point was just to determine the first player's lie to help the partner choose what/how to throw it was definitely unsportsmanlike and likely illegal. I think that's the general...

Here's a philosophy I use with folks like that: If they have to cheat to win some plastic and merch, and often cheat people they may consider friends and vice versa, they obviously have bigger stuff going on in their life so they can have it. On a related note, the first thing my tennis...

We're already discussing it here, let's keep it up. I'm not stating "my own interpretation ". The rule clearly states that a player is only in violation if they have not thrown within thirty seconds after a distraction is clear. There is no mention of a 30 second clock that should be stopped...

Unfortunately that cannot be clearly defined, but I think it's one of those things where 99.99% of the time it's pretty clear whether there was a legitimate distraction or someone was trying to game the rules. But once a distraction can be agree upon, I think resetting the clock is pretty clear.

I think this goes against the spirit of the game, and failing that seems technically illegal for advancing beyond the lie of the away player, as Dan mentioned. I say the opponents are within their right to call shenanigans and get their brooms.

"A player has taken excessive time if they are present and have not thrown within 30 seconds ... after the playing area is clear and free of distractions." I think this is perfectly clear. If there is a distraction the player has only taken excessive time if they do not throw within 30 seconds...