Apply the "Ultimate" Stall Count?

[krupicka]

802.03.B A player who takes excessive time receives a warning for the first violation. A player who takes excessive time after having been warned for it during the round receives one penalty throw. See 811.F.5 for a player who is absent when it is their turn to throw.

801.02.E A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official. A penalty throw is a throw added to a player's score for violating a rule, or for relocation of the lie as called for by a rule.

 

[Rastnav]

802.03.B A player who takes excessive time receives a warning for the first violation. A player who takes excessive time after having been warned for it during the round receives one penalty throw. See 811.F.5 for a player who is absent when it is their turn to throw.

801.02.E A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official. A penalty throw is a throw added to a player's score for violating a rule, or for relocation of the lie as called for by a rule.

Thank you. I knew I must not be looking in the right place.

Interestingly (or not) that implies a tournament official also has to be seconded if they call a rules violation.

 

[biscoe]

Thank you. I knew I must not be looking in the right place.

Interestingly (or not) that implies a tournament official also has to be seconded if they call a rules violation.

No- specifically says "call made by a player."

Premise of this thread is absurd however- "players don't call time violations, what can we do?"

"I know- let's add another time violation component."

 

[Rastnav]

No- specifically says "call made by a player."

Premise of this thread is absurd however- "players don't call time violations, what can we do?"

"I know- let's add another time violation component."

I can read something three time and still miss the words that are right there in front of me. (and, anyway, 801.02F makes it explicit that a call made by an official does not need to be confirmed.)

As to the "adding another time violation", I agree, it just mostly compounds the problem.

I think the best argument for it would be that it provides a way to "call" the violation without actually calling it. Card mates are more likely to be reluctant to make the call if it's going to result in a penalty. Something like playing from the wrong lie is much more likely to be enforced by simply preventing someone from playing from the lie, rather than stroking them afterward for an ultimately immaterial mistake. As an example Hailey King putting from the wrong lie in a recent tournament wasn't stroked, but I'll bet someone on the card would have stopped her and gotten her to play correctly if they had noticed before the putt.

But, given that the first violation is already just a warning, and not a stroke, I don't think that justification really applies.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Discussing timing related to the current rule is irrelevant because this proposal is not lobbying to change it. This is strictly a competition proposal for elite events which the PDGA Competition/Majors Committee and DGPT team could consider to speed up play and potentially increase spectator engagement. These SHOULD be goals for those orgs, i.e., reduce playing time, increase spectator engagement and present better compliance with the rules without needing more officials.

There are ideas for other competition rule tweaks along these lines. But, if we must operate as a self-officiated sport because the cost and complications of officials for each card isn't feasible, we need to develop more creative ways to structure certain rules, so players are more likely to both comply and call violations. Otherwise, the long-term credibility for self-officiated professionalism is undermined.

 

[Steve West]

The credibility for self-officiated professionalism is determined by how well the rules are followed, not by the number of calls made.

Most players most of the time do not take more than 30 seconds. The fact that we focus on the (lone?) exception is evidence of that.

Besides, Tours don't get to make up their own extra rules of play.

 

[Al Dente]

My problem with the 30 second rule is that we don't seem to agree on when the 30 seconds starts let alone ends. The rule seems clear enough to me, but many players behave as though the 30 seconds doesn't begin until they have taken a stance behind their disc or marker.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The credibility for self-officiated professionalism is determined by how well the rules are followed, not by the number of calls made.

It's by the number of calls NOT made on camera.

Besides, Tours don't get to make up their own extra rules of play.

Yes, they do in several ways. Some in the Competition Manual and others where they couldn't get a waiver (USDGC for example).

 

[BillFleming]

There's a big difference between ultimate and disc golf with "time to throw". The big difference is "distraction". In disc golf a distraction resets the timer. I'd bet that NL, and others, would call a verbal count a distraction.

 

[krupicka]

There's a big difference between ultimate and disc golf with "time to throw". The big difference is "distraction". In disc golf a distraction resets the timer. I'd bet that NL, and others, would call a verbal count a distraction.

"Distraction" is slated to go away in 2022. https://www.pdga.com/news/public-comment-opens-proposed-changes

 

[Steve West]

My problem with the 30 second rule is that we don't seem to agree on when the 30 seconds starts let alone ends. The rule seems clear enough to me, but many players behave as though the 30 seconds doesn't begin until they have taken a stance behind their disc or marker.

It's almost like we should write it down somewhere, so when people don't agree you could look it up and show it to them.

Next year when you do that they'll see:

A. A player has taken excessive time if they are present and have not thrown within 30 seconds
1. after the previous player has thrown; and,
2. after they have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie; and,
3. after they are next in the throwing order; and,
4. during which the playing area is clear.

Then everyone can see that they don't get extra time to figure out the line, select a disc, dry a disc, put gunk on their hand, or find out where the basket is.

They could also see that staying away from the lie does not prevent the clock from starting.

They could also see that nowhere does it say they get a reasonable amount of time to throw. They only get reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie.

If they were playing right, they should already be as near as possible to their next lie when the previous player throws.

So, basically, they get no more than 30 seconds to throw. If they need it. If they're ready, they should go ahead and throw because:

3.02 Pace of Play

A. All competitors shall play without undue delay...

 

[Al Dente]

"Then everyone can see that they don't get extra time to figure out the line, select a disc, dry a disc, put gunk on their hand, or find out where the basket is.

They could also see that staying away from the lie does not prevent the clock from starting.

They could also see that nowhere does it say they get a reasonable amount of time to throw. They only get reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie.

If they were playing right, they should already be as near as possible to their next lie when the previous player throws.

So, basically, they get no more than 30 seconds to throw. If they need it. If they're ready, they should go ahead and throw"

Testify, brother! If you need a lyric baritone in your amen choir I am available.

 

[peabody]

If they were playing right, they should already be as near as possible to their next lie when the previous player throws.
e:

So you don't have to watch the current thrower at all? Good to know. I'm on the other side of a hill and no way to see the thrower and if he foot faults ------ his good luck--------- and maybe he won't see me foot fault!

 

[Al Dente]

Mr. Peabody! A straw man argument? I don't think Sherman would approve.

 

[Steve West]

So you don't have to watch the current thrower at all? Good to know. I'm on the other side of a hill and no way to see the thrower and if he foot faults ------ his good luck--------- and maybe he won't see me foot fault!

C'mon.

You don't really think you can use "without undue delay" as an excuse to break other rules. So why even post about it?

 

[peabody]

Apologies Steve. Everything you wrote was correct and spot on. You have a thankless job. Interpretation of a rule that will never be called is an excercise in futility. Even your interpretation of "without undue delay"carries no weight unless you find yourself in that situation.
.My problem with rulings on the course during a tournament is final say goes to the foursome majority rule.
Next foursome are free to make a completely different call. Fairness gets thrown out the window.
I know your hands are tied on some of these rules -wording wise -and it's never going to be perfectly black and white but if a rule isn't being called maybe it should be removed.

 

[philstine]

So, basically, they get no more than 30 seconds to throw. If they need it. If they're ready, they should go ahead and throw because:

Quote:
3.02 Pace of Play

A. All competitors shall play without undue delay...:

Uh … I don't think it's as clear cut as you think.

The problem is, how do you determine--and, during competition, who gets to determine when the playing area is "clear"? If 20 sec into the 30 sec clock a chipmunk saunters across the fairway, does the clock reset because the playing area is no longer "clear"? What if it's a chihuahua? a golden retriever? a deer? a moose? a grizzly bear? a tumbleweed? a dust devil? a piece of paper? a player on a different card? What about a spotter parked in the middle of the fairway or on the edge? or in OB? What about a camera crew? or spectators? a streaker? LARPers? What if the spotter [camera crew/spectators/LARPers] moves out of the line of thrower's sight but leaves his/their stool and beverage cooler in place? What if they set up in an area where they would have to move to avoid interfering with the flight of a thrown disc? What if they're spotting/filming/spectating on a hole that's adjacent to the one the thrower's on? The point being, deleting "and free of distractions" from the rule does nothing to address the underlying issue; it merely shifts the locus from "distractions" to "clear" ... and you know darn well that players are going to argue it. So, at best, removing "and free from distractions" from condition 4 merely shuffles the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I would also argue that moving "after" from the main clause to the first three conditons and adding "during which" to the fourth condition makes things worse, not better. The root issue in the current rule, and which the proposed revision does not address, is if--and if "yes," under what conditions--the 30 second clock ever resets. Given that the primary definition of "during" is "throughout the course or duration of"--which is the way "during" is used elsewhere in the Rules and CM--in the absence of a clear restriction to the contrary, the presumption must be that the thrower is entitled to a full 30 second interval in which the playing areas is clear.

And, no, 3.02 does not solve the problem because a throw made within a 30 second interval during which the playing area is "clear" cannot, by rule, constitute an "undue delay."

 

[Rastnav]

I feel like the 30 second rule is a good faith effort to address pace of play that ultimately falls short because it's not actually a pace of play measure.

Consider the case where a card is keeping pace with the card in front of them and a player ends up in a tricky lie in the middle of a thick bush. Between trying to figure out how to even get to there lie, then what lines they can reach from their lie, etc., they end up taking 45 seconds to finally throw.

After the card finishes and they get to the next tee, the card they are following is still on the next hole preventing anyone from teeing off. Pace of play wasn't affected at all.

So what is the point of enforcing the rule there? That's ultimately why you aren't going to see cards enforcing the rule strictly, because it's a relatively arbitrary one.

It's a hard and fast rule, and that means it drives people nuts when they see obvious examples of someone breaking it on coverage. But ultimately the whole point is not hard and fast. It's not a play clock or a shot clock. It's just supposed to provide a mechanism to prevent "undue delay". What really matters is the overall time of play for the round, and whether you are holding up the groups behind you.

That's why I think what the PGA tour does in regards to keeping up with the group in front of you is so relevant. It's far more targeted in accomplishing its goals of preventing undue delay.

 

[trashmonster1985]

I feel like the 30 second rule is a good faith effort to address pace of play that ultimately falls short because it's not actually a pace of play measure...

...It's just supposed to provide a mechanism to prevent "undue delay". What really matters is the overall time of play for the round, and whether you are holding up the groups behind you.

That's why I think what the PGA tour does in regards to keeping up with the group in front of you is so relevant. It's far more targeted in accomplishing its goals of preventing undue delay.

This sums up my thoughts exactly. People are trying to make this more than it needs.

 

[araytx]

....
Interestingly (or not) that implies a tournament official also has to be seconded if they call a rules violation.

I think that what Mike was quoting and what the rule means is that a Tournament Official can second a player's call, EVEN IF no one else on the card seconded a player's call -- and then the penalty is assessed.

...

801.02.E A call made by a player for a rules violation that results in one or more penalty throws can only be enforced if the call is confirmed by another player in the group or by a Tournament Official. A penalty throw is a throw added to a player's score for violating a rule, or for relocation of the lie as called for by a rule.

Your statement about "a Tournament Official's call (implying the tourney official made the initial call) must be seconded to assess the penalty", I don't think has been adjudicated nor has it been addressed at all in the rule book. If so, please direct me to that place. But this specific rule was only speaking to a Tournament Official seconding a player's call.