2014 United States Disc Golf Championship

[sidewinder22]

That's not how I saw it. He was off balance when he threw and it went out of bounds...

Looks in balance on the vid link above. He would have to use the same stance either way and it's hard to get much on it from a straddle with the tree in the way.

 

[threevok]

No. Will missed his putt for birdie 3, taking a 4. McBeth didn't go OB so he laid up for his 4 as well. JohnE went OB on his second drive, so his only hope was to throw in for a penalty 4.

Thanks. What a nail-biter. I didn't want any of them to lose. When I get time I'll watch the final 9 and playoff again, and again.

I wish Nate Sexton could have hung in there. He seems like the decent sort.

 

[Dave242]

I think a Rules Q&A might be needed to clarify that moving spotter equipment is covered by rule 803.01A.

Why? If you isolate spotters' belongings in a special case, then to be consistent/complete you have to make stipulations about a myriad of potential scenarios (like your moving/placing signage scenarios above). Or, what if the spotter's chair is a life guard stand placed there by the tournament staff to give the spotter a better perspective?

What is wrong about having players and officials being current in their understanding of the current rules? The rule book has only about 20 pages that need to be skimmed (if the table of contents does not get you to where you need to be instantaneously), so coming to a ruling should happen pretty quickly. If not, take a provisional.

What is so hard about comprehending this?
803.01 Obstacles and Relief A.....A player is allowed to request that other people remove themselves and/or their belongings from the player's stance or line of play.

 

[grodney]

Solid object relief could be allowed under current rules in order to take a stance. Not sure if solid object was phrased that way back then.

For a sleeve? That would be an interesting interpretation of "E. If a large solid obstacle prevents the player from taking a legal stance behind the marker disc".

Or is there some other solid object rule I'm not aware of?

Whatever -- it was hilarious and odd that nobody seemed to know and nobody seemed to care.

 

[bombmk]

from a first hand perspective I can tell you that it was TOUGH being in that situation.

I understand.

I was the head official on Copenhagen Open last year. And when you have a former world champion standing over you going "What is your call going to be on that?" the moment after another group comes in with a question - I really had to compose myself while getting to the applicable rule in the rule book.

Now, I knew the call 99.9999%. I was aware going through the rule book made it look like I did not know, though. But given that the 2013 rule book was about 4 months old at the time, I was not going to leave anything to my memory/knowledge alone, on a call - in a Major.

And I found that it also put the issue to rest, when you can point out to the players what part of the rules you are using to make the ruling. Then it is not you punishing him - but the rules.

Again; I understand that it must have been tough.

 

[Van1]

Looks in balance on the vid link above. He would have to use the same stance either way and it's hard to get much on it from a straddle with the tree in the way.

We will never know unless he tells us what was what. I would like to get his impression someday in the distant future, now would be too soon to ask most likely.

 

[bombmk]

What is so hard about comprehending this?
803.01 Obstacles and Relief A.....A player is allowed to request that other people remove themselves and/or their belongings from the player's stance or line of play.

Yeah, it does not really need a specification for spotters equipment.

What it could need is room for moving the items, if the owner is not there. By the group, to keep it clear from confusion about what the player can and cannot move. Currently you are dependent on the owner actually making the requested move.

You could say that a fairness extension of the rule could allow for this - but it would not hurt to specify it.

 

[DiscChainBasket18]

Paul??

This might've been discussed already at some point in the previous 44 pages, but:

Why did McBeth not throw leaving the chair in place, and then call a provisional and move the chair and take the shot ... and then put the chair back and then just sort everything out after the round?

A good question for McB opcorn:opcorn:

 

[Mr. Anderson]

What would I have done if I was the spotter and owner of the chair that caused "Chairgate?"

During the meeting of the minds, I would have announced "I am hungry and need some Chicken." I would have proceeded to grab my chair and go to Bojangles. (common sense should be more common)

 

[BgWvDave]

It was almost 8 minutes between Paul's drive and his second shot. Seems like plenty of time to have gotten a understanding of the rule right. Seems shocking that the experienced players (JohnE, Patrick, Paul), experienced TDs/marshals and even Crazy couldn't come to a conclusion on it. From a shot selection stanpoint, I'm sure Paul would want to take it back. He wasn't going to reach the circle from there with the awkward stance and his forehand, I'm sure he wishes he had just laid up.

i arrived in the video at 1:08.15ish. McBeth acknowledged he was going to throw without moving the chair at 1:10.12ish 117ish seconds to discuss the situation.

after watching it again I am not sure about this either

by the Marshal involved (and doing the majority of the talking in the video):

seems me and bill shared the air time fairly closely.

 

[BgWvDave]

During the meeting of the minds, I would have announced "I am hungry and need some Chicken." I would have proceeded to grab my chair and go to Bojangles. (common sense should be more common)

had you been the spotter and had you done this Dinner would have been on me fo show!

The funny thing about #chairgte was a good friend of mine can be seen in the background of the video and he said afterwards that when it happened he almost just went up and moved the chair. The spotter who owned the chair said the same thing. soooo close to a non issue.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

That is the crux of the discussion. The item in question is not public in nature (picnic table) or a temporary design element (bamboo wall). It is somebodies stuff that they have a right to move. A TD cannot hold their stuff hostage to make things "fair." The rule is that personal item can be moved when in the line of play, to eliminate a variable that is always encountered at a lot of tournaments at public parks.

 

[JTacoma03]

...and now for something completely different.

 

[bhadella]

i arrived in the video at 1:08.15ish. McBeth acknowledged he was going to throw without moving the chair at 1:10.12ish 117ish seconds to discuss the situation.

after watching it again I am not sure about this either

seems me and bill shared the air time fairly closely.

It was 8 minutes from the time the spotter flagged that Paul was IB before he threw the second shot. Your comments state that the spotter new the chair was an issue when the shot landed. Too bad he didn't make Paul, Bill or yourself aware.

 

[Steve West]

This might've been discussed already at some point in the previous 44 pages, but:

Why did McBeth not throw leaving the chair in place, and then call a provisional and move the chair and take the shot ... and then put the chair back and then just sort everything out after the round?

I think he wise not to move the chair. A provisional doesn't let you do just anything. For example, if a player threw a provisional, then cut down a tree and threw another provisionally, they would still get the penalty for damaging the course no matter which throw ended up being counted.

Similarly, I believe courtesy violation would be enforced even if it occurred during a series of provisional throws that were later ignored.

I can see why he would have been concerned that the penalty for moving an object might be one of those that isn't wiped out by the provisional rule.

I'm not saying he would have gotten a penalty for moving the chair, just that he was smart to be cautious.

 

[greg_lange]

 

[JC17393]

I think he wise not to move the chair. A provisional doesn't let you do just anything. For example, if a player threw a provisional, then cut down a tree and threw another provisionally, they would still get the penalty for damaging the course no matter which throw ended up being counted.

Similarly, I believe courtesy violation would be enforced even if it occurred during a series of provisional throws that were later ignored.

I can see why he would have been concerned that the penalty for moving an object might be one of those that isn't wiped out by the provisional rule.

I'm not saying he would have gotten a penalty for moving the chair, just that he was smart to be cautious.

Considering the provisional would be thrown expressly because the chair's status was in question, and that the chair could be replaced to its exact position after the throw, I don't see where a penalty would stick should the ruling be against moving the chair.

Imagine a player's disc lands in a position where the group is unsure if it is out of bounds or not and the player elects to play provisionally from the resting position of the disc (set A) and from a position (last in bounds or previous lie) that assumes the disc was OB (set B). After the round, the TD rules that the disc was in fact OB and provisional set A is discarded. The TD can't then assess a misplay penalty to the player for throwing from an OB area. The throw was discarded...as far as the scorecard shows, it never happened.

Players shouldn't be fearful of playing provisionals because the act of the provisional can be penalized. It undercuts the whole purpose of provisional throws.

 

[heartman]

I think he wise not to move the chair. A provisional doesn't let you do just anything. For example, if a player threw a provisional, then cut down a tree and threw another provisionally, they would still get the penalty for damaging the course no matter which throw ended up being counted.

Similarly, I believe courtesy violation would be enforced even if it occurred during a series of provisional throws that were later ignored.

I can see why he would have been concerned that the penalty for moving an object might be one of those that isn't wiped out by the provisional rule.

I'm not saying he would have gotten a penalty for moving the chair, just that he was smart to be cautious.

Can I call a provisional if I use profanity while on camera? :|

 

[plastic_fondler]

My point is equipment should be checked, both randomly and a percentage of the best scorers. The later would be done before you turn cards in for max impact and would be similar to testing a goal scoring lax stick. There is a huge advantage to throwing overweight discs in the wind and for hyzer consistency. The lawn dart factor is massive at usdgc.

 

[Steve West]

Considering the provisional would be thrown expressly because the chair's status was in question, and that the chair could be replaced to its exact position after the throw, I don't see where a penalty would stick should the ruling be against moving the chair.

Imagine a player's disc lands in a position where the group is unsure if it is out of bounds or not and the player elects to play provisionally from the resting position of the disc (set A) and from a position (last in bounds or previous lie) that assumes the disc was OB (set B). After the round, the TD rules that the disc was in fact OB and provisional set A is discarded. The TD can't then assess a misplay penalty to the player for throwing from an OB area. The throw was discarded...as far as the scorecard shows, it never happened.

Players shouldn't be fearful of playing provisionals because the act of the provisional can be penalized. It undercuts the whole purpose of provisional throws.

I don't want to do anything to discourage provisionals, and I think all penalties that only happen because of a throw are wiped out if the provisional throw is not counted.

I don't know for sure that the penalty for moving the chair would not have been wiped out. However, since the penalty for moving an obstacle is not tied to a particular throw (Just: "a player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course"), I wouldn't be sure that it WOULD be wiped out. So, smart not to bet that it would.